The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 All  This Thread  Reviews  Gear Database  Gear for sale     Latest  Trending
Samplitude NOT coming to MAC
Old 27th October 2013
  #91
Gear Nut
 

Ive been running hacintosh at my studio for years and have lots of big names come in. No one cares what computer you run as long as it works.

Sent from my SCH-I535
1
Share
Old 27th October 2013
  #92
Lives for gear
 
EvilDragon's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by knifetheglitter View Post
Ive been running hacintosh at my studio for years and have lots of big names come in. No one cares what computer you run as long as it works.
QED.
Old 27th October 2013
  #93
Quote:
Originally Posted by EvilDragon View Post
It is not a criminal act - you just don't get support from Apple (which is not that big a deal anyways - if you know how to Hackintosh, you generally don't need support).
Please do not misinform people!
U are totaly wrong regarding this subjekt, and want to make look black to be white.
Apple EULA says Mac OS can be used on Apple made computers, and it is not alowed to instal it on non Apple computers. If u do not like that, dissmis EULA and do not use,buy Apple products. How ever if u intastaling Mac OS on non Apple computer, u are instantly become a criminal who uses a stolen software.

P.s. I do not see any differences betwean stolen software or stollen cell phone, car,money and so on, i think on the forum they should bun content with propoganding of using stolen software on pair as using drugs, human abuse and etc!!!
1
Share
Old 27th October 2013
  #94
Lives for gear
 
EvilDragon's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by chilly7 View Post
How ever if u intastaling Mac OS on non Apple computer, u are instantly become a criminal who uses a stolen software.
Wrong. Breaking EULA does not mean you're using stolen software.

You can be a legitimate owner of a, say, Mac Mini, which means you legitimately own OSX. Then, you can install OSX on your other PC computer without any problem. You're just breaking the EULA (and that's not really a big deal from legal standpoint in a lot of countries around the world - people do it all the time), but you still own the software legitimately. Apple can't touch you because you're the owner of the software. Well, all they can do is not provide you support. Big deal.


Your arguments are very bad, as always.
2
Share
Old 27th October 2013
  #95
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by EvilDragon View Post
Wrong. Breaking EULA does not mean you're using stolen software.

You can be a legitimate owner of a, say, Mac Mini, which means you legitimately own OSX. Then, you can install OSX on your other PC computer without any problem. You're just breaking the EULA
I agree. I own two Mac Minis (hardly ever use them) as well as I purchased Leopard and Snow Leopard dvds way back when for spare os. Nothing remotely stolen here.... I may even still have the store receipts from the Apple store.

Haven't had time to build a Hackintosh yet, but I plan to.... or maybe not.....really.... I just don't use Mac programs any more and both my Minis are usually in Win7 64bit mode via boot camp.

I'll tell you though, I NEVER tear off tags on pillows that say "do not remove under penalty of law". Those scare me.
1
Share
Old 27th October 2013
  #96
Lives for gear
 
EvilDragon's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by thenoodle View Post
I'll tell you though, I NEVER tear off tags on pillows that say "do not remove under penalty of law". Those scare me.
Now that's funny. :D
Old 27th October 2013
  #97
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chilly7 View Post
Well, as i remember Magix seid they are doing a nativ Mac version, not a port. I do not need a port on Mac, because it will bring a toon of crupp out Windows.
Pleople use Macs because they are Macs, not a Windows port.

P.s. And if it is true that Magix sicretly was doing port but not nativ Mac version, now i see the real reason why they failed with Samplitude for Mac. They where so enormously greedy with money that they decided to save fwe bucks on making port rather then to make a native version but they ended up complitely ruin the entire projekt and putting all money on wind, because the port brough so many bugs, technical issues and other problems from Windows that it would take to rewrite the program from ground up in order to fix thouse problems. If they were doing a native Mac version right from the begging they would not fail.
You have no idea what the Samplitude code base looks like, is built on, or what technical issues they encountered.
7
Share
Old 28th October 2013
  #98
Quote:
Originally Posted by EvilDragon View Post
Wrong. Breaking EULA does not mean you're using stolen software.

You can be a legitimate owner of a, say, Mac Mini, which means you legitimately own OSX. Then, you can install OSX on your other PC computer without any problem. You're just breaking the EULA (and that's not really a big deal from legal standpoint in a lot of countries around the world - people do it all the time), but you still own the software legitimately. Apple can't touch you because you're the owner of the software. Well, all they can do is not provide you support. Big deal.


Your arguments are very bad, as always.
Again wrong

U do not own any software in most cases neither from Apple or other software companies. The same about music recordings. When u buy CD u do not own thouse recordings.

When u buy thouse products u have EULA which u must agree in order to use thouse products or other vise return it back.

In most cases EULA clearly saies that:
1)U do not own software or recordins in case of audio cd
2) u cannot modify software( unless there are exeptions where the software owner clearly permits it)
3)The only thing u are granted is to use this software. In case of Apple OS, u can use them on Apple made computers with no limitation on how many computers u instal it( in case of Mavericks, but with Mounting Lion there was restriction to 5 Apple computers, and u must own them, now with Mavericks u can instal on any Apple computer infiniy times and u do not have to own them).


I do not care how many people do bad things, it does not mean i should do the same!!!

In my country probably 95% of software is pirated, so what??! should i become a dork like that?! I wont do that!!!
Old 28th October 2013
  #99
Quote:
Originally Posted by BassSaxMan View Post
You have no idea what the Samplitude code base looks like, is built on, or what technical issues they encountered.
U are right i do not know the Samplitude code, but i think, now it is clear for me that the real reasons for failing Magix with bringing Samplitude to Mac was that they decided to port it, rather then make a native version. I am pretty shure that if they was doing a native version they would not fail.

Even Microsoft did a native version of Office for Mac, because they knew if they port such a complex program it will be dissaster.
Old 28th October 2013
  #100
Regardless, Mac owners can install Windows via Bootcamp which is completely legal, and run Samplitude on it. Why this thing is so big deal? I don't understand.
1
Share
Old 28th October 2013
  #101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Masaaki View Post
Regardless, Mac owners can install Windows via Bootcamp which is completely legal, and run Samplitude on it. Why this thing is so big deal? I don't understand.
Because the eco system changes to Windows with all it's consequenses.
The DAW is a heart of music creation, so if it will be runned on Windows all other plugins,audio interfaces and etc be runned thrue Windows.

It is not like we care about just GUI, there are things we care which going on under the hood.
Old 28th October 2013
  #102
Lives for gear
 
EvilDragon's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by chilly7 View Post
should i become a dork like that?! I wont do that!!!
I'm afraid you've become one already.
Old 29th October 2013
  #103
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chilly7 View Post
Again wrong

U do not own any software in most cases neither from Apple or other software companies. The same about music recordings. When u buy CD u do not own thouse recordings.
It's correct that you don't obtain ownership by the Apple EULA, just a license to use the software. Hackintosh essentially is a breach of agreement.

Only, breaking an agreement doesn't make you a criminal at once.
You have been breaking the rules, too, i.e. by the dismal orthography and grammar of your posts. You would probably be quite offended if someone would call that a crime, and rightfully so.
Similarly, what has installing of OS-X on a PC to do with theft? To my knowledge Apple doesn't give a damn about any end user installing OS-X on a PC.
They did care about people that were aiming to make a business of facilitating breaking their EULA. But that is a different kettle of fish altogether.

Lighten up!

Cheers,

Sebastian
1
Share
Old 29th October 2013
  #104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sequoia Berlin View Post
It's correct that you don't obtain ownership by the Apple EULA, just a license to use the software. Hackintosh essentially is a breach of agreement.

Only, breaking an agreement doesn't make you a criminal at once.
You have been breaking the rules, too, i.e. by the dismal orthography and grammar of your posts. You would probably be quite offended if someone would call that a crime, and rightfully so.
Similarly, what has installing of OS-X on a PC to do with theft? To my knowledge Apple doesn't give a damn about any end user installing OS-X on a PC.
They did care about people that were aiming to make a business of facilitating breaking their EULA. But that is a different kettle of fish altogether.

Lighten up!

Cheers,

Sebastian
I'm a grammar **** by any standard, but attacking grammar here when he brought up the EULA stuff was unnecessary and didn't actually help your argument (there is no contract here to use proper grammar and spelling). It just came off as a little mean, even if not intended that way

This is my *personal* view on this, to be very clear. I am not a lawyer anywhere.

An EULA is a contract and a license. What that means can be somewhat different from country to country, and sometimes within the districts of the country. In the US, it falls under civil law which typically means you'll be sued rather than spend time in jail. There's plenty of precedent here in the music space when the RIAA started suing every 15 year old they could find for breaking copyright law and/or breaking license agreements.

That said, if Apple encrypts the software, and you have to decrypt it to use it on a hackintosh, you are breaking the law as defined by DMCA and *could* face criminal penalties. DMCA is a pretty big stick. See Psystar.

In any case, with Apple moving to online distribution of their OS through the Mac Store and a free model where the OS price is accounted for in the cost of hardware rather than a $50 fee, it seems they may crack down more on the hackintosh approach. They certainly would have more reason to, and likely more push from their shareholders if hackintoshes are seen as cutting into profits in any meaningful way.

If you don't have to technically *pay* for the software (again, it's in the HW price) then you have no possible legal right to use it as you see fit. It'll be interesting to see if this is tried in court.

Additionally, if all future versions are technically "upgrades" that must be traced back to an original with-the-hardware version of the OS, which can only be installed by Apple at the factory, then you break the EULA and copyright law by using an upgrade on a hackintosh.

Finally, 64 bit offers more chances for verification of software, drivers, and more. I'm curious if hackintosh will be stuck in x86 land because of that. If so, that would put an artificial end to the hackintosh projects.

Pete
2
Share
Old 29th October 2013
  #105
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Psychlist1972 View Post
...There's plenty of precedent here in the music space when the RIAA started suing every 15 year old they could find for breaking copyright law and/or breaking license agreements...
The RIAA has never sued anybody for copyright infringement. Artists, songwriters, labels and music publishers sued a number of individuals who had each made literally thousands of music files available for public looting. Nobody was ever sued for downloading music files.
2
Share
Old 29th October 2013
  #106
Quote:
Originally Posted by chilly7 View Post
Because the eco system changes to Windows with all it's consequenses.
The DAW is a heart of music creation, so if it will be runned on Windows all other plugins,audio interfaces and etc be runned thrue Windows.

It is not like we care about just GUI, there are things we care which going on under the hood.
Well then it's up to your priority. By the way, audio interfaces can be used in both platforms by routing via digital I/O.

One thing clear is, this kind of decision is very hard to turn over, once manufacturers officially announced. So, it's kind of waste of time to argue over if their decision is bad or good.
Old 29th October 2013
  #107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson View Post
The RIAA has never sued anybody for copyright infringement. Artists, songwriters, labels and music publishers sued a number of individuals who had each made literally thousands of music files available for public looting. Nobody was ever sued for downloading music files.
Has the RIAA sued 18,000 people… or 35,000? | Ars Technica

Earlier this year, the Wall Street Journal interviewed EFF lawyer Fred von Lohmann about the Jammie Thomas-Rasset case, and von Lohmann noted that the RIAA had so far "targeted about 35,000 people, many of whom seemed to settle usually in the neighborhood of between $3,000-$5,000."

From the looks if it, you are about not suing over downloads, and I am incorrect. They did sue for making the music available on file servers, peer to peer networks, etc. The RIAA had to download the music files to check copyright before suing.

Pete
2
Share
Old 29th October 2013
  #108
Lives for gear
 
matyas's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Masaaki View Post
Regardless, Mac owners can install Windows via Bootcamp which is completely legal, and run Samplitude on it. Why this thing is so big deal? I don't understand.
I do this currently on my Mac. It certainly works well enough, but rebooting is kind of annoying, and I just prefer a Mac environment, since that's what's more familiar to me. I like Samplitude enough to keep Windows around for it. I'd much rather run everything under Mac OS.

However, I'm now seriously contemplating ditching Mac OS, at least for audio purposes.
Old 29th October 2013
  #109
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 

I'm sorry this is all tech industry spin. The minute you see "RIAA" you know it's a PR release and not actual reporting. Fred von Lohmann's opinions are always fact-challenged because he's just a shill for his investment banker employers.
1
Share
Old 29th October 2013
  #110
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Masaaki View Post
Regardless, Mac owners can install Windows via Bootcamp which is completely legal, and run Samplitude on it. Why this thing is so big deal? I don't understand.
I have this setup, and it is not ideal. Some of the problems I face include Mac-only plugins, and the fact that suddenly my monitor stopped working when booting from Windows 8.
A few months ago I was happy with this setup, but booting from Windows results in a blank screen. On a previous monitor the problem was that there was no underscan option and my Desktop was larger than my screen under Windows 8.
This was with a Mac Mini. HDMI and VGA did not work. No problem using Parallels, but obviously not a good alternative when working with audio.
YMMV.
2
Share
Old 29th October 2013
  #111
These "mac in pc" or "pc in mac" always have some compromise.

Windows boxes are not so expensive, so you could get $1500 HP desktop, or $2000 box from ADK, or build your own, etc and run Samp. For multi-platform work, connect with your mac via network switch and a NAS HDs like Synology/Drobo. You can share network drives between mac and pc without thinking file formats. If you like, you can share keyboard, screen, and mouse via KVM switches.

The thing that's not available between mac and win boxes is remote desktop login, which can be extremely useful. For example, you can login to another computer in the next room, which is connected to audio interfaces and recording system, and start tracking. Set that login window to the side or into the second monitor screen, then start Skype with somebody else, or start video editing, while monitoring the tracking session on the side.
Old 29th October 2013
  #112
Deleted User
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psychlist1972 View Post
An EULA is a contract and a license. What that means can be somewhat different from country to country, and sometimes within the districts of the country. In the US, it falls under civil law which typically means you'll be sued rather than spend time in jail. There's plenty of precedent here in the music space when the RIAA started suing every 15 year old they could find for breaking copyright law and/or breaking license agreements.
EULA violations don't exactly compare with copyright violations. Apple's attempted restriction is essentially telling you that you can't play your 12" vinyl record on a non-Apple-branded record player, even though you purchased the record. That's not copyright and not of a kind with the actions of the RIAA. Not a good comparison.

So far, Apple haven't tried to enforce this condition in their EULA. Imagine if they lost? I doubt they'll be going after Hackintoshers. However, they might find ways to disable the OS on hacks. The Apple ecosystem is so tight now, I would not be surprised if they can scan the complete hardware makeup of your computer and determine if it is one of theirs.
Old 29th October 2013
  #113
Well there are plenty of choices that are valid on the mac. Things like Pro-tools 11 and Cubase. I chose Nuendo and haven't looked back. Also found a nice plugin to let me run AudioUnit plugins inside of Nuendo's VST environment. So best of both worlds. Some say that there are performance issues and such. So far I find them fairly good. There is a patch on the way from Steinberg for some issues but I haven't run into the bug so far.


Quote:
Originally Posted by matyas View Post
I feel very conflicted about this. On the one hand, I'm a die-hard Samplitude user who wants the program to be at its best. I can certainly understand frustration with where Apple is going, and I'm pretty disappointed by Apple's recent consumer-centric focus. It makes sense to me that developers of a serious audio workstation would prefer to avoid Mac OS, especially with all of the problems involved in porting old Windows code.

On the other hand, I've always preferred Mac OS to Windows. It's mostly an issue of familiarity for me - I've spent more time on Mac OS, and I've never really learned the ins and outs of Windows to the same extent. I run Samplitude on a Bootcamped Mac, and it's the only program I run under Windows. I previously ran it on a PC that had no other programs installed. I'm not an Apple fanboy (inasmuch as I don't think Mac OS is a superior operating system, it's just one that I know better), but I was really looking forward to ditching Windows entirely and running Samplitude on the Mac.

This leaves me in a bit of a conundrum. I do all of my acoustic music recording, editing, and production on Samplitude on Windows, but I'm also a composer, and I most of my composition and electronic music production happens on the Mac. The tools I use for this (Max/MSP, SuperCollider, OpenMusic, and Sibelius) exist for Windows, but most of them are better supported on the Mac. I have Logic 8 for when I need a DAW on the Mac side. I'm happily running 10.6.8 on the Mac side, and I've felt no need to upgrade. I recently learned that the new versions of SuperCollider are dropping support for 10.6, and that's enough of a reason for me to upgrade the OS. The problem is that Logic 8 won't run under Mavericks, and since cartoon drummers aren't my bag, I was going to drop Logic entirely and consolidate entirely on the Mac using Samplitude. Back to the drawing board.
1
Share
Old 29th October 2013
  #114
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Masaaki View Post
These "mac in pc" or "pc in mac" always have some compromise.

Windows boxes are not so expensive, so you could get $1500 HP desktop, or $2000 box from ADK, or build your own, etc and run Samp. For multi-platform work, connect with your mac via network switch and a NAS HDs like Synology/Drobo. You can share network drives between mac and pc without thinking file formats. If you like, you can share keyboard, screen, and mouse via KVM switches.

The thing that's not available between mac and win boxes is remote desktop login, which can be extremely useful. For example, you can login to another computer in the next room, which is connected to audio interfaces and recording system, and start tracking. Set that login window to the side or into the second monitor screen, then start Skype with somebody else, or start video editing, while monitoring the tracking session on the side.
Thanks. I'm actually thinking of building or buying a PC next month.
Old 29th October 2013
  #115
Quote:
Originally Posted by claurence View Post
EULA violations don't exactly compare with copyright violations. Apple's attempted restriction is essentially telling you that you can't play your 12" vinyl record on a non-Apple-branded record player, even though you purchased the record. That's not copyright and not of a kind with the actions of the RIAA. Not a good comparison.

So far, Apple haven't tried to enforce this condition in their EULA. Imagine if they lost? I doubt they'll be going after Hackintoshers. However, they might find ways to disable the OS on hacks. The Apple ecosystem is so tight now, I would not be surprised if they can scan the complete hardware makeup of your computer and determine if it is one of theirs.
They *did* go after companies that tried to sell hackintoshes, but to the best of my knowledge, haven't pursued any individuals.

The copyright / DMCA piece comes into play because you have to decrypt the software to create a hackintosh. (or at least you used to). So there are a few different angles at play there.

Pete
2
Share
Old 29th October 2013
  #116
Deleted User
Guest
Well, yeah, and as you say those are the grounds for the injunction against Psystar, but this began as a discussion of what an individual user can do, and whether Apple has legal grounds to enforce its EULA against individuals. Giving away the OS for free might change things -- this is an area where Apple may have a larger strategy to reassert control -- I wouldn't be surprised.

Anyway, I can see reasons to avoid working to join an ecosystem that thrives on free software when you are a software developer like Magix.
Old 29th October 2013
  #117
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Psychlist1972 View Post
I'm a grammar **** by any standard, but attacking grammar here when he brought up the EULA stuff was unnecessary and didn't actually help your argument (there is no contract here to use proper grammar and spelling). It just came off as a little mean, even if not intended that way
Grammar does not work if people do not abide by the rules. My personal view is that orthography and grammar are even quite fundamental social agreements. Society may dispense of enforcing the royalties for Thriller much easier, and also Apple's EULA is rather peripheral to society.

Quote:
In the US, it falls under civil law which typically means you'll be sued rather than spend time in jail.

That said, if Apple encrypts the software, and you have to decrypt it to use it on a hackintosh, you are breaking the law as defined by DMCA and *could* face criminal penalties.
The difference between civil and criminal law is the essential point. Most law systems have a similar concept.
DMCA aspects:. It's a pretty problematic legislation, and corporates rather seem to avoid it because it is bad for their business. The stick is actually big as a nuclear bomb which is more efficient as a deterrent than actually using it. I doubt that Apple will want to go down this road.
In any case this goes beyond breaking the EULA, and that was precisely my point.

-s
Old 29th October 2013
  #118
Lives for gear
 
EvilDragon's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psychlist1972 View Post
Finally, 64 bit offers more chances for verification of software, drivers, and more. I'm curious if hackintosh will be stuck in x86 land because of that. If so, that would put an artificial end to the hackintosh projects.
What are you talking about? There's not a problem in using the 64-bit OSX kernel on Hackintosh, as far as I know - it's just a switch in Terminal.
Old 29th October 2013
  #119
Lives for gear
 
Zoolook's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by EvilDragon View Post
Wrong. Breaking EULA does not mean you're using stolen software.

You can be a legitimate owner of a, say, Mac Mini, which means you legitimately own OSX. Then, you can install OSX on your other PC computer without any problem. You're just breaking the EULA (and that's not really a big deal from legal standpoint in a lot of countries around the world - people do it all the time), but you still own the software legitimately. Apple can't touch you because you're the owner of the software. Well, all they can do is not provide you support. Big deal.


Your arguments are very bad, as always.
**edit - apologies, this has already been said multiple times, my browser got stuck at the top of the page. Ignore...

Nope, that's exactly where you're wrong. You never own the software, you merely license it for use. If you use it in a manner in which it is not licensed the real owner can take action.

So it's not criminal, but it's not "legit" or "without any problem". Just because people do it all the time, doesn't make it right. Your sense of entitlement is clouding your judgement.
2
Share
Old 29th October 2013
  #120
Deleted User
Guest
Just because something is in a EULA does not make it legally enforceable. For example, Apple could claim in their EULA that they get all of the rights to any works created using their software. You would be agreeing to that term every time you clicked through to install their software, but that provision of the EULA would nonetheless not be true. A EULA is a contract of adhesion with unequal bargaining power between you and the software developer. Something doesn't become a legally binding provision of the contract just because the powerful entity puts it in the contract.
1
Share
Topic:
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump