Mac clone maker vows to test Apple on OS X licensing terms

[AppleInsider]

Psystar Corporation, which this week began selling a series of Mac clone systems without Apple's blessing, is determined to challenge the Mac maker in court over the licensing terms for its Mac OS X operating system.

Speaking to InformationWeek, a Psystar employee identified only as Robert said his company sees Apple's end-user license agreement, which prohibits third-party installations of Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware, as a violation of antitrust laws.

"What if Microsoft said you could only install Windows on Dell computers?," he said. "What if Honda said that, after you buy their car, you could only drive it on the roads they said you could?"

As such, the Psystar representative implied that the company is eager to bring the matter before a court, where it believes Apple will have a tough time defending its stringent licensing terms.

As part of its defense, the Miami-based reseller also appears to be accusing Apple of price gouging its customers with each Mac OS X-based computer it sells.

"They're charging an 80 percent markup on hardware," Robert told InformationWeek.

He said Psystar plans to continue selling its $400 OpenMac clone and insisted that the company isn't "breaking any laws."

Ironically, Psystar on Monday evening changed the name of its offering from "OpenMac" to "Open Computer," presumably to avoid charges that it was indeed violating trademark law. [ View this article at AppleInsider.com ] (http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=3959)

[macinthe408]

Hmmm, can someone buy one of these computers and put it through some stringent reliability tests?

That would be worth its weight in gold if we can glean some significant reliability data on these clones to see if they walk the walk.

I mean, the ultimate test is whether Apple's approach creates a better computer, and whether its significant markup is worth paying for.

Ironically, as "Robert" points out, the reason Windows sucks is that you can put the OS on a billion computer systems. I don't know if I want some fly-by-night shop--in Miami, no less!--putting together a Mac made with hardware they deem worthy--I doubt the company is run by anything more than a few good salesman and one guy who was a engineer (sanitation) at one point in his life.

[EagerDragon]

Hope they have a large piggy bank for all the lawyer expenses. They want to test the value / legality of the EULA, that is going to cost some money to bring to a court room.

[initiator]

Psystar will lose. Plain and simple.

[frugality]

Hmmm, can someone buy one of these computers and put it through some stringent reliability tests?

That would be worth its weight in gold if we can glean some significant reliability data on these clones to see if they walk the walk.

I mean, the ultimate test is whether Apple's approach creates a better computer, and whether its significant markup is worth paying for.

Ironically, as "Robert" points out, the reason Windows sucks is that you can put the OS on a billion computer systems. I don't know if I want some fly-by-night shop--in Miami, no less!--putting together a Mac made with hardware they deem worthy--I doubt the company is run by anything more than a few good salesman and one guy who was a engineer (sanitation) at one point in his life.

If these computers aren't reliable, they won't sell. This is a perfect test of, as you say, "whether Apple's approach creates a better computer, and whether its significant markup is worth paying for." Right now, Apple has a monopoly on OS-X-running computers. Apple's hardware doesn't have the same competition that Dell's hardware has. Dell has to make a reliable product at a competitive price to whatever HP, Sony, etc., are putting out. That's one of the main reasons PC's are cheaper than Macs. Economics has drive the price down.

The problem is that Dell, HP, etc. have to work with Microsoft to resolve technical issues. If it works, this Psystar Corp. will have a tough go with no technical support from Apple if there are compatibility issues with their hardware.

p.s. Slamming people by location is not a sign of maturity. There are lots of intelligent people in Miami.

[Buck]

They're charging an 80 percent markup on hardware
Well of course they do! Would you rather they charged $600 for a copy of Leopard?

[kenaustus]

Psystar had better talk to a really good lawyer before making too many public statements. Right now they are walking on some rather thin ice and may well find themselves over their head.

Since OS X is the property of Apple Pststar has no right to interfere with Apple's right to establish the terms of use - specifically the rights to invest heavily in OS X in order to make the Mac a desirable hardware product for customers. I can see a lot of court action on this one if they continue - it's cheaper to simply close the business down and stat flipping burgers.

[EagerDragon]

Psystar will lose. Plain and simple.

I am not a lawyer by any means but I am sure Apple will hit them with everything they can. They are not going to want Dell, HP and others doing the same, they have to put the foot down and make these guys an example.

What I am sorry for is the non-techie customers that buy this system based on the broad advertisement and end up with a BRICK when Apple releases an upgrade.

Specially the kids putting their money together to get a Mac and then see this opportunity, they jump and get hurt. I don't like kids getting hurt.

Joe average consumer is not going to understand what will happen or how to fix it. They are not going to go to forums and blogs to learn how to hack the system back into health.

Not only that but because the systems wont be upgraded, they will not get the security patches and as such they will be vulnerable while the real Mac community is nice and secured. I see a whole BotNet made from these unsecured systems and everyone saying that Macs are vulnerable.

[Virgil-TB2]

The whole thing is really kind of a scam anyway, as if you add the cost of OS-X onto the $399 price that keeps getting quoted it immediately doesn't look like such a good deal. Add the price of the missing iLife suite and the package is over $600 dollars all of a sudden, (more expensive than the entry level mini.)

Since this is basically a "hillbilly" computer (or aimed at that market spec), service and support are probably not needed, but if you add those back in as well, the *actual* cost of this thing is far above what you would pay Apple for comparable gear.

As an option for home hobbyists it's interesting perhaps, but as a value proposition for a "cheap Apple computer" it just doesn't add up. Anyone that thinks they are going to be getting a "deal" will be severely disappointed. Those that are buying a junky "throwaway" computer box so they can tool with OS-X for laughs will be the only ones happy with these computers.

[Booga]

If these computers aren't reliable, they won't sell. This is a perfect test of, as you say, "whether Apple's approach creates a better computer, and whether its significant markup is worth paying for." Right now, Apple has a monopoly on OS-X-running computers. Apple's hardware doesn't have the same competition that Dell's hardware has. Dell has to make a reliable product at a competitive price to whatever HP, Sony, etc., are putting out. That's one of the main reasons PC's are cheaper than Macs. Economics has drive the price down.

The problem is that Dell, HP, etc. have to work with Microsoft to resolve technical issues. If it works, this Psystar Corp. will have a tough go with no technical support from Apple if there are compatibility issues with their hardware.

p.s. Slamming people by location is not a sign of maturity. There are lots of intelligent people in Miami.
I'm looking to get a new professional-grade machine soon. Out of curiosity I've been pricing Mac Pro's against Dells. The Dells don't even seem to be in the same ballpark in price-- they're way, way higher. A vanilla $2800 2.8GHz 8 core Mac Pro equivalent, or anything close to it, costs at least $500 more at Dell's store. Am I doing something wrong? Everyone seems to claim Dells are cheaper but I don't see it.

Now yes, in the sub-$1000 market you can get a LOT more on the PC side (where's the mini with a video card slot?) But for most of Apple's products they don't seem to be out of line from what everyone else is charging.

[Calyptus]

Are they just stupid or what? At $400 a pop, where in that price are they actually feigning to pay Apple anything for the us of the OS. Even using their own pathetic "what if" arguments, someone would have been paid for their product before it could be used, even if it was within a locked-in environment.

Without their payment for the license, it's just plain old theft.

I hope they have fun in jail...

[joshdelph]

These people have got to be kidding.

Apple owns OSX...just as Microsoft owns Windows. Each company has a right as part of a free trade society to license and sell its products to whomever and however they choose.

In no way does this even come close to anti-trust laws. Apple is not inhibiting other companies from manufacturing computers...simply manufacturing computers with the software that Apple owns. I hope Psystar doesn't decide to spend too much money just so this can get thrown out of court.

The lack of education on "Robert's" part is simply mind boggling. Companies are not required to allow other people to use their products. If they own it, they own it. Software is nothing more than written "words" and images. If this goes through, then we should all be free to copy every printed word/image/musical notation etc. that we own, then have the freedom to distribute freely.

My word...just when I thought I had seen everything, this comes along.

[dmz]

Um, guys, these machines must be priced at, or very close to the cost of hardware. I doubt there is much profit to be had.

I'd be interested to see if this is blowback from Megashaft's Vista damage -- FUD to harass Apple.

[nagromme]

I just don't see them actually getting a court to force Apple to do all of the following...


* Allow installation on non-Apple systems. (Remember that retail OS X is essentially an upgrade--not an original version. The original version came with the Mac. Look at how Windows pricing is different for an upgrade vs. original install. Apple would charge more--just like Microsoft--for a full version. Now technically the upgrade can install all by itself, and that's great--it's the same when I bought a Photoshop upgrade--but what you're buying is still an upgrade to something you bought already.)

* SUPPORT people who have issues with non-Apple hardware.

* TEST every patch and new feature on non-Apple hardware.

* Add code and bloat to their OS to support non-Apple hardware.

* DELAY every patch or feature or OS Apple ever creates, to accommodate the above.

* Take the heat when an OS X feature only works right on Apple hardware. (Imagine the cries of sabotage!)

* PAY for all that support and development time out of Apple's pockets, when they didn't make the hardware profit, only the OS cost.

* Do all of the above for every other little box maker once the precedent was set.


...forever and all time! And I'd hate to see what happened to the pace and quality of Apple's innovation if they did. (That's a burden that Microsoft can't escape--and I'm glad my chosen OS doesn't share those issues.)

I like CHOICE in computing, and one choice I like to have is to have hardware and software designed TOGETHER as a whole. Those who don't want that have other choices... but this choice has proven to have real benefits. I don't see a court making that choice impossible.

[nacnud]

Apparently they are not about to test the EULA

From engadget - Psystar says rumors of its demise are greatly exaggerated, still selling Open Computers (http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/15/psystar-says-rumors-of-its-demise-are-greatly-exaggerated-still/)

[GQB]

Right now, Apple has a monopoly on OS-X-running computers.

Not to put too fine a point on it, that's a nonsensical statement.
'Monopoly' is a legal term that's been badly misused lately.
Saying Apple has a Monopoly on OS/X computers is akin to saying that Coke has a monopoly on, well, Coke.
Well, yeah... so?
Apple OWNS OS/X... that's not a monopoly.

BTW, before anyone jumps in the the "BUT I OWN MY OS... I CAN LOAD IT ON ANY HARDWARE I WANT!" rant, no, you don't own your OS... you license it.

[solipsism]

Before anyone mentions that their business address is currently at a residence note that is not an uncommon practice for a new company. Especially one that is internet based and doesn't require a nice office space to show off to customers. If they succeed—and I don't see how they can if they go after Apple instead of just selling a machine that has the proper HW for OSx86 KEXTs—they will surely move into a large area and most likely change their address. Though they could have gotten a POBOX, but they probably didn't think of it.

Well of course they do! Would you rather they charged $600 for a copy of Leopard?
The only 80% markup I see when compared to other 3rd-party products is on RAM. And when you compare the whole of the parts to a similar machine by Dell the markup seems to completely vanish.

PS: Do you think they planned this ahead of time? They are rivaling Apple in their ability to generate free press.

[wnurse]

Well one thing they could do is sell a computer capable of running Mac OSX but not install the operating system.. ie, leave it up to users to install operating system. Since they are not selling a Leopard, they cannot violate the EULA. Apple cannot dictate a company cannot make compatible hardware. That would be an interesting test. Would apple then go after individual users for violating the EULA?. What a PR nightmare that would be (similar to the PR nightmare the RIAA have when they sue individuals). It would be expensive too.. they'd have to find out who bought the computer, no easy task especially if PsyStar tells them to go jump of a building when apple request customer info (and i don't think there is any court that would force one company to hand over it's customer info, which is considered competitive information, to another).

By installing the operating system themselves, they are opening themself up to apple legal. Maybe they will argue that they make compatible mac hardware (which is legal) and that they are contracted to install the operating system on the hardware by the user (maybe shift the responsibility to the customer) but then refuse to provide customer information. Hmm.. not a lawyer but i wonder how exactly they will defeat Apple in court.

I think the smart thing to do is make the mac compatible hardware and let the customers violate the EULA.

This is only possible because apple runs on intel of course.. PsyStar could then claim that the machine could be used to install unix, or windows or mac and poor innocent souls, they had no idea the user would violate the EULA of apple. Hey, how can they be at fault if the user does something that stupid??(wink, wink).

[derev]

Psystar will lose. Plain and simple.

Unfortunately for Psystar (and any sofware user mac or windows) EULAs are evil E.V.I.L.
By clicking on the agreement, which you have to do to open the installer, or in some cases just by opening the wrapper to be able to even read the EULA, you agree to its terms. So, unless the courst want to open up a can of worms with the big layers, they will throw Psystar out on their ear.

[derev]

Psystar will lose. Plain and simple.

Unfortunately for Psystar (and any sofware user mac or windows) EULAs are evil E.V.I.L.
By clicking on the agreement, which you have to do to open the installer, or in some cases just by opening the wrapper to be able to even read the EULA, you agree to its terms. So, unless the courst want to open up a can of worms with the big layers, they will throw Psystar out on their ear.http://forums.appleinsider.com/images/smilies/1oyvey.gif

[G_Warren]

This could be an interesting development. I'll be watching the legal wrangling with interest, although as a small startup they will require quite a budget to pursue this litigation fully.

I'm sure every mac user would welcome some competition to drive down prices. There are of course compatibility issues, and Mac OS not running as Mac OS does, but Apple could simply provide the OS X product and stay well away from supporting third party products (graphics cards etc), leaving this to others.

There are interesting competition law points here. If we assume that the relevant market is 'Computer hardware capable of running Mac OS X' then clearly Apple is in a dominant position with 100% market share. It is not completely unforseeable that Apple could be forced to licence OS X or remove the relevant paragraphs from the agreement.

Of course, one could argue that in that case, Nokia should be releasing its software so that Sony Ericsson users can use it etc.

A few complaints to national competition authorities might raise some interesting results.

[GQB]

I just don't see them actually getting a court to force Apple to do all of the following...


* Allow installation on non-Apple systems. (Remember that retail OS X is essentially an upgrade--not an original version. The original version came with the Mac. Look at how Windows pricing is different for an upgrade vs. original install. Apple would charge more--just like Microsoft--for a full version. Now technically the upgrade can install all by itself, and that's great--it's the same when I bought a Photoshop upgrade--but what you're buying is still an upgrade to something you bought already.)

* SUPPORT people who have issues with non-Apple hardware.

* TEST every patch and new feature on non-Apple hardware.

* Add code and bloat to their OS to support non-Apple hardware.

* Take the heat when an OS X feature only works right on Apple hardware. (Imagine the cries of sabotage!)

* PAY for all that support and development time out of Apple's pockets, when they didn't make the hardware profit, only the OS cost.

* Do all of the above for every other little box maker once the precedent was set.


...forever and all time! And I'd hate to see what happened to the pace and quality of Apple's innovation if they did.

I like CHOICE in computing, and one choice I like to have is to have hardware and software designed TOGETHER as a whole. Those who don't want that have other choices... but this choice has proven to have real benefits. I don't see a court making that choice impossible.

Well put...
And also, all of these things will end up reflecting on an detracting from Apple's brand.
That's demonstrable harm right there.

[ljocampo]

I remember buying a Mac clone. It was from Power Computing and the problems I had with compatibility almost drove me to buy a Windows machine. I did buy a real Mac directly Apple and I couldn't get over the difference in stability. All the driver and device issues vanished with having the real thing. So from my prospective, I think bringing back Mac clones is a bad idea.

[solipsism]

I think the smart thing to do is make the mac compatible hardware and let the customers violate the EULA.

The way head shops sell pipes/bongs for tobacco and N20 chargers for whipped cream.

[shawnathan]

oh christ, here comes the onslaught of mac wannabe's.. well everyone.. i guess we've enjoyed our niche for long enough..

[hmurchison]

Idiots

If Microsoft wanted to write into their EULA that windows should only be installable on Dells they "could". It wouldn't be smart but they could if they wanted to.

"Robert" should be kept away from the press. What a moron. This company will soon be a footnote. I'm sure they have a legal departmen that matches Apple's in every way<sarcasm>

If Apple could shut down Thinksecret over rumors they're going to do a number on this little company that makes Thinksecret look like a love tap on the ass.

[Superbass]

The problem is that Dell, HP, etc. have to work with Microsoft to resolve technical issues. If it works, this Psystar Corp. will have a tough go with no technical support from Apple if there are compatibility issues with their hardware.


This won't be such a big problem if Psystar installs Tiger instead of Leopard on their systems.

There most likely won't be any more updates to Tiger, so they can be sure that there won't be any iPhone-style bricking, and Leopard hasn't added very much functionality anyways (other than boot camp, biweekly fixes and lots of crashing...)

[Avor]

Microsoft has a large stake in how this ruling comes out. If Apple loses, Microsoft will begin to see a noticeable change the OS market.

[Bageljoey]

I remember buying a Mac clone. It was from Power Computing and the problems I had with compatibility almost drove me to buy a Windows machine. I did buy a real Mac directly Apple and I couldn't get over the difference in stability. All the driver and device issues vanished with having the real thing. So from my prospective, I think bringing back Mac clones is a bad idea.

I had one too, though I didn't have the same trouble you had. I loved that computer for a while (as ugly as it was).

You can take my Mac...when you pry my cold...dead fingers off the mouse!

[ljocampo]

I had one too, though I didn't have the same trouble you had. I loved that computer for a while (as ugly as it was).

Well it was pre OS X days and conflicts depended on what software you had on the machine. Hardware wise my Power Computing clone was excellent. It had better specs than a real Apple at the time, but software conflicts drove me insane.

There really is a lot of good to say about having the OS and HW produced by the same company. IMHO most instability on Macs today come from third party software. Not that Apple hasn't had its share of bloopers.

[sandau]

hmm, who is Psystar?

Founded in 2008. Perhaps just a publicity machine for CC numbers and cash? How do we know they are a real business entitiy afterall and not just a front.

My money sticks with Apple. They'll be around after I order and when it ships, it arrives (and runs well). Then they also do a bang-up job of service if I need it.

[Superbass]

I'm looking to get a new professional-grade machine soon. Out of curiosity I've been pricing Mac Pro's against Dells. The Dells don't even seem to be in the same ballpark in price-- they're way, way higher. A vanilla $2800 2.8GHz 8 core Mac Pro equivalent, or anything close to it, costs at least $500 more at Dell's store. Am I doing something wrong? Everyone seems to claim Dells are cheaper but I don't see it.

Now yes, in the sub-$1000 market you can get a LOT more on the PC side (where's the mini with a video card slot?) But for most of Apple's products they don't seem to be out of line from what everyone else is charging.

DELL:

PROCESSOR Intel® Core™2 Q6700 Quad-Core (8MB L2 cache,2.66Hz,1066FSB) edit
OPERATING SYSTEM Genuine Windows Vista® Home Premium with Digital Cable Support edit
MEMORY 4GB Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 667MHz - 4 DIMMs edit
HARD DRIVE 1TB - 7200RPM, SATA 3.0Gb/s, 32MB Cache edit
OPTICAL DRIVE Single Drive: 16X CD/DVD burner (DVD+/-RW) w/double layer write capability edit
MONITORS No Monitor edit
VIDEO CARD nVidia GeForce 8800 GT 512MB edit
SOUND CARD Integrated 7.1 Channel Audio edit
SPEAKERS No speakers (Speakers are required to hear audio from your system) edit
KEYBOARD Dell USB Keyboard edit
MOUSE Dell Optical USB Mouse edit
FLOPPY & MEDIA READER No Floppy Drive or Media Reader Included

$1958 including Office

Mac Pro
Part Number: Z0EM
One 16x SuperDrive
One 2.8GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon (quad-core)
Apple Mighty Mouse
iWork '08 preinstalled
Apple Keyboard (English) + Mac OS X
4GB (4 x 1GB)
1TB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
Accessory kit
NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT 512MB (Two dual-link DVI)

$3428 including iWork (75% more expensive than the Dell...)

Dell doesn't offer Xenon "Octo"-core systems, instead they have Core2 Extreme, which is the overclocked gaming equivalent. It would cost $600 to upgrade to it on the dell, $500 to upgrade on the Mac. Also, Apple charges more for memory upgrades, video card upgrades, hard drives and displays, and Dell offers BluRay, which Apple doesn't...

[BrisbaneDigital]

While many of the issues raised in the replies to this post are all valid, perhaps the threshold issue on this subject is through what mechanism and how much is Psystar paying Apple for a licensing fee for OSX. Since Apple does not have an OEM program, the only (arguably) legal mechanism that Psystar has to legally acquire the OS, is to purchase retail versions. This coupled with the cost of components and packaging, is likely drive the Cost of Goods to at least $400, if not higher (that doesn't take into account other costs such as product design, testing, assembly, distribution, marketing, etc... (Of course, we can't forget Legal! :wow: ).

The other question raised is, who has the legal duty to support the customers of these systems? Even if Apple wanted to, there is no way that they can provide support without knowing the precise configurations of these systems and the specific components used.


This sounds more like a publicity stunt rather than a legitimate attempt to enter the OSX clone business.

Just my two cents....


(actually, given my hourly rate, that is my $46. :)








Psystar Corporation, which this week began selling a series of Mac clone systems without Apple's blessing, is determined to challenge the Mac maker in court over the licensing terms for its Mac OS X operating system.

Speaking to InformationWeek, a Psystar employee identified only as Robert said his company sees Apple's end-user license agreement, which prohibits third-party installations of Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware, as a violation of antitrust laws.

"What if Microsoft said you could only install Windows on Dell computers?," he said. "What if Honda said that, after you buy their car, you could only drive it on the roads they said you could?"

As such, the Psystar representative implied that the company is eager to bring the matter before a court, where it believes Apple will have a tough time defending its stringent licensing terms.

As part of its defense, the Miami-based reseller also appears to be accusing Apple of price gouging its customers with each Mac OS X-based computer it sells.

"They're charging an 80 percent markup on hardware," Robert told InformationWeek.

He said Psystar plans to continue selling its $400 OpenMac clone and insisted that the company isn't "breaking any laws."

Ironically, Psystar on Monday evening changed the name of its offering from "OpenMac" to "Open Computer," presumably to avoid charges that it was indeed violating trademark law. [ View this article at AppleInsider.com ] (http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=3959)

[Superbass]

Microsoft has a large stake in how this ruling comes out. If Apple loses, Microsoft will begin to see a noticeable change the OS market.

Dell maybe has the bigger stake - they could add some hackintosh people to their customer service and start selling systems with a choice of Vista, XP, Linux or OSX on a huge scale pretty quickly.

[Dave_M]

"They're charging an 80 percent markup on hardware," Robert told InformationWeek.

He said Psystar plans to continue selling its $400 OpenMac clone [ View this article at AppleInsider.com ] (http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=3959)

I've just been on the Psystar site and that $400 doesn't even include OS X.
That will cost you an extra $155!
Even Firewire will cost you another $50

This brings it into Mini Mac territory and I know which one I would rather buy.

I think that Psystar have missed the point, even if they were'nt about to get annihilated by Jobs' lawyers, these machines just aren't cool!! :-)

[Dave_M]

Dell have already started selling machines withUbuntu on them!! http://www.dell.com/content/topics/segtopic.aspx/linux_3x?c=us&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs

[Abster2core]

Lots of missing specs and questions.

Basically, adding Firewire, Leopard, iWorks, Front Row, Airport Extreme (or any wireless), Bluetooth, Speakers?, Ethernet?, S-video and composite output will jack the price to well over $700.

Of course, one must weigh the value of Apple's support and guarantee, as well as, issues raised after reviewing Psystar's currently posted FAQs before making this a choice, e.g.,

How do I eject a CD without an Apple keyboard? This is an issue that may come up from time-to-time when using your Open Computer with the OS X operating system. As you may know Apple keyboards have an eject button and that is what actually opens the drive tray. PC-based keyboards do not have this button. What PCs do have is an eject button on the drive trays, but Apple computers don't and consequently lock the drive and ignore this button like most Linux/BSD operating systems, requiring the drive to be unmounted first.
*
• Press and hold F-12
• type the command 'drutil eject' in terminal

Can I run updates on my Open Computer? The answer is yes and no. No because there are some updates that are decidedly non-safe. Yes because most updates are safe. It's best to check the web for this information but when in doubt don't update it. You may have to reinstall your OS X if it is a non-safe update.

Will my software work? Psystar has tested our Open computers with standard OS X software. We have not found any software incompatibilities with the standard OS software but we cannot guarantee that any of the software on your computer will work in Leopard. In Windows everything should work just fine assuming you have the proper device drivers and in Ubuntu everything should, in theory, work fine but Linux applications often require dependencies and a bit of work on the user's part.

Awe, the simplicity of a real Mac.

[BlackSummerNight]

Come on, down with monolopies! I hope someone hits iTunes next!

[radwansk]

A vanilla $2800 2.8GHz 8 core Mac Pro equivalent, or anything close to it, costs at least $500 more at Dell's store. Am I doing something wrong? Everyone seems to claim Dells are cheaper but I don't see it.

Now yes, in the sub-$1000 market you can get a LOT more on the PC side (where's the mini with a video card slot?) But for most of Apple's products they don't seem to be out of line from what everyone else is charging.

This has been widely written about many times over. If you compare the cost of a mac with specific components, to a PC from the major carriers with near the same specs, you will find the mac is a less expensive system...and in many ways better designed and built.

However when you go below $1000, you find there are many systems less expensive on the PC side. But you have to watch the specs, many times they are using AMD or Hypersonic processors or a lesser video card, which aren't a good point of comparison. If you compare a mac, and a pc, with x HD by brand y, xvideo card by brand y, Xram by brand y, usually the mac is cheaper. Why? I would have to guess that is the uplift for Windows licenses.

[floccus]

Have we all forgotten our computing history? The whole reason Microsoft became so successful was that they specifically allowed their OS to be used on multiple types of computers. Previous to that, the OS and hardware were almost always locked together (e.g., the original Macintosh). Also, Psystar would be aiding and abetting software piracy if they specifically marketed a machine for the purposes of allowing a purchaser to buy/install a copy of OSX in violation of the EULA.

[mdriftmeyer]

DELL:

PROCESSOR Intel® Core™2 Q6700 Quad-Core (8MB L2 cache,2.66Hz,1066FSB) edit
OPERATING SYSTEM Genuine Windows Vista® Home Premium with Digital Cable Support edit
MEMORY 4GB Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 667MHz - 4 DIMMs edit
HARD DRIVE 1TB - 7200RPM, SATA 3.0Gb/s, 32MB Cache edit
OPTICAL DRIVE Single Drive: 16X CD/DVD burner (DVD+/-RW) w/double layer write capability edit
MONITORS No Monitor edit
VIDEO CARD nVidia GeForce 8800 GT 512MB edit
SOUND CARD Integrated 7.1 Channel Audio edit
SPEAKERS No speakers (Speakers are required to hear audio from your system) edit
KEYBOARD Dell USB Keyboard edit
MOUSE Dell Optical USB Mouse edit
FLOPPY & MEDIA READER No Floppy Drive or Media Reader Included

$1958 including Office

Mac Pro
Part Number: Z0EM
One 16x SuperDrive
One 2.8GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon (quad-core)
Apple Mighty Mouse
iWork '08 preinstalled
Apple Keyboard (English) + Mac OS X
4GB (4 x 1GB)
1TB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
Accessory kit
NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT 512MB (Two dual-link DVI)

$3428 including iWork (75% more expensive than the Dell...)

Dell doesn't offer Xenon "Octo"-core systems, instead they have Core2 Extreme, which is the overclocked gaming equivalent. It would cost $600 to upgrade to it on the dell, $500 to upgrade on the Mac. Also, Apple charges more for memory upgrades, video card upgrades, hard drives and displays, and Dell offers BluRay, which Apple doesn't...

Build me an equivalent Dual Xeon DELL System.

[nagromme]

Have we all forgotten our computing history? The whole reason Microsoft became so successful was that they specifically allowed their OS to be used on multiple types of computers. Previous to that, the OS and hardware were almost always locked together (e.g., the original Macintosh). Also, Psystar would be aiding and abetting software piracy if they specifically marketed a machine for the purposes of allowing a purchaser to buy/install a copy of OSX in violation of the EULA.

That's certainly a big reason for Microsoft's success--but we can't look at the history from the 70s-80s too literally as a guide for today:

a) That's not the only route to success: Apple has taken a different but also successful path. Instead of mass domination, design great products.

b) "Then" (dawn of personal computing, pre-Internet, heavily focussed on business) is not "now" (mature post-Internet market, extending far beyond business).

c) Apple is not Microsoft. Different strengths, different weaknesses, different markets entirely.

d) The Windows monopoly stemmed from the DOS monopoly in business, which predated the Mac. No such opportunity to take over the computing market exists today. (But handhelds may be another story!)


How do I eject a CD without an Apple keyboard? This is an issue that may come up from time-to-time when using your Open Computer with the OS X operating system. As you may know Apple keyboards have an eject button and that is what actually opens the drive tray. PC-based keyboards do not have this button. What PCs do have is an eject button on the drive trays, but Apple computers don't and consequently lock the drive and ignore this button like most Linux/BSD operating systems, requiring the drive to be unmounted first.
*
• Press and hold F-12
• type the command 'drutil eject' in terminal

Can I run updates on my Open Computer? The answer is yes and no. No because there are some updates that are decidedly non-safe. Yes because most updates are safe. It's best to check the web for this information but when in doubt don't update it. You may have to reinstall your OS X if it is a non-safe update.

Will my software work? Psystar has tested our Open computers with standard OS X software. We have not found any software incompatibilities with the standard OS software but we cannot guarantee that any of the software on your computer will work in Leopard. In Windows everything should work just fine assuming you have the proper device drivers and in Ubuntu everything should, in theory, work fine but Linux applications often require dependencies and a bit of work on the user's part.

Ouch!

[Booga]

This has been widely written about many times over. If you compare the cost of a mac with specific components, to a PC from the major carriers with near the same specs, you will find the mac is a less expensive system...and in many ways better designed and built.

I'm aware of that, and I'm not talking about specific components. I'm talking about ANY 8-core system. At all. I can't find anything on Dell's site for less than $400 more than a Mac Pro, and it has worse specs than Apple's.

Yes, when you're looking at machines at half the spec or lower (quad core non-Xenon or less) PCs are very competitive. Mostly because Apple doesn't sell anything comparable in that market segment. That's, of course, where this Open Computer lands and why it's so interesting. It's exactly what a lot of Apple customers want and have been begging Apple to build.

[Samnuva]

Seriously, These guys have t be insane. Apple's software is Apple's software. Plain and simple.

[minderbinder]

DELL:

PROCESSOR Intel® Core™2 Q6700 Quad-Core (8MB L2 cache,2.66Hz,1066FSB) edit
OPERATING SYSTEM Genuine Windows Vista® Home Premium with Digital Cable Support edit
MEMORY 4GB Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 667MHz - 4 DIMMs edit
HARD DRIVE 1TB - 7200RPM, SATA 3.0Gb/s, 32MB Cache edit
OPTICAL DRIVE Single Drive: 16X CD/DVD burner (DVD+/-RW) w/double layer write capability edit
MONITORS No Monitor edit
VIDEO CARD nVidia GeForce 8800 GT 512MB edit
SOUND CARD Integrated 7.1 Channel Audio edit
SPEAKERS No speakers (Speakers are required to hear audio from your system) edit
KEYBOARD Dell USB Keyboard edit
MOUSE Dell Optical USB Mouse edit
FLOPPY & MEDIA READER No Floppy Drive or Media Reader Included

$1958 including Office

Mac Pro
Part Number: Z0EM
One 16x SuperDrive
One 2.8GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon (quad-core)
Apple Mighty Mouse
iWork '08 preinstalled
Apple Keyboard (English) + Mac OS X
4GB (4 x 1GB)
1TB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
Accessory kit
NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT 512MB (Two dual-link DVI)

$3428 including iWork (75% more expensive than the Dell...)

Dell doesn't offer Xenon "Octo"-core systems, instead they have Core2 Extreme, which is the overclocked gaming equivalent. It would cost $600 to upgrade to it on the dell, $500 to upgrade on the Mac. Also, Apple charges more for memory upgrades, video card upgrades, hard drives and displays, and Dell offers BluRay, which Apple doesn't...

What kind of comparison is that? At least get the same processor in each. And there's no question that it's stupid to buy upgrades from apple (900 of your price is ram and hard drive upgrade) - compare using third party ram and drive upgrade.

I've just been on the Psystar site and that $400 doesn't even include OS X.
That will cost you an extra $155!

Where did you get 155? List price is $129 and many places have it cheaper. I'm sure Tiger is probably an option as well.

[roehlstation]

This has been widely written about many times over. If you compare the cost of a mac with specific components, to a PC from the major carriers with near the same specs, you will find the mac is a less expensive system...and in many ways better designed and built.

However when you go below $1000, you find there are many systems less expensive on the PC side. But you have to watch the specs, many times they are using AMD or Hypersonic processors or a lesser video card, which aren't a good point of comparison. If you compare a mac, and a pc, with x HD by brand y, xvideo card by brand y, Xram by brand y, usually the mac is cheaper. Why? I would have to guess that is the uplift for Windows licenses.

I simply don't buy a computer for less than $1,000. I've got an 8 year old G4 that has long since paid for itself 50 times over.

[Leonard]

[Checks Calendar] It's not April 1, someone is a little late with their April Fools Day prank.

[Gustav]

Right now, Apple has a monopoly on OS-X-running computers.

True, but that's like saying Honda has a monopoly on cars running vTec engines. Should GM be able to put vTec engines in their cars and sell them?

If Apple makes both, they are allowed to decide how their products are sold. They aren't exactly doing anything nefarious here.

The big issue here is that Apple is using hardware sales to subsidize OS development. If some company comes along and cannibalizes hardware sales, then Apple has a big problem. This is why they killed the clones back in the 90s - the clones were supposed to expand Mac market share, but instead they ate too much into Apple's sales and thus ate away money needed to develop the OS and the platform. When the cloners asked to pay more for the OS, they complained. Apple had to kill the clones then, and this is why they don't allow it now.

[inkswamp]

Specially the kids putting their money together to get a Mac and then see this opportunity, they jump and get hurt. I don't like kids getting hurt.

Whew... I'm so glad someone's thinking about the children. :lol:

[tink]

Monopolies are not illegal. Anti-competitive behavior in the market is illegal.

Many companies control software and hardware.. One example is gaming hardware i.e. Xbox, Playstation, Nintendo are similar to Apple in that they write proprietary OS's for the hardware they don't licence. So each has a monopoly for their platform in the gaming market, but it's not illegal.

They will need to make a distinction between the "Computer Market" and the "Mac Market". In the "computer market" Apple cannot be considered a monopoly. In the Mac market obviously they have a monopoly in the hardware, just like the Playstation has a hardware lock on the Playstation Market.

And since the Justice department hand slapped Microsoft wich was found egregious unlawful in multiple instances I think and an anti trust suit is a PR stunt.

[minderbinder]

Monopolies are not illegal. Anti-competitive behavior in the market is illegal.

Many companies control software and hardware.. One example is gaming hardware i.e. Xbox, Playstation, Nintendo are similar to Apple in that they write proprietary OS's for the hardware they don't licence. So each has a monopoly for their platform in the gaming market, but it's not illegal.

They will need to make a distinction between the "Computer Market" and the "Mac Market". In the "computer market" Apple cannot be considered a monopoly. In the Mac market obviously they have a monopoly in the hardware, just like the Playstation has a hardware lock on the Playstation Market.

And since the Justice department hand slapped Microsoft wich was found egregious unlawful in multiple instances I think and an anti trust suit is a PR stunt.

APPLE DOES NOT HAVE A MONOPOLY. Nor Nintendo etc. If you don't like nintendo, you can buy an xbox or PS3. Nintendo would only have a monopoly if they were the only option for gaming boxes. And they're not. For purposes of "monopoly" you DO define the market as computers and not just macs, otherwise EVERY company would have a monopoly since they are the only company that makes their particular product, and that would be nonsensical.

Seriously, read a basic definition of the term.

[fraklinc]

This is good & everything but Psystar should just STFU and keep making $$$ while it last. Apple could put them out of business with a simple patch throw a software update & they know it, so STFU before apple starts imbedding all kinds of security into Leopard to check for real macs

[minderbinder]

This is good & everything but Psystar should just STFU and keep making $$$ while it last. Apple could put them out of business with a simple patch throw a software update & they know it, so STFU before apple starts imbedding all kinds of security into Leopard to check for real macs

Wouldn't apple be trying to do it already since people are doing their own hackintoshes?

[melgross]

While many of the issues raised in the replies to this post are all valid, perhaps the threshold issue on this subject is through what mechanism and how much is Psystar paying Apple for a licensing fee for OSX. Since Apple does not have an OEM program, the only (arguably) legal mechanism that Psystar has to legally acquire the OS, is to purchase retail versions. This coupled with the cost of components and packaging, is likely drive the Cost of Goods to at least $400, if not higher (that doesn't take into account other costs such as product design, testing, assembly, distribution, marketing, etc... (Of course, we can't forget Legal! :wow: ).

The other question raised is, who has the legal duty to support the customers of these systems? Even if Apple wanted to, there is no way that they can provide support without knowing the precise configurations of these systems and the specific components used.


This sounds more like a publicity stunt rather than a legitimate attempt to enter the OSX clone business.

Just my two cents....


(actually, given my hourly rate, that is my $46. :)

Well, there are so many posts to reply to here, but Ill do it to yours as you're near the end.

They are not paying Apple anything, because Apple has no licensing scheme for this as they don't license out the OS at all.

Otherwise, there are more problems. As Nagromme has pointed out, all Apple sells are upgrades, as the OS comes with the machine. They could easily argue that no retail version of the OS is licensed to anyone other than to the one who boght the original license with the original program, which means that only if you boght a Mac would you have license to use the "upgrade".

This is well established law. It can be used instead of the "Mac only" install that Apple specifies now, though that is legal as well.

I know that there are some in Europe who don't understand the legalities with this, even though European law SEEMS to say otherwise. It really only pertains to an OS that is sold as MS's is.

Apple's OS is an integral part of the hardware, though, that argument has been lessened with the switch to Intel, which allows Windows to be an equal partner.

Nevertheless, Even if Psystar doesn't sell the OS, they could be in legal trouble if they can be seen as encouraging others to violate the license. If they then profit off those violations, they could have a criminal case against them, depending on how many units they sell, and if it can be assumed that for each unit sold, a license violation occured.

[tink]

APPLE DOES NOT HAVE A MONOPOLY.
Apple has a monopoly in the Mac market. There is nothing wrong with that.

Monopoly (http://www.answers.com/monopoly&r=67)
"A situation in which a single company or group owns all or nearly all of the market for a given type of product or service. By definition, monopoly is characterized by an absence of competition."

There is no competition in the Mac market and that is not illegal.

[GQB]

I remember buying a Mac clone. It was from Power Computing and the problems I had with compatibility almost drove me to buy a Windows machine. I did buy a real Mac directly Apple and I couldn't get over the difference in stability. All the driver and device issues vanished with having the real thing. So from my prospective, I think bringing back Mac clones is a bad idea.

I had the same experience.
Recommended a Power Computing clone for a friend and whenever she had problems with it, she was SOL. Add to that the fact that she never really got the 'just use it' experience you get from an actual Mac, and it was a waste of money. Cheap things are usually worth what you paid for them.
(Parenthetically, my friend became my wife, so I suppose it wasn't that big of a catastrophe.)

[canucklehead]

These guys are out of their minds. Apple has always marketed an operating system paired with hardware. Just because you can purchase that operating system separately from the hardware doesn't change this fact.

It's like saying Research in Motion or PALM have to make their Blackberry/PALM OSs available for use with other devices. Or that the XBox or Playstation OSs have to be made compatible for other systems.

These companies have always sold a "whole package", with benefits in both hardware and software. The only way to get the incredible software is to get the hardware as well. There's not been a real distinction between the two. Apple sells OSX to Mac users who want to upgrade their systems, but don't verify that you actually own the system before allowing you to buy. However, they DO stipulate that is the requirement in the terms of use. Do we really want Apple to start verifying ownership of a Mac system before you can buy the OS?

As much as I want Mac prices to drop or for there to be viable competition, I hope Apple kicks these guys' in their collective asses (then turns them around to kick them in their balls). If these guys are intent on infringing on Apple's copyrights and violating intellectual property laws, then they deserve to lose more than their nuts.

"What if Microsoft said you could only install Windows on Dell computers?," he said. "What if Honda said that, after you buy their car, you could only drive it on the roads they said you could?"

[GQB]

oh christ, here comes the onslaught of mac wannabe's.. well everyone.. i guess we've enjoyed our niche for long enough..

What do you mean 'here comes' (as in future tense)? What the hell do you think Windows is? :)

[frankiilacomposer]

Personally, and I know this is such a lovely topic around here, I think that anything that has a better GPU is worth it and I say Hurrah, Hurrah for the OSX86 and companies like this.

• Pro users DO not make up the base, its all iPods and iPhone users.
• Mac Pro's and Macbook Pro's hardly move off the shelves in the apple stores compared to iMacs, Macbooks, Minis and especially iPhones.
• For a few hundred, you can build a great machines, buy a dual DVI nvidia card and have a machine the romps a Mac Pro for a fraction of the cost.
• Apple charges $600 for 4 GB of RAM, you can buy RAM at New Egg for $104 dollars and most memory will have a lifetime warranty so no worries should it fail in a year or so.

The whole notion that Apple is still on its high horse with graphic cards drives me nuts - they still think the PROS will flock to the cheap-o systems if they released a cheap machine with a $50 graphic card. So what if they do? They are such a small portion of the market. Personally, I don't think its a matter of "if" but a matter of "when" as Apple needs to get a grip.

While the machine is probably ugly, I think you're better of building your own machine for much cheaper.

Here is a link for a HACK for less than $800 and with the exception of one benchmark, it beats the Mac Pro -

http://lifehacker.com/software/benchmarks/hackintosh-vs-mac-pro-vs-macbook-pro-benchmarks-322866.php

And to think as an Apple user I pat them on the back -

I think there is a group of us, PRO PC until Apple went X86 (as Steve used to FUDGE all the numbers), that are POST X86 Apple users, and those of us who are, are also savvy to INTEL say vs AMD and know what cost a GPU or MEMORY is, and how (APPLE) Intel used to operate until AMD came along with their first 1.0 GHZ Athlon. I think competition and seeing better machines cheaper may someday force Apple to wake up and release a overall decent machine thats not crippled in any department.

Right now, if you want to play any game at all that uses 3D, you have to get an iMac, however, if you want a laptop, you have NO CHOICE but to purchase a Macbook Pro.

[lifterus]

They're pushing their luck by pre-installing Leopard. If they didn't do that, or if they didn't even sell Leopard (customers just get it on their own) then I'd think they'd have a much stronger legal leg to stand on. But obviously this was meant to be a challenge in court.

To those who don't see the value in this to customers, you're just plain ignorant. Apple doesn't even make a normal desktop computer. They make quad-core and octo-core Xeon systems and require expensive FB-DIMM memory.

That's total overkill. Those things are meant for servers that are on 24/7 and can never go down. For a typical high-end Mac user (video editor, etc.) it's unecessary. A quad Core 2 system would cost less than half and provide just as much speed and power.

Now some will point to the iMac or the Mac Mini. Obviously the problem with that is no add-in cards. You can't add a high-end graphics card. And you can't add in Fibre Channel cards, SATA cards, Gigabit NIC cards, etc. It also means you can't add extra internal SATA drives (external FW is slow), you can't add optical drives like a cheap Blu-ray burner next year (you'd need to replace with a laptop optical drive). The list goes on and on.

The $500-$1500 desktop PC market (desktop, meaning slots for add-in cards) is non-existent. This fills the hole.

As far as reliability, I wouldn't worry. Apple doesn't make any of the silicon for their products. Intel makes it.

Finally, there's the issue of overclocking. Most Mac-only people (I'm both) don't realize that an Intel 1.8ghz chip is essentially the same exact thing as the 3.0ghz chip. Most PC board allow you to overclock a 1.8 to 3.0 without any issues whatsoever. If you could do that for an OSX system, it would be great.

[GQB]

It had better specs than a real Apple at the time, but software conflicts drove me insane.

.

Well, that's kinda the point.
Everyone seems to think that any rube with a soldering iron and a disk burner (you there Bill Gates?) can put together a seamless computing experience.

[canucklehead]

Macs and OSX are parts of Apple's brand. They created the systems. They own the brands. What do you not understand?

What you said is like saying there is no competition in the Civic market because only Honda makes Civics.

Get real.

There is no competition in the Mac market and that is not illegal.

[fraklinc]

Wouldn't apple be trying to do it already since people are doing their own hackintoshes?

Well buy announcing the App store apple pretty much kill jailbreaking already if that's what you mean, most of the good games & good apps have disappear from app tap already, i guess since the app store is going to be available to more than 10 million people everyone is in a hurry to license the apps so they can get at least $1 per user

[minderbinder]

Apple has a monopoly in the Mac market. There is nothing wrong with that.

Monopoly (http://www.answers.com/monopoly&r=67)
"A situation in which a single company or group owns all or nearly all of the market for a given type of product or service. By definition, monopoly is characterized by an absence of competition."

There is no competition in the Mac market and that is not illegal.

That's just stupid.

The "given TYPE of product" is a computer. Not a mac - if you don't want a mac, you just buy a PC which serves the same purpose.

Aside from that, doesn't your logic imply that EVERY company has a monopoly if "type of product" is defined as the brand of product? Of course there's competition in the mac market. It's called a PC, and it's the reason Macs have single digit market share.

And for the record, I didn't say it was bad/illegal/whatever. I'm just saying it simply IS NOT a monopoly.

• Mac Pro's and Macbook Pro's hardly move off the shelves in the apple stores compared to iMacs, Macbooks, Minis and especially iPhones.

Do you have a source or is that just speculation? I'd be shocked if the minis are outselling any other mac models, especially the MB pro.

[zunx]

It is not good that the Mac is a monopoly of Apple. Mac OS X should run on any Intel hardware, being made by Apple or others. Greed is never good. And we want a Mac miniTOWER that Apple does no make, but others can offer. And so on. Windows people can choose the hardware they want from a myriad of vendors. Mac users cannot. That is not good for the Mac community. And by Mac I mean Mac OS X, of course. Apple, move on!

[Chris_CA]

Where did you get 155? List price is $129 and many places have it cheaper.www.psystar.com

I'm sure Tiger is probably an option as well.
Not at at www.psystar.com.

[minderbinder]

Well buy announcing the App store apple pretty much kill jailbreaking already if that's what you mean, most of the good games & good apps have disappear from app tap already, i guess since the app store is going to be available to more than 10 million people everyone is in a hurry to license the apps so they can get at least $1 per user

What does that have to do with hackintoshes?

Apple has tried repeatedly to kill jailbreaking and so far every attempt seems to have failed. I wouldn't be surprised if the iTunes store is worked around as well.

The point is, Apple already tries to have the OS detect if it's genuine mac hardware or not. Problem is, the mac is 99% the same as PC hardware, and it hasn't been too hard for people to hack the rest.

It is not good that the Mac is a monopoly of Apple. Mac OS X should run on any Intel hardware, being made by Apple or others. Greed is never good.

So I guess along the same lines, it's not good that only Coke can make Coke and only Toyota can make toyotas? That's "greed" on the part of Coke? You seriously think any company should be able to make Coke or Toyotas? Why would any business go to the trouble of creating a product if any other company could just make the exact same thing?

And again, THE MAC IS NOT A MONOPOLY. Unless you use twisted logic to define "monopoly" in a way that EVERY product from EVERY company is a monopoly.

[Booga]

Personally, and I know this is such a lovely topic around here, I think that anything that has a better GPU is worth it and I say Hurrah, Hurrah for the OSX86 and companies like this.

• Pro users DO not make up the base, its all iPods and iPhone users.
• Mac Pro's and Macbook Pro's hardly move off the shelves in the apple stores compared to iMacs, Macbooks, Minis and especially iPhones.
• For a few hundred, you can build a great machines, buy a dual DVI nvidia card and have a machine the romps a Mac Pro for a fraction of the cost.
• Apple charges $600 for 4 GB of RAM, you can buy RAM at New Egg for $104 dollars and most memory will have a lifetime warranty so no worries should it fail in a year or so.

The whole notion that Apple is still on its high horse with graphic cards drives me nuts - they still think the PROS will flock to the cheap-o systems if they released a cheap machine with a $50 graphic card. So what if they do? They are such a small portion of the market. Personally, I don't think its a matter of "if" but a matter of "when" as Apple needs to get a grip.

While the machine is probably ugly, I think you're better of building your own machine for much cheaper.

Here is a link for a HACK for less than $800 and with the exception of one benchmark, it beats the Mac Pro -

http://lifehacker.com/software/benchmarks/hackintosh-vs-mac-pro-vs-macbook-pro-benchmarks-322866.php

And to think as an Apple user I pat them on the back -

I think there is a group of us, PRO PC until Apple went X86 (as Steve used to FUDGE all the numbers), that are POST X86 Apple users, and those of us who are, are also savvy to INTEL say vs AMD and know what cost a GPU or MEMORY is, and how (APPLE) Intel used to operate until AMD came along with their first 1.0 GHZ Athlon. I think competition and seeing better machines cheaper may someday force Apple to wake up and release a overall decent machine thats not crippled in any department.

Right now, if you want to play any game at all that uses 3D, you have to get an iMac, however, if you want a laptop, you have NO CHOICE but to purchase a Macbook Pro.
Since you can't buy a Mac Pro as slow as the one they benchmarked anymore, I'm not sure how relevant those benchmarks are. Current Mac Pros have twice as many cores at higher MHz. They also did not appear to benchmark any "pro" operations at all, only simple consumer stuff. If you're going to just play around with the computer don't get a pro! If you're going to do a lot of compiles or high-end video/rendering you're going to get several times the performance over the "Hackintosh".

In short, you generally get what you pay for if you're pushing your machine to the limit. If not, your return on investment will top out somewhere-- probably significantly short of the Mac Pro's sweet spot.

And, of course, don't buy your RAM from Apple.

That leaves the sub-$1000 pro-sumer market wide open. It's a market Apple doesn't address at all. iMacs are too expensive and are bundled with what is for most people an unnecessary extra monitor. The mini doesn't have a graphics card and is severely underpowered for the price. That's why this clone is so interesting to so many people.

[minderbinder]

That leaves the sub-$1000 pro-sumer market wide open. It's a market Apple doesn't address at all. iMacs are too expensive and are bundled with what is for most people an unnecessary extra monitor. The mini doesn't have a graphics card and is severely underpowered for the price. That's why this clone is so interesting to so many people.

That's the key right there. The only reason this exists is because apple doesn't offer any reasonably priced mid to low end boxes, specifically a midtower. If apple would finally release one, it would make this whole thing moot.

I doubt this will make much of a splash, but I think it will focus public attention on the hole in Apple's product line and put some pressure on apple. And I think that's a good thing.

[frugality]

Seriously, These guys have t be insane. Apple's software is Apple's software. Plain and simple.
And Microsoft said that their software was their software, and they had the right to integrate Internet Explorer into their software.

At issue is whether Apple's EULA is legal to be bound to a specific hardware. Microsoft's "EULA", in essence, was to force everyone to use IE if they wanted Windows. The federal anti-trust regulators here in the US and in Europe decided that Microsoft had too much of a monopoly in the browser department, and forced MS to 'play nice' with other software makers. Why shouldn't Apple be told to 'play nice' with other hardware makers?

The saving grace for Apple is that they're still a two-bit player, relatively speaking.

[GQB]

Have we all forgotten our computing history? The whole reason Microsoft became so successful was that they specifically allowed their OS to be used on multiple types of computers. Previous to that, the OS and hardware were almost always locked together (e.g., the original Macintosh). Also, Psystar would be aiding and abetting software piracy if they specifically marketed a machine for the purposes of allowing a purchaser to buy/install a copy of OSX in violation of the EULA.

Whoa there pardner.
MS became successful because of brilliant manipulation of exclusive licensing agreements with hardware manufacturers (i.e. thou shalt ship with no other OS), FUD tactics that killed upstart competitors, and business practices that gave their applications home field advantage, grandfathering them into corporations.

What is certainly true is that Windows is the nightmare is is PRECISELY because of the open hardware model that it is now chained to.

[Wiggin]

There are interesting competition law points here. If we assume that the relevant market is 'Computer hardware capable of running Mac OS X' then clearly Apple is in a dominant position with 100% market share. It is not completely unforseeable that Apple could be forced to licence OS X or remove the relevant paragraphs from the agreement.

Of course, one could argue that in that case, Nokia should be releasing its software so that Sony Ericsson users can use it etc.

A few complaints to national competition authorities might raise some interesting results.

Except it really doesn't work that way. The fact that Microsoft has a monopoly in Windows isn't what got them in trouble. What got them in trouble was that they used their monopoly in abusive ways. They used their monopoly in one area (operating systems) to illegally interfere with businesses in another area (web browsers and Netscape). Mac hardware and the Mac OS are not two seperate markets. They are a single market. MS also used their monopoly to force PC makers to include Windows on all of their computers, even if the customer didn't want it included. There probably would have been nothing illegal if they had told HP that they had to exclude Windows an certain models, but forcing them to include it and pay for it was an abuse of their monopoly.

Apple doesn't abuse their "monopoly" (and I use that term very loosely!) in OS X. They don't force other companies to buy it and include it with their hardware. If they chose not to license it to you, that's their [perfectly legal] choice.

Idiots

If Microsoft wanted to write into their EULA that windows should only be installable on Dells they "could". It wouldn't be smart but they could if they wanted to.

"Robert" should be kept away from the press. What a moron. This company will soon be a footnote. I'm sure they have a legal departmen that matches Apple's in every way<sarcasm>

If Apple could shut down Thinksecret over rumors they're going to do a number on this little company that makes Thinksecret look like a love tap on the ass.

In fact, MS's Vista license does actually preclude you from installing certain versions on virtual machines. I think they relaxed it a bit from the original version; but by license, you are not allowed to install the lower end versions of Vista on virtual PCs. So you could have a Dell running a fully license version of Vista. But if you then wanted to buy the retail version of the low-end Vista (whatever it's called...who can keep track!) and install it in a virtual machine running on that Dell, you would be in violation of the license agreement. It's MS's property that you are licensing, and they have decided that they don't want their product used in that way...perfectly legal!

[canucklehead]

UUGGGGHHH! Another stupid statement.

Mac is a BRAND that belongs to APPLE, the same way that an XBox is a brand of Microsoft's or a Camry is a brand of Toyota. The Mac brand (let me repeat) BELONGS TO APPLE.

Macs are not synonymous to PCs. A Mac is a brand of computer, just as a Sony Vaio or Dell Dimension is a brand of computer. A PC is not a brand of computer but is pretty much synonymous with being a computer. It is a short for "Personal Computer". A Mac, however, is a different class of computer that runs an operating system currently known as OSX (also a brand that BELONGS TO APPLE), whereas most other computers run the Windows operating system that is a brand of Microsoft. Microsoft has different usage terms for their OS than does Apple and because these OSs are owned by the company that developed them, that company has the right to state what those usage terms are.

It is not good that the Mac is a monopoly of Apple. Mac OS X should run on any Intel hardware, being made by Apple or others. Greed is never good. And we want a Mac miniTOWER that Apple does no make, but others can offer. And so on. Windows people can choose the hardware they want from a myriad of vendors. Mac users cannot. That is not good for the Mac community. And by Mac I mean Mac OS X, of course. Apple, move on!

[Wiggin]

And Microsoft said that their software was their software, and they had the right to integrate Internet Explorer into their software.

At issue is whether Apple's EULA is legal to be bound to a specific hardware. Microsoft's "EULA", in essence, was to force everyone to use IE if they wanted Windows. The federal anti-trust regulators here in the US and in Europe decided that Microsoft had too much of a monopoly in the browser department, and forced MS to 'play nice' with other software makers. Why shouldn't Apple be told to 'play nice' with other hardware makers?

The saving grace for Apple is that they're still a two-bit player, relatively speaking.

I disagree. The issues was not that they had a monopoly in the browser department. As I stated above, the issue is that they used a monopoly in one market to gain advantage in another market. The courts viewed the OS and the browser as two seperate markets. The rulings were that MS illegally "tied" the two seperate things together. No court has ever said that MS can't make Internet Explorer and include it with every copy of Windows. They said they can't tie it to Windows the way they did.

So, Apple's "saving grace," if you must use that term, is that Mac hardware and the Mac OS are NOT two seperate markets. They are sold as a single product. You are buying the hardware and licensing the software (which you can pay to upgrade if you chose). And the last time I checked, Apple's OS department isn't forcing Apple's hardware department to sell hardware with the Mac OS against their will! So unless Apple is threatening to sue itself, there really is no comparison between Apple's monopoly and Microsoft's monopoly.

[canucklehead]

You cannot have a monopoly on something that is your own brand. Windows is a brand that belongs to Microsoft and OSX is a brand that belongs to Apple. Neither of these companies can have a monopoly on a brand they created.

Microsoft's monopoly wasn't in Windows but in their share of computer operating systems and their influence as a result of this share. This share allowed them the ability to dictate to people what they use on their computers and this is where it got them into trouble.

Apple doesn't have a monopoly because their OS is tied to their hardware (Macs). The features they put into their OS only goes so far as to impact their own computer brand (Macs), not the computer industry. However, as Apple delves into sectors of the computer industry (i.e. music, Internet, etc.), they are entering markets that are no longer tied to their own brand and are becoming increasingly at risk of creating monopolies. But these monopolies are separate from the issue we're discussing here, which is the fact that OSX is an Apple product, tied to the Mac, which is another Apple product. There is no possibility of a monopoly here.

Except it really doesn't work that way. The fact that Microsoft has a monopoly in Windows isn't what got them in trouble. What got them in trouble was that they used their monopoly in abusive ways. They used their monopoly in one area (operating systems) to illegally interfere with businesses in another area (web browsers and Netscape). Mac hardware and the Mac OS are not two seperate markets. They are a single market. MS also used their monopoly to force PC makers to include Windows on all of their computers, even if the customer didn't want it included. There probably would have been nothing illegal if they had told HP that they had to exclude Windows an certain models, but forcing them to include it and pay for it was an abuse of their monopoly.

Apple doesn't abuse their "monopoly" (and I use that term very loosely!) in OS X. They don't force other companies to buy it and include it with their hardware. If they chose not to license it to you, that's their [perfectly legal] choice.



In fact, MS's Vista license does actually preclude you from installing certain versions on virtual machines. I think they relaxed it a bit from the original version; but by license, you are not allowed to install the lower end versions of Vista on virtual PCs. So you could have a Dell running a fully license version of Vista. But if you then wanted to buy the retail version of the low-end Vista (whatever it's called...who can keep track!) and install it in a virtual machine running on that Dell, you would be in violation of the license agreement. It's MS's property that you are licensing, and they have decided that they don't want their product used in that way...perfectly legal!

[minderbinder]

At issue is whether Apple's EULA is legal to be bound to a specific hardware. Microsoft's "EULA", in essence, was to force everyone to use IE if they wanted Windows. The federal anti-trust regulators here in the US and in Europe decided that Microsoft had too much of a monopoly in the browser department, and forced MS to 'play nice' with other software makers. Why shouldn't Apple be told to 'play nice' with other hardware makers?

Because MS had a monopoly in the computer OS market (not the browser market) and was leveraging it to help their other products. Apple doesn't have a monopoly.

[mstone]

Right now Apple depends only on the legal system to protect their software copyrights. There is a warning message buried in the OS code that discourages piracy, but that is about it. But way back in the early days they used a ROM chip to prevent others from running the OS on non-Apple computers. Since they are clearly capable of hardware locking their OS, if necessary, they could easily choose to go that route again. Either way you can depend on Apple protecting their brand.

[sandor]

Build me an equivalent Dual Xeon DELL System.



holy crap. are people that stupid??


here you go mdriftmeyer....

http://homepage.mac.com/sduling/dell.jpg

http://homepage.mac.com/sduling/apple.jpg

The dual quad core 2.8 ghz mac pro with 2 GB ram and a 256 MB video card is $2800
the dual quad core 2.8 ghz dell with 2 GB of ram and a 256 MB video card is $3800

[minderbinder]

Right now Apple depends only on the legal system to protect their software copyrights. There is a warning message buried in the OS code that discourages piracy, but that is about it. But way back in the early days they used a ROM chip to prevent others from running the OS on non-Apple computers. Since they are clearly capable of hardware locking their OS, if necessary, they could easily choose to go that route again. Either way you can depend on Apple protecting their brand.

I don't know about that. In the early days there was little danger of other people building mac hardware without permission just because the mac hardware was so vastly different from PC hardware so the job would be extremely difficult.

Now that their hardware is nearly identical to PC hardware, they can try to do hardware locking, and they've tried at least a little bit already. But I don't know how successful they can be. Obviously they could make their machines more different than PC hardware, or add some sort of hardware copy protection, but that would take away some of the benefit of using commodity hardware not to mention I don't know how they'd do it while still letting the OS run on all the intel macs already in use that didn't have new hardware protection.

Considering that apple has so far failed to stop hackintoshes, it seems like their best bet is either the legal front, or the possibility that "clones" just don't end up selling well.

[tink]

Macs and OSX are parts of Apple's brand. They created the systems. They own the brands. What do you not understand?

What you said is like saying there is no competition in the Civic market because only Honda makes Civics.

Get real.

Getting a little snippy aren't we.:no:
Yes, Macs and OSX are parts of Apple's brand. Yes they own the brands. I think everyone has a pretty firm grasp on that, thanks. I'll throw your question back at you; What do you not understand about the definition of Monopoly?

Where can you by another computer running Mac OSX. Apple has the monopoly for the Mac market. I've only been able to by Macs running the Mac OS from Apple since my first Mac in 1987. ( Except for that 1 Power Computing box back 11 years ago or so), but...

The car analogy is getting old and never worked for me. Honda doesn't have a monopoly on the roads or the gas they operate on, just their brand. Dell or HP doesn't have a monopoly on the operating system they run on, just their brand. Apple has a monopoly on the operating system and they have their brand. No other brand drives on the Mac OSX road, no other brand runs on that Mac OSX fuel.:devil:

[junebughunter]

I hope they start selling Nokia phones with apple software on them too. :no:

And when can I get nokia software on my PC?

[canucklehead]

Okay, a monopoly has to be for an industry that is not owned by any one company or individual. It cannot be for a brand. A brand, by definition, is owned by the creator of the brand and has exclusive rights to how that brand is used and promoted (unless they grant those rights to a third party).

It really is that simple.

Getting a little snippy aren't we.:no:
Yes, Macs and OSX are parts of Apple's brand. Yes they own the brands. I think everyone has a pretty firm grasp on that, thanks. I'll throw your question back at you; What do you not understand about the definition of Monopoly?

Where can you by another computer running Mac OSX. Apple has the monopoly for the Mac market. I've only been able to by Macs running the Mac OS from Apple since my first Mac in 1987. ( Except for that 1 Power Computing box back 11 years ago or so), but...

The car analogy is getting old and never worked for me. Honda doesn't have a monopoly on the roads or the gas they operate on, just their brand. Dell or HP doesn't have a monopoly on the operating system they run on, just their brand. Apple has a monopoly on the operating system and they have their brand. No other brand drives on the Mac OSX road, no other brand runs on that Mac OSX fuel.:devil:

[ThunkDifferent.com]

They got guts... but it will take a lot more than that to win this one. If they are "pre-pared" who is backing them? Apple just got th top HP attorney, and a pretty big increase in sales. Many court cases don't even need to be one by a verdict, economies of scale and bleeding a defense dry usually does the trick.

Thunk Different. (http://thunkdifferent.com)

http://thunkdifferent.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/macnmandy.jpg

[minderbinder]

Where can you by another computer running Mac OSX. Apple has the monopoly for the Mac market.

And Coke has the "monopoly" for the Coke market. And McDonalds has the "monopoly" for the Big Mac market.

Where can you buy another can filled with Coke other than the Coke company?

How can you possibly claim to understand what monopoly really means when your "definition" makes EVERY product from EVERY company a monopoly? If you're going to keep insisting that Apple has a monopoly, please stop ignoring this question and answer it.

[junebughunter]

And Coke has the "monopoly" for the Coke market. And McDonalds has the "monopoly" for the Big Mac market.

Where can you buy another can filled with Coke other than the Coke company?

How can you possibly claim to understand what monopoly really means when your "definition" makes EVERY product from EVERY company a monopoly? If you're going to keep insisting that Apple has a monopoly, please stop ignoring this question and answer it.

agreed!

What minderbinder is arguing, without even realizing it is that all software should be open.

I like software embedded with my hardware, it always works better. That is in a sense what OS X is. You buy the hardware you get the software.

Why can't I install segway software on my ATV? Why can't I run my iPhone software on other hardware. Pretty much every device has with a microprocessor has software written for it. Why can't I run it on other hardware.

I don't ask these questions, cause I know. That's not how it was designed.

[Richardlol]

If I buy this box made with standard components then I own it. If I buy a legal retail copy of OSX from them then I own that too. If I then pay a contractor a fee to install software I own on a box that I own then the only entity voilating anything is ME for not following the terms of the user agreement. As long as the company is a legit OSX reseller, then I don't see how they are in trouble.

Now Apple can surely come after ME, but that's a losing game. Or Apple could alter new versions of OSX and OSX updates so they would not work on my machine - but it seems like the risk here is on the consumer - Apple could try to enforce the user agreement or make their box a brick.

I just don't see the legal problem with selling the box itself. Standard components, nothing risky there. And I don't see a problem with selling a retail copy of OSX. Lots of places sell OSX so as long as they are a legit retailer then no prob. The only sticky area seems to be installing OSX on the box, but as an agent of the buyer, it seems like the buyer bears that risk as long as they complete the purchase of both items before doing the install.

Depending upon the marketing, maybe Apple could go after the manufacturer for encouraging others to violate their user agreement?

[canucklehead]

You seem to be using a Webster's dictionary definition of monopoly to debate your points. This is invalid as we are talking about the legal definition, as it applies to business. Here's one:

"An economic advantage held by one or more persons or companies deriving from the exclusive power to carry on a particular business or trade or to manufacture and sell a particular item, thereby suppressing competition and allowing such persons or companies to raise the price of a product or service substantially above the price that would be established by a free market."

The specific business or trade here is the computer industry. Legally, there is no such thing as a Mac industry, as that is a brand owned by Apple. The Mac is a part of the free market we know as the computer industry. If you don't want to pay the higher prices (debatable) for a Mac, you have the option to by a PC. You just won't get the benefits associated with buying a Mac.

Apple does not have exclusive power to carry on the computer industry. I has exclusive power over its own brand, and that is the way it should be. That is why it is not a monopoly, in the legal sense.

Getting a little snippy aren't we.:no:
Yes, Macs and OSX are parts of Apple's brand. Yes they own the brands. I think everyone has a pretty firm grasp on that, thanks. I'll throw your question back at you; What do you not understand about the definition of Monopoly?

Where can you by another computer running Mac OSX. Apple has the monopoly for the Mac market. I've only been able to by Macs running the Mac OS from Apple since my first Mac in 1987. ( Except for that 1 Power Computing box back 11 years ago or so), but...

The car analogy is getting old and never worked for me. Honda doesn't have a monopoly on the roads or the gas they operate on, just their brand. Dell or HP doesn't have a monopoly on the operating system they run on, just their brand. Apple has a monopoly on the operating system and they have their brand. No other brand drives on the Mac OSX road, no other brand runs on that Mac OSX fuel.:devil:

[tink]

That's just stupid.

The "given TYPE of product" is a computer. Not a mac - if you don't want a mac, you just buy a PC which serves the same purpose.

Aside from that, doesn't your logic imply that EVERY company has a monopoly if "type of product" is defined as the brand of product? Of course there's competition in the mac market. It's called a PC, and it's the reason Macs have single digit market share.

And for the record, I didn't say it was bad/illegal/whatever. I'm just saying it simply IS NOT a monopoly.

Lots of snippy people today.:no:
I don't think anything about this is stupid. You cannot buy a Mac OS computer from anywhere but Apple. I cannot just by a Dell or an HP to run the Mac OS on. If I want to run the Mac OS I have to buy Apple, thus the monopoly.

Companies can have a monopoly on their brand. That is the purpose of Trademark law and Tradedress both provide an effective monopoly for that branding that does not expire unless challenged an overturned by USPTO.

Once again there is no competition in the Mac market for other systems running the Mac OS. If I have tens of thousands invested in Mac software I cannot buy hardware for the OS from anyone else but Apple.

[canucklehead]

When you buy a copy of software (or music or movies), you DO NOT own it. You've purchased a license to use it and that license comes with terms of usage.

There are way too many people who do not understand the concept of copyright or intellectual property and I think that is where the problem lies. You can try to challenge the laws (as this company is trying to do with their Open Computers) but until the laws change (and they are not likely going to be), you need to understand how these laws work.

Again, you are buying the right to use ... you do not buy ownership of the product.

If I buy this box made with standard components then I own it. If I buy a legal retail copy of OSX from them then I own that too. If I then pay a contractor a fee to install software I own on a box that I own then the only entity voilating anything is ME for not following the terms of the user agreement. As long as the company is a legit OSX reseller, then I don't see how they are in trouble.

Now Apple can surely come after ME, but that's a losing game. Or Apple could alter new versions of OSX and OSX updates so they would not work on my machine - but it seems like the risk here is on the consumer - Apple could try to enforce the user agreement or make their box a brick.

I just don't see the legal problem with selling the box itself. Standard components, nothing risky there. And I don't see a problem with selling a retail copy of OSX. Lots of places sell OSX so as long as they are a legit retailer then no prob. The only sticky area seems to be installing OSX on the box, but as an agent of the buyer, it seems like the buyer bears that risk as long as they complete the purchase of both items before doing the install.

Depending upon the marketing, maybe Apple could go after the manufacturer for encouraging others to violate their user agreement?

[hmurchison]

Many are getting confused here regarding monopoly.

Monoplies are not inherently bad nor are they illegal. It is the "abuse" of monopolistic powers that draw the ire of our legal system.

The problem I see is the errorneous correlation that suggests monopoly="bad"

[fraklinc]

Has anyone notice that according to Google earth psystar is Located on a residential adress :lol: i guess it's time to start calling your credit card company, just go to google maps & click on 10645 sw 112 st miami fl 33176 satellite view

[Chris_CA]

If If I buy a legal retail copy of OSX from them then I own that too.No you don not. You simply have a license to use that OS in accordance with that license

[minderbinder]

Okay, a monopoly has to be for an industry that is not owned by any one company or individual. It cannot be for a brand. A brand, by definition, is owned by the creator of the brand and has exclusive rights to how that brand is used and promoted (unless they grant those rights to a third party).

It really is that simple.

It really is. But yet some people can't understand it. I almost feel like some people are intentionally ignoring the facts and just believing whatever supports their position.

I just don't see the legal problem with selling the box itself. Standard components, nothing risky there. And I don't see a problem with selling a retail copy of OSX. Lots of places sell OSX so as long as they are a legit retailer then no prob. The only sticky area seems to be installing OSX on the box, but as an agent of the buyer, it seems like the buyer bears that risk as long as they complete the purchase of both items before doing the install.

Depending upon the marketing, maybe Apple could go after the manufacturer for encouraging others to violate their user agreement?

They're probably fine with selling the box. The problem is telling people they can install OSX, and providing the osx86 hacks that enable the installation. And especially pre-installing it for people - it's one thing for individuals to violate the EULA in their own homes, another for a company to do it on a grand scale.

[tink]

And Coke has the "monopoly" for the Coke market. And McDonalds has the "monopoly" for the Big Mac market.

Where can you buy another can filled with Coke other than the Coke company?

How can you possibly claim to understand what monopoly really means when your "definition" makes EVERY product from EVERY company a monopoly? If you're going to keep insisting that Apple has a monopoly, please stop ignoring this question and answer it.

Those examples are Trademarks and they provide their owner monopoly rights to their brand. That is the right provided by Trademark Law.

The Operating System / Computer market is more complicated because of the crossover between Trademarks, Patents etc.

I didn't make the "definition" and the definition I sited does not make EVERY product from EVERY company a monopoly. Some are and some aren't.

[minderbinder]

Companies can have a monopoly on their brand.

That's your problem right there.

Companies have a TRADEMARK on their brand. They have EXCLUSIVE USE of their brand. But the use of their brand doesn't constitute a monopoly, at least not by the definition of monopoly used in the legal system.

You're using a casual, non-legal definition of monopoly in a discussion about legality. It just confuses things. "MONOPOLY" has a specific legal definition. If you're not going to stick to that definition, please find a different term to describe what you mean.

Nobody else can make a Mac. Apple has exclusive rights to making Macs. But that doesn't mean they have a monopoly.

Many are getting confused here regarding monopoly.

Monoplies are not inherently bad nor are they illegal. It is the "abuse" of monopolistic powers that draw the ire of our legal system.

The problem I see is the errorneous correlation that suggests monopoly="bad"

That's not the real confusion, it's the people insisting Apple is a monopoly just because they are the only company selling apple products. Such a circular definition would make every company a monopoly.

[tink]

You seem to be using a Webster's dictionary definition of monopoly to debate your points. This is invalid as we are talking about the legal definition, as it applies to business. Here's one:

"An economic advantage held by one or more persons or companies deriving from the exclusive power to carry on a particular business or trade or to manufacture and sell a particular item, thereby suppressing competition and allowing such persons or companies to raise the price of a product or service substantially above the price that would be established by a free market."

The specific business or trade here is the computer industry. Legally, there is no such thing as a Mac industry, as that is a brand owned by Apple. The Mac is a part of the free market we know as the computer industry. If you don't want to pay the higher prices (debatable) for a Mac, you have the option to by a PC. You just won't get the benefits associated with buying a Mac.

Apple does not have exclusive power to carry on the computer industry. I has exclusive power over its own brand, and that is the way it should be. That is why it is not a monopoly, in the legal sense.
I'm not using Webster's dictionary definition. If you look at my post you will see I linked to the vary same definition your siting.

[canucklehead]

Okay, you need to learn the meaning of the word brand. Here are a couple of definitions for you:

"A name or symbol used to identify the source of goods or services, and to differentiate them from those of others. Branding protects a seller's products against those marketed by competitors and imitators and helps consumers identify the quality, consistency, and imagery of a preferred source."

or

"A unique and identifiable symbol, association, name or trademark which serves to differentiate competing products or services. Both a physical and emotional trigger to create a relationship between consumers and the product/service."

The Mac is a brand that Apple uses to distinguish it's computers from those of the rest of the market, a market in which it competes. Saying the Apple Macintosh is the same as saying Dell Dimension or Sony Vaio.

Your saying that Apple has a monopoly on Macs is like saying Sony has a monopoly on Vaios. It's a retarded statement! Just because a Mac is a more unique computer than a Vaio is doesn't change anything. A Mac is a part of a greater industry - personal computers. Macs are not an industry in itself.

I truly hope you understand that. If not, you're really more dense than I originally thought.

Those examples are Trademarks and they provide their owner monopoly rights to their brand. That is the right provided by Trademark Law.

The Operating System / Computer market is more complicated because of the crossover between Trademarks, Patents etc.

I didn't make the "definition" and the definition I sited does not make EVERY product from EVERY company a monopoly. Some are and some aren't.

[minderbinder]

Those examples are Trademarks and they provide their owner monopoly rights to their brand. That is the right provided by Trademark Law.

The Operating System / Computer market is more complicated because of the crossover between Trademarks, Patents etc.

I didn't make the "definition" and the definition I sited does not make EVERY product from EVERY company a monopoly. Some are and some aren't.

Yes, those examples are trademarks. And they provide exclusive rights to use of that brand, provided by trademark law. But those aren't called "monopoly" rights.

The Operating System / Computer market isn't different just because it's more complicated. A monopoly is defined as control of a commodity. A brand is NOT a commodity, it's one piece of the pie for that given commodity.

Coke has part of the soda commodity pie. Apple has part of the computer commodity pie. Honda has part of the automotive commodity pie. None have a monopoly of any kind.

And please give an example of a product that wouldn't be a monopoly under your definition?

"A situation in which a single company or group owns all or nearly all of the market for a given type of product or service. By definition, monopoly is characterized by an absence of competition."

The given type of product is a computer.
And there's no question that apple has competition, all the other computers for sale. So by YOUR definition, apple is not a monopoly.

[canucklehead]

Okay. Yes you did. However, you clearly do not understand what it means. The definition you posted:

"A situation in which a single company or group owns all or nearly all of the market for a given type of product or service. By definition, monopoly is characterized by an absence of competition."

I've bolded the section you are ignoring or misunderstanding. The market in this case is personal computers, NOT MACs. Because a Mac is part of Apple's brand, it cannot be the industry/market. There is no Honda industry, no XBox industry, no Vaio industry... and there is not Mac industry. There are however, automobile, game console and personal computer industries.

You are missing a huge distinction here.

I'm not using Webster's dictionary definition. If you look at my post you will see I linked to the vary same definition your siting.

[tink]

That's your problem right there.

Companies have a TRADEMARK on their brand. They have EXCLUSIVE USE of their brand. But the use of their brand doesn't constitute a monopoly, at least not by the definition of monopoly used in the legal system.

You're using a casual, non-legal definition of monopoly in a discussion about legality. It just confuses things. "MONOPOLY" has a specific legal definition. If you're not going to stick to that definition, please find a different term to describe what you mean.

Nobody else can make a Mac. Apple has exclusive rights to making Macs. But that doesn't mean they have a monopoly.



That's not the real confusion, it's the people insisting Apple is a monopoly just because they are the only company selling apple products. Such a circular definition would make every company a monopoly.

Yes there is lots of confusion over what constitutes Monopoly. I am not using the casual definition.

I am taking about the Mac OS market worth billions of dollars annually where there is only one player with a monopoly who controls the whole market.

There is no competition in the market and the monopoly is maintained through Trademark, Copywrite and Patents. Through the use of Trademark, Copywrite and Patents no other company can make a product to run the OS that is protected by Trademark, Copywrite and Patents.

Many, many companies would like a piece of this market (like the one this article is about) but they are not allowed to compete. This is the textbook definition of Monopoly...

[minderbinder]

I am taking about the Mac OS market worth billions of dollars annually where there is only one player with a monopoly who controls the whole market.

I am taking about the Coca Cola market worth billions of dollars annually where there is only one player with a monopoly who controls the whole market.

I am taking about the Pepsi market worth billions of dollars annually where there is only one player with a monopoly who controls the whole market.

I am taking about the RC Cola market worth billions of dollars annually where there is only one player with a monopoly who controls the whole market.

Do you seriously think Pepsi should be able to make and sell Coke?

You're still confused - a monopoly is all of a TYPE OF PRODUCT, not all of a product. Computer is a type of product, mac is a product. With your interpretation, Dell and HP and Gateway all have monopolies as well. Must be nice for them to have no competition since nobody else makes a Dell or HP or Gateway box...

And you still haven't given an example showing that your confused definition doesn't define EVERY product as a monopoly. Why can't you give an example demonstrating that your definition doesn't define everything as a monopoly? (hint: because your definition is wrong, and it DOES do just that)

Really, why can't you answer that simple question?

[tink]

Yes there is lots of confusion over what constitutes Monopoly. I am not using the casual definition.

I am taking about the Mac OS market worth billions of dollars annually where there is only one player with a monopoly who controls the whole market.

There is no competition in the market and the monopoly is maintained through Trademark, Copywrite and Patents. Through the use of Trademark, Copywrite and Patents no other company can make a product to run the OS that is protected by Trademark, Copywrite and Patents.

Many, many companies would like a piece of this market (like the one this article is about) but they are not allowed to compete. This is the textbook definition of Monopoly...

Also, although I am a very happy Apple user and have introduced them into the company I work, as the purchaser of hardware and software for the company I am beholden to Apple for all Hardware for the software I have purchased.

As far as windows computers I've switched between Dell, HP and even Gateway in the last few years. The software purchased runs on all. If I choose not to run Apple Hardware now I will be out thousands of dollars of Mac OSX specific software that runs nowhere else but on Apple Hardware.

In addition based on the Windows Licence I can run Windows on the Apple hardware in emulation,or what ever. I cannot run the Mac OS on any other computer system natively or in emulation.

[canucklehead]

Again, this is where you are completely mistaken.

There is no Mac OS (OSX) market, PERIOD.

There is a computer operating system market. Competing products are OSX, Windows, Unix, Linux, etc. You can install any operating system on a Mac that you want, however, the Mac OS is made for the Mac (duh!). Apple chooses not to make their OS available for any other computer other than their own. If anything, this limits their market when compared to other options out there.

Many, many companies would like a piece of what market? The Mac Market? There is none. There is only a computer market. The OSX market? There is none. There is only an OS market. Why? Because a Mac and OSX are brands that belong to Apple and therefore cannot be markets in their own right. There are competing products to both Macs and OSX, products that have the same or similar functions as both of these products. Just because they're not as good as Apple's proprietary branded products is not Apple's fault.

What are you saying? Let's pretend you're a computer programmer who developed some application that does what other applications do, but just in a much more productive way. You brand it and put it out to market. Problem is, it only works on PCs (not Macs). Someone says you've got a monopoly on your product and tries to sue you for not making a Mac version. Where do you stand on this issue? You own this product and have the right to develop it however you want. If you don't want to make a Mac version, you don't have to. Nobody has the right to force you to port it over to Mac.

One thing I stated above that would be incorrect would be the assumption that it is possible to have a monopoly on your own product. It isn't. Your saying that Apple has a monopoly on Macs and OSX is simply wrong. Ownership of a product excludes the possibility of a monopoly. The term monopoly doesn't even apply. When you own something, it is yours and yours to do with as you please. When you have a monopoly, you are influencing an entire industry you do NOT own and do not have any rights to (other than the right to compete in that industry).

Apple owns Mac. Therefore the term monopoly isn't applicable.
Apple doesn't own the computing industry and clearly, Apple doesn't have a monopoly there.

Yes there is lots of confusion over what constitutes Monopoly. I am not using the casual definition.

I am taking about the Mac OS market worth billions of dollars annually where there is only one player with a monopoly who controls the whole market.

There is no competition in the market and the monopoly is maintained through Trademark, Copywrite and Patents. Through the use of Trademark, Copywrite and Patents no other company can make a product to run the OS that is protected by Trademark, Copywrite and Patents.

Many, many companies would like a piece of this market (like the one this article is about) but they are not allowed to compete. This is the textbook definition of Monopoly...

[canucklehead]

LOL! I think you're just as annoyed as I am!

Tink is just not getting it, is s(he)? How many times do we both need to say the same thing for it to sink in?

I suspect we are dealing with actual intellectual deficiencies here.

I am taking about the Coca Cola market worth billions of dollars annually where there is only one player with a monopoly who controls the whole market.

I am taking about the Pepsi market worth billions of dollars annually where there is only one player with a monopoly who controls the whole market.

I am taking about the RC Cola market worth billions of dollars annually where there is only one player with a monopoly who controls the whole market.

Do you seriously think Pepsi should be able to make and sell Coke?

You're still confused - a monopoly is all of a TYPE OF PRODUCT, not all of a product. Computer is a type of product, mac is a product. With your interpretation, Dell and HP and Gateway all have monopolies as well. Must be nice for them to have no competition since nobody else makes a Dell or HP or Gateway box...

And you still haven't given an example showing that your confused definition doesn't define EVERY product as a monopoly. Why can't you give an example demonstrating that your definition doesn't define everything as a monopoly? (hint: because your definition is wrong, and it DOES do just that)

Really, why can't you answer that simple question?

[minderbinder]

LOL! I think you're just as annoyed as I am!

Tink is just not getting it, is s(he)? How many times do we both need to say the same thing for it to sink in?

I suspect we are dealing with actual intellectual deficiencies here.

I think it's just stubbornness and a refusal to accept the facts.

He/she is convinced it must be a monopoly, therefore nothing will ever convince him/her otherwise.

[canucklehead]

And that is Apple's fault? You knew what the rules of the game were when you entered into it. Now that you've committed yourself to the platform, you don't like the rules and want to change them. That's fine. However, Apple doesn't owe you anything and buy purchasing their hardware/software, you entered into a legal agreement regarding how you will use their software. You might not like it but you agreed to it and therefore have to live with it.

By saying that it's wrong for Apple has a monopoly on Apple products and therefore, their terms of use should be challenged is a really stupid argument.

Sorry, it just is.

If I choose not to run Apple Hardware now I will be out thousands of dollars of Mac OSX specific software that runs nowhere else but on Apple Hardware.

[canucklehead]

And that is Apple's fault? You knew what the rules of the game were when you entered into it. Now that you've committed yourself to the platform, you don't like the rules and want to change them. That's fine. However, Apple doesn't owe you anything and by purchasing their hardware/software, you entered into a legal agreement regarding how you will use their software. You might not like it but you agreed to it and therefore have to live with it.

By saying that it's wrong for Apple to have a monopoly on Apple products and therefore, their terms of use should be challenged is a really stupid argument.

Sorry, it just is.

If I choose not to run Apple Hardware now I will be out thousands of dollars of Mac OSX specific software th