or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › Apple, Psystar strike deal to avoid trial in Open Computer tussle
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple, Psystar strike deal to avoid trial in Open Computer tussle - Page 2

post #41 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

No, they don't. They 'sell' you a retail version of OS X, but they 'install' a hacked copy of OS X that can only be had by illegally downloading and which has core aspects of the OS altered to run on non-Mac PCs.

Where did you get the idea that they simply inserted a fresh OS X disc and added a few drivers to make it work? The only non-Mac PC solution that doesn't violate Apple's IP or copyright is EFiX, but MoBo support is still in its infancy.

And you know this for a fact, how? From Psystar's website:

Will you provide instructions on loading the Leopard operating system?

If you purchase Leopard with your Open Computer you will be able to receive a restore disc which will allow you to reinstall your Leopard OS X operating system directly from the original retail-packaged DVD which is included in your computer.

If they're installing it from the "orignal retail-packaged" DVD, then they obviously came up with a way to install it direct from the OS X retail DVD. Of course this is taking them at their word, but until it is proven in court that they have done so otherwise, we should accept this and not pre-judge them, which is what you would want everyone to do. How would you like it if I spread a rumor you stole a bunch of computers?
post #42 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

No, they don't. They 'sell' you a retail version of OS X, but they 'install' a hacked copy of OS X that can only be had by illegally downloading and which has core aspects of the OS altered to run on non-Mac PCs. That 'sale' of OS X to you is their short-sided attempt to pull a fast on Apple byt saying that they technically offered a legal version of the software with the hacked software they installed.

Where did you get the idea that they simply inserted a fresh OS X disc and added a few drivers to make it work? The only non-Mac PC solution that doesn't violate Apple's IP or copyright is EFiX, but MoBo support is still in its infancy.

I agree they had no right to hack Apple's code for financial gain. Also [AFAIK] no Apple end user software license has ever granted distribution rights.
post #43 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by trboyden View Post

If you purchase Leopard with your Open Computer you will be able to receive a restore disc which will allow you to reinstall your Leopard OS X operating system directly from the original retail-packaged DVD which is included in your computer.

Then that is certainly a change from their original option of having you ship your HDD back to them to reinstall OS X. If they have a solution that doesn't require them to alter the OS in any way shape or form, or use the OSx86 Project OS hacks (I'm not referring to drivers) then you'd have a point, but the only info I've read about the actual Psystar installation involves using rewritten, copyrighted and patented OS X code.

But that still doesn't address the fact that Apple hasn't licensed OS X to Psystar. You mention a Free Market earlier, which specifically permits who a company chooses to be it's resellers. You have to ask yourself, if this all kosher then you need to answer two questions for me: Why haven't the othe PC vendors jumped done this? Why didn't the OS X resellers that Jobs killed when we returned to Apple continue to sell their Mac clones?

PS: I run OSx86 on an MSI Wind.
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 #44 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by ljocampo View Post

I don't think Apple cared too much about what Psystar was doing until they started to crack and distribute their updates. Psystar had no legal right to do that even if the company was just helping to make it easier for its customer to update their systems.

However, the fact is that people don't have the right to do anything they want with software they have purchased a license to use. Psystar had no OEM distribution license nor a reseller authorization from Apple retail. They crossed the line plain and simple. The fact that you think it right don't make it right or legal.

You ignore the fact that Psystar (and the OSx86 Project) had to do that because Apple included "a fix", I call it malware, to brick their systems because it wasn't running on Apple supplied hardware. Now that should be illegal and is unethical.

You also assume that its a fact that people don't have a right to do anything they want with soemthing they purchased. Just because the government, through special interest lobbying, have provided certain industries with special rights regarding their products, doesn't make it right. Laws are meant to be changed, and if more people stood up to the special interests, we wouldn't have stupid laws that create monopolies and prevent fair-use of products that you and I bought with our hard earned money. OEM distribution licenses or reseller authorizations as you call them, are just a form of vender lock-in that restrict our freedoms to innovate.
post #45 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by trboyden View Post

You ignore the fact that Psystar (and the OSx86 Project) had to do that because Apple included "a fix", I call it malware, to brick their systems because it wasn't running on Apple supplied hardware. Now that should be illegal and is unethical.

EFI over BIOS is malware? Seeing if an OS has the ability to support the HW it's being installed on is malware?

Quote:
You also assume that its a fact that people don't have a right to do anything they want with soemthing they purchased..

This is about another company selling another companies product without their permission. I've never a single case of Apple going after the recreational OSx86 hacker community.

Quote:
Laws are meant to be changed.

Laws are meant to be followed. Bills are meant to change a law.
School House Rock - I'm Just A Bill
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 #46 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcarling View Post

Hmmm. Suppose I buy Coffeemaker A and Coffeemaker B and notice that they both use the same embedded processor. I prefer the software features of Coffeemaker A but I prefer the hardware features of Coffeemaker B. So, I pull the EEPROM out of Coffeemaker A and plug it into Coffeemaker B and -- surprise -- it works and I have my dream coffeemaker. Do either coffeemaker company have a legal case against me? I don't think so.

Now suppose Coffeemaker A Inc. sells EEPROMs with updated software every two years or so for $19. My friend likes my custom coffeemaker, so he buys a $19 EEPROM from Coffeemaker A Inc. and a whole coffeemaker from Coffeemaker B Inc. and installs the EEPROM in the unintended machine. Again, against all odds, it works and my friend is happy with his custom coffeemaker. Does either company have a case against him? I don't think so.

Finally, let's suppose that Coffeemaker B, Inc. notices that lots of people are putting Coffeemaker A EEPROMs in their hardware and decide to sell and market "Coffeemaker A compatible" coffeemakers with instructions to buy an EEPROM from Coffeemaker A Inc. and install it. Does Coffeemaker A Inc. have a case against Coffeemaker B Inc.? Maybe, but I don't see it.

But OSX does not work on any X86 system out of the box. You have to use the OSX86 hack in order for you to get it to work. That would be like you having to change a few bits in Coffeemaker A eprom in order for it to work on Coffeemaker B coffee maker. If Coffeemaker A don't have a patent or copyright on their eprom then it would be legal for you to alter the eprom to get it to work on Coffeemaker B coffee maker. But if Coffemaker A does have a copyright or patent on that eprom then you're breaking the law. But Coffeemaker A would not try to stop you from altering their IP to make it work on another coffee maker if you're only doing this for yourself, as a "hobby". But taking their IP and altering so you can sell it in someone else's coffee maker would most likely land you in court.

Apple have not gone after any of the thousands of people that hacked OSX and installed on their own machine, as a "hobby". They're going after anyone that tries to market such a machine.

Let say that I don't like the order of songs on the Sgt. Pepper album. I think "When I'm Sixty-Four" should follow "With a Little help From My Friend instead of "Within You Without You" and the album should end with "Lucy in The Sky With Diamonds". I can put my original Sgt. Pepper CD in my Mac and burn the version I like. No laws broken. (Now the RIAA might think otherwise.\). Now suppose most of the people that listen to my version of Sgt. Pepper also likes the way I changed it. Do I have the right to market my version of Sgt Pepper? Not even if I included an original Sgt. Pepper CD with my version. Not unless I get a license to do so from the copyright owner.
post #47 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Then that is certainly a change from their original option of having you ship your HDD back to them to reinstall OS X. If they have a solution that doesn't require them to alter the OS in any way shape or form, or use the OSx86 Project OS hacks (I'm not referring to drivers) then you'd have a point, but the only info I've read about the actual Psystar installation involves using rewritten, copyrighted and patented OS X code.

But that still doesn't address the fact that Apple hasn't licensed OS X to Psystar. You mention a Free Market earlier, which specifically permits who a company chooses to be it's resellers. You have to ask yourself, if this all kosher then you need to answer two questions for me: Why haven't the othe PC vendors jumped done this? Why didn't the OS X resellers that Jobs killed when we returned to Apple continue to sell their Mac clones?

PS: I run OSx86 on an MSI Wind.

Why does Psystar have to have a license from Apple to install a retail copy of OS X on computer hardware of their choice? I can take a retail copy of Windows and install it on any computer of my choice. What's the difference? I am running under the assumption and taking Psystar at face value that they are indeed using the retail copy of OS X. I can then sell that PC to anyone I want, and I don't need Microsoft's approval. Now am I losing a lot of money by not going the traditional reseller route, hell yeah, but then I am also preserving my freedom of operating the way that I want and not having to follow the single-sided rules imposed by Microsoft and their reseller program.

If it is indeed found - in court - that Psystar uses a hacked copy of OS X, then I am all in favor of them being sued into oblivion. But I'm not going to throw them under the bus until that happens. I think the little guy should be given the same chances in the free market that the big guys have.

I've already answer the question of why the big guys won't play yet. The same reasoning I mentioned - risk and end-user support - also extends to the original Mac cloners who were selling their systems as Macs (not Mac-compatibles). That is why they relied on Apple for licensing. They also had to get their hardware for their Macs to even run from Apple, who was the only one manufacturing the special ROM chips at the time. This is why there was a real risk when Apple moved to Intel. They no longer had control over the hardware platform and that is why we are even seeing the possibility of 3rd party clones now.
post #48 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by trboyden View Post

Why does Psystar have to have a license from Apple to install a retail copy of OS X on computer hardware of their choice? I can take a retail copy of Windows and install it on any computer of my choice. What's the difference?

Technically, you can't, just as I am technically be 'illegal' by installing OSx86 on my Wind. But if you have absolutely no knowledge or understand of what licensing is then I can not respond to anymore of your posts, so go ahead and get get the last word in.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/License
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 #49 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

EFI over BIOS is malware? Seeing if an OS has the ability to support the HW it's being installed on is malware?

No, I'm referring to the O/S updates that purposely break the "innovations" that the OSx86 and other projects use to allow OS X to work on standard Intel hardware. EFIs use by Apple to restrict the hardware OS X can be installed on has nothing to do with hardware compatibility. Remember most of OS X is BSD, that runs on any hardware. Which brings up another point, where does Apple get the right to restrict the distribution of a free and open source O/S like BSD without which OS X would not even function?

Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

This is about another company selling another companies product without their permission.

No that is what Apple and you apparently would want other people to believe. If I buy a retail item and resell it to someone else, I am perfectly within my rights to do so. If I sell it for a higher price, the purchaser is stupid, and I am a good salesman.

Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I've never a single case of Apple going after the recreational OSx86 hacker community..

Which you would think is completely contradictory to this case, because OSx86 are using a hacked version of OS X and not buying a retail copy. You would think this is where Apple should be spending their attention. By not doing so, they do risk their trademarks and patents.

Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Laws are meant to be followed. Bills are meant to change a law.

School House Rock - I'm Just A Bill

Perhaps I should of said BAD laws, which is what I meant to say. Of course laws are meant to be followed, but bad laws are meant to be disobeyed. Besides businesses and our own government hardly follow our laws anyways, so what's the point. They're all made to control the people.
post #50 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Technically, you can't, just as I am technically be 'illegal' by installing OSx86 on my Wind. But if you have absolutely no knowledge or understand of what licensing is then I can not respond to anymore of your posts, so go ahead and get get the last word in.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/License

I perfectly understand licensing. It's an illegal one-way contract imposed by the licensor to make you use a product the way they want you to use it. And EULAs, which is where the clause your referring to is located, have been succesfully challenged and overuled in court making them invalid. Which is why this case is going to arbitration and not court.
post #51 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW View Post

But OSX does not work on any X86 system out of the box.

True, you have to use it on a computer that has an EFI chip or use an EFI emulator.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW View Post

That would be like you having to change a few bits in Coffeemaker A eprom in order for it to work on Coffeemaker B coffee maker. If Coffeemaker A don't have a patent or copyright on their eprom then it would be legal for you to alter the eprom to get it to work on Coffeemaker B coffee maker. But if Coffemaker A does have a copyright or patent on that eprom then you're breaking the law.

No, this is called improving a product. If they use encryption to protect the EEPROM, then you may be violating the DMCA, however that's another law that needs to be gotten rid of.

Copyrights have no bearing on your case, however if they have a patent, you may be oblidged to pay a royalty on your derivitive work to them as compensation for the duration of their patent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW View Post

But Coffeemaker A would not try to stop you from altering their IP to make it work on another coffee maker if you're only doing this for yourself, as a "hobby". But taking their IP and altering so you can sell it in someone else's coffee maker would most likely land you in court.

If they don't stop hobbyists from stealing their IP, their IP is no longer valid under US trademark and patent law. Both trademarks and patents put the enforcement of trademarks and patents on the trademark and patent holders.


Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW View Post

Let say that I don't like the order of songs on the Sgt. Pepper album. I think "When I'm Sixty-Four" should follow "With a Little help From My Friend instead of "Within You Without You" and the album should end with "Lucy in The Sky With Diamonds". I can put my original Sgt. Pepper CD in my Mac and burn the version I like. No laws broken. (Now the RIAA might think otherwise.\). Now suppose most of the people that listen to my version of Sgt. Pepper also likes the way I changed it. Do I have the right to market my version of Sgt Pepper? Not even if I included an original Sgt. Pepper CD with my version. Not unless I get a license to do so from the copyright owner.

This is one of those special cases that government has caused by establishing special rights for the music industry through the DMCA and artistic copyright extensions. You can create a derivitive work of a song or album (rappers do this all the time) but you have to pay a royalty to the original copyright holder for it to be legal.
post #52 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by trboyden View Post

With the Bootcamp question the other poster posited, it has nothing to do with Microsoft licensing. He asked what keeps Dell from making a Bootcamp like application. The answer is - nothing. All Bootcamp is, is a utility to reboot the system into another operating system. It also happens to help the user by initially re-partitioning the hard drive to be able to install the other O/S. Anyone can do this. The trick to run Mac OS X is implementing a legal EFI emulator (or just include the chip on the mainboard in the first place). The practice of Apple using software to "brick" a system based on the hardware or software it is using should be deemed illegal and unethical. We're supposed to be a free country here and our freedom to innovate and freedom to experiment should be protected.

Apple is not purposely "bricking" other system with software. OSX, out of the box, just doesn't support other systems. If you want to hack your copy of OSX so that it works on your own system, you're are free to do so. Thousands of people have already done this and none of them are in jail for doing so.

Quote:
I can't believe you'd use the RIAA argument to justify Apple having to compete on selling an O/S. If everyone truly believes OS X is a better operating system, then it should be able to hold its own in the free market.

In a free market the owner of the IP should be able to decide how to use it. Apple choses to not compete in the computer OS market with MS. Instead they chose to compete in the computer hardware market with Dell, HP, Sony, Acer, etc.. And Apple has the right to use their IP to enhance the hardware they sell.

Quote:
Also, once again you use the phantom and untrue argument of forcing Apple to have to support other hardware vendor's equipment. Complete FUD. Show me the department at Microsoft that makes other vendor's software drivers. You can't, because there is none. The only thing Microsoft does is provide developer assistance on how to hook to their system APIs, just like Apple does now through the Apple Developer community. The computer vendors and hardware accessory market are on their own to provide drivers. You can see this plainly by visiting any of their support sites. If they don't make a driver, then their stuff won't work with Mac OS X, plain and simple.

It's not about Apple having to support thousands of different hardware configurations. It's about OSX being bloated with all the codes needed to support thousands of different hardware configurations. As an OSX and Mac user, would you be happy if OSX ended up running like Vista because it's bogged down with the codes needed to run on machines you would never buy?

Quote:
You want to support Apple, that's fine, but find a better, truthful argument, and stop spreading FUD. I like Apple and enjoy my Apple Macbook, but I'm against their trying to manipulate the market, and I think we're all seeing that they know their vendor lock-in policies are about to blow up in their face. Apple has the money to take this to trial and put Psystar out of business, but they know that their case is weak and might get ruled against. That's why theyre going with arbitration - non-binding arbitration at that.

Your logic doesn't make sense. Since the arbitration is non-binding, Apple can still (and will) go to trial if they don't like the outcome. What does Apple have to lose? If the outcome favors Apple then it's Psystar that will most likely not go to trial and waste what little money they have. So Apple will avoid a costly court battle. Logic would dictate that if Apple have a weak case they would fight Psystar in court. Where their billions in cash gives them the advantage and may make up for a weak case. Apple lawyers can tied this up in the court systems for years. By agreeing to non-binding arbitration Apple is confident that they can win without having to exercise their monetary strength over Psystar.
post #53 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW View Post

Apple is not purposely "bricking" other system with software. OSX, out of the box, just doesn't support other systems. If you want to hack your copy of OSX so that it works on your own system, you're are free to do so. Thousands of people have already done this and none of them are in jail for doing so.

Really? Where have you been?

Apple Bricking the iPhone

New Lawsuit Against Apple's Bricking of Unlocked iPhones

OSX86 Doesn't start after apple update?

Apple serves DMCA notice to OSx86 Project


Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW View Post

In a free market the owner of the IP should be able to decide how to use it. Apple choses to not compete in the computer OS market with MS. Instead they chose to compete in the computer hardware market with Dell, HP, Sony, Acer, etc.. And Apple has the right to use their IP to enhance the hardware they sell.

In a free market, the consumer decides what market a product maker is in with their wallet.


Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW View Post

It's not about Apple having to support thousands of different hardware configurations. It's about OSX being bloated with all the codes needed to support thousands of different hardware configurations. As an OSX and Mac user, would you be happy if OSX ended up running like Vista because it's bogged down with the codes needed to run on machines you would never buy?

What kind of BS is that? There's no codes in an O/S that dictate what hardware it can work with, that's what drivers are for. If you install only the OS X essentials and then add the drivers you need, you have a decently streamlined OS X install. Vista is bloated because they have to support operating system APIs all the way back to Windows 95. One of these days Microsoft will get around to cutting people off like Apple did in the OS 9 to OS X transition. Then Windows won't be so bloated.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW View Post

Your logic doesn't make sense. Since the arbitration is non-binding, Apple can still (and will) go to trial if they don't like the outcome. What does Apple have to lose? If the outcome favors Apple then it's Psystar that will most likely not go to trial and waste what little money they have. So Apple will avoid a costly court battle. Logic would dictate that if Apple have a weak case they would fight Psystar in court. Where their billions in cash gives them the advantage and may make up for a weak case. Apple lawyers can tied this up in the court systems for years. By agreeing to non-binding arbitration Apple is confident that they can win without having to exercise their monetary strength over Psystar.

So your saying it makes more sense for Apple to pay for arbitration and then pay again to go to trial, rather then just go to trial, bury Psystar,and be done with it?

Whose logic doesn't make sense?

This arbitration is non-binding, so even if it's decided in Apple's favor, they'll still need to go to court to enforce it, or pay for another binding arbitration that Psystar would be stupid to agree to.
post #54 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW View Post

Since the arbitration is non-binding, Apple can still (and will) go to trial if they don't like the outcome. What does Apple have to lose? If the outcome favors Apple then it's Psystar that will most likely not go to trial and waste what little money they have. So Apple will avoid a costly court battle. Logic would dictate that if Apple have a weak case they would fight Psystar in court. Where their billions in cash gives them the advantage and may make up for a weak case. Apple lawyers can tied this up in the court systems for years. By agreeing to non-binding arbitration Apple is confident that they can win without having to exercise their monetary strength over Psystar.

I think you are exactly right. I am a little concerned though that Psystar might get some financial
backing from one or more large PC hardware companies who would like to see Psystar
prevail, so that other companies could sell Mac OS X installed on their machines. Such
support might allow Psystar to hang on longer in court, and would make the process
more costly for Apple.
post #55 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by trboyden View Post

True, you have to use it on a computer that has an EFI chip or use an EFI emulator.



No, this is called improving a product. If they use encryption to protect the EEPROM, then you may be violating the DMCA, however that's another law that needs to be gotten rid of.

Copyrights have no bearing on your case, however if they have a patent, you may be oblidged to pay a royalty on your derivitive work to them as compensation for the duration of their patent.

Yes it does. The software that goes into programming an eprom is copyrightable. The BIOS on a PC is on an eprom and it's protected by copyright laws.



Quote:
If they don't stop hobbyists from stealing their IP, their IP is no longer valid under US trademark and patent law. Both trademarks and patents put the enforcement of trademarks and patents on the trademark and patent holders.

That would imply that all song writers no longer has the copyright to their songs because they failed to sue everyone that downloaded it illegally. All the owner of a patent, copyright or trademark have to do is inform the violators that they are infringing on their work. This constitute "enforcement". It is not necessary to bring every violator to court in order to keep from losing your rights as the owner of the IP.




Quote:
This is one of those special cases that government has caused by establishing special rights for the music industry through the DMCA and artistic copyright extensions. You can create a derivitive work of a song or album (rappers do this all the time) but you have to pay a royalty to the original copyright holder for it to be legal.

You also have to pay for a license or royalty even if you don't create a derivative of some one else's work. For instance if you use some else's copyrighted work, in it's original form, to market a product. You can not use some one else's song in a commercial to sell a product without permission. You can not use the image of Superman to sell your product without permission. And you can not market a product using some else's patent without permission. You can not put some else's trademark on your product without permission.
post #56 of 135

Then MS will also be guilty of "bricking" tens of thousands of PC's and cell phones every time they put out a patch or update.




Quote:
In a free market, the consumer decides what market a product maker is in with their wallet.

And if a consumer don't want to use OSX on a Mac, they're free to take their money and buy a Dell and use Windows.




Quote:
What kind of BS is that? There's no codes in an O/S that dictate what hardware it can work with, that's what drivers are for. If you install only the OS X essentials and then add the drivers you need, you have a decently streamlined OS X install. Vista is bloated because they have to support operating system APIs all the way back to Windows 95. One of these days Microsoft will get around to cutting people off like Apple did in the OS 9 to OS X transition. Then Windows won't be so bloated.

Granted that Windows is loaded with a lot of legacy codes that bogs it down. It's also written to handle the hundreds of different ways in which hardware venders write their drivers. Even if Windows only uses one graphic driver at a time it must be able to deal with as many variations as possible. If all drivers interact the same way with the OS then there shouldn't have been any problems with drivers when switching from XP to Vista. OSX on the other hand knows it only has to deal with a hand full of drivers.

Don't think for a second that it's all up to the vender to write the driver for the OS. If MS (or Apple) market an OS that is suppose to work on as many different hardware configuration as possible, they have a responsibility to see that it does. They will help the venders with writing the drivers. They need to make sure a venders graphic card driver don't conflict with another venders sound card driver. Even if it means changing or adding codes on their OS to better handle all the different possible drivers. Otherwise they pay for it on the support end.



Quote:
So your saying it makes more sense for Apple to pay for arbitration and then pay again to go to trial, rather then just go to trial, bury Psystar,and be done with it?

Whose logic doesn't make sense?

This arbitration is non-binding, so even if it's decided in Apple's favor, they'll still need to go to court to enforce it, or pay for another binding arbitration that Psystar would be stupid to agree to.

It's gotta cost a lot less to go into arbitration that into a court trial. Don't you think? Apple could be done with it at arbitration if they have a strong enough case. They only have to go to court if they don't agree with the outcome or if Psystar doesn't agree with the outcome. And I doubt if Psystar is going to go to court if the outcome is in Apple's favor just so that they can spend more money to lose again. There is no going to court to "enforce" anything since it's non-binding. If Psystar loses and agrees to Apple's terms then it becomes binding and no court trial. If Psystar loses and don't agree to Apple's term then it start from square one again with a court trial. And of course if Apple loses, they will fight it in a court trial.
post #57 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leonard View Post

Exactly. It's cheaper for Apple and Psystar and Apple has nothing to lose.

Nothing to lose??

Hardware is a very big and profitable business for Apple. Apple has a tremendous amount to lose.
post #58 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by trboyden View Post

...Perhaps I should of said BAD laws, which is what I meant to say. Of course laws are meant to be followed, but bad laws are meant to be disobeyed. Besides businesses and our own government hardly follow our laws anyways, so what's the point. They're all made to control the people.

Wow. Just wow. Who gets to decided what is a bad law? The only way I can see something being defined as a "bad law" is one that is unconstitutional or goes against something in the Bill of Rights. Who are you to decided a law is bad and you don't have to follow it? Just because Psystar decided to break a "bad law" (yes, they are stealing. I don't care if you deny it) it doesn't mean they won't have to suffer the consequences. I hope they do.

If Apple were to lose this, everyone would lose out. Apple would sell OS X for a lot more, or they wouldn't bother investing as much in R&D and even the Psystar customer would lose out.

I don't care what the x86 people do. I don't care that they have a hobby, but the moment you commercialize it, it is a big deal. Now you are profiting from Apple's hard work and stealing a hardware sale from them.

It's stealing. And it is wrong. Apple can sell a Mac Mini for $100,000,000 and there isn't a thing we can do about it, other than decided to purchase it or not. If you don't like that Apple is charging so much, vote with your wallet and don't buy anything. You don't have a right to Mac OS X.

Yup, I just checked the Bill of Rights. I guess they forget to mention the 28th Amendment, the Right to Bear Mac OS X.

EDIT: Laws are made to control people????? DUH! You make that sound like a bad thing! People need laws to keep from bashing each others' brains in. Common sense is rarity, indeed.
post #59 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by trboyden View Post

What has stopped the big PC vendors? One, risk - they want to see how this case works out. Two, they'd have to come up with a system that is user-friendly to avoid support nightmares. Psystar's systems suck, but a certain segment will still buy them because they want it anyways and Psystar can get away with it because they are small. Big PC vendors are all about the mainstream public, which wouldn't put up with the issues of the OSx86 project.

Dell and others would love to have more leverage with Microsoft, but the legal costs of creating an unauthorized Mac could be massive and most legal departments would probably suggest that their company would be better off steering clear of a possible lawsuit with Apple. I am not too clear about the EFix device, but if the device merely emulates the EFI as claimed then save for the lack of EFI support there are a few Intel boards that could support MacOS without modification in which case Apple case against clone lies purely upon the EULA that says you can't run this software on any non-Apple computers. IANAL, but AFAIK relying upon the EULA is not as strong a legal argument as violating IP law.

While I am not fond of the Psystar machines, I think Apple could put Psystar out of business quite easily by simply releasing their own minitower. If Apple created a box that used a MicroATX case with a single CPU that maxed out at 8Gib of DDR2 that was officially supported by Apple there wouldn't be much market for Psystar. The Psystar Open Computer isn't that cheap honestly. Apple could position a box at ~$800-$1000 and still have ample margin to make it worth selling. Furthermore, save for the true hobbyists, most people would prefer to have something supported by Apple then something slapped together with technical support that may be of questionable value.

I always hear the criticism that Apple shouldn't make this standalone model in between the Mac Mini and the Mac Pro, but the chasm is so large that it wouldn't be terribly difficult for Apple to market something in between the two that is crippled enough not to pose a threat to their Mac Pro sales, but provide sufficient power over the Mac Mini to justify to upgrade in price for customers. I remember selling computers for a while and anecdotally found a lot of people who wanted a Mac and already owned a good size monitor, but wanted something more powerful than the Mac Mini, but didn't want to go towards the Mac Pro because it was way overkill for their needs. Apple's answer has always been that one should buy an iMac if the specs for the Mac mini were insufficient(that basic answer is even part of their sales training), but that answer really doesn't really work very well with real customers.

Apple inaccurately presumes that nobody already has a monitor that they are already happy with. Furthermore, Apple's iMac panels aren't much better than anything else on the market (Apple was sued for exaggerating the color depth of the panels IIRC) so in many cases Apple can't even say that the included panel in the iMac is better than what the customer already has. Unless Apple is going to offer a credit towards their iMac purchase for their existing monitor, I think Apple is always going to have an uphill battle selling to this audience regardless of whether they are geeks who want a machine that is easy to upgrade or not. The mini-tower configuration is still the de facto standard for most consumer computers. Apple shouldn't be fighting for the sub $500 market, but there are plenty of people willing to pay ~$800 for Mac, but want something a little more powerful and upgradeable then the Mac Mini.
post #60 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by SSA View Post

The mini-tower configuration is still the de facto standard for most consumer computers.

Apart from the fact that.... it's not.

Most consumers are purchasing notebooks.
This year's growth area is the NetBook
Dell, Gateway and HP have joined Sony in offering desktop AIOs.
Dell are now selling their Studio Hybrid (Mac Mini Killer!)
A lot of consumers (especially in the US) are already buying Apple solutions.

I am not denying that there is a market for the product that you and others on this board seem to desire, but it's not as large as you think and in the US (Apple's largest market) it is actually shrinking.
post #61 of 135
Quote:
Apple should just super encrypt its boot up process in hardware with the proper Mac firmware key that can be issued at the time of purchase of a real Mac. That way no Mac OSX could work on a non-licensed Mac. All future paid upgrade purchases could be bought and verified with an original Mac purchase through Apple's software update program from a database of hardware sales. No personal ownership info need be supplied, particularly in the used Mac market, because if you have the hardware, ownership is implied and the firmware key would be already in the database from the original purchase.

Yup I agree with you because by doing this it can keep people like trboyden at bay.

Look, it seems trboyden got a lot of point on his own but you also don't know much about building your own hackintosh and the process into doing it. Psycrap uses code given freely by the OSx86 community and put that into their crappy PC without paying loyalties or asking permission from the maker of that certain driver. And then they install OS X into the PC solving the hassles from installing a hackintosh which has been made much easier. The problem I see here, not from the law point of view but from the consumer point of view is for a normal consumer who do now know about what Psycrap is doing is illegal, Apple do not authorize it, when something goes wrong with the OS, who will they go? Most likely they will go to Apple cause its Apple OS.

This is the reason why I don't enjoy US laws, cuz some of them is crappy. Consumers right...how about the makers right? A consumer has the choice if they want to use a product or not. So the consumers know that Apple do not sell their OS on other people hardware yet they still want to use the OS on normal PC cause they say that its not fair by locking the OS down, but hey, you dont create the program, you don't own the OS, its up to Apple to decide what THEY want to to do with their OS, if you don't like what Apple is doing, don't buy. Its as simple as that.

Also, from a Apple user perspective, if OS X were to be open, the outcome won't be good.
Apple is a hardware company, dont believe me? Read this Article!. For those who understand my message, help me spread this info to those who dont get it.
Reply
Apple is a hardware company, dont believe me? Read this Article!. For those who understand my message, help me spread this info to those who dont get it.
Reply
post #62 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by trboyden View Post

I perfectly understand licensing. It's an illegal one-way contract imposed by the licensor to make you use a product the way they want you to use it. And EULAs, which is where the clause your referring to is located, have been succesfully challenged and overuled in court making them invalid. Which is why this case is going to arbitration and not court.

Tell that to the thousands of artist, software developers, song writers .. etc. Tell them that you think that the licensing law that protect their work from being stolen is bad law. Maybe if you have invented something you will understand this issue better. While at it. why not challenge patents as well. I believe everyone agrees that patents are becoming so silly these days but we all agree that they are important and should be enforced even if the patent system is messed up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by trboyden View Post

Copyrights have no bearing on your case, however if they have a patent, you may be oblidged to pay a royalty on your derivitive work to them as compensation for the duration of their patent.

Only if they agree. You cannot force them to license or let you use their patent if they don't want you to. Even if you are welling to pay for it.

Quote:
If they don't stop hobbyists from stealing their IP, their IP is no longer valid under US trademark and patent law. Both trademarks and patents put the enforcement of trademarks and patents on the trademark and patent holders.

You cannot enforce it if you don't know who is doing it! The only way RIAA are able to prosecute copyrights violators is by getting their IP addresses from ISP since they are publicly sharing their music the same way PsyStar is publicly violating Mac OS copyrights. Many people are ripping their music and share them privately with friends and family members the same way many are hacking Mac OS to work on their PCs You cannot violate people privacy.
post #63 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by wheelhot View Post

Yup I agree with you because by doing this it can keep people like trboyden at bay.

Look, it seems trboyden got a lot of point on his own but you also don't know much about building your own hackintosh and the process into doing it. Psycrap uses code given freely by the OSx86 community and put that into their crappy PC without paying loyalties or asking permission from the maker of that certain driver. And then they install OS X into the PC solving the hassles from installing a hackintosh which has been made much easier. The problem I see here, not from the law point of view but from the consumer point of view is for a normal consumer who do now know about what Psycrap is doing is illegal, Apple do not authorize it, when something goes wrong with the OS, who will they go? Most likely they will go to Apple cause its Apple OS.

This is the reason why I don't enjoy US laws, cuz some of them is crappy. Consumers right...how about the makers right? A consumer has the choice if they want to use a product or not. So the consumers know that Apple do not sell their OS on other people hardware yet they still want to use the OS on normal PC cause they say that its not fair by locking the OS down, but hey, you dont create the program, you don't own the OS, its up to Apple to decide what THEY want to to do with their OS, if you don't like what Apple is doing, don't buy. Its as simple as that.

Also, from a Apple user perspective, if OS X were to be open, the outcome won't be good.

Well said, some people believe that only the consumer should have any right, and the maker or manufacturer should have none. I mean how ludicrous is that. Apple products have always been expensive, you don't like it, don't buy their products, or save up, that's what I did and I was able to buy one. Apple can charge whatever the heck they want, they are growing and making money at these price points so why the heck should they change the prices, you don't think Dell and HP want to charge the prices Apple can, unfortunately they can't because they can't differentiate themselves and have to compete on prices. Trying to force Apple to do something that goes against their business model is absolutely nonsense. In fact these Psystar guys should be jailed for doing this.
post #64 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by piot View Post

Apart from the fact that.... it's not.

On desktops I am afraid it is. Except for Apple most of the AIO machines have been absymal failures. You can stand outside any store that sells computers and you will find that almost every desktop going out the door will be a minitower. Heck, even online you will find that excluding Macs the vast majority of the best selling computers are mini-towers. If you look at Amazon's top selling desktops half of them are HP mini-towers the last I checked. The mini-tower configuration isn't some niche market. I sold computers for a living from '06-07 and I remember meeting a lot of people who were interested in buying a Mac and already owned a good size monitor that they liked(making the iMac a silly purchase), but wanted something with more power than the Mac Mini and found the Mac Pro overkill.

These potential Apple customers aren't theoretical, they are real people. Sticking your nose up at them and saying that they aren't significant is fine provided you don't mind the less options that a smaller Apple user base will entail. The more market share Apple has the more quantity and quality of software that will be made for MacOS. While there is plenty of software for MacOS, some of the ports are half-assed. If Apple had more market share, there would be more interest in quality control for Mac software.

Quote:
This year's growth area is the NetBook.

You're right. Most of the growth in laptops is in a space where Steve Jobs thinks that his company should wait and see. As the median average price drops Apple's potential market share will decline. Apple has largely gained mobile market share by simply taking over a majority of the >$1000 market. A some point Apple will run out of additional market share of the >$1000 market that they realistically can take over and their marketshare will flat line again. Another example of Apple ignoring the market, ultimately to their own detriment. There is no problem with creating innovative products high end products for the customers that want them, but just like Apple realized that there is a market for lower end ipods they need to realize that there is a market for a lower end laptop, much like there is a market for a mid range non-AIO desktop.

Quote:
Dell, Gateway and HP have joined Sony in offering desktop AIOs.

They offer them, but save for the HP Touchsmart, I haven't seen much evidence that any of the non-Apple AIO are selling very well. It appears Gateway has all, but officially pulled the plug on the Gateway One. Sony AIO line was fairly recently updated so I they haven't given up yet, but I wouldn't be surprised if Sony's AIO joins the grave along with their their failed TP and XL line HTPCs. Despite Dell now selling in retail AFAIK you wouldn't find a single Dell XPS One(Dell's AIO) in a retail store. If said model was so successful, I am sure somebody would sell it. Generally items that you can buy online only tend to be niche items that you would never sell sufficient volume to sell in retail.

Bottom line, most desktops sell for <$1000 and for the most part AIOs don't sell below this price point. You don't need to look at NDP or Gartner research numbers to know that.

Quote:
A lot of consumers (especially in the US) are already buying Apple solutions.

So because Apple is doing well lately, you are saying that they couldn't do better still by taking a slightly different strategy? You could use that same argument on why Apple shouldn't sell a laptop below $1000, but you don't need to be a genius to see that Apple won't be able to keep growing their marketshare for much longer without adding additional products to their lineup if the current trend towards cheaper laptops continues. While I agree that Apple doesn't want to harm their brand image by rushing products to market that are half baked, I think that Apple is running out of potential new customers that they can add without a new product line.

Quote:
I am not denying that there is a market for the product that you and others on this board seem to desire, but it's not as large as you think and in the US (Apple's largest market) it is actually shrinking.

The >$1000 laptop market is shrinking as a percentage of the laptop market as well, so by that line of reasoning Apple shouldn't have introduced the MBA. While Apple doesn't face questions about the viability of their OS like they did 8-10 years ago there is no question that bringing more users in the Apple userbase would help expand the the number of software developers for MacOS. Steve Ballmer may be stupid, but he was right when he screamed about "developers, developers, developers..." There are a lot of people that need Mac ports of just one or two applications to make the jump and a larger userbase makes it more likely that those applications will be ported. For the most part more users is virtually always a good thing in the Mac universe.
post #65 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by trboyden View Post

We're supposed to be a free country here and our freedom to innovate and freedom to experiment should be protected.

Our legal rights have nothing to do with how Apple chooses to sell its products.

Quote:
I can't believe you'd use the RIAA argument to justify Apple having to compete on selling an O/S. If everyone truly believes OS X is a better operating system, then it should be able to hold its own in the free market.

You accuse him of spreading FUD. How does OS X not currently hold its own in the free market. It competes against an OS that holds 90% of the market.

Quote:
Also, once again you use the phantom and untrue argument of forcing Apple to have to support other hardware vendor's equipment. Complete FUD. Show me the department at Microsoft that makes other vendor's software drivers. You can't, because there is none. The only thing Microsoft does is provide developer assistance on how to hook to their system APIs, just like Apple does now through the Apple Developer community. The computer vendors and hardware accessory market are on their own to provide drivers. You can see this plainly by visiting any of their support sites. If they don't make a driver, then their stuff won't work with Mac OS X, plain and simple.

Microsoft received a lot of criticism over Vista when it originally launched. Because drivers were inconsistent. MS had to work with vendors to help get the situation fixed. Apple would have to do the same.

Quote:
You want to support Apple, that's fine, but find a better, truthful argument, and stop spreading FUD. I like Apple and enjoy my Apple Macbook, but I'm against their trying to manipulate the market, and I think we're all seeing that they know their vendor lock-in policies are about to blow up in their face.

This is a dictionary definition of FUD. How is Apple manipulating the market with an OS that is only around 3% of the market?

Their are lots of other products that have vertical systems. This business practice is nothing unique to Apple. In fact it dates back to the year 1901 with King Camp Gillette and the disposable safety razor.
post #66 of 135

You simply continue with distorted information. Apple stated they would do nothing to support any incompatibilities if you jailbreak your phone. Apple announced that this update may harm your phone if you've jail broken it. People did not listen and when it happened they accused Apple of doing it on purpose, when they were duly warned from the beginning on the risk of this practice.


Quote:
In a free market, the consumer decides what market a product maker is in with their wallet.

How does Apple prevent the consumer from deciding with their wallet?




Quote:
What kind of BS is that? There's no codes in an O/S that dictate what hardware it can work with, that's what drivers are for. If you install only the OS X essentials and then add the drivers you need, you have a decently streamlined OS X install. Vista is bloated because they have to support operating system APIs all the way back to Windows 95. One of these days Microsoft will get around to cutting people off like Apple did in the OS 9 to OS X transition. Then Windows won't be so bloated.

The difference between BIOS and EFI. If what you say is correct the hackintosh community would not have had to develop hacks to make a hackintosh.
post #67 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by extremeskater View Post

If Psystar purchased legal copies of OSX they should be able to run it on any hardware they want, as should anyone else.

You've not been listening in class.
post #68 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by extremeskater View Post

I never thought Apple had a very strong case. I actually hope Apple takes a beating on this seeing they allow Windows to run on their hardware but won't allow the reverse because SJ is a control freak.

Yes, because the ONLY reason Apple sells computers (which include hardware and software) is because Steve is a control freak. Nope, has nothing to do with Apple's successful business model (of selling one product, hardware and software all included), or the fact that that businees model has led to their much smaller OS market share having 1 third of all revenues made on computers (note that that includes hardware and software sales). Nope, not at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by extremeskater View Post

If Psystar purchased legal copies of OSX they should be able to run it on any hardware they want, as should anyone else.

What, says you? Why?

Oh, and Pystar purchased legal UPGRADE copies of Mac OSX, which they then altered and sold.

Quote:
Originally Posted by extremeskater View Post

I think I have been paying too close attention in class. The fact is is Apple had a solid case they would be dropping the hammer on Psystar. Clearly they do not.

Yes, because clearly Apple loves to destroy people, which is what they would have done. Clearly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by extremeskater View Post

When this all started there were thread about how Apple was going to destroy Psytar, clearly wrong again.

Yes, if it went to trial, which it has not. Clearly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by extremeskater View Post

At least IMO this is yet again another case where Apple wants two sets of rules, one for them and one for everyone else.

And what rules would those be? That they get to chose how they sell their products? How is that different from any other company in the computer business?

Quote:
Originally Posted by extremeskater View Post

In any case if SJ keeps making poor choices about new hardware releases like adding stupid mini display ports and pulling firewire we aren't going to have to worry about this when there market share drops back down to about 2.2%.

Clearly for you, opinion = fact. Clearly.


Forget not listening in class, you've never been.


And to the other poster arguing for Pystar in this thread, if you want the freedom to innovate, how about you create your own OS that you have the freedom to do with what you please? Apple owes you nothing, despite what you may think.
post #69 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltimateKylie View Post

In addition this has more to do about a Apple Monopoly then IP. If I buy an Apple computer and love OS X and buy $2000 of software that runs on OS X, i'm pretty much at this point from a legal standpoint required to continue to buy Apple Hardware if I want to use my $2000 software (unless all those licenses can be transfered to Windows or Linux, provided such versions even exist) or I was unwilling to not use OS X. If I didn't like the features (such as no Firewire in a 13in laptop) I would still have to buy Apple to use my software and OS X. This is a quasi monopoly unlike Windows or Linux where I can change Hardware and still keep my licensed copy of Linux or Windows and associates software I have gathered over the years.

If you buy a Dell, and love Windows Vista and buy $2000 of software that runs on Vista, you're pretty much at this point from a legal? standpoint required to continue to buy Windows OS software if you want to use your $2000 software. If you didn't like the features (I'm assuming you meant to say "of new Apple hardware" here) of new Windows OS software you would still have to buy Windows to use your software.

Whats the difference?

Quasi Monopoly? Nobody that has ever argued for Pystar and people like them have yet been able to explain how a company can have a monopoly on their own product.
post #70 of 135
Quote:
Well said, some people believe that only the consumer should have any right, and the maker or manufacturer should have none. I mean how ludicrous is that. Apple products have always been expensive, you don't like it, don't buy their products, or save up, that's what I did and I was able to buy one. Apple can charge whatever the heck they want, they are growing and making money at these price points so why the heck should they change the prices, you don't think Dell and HP want to charge the prices Apple can, unfortunately they can't because they can't differentiate themselves and have to compete on prices. Trying to force Apple to do something that goes against their business model is absolutely nonsense. In fact these Psystar guys should be jailed for doing this.

Yup, I agree with you.

Quote:
And to the other poster arguing for Pystar in this thread, if you want the freedom to innovate, how about you create your own OS that you have the freedom to do with what you please? Apple owes you nothing, despite what you may think.

Yup, I agree with you too.

Quote:
Yes, because the ONLY reason Apple sells computers (which include hardware and software) is because Steve is a control freak. Nope, has nothing to do with Apple's successful business model (of selling one product, hardware and software all included), or the fact that that businees model has led to their much smaller OS market share having 1 third of all revenues made on computers (note that that includes hardware and software sales). Nope, not at all.

True, this seems to be the problem also because people don't know Steve is a control freak. Steve control freak attitude made what Apple is today, his control freak attitude made Apple to create products beyond the industry standard, a lot of new people who are buying Macs fail to realize this, they kept complaining, I want to install OS X on normal PCs or I want a fully upgradeable desktop.

Yeah, Jobs control freak isn't necessary good but it is one of the factors that make Apple successful today. Look at MSoft, during the early computer years, they made tons of money when they open up their OS, look what happen now, they need too have soo many programmers, their OS quality has become worse and many other problems the company is facing now.

I seriously suggest people to start watching Pirates of the Silicon Valley to know how do Bill Gates and Steve visioned their company. It will make you understand what and why Apple is doing now and why MS is having problem now.
Apple is a hardware company, dont believe me? Read this Article!. For those who understand my message, help me spread this info to those who dont get it.
Reply
Apple is a hardware company, dont believe me? Read this Article!. For those who understand my message, help me spread this info to those who dont get it.
Reply
post #71 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by quinney View Post

I think you are exactly right. I am a little concerned though that Psystar might get some financial
backing from one or more large PC hardware companies who would like to see Psystar
prevail, so that other companies could sell Mac OS X installed on their machines. Such
support might allow Psystar to hang on longer in court, and would make the process
more costly for Apple.

When you really think about it, none of the big four (HP, Dell, Acer and Lenveno) hardware makers would really gain much by marketing a computer with OSX. That is, if they all got the license to sell computers with OSX. Apple world market share is about 4%. That would mean that if they took all of Apple's market share away, they each would only gain 1%. The rest of the hardware they sold with OSX would be cannibalizing their own sales.

Whose market share are they taking away if they market a $699 computer with OSX. Not Apple's. Whose market share are they taking away if they market a $1200 mini tower with OSX. Not Apple's. The same with a sub $900 notebook and high end gaming machines. The majority of these sales will come from consumers that would have bought a Dell, HP, Acer or Lenveno anyways. For sure Apple's hardware sales will suffer. But those market shares loss is hardly worth fighting for when you're one of the big four. And marketing a computer whose market shares will eventually come out of your own market shares is just not good business practice. Specially if it cost more to license OSX than Windows.

Now smaller companies like Sony, Toshiba or Panasonic would stand to gain a lot, if they get a license for OSX, because they can steal market shares from the big four. (Providing none of the big four gets a license for OSX.) Without resorting to fighting for market shares in the low margin sub $800 market. (Like what Apple does. ) But this doesn't do the consumers that are looking for a cheap computer with OSX any good. (But it may solve that world wide problem of no medium price mini tower with OSX.)

Marketing a computer with OSX is only worth the effort for one of the big four only if one of them get the license for OSX. This way they can steal market shares from the other three. The only other benefit of getting an OSX license, if you're one of the big four, is to loosen the strangle hold MS have on them, with Windows.

Licensing OSX to other computer hardware makers is really a no win proposition for Mac fans and AAPL shareholders.
post #72 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltimateKylie View Post

In addition this has more to do about a Apple Monopoly then IP. If I buy an Apple computer and love OS X and buy $2000 of software that runs on OS X, i'm pretty much at this point from a legal standpoint required to continue to buy Apple Hardware if I want to use my $2000 software (unless all those licenses can be transfered to Windows or Linux, provided such versions even exist) or I was unwilling to not use OS X. If I didn't like the features (such as no Firewire in a 13in laptop) I would still have to buy Apple to use my software and OS X. This is a quasi monopoly unlike Windows or Linux where I can change Hardware and still keep my licensed copy of Linux or Windows and associates software I have gathered over the years.

Nonsense. One can invest a lot of money in buying software (games) for the XBOX, PS3 and the Nintendo Wii. All of those also use off-the-shelf components.

Only when you can pirate the OS running any of these systems into your own common-PC-parts-system and try to sell it without ramification from Microsoft, Sony, or Nintendo will you have any kind of argument to stand on.

Apple is no different from these other so-called "Monopolies" yet I don't hear a single iota from any whiners screaming bloody-murder that these complete-package-systems ("consoles") are violating their god-given right to take a company's IP property and use it as they see fit.
post #73 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by extremeskater View Post

I will agree with you it has nothing to do with Apples business model and everything to do with SJ being a control freak. In fact Apples board wanted to market the OS to everyone years ago and SJ put the veto on that.

And with good reasons. Apple licensed out their OS back in the 90's and saw their market share go from about 15% (US) to below 3%(US). The first thing Jobs did when he got back control of Apple in 1998 was to end their license agreement with the Mac clones makers. And in 10 years Apple is once again nearing double digit market share (US).


Quote:
Freedom to do with as you wish? You mean like Linux?

Its funny how Mac users, use more freeware then any other group but want to hold onto control of their OS for dear life.

By "freeware" do you mean software that the authors allow computer users to use for free. Or do you mean "freeware" as the pirated copy of Windows (In the form of 3.1, 95,98,ME,2000 or XP. Vista isn't worth pirating ) or MS Office that every PC owner I know have installed on their PC at one time or another?

Quote:
Apple can not use the "our hardware is special" anymore that went away the day they went to intel, nvidia, ati and are now using all the same hardware as everyone else. There is nothing special about Apple hardware.

Apple had always use the same internal hardware as everyone else. The only difference was the processor. It's just that no one notice until they switched to an Intel processor. My old G4 Power Mac has internal hardware made by Adaptec, ATI, Sony, Lucent and Seagate.

Quote:
Well except for the about to fail mini display port. Yeah that was a great idea. Also if any of you guys need a firewire port I have three on my Velocity Micro system.

And I bet you were one of them that was criticizing Apple for putting in Firewire port on their computers in the first place. Unless you got the Pismo laptop (2000) which had both Firewire and SCSI, Apple slowly did away with SCSI on their computers and replaced it with Firewire. If Apple didn't forge ahead with Firewire you wouldn't have any Firewire ports on your PC.

Quote:
Your just the typical fanboy thinking somehow Apple is elite. It isn't.


Also as far as a business model.

Apple users have been screaming give us the option of matte, everything going glossy

Give us Blu ray. Yeah good luck.

Mid tower that can be upgraded. Pipe dream, SJ doesn't trust you to upgrade he wants you to share his dream and only his dream. Or is that delusion.

In the 10 years that Jobs been in charge of Apple, Apple has manage to exceed (at one time at least ) the market cap of Dell, HP, IBM. Cisco, Oracle and Disney. And their US market share has risen from under 3% to nearly 10%. Not bad for a company that most said wouldn't make it past the century. And all this without marketing a mid price mini tower. No delusion here, Just reality. (Though maybe a little distorted for some. )

Quote:
By the way did I mention the new mini display port. Yeah that was a good idea, HDMI is over rated anyways. You know the rest or the world only uses that silly stuff like DVI and HDMI.

The more I look at this they better market their OS to the rest of the world doesnt look llike the hardware is going in the right direction.

And guess what? A mini display port can output DVI, VGA and HDMI. All you need is an adapter. (DVI and VGA adapter are already available from Apple and third party.) But really, the mini display port is meant to output to a second monitor. Not to an HDTV. And most monitor has either VGA or DVI. So Apple is covered. And since Apple laptops only have a DVD player (no BluRay yet.), who's going to use the laptop as a DVD player for an HDTV. Most people with TV's already have a DVD player hooked up to it.

And HDMI is over rated. It's nothing but DVI with sound (up to full 7.1 surround). But what monitor or HDTV have built in surround sound. Most have stereo if they have any built in speakers at all. To get the full surround you need to plug the HDMI into a surround receiver and then output the video from the receiver to the HDTV (or monitor). Usually by way of composite, component, VGA or S-video. And hi end receivers will have the DVI and HDMI outputs. You can accomplish the same by plugging your HDTV (or monitor) to a DVI port (or mini display with adapter) and your receiver to the audio port. (Or using an HDMI cable that has the audio split from it by way of RCA plug.) But if your monitor has a display port, you won't need to plug into the audio port.


Edit-My mistake. I thought my Apple "Pismo" laptop had SCSI. but it doesn't. The Apple laptop that preceded it, "Lombard", had SCSI but no Firewire. The "Pismo" replaced SCSI with Firewire in 2000.
post #74 of 135
Quote:
I will agree with you it has nothing to do with Apples business model and everything to do with SJ being a control freak. In fact Apples board wanted to market the OS to everyone years ago and SJ put the veto on that.

Dude, you are an idiot, I written a few post behind asking to READ my signature about Apple is a hardware company. The bold is WRONG!!!!, Apple open up their OS, they lose more money, consumers happy. Yea, you would like that, you selfish person.

Quote:
Its funny how Mac users, use more freeware then any other group but want to hold onto control of their OS for dear life.

Huh? How sure are you that Mac users use more freeware then other group? Which group you referring to? Windows? Linux? And where you get this fact from?

Quote:
Well except for the about to fail mini display port. Yeah that was a great idea. Also if any of you guys need a firewire port I have three on my Velocity Micro system.

Fail mini display port? Well Apple just use it a couple of days ago and you call it FAIL!, you remind me of Ballmer which says no one will buy the iPhone. Are you Ballmer in disguise?

Quote:
Apple users have been screaming give us the option of matte, everything going glossy

Give us Blu ray. Yeah good luck.

Erm the rest of the market is going glossy too, so your point is? And what's up with this blu-ray stuffs, the technology is still NEW!!! its burning speed is still slow so Its not like a MUST have.

Quote:
Mid tower that can be upgraded. Pipe dream, SJ doesn't trust you to upgrade he wants you to share his dream and only his dream. Or is that delusion.

There is a reason why Apple prefer not to make fully upgradeable system, one of it is because then Apple will really look like some other PC manufacturers. The specs that they give in their AIO is very good, in fact good enough for most users.

Quote:
In the 10 years that Jobs been in charge of Apple, Apple has manage to exceed (at one time at least ) the market cap of Dell, HP, IBM. Cisco, Oracle and Disney. And their US market share has risen from under 3% to nearly 10%. Not bad for a company that most said wouldn't make it past the century. And all this without marketing a mid price mini tower. No delusion here, Just reality. (Though maybe a little distorted for some. )

you say it! :thumbsup:

Quote:
Apple had always use the same internal hardware as everyone else. The only difference was the processor. It's just that no one notice until they switched to an Intel processor. My old G4 Power Mac has internal hardware made by Adaptec, ATI, Sony, Lucent and Seagate.

Yup, you are right, extremeskater knowledge about Apple products and history seems very limited. It made me laugh sometimes reading his comments, he only know half of the stories. In fact its amazing he know those stories.
Apple is a hardware company, dont believe me? Read this Article!. For those who understand my message, help me spread this info to those who dont get it.
Reply
Apple is a hardware company, dont believe me? Read this Article!. For those who understand my message, help me spread this info to those who dont get it.
Reply
post #75 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaynardJames View Post

If you buy a Dell, and love Windows Vista and buy $2000 of software that runs on Vista, you're pretty much at this point from a legal? standpoint required to continue to buy Windows OS software if you want to use your $2000 software. If you didn't like the features (I'm assuming you meant to say "of new Apple hardware" here) of new Windows OS software you would still have to buy Windows to use your software.

Whats the difference?

Quasi Monopoly? Nobody that has ever argued for Pystar and people like them have yet been able to explain how a company can have a monopoly on their own product.

Except, you'd be wrong because I'd be able to use it under Linux with the WINE project. Something that Apple's vendor lock-in prevents you from doing with Apple software.
post #76 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

You accuse him of spreading FUD. How does OS X not currently hold its own in the free market. It competes against an OS that holds 90% of the market.

Is Apple an O/S or hardware company? You all keep changing the supposed facts to fit your arguments. Apple doesn't compete in the O/S market because they don't market it separately from their hardware.


Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Microsoft received a lot of criticism over Vista when it originally launched. Because drivers were inconsistent. MS had to work with vendors to help get the situation fixed. Apple would have to do the same.

That's because Microsoft tried to break away from old APIs (like Apple did with the OS 9 to OS X transition) and the vendors responded with providing crappily coded drivers.

Because of the size of Microsoft's market, they have a lot harder time getting vendors to write code to Microsoft's specs. Because Apple's market share is smaller, they can dictate what they'll accept as a driver on their systems. I won't justify which approach works better, because both have their merits - wide product compatibility and availability vs. tighter control and generally, better quality drivers.

Besides, I thought Apple deosn't have to do anything they don't want to do, isn't that the basis of all your claims?


Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

This is a dictionary definition of FUD. How is Apple manipulating the market with an OS that is only around 3% of the market?

Their are lots of other products that have vertical systems. This business practice is nothing unique to Apple. In fact it dates back to the year 1901 with King Camp Gillette and the disposable safety razor.

Apple manipulates the Apple operating system market by actively preventing it from being used on the same, equal hardware provided by a different vendor. That's anti-competitive behavior which is an anti-trust violation under U.S. law. You can ask Microsoft about that, I do believe they had to pay a hefty fine for that same behavior. The fact that Apple holds a lower percentage of the PC market has no bearing on trying to prevent fair competition.

Gillette has been sued plenty of times for anti-competitive behavior.
post #77 of 135
Quote:
Apple manipulates the Apple operating system market by actively preventing it from being used on the same, equal hardware provided by a different vendor. That's anti-competitive behavior which is an anti-trust violation under U.S. law. You can ask Microsoft about that, I do believe they had to pay a hefty fine for that same behavior. The fact that Apple holds a lower percentage of the PC market has no bearing on trying to prevent fair competition.

What Apple OS Market are you crapping about? Do Apple allow their OS to be installed on certain PC manufacturers like Dell or HP or some other brand? No, they made the OS and install it on their own product. Its not like they contract some other maker to make an OS specific for them that only they can use. So what, means that you should sue Sony PS3 because its console OS is specific on PS3, sew XBox 360 because their OS is specific to their hardware, sew every MP3 player out there because each has their own OS that can only run on their own system. Why don't you sew every company out there that make their own stuffs for their own products. You will be richer then Warren Buffett in no time.
Apple is a hardware company, dont believe me? Read this Article!. For those who understand my message, help me spread this info to those who dont get it.
Reply
Apple is a hardware company, dont believe me? Read this Article!. For those who understand my message, help me spread this info to those who dont get it.
Reply
post #78 of 135
Lets be quite clear on this SSA, because you appear to be taking my point the wrong way.

When I say that the US market for a mid-range upgradeable consumer tower... "is actually shrinking" That's exactly what I mean! Not JUST the market SHARE.... but the actual number of potential customers.

I then gave you my reasoning. Apple nearly tripling their share over the last 4 years. Notebook sales overtaking desktops. The recent NetBook trend adding to the rise in NON-desktops. The fact that mainstream PC manufacturers are adding AOIs and mini desktops to their line-ups.

Add those trends to the real figures.
US PC sales in 2004: 62 million
US PC sales in 2004: 68 million (est.)


Quote:
Originally Posted by SSA View Post

On desktops I am afraid it is. Except for Apple most of the AIO machines have been absymal failures. You can stand outside any store that sells computers and you will find that almost every desktop going out the door will be a minitower. Heck, even online you will find that excluding Macs the vast majority of the best selling computers are mini-towers. If you look at Amazon's top selling desktops half of them are HP mini-towers the last I checked.

Personally, I don't loiter outside PC stores. Quoting the Amazon best seller list is pretty unscientific.... but I'll play!

Today's Amazon top 50 desktops:

25% Apple products. Plus misc PC home servers and mini types.
25% HP and Sony All-In-Ones. The "absymal failures"
25% PC Towers under $ 500.00 (mini and maxi towers)
25% PC Towers OVER $ 500.00 (mini and maxi towers)


Quote:
The mini-tower configuration isn't some niche market. These potential Apple customers aren't theoretical, they are real people.

Yes of course they are. Hell I might even be one of them. But my contention is that Apple is already picking them off one by one. Even if the PC AOIs are not as successful as the iMac they are still selling. And the largest contributor to the desktop's decline is the rise of the notebook... in all it's shapes and sizes.

If you think that any of these trends are about to do a 360 then yes, perhaps the consumer tower will not end up as a niche product.
post #79 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal View Post

Absolute worst-case scenario should Psystar win is that Apple will just discontinue the option to purchase OSX CD's at a retail level. Hackers and whiners would be forever stuck at 10.5 since the only option to get to 10.6 and above is to have an actual Apple computer with some method to authenticate the machine to qualify for an OSX upgrade. Either download OSX upgrades and have it validate the machine or purchase it at an Apple store only with an original purchase receipt and somehow encrypt the binaries to unlock only for that specific serial#.

Case closed. A year from now, this will all be a memory and hopefully, the whiners will wilt away.

People that support Psystar or feel entitled to an "Open" OSX system are either clueless, ignorant, selfish or all of the above. This is all about a company's right to protect its IP property. Any other company would do the exact same thing but for some reason, the whiners think Apple should be excluded from that.

mac os x is way to big to be download only.
post #80 of 135
Apple's position is weak. I've said it from the start. (There's a link in my sig to my full argument, but the short version is that Psystar isn't breaking any laws and EULAs are not applicable nor are they proven effective in court in anything beyond piracy cases.)

I suspect Apple is going to go the Think Secret route and buy Psystar out of business. This case is going to set an important precedent that could have an impact on Apple's business. I don't think Apple would worry about the court costs if they had a strong enough case to put Psystar out of business and send a strong message to would-be Mac clone makers.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac OS X
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › Apple, Psystar strike deal to avoid trial in Open Computer tussle