or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple earns key legal victory against Psystar
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple earns key legal victory against Psystar - Page 3

post #81 of 180
so..

a company that generates huge profits for US investors, employs many thousands of US citizens, run by one of the industries richest men...

wins a case in its homestate against a no name company

in a country where presidents can steal elections....

hmm..... where's the news here?

I wish that this case had been in Europe..
post #82 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aizmov View Post

I hope Psystar burns. But Apple also has to worry about more hackintosh sellers.

If anything, Apple doesn't have to worry about this as much, given the outcome of the Psystar case.
post #83 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

Now that the courts have confirmed that Apple owns OS X, hopefully they will feel more comfortable investing large sums of money in it, if and when required. This is a good ruling for anyone who makes their living from their intellectual creations.

Hear, hear.

This isn't just a win for Apple, it's a win for the principles of IP law, and for vendors who depend on the integrity of the EULA.

No one, but NO ONE, selling computers or software in the current market is interested in seeing a legal precedent set that blows a hole in the principle of the EULA.

To even think Psystar was going to get away with this is insane. Most of us have been waiting for them to get buried - we knew it was going to happen, it was all a foregone conclusion, but it's happened faster than expected, which is a real bonus. It also sends a clear message to other Psystar copycats.

This is all very encouraging news. The integrity of OS X, which depends on large part to its tie-in with Apple hardware, will be maintained. And those who depend on the integrity of IP law are also strengthened somewhat in their position. The EULA is not a joke.
post #84 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

Well, sort of, maybe. Bill Gates insisted on Apple licensing some elements of the Mac GUI to Microsoft, under pain of Microsoft not continuing developing Mac software.

Regardless, it was under Sculley's watch that the fox crept into the hen house.

If Steve Jobs had still been around at that time, do you honestly think he would been snookered into giving away the crown jewels? And so carelessly?
post #85 of 180
I have very mixed feelings about this. Good to see Apple get a win (let's face it, we're all fanboys here). But, I am concerned about any piece of legal precedent which serves to strengthen the DMCA. This law was conceived and written by the movie and music industry, and is a horrific law. The people that conceived it are also behind the ACTA treaty which would give the intellectual property police the ability to terminate your internet access wih only the allegation of infringement (EFF.org). Getting back to the Apple v. Psystar case, all I can say is that this is good for Apple, but I'm having a hard time finding the pro-consumer angle to this.
post #86 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archipellago View Post

so..

a company that generates huge profits for US investors, employs many thousands of US citizens, run by one of the industries richest men...

wins a case in its homestate against a no name company

in a country where presidents can steal elections....

hmm..... where's the news here?

I wish that this case had been in Europe..

The same result would have been reached I am sure. The facts don't change depending on where the case is tried.
Use duckduckgo.com with Safari, not Google Search
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
Use duckduckgo.com with Safari, not Google Search
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
post #87 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by lales View Post

Regardless, it was under Sculley's watch that the fox crept into the hen house.

If Steve Jobs had still been around at that time, do you honestly think he would been snookered into giving away the crown jewels? And so carelessly?

Nope, agreed, Sculley was a power mad, clueless MBA. Sculley's crown jewels should be on show in a large vat of Pepsi, sorry 'sugar water'.
Use duckduckgo.com with Safari, not Google Search
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
Use duckduckgo.com with Safari, not Google Search
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
post #88 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

In videogame terms, it's the equivalent of using up all your energy for a single, powerful shot, risking all (on part of the issues, or all of them.)

I think it's better to say, "blow their load".
post #89 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kishan View Post

I have very mixed feelings about this. Good to see Apple get a win (let's face it, we're all fanboys here). But, I am concerned about any piece of legal precedent which serves to strengthen the DMCA. This law was conceived and written by the movie and music industry, and is a horrific law. The people that conceived it are also behind the ACTA treaty which would give the intellectual property police the ability to terminate your internet access wih only the allegation of infringement (EFF.org). Getting back to the Apple v. Psystar case, all I can say is that this is good for Apple, but I'm having a hard time finding the pro-consumer angle to this.

I agree that the DMCA is horrible law. However, I do think a company (Apple) should be able to control its own product. Apple chooses to sell computers with a specialized os. It does not sell a standalone OS - only updates to computers it produced. No one should be able to dictate what the product is - individuals or governments. There ARE decent choices out there in the market place.
post #90 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by extremeskater View Post

"The only way copyright can be overturned, rather than modified, is by a Constitutional Amendment "

I believe it takes a judge in a federal court to overturn a copyright law. Not a Constitutional Amendment.

See Article1 Section 8 Clause 8 of the consititution
post #91 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by rain View Post

I agree.
My 8800gt video card just fried a few days go, leaving me scrambling. It was BTO in my 2008 Mac Pro. It's still under Apple care, but non the less, left me screwed as I didn't have a replacement kicking around and have to wait a week for one ordered in.

I thought i'd upgrade the video and keep the (refurbished i bet) 8800gt as a backup. I looked at the best video card for the Pro on the market right now and it's the evga nVidea 285.
Retails for $450 and is %2 better then the 8800gt because Snow Leopard is a disaster when it comes to GPU's. (bearfeats.com)
The best cards you can buy Snow Leopard are running 30% slower then they do in Leopard. 10.6.2 even made things worse... so Apple is going in the wrong direction. (although they did fix a bug that made Maya unusable)

So what do you do? Wait for the next Pro's to find out they changed the chipset completely leaving everyone with a new Pro now, screwed with crap, and putting the Mac 3 years behind Windows users, or pray that they keep the same chipset and someone actually writes decent drivers for the new cards?

It's pretty obvious that Apple no longer has any love for the consumer base that kept them alive as a company in the 90's and early 00's (graphic design, printing, advertising). I would actually go as far as to say they fucking hate us. Where are our matt screens, video cards that don't completely suck?

Part of me wanted Pystar to win, so it gave me an option from having to switch to windoze. The complete contempt apple is showing to it's diehard loyal fan base is of concern, and while the soccer mom consumer market is gobbling up iMac's and iPhones... the creative industry is being completely hung out to dry.

I'm wondering if this decision today won't be looked at in 10 years as the day Apple went down the toilet as a computer manufacturer, and became another Sony with gizmo's and gadgets for the larger consumer base.
In my mind... this judgment just condemned the Pro user base.

I want decent hardware too.

The only thing going down the toilet here are all you whiny, delusional, myopic, full-of-yourselves, "calling-yourselves-creatives" who get all caught up in your technical complexities.

You belong with Windoze where you can tinker a putter to your heart's content.

If you'd been with Apple over the long term you may recall that there have been numerous transitional phases like the current one in its (you need to learn how to spell "its" like these WITHOUT the apostrophe) history.

True creatives who love Apple products find ways to weather these "storms" and just keep working. The problems get sorted out.

The "Snow Leopard"-class transition is about the move to multi-cores to further satisfy the ever-growing need for more power. There seems to be a "back and forth" between hardware and software, too. The 8-core Pro's have been hobbled by 32-bit software, limiting apps to 4GB RAM. Now that SL is 64-bit, it's up to Adobe, et al, to upgrade to 64-bit and perhaps further optimize for Grand Central.

In the mean time, hardware is making its strides.

It all takes time and patience.

This is no time for Apple to relent and open its systems to tinkerers--especially in light of its current struggles with jackals like Pisstar and others.

I'm personally for simply staying the course and using available Apple systems to the best of my ability to make money and be ready for future upgrades, to both hardware and software.

Daniel Swanson

Reply

Daniel Swanson

Reply
post #92 of 180
This is why we have copyright laws. There are plenty of choices. Play on.
post #93 of 180
I don't think "physicality" has anything to do with it. Copyrights don't have to do with physicality, they have to do with content. Is a novel physical? No, just the medium it is conveyed upon. The content is copyrighted, not the medium.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oxygenhose View Post

That argument is a loser as well. But I've seen people actually use it... denying the physics of the medium they're using to make their point = clueless.

Just because code is really, really small or impossible to see with the naked eye doesn't mean it's "not real physical property". Even if were just light it is still a real 'physical' matter. It's just another example of writing. Copying someone else's novel onto different paper is still theft.

I've seen this argument thrown around as well. Again, as in most matters dealing with online 'copyright' opinion... just more fantasy illogic to try and defend or facilitate theft. Usually by useless parasites like Psystar, only jealous of others' ability to create.
post #94 of 180
Apple licensing Mac OS only for its machines has largely been its business model for the past 25 years. As we saw when Apple attempted to license clone machines is when the company nearly went out of business.

The "Pro" label is really a marketing tool with no true definition. Anyone who uses a computer as apart of their job is a professional computer user.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rain View Post

I agree.
I'm wondering if this decision today won't be looked at in 10 years as the day Apple went down the toilet as a computer manufacturer, and became another Sony with gizmo's and gadgets for the larger consumer base.
In my mind... this judgment just condemned the Pro user base.
post #95 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolchak View Post

Dummies. They should have just sold the computers along with the necessary apps to install the bootloader, kexts and drivers, then let the consumer buy and install the OS. Apple wouldn't have been able to touch them since they wouldn't have been the ones violating the EULA. As difficult as it is to build a perfectly working Hackintosh, lots of people would pay for hardware that runs OS X flawlessly (and I don't mean genuine Macs).

That would have still violated the DMCA:

"Psystar has used decryption software to obtain access to Mac OS X and to circumvent Apple's technological measure when modifying Mac OS X in its production process," Alsup said. "This is a violation of the Section 1201 anti-circumvention provision of the DMCA."


TITLE 17, CHAPTER 12, § 1201
is quite clear on this:

(a) Violations Regarding Circumvention of Technological Measures.
(1) (A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title. [...[

(2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that
(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;"

This would of course mean the OSx86 project and the EFIx to get MacOS X to run on non-Apple software are also illegal
post #96 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by rain View Post

@ Melgross

I know there are problems with new software/hardware... but how often do updates make things worse?
This is one area where Apple's secrecy and lack of communication drives me nuts. If they said "we are aware of the problem and are working on it" i'd be appeased and confident in my purchasing power.
The zero discussion and track record of Apple just up and dropping support on it's customers, only acting when they lose a class action law suit, is not a good way to conduct business in my mind.

If Apple acted this way 10 years ago... this site would be called linuxinsider, and we would be fidgeting with the SonyTouch.

Updates always make some things worse. Products are too complex these days. I remember when OS's and programs had NO bugs. But that was in the mid '70's. It's just gone downhill since.
post #97 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

Now that the courts have confirmed that Apple owns OS X, hopefully they will feel more comfortable investing large sums of money in it, if and when required.

So they have been wary/uncomfortable investing large amounts of money (actually, betting the whole company on it) with the 8 versions (and numerous updates) of OS X they have produced to date?
post #98 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by lales View Post

Regardless, it was under Sculley's watch that the fox crept into the hen house.

If Steve Jobs had still been around at that time, do you honestly think he would been snookered into giving away the crown jewels? And so carelessly?

Yes, he would have.

Because the deal with Ms was not that they could use windows layering in their OS, but that they could use it to develop software for the Mac. It's very likely that Jobs WAS involved in that deal from the beginning.

I remember that case very well. The error was with the way the contracts and licenses were written. It was a loophole that allowed MS to do what they did. This was a fault with the legal team, not Jobs or Sculley.
post #99 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

Nope, agreed, Sculley was a power mad, clueless MBA. Sculley's crown jewels should be on show in a large vat of Pepsi, sorry 'sugar water'.

If anyone is power mad, it's Jobs.
post #100 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by lales View Post

Regardless, it was under Sculley's watch that the fox crept into the hen house.

If Steve Jobs had still been around at that time, do you honestly think he would been snookered into giving away the crown jewels? And so carelessly?

Who knows? Steve was pretty careless in those days -- that's why he was forced out. Also, the reality is, we don't know if Apple could have successfully defended the "look and feel" of the MacOS even without the existence of the license agreement. From what I have read about this suit, the license may have contributed to the dismissal of the suit, but wasn't the only reason why it did not succeed.

Incidentally, when Steve settled another long-running patent dispute with Microsoft in 1997, a lot of pundits were sure that he'd sold Apple down the river. Sometimes these things are not what they appear to be.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #101 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

Who knows? Steve was pretty careless in those days -- that's why he was forced out. Also, the reality is, we don't know if Apple could have successfully defended the "look and feel" of the MacOS even without the existence of the license agreement. From what I have read about this suit, the license may have contributed to the dismissal of the suit, but wasn't the only reason why it did not succeed.

Incidentally, when Steve settled another long-running patent dispute with Microsoft in 1997, a lot of pundits were sure that he'd sold Apple down the river. Sometimes these things are not what they appear to be.

Well, I do wonder if Apple really needed the $150 million investment other than for political reasons.

And of course, where would MS be today if they couldn't get around Apple's video patents? People forget that until MS had Apple's software, they couldn't play video properly. It was a major problem for them.
post #102 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Well, I do wonder if Apple really needed the $150 million investment other than for political reasons.

And of course, where would MS be today if they couldn't get around Apple's video patents? People forget that until MS had Apple's software, they couldn't play video properly. It was a major problem for them.

This is turning into a real stroll down memory lane.

We never really did know what was in dispute between the two companies, but it seemed to be related to QuickTime code that Microsoft had allegedly stolen. Again, an issue that was never tested in court, so we know only that allegations were being made -- quite possibly in both directions. I give Steve credit for turning what could have been a protracted legal battle (with uncertain results) into a publicity coup, at a time when Apple needed positive press more than anything. What they gave up we'll never know for certain, but we can chart Apple's turnaround right from that moment to this. I would have loved to be a fly on the wall when Steve and Bill were hammering out that deal.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #103 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Well, I do wonder if Apple really needed the $150 million investment other than for political reasons.

And of course, where would MS be today if they couldn't get around Apple's video patents? People forget that until MS had Apple's software, they couldn't play video properly. It was a major problem for them.

Apple was still worth billions and could easily have gotten such a trial amount (relatively speaking) if they needed it. It looks it would have been down for a couple different reasons. They were non-voting shares. The investment locked MS in for x amount of time, which I think they sold at a time when they really didnt make a profit from them. Imagine what they would be worth today. It gave other investors hope that Apple was restructuring and that a company like MS was behind them. I recall a keynote after Jobs return with Gates on the big screen assuring everyone that MS Office for Mac would continue.
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 #104 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I recall a keynote after Jobs return with Gates on the big screen assuring everyone that MS Office for Mac would continue.

You are remembering MacWorld Boston 1997 when the deal was announced. Bill was roundly booed by the audience when he appeared on screen.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #105 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

You are remembering MacWorld Boston 1997 when the deal was announced. Bill was roundly booed by the audience when he appeared on screen.

I felt bad for him but he just smiled politely, as I recall.
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 #106 of 180
It was really worse then that. Apple trusted and brought Microsoft on board the Macintosh project early on in the Macintosh development process. Apple needed Office software when the Mac shipped. When Gates understood Apple wasn't going to offer the OS for IBM based PCs, he saw an opportunity to undermine Apple for it's gain. He told his team to start using all the confidential information he was getting from Apple that was giving for Application development, to start working on Windows.

Right before the Mac was set to ship, Gates threatened to not ship any applications unless Apple agreed to license parts of the GUI to it under the guise of using these elements for PC applications. That would have thrown a real wrench into Apple's ability to sell the Mac, and set it back years to get somebody else to develop similar applications. .

Some really interesting perspectives on the matter can be found here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

Well, sort of, maybe. Bill Gates insisted on Apple licensing some elements of the Mac GUI to Microsoft, under pain of Microsoft not continuing developing Mac software. Since Microsoft was just about the only major developer of Mac software at the time, this was a pretty substantial threat. Apple thought this license only extended to the version of Windows Microsoft was developing at the time (2.0) but later a court ruled that it also applied to Windows 3.0. This all came to light when Apple sued Microsoft in the "look and feel" case. The suit was dismissed in part because of the license, but we don't know if it would have succeeded without it.
post #107 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I felt bad for him but he just smiled politely, as I recall.

Check it out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxOp5mBY9IY

The reactions from the audience as Steve announced the various aspects of the Microsoft partnership are so interesting, especially when seen from today's perspective. Certainly the pundit consensus was "Bill wins again" -- because of course, "Bill always wins" was the way the industry was understood at the time. But I think when you consider all that has transpired since, it's hard to view it that way. Even at the time, I think it was clear that Steve had pulled off something quite stunning.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #108 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

It was really worse then that. Apple trusted and brought Microsoft on board the Macintosh project early on in the Macintosh development process.

I'm not sure how much worse it is the way you describe the situation, compared to the way I described it -- but the truth of the matter is that company after company discovered painfully that they could not trust Microsoft as a partner. Some went into their partnerships more aware of the perils and better protected than others. I think Apple might have been the first company to really get the better of Microsoft in the 1997 deal. I'm not sure Bill would say he'd take it back now if he could, but I'm quite certain that he never expected Apple to emerge as the powerhouse it is today.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #109 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

Check it out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxOp5mBY9IY

The reactions from the audience as Steve announced the various aspects of the Microsoft partnership are so interesting, especially when seen from today's perspective. Certainly the pundit consensus was "Bill wins again" -- because of course, "Bill always wins" was the way the industry was understood at the time. But I think when you consider all that has transpired since, it's hard to view it that way. Even at the time, I think it was clear that Steve had pulled off something quite stunning.

Wow! IE as the default browser got most of the boos. The news of the non-voting shares got a big approval, as it should.


Another good one to watch is the original iPod introduction. People in the audience didnt get it. Not that I did either. I had no interest in an iPod until the Mini was introduced.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kN0SVBCJqLs
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 #110 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by FreakyT View Post

Man, that sucks. Goodbye, freedom. Of course, we Apple users all hate that, anyway.

(And yes, I have a Mac and an iPhone)

Riiiiiiiiight
Pity the agnostic dyslectic. They spend all their time contemplating the existence of dog.
Reply
Pity the agnostic dyslectic. They spend all their time contemplating the existence of dog.
Reply
post #111 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archipellago View Post

so..

a company that generates huge profits for US investors, employs many thousands of US citizens, run by one of the industries richest men...

wins a case in its homestate against a no name company

in a country where presidents can steal elections....

hmm..... where's the news here?

I wish that this case had been in Europe..

Given the Copyright Directive is more restrictive than the DMCA it is likely Psystar would have done a major crash and burn there too.
post #112 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Wow! IE as the default browser got most of the boos. The news of the non-voting shares got a big approval, as it should.

The most interesting part for me is how both men measured their words so carefully, to the point of visible discomfort -- especially in Steve's case. This was clearly a very scripted event.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #113 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

If anyone is power mad, it's Jobs.

Sculley's power usage was all about Sculley, Jobs' is all about getting the greatest products created. I prefer the latter.
Use duckduckgo.com with Safari, not Google Search
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
Use duckduckgo.com with Safari, not Google Search
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
post #114 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

The most interesting part for me is how both men measured their words so carefully, to the point of visible discomfort -- especially in Steve's case. This was clearly a very scripted event.

And yet there still seem to a false consensus that MS saved Apple by giving them $150M. The booing was a very juvenile. I can't imagine doing that in that same setting. That wasn't the Apollo Theater, was 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 #115 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOFEER View Post

REASON----simple, they were a shell for other pc makers i hope as time goes by that apple finds out

the SHREDDING MACHINES WILL WORK OVERTIME TONIGHT

now what

Quote:
Originally Posted by 8CoreWhore View Post

The backers could be shielding even deeper backers.

Their resilience in the face of clearly not acting like a real company in any way that matters to a successful PC manufacturer certainly seems to have "stalking horse" written all over it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post

A judge can't modify the law, his/her job is to issue judgements based on his/her own interpretation of the law for a specific case. The copyright law can only be modified by congress (and maybe the supreme court).

As if no judge has ever essentially "rewritten" a law by the judge's "interpretation" of it.

We're talking about tribal naked apes a few evolutionary pico-seconds off being chased by predators around the Serengeti here while they were inventing language on the side. Human institutions are rudimentary when held up against some abstract notion of objectivity. And the phrase the "majesty of the law" still implies being subject to the whims of Kings.

But we do muddle through.......

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

You still have the freedom to make a hackintosh, you just don't have the freedom to make money selling them out of your garage. The end user is the winner here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

I wish I could legally run OSX on some decent hardware.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rain View Post

It's pretty obvious that Apple no longer has any love for the consumer base that kept them alive as a company in the 90's and early 00's (graphic design, printing, advertising). I would actually go as far as to say they f***ing hate us. Where are our matt screens, video cards that don't completely suck?

Part of me wanted Psystar to win, so it gave me an option from having to switch to windoze. The complete contempt apple is showing to it's diehard loyal fan base is of concern, and while the soccer mom consumer market is gobbling up iMac's and iPhones... the creative industry is being completely hung out to dry.

I'm wondering if this decision today won't be looked at in 10 years as the day Apple went down the toilet as a computer manufacturer, and became another Sony with gizmo's and gadgets for the larger consumer base. In my mind... this judgment just condemned the Pro user base.

I want decent hardware too.

Just another thought that 99.99% won't happen, but it strikes me there's a middle path Apple could take that would diversify their model base, sales network, etc. Rather than the Sculley clone model, or the strictly mod model which has resulted in a few ruggedized Mac notebooks and a tablet or two, Apple could selectively license Apple-approved designs and sell/resell companies not only OS X, but the Mobo and other key components as well - with the modding confined to things like form factors, opening up, e.g., a mid-sized tower, and like the App Store, final designs aproved by the mother ship.

That way Apple would still be making their traditional margins on hardware and software, keeping the key parts within their own expertise, and ensuring (through their markups on the sold and licensed bits) that the machines could not be sold profitably at prices that would steal sales from Apple's own SKU's and we could have MMMT's, Maxi-Minis, Matte-Macs, etc.

Not holding my breath - just blue skying for the hell of it. Plenty of reasons to pooh-pooh. E.g., how would these Apple/other hybrids be badged? And of course these tethered and compliant "partners" would always have the fear that success with a design could be supplanted by Apple deciding to produce that form factor in house...... ....anyway, next topic.....

An iPhone, a Leatherman and thou...  ...life is complete.

Reply

An iPhone, a Leatherman and thou...  ...life is complete.

Reply
post #116 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

And yet there still seem to a false consensus that MS saved Apple by giving them $150M. The booing was a very juvenile. I can't imagine doing that in that same setting. That wasn't the Apollo Theater, was it?

If you read back to the articles run at the time, the general consensus seemed to be that Apple had been saved by Microsoft, a myth that persists to this day. This really reflects the other consensus in play at the time, which is that Bill never loses. This view came for some good reason -- Microsoft was incredibly dominant in those years, and few thought it should be any different. Still this meant that many had such a hard time seeing the deal any other way than yet another big win for Bill.

As for the booing (and cheering), partisanship was so much a part of MacWorld during these years. I attended many of the keynotes in the late '90s and it was always more tent revival than trade show. Mac fans hardly even met another Mac fan except at these events. People who attended knew what side they were on, the embattled one. It was a bit of a bunker mentality, but still, MacWorld was really a lot more fun in those days. By the mid-2000s it felt like only a trade show.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #117 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dorotea View Post

See Article1 Section 8 Clause 8 of the consititution

That clause only give Congress the right to create Copyright laws the details would fall under other parts. For example one could argue that the extension of old copyrights is a violation of Article I section 9.
post #118 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Wow! IE as the default browser got most of the boos.

With good reason. Even back then even the PC world knew IE had issues thought I have to admit the Mac team that worked on IE for Mac did a fantastic job. Netscape suffered from trying to do too mush and producing a bloated mess.
post #119 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maximara View Post

With good reason. Even back then even the PC world knew IE had issues thought I have to admit the Mac team that worked on IE for Mac did a fantastic job. Netscape suffered from trying to do too mush and producing a bloated mess.

Yeah I remember those days. I used Windows and hated Netscape because it was very slow and cost money (initially).
post #120 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maximara View Post

With good reason. Even back then even the PC world knew IE had issues thought I have to admit the Mac team that worked on IE for Mac did a fantastic job. Netscape suffered from trying to do too mush and producing a bloated mess.

Which browser engine was better: the licensed Spyglass for IE for Mac v1-v4 and WIndows v1-v3; Tasman for IE 5 for Mac; or Trident starting with IE 4 for Windows?
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
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple earns key legal victory against Psystar