or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Pesky Psystar to emerge from Chapter 11 with new Mac offering
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Pesky Psystar to emerge from Chapter 11 with new Mac offering - Page 5

post #161 of 227
[QUOTE=skittlebrau79;1444462]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Halvri View Post

The version of Vista I'm talking about is the full direct install version of Ultimate. Microsoft specifically sells upgrade versions of Windows to people who already have another version of the operating system. If you buy Windows Vista Ultimate Upgrade and hack it to work as a full install, you just committed a crime, the same way as installing OS X on non-Apple hardware.

Companies price different versions of different operating systems differently because they serve different purposes. If Apple specifically markets and prices its software as an upgrade, subsidized by its hardware and you hack it, you have committed a crime. I don't care what jurisdiction you argue that in, you will be found guilty.


No, no company has age limits on purchasing software. How can they--do they require ID at the Apple store? I saw a very young high school aged girl buy an iPod Shuffle. She'll probably be the one to install it. It was only $60, she paid cash. I doubt in any court she could be held to the terms of the EULA. With click-wrap EULAs (like Mac OS X), the license agreement is not binding until the "End User" clicks agree because you cannot view the agreement until you install the software. In this case no contract can even be enforced until the user sits down at the computer and clicks Agree, in which case Mom can buy the software and little Johnny can install it.


There's nothing stopping people from making copies and distributing MP3 purchased from the Apple Store, now that there's no DRM. So that argument from the MPAA is moot.



Headquarters have no legal bearing. As long as you sell your products in the EU you are bound by their copyright and IP laws. Which is why the iPhone is required to be sold unlocked in France.

And don't talk about the US' "respect" for intellectual property. You have no clue how much "respect" US citizens actually have for IP until you go to a college campus and find the 8TB drives RAID'ed together full of ripped movies. A law is only as good if most people agree with it, and many people happen to disagree with this government's stance on IP. I know that doesn't make it legal or in some cases right, but it does show that many people disagree with the philosophy that they don't own the content they purchase.


I do have a problem with people pirating software. However that's not what is at issue here. The issue is whether people have the right to use the software as they see fit. What if I put in my EULA a line that said you can only install the software on pink computers with polka dots? Unless you read every line of the EULA, which includes the EULAs that may come down AFTER you installed the software, you (and not me) could be held liable for damages done by "the software" when it is run on computers without polka dots. You don't find that incredulous? Yet it's legal, until a court says it's not. And you thought we were a litigious society now, wait until the courts have to approve every EULA.


Buzz. Wrong. My hackintosh has the proper drives thanks mostly to Apple, thanks some to open source. I have the same video card, high end, that was in the Mac Pros--in my "iMac" replacement. The drivers were part of 10.5. It's just that Apple only had them available for Mac Pros, and only as a ridiculously priced add on. The iMacs were (are) stuck with a 2006-era video card.


Never said it was. It is WAY better though then the Penryn Apple is currently putting into the iMacs. Even the newest iMacs get smoked by my 8 month old computer. You are comparing my $1300 late 2008 Hackintosh to a mid 2009 Xeon Mac Pro that costs $3000 when you add in the 6GB RAM, video card and extra USB ports I have. You don't find that funny? And you know what: for tasks that only use 4 CPUs (which is basically EVERYTHING I do) I'd bet my computer gives the Xeon Mac Pros a run for their money, all $3000 of it.

They don't own the content they purchase. If you undo that tenant of IP law, you might as well undo the entire thing. You have to understand, everything becomes entirely relativistic without the idea of licensing. Take your idea to it logical extreme and why should I not be able to make copies for all of my friends of that software? After all, I bought it and I own it, I'll do whatever the hell I want with it. Since I bought it, it might as well be like a home movie I made. You're moving into a sense of legal relativism I couldn't care less about. I mean seriously, I'm an Apple shareholder, so as a partial owner of the company, why does Steve Jobs get to call the shots?

And yes, several software companies require you be a certain age to purchase software (many actually include that clause in their EULAs whether or not they're well enforced). In the case of video games and movies, the government requires the age be a certain level before purchase. And as for installation, if you deny the terms of the EULA, you call Apple and they will take back the software and refund you for its purchase. Even beyond that though, Apple's agreement is easily available on it website to view beforehand. You had every opportunity to view it before the purchase.

Anyway, moving on, do you really envision a world where a court would uphold an EULA based on the color of a PC? I mean honestly, there's no tangible benefit to either the business or the customer in that situation and quite honestly, it was a fairly trite point to make. I dunno where you're forming your legal perspective from, but there does have to be a tangible point in an EULA for it to stand.

And please stop complaining about Apple's video cards. The 9400m is not a two year old graphics card, it's actually a higher end card that either Dell or HP offer in their all-in-one computers and in regards to what I'm assuming you're referring directly to (the GT120), AIO computers do, in fact, have to take thermal output into consideration.

The minute you said "and from open source" you proved my point for me. Apple alone does not provide you with the drivers you need to create that hackintosh. However, I'd like to ask a larger question: what exactly are you doing with the machine that you need that kind of hardware for? All of the major games that would use it are programmed for Windows and I've fairly certain the CUDA firmware update will not work on your hackintosh anyway (at least not without substantial hassle).

And again, it's not surprising to me that your rig might outpace a Xeon. There are several things they do to Xeons that actually slow them down in comparison to a normal i7 in order to ensure longevity and stability. The Mac Pros are server workstations and in comparison to their direct competition (once again from Dell and HP or even Sun Microsystems), the Mac Pros are actually a really great deal.

I have to agree with the other poster, though, you're comparing desktop components to mobile components with no regards to their inherent differences. The idea that Apple doesn't make something, so you can just steal from it is just dumb from both a legal and moral perspective.
post #162 of 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

You dont find it funny that you are comparing desktop components to mobile components in an AIO?

No it's not funny. It's just matter of fact. Thats why I could never buy an iMac; it's a crummy performance-wise and in terms of future-proofing because it's an AIO.

Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

You earlier posts suggest that because Apple doesnt offer the exact product you want that Psystar is allowed to bypass any right that Apple has for licensing their copyrighted material, simply because they bought a copy of the OS. You dont find that funny?

I can't really say much about Psystar because I have no clue how they operate. But yes it's my opinion that if you buy a piece of software, you have every right to use that software in any manner you see fit. You cannot duplicate it since that's not a usage of the software, but you can install it on any computer you want, delete files it creates, run any tools you want on the software, or put it in your toaster for all I care.
post #163 of 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by skittlebrau79 View Post

No it's not funny. It's just matter of fact. Thats why I could never buy an iMac; it's a crummy performance-wise and in terms of future-proofing because it's an AIO.

By that same token ALL notebooks fall into that category because they cost more for less performance than a desktop, but I doubt you’d disparage them. If you can’t see that the AIO appeals to certain people or that Apple’s desktop line, because of the iMac, is is the only major vendor with a growing desktop margin then I guess you’ll only continue to see things from your personal wants and desires, and not from the market as a whole.

Quote:
IBut yes it's my opinion that if you buy a piece of software, you have every right to use that software in any manner you see fit.

The operative word is ‘you.’ Psystar is not the end use, they are company that is acting as an illegal licensee of Mac OS X.

Quote:
You cannot duplicate it since that's not a usage of the software, but you can install it on any computer you want, delete files it creates, run any tools you want on the software, or put it in your toaster for all I care.

The OS was duplicated when they, not you, installed it on HDDs. The original is still on the disk, the duplicate of this copyrighted and patented code is on the HDD.

You can write a story about Holden Caufield as an old man and read it to your kids, but you can’t profit from it without consent of the creator of the character, J.D. Salinger.

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/20...er-in-the-rye/
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #164 of 227
Check this out!
I already have on my current PC the following:
C2D Quad 6600 CPU
4GB RAM
2 X 320 GB HDs
DVD-RW
GeForce 9800GTX+

All I need to buy now is:
Replace current MB with a Gigabyte EP45-UD3L Mother board: ~$100
EFI-X V1.1: $235
============
$335

Of course, I already have the Leopard install DVD.

The beauty of EFI-X is that All I have to do is connect it to an internal USB2 port and reinstall windows and OS X. No need for any hacks, can update OS X freely - directly from apple.

How cool is that? This is the Mac I wanted all the time and here it was $335 away from me!

Some links for the EFI-X USB device:
http://www.efi-x.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gK13...eature=related

EFI-X are also going to release EFI-X Pro, a PCI-E card that will be even faster and more powerful! W00t!
post #165 of 227
It's not about the EULA. What Psystar is doing would be illegal no matter what the EULA says. They are manufacturing and selling Macintosh computers, which they have no right to do under law.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #166 of 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nano_tube View Post

[]
Of course, I already have the Leopard install DVD.

The beauty of EFI-X is that All I have to do is connect it to an internal USB2 port and reinstall windows and OS X. No need for any hacks, can update OS X freely - directly from apple.

How cool is that? This is the Mac I wanted all the time and here it was $335 away from me!
[]

As previously discussed many times over, except for the EULA with is essentially a non-issue, that is a completely legal solution for an end-user. This becomes a problem if a company sells machines with EFI-X chips -AND- Mac OS X preinstalled. EFI-X has already dropped one US reseller of their product because they were going to sell machines with Mac OS X preinstalled.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #167 of 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

As previously discussed many times over, except for the EULA with is essentially a non-issue, that is a completely legal solution for an end-user. This becomes a problem if a company sells machines with EFI-X chips -AND- Mac OS X preinstalled. EFI-X has already dropped one US reseller of their product because they were going to sell machines with Mac OS X preinstalled.

Of course. As I said before, if Psystar are breaking laws than they should burn. I for one am very curious to see who is supporting Psystar in the shadows cause it is pretty obvious that there is someone like that.

Anyway, this EFI-X chip really changes everything for me.
Can't wait to start cause my old PowerMac G5 2Ghz is so slow it is driving me insane... not to mention CPU A's fan revving up for no reason what so ever - even if the mac is idle with no apps open.
post #168 of 227
Really? I had no idea it was illegal "under law" to manufacture computers that are Apple compatible. Can someone point out such a law? It sounds hard to believe. Remember, obama's DOJ is very attuned to anti-trust. Now is not the time to crush fledgling new American businesses. Yes I know how good apple is, but there are some principles in life above aapple's wellbeing. But in this forum maybe not... Lol
post #169 of 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by bwik View Post

Really? I had no idea it was illegal "under law" to manufacture computers that are Apple compatible. Can someone point out such a law? It sounds hard to believe. Remember, obama's DOJ is very attuned to anti-trust. Now is not the time to crush fledgling new American businesses. Yes I know how good apple is, but there are some principles in life above aapple's wellbeing. But in this forum maybe not... Lol

1) Who are you replying to?

2) I see no posts that state any such thing about it being illegal to make an OS X “compatible” machine.

3) It’s the installation by the reseller without permission that is the issue here.

4) I’m still curious the consumer or Psystar wins if they theoretically win the case and are allowed to operate as they are. Anyone care to tackle that query?
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #170 of 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by bwik View Post

Really? I had no idea it was illegal "under law" to manufacture computers that are Apple compatible. Can someone point out such a law? It sounds hard to believe. Remember, obama's DOJ is very attuned to anti-trust. Now is not the time to crush fledgling new American businesses. Yes I know how good apple is, but there are some principles in life above aapple's wellbeing. But in this forum maybe not... Lol

Just so you know, Obama's technology consultant specifically referred to Steve Jobs as a god and both the Obamas and the Bidens are known avid Mac users. That said, if a company sells hardware with EFI-X booters built-in when there's literally no reason they would need it other than to run OS X, then it becomes quite transparent what's going on.

Fledgeling new business? That's what you're gonna call Psystar? It never ceases to amaze me how piss poor an understanding of american law some people on this forum have. Worse yet, I think several posters are just willfully negligent (this guy being an example).
post #171 of 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by Halvri View Post

That said, if a company sells hardware with EFI-X booters built-in when there's literally no reason they would need it other than to run OS X, then it becomes quite transparent what's going on.

True, but there is nothing illegal with the sale of such a device if there is no patented HW or copyrighted firmware being used without permission. Its like those headshops that sell tobacco water pipes and those plans or kits for home breweries that state that you arent allowed to build them.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #172 of 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

True, but there is nothing illegal with the sale of such a device if there is no patented HW or copyrighted firmware being used without permission. It’s like those headshops that sell “tobacco” water pipes and those plans or kits for home breweries that state that you aren’t allowed to build them.

Agreed, I just hope no such thing catches on because I'm becoming quite annoyed with the utter lack of respect for intellectual property law in this country. This "I see it so it's mine" mentality is rather disgusting. The idea of ten percent of a customer base who happen to be unsatisfied trying to dictate terms to the other 90% who are satisfied is pretty offensive.
post #173 of 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by Halvri View Post

Agreed, I just hope no such thing catches on because I'm becoming quite annoyed with the utter lack of respect for intellectual property law in this country. This "I see it so it's mine" mentality is rather disgusting. The idea of ten percent of a customer base who happen to be unsatisfied trying to dictate terms to the other 90% who are satisfied is pretty offensive.

Well, I find the "prevent consumers from using their own licensed products" kick to be just one big prima donna act. Consumers have a wide legal berth. There has been a lot of push and pull between the MPAA, RIAA, SPA regarding rights, and the various consumers (including the use of bundled products). A lot of their talking points are nothing more than baseless, industrial messaging designed to expand their profit base and scare people. TV could argue you can't TiVo their programs. Music makers could argue you can't record a cassette tape. And on and on. It is their job to try to make assertions because sometimes they get lucky. But the opinion of IP holders is not a holy thing. Society as a whole balances their rights against the freedoms of fair use, privacy and many other issues relating to this case. Perhaps it is none of Apple's business what Psystar is doing with these OS copies. For example.
post #174 of 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by bwik View Post

Remember, obama's DOJ is very attuned to anti-trust. Now is not the time to crush fledgling new American businesses. Yes I know how good apple is, but there are some principles in life above aapple's wellbeing.

Why are you bringing up the anti-trust question 8 months after the judge dismissed that argument?

http://www.macworld.com/article/1369...1/psystar.html

Do you know ANY facts in this case?

Quote:
Well, I find the "prevent consumers from using their own licensed products" kick to be just one big prima donna act.

Psystar is not a consumer. Remember they're a "fledgling business".

Quote:
Consumers have a wide legal berth.

Psystar is not a consumer.


Quote:
There has been a lot of push and pull between the MPAA, RIAA, SPA regarding rights, and the various consumers (including the use of bundled products). A lot of their talking points are nothing more than baseless, industrial messaging designed to expand their profit base .....

Apple is not trying to expand their profit base. Selling Macintosh computers is their profit base, not selling OS upgrades.

Quote:
Perhaps it is none of Apple's business what Psystar is doing with these OS copies.

Apple has spent hundreds of millions of dollars (maybe billions) in buying NEXT and developing OS X. With every Mac they sell, part of the profit goes into updating and improving their own OS. Who's bloody business do you think it is?
post #175 of 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

1) Who are you replying to?

Me, possibly.

With each new story on this topic it seems a new crop of people pop up who don't understand this issue. Or understand it only from the standpoint of what's good for them is automatically right and proper.

I think perhaps the easiest way to understand this issue is to ask whether it should be legal for someone to obtain the parts which make up a copyrighted or patented product and then proceed to build and sell that product. I think the answer is obviously no.

This is precisely what Psystar is attempting to do. A Macintosh computer is a combination of the hardware and the operating system. Neither is functionally a Mac on its own. Just because it is possible to buy the parts for a Mac does not mean you have the right to sell them in the combination with defines the product.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #176 of 227
Apple needs a mid tower as there are a LOT OF PEOPLE WHO WANT TO USE THERE OWN SCREEN and the mini is weak 1gb ram small laptop HD hard to open and more and the pro is about $1000 $1500 over priced next to other systems that have x2 the ram and a better base video card.

also the old $1,199.00 and $1,499.00 imacs used to have a real video card and now they have ON BOARD VIDEO.

also with a imac screen size is tied to cpu power and you can get a big screen with out having to buy a higher end rest of the system or a smaller screen with a lot of power.
post #177 of 227
Yes, the people who run Apple are obviously clueless.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #178 of 227
This is just like with Comcast. I hate the way both Comcast and Apple insist on controlling EVERYTHING! If I purchase a retail copy of Mac OS X and want to install it on my toaster, it should be okay to do so. Maybe Microsoft should make hardware too and make it illegal to install their OS on any other box. Bootlegging stuff is as old as time, I suppose. If Apple is successful in shutting down Psystar, the hacking WILL continue. Trust me. Apple should simply make it clear that you get support from the company who sold the hardware to you. Like with HP. I called Microsoft once, years ago, was on hold forever, only to be told my OEM copy of Windows belonged to HP. Call them. Click.
post #179 of 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by WPLJ42 View Post

This is just like with Comcast. I hate the way both Comcast and Apple insist on controlling EVERYTHING! If I purchase a retail copy of Mac OS X and want to install it on my toaster, it should be okay to do so. Maybe Microsoft should make hardware too and make it illegal to install their OS on any other box. Bootlegging stuff is as old as time, I suppose. If Apple is successful in shutting down Psystar, the hacking WILL continue. Trust me. Apple should simply make it clear that you get support from the company who sold the hardware to you. Like with HP. I called Microsoft once, years ago, was on hold forever, only to be told my OEM copy of Windows belonged to HP. Call them. Click.

If you want to install Mac OS X on a toaster go right ahead. Apple has never stopped the homebrww community. They've never tried to shut down the OSx86 Project. The problem lies with trying to profit from someone else's copyrighted and patented material without getting permission. Psystar is not the end user they are an uicensed reseller.

As for your HP OEM example, that is exactly what the OEM is. MS is charging less for that copy of Windows because they are not offering any support. They know the difference because of the serial key and build of the OS. Apple has no such system in place because they only sell their OS to run on Macs, not on clones with no direct support.

Right now you might be saying to yourself that because MS does it Apple should, but MS doesn't have to sell OEM copies, they chose to. It's their business model, not Apple's.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #180 of 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

If you want to install Mac OS X on a toaster go right ahead. Apple has never stopped the homebrww community. They've never tried to shut down the OSx86 Project. The problem lies with trying to profit from someone else's copyrighted and patented material without getting permission. Psystar is not the end user they are an uicensed reseller.

As for your HP OEM example, that is exactly what the OEM is. MS is charging less for that copy of Windows because they are not offering any support. They know the difference because of the serial key and build of the OS. Apple has no such system in place because they only sell their OS to run on Macs, not on clones with no direct support.

Right now you might be saying to yourself that because MS does it Apple should, but MS doesn't have to sell OEM copies, they chose to. It's their business model, not Apple's.

As the end user, I don't agree with Apple's business model. Comcast is my #1 company to despise. Funny I compare Apple to them. It is the belief of Comcast to force people to use a converter for all channels above 34, when most new TV sets will pick them up in the digital cable format if they are not scrambled. Because Dish Network, Direct TV, AT&T, Verizon, etc., use a box, so can Comcast. They all but said that on their website. So Apple, like Comcast, doesn't want anyone but them to make a dime. I can think of numerous words that end in "ism" here. Apple will never change, and as a result, I will only give them the money they force me into. Too bad their business model makes some people angry. I will buy Mac hardware just so I can have the OS. Out of spite, I will never purchase anything else. Kind of like Hallmark Channel deciding to remove Matlock from the line-up. I do my best to avoid all things Hallmark. To a degree, I'm sorta normal. The sparks flew at ABC's Boston Legal forum when it looked like Denny Crane had voted for Obama when he is a died in the wool Republican. Some claimed they would never watch ABC again. Does Apple ever take these kinds of things into consideration? EDIT: By the way, has Apple made it possible to use my own headphones on the iPod Shuffle yet???
post #181 of 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by WPLJ42 View Post

If I purchase a retail copy of Mac OS X and want to install it on my toaster, it should be okay to do so.

You seem to be littering quite a few threads with your own poorly thought out, twisted logic.

Quote:
Maybe Microsoft should make hardware too and make it illegal to install their OS on any other box.

Microsoft have a monopoly in the desktop OS market. Doing what you suggest would invite REAL ant-trust action against them, and run their Windows business into the ground.

It's just a step up from the previous hair-brained scheme to only allow an OS to be installed on polka-dot computers.

Quote:
If Apple is successful in shutting down Psystar, the hacking WILL continue.

So what! How many times do you have to hear it? Apple doesn't care about the tiny minority of Hackintosh nerds who just live to solder.


Quote:
Trust me.

No!
post #182 of 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by WPLJ42 View Post

As the end user, I don't agree with Apple's business model. Comcast is my #1 company to despise. Funny I compare Apple to them. It is the belief of Comcast to force people to use a converter for all channels above 34, when most new TV sets will pick them up in the digital cable format if they are not scrambled. Because Dish Network, Direct TV, AT&T, Verizon, etc., use a box, so can Comcast. They all but said that on their website. So Apple, like Comcast, doesn't want anyone but them to make a dime. I can think of numerous words that end in "ism" here. Apple will never change, and as a result, I will only give them the money they force me into. Too bad their business model makes some people angry. I will buy Mac hardware just so I can have the OS. Out of spite, I will never purchase anything else. Kind of like Hallmark Channel deciding to remove Matlock from the line-up. I do my best to avoid all things Hallmark. To a degree, I'm sorta normal. The sparks flew at ABC's Boston Legal forum when it looked like Denny Crane had voted for Obama when he is a died in the wool Republican. Some claimed they would never watch ABC again. Does Apple ever take these kinds of things into consideration?

You are not forced to buy anything from Apple as you claim. You are not being forced to buy your TV subscription from Comcast, you can go any other provider that services your area. This entitlement to have Apple bend to your particular will and needs is not uncommon on these forums but its always silly and short-sided.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #183 of 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

You are not forced to buy anything from Apple as you claim. You are not being forced to buy your TV subscription from Comcast, you can go any other provider that services your area. This entitlement to have Apple bend to your particular will and needs is not uncommon on these forums but its always silly and short-sided.

If I want Mac OS, I am forced to buy a Mac. I will not hack, nor purchase a clone. I either buy a Mac with Mac OS, or anything else, but with Windows. You people make me crazy. Should I dare to voice an opinion against the all-mighty Apple, you guys are all over me like stink on poop. It is people like you who made it possible for the merger of Sirius and XM satellite radio. Now there is just one and it is trash. All the great XM talent is toast. Apple has a monopoly (exclusive) on their OS. Isn't that what this thread is about? I own a Mac and use Mac OS. That should allow me an opinion on any topic in this forum. I am not here to be popular. If Apple can "Think Different", why can't I???
post #184 of 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by WPLJ42 View Post

If Apple can "Think Different", why can't I???

Thinking different implies thinking. Saying that a company has a monopoly on their product isnt thinking.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #185 of 227
We should all understand the futility of responding to any argument containing the phrase "you people."
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #186 of 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Thinking different implies thinking. Saying that a company has a monopoly on their product isnt thinking.

If by product, you mean Mac OS, then yes. If a company has absolute control, I consider them a monopoly. I use to be employed in cable TV years ago, and listened to the word monopoly all day long. Yes, there are plenty of other entertainment choices a person can make, but we as the cable company had an exclusive franchise. The people who did not like us, called us a monopoly. Now that I don't work there, I have to agree. There is just one legal choice for Mac OS, mono=one, so Apple holds a monopoly. I really don't care if anyone agrees with me or not.
post #187 of 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by WPLJ42 View Post

If by product, you mean Mac OS, then yes. If a company has absolute control, I consider them a monopoly. I use to be employed in cable TV years ago, and listened to the word monopoly all day long. Yes, there are plenty of other entertainment choices a person can make, but we as the cable company had an exclusive franchise. The people who did not like us, called us a monopoly. Now that I don't work there, I have to agree. There is just one legal choice for Mac OS, mono=one, so Apple holds a monopoly. I really don't care if anyone agrees with me or not.

Like how Compaq has a monopoly on Presarios or how MS has a monopoly on MS Paint.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #188 of 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Like how Compaq has a monopoly on Presarios or how MS has a monopoly on MS Paint.

I had Alex read this to me, and he doesn't get it either. If I had a dog, he would be looking at you with a tilted head.
post #189 of 227
Or Toyota has a monopoly on Camrys. It just isn't fair.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #190 of 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by WPLJ42 View Post

I had Alex read this to me, and he doesn't get it either. If I had a dog, he would be looking at you with a tilted head.

If I want MS Paint I have to buy Windows to get since MS doesn’t sell MS Paint to run on any other OS. That is wrong?
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #191 of 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by WPLJ42 View Post

If by product, you mean Mac OS, then yes. If a company has absolute control, I consider them a monopoly.

A company can (in most cases) have absolute control of their own products. It's when a company has control of the market, or "market power" that monopoly or anti-trust issues might occur.

Quote:
There is just one legal choice for Mac OS, mono=one, so Apple holds a monopoly. I really don't care if anyone agrees with me or not.

Well that's the problem really isn't it? Not only are you disagreeing with the people here but with a federal judge and the law of the land.
post #192 of 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

If I want MS Paint I have to buy Windows to get since MS doesnt sell MS Paint to run on any other OS. That is wrong?

That is the same stupid argument I used when I worked for Viacom Cablevision in 1992. On my Mac is a free program called Paintbrush, and it works just like MS Paint. Mac OS is the operating system. It can only be licensed to run on Mac hardware. If Apple does not employ a monopoly, then Microsoft doesn't either. I don't believe they do. If either of you two guys of recent disagree, I suggest you take back everything you just wrote. And for some of you, I can teach you how to use Alex to your benefit. As someone with dyslexia, it helps to makes sure you have all your words on the page and they are correct. My turn to .
post #193 of 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by WPLJ42 View Post

That is the same stupid argument I used when I worked for Viacom Cablevision in 1992. On my Mac is a free program called Paintbrush, and it works just like MS Paint. Mac OS is the operating system. It can only be licensed to run on Mac hardware. If Apple does not employ a monopoly, then Microsoft doesn't either. I don't believe they do. If either of you two guys of recent disagree, I suggest you take back everything you just wrote. And for some of you, I can teach you how to use Alex to your benefit. As someone with dyslexia, it helps to makes sure you have all your words on the page and they are correct. My turn to .

Then I suggest you have Alex read back what you wrote before you submit it. And I suggest you re-read what what was already pointed out to you. The “stupid” argument I made is the same “stupid” argument that you are making about Mac OS X being a monopoly. You don’t have to like it, but you do have to accept it.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #194 of 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Then I suggest you have Alex read back what you wrote before you submit it. And I suggest you re-read what what was already pointed out to you. The stupid argument I made is the same stupid argument that you are making about Mac OS X being a monopoly.

I always have Alex read my posts. Not really an option. Otherwise I will appear to have the IQ of a piece of celery. I'm sure that is what you people, some anyway, think. Guess I'm just a redneck in a rock and roll bar. Jerry Reed. There are some here that will agree with my ranting. I am not making reference to the law of the land or a federal judge. This is about whether or not it is fair for Apple to prevent other companies from installing their OS. I've already claimed I will not buy a machine to run OS X that isn't a Mac. I don't own a soldering iron. What else do you people want? If Apple made some more choices available, perhaps Psystar wouldn't be doing this.
post #195 of 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by WPLJ42 View Post

If Apple does not employ a monopoly, then Microsoft doesn't either. I don't believe they do.

Microsoft 'owns' 90% of the desktop OS market. That gives them "market power". or "monopoly", if you like.
Microsoft was convicted of abusing that monopoly power in the USA...
... and, once again, in Europe

Alex, can you ask WPL, on what basis does he believe that Microsoft is not a monopoly?
post #196 of 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

Me, possibly.

\\
I think perhaps the easiest way to understand this issue is to ask whether it should be legal for someone to obtain the parts which make up a copyrighted or patented product and then proceed to build and sell that product. I think the answer is obviously no.

This is precisely what Psystar is attempting to do. A Macintosh computer is a combination of the hardware and the operating system. Neither is functionally a Mac on its own. .

Thank you for trying to break down the issue, but I am a big boy now. I can start a company tomorrow to build Apple clones. I probably would not crack open the OS and pre-install it. I would probably let the end user install it. But to agonize over this so, strikes me as a red herring, practically speaking. Who cares if the OS is pre-installed.

In a store display for example (imagine the Psystar Store), it would be fine to display a machine running Mac OS X, assuming they bought the copy. Apple really has no control over what end users do. I do tend to agree that pre-installing would require Apple's permission. But I am not fully certain that Apple would enjoy the right to refuse such permission, at least not to all comers. This is again because of anti-trust. The government would not agree that Apple owns a hardware monopoly, even if Apple wishes (as you do) to conveniently trademark the very bundling of software and hardware. If Microsoft tried to do that, the EU court would probably laugh as well. Just because you would like to trademark your monopolization does not mean you are free from DOJ scrutiny.
post #197 of 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by WPLJ42 View Post

I am not making reference to the law of the land or a federal judge. This is about whether or not it is fair for Apple to prevent other companies from installing their OS.

Is it fair for a company, not just Apple but any company, to spend hundreds of millions of dollars designing and building an operating system to be used exclusively on their own computers?

Is it fair for another company, not just Psystar but any company, to build and sell computers running an operating system that they have neither a licence nor permission to use?


Quote:
If Apple made some more choices available, perhaps Psystar wouldn't be doing this.

If Psystar wasn't breaking the law Apple wouldn't have taken them to court. Apple's choice, or lack of choice, of computers has nothing to do with this argument.
post #198 of 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by bwik View Post

Thank you for trying to break down the issue, but I am a big boy now. I can start a company tomorrow to build Apple clones. I probably would not crack open the OS and pre-install it. I would probably let the end user install it. But to agonize over this so, strikes me as a red herring, practically speaking. Who cares if the OS is pre-installed.

In a store display for example (imagine the Psystar Store), it would be fine to display a machine running Mac OS X, assuming they bought the copy. Apple really has no control over what end users do. I do tend to agree that pre-installing would require Apple's permission. But I am not fully certain that Apple would enjoy the right to refuse such permission, at least not to all comers. This is again because of anti-trust. The government would not agree that Apple owns a hardware monopoly, even if Apple wishes (as you do) to conveniently trademark the very bundling of software and hardware. If Microsoft tried to do that, the EU court would probably laugh as well. Just because you would like to trademark your monopolization does not mean you are free from DOJ scrutiny.

I broke it down to make it clear. I broke it down because some still think it's about the EULA. It isn't about the EULA. I also don't think it's about pre-installation, although pre-installing does makes Psystar's intent extremely clear. Their intent it to sell Macintosh computers. It also has nothing to do with antitrust. The bundling is not trademarked or patented, it is the product which is. Again you can not break a product down to its constituent parts and then claim that since you can buy all of them individually, you now have the right to assemble and sell the product. That logic doesn't apply to any other product; it is entirely unclear to me why some think it applies to a Mac.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #199 of 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by bwik View Post

Thank you for trying to break down the issue, but I am a big boy now. I can start a company tomorrow to build Apple clones. I probably would not crack open the OS and pre-install it. I would probably let the end user install it. But to agonize over this so, strikes me as a red herring, practically speaking. Who cares if the OS is pre-installed.

In a store display for example (imagine the Psystar Store), it would be fine to display a machine running Mac OS X, assuming they bought the copy. Apple really has no control over what end users do. I do tend to agree that pre-installing would require Apple's permission. But I am not fully certain that Apple would enjoy the right to refuse such permission, at least not to all comers. This is again because of anti-trust. The government would not agree that Apple owns a hardware monopoly, even if Apple wishes (as you do) to conveniently trademark the very bundling of software and hardware. If Microsoft tried to do that, the EU court would probably laugh as well. Just because you would like to trademark your monopolization does not mean you are free from DOJ scrutiny.

Now I remember you Sigh!

You're the guy that keeps ranting about anti-trust and bundling and monopoly ... even after the judge had dismissed that argument.

You're the guy that said Apple don't have a case and will bribe Psystar to just go away.

You're the guy that said that, somehow "Apple have to prove" that their business model is different from Microsoft's. (?)

You're the guy that either doesn't understand intellectual property or simply doesn't respect it.

You're the guy that said that lawyers wearing Armani suits was an example of profiting from other people's copyrights.

You're the guy that thought that the government would probably end up breaking Apple into smaller parts.

Yeah you're the guy!
post #200 of 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by bwik View Post

Well, I find the "prevent consumers from using their own licensed products" kick to be just one big prima donna act. Consumers have a wide legal berth. There has been a lot of push and pull between the MPAA, RIAA, SPA regarding rights, and the various consumers (including the use of bundled products). A lot of their talking points are nothing more than baseless, industrial messaging designed to expand their profit base and scare people. TV could argue you can't TiVo their programs. Music makers could argue you can't record a cassette tape. And on and on. It is their job to try to make assertions because sometimes they get lucky. But the opinion of IP holders is not a holy thing. Society as a whole balances their rights against the freedoms of fair use, privacy and many other issues relating to this case. Perhaps it is none of Apple's business what Psystar is doing with these OS copies. For example.

Again, you're looking at this issue from entirely the wrong perspective. Consumers do have alot of rights, but forcing a company to change its business strategy simply because they disagree with it isn't one of those rights.

The sense of entitlement some of you people have is entirely unjustifiable. Those bodies have every right to want to protect their profits and, yes, looking around some college campuses, it's not hard to see why (more stolen movies than the eye can see). That's not to say they don't sometimes overdo it, but one can at least understand why.

I'm sure businesses would be alot more open to allowing things like Blu-Ray's "Managed Copy" were, again, there not a generation full of kids with not respect for IP law walking around. Hell, one of my friends has a netflix account solely for the purpose of ripping the movies he rents from it. People simply can't be trusted. I was reading a forum just the other day complaining about Palm not licensing WebOS out (ostensibly because they wanted it on a Blackberry). Just because you don't like something, doesn't give you the right to change it by force.

Are an IP holder's rights a holy grail? No, but neither are those of a consumer in that same vein. I can bitch and moan all day long that I can't buy Tommy Hilfiger's clothes at Wal-Mart, but that doesn't mean Tommy has to submit to my demands. I can also bitch about how Tommy doesn't make a certain kind of shirt I like, but that doesn't give me the right to make one myself and put his logo on it (I believe Lil' Wayne is actually being sued by Louis Vuitton for wearing knock-off sunglasses on a magazine cover). I may feel his conditions are unfair, but that doesn't give me a right to change them.

Just cause I can see it, doesn't make it mine. More parents should teach their children that concept.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Pesky Psystar to emerge from Chapter 11 with new Mac offering