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 3

post #81 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by wheelhot View Post

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.

I'm certainly not the first to point this out, but it apparently needs to be repeated. In all those cases you cite, the hardware seller does not offer the OS as a standalone, off-the-shelf product. OS X differs from all those other examples in that regard, and it's an important distinction because it has already been established in other court cases that the end user may install and hack that software to their heart's content and the EULA doesn't legally stop anyone from doing so. If Psystar were making iPod knock-offs or XBox knock-offs and reverse engineering the operating systems out of those machines to install on theirs, then your point would be valid.
post #82 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by inkswamp View Post

Apple's position is weak. I've said it from the start. (There's a link in my sig to my full argument .....

Sadly I followed your link!

If one of your arguments is that it's real easy to buy a used Mac on Ebay with it's drive wiped clean..... and now your latest contention is that "this case is going to set an important precedent" due to Apple having to "buy Psystar out of business."..... and therefor allowing any 2 bit company to follow the same route..... then methinks you had better go back to law school.

If you have time perhaps take Business 101 in the evenings.
post #83 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by inkswamp View Post

I'm certainly not the first to point this out, but it apparently needs to be repeated. In all those cases you cite, the hardware seller does not offer the OS as a standalone, off-the-shelf product. OS X differs from all those other examples in that regard, and it's an important distinction because it has already been established in other court cases that the end user may install and hack that software to their heart's content and the EULA doesn't legally stop anyone from doing so. If Psystar were making iPod knock-offs or XBox knock-offs and reverse engineering the operating systems out of those machines to install on theirs, then your point would be valid.

You are allowed to privately install OS X on any computer you choose. Apple doesn't care about that.

You are not allowed to create a volume business that competes directly with Apple using Apple's intellectual property without their permission.

Psystar hasn't put up the multi-millions it has taken to develop and maintain OS X. They are not free to do whatever they want with it.
post #84 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by inkswamp View Post

I suspect Apple is going to go the Think Secret route and buy Psystar out of business.

All the other poor points aside about how OS X should be the only socialized OS in existence and how buying an OS license for consumer use being the same as being a reseller of that OS, what would buying Psystar do for Apple? What does Psystar have to offer Apple? How does Apple buying Psystar prevent every other startup and the big name vendors from then offering OS X, too? Do you not see how this would be an even bigger problem for Apple? Do you not see how this is bad for Mac users?
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 #85 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

What would that accomplish? Apple would be forced to sell their OS X versions at the same price as WindowsVista Ultime install discs for around $600? How does that help Mac users, who have been getting it for $129 because they've already bought a Mac.

How does it help Apple, who makes it's money from HW? You vision to force Apple to support any and all HW options which is a major complexity for Windows so we'll see new OS X features and more legacy code, and while Apple will increase their marketshare they won't increase their profit from all the additional R&D, software support, and the loss of profit per sale since Windows has to sell about 10(?) OEM versions of Windows to get the same profit that Apple gets from one sale of a Mac? Not to mention it completely ruins the Apple's Mac brand.

First off Apple is a software company. Steve Jobs himself said it. Yes they sell hardware. So long as their hardware continues to have a level of desirability/reliability people will buy it, even if they can get the OS elsewhere. Your lack of faith in Apples hardware is showing.

Second, why would they need to charge $600 for the OS? It's my understanding that the hardware vendors themselves are the ones that make the drivers for the hardware they produce, not the OS maker. Apple doesn't directly need to support any hardware they chose not to support. It would be the responsibility of the vendors themselves to make sure they and the hardware they sell falls in line with Apples compatibility list.

Some of you are so stuck on the old model you can't see the better alternative. Right now Apple forces us to buy their machines if we want to run their OS. Meanwhile they do stupid things like remove firewire from $1300 computers. This would force Apple to be more competitive and benefit all of us.

Apple isn't going to lose money in this, the money they lose from hardware sales they would make back in OS sales to other machines. If you think this model doesn't work, look at Microsoft. No matter what your personal feelings are toward Microsoft they make more money then Apple. This is the perfect time for Apple to do this, in the 1990's it was not a perfect time at all.
post #86 of 135
Quote:
First off Apple is a software company. Steve Jobs himself said it. Yes they sell hardware. So long as their hardware continues to have a level of desirability/reliability people will buy it, even if they can get the OS elsewhere. Your lack of faith in Apples hardware is showing.

The bold is true but even though Apple strives hard to make their hardware stand out from the rest, lets say if they make OS X open, then most people won't care about these stuffs anymore. What Apple is doing now with their hardware is something like marketing to ensure that you buy their hardware and their OS is one of the selling point.

Quote:
Some of you are so stuck on the old model you can't see the better alternative. Right now Apple forces us to buy their machines if we want to run their OS. Meanwhile they do stupid things like remove firewire from $1300 computers. This would force Apple to be more competitive and benefit all of us.

Yeah, cause that is funding the OSX development, you think you can get all the features in Leopard at the price you are paying for it now? Look at MSoft they needed to release multiple versions of Vista which contains different features just to make it cheaper for people. I agree they do stupid things but this do not mean that we should suddenly force Apple to open their OS, I will go for this movement, you don't like it, don't buy it. Its as simple as that.

Quote:
I'm certainly not the first to point this out, but it apparently needs to be repeated. In all those cases you cite, the hardware seller does not offer the OS as a standalone, off-the-shelf product. OS X differs from all those other examples in that regard, and it's an important distinction because it has already been established in other court cases that the end user may install and hack that software to their heart's content and the EULA doesn't legally stop anyone from doing so. If Psystar were making iPod knock-offs or XBox knock-offs and reverse engineering the operating systems out of those machines to install on theirs, then your point would be valid.

Yea, I know that you can hack the OS when you buy it YOURSELF, and INSTALL if YOURSELF, not like what Psycrap is doing.

Microsoft get the anti-competitive behavior cause you can install their OS on any product and Microsoft permits you to do so. Apple does not. Its different.
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 #87 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by ApplePi View Post

Apple isn't going to lose money in this, the money they lose from hardware sales they would make back in OS sales to other machines. If you think this model doesn't work, look at Microsoft. No matter what your personal feelings are toward Microsoft they make more money then Apple. This is the perfect time for Apple to do this, in the 1990's it was not a perfect time at all.

Talk about being stuck... Do you realize the value of Apple vs. the value of MS as a company is considerably high despite their very low worldwide OS X percentage in comparison to Windows? You seem to be under the impression that each Mac OS X sale somehow equals the same profit value as each Windows OS sale. In other words, you haven't considered how many Windows OEM sales have to be made to equal the sale of a single Mac. You also haven't considered why a beleaguered Apple from the 1990s and OEMs wanting to get out of the control of MS' Windows OS would not have done it then, but now when their model of marriaging has become successful it's now the "perfect time" to destroy the business model they started with, despite the loss in functionality by not having control of designing the OS and HW in tandem.
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 #88 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by inkswamp View Post

Apple's position is weak. I've said it from the start.
...
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.

Precisely. Whatever people are trying to say to avoid this truth is silly.

If Apple had a case, they would make it. They actually don't have a case... and they seem to know that... which is indeed a worrisome sign for AAPL's future profit margins on hardware.

This is a bit of a trojan horse here. If Dell tried to do Mac clones they would risk their Dell $$$. But the Psystar dude, he has nothing to lose and everything to gain! He is a more powerful danger to Apple. Should he succeed, Dell can follow. \\

Apple will try to bribe him. But they have already shown they are unwilling to make a proper legal argument. We can only guess there is none to be made.
post #89 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by bwik View Post

This is a bit of a trojan horse here. If Dell tried to do Mac clones they would risk their Dell $$$. But the Psystar dude, he has nothing to lose and everything to gain! He is a more powerful danger to Apple. Should he succeed, Dell can follow. \\

Apple will try to bribe him. But they have already shown they are unwilling to make a proper legal argument. We can only guess there is none to be made.

1) How exactly is a PC vendor with resources, like Dell, unable to make a good Mac clone, but Psystar is somehow more able?

2) A bribe, eh? And so everyone that makes an illegal Mac cloning business is going to be paid off by Apple? I can't imagine how that actually makes sense to you.

3) You et al. have still failed to make a proper legal argument as to why Psystar—and only Psystar—is allowed to be a reseller of another company's goods without their approval.
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 #90 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by ApplePi View Post

First off Apple is a software company. Steve Jobs himself said it. Yes they sell hardware. So long as their hardware continues to have a level of desirability/reliability people will buy it, even if they can get the OS elsewhere. Your lack of faith in Apples hardware is showing.

Apple does produce software, but the majority of its profits don't come from software. You think $129 covers the cost of developing and maintaing OS X.

You really think $1299 covers the cost of developing a supporting Final Cut Pro. When other video systems sell for tens of thousands.

These things are made to enhance Apple's hardware which is where they make the majority of their money.

Quote:
Some of you are so stuck on the old model you can't see the better alternative. Right now Apple forces us to buy their machines if we want to run their OS. Meanwhile they do stupid things like remove firewire from $1300 computers. This would force Apple to be more competitive and benefit all of us.

Apple isn't going to lose money in this, the money they lose from hardware sales they would make back in OS sales to other machines. If you think this model doesn't work, look at Microsoft. No matter what your personal feelings are toward Microsoft they make more money then Apple. This is the perfect time for Apple to do this, in the 1990's it was not a perfect time at all.

You need to look at the profit margins between Apple and the major Windows vendors and you will clearly see the difference.

MS is positioned to sell hundreds of millions of copies of Windows. If MS only sold the 8 - 10 million copies annually such as Apple, they would not continue to be nearly as profitable.
post #91 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by bwik View Post

Precisely. Whatever people are trying to say to avoid this truth is silly.

If Apple had a case, they would make it. They actually don't have a case... and they seem to know that... which is indeed a worrisome sign for AAPL's future profit margins on hardware.

It makes much more sense to avoid going to court if you don't have to. That is the way most business would rather handle a suit. What makes you think you have to go to court to prove you are right?
post #92 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

1) How exactly does a PC vendor with resources, like Dell, to make a good Mac clone not be able to?

2) A bribe, eh? And so everyone that makes an illegal Mac cloning business is going to be paid off by Apple? I can't imagine how that actually makes sense to you.

3) You et al. have still failed to make a proper legal argument as to why Psystarand only Psystaris allowed to be a reseller of another company's goods without their approval.

1. The question is ungrammatical and I don't understand it. But I was saying Dell would prefer not to risk a successful lawsuit from Apple. Clearly Dell has a lot of money to lose and that is exactly why they would hesitate until another player proves it is legal.

2. I agree Apple's options are not good here. It is not my job to find a way out for Apple here.

3. Plenty of companies "resell" Mac OS X in the box, literally hundreds of private companies do that. But again, this is not my problem. I am just commenting on the facts and Apple's behavior and where that might lead us. We will know the truth in time. Cheers!
post #93 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by inkswamp View Post

I'm certainly not the first to point this out, but it apparently needs to be repeated. In all those cases you cite, the hardware seller does not offer the OS as a standalone, off-the-shelf product. OS X differs from all those other examples in that regard, and it's an important distinction because it has already been established in other court cases that the end user may install and hack that software to their heart's content and the EULA doesn't legally stop anyone from doing so. If Psystar were making iPod knock-offs or XBox knock-offs and reverse engineering the operating systems out of those machines to install on theirs, then your point would be valid.


If I was a song writer, composed an album and had it copyrigthed, I can do as I please with my album. I can only release it in analog, 200g audiophile vinyl, selling at $30 an album, if I want. I don't ever have to release a digital CD version of my album. Now if you want, you can buy my 200g vinyl album and make a digital CD with the software in your computer for yourself. I can't stop you from that. But you can't start selling CD's of my album just because there's a market for it. Ever. Not even if you include an original 200g vinyl album with each purchase of that CD. You can't even include the CD for free with the purchase of an original album. It's my IP and I can do as I wish with it. And if I don't want to distribute a digital copy of it, that's how it going to be. It may not be good business practice and I may be losing sales. But in the end it's still my business, my IP and I can do as I please. And in a free market, no one can force me to give up any of my rights as the owner of the IP.

And see how far you get by suing me in court because I have a monopoly on my album and I'm forcing you to listen to it on vinyl record with inferior hardware. Or that I'm forcing you to buy an expensive turntable so that you can listen to my album in CD quality. Just see how far you get by claiming that you should be allow to market a CD of my IP because you are "improving" upon my work by removing the background noise inherent in vinyl.
post #94 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Apple does produce software, but the majority of its profits don't come from software. You think $129 covers the cost of developing and maintaing OS X.

Apple these days is a hardware company insofar as that they make a lot of money off ipods and now the iphone, but ultimately most people buy MacOS for the software, not the hardware. Save for using EFI instead of BIOS what separates a Mac from any other x86 computer? Not much really. Beyond the slick chassis designs from Jonathan Ives there isn't much that makes a Mac a Mac except the software. While Apple sometimes gets early launches of products where they either are the first to market or very close to the first(eg. the Geforce 9400M, the Santa Rosa mobile chipset, Yonah based CPUs, Merom based CPUs, Penryn based CPUs, etc.), but generally speaking people aren't buying a Mac for the hardware specs. They buy a Mac for the Mac software experience. The thing that stops quite a few people is Apple's large hardware dongle in order to use it.

If you exclude a small cadre of people in the OSx86 project who managed to create their own Macs generally speaking one needs to buy a Mac in order to use the software. The notion that Apple couldn't be fairly profitable on selling their software. If you spread the costs of development over enough people you can easily make money selling an entire OS at that price point, just ask Microsoft. Even after their Xbox division is now profitable, their Windows and Office divisions still make up a bulk of their profit.

The usual argument against Apple licensing MacOS to others is that Apple would harm their corporate image because some Mac clone sellers may make cutrate computers that are unstable and make Apple's image look bad. This could reasonably be averted in that Apple could make limitations upon the vendors used to make any authorized Mac clones. Therefore, you couldn't use some no name cutrate vendor for your RAM or motherboard that might result in instability of said machines. Since these vendors would be paying for the privilege to resell machines with MacOS, Apple could let others take the risk of certain experiments like a Mac tablet for example. If interest in such a item really is too much of niche market then Apple wouldn't be on the hook for the losses.

This will never happen obviously due to the cult of Steve Jobs and his lieutenants who are little more than yes men to his agenda, but I don't think the idea of Apple exploring new products whether sold under the Apple name or through an authorized clone maker would be such a bad idea.
post #95 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by bwik View Post

3. Plenty of companies "resell" Mac OS X in the box, literally hundreds of private companies do that. But again, this is not my problem. I am just commenting on the facts and Apple's behavior and where that might lead us. We will know the truth in time. Cheers!

What hundreds of companies are these?
post #96 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by SSA View Post

Apple these days is a hardware company insofar as that they make a lot of money off ipods and now the iphone, but ultimately most people buy MacOS for the software, not the hardware.

Its true OS X is the major differentiator between the Mac and PC. Because of Apple's vertical business model. Apple is able to tailer OS X to its hardware as well as tailer its hardware to OS X.

This combines to create a better computer environment that the generic Windows box.

Quote:
The usual argument against Apple licensing MacOS to others is that Apple would harm their corporate image because some Mac clone sellers may make cutrate computers that are unstable and make Apple's image look bad. This could reasonably be averted in that Apple could make limitations upon the vendors used to make any authorized Mac clones. Therefore, you couldn't use some no name cutrate vendor for your RAM or motherboard that might result in instability of said machines. Since these vendors would be paying for the privilege to resell machines with MacOS, Apple could let others take the risk of certain experiments like a Mac tablet for example. If interest in such a item really is too much of niche market then Apple wouldn't be on the hook for the losses.

Why bother doing all of that when Apple's current business model is performing better than the PC business model. Why adopt the business model that is less profitable?
post #97 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by inkswamp View Post

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.)

You mean the short-sighted version.

Quote:
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.


Apple is not worry about the court cost. Apple wants to end this as quickly as possible. And going into non-binding arbitration is the fastest way to end this. Apple is confident that their case is so strong that Psystar is going to think twice about taking this to a costly drawn out court trial.

If Apple position was weak they would stall and wait for the months it's going to take before they can battle it out in court. Why would Apple go for it now it, with a weak case.

The flip side is that Psystar also agreed to the non-binding arbitration. Why aren't you saying that if Psystar had a strong case they would just take it to court and win it out right. Instead of a non-binding arbitration that they know Apple would fight in court anyways if it rules in Psystar favor.
post #98 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by bwik View Post

Precisely. Whatever people are trying to say to avoid this truth is silly.

If Apple had a case, they would make it. They actually don't have a case... and they seem to know that... which is indeed a worrisome sign for AAPL's future profit margins on hardware.

This is a bit of a trojan horse here. If Dell tried to do Mac clones they would risk their Dell $$$. But the Psystar dude, he has nothing to lose and everything to gain! He is a more powerful danger to Apple. Should he succeed, Dell can follow. \\

Apple will try to bribe him. But they have already shown they are unwilling to make a proper legal argument. We can only guess there is none to be made.

M. Dell has already gone on record as saying that he would like to LICENSE OSX from Apple and sell Mac clones. Now I personally don't think M. Dell is the brigthest person in the world but he's not stupid. He knows that he has get a permission and pay for a license before he can market a Mac clone. That's how legal and ethical businesses do things. Otherwise it's stealing. And the last thing M. Dell wants is for consumers to assoiciate the "crooked E" in "Dell" for "Enron". Share holders already think this.

If anything, IBM, HP, Sony, Acer, Lenveno, MS and yes even Dell, are on Apple side. Not to mention all the pharmaceutical companies like pfizer, Mercks and Eli Lilly. They all own IP that they don't want to share with their competitors. They want the courts to protect their rights as IP owners. Not see the courts forcing them to give it away. Or forcing them to use it in a way it doesn't want to.
post #99 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by SSA View Post

Apple these days is a hardware company insofar as that they make a lot of money off ipods and now the iphone, but ultimately most people buy MacOS for the software, not the hardware.

Then nothing has changed since day one of Apple Computers. Even if Apple didn't sell iPods and iPhones they are still a hardware company. Never in Apple Computers history has Apple ever made more money selling their software than their hardware. Ever.

The worst years of Apple Computers history was when Jobs was forced out and that Pepsi guy and the other guy almost drove Apple out of business. And guess what, those were the same years Apple licensed out their OS and Mac clones were on the market. (and yes there was even a mid price mini tower Mac clone. ) Not even then did Apple make more money on their OS than on their hardware.

Quote:
Save for using EFI instead of BIOS what separates a Mac from any other x86 computer? Not much really. Beyond the slick chassis designs from Jonathan Ives there isn't much that makes a Mac a Mac except the software. While Apple sometimes gets early launches of products where they either are the first to market or very close to the first(eg. the Geforce 9400M, the Santa Rosa mobile chipset, Yonah based CPUs, Merom based CPUs, Penryn based CPUs, etc.), but generally speaking people aren't buying a Mac for the hardware specs. They buy a Mac for the Mac software experience. The thing that stops quite a few people is Apple's large hardware dongle in order to use it.

If you exclude a small cadre of people in the OSx86 project who managed to create their own Macs generally speaking one needs to buy a Mac in order to use the software. The notion that Apple couldn't be fairly profitable on selling their software. If you spread the costs of development over enough people you can easily make money selling an entire OS at that price point, just ask Microsoft. Even after their Xbox division is now profitable, their Windows and Office divisions still make up a bulk of their profit.

What price point? $129.00? Not even MS gets anywhere near that for Windows. The vast majority of MS OS sales are OEM licenses to have Windows pre-installed on computers. They maybe get $30.00 per OEM copy. And then you have the MS server license where big businesses pay for a license to use Windows on their networked computers. These licenses most likely goes for less that $10 per computer. Depending on the how many licenses you need to cover all your business computers. Comparatively, MS makes very little selling the retail version of their OS. The reason MS margins are so high is because it cost next to nothing to sell a license for 5000 computers and then give the IT guy several hard copies of Windows. And then tell him he can install Windows on no more than 5000 computers. The same goes for Dell, HP, Acer and Lenveno. Do you think MS spent any money burning that OEM disk you get with a new computer?

If Apple license out OSX, they won't get anywhere near $129 per OEM copy (or license) of OSX.

And let's not forget that a vast portion of the MS OS market is not open for OSX. These would be big enterprises that network thousands of computers using MS servers. Consumers and businesses that are still using XP (and older versions of Windows) because they don't want to spend the money to upgrade their hardware. If these people aren't willing to spend the money to upgrade their hardware, do you think they're going to spend the money to also upgrade all their software? Gamers are not likey to switch to OSX. If anything they're more interested in Apple's hardware. And then there's the "Windows fanboy" that just don't see any advantage of using OSX or just hates anything that has to do with Apple and Jobs. When you add all these into the equation the potential new market for OSX isn't really that large. It mainly consist of consumers that are ready to buy a new computer (and make the switch to Vista) or small businesses ready to upgrade their networks. (and not to forget all those consumers that want a mini tower.) Apple can do better by selling their own hardware with OSX.

Quote:
The usual argument against Apple licensing MacOS to others is that Apple would harm their corporate image because some Mac clone sellers may make cutrate computers that are unstable and make Apple's image look bad. This could reasonably be averted in that Apple could make limitations upon the vendors used to make any authorized Mac clones. Therefore, you couldn't use some no name cutrate vendor for your RAM or motherboard that might result in instability of said machines. Since these vendors would be paying for the privilege to resell machines with MacOS, Apple could let others take the risk of certain experiments like a Mac tablet for example. If interest in such a item really is too much of niche market then Apple wouldn't be on the hook for the losses.

This will never happen obviously due to the cult of Steve Jobs and his lieutenants who are little more than yes men to his agenda, but I don't think the idea of Apple exploring new products whether sold under the Apple name or through an authorized clone maker would be such a bad idea.

But this is what Apple does now. Apple don't build their own computers. (not any more) They design their computers and out source it to various venders. Apple sees to it that it's built to their specs. If Apple is going to see that each Mac clone is built to their specs, then where's the advantage for the Mac clone makers. By the time they meet Apple's specs, their hardware cost would equal or exceeds Apple's. And then they would still have to pay for OSX. Which Apple gets for free.

It's too late. MS won the OS war a long time ago. Apple will never own more of the OS market than MS. Now this doesn't mean the Apple Inc. will never be as big as MS. Apple Inc. can be bigger than MS without having anywhere near a majority of the OS market. The cell phone industry, movie industry and music industry makes the gaming industry look like a neighborhood lemonade stand. And the last time I checked, Apple isn't losing any money on each iPhone, iPod, iTunes Store song, movie or app. sold. Now the Apple TV may just be Apple's "Xbox", for now.

The only way Apple can win is to build a time machine and send a "Terminator" back in time to terminate Bill Gates mother. Or Jobs can emit a "reality distortion field" so that everyone thinks Apple won. But we all know that there's no such thing as a time machine. And that Jobs would never use his "reality distortion field" for such evil purpose.
post #100 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW View Post

If I was a song writer, composed an album and had it copyrigthed, I can do as I please with my album. I can only release it in analog, 200g audiophile vinyl, selling at $30 an album, if I want. I don't ever have to release a digital CD version of my album. Now if you want, you can buy my 200g vinyl album and make a digital CD with the software in your computer for yourself. I can't stop you from that. But you can't start selling CD's of my album just because there's a market for it. Ever. Not even if you include an original 200g vinyl album with each purchase of that CD. You can't even include the CD for free with the purchase of an original album. It's my IP and I can do as I wish with it. And if I don't want to distribute a digital copy of it, that's how it going to be. It may not be good business practice and I may be losing sales. But in the end it's still my business, my IP and I can do as I please. And in a free market, no one can force me to give up any of my rights as the the owner of the IP.

And see how far you get by suing me in court because I have a monopoly on my album and I'm forcing you to listen to it on vinyl record with inferior hardware. Or that I'm forcing you to buy an expensive turntable so that you can listen to my album in CD quality. Just see how far you get by claiming that you should be allow to market a CD of my IP because you are "improving" upon my work by removing the background noise inherent in vinyl.

Another example would be this. Imagine that you wrote a book in engineering and included a CD with a program you wrote related to the subject and you only sold them together for say $100 and it became a hit. A year later you came up with version 2.0 of that software and decided to sell the newer version of the CD for $5 to people who already own version 1.0 (including a clause in the EULA that permit the use of the CD for only people who already own the book). You decided to make the newer improved version to check for version 1.0 for successful installation (the same way Mac OS has safeguards against installation on non Mac hardware).

Now suppose another guy came up with a way to break this check, wrote his own crappy book about the same subject, and started including your CD (version 2.0 that he bought for $5) along with a link to download the hack in his book all without your permission. He then started selling his book for $50 and people started buying them.

As you said, the other guy still violated your copyrights and your EULA. You have control over your IP and you can choose to license it or not. The law is there to protect everyone even big greedy corporations that no ones like.

Based on what I've read. Apple and Psystar were pushed into this mediation.
post #101 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Hee, hee, hee!


AAAAAAAAGGHHHHHHH, smiling kitties.
Shiny Side Up
Reply
Shiny Side Up
Reply
post #102 of 135
Quote:
Apple does produce software, but the majority of its profits don't come from software. You think $129 covers the cost of developing and maintaing OS X.

You really think $1299 covers the cost of developing a supporting Final Cut Pro. When other video systems sell for tens of thousands.

These things are made to enhance Apple's hardware which is where they make the majority of their money.

Yup, you got that right.

Quote:
See Windows users have freedom and that is why so many new Apple users are pissed. The switchers have switched from a free world to a controlled world.

That's the problem isn't it, because these people don't understand how Apple runs, its the same when Apple is being restrictive with their OS X iPhone. If you buy a Mac so that you can configure it like your Windows machine (regardless if its the hardware of software), then you are buying a Mac for the wrong reason.

Quote:
I know in your tiny brain you would love for them to all go back to Windows so that can make you feel even more special.

Erm no, I don't care about me feeling special or not, but I prefer those who wants Apple to make microsoft mistakes to go back to Windows.

Quote:
They build their own little arena and want everyone to play by their rules. If they wanted that they should have never switched to intel because the days are numbers where you only see OSX on Apple hardware.

You are the tiny brain here, want to know why they change to Intel? Cause they can't get the G5 processor to fit onto the MBP or MB without getting the notebook to become real hot.

And I don't agree with what Apple do completely thus Im not a fanboy, in fact I even recommend Windows to my friend depending on what are they going to use their computer for. I understand the strong and weakness of Apple. And yes Apple is an elite brand because look at the effort they put into designing their products. Do any company CARES how their product look before people start buying Apple because of their product looks? Compare Dell old and Dell new, big difference in design. And why do that happen, cause Apple made the market to care about looks.

Your thinking is similar to how Bill Gates think when he start Microsoft. I just want the software, I don't care about how it operate or looks. There are many reasons why Leopard is cheap compared to Vista, in fact FYI, even Ballmer agrees that Apple close system has its benefit and its benefit to the company out weights the problem it might cause.

For those who say the reason why Dell do not install OS X in their computers whereas Psystar bravely do so because they got nothing to lose is very right. If Dell loses the battle, imagine the shame it will put to the company, Psycrap on the other hand got nothing to lose, so if they lose, life goes on and nobody know that they lost (except us that is).
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 #103 of 135
I hope Psystar keeps selling computers with OSX, or Dell steps up and challenges Apple on the closed OS. With the new Glass Mirror computer released by Apple I finally find myself with the pain of Apple closing their OS. I hate, really hate the new computers but I love OSX. I probably got 2 or 3 more years on my Matte MBP and I want options when it dies.

Go Psystar!!!! SInce Dell has loads of money and hates Microsoft they should challenge Apple.
post #104 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraklinc View Post

The main reason they're going to settle out of court is because if psystar loses and is force to bankruptcy then someone is going to jail if Apple's Army of lawyers are not paid

Who/how exactly would (someone) go to jail in a civil trial?
post #105 of 135
Quote:
I hope Psystar keeps selling computers with OSX, or Dell steps up and challenges Apple on the closed OS. With the new Glass Mirror computer released by Apple I finally find myself with the pain of Apple closing their OS. I hate, really hate the new computers but I love OSX. I probably got 2 or 3 more years on my Matte MBP and I want options when it dies.

And because of your own reason that you are unhappy of Apple new design not to mention your selfishness, you would rather to see Apple quality drop and how will this effects other Apple users?
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 #106 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

You are allowed to privately install OS X on any computer you choose. Apple doesn't care about that

As long as it is an Apple branded computer, you are correct.

Quote:
What hundreds of companies are these?

Really?
Starting with Best Buy, CompUSA, MacMall, Amazon, CDW, ClubMac, J&R, Mac Zone, MacConnection, MicroCenter, Target, Outpost, Circuit City, Office Depot, etc. and then add all the smaller local local Apple Authorized resellers/AASPs.
post #107 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?

OEMs have to have a license to install a cheaper version (OEM) of Windows on your PC before they sell it to you.

If they don't have that license, then you can only sell a RETAIL version of Windows. The only difference there is the licence and the price of said licence.

Also, the "retail" versions of Mac OS X are effectively only really UPGRADE licences, as every Macintosh comes with a version of Mac OS X pre-installed. That's why it's so cheap.
post #108 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW View Post

Not to mention all the pharmaceutical companies like pfizer, Mercks and Eli Lilly. They all own IP that they don't want to share with their competitors. They want the courts to protect their rights as IP owners. Not see the courts forcing them to give it away. Or forcing them to use it in a way it doesn't want to.

I think the Microsoft Windows / IE bundling anti-trust case was over a drastically smaller issue. Microsoft couldn't even bundle IE and make its customers use it (a free program)

What makes us think Apple is allowed to bundle its expensive hardware in with its OS? I really don't think that is possible. They can require users not to modify its core OS. Yet that also conflicts with Apple's devil-may-care attitude regarding music CD ripping. Which is illegal according to the record companies.

Apple may have a watertight case here but I sure don't see the framework they will try to use. They themselves have ridiculed such logic for years.
post #109 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by bwik View Post

I think the Microsoft Windows / IE bundling anti-trust case was over a drastically smaller issue. Microsoft couldn't even bundle IE and make its customers use it (a free program)

It's amazing that people can actually paint Apple's OS as being a monopoly when it has under 4% of the world's OS marketshare. That is like only owning Baltic Avenue* in Monopoly and saying you won the game.

Quote:
What makes us think Apple is allowed to bundle its expensive hardware in with its OS?

Why do you think Apple should be the only company that isn't allowed to add an OS to their HW?


* That would be Whitehall for the UK.
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 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by extremeskater View Post

Let me make one point really clear. Doesn't matter that you think Apple is a hardware company the fact is they sell a standalone OS that you can walk and and buy at anytime without any hardware purchase. Like others have mentioned this is whats going to come back and bite them.

They build their own little arena and want everyone to play by their rules. If they wanted that they should have never switched to intel because the days are numbers where you only see OSX on Apple hardware.

Simply because Apple sells a retail copy of OS X and use common hardware does not mean anyone has the freedom to buy the retail copy of OS X and set up their own volume business of selling Mac clones.

Outside of your imagination where is their proof that this is permissible?

Quote:
See Windows users have freedom and that is why so many new Apple users are pissed. The switchers have switched from a free world to a controlled world.

A switcher who knows the difference between Windows and Mac, would know what they are getting into. What evidence do have that switchers care about Apple's business model?
post #111 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by bwik View Post

Microsoft Windows/IE bundling anti-trust case was over a drastically smaller issue.

<snip>

What makes us think Apple is allowed to bundle its expensive hardware in with its OS? I really don't think that is possible.

<snip>

Apple's devil-may-care attitude regarding music CD ripping.

Please don't bother trying to prove that bwik doesn't know what he is talking about. Just let him do it himself.
post #112 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_CA View Post

As long as it is an Apple branded computer, you are correct.

Their is nothing Apple can do about the private hackintosh community. Their is no sign they really even care.


Quote:
Really?
Starting with Best Buy, CompUSA, MacMall, Amazon, CDW, ClubMac, J&R, Mac Zone, MacConnection, MicroCenter, Target, Outpost, Circuit City, Office Depot, etc. and then add all the smaller local local Apple Authorized resellers/AASPs.

They are selling the upgrade for the version of OS X you already own. They are not selling a new license for do it yourself.
post #113 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Their is nothing Apple can do about the private hackintosh community. Their is no sign they really even care.

They do care (and show it) somewhat by having the EULA state that it can be installed on Apple branded computers only.
I doubt very, very much they would go after a bunch of individuals doing it. However, get it organized (such as Psystar) and the fact that Apple is going after them shows they do care.

Quote:
They are selling the upgrade for the version of OS X you already own. They are not selling a new license for do it yourself.

And? You simply asked which (hundreds) of companies are reselling Mac OS X in the box.
post #114 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by bwik View Post

I think the Microsoft Windows / IE bundling anti-trust case was over a drastically smaller issue. Microsoft couldn't even bundle IE and make its customers use it (a free program)

This statement reveals that you don't understand the anti-trust case.

The problem with IE bundling was the fact that Windows controls 90% of the market. If MS is allowed to bundle their own software and forbid OEM's from bundling competing software. MS severely limits competition and any chance of success for other companies. Because of this Netscape basically went out of business.

Apple has done none of this.

Quote:
What makes us think Apple is allowed to bundle its expensive hardware in with its OS? I really don't think that is possible.

Because Apple spends millions of dollars in its own resources to make OS X. They are free to dictate its use.

Because anyone is free to spend millions of dollars in their own resources to make their own OS and compete against Apple. They are free to sell it how they please.
post #115 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_CA View Post

They do care (and show it) somewhat by having the EULA state that it can be installed on Apple branded computers only.
I doubt very, very much they would go after a bunch of individuals doing it. However, get it organized (such as Psystar) and the fact that Apple is going after them shows they do care.

I said Apple doesn't care about private use which has little direct impact on Apple. Psystar is using Apple's property to compete directly against Apple. Those are different situations.
post #116 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

I said Apple doesn't care about private use which has little direct impact on Apple. Psystar is using Apple's property to compete directly against Apple. Those are different situations.

Since Apple "doesn't care" about private use, you think the EULA (which is not for OEMs) which states it can be installed only on Apple branded computers, is aimed only at OEMs?

If Apple had significant sales of retail OS X far above and beyond sales of Macs (meaning people without Macs are purchasing it), I believe they would do something and not simply say, "Wow! We are selling a lot of OS X! Great for the bottom line!"
post #117 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_CA View Post

Since Apple "doesn't care" about private use, you think the EULA (which is not for OEMs) which states it can be installed on Apple branded computers only is aimed only at OEMs?

Why, why why bring up the EULA. Attempting to be a distributor and licensor of another company's product has NOTHING to do with an End User License Agreement. That is for the End User; Psystar is not an End User, they are acting as if they are a incensed distributor.
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 #118 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by ljocampo View Post

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.

Section 3 of the OSX license states that you do have permission to perform a one-time transfer of ownership of the complete software product. This must include all accompanying materials, and you must either include in the transfer any backup copies made, or else destroy them. As well, any components of the software that may have been modified during the course of your use of the product, must be reverted back to their original state. For any practical purposes, this is a necessary precondition to being permitted to resell any used Mac.

Anyway, the ability for the owner of a physical object on which is depicted a representation of a copyrighted work, to resell that physical object without the consent of the copyright holder, is enshrined in US copyright law under First sale doctrine, provided no additional copies have been made.

Since additional copies have been made, First sale doctrine wouldn't apply in Psystar's case.
post #119 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Why, why why bring up the EULA.

Because TenoBell wrote;
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
I said Apple doesn't care about private use
post #120 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by bwik View Post

I think the Microsoft Windows / IE bundling anti-trust case was over a drastically smaller issue. Microsoft couldn't even bundle IE and make its customers use it (a free program)

What makes us think Apple is allowed to bundle its expensive hardware in with its OS? I really don't think that is possible. They can require users not to modify its core OS. Yet that also conflicts with Apple's devil-may-care attitude regarding music CD ripping. Which is illegal according to the record companies.

Apple may have a watertight case here but I sure don't see the framework they will try to use. They themselves have ridiculed such logic for years.

As pointed out several times already. BECAUSE MS WINDOWS IS A MONOPOLY. They control over 90% of the World OS market. Plus the real issue wasn't the "bundling" but that IE installed itself when you installed Windows. And to make matter worst, you couldn't uninstall IE. You could only set it as your non-default browser. MS tried to claim the IE was an integral part of Windows but it was shown the Windows ran fine without IE. MS had the same issue with the EU over their media player.

Mean while Apple "bundles" Safari, Quicktime and iLife with OSX. And no lawsuits. Why? BECAUSE OSX IS NOT A MONOPOLY. OSX is only 4% of the World OS market. The simple fact that there's never been a lawsuit (specially brought on by the EU ) claiming that Apple "bundling" of Safari, Quicktime or iLife is anti-competitive points out that those who claim Apple has a monopoly with OSX are wrong.

Now iTunes (and iTunes Store) is a different matter. Apple is running into "anti-competitive" issues with iTunes (and iTunes Store) because it's beginning to have a controlling share of the market. If not already.

Edit: Correction, actually Apple "bundle" iLife with their hardware (not OSX). But still no complaints of anti-competitive practice. Because, as most of us been telling people, Apple does not have a monopoly with Macs.
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