• JustARegularNerd@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    5 hours ago

    Here you go https://www.cnx-software.com/2017/10/30/h-265-hevc-license-pricing-updated-for-low-cost-devices/

    The license to use macOS is not free. You must run it on a Macintosh computer and, keeping in terms of the license, cannot be run on non-Macintosh hardware. You must therefore purchase a Macintosh computer to use macOS. See Page 2, Section 2 of the Software License Agreement.

    You keep repeating this argument of “show me where I can possibly pay for it” presumably because you know that it is not for sale and this is common knowledge.

    What is being omitted here is that because anyone has the ability to put a PC of their own components together, Microsoft has two roads for these people: give Windows away where Microsoft sees none of that money back, or sell you a license to use Windows - they choose the second option. This is why you can buy a license for Windows. If you could only use prebuilt machines and were unable to make your own PC, the license cost would be passed onto the manufacturer and thus amortised in the final sale price, and you would also not have the ability to purchase a Windows license directly

    Apple doesn’t need to do these extra steps because they are both the software vendor and manufacturer, thus the development costs associated in macOS is also amortised in the final sale price.

    Please stop defending a trillion dollar corporation over specific pedantics and omissions. macOS is complementary software, it is not free.

    • floo@retrolemmy.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      4 hours ago

      You sent me the license of agreement for a completely different piece of software and think that’s evidence of macOS costing money?

      Are you hallucinating?

      • JustARegularNerd@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        4 hours ago

        The first link is evidence that video codecs cost money and, as per that source:

        Most video codecs such as H.264, H265/HEVC, MPEG-2, MPEG-4… requires the manufacturer to pay a license fee. The fees are then added to the final product, but the actual codec fees are usually unknown to the end user.

        This was in response to the earlier discussion about third party libraries costing money.

        • floo@retrolemmy.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          4 hours ago

          OK, I guess some third-party libraries do cost money, which is to be expected. That doesn’t change the fact that macOS is free.

          • JustARegularNerd@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 hours ago

            It’s clear you’re acting in bad faith at this point - you’ve completely skipped over anything else I said in my original comment.

            • floo@retrolemmy.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              4 hours ago

              Me: points out of fact

              You: you’re acting in bad faith!

              It still doesn’t make any sense to me. Do you think I’m acting in bad faith because I acknowledge a fact, and you won’t? Or is it because I keep poking holes in your logic?

              Sounds like hurt feelings to me

              • JustARegularNerd@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                3 hours ago

                You misinterpreted what I said in that initial comment, asked if I was hallucinating, and when I clarified this misinterpretation, you proceeded to skip over anything I had said beyond the first link.

                You are not giving any valid counter arguments to what I said in my original comment (in fact detracting from the original point of this whole thread by speculating you hurt my feelings?), this is why I believe you are acting in bad faith.

                • floo@retrolemmy.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  3 hours ago

                  Am I supposed to feel bad for you?

                  Your entire comment threat has been bad faith. It’s amusing that you’re accusing me of what you’re doing. But whatever.