2 ms·
By saying that they don't look at it as stealing and then saying that they look at it another way, there is an implication that the way they look at it somehow
by wilsonnb3 8y ago
By saying that they don't look at it as stealing and then saying that they look at it another way, there is an implication that the way they look at it somehow relates to the perspective that it's stealing.
In other words, there has to be some reason that they don't see it as stealing but do see it as a failure by Apple to meet the needs of it's consumers. That reason is the relationship between the two concepts and I don't understand what that relationship is.
- detaro 8y agoNo, they just see the their argument as a better one against making a Hackintosh. No need to even consider the "stealing" angle if you think a Hackintosh would be bad anyways.
- wilsonnb3 8y agoI didn't read their argument as being anti-hackintosh. I read their argument as "some people say it's immoral to run a hackintosh, but I think it's not immoral because Apple isn't providing their consumers with a valid alternative".
- detaro 8y agoThe last bit is pretty clear IMHO: > Every Hackintosh continues to add momentum to that platform ecosystem, enriching it so that Apple can continue on more or less as they want. I use Linux (and OpenBSD occasionally) these days, and I do so in part so that I can sometimes be the guy who sands off a rough corner or two. Even by using the platform and occasionally submitting bug reports, you’re enriching a platform that may be the last un-nerfed general purpose computing platform standing.
- peatmoss 8y agoYes, this is what I mean. I recognize that one major argument against hackintosh is that some view it as stealing. I don’t really care one way or the other about the stealing question, because this other argument against hackintoshes is more compelling to me.
- MaysonL 8y agoCopyright infringement isn't theft: it's copyright infringement.