Originally Posted by QRM
...clearly there is something here that I don't understand. Please help!
I will try. However it looks like you have already been brained washed here.
Apple, a hardware manufacturer, chooses to differentiate its products from its competitors by , inter alia, installing a different operating system and several other software components than the mainstream. Apple has chosen this business model despite the added effort required on its part to maintain this different operating system and software.
Apple business model means nothing here. Rather it is the right to compete against it.
Apple's business model appears to be working compared to its competitors.
That is speculation. Further more Apples success seems to be more an issue of the competition screwing up rather than being real successful with hardware. Then we have to take a look at Apples actual portion of the total computing market.
For a variety of reasons not the least of which is the quality of the hardware that Apple sells, that hardware remains useful for several software cycles, during which Apple has continued to develop and improve that operating system and software.
The above statement is a big stretch in my mind. There is nothing to indicate that Apple hardware is of substantially better quality than anybody elses. How could it be when the machines are built with the same hardware everyone else uses?
Apple also chooses to maintain compatibility between the new versions of that operating system and software and selected older hardware models. For those of its customers wishing the new software versions but not yet needing or wishing similarly to upgrade their hardware, Apple chooses to sell the new versions separately. [Yes, I know it is only a licence to use the new versions, but I also think that this is not the point]
Actually the above points are extremely important to this discussion. In fact you wouldn't even have a discussion if it wasn't for the fact that Apple has a product it sells called OS/X. As to eula there is the very real question as to the legality of those agreements as they are not signed contracts agreed to by all parties involved. Even if found to be legal in part there is sill the question of the rights of a third party to resell something they legally purchased.
Others see the relative advantages of the Apple computing model over other competing models but for various reasons are not willing to buy into that model. Some of these others dig into the Apple model and believe that they can replicate Apple's hardware, usually at a reduced cost. They expect that the new versions of software Apple sells separately for its installed client base should not be able to differentiate between Apple produced hardware and their copies. When it does, a select few attempt to modify Apple's software to force it to work on their hardware anyway.
That sums it up nicely. I will say though that cost is likely to not be a huge issue here as for the most part Apple doesn't sell the hardware that many want to run OS/X on. In otherwords it is hard to say that they are competeing with Apple products when Apple does not have like products on the market.
Apple does not seem to be concerned over what a few rebels choose to do for their own amusement but does become concerned when someone attempts to build their own business on such modification. Apple then employs various tactics to stop these new businesses, from strengthening the software against modification to legal process.
If only that where true!!!!!
In the last couple of days Apple has made it very clear that they have rather broad goals here. Those goals would severly harm us as individuals if realized.
As to businesses competeing against Apple - cry me a river but there is nothing in the law that supports Apples position that they should be free of competition! Further more there is nothing that supports Apples position that a company can't us their components in other products. If I wanted to sell an Apple computer as part of an advance microscope could they be reasonable expected to srltop me from doing so if the system was legally purchased? Since Apple is selling OS/X as a product can they reasonably control how I use it?
Apple's motivation is not obvious but is perhaps multi-facetted. It is not likely that a start-up clone business would cause a significant drop in Apple-branded hardware sales, at least not at first, however Apple could well not wish to find out.
Do clones impact Apple sales? That is a good question, and is not easy to answer right now. If there wasn't the question of legality I'm sure it would. On the otherhand current sales of "clone" systems don't compete directly with current Apple products.
OTOH, Apple may be concerned that modified system software will not function as desired which Apple believes will reflect negatively on it as the author rather than on those who modified the software. Apple has gone to extreme lengths to build and protect its "brand" and sees anything that would diminish that brand as a threat with which to be dealt.
That is all well and good but there are legal ways to deal with this. One of those might simply be to take Mac OS/X off the market as a general product and revert to marketing the product with a legal contract in the state the OS is sold in. That means ditching the shrink wrapped legal agreement for 50 some odd contracts that the user would have to agree to.
The important thing here is that Apple does have a way to deal with this issue legally and without damaging themselves or our collective rights. In otherwirds Apples current problems with Pystar are of it's own making in relying on the highly questionable nature of it's current eula and a perversion of the copyright system.
Psystar appears to be arguing that Apple is somehow obligated to make its system software available for others' use.
I'm not sure where that comes from as it doesn't jive with reality. The fact is that Apple already makes it's system software available, you can buy it legally in Apple stores and other places. The question in this case seems to revolve around the legality of buying that OS and then reselling it on different hardware. It is a question of the software being sold with other software to make it installable on other hardware.
Presumably, were Apple to acquiesce, this obligation would then extend to supporting such use through future versions of that software, thereby enabling Psystar's business model at the expense of its own.
I'm not sure where you get this idea of an obligation on Apples part. Pystar is using an Apple component in their product they are the ones with the obligation to make sure that it is properly enginneered into that product.
There will always be the likes of stevielee who will finds ways to use hardware and software in ways not intended by the manufacturer and developer. More power to him--efforts such as his may lead to innovation outside of the established R&D chain.
Innovation is important but to much in the way ofvaccess restrictions can have a very negative impact on what one can accomplish with a given piece of hardware. Songs PS3 is a good example here as has restrictions that negatively impact how it can be used to the point that some hardware isn't accessible unless you are blessed by Sony.
In Apples case what is objectionable is their quest to incrementally come out with more and more restricted access devices that force all modifications through Apples revenue mill. The iPhone is an example of a real product that shows just how far Apple is willing to go.
Now many will try to say that Mac OS/X will never end up like that. First; I have to say that iPhone is running a version of OS/X. Second; it won't happen overnight and Apple would need to have considerable success with their legal quest to pull it off.
Note as a developer I can see the good qualities that iPhone's app store offers up and can see that positive being extended to Mac OS/X. What I have trouble with though is the otherwise heavy restrictions on how the system can be used. Once Apple has the legal authority to tell you where their OS can be used it won't take them long to start telling you what can be used with it and where you can get it from.
However, Apple should be under no obligation to support his efforts and even less obligation to support those who would attempt to benefit separately from those efforts, especially when such support would ultimately hurt Apple (in Apple's opinion).
I'm still not sure where you get this thought of obligation from.
Finally, the arguments that Apple would indeed benefit from licencing its system software to other hardware manufacturers may not be without merit. However, Apple chooses to disagee and therefore not to pursue such licencing and should be under no obligation to do so.
Apple can do whatever they want but you have to realize that for the next four years we will be under the thumb of socialism. It wouldn't take much for someone in government to take a suit out against Apple for anti competitive practices. It is pretty clear that Apple has put artificial restrictions on where OS/X can run. That is pretty much the definition of anti competivenes.
The question is to they have the legal right to keep Pystar from competeing with them. The answer isn't at all clear else we wouldn't have this lawsuit. Frankly I think the legal opinion will come some place in the middle of the arguement and dismissing some of Apples extreme claims.
Have I missed something here?
Well yeah I think you have as have many in this thread. One really needs to think hard about what they are supporting when they support Apple in this matter. Nothing good will come from Apple winning this lawsuit based on their perversion of the copyright laws. Apple needs to protect itself but they need to do so in ways that are legal and don't undermine currently accepted freedoms with respect to copyright.
Frankly this to me looks like backlash with respect to Apples arogance and lack of acceptable product development. Competition is exactly what is needed to get Apple to pull their collective heads out of their asses. The more Apple fails to address user hardware needs the more companies like Pystar will crop up. They might not have legal success in the US but the world is a big place. Apple really needs to wake up here.