So Apple is going after Psystar to squash the competition! As a computer engineer with more than thirty years experience in the industry, I have always believed in the concepts and practice of healthy competition for many reasons, more notable of which are: (i) to encourage improvement and innovation (ii) lower cost (iii) offer choices in product selection and services and, most important of all (iv) assure that the consumer is the beneficiary of fair, innovative, and unrestricted competition.
Apple has always cultivated and propagated an elitist attitude with regards to their choice of preferred user, and they continue to demonstrate this rather ugly side of the company's character. This may just be a syndrome of over-zealous wannabes who are fulfilling the mandate of founder Steve Jobs.
This is just another shameless demonstration of greed and avarice on the part of Apple, whose spoilt-child tantrum is achieving its goal of winning them the sympathy of their supporters. Poor little rich kids!
I hope Apple succeeds in squashing Psystar, and nuke their remains into oblivion, so that they can continue to impose their domination on their unsuspecting cult-following.
This is just another shameless demonstration of greed and avarice on the part of Apple, whose spoilt-child tantrum is achieving its goal of winning them the sympathy of their supporters. Poor little rich kids!
I think it's safe to assume that you are yet another person who has no respect for the laws regarding copyright and intellectual property. Laws which, ironically, stimulate the healthy competition which you claim to support.
I am also going to assume that you don't intend to stay for long on our rich kids forum.
I think it's safe to assume that you are yet another person who has no respect for the laws regarding copyright and intellectual property. Laws which, ironically, stimulate the healthy competition which you claim to support.
I am also going to assume that you don't intend to stay for long on our rich kids forum.
I had written up a lengthy retort but then deleted it. It seems unlikely that someone could actually have 30 years experience in any trade and not have an inking of knowledge about how economics or how what Psystar is doing is bad for the consumer and our free market system. So I figure my post means he still won’t understand, but more likely he is lying or simply trolling.
I'd say instead of messing with Apple, Psystar can just make their hack into a software and sell it in the stores like any other software. For example: VM Ware allows a user to use Windows on a Mac as does Parallel. Bootcamp allows users to install Windows on a Mac to use as if it's a PC.
that only works because Microsoft can't restrict the hardware used by Windows. due to their dominant market share. such tying by them would be abusive.
Quote:
All Psystar needs to do to NOT having to violate the EULA is to NOT install OSX at all! Just sell the codes as a software that allows OSX to be installed on ANY PC... much like a driver!
until some court declares that the act of installing software is NOT making a copy and thus Apple can't restrict installation as a copyright claim, Psystar has that to deal with. and the creation and dissemination of any information or technology that circumvents copyright controls is a violation of the DCMA. even if they give it away for free, they have violated DCMA and are subject to some major fines. the profit issue just ups how much those fines could be
Companies have a right to defend their business, within reason. Nothing can be unlimited -- defending business is not a Holy Crusade. In this case, I believe Psystar to be in the right and Apple to be in the wrong, morally. That's all.
so it is morally right to take someone else's hard work and use it for your own profit.
Cause that is what Psystar is doing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by frugality
Then why did Microsoft get shot down when they insisted they had a right to tie their browser with their OS? Didn't they have that 'right'? They determine where and how their own software should run. No?
Microsoft was trying to tie two totally unrelated items together. An OS and hardware are made to work hand in hand so Apple has that on their side. A web browser and an OS are not. Further Microsoft had and still has a dominant market share so the tying would push IE unfairly ahead of the game.
Also over time Microsoft was were playing games like making it a condition of pre-loading windows that only IE could be installed, no other web browsers were permitted. they tried to withhold information from other companies regarding how to make a browser work with Windows, tried to sue those that reverse engineered Windows themselves to get the info, etc.
that only works because Microsoft can't restrict the hardware used by Windows. due to their dominant market share. such tying by them would be abusive.
until some court declares that the act of installing software is NOT making a copy and thus Apple can't restrict installation as a copyright claim, Psystar has that to deal with. and the creation and dissemination of any information or technology that circumvents copyright controls is a violation of the DCMA. even if they give it away for free, they have violated DCMA and are subject to some major fines. the profit issue just ups how much those fines could be
You think the US Supreme Court wouldn't overturn that lower court's absurd notion?
So Apple is going after Psystar to squash the competition! As a computer engineer with more than thirty years experience in the industry, I have always believed in the concepts and practice of healthy competition for many reasons, more notable of which are: (i) to encourage improvement and innovation (ii) lower cost (iii) offer choices in product selection and services and, most important of all (iv) assure that the consumer is the beneficiary of fair, innovative, and unrestricted competition.
Apple has always cultivated and propagated an elitist attitude with regards to their choice of preferred user, and they continue to demonstrate this rather ugly side of the company's character. This may just be a syndrome of over-zealous wannabes who are fulfilling the mandate of founder Steve Jobs.
This is just another shameless demonstration of greed and avarice on the part of Apple, whose spoilt-child tantrum is achieving its goal of winning them the sympathy of their supporters. Poor little rich kids!
I hope Apple succeeds in squashing Psystar, and nuke their remains into oblivion, so that they can continue to impose their domination on their unsuspecting cult-following.
So Apple is going after Psystar to squash the competition!
hardly. Psystar is more than welcome to do as other companies have and make their own OS. they can even base it around the Open Source code available to anyone.
Macintosh computers are not a market in and of themselves. so there is no competition to be squashed. The courts have ruled such on this matter. they have also ruled that Apple has a right to restrict what hardware is used with their software, even to the point of saying that said hardware must be assembled and sold via them and select resellers of their choosing.
I believe US laws relating to electronics and computers are very seriously messed up, but Psystar is in the moral right. No, that is not my reasoning The only thing I've said about price is that it's evidence of Apple's monopoly, that Apple is able to charge a premium on their hardware, because there's no other legal hardware out there capable of running OS X. I have never bought a Mac myself, and never will, at least not from Apple as it is today. I prefer building my own PCs anyways
And on the "Mom" comment, I must protest. It's unrelated, but since when is price the sole determinant of whether one should or should not have something? It has its place, but it's not all-important. Not that I think it should be up to the individual to say "I deserve this couch" and steal it, of course.
There is so much wrong with what you just said. The idea that a company that did not spend a cent developing an operating system, designing hardware, running popular stores, or doing any research and development of any sort that simply threw together some cheap shit parts and someone else's hard work is morally right is one serious mind fuck.
As all the other's have said, a company, by right, has a monopoly over its own product. The only time that becomes a problem in the sense of legal monopoly is when there is no effective alternative. Apple computers represent 4% of computers sold worldwide, while Microsoft represents over 90%.
People are well aware before purchasing an Apple computer that its operating system was only made to work on its hardware (it's a selling point for g-d's sake). If they disagree with that, then the only thing stopping them from purchasing from the competition is themselves. I hate to sound like the Windows fanboys I hate so much, but there are very few things one operating system can do that the other can not. The ultimate difference is the difference in experience that the two platforms provide and a vertically aligned process is essential to the experience that Apple provides its users. The idea that you can provide a premium experience with bargain basement hardware is rather offensive (that's like putting a Pinto engine in a Mercedes).
Anyway, to answer what you said when you last responded to me: Richard Stallman also said that people who use proprietary software feel trapped and unable to do anything. I don't think I have to take a vote to know that 99% of the world completely and utterly disagrees with him on that point. I don't exactly feel walled up on all sides when I use Final Cut or Aperture. I don't know any other way to say this, but Richard Stallman is a great representation for the Linux community: a 56 year old unmarried bum with a little more than a slight case of the crazies followed by thieves and cheapskates alike.
And yes, he is a communist: he's a strong believer in the idea that no one's ideas belong to them. Admitting that people are going to criticize him for that doesn't make it any less true. I'm not afraid of the concept of Communism because of its history, I dislike it on principle because it's antithetical to human instinct on even a cellular level.
One last thing: what's illegal and what's immoral are not intertwined for a friggin reason. My sense of morality is different from the next person's and morality standards differ substantially across different cultures and ethnicities. If you can't understand that then you really don't understand the purpose of the legal code at all.
So Apple is going after Psystar to squash the competition! As a computer engineer with more than thirty years experience in the industry, I have always believed in the concepts and practice of healthy competition for many reasons, more notable of which are: (i) to encourage improvement and innovation (ii) lower cost (iii) offer choices in product selection and services and, most important of all (iv) assure that the consumer is the beneficiary of fair, innovative, and unrestricted competition.
Apple has always cultivated and propagated an elitist attitude with regards to their choice of preferred user, and they continue to demonstrate this rather ugly side of the company's character. This may just be a syndrome of over-zealous wannabes who are fulfilling the mandate of founder Steve Jobs.
This is just another shameless demonstration of greed and avarice on the part of Apple, whose spoilt-child tantrum is achieving its goal of winning them the sympathy of their supporters. Poor little rich kids!
I hope Apple succeeds in squashing Psystar, and nuke their remains into oblivion, so that they can continue to impose their domination on their unsuspecting cult-following.
Question: what bubble do you seem to believe Apple operates within? It's not as if people who are considering Apple computers and not also considering Windows based computers. Would Apple be putting out "Mac vs. PC" ads if the two were not competing in some way?
Please, do tell me how PC manufacturers are competing, because when the biggest difference between some of them is a gigabyte of RAM, that's not choice or competition, that's over-saturation. Lemme give you my version of your list:
1) Slightly faster processors and a new color scheme every few months are not innovations.
2) Lower cost is great, the problem is that when you apply that concept to electronics, that almost always means you're getting lower quality parts, especially given the slim margins most PC OEMs sell on. When price is often the single thing differentiating a pair of products, skimping or else removing something is often the quickest way to cheapen up something enough to retain margin.
3) You have every right to consider any of the various Windows computers on the market with Macs. If the Mac doesn't meet your needs or desires, then buy the PC. You see, if enough people choose one over the other, the lesser one will eventually have to adapt. The same concept is true of services, which can be applied to either.
4) You see, here's the world we live in: this one can never and will never be possible. There is really no such thing as fairness in business and innovation stems from real, not perceived competition. Every PC OEM runs some variant of Windows and none are really any different than the other in all practicality. There is no impetus for innovation in an environment where price is the only real factor in a purchase.
You have a very narrow-minded view of the world. Just take a look at Windows 7 and tell me Microsoft hasn't spent the last decade ripping off OS X's UI. This new "taskbar" shocked even me: I never thought Microsoft would alter that to be such a blatant dock rip-off. And take a look at the Google Sidebar and the Vista Widgets bar next to each other and try to discern a feasible difference.
Microsoft's entire career resulted from reverse engineering the original Mac OS and the company has followed suit for the succeeding thirty years. Innovation is counterintuitive to who Microsoft as a company is. So, saying that twenty or so different lap-tops with slightly different designs and almost no other discernible differences running the exact same operating system is in any way what's keeping innovation moving along is, quite frankly, the fucking stupidest thing I've ever heard.
Microsoft is a behemoth beholden to conservative business interests and OEMs that compete solely on price, rather than features. Microsoft is where innovation goes to die. I say that not as a fanboy, but as a spectator. It took them six years to release an utterly broken OS and then another three to fix it. If it would focus on coming up with original ideas and not redoing everyone else's, it might actually get some cred from me one day. And none of the OEMs care to do anything especially innovative anymore because people are all buying the cheap, low margin stuff and the market suffers as a result.
I could go into all of the half-assed development platforms MS has released over the years, but .Net alone speaks louder than I ever could. Apple and Google are the only things keeping Microsoft moving in any direction.
Question: what bubble do you seem to believe Apple operates within? It's not as if people who are considering Apple computers and not also considering Windows based computers. Would Apple be putting out "Mac vs. PC" ads if the two were not competing in some way?
Please, do tell me how PC manufacturers are competing, because when the biggest difference between some of them is a gigabyte of RAM, that's not choice or competition, that's over-saturation. Lemme give you my version of your list:
1) Slightly faster processors and a new color scheme every few months are not innovations.
2) Lower cost is great, the problem is that when you apply that concept to electronics, that almost always means you're getting lower quality parts, especially given the slim margins most PC OEMs sell on. When price is often the single thing differentiating a pair of products, skimping or else removing something is often the quickest way to cheapen up something enough to retain margin.
3) You have every right to consider any of the various Windows computers on the market with Macs. If the Mac doesn't meet your needs or desires, then buy the PC. You see, if enough people choose one over the other, the lesser one will eventually have to adapt. The same concept is true of services, which can be applied to either.
4) You see, here's the world we live in: this one can never and will never be possible. There is really no such thing as fairness in business and innovation stems from real, not perceived competition. Every PC OEM runs some variant of Windows and none are really any different than the other in all practicality. There is no impetus for innovation in an environment where price is the only real factor in a purchase.
You have a very narrow-minded view of the world. Just take a look at Windows 7 and tell me Microsoft hasn't spent the last decade ripping off OS X's UI. This new "taskbar" shocked even me: I never thought Microsoft would alter that to be such a blatant dock rip-off. And take a look at the Google Sidebar and the Vista Widgets bar next to each other and try to discern a feasible difference.
Microsoft's entire career resulted from reverse engineering the original Mac OS and the company has followed suit for the succeeding thirty years. Innovation is counterintuitive to who Microsoft as a company is. So, saying that twenty or so different lap-tops with slightly different designs and almost no other discernible differences running the exact same operating system is in any way what's keeping innovation moving along is, quite frankly, the fucking stupidest thing I've ever heard.
Microsoft is a behemoth beholden to conservative business interests and OEMs that compete solely on price, rather than features. Microsoft is where innovation goes to die. I say that not as a fanboy, but as a spectator. It took them six years to release an utterly broken OS and then another three to fix it. If it would focus on coming up with original ideas and not redoing everyone else's, it might actually get some cred from me one day. And none of the OEMs care to do anything especially innovative anymore because people are all buying the cheap, low margin stuff and the market suffers as a result.
I could go into all of the half-assed development platforms MS has released over the years, but .Net alone speaks louder than I ever could. Apple and Google are the only things keeping Microsoft moving in any direction.
Psystar's 'case' against Apple is smoke & mirrors for their investment and customer scam: they take wannabe investors' and customers' money while they don't deliver R.O.I. or machines, citing 'problems with Apple'...
4) You see, here's the world we live in: this one can never and will never be possible. There is really no such thing as fairness in business and innovation stems from real, not perceived competition. Every PC OEM runs some variant of Windows and none are really any different than the other in all practicality. There is no impetus for innovation in an environment where price is the only real factor in a purchase.
An often overlooked factor. The Windows PC business is a commodity industry, in all but name. The manufacturers distinguish their products from each mainly on the basis of price. They control virtually nothing else, not even the functionalities of the products they sell. It's a pretty odd deal, which somewhere along the line, a lot of people decided was perfectly normal. In fact the way Apple runs its business is far more normal. They make the entire product. They decide how it will function. This is the way the vast majority of consumer products companies operate, the Windows PC business being the exception, not the rule. It's bizarre to me how many people are convinced that the Windows PC industry is normal, and Apple's model of doing business is weird and even dangerous -- when in reality, just the opposite is true.
An often overlooked factor. The Windows PC business is a commodity industry, in all but name. The manufacturers distinguish their products from each mainly on the basis of price. They control virtually nothing else, not even the functionalities of the products they sell. It's a pretty odd deal, which somewhere along the line, a lot of people decided was perfectly normal. In fact the way Apple runs its business is far more normal. They make the entire product. They decide how it will function. This is the way the vast majority of consumer products companies operate, the Windows PC business being the exception, not the rule. It's bizarre to me how many people are convinced that the Windows PC industry is normal, and Apple's model of doing business is weird and even dangerous -- when in reality, just the opposite is true.
It's because Windows is ubiquitous. People are just so used to it that they think different plastic on the case makes one model sufficiently different from another company's.
When they come upon Apple, it's so different to what they're used to that it must be wrong.
It's because Windows is ubiquitous. People are just so used to it that they think different plastic on the case makes one model sufficiently different from another company's.
When they come upon Apple, it's so different to what they're used to that it must be wrong.
It's only so different if you compare it to the Windows PC business. Apple's approach is entirely conventional, when considered by industrial norms. By that standard, it's the PC business which is the odd man out.
It's only so different if you compare it to the Windows PC business. Apple's approach is entirely conventional, when considered by industrial norms. By that standard, it's the PC business which is the odd man out.
I'm not arguing that. It's perception that talks though. Most people don't notice most things around them.
Comments
Apple has always cultivated and propagated an elitist attitude with regards to their choice of preferred user, and they continue to demonstrate this rather ugly side of the company's character. This may just be a syndrome of over-zealous wannabes who are fulfilling the mandate of founder Steve Jobs.
This is just another shameless demonstration of greed and avarice on the part of Apple, whose spoilt-child tantrum is achieving its goal of winning them the sympathy of their supporters. Poor little rich kids!
I hope Apple succeeds in squashing Psystar, and nuke their remains into oblivion, so that they can continue to impose their domination on their unsuspecting cult-following.
This is just another shameless demonstration of greed and avarice on the part of Apple, whose spoilt-child tantrum is achieving its goal of winning them the sympathy of their supporters. Poor little rich kids!
I think it's safe to assume that you are yet another person who has no respect for the laws regarding copyright and intellectual property. Laws which, ironically, stimulate the healthy competition which you claim to support.
I am also going to assume that you don't intend to stay for long on our rich kids forum.
I think it's safe to assume that you are yet another person who has no respect for the laws regarding copyright and intellectual property. Laws which, ironically, stimulate the healthy competition which you claim to support.
I am also going to assume that you don't intend to stay for long on our rich kids forum.
I had written up a lengthy retort but then deleted it. It seems unlikely that someone could actually have 30 years experience in any trade and not have an inking of knowledge about how economics or how what Psystar is doing is bad for the consumer and our free market system. So I figure my post means he still won’t understand, but more likely he is lying or simply trolling.
I'd say instead of messing with Apple, Psystar can just make their hack into a software and sell it in the stores like any other software. For example: VM Ware allows a user to use Windows on a Mac as does Parallel. Bootcamp allows users to install Windows on a Mac to use as if it's a PC.
that only works because Microsoft can't restrict the hardware used by Windows. due to their dominant market share. such tying by them would be abusive.
All Psystar needs to do to NOT having to violate the EULA is to NOT install OSX at all! Just sell the codes as a software that allows OSX to be installed on ANY PC... much like a driver!
until some court declares that the act of installing software is NOT making a copy and thus Apple can't restrict installation as a copyright claim, Psystar has that to deal with. and the creation and dissemination of any information or technology that circumvents copyright controls is a violation of the DCMA. even if they give it away for free, they have violated DCMA and are subject to some major fines. the profit issue just ups how much those fines could be
Companies have a right to defend their business, within reason. Nothing can be unlimited -- defending business is not a Holy Crusade. In this case, I believe Psystar to be in the right and Apple to be in the wrong, morally. That's all.
so it is morally right to take someone else's hard work and use it for your own profit.
Cause that is what Psystar is doing.
Then why did Microsoft get shot down when they insisted they had a right to tie their browser with their OS? Didn't they have that 'right'? They determine where and how their own software should run. No?
Microsoft was trying to tie two totally unrelated items together. An OS and hardware are made to work hand in hand so Apple has that on their side. A web browser and an OS are not. Further Microsoft had and still has a dominant market share so the tying would push IE unfairly ahead of the game.
Also over time Microsoft was were playing games like making it a condition of pre-loading windows that only IE could be installed, no other web browsers were permitted. they tried to withhold information from other companies regarding how to make a browser work with Windows, tried to sue those that reverse engineered Windows themselves to get the info, etc.
so it is morally right to take someone else's hard work and use it for your own profit.
No, it isn't. Let them invent their own thing. What is the point of existing if you just copy other people anyway.
No, it isn't. Let them invent their own thing. What is the point of existing if you just copy other people anyway.
Isn't that the American Way though? Keeping up with the Jones'?
that only works because Microsoft can't restrict the hardware used by Windows. due to their dominant market share. such tying by them would be abusive.
until some court declares that the act of installing software is NOT making a copy and thus Apple can't restrict installation as a copyright claim, Psystar has that to deal with. and the creation and dissemination of any information or technology that circumvents copyright controls is a violation of the DCMA. even if they give it away for free, they have violated DCMA and are subject to some major fines. the profit issue just ups how much those fines could be
You think the US Supreme Court wouldn't overturn that lower court's absurd notion?
So Apple is going after Psystar to squash the competition! As a computer engineer with more than thirty years experience in the industry, I have always believed in the concepts and practice of healthy competition for many reasons, more notable of which are: (i) to encourage improvement and innovation (ii) lower cost (iii) offer choices in product selection and services and, most important of all (iv) assure that the consumer is the beneficiary of fair, innovative, and unrestricted competition.
Apple has always cultivated and propagated an elitist attitude with regards to their choice of preferred user, and they continue to demonstrate this rather ugly side of the company's character. This may just be a syndrome of over-zealous wannabes who are fulfilling the mandate of founder Steve Jobs.
This is just another shameless demonstration of greed and avarice on the part of Apple, whose spoilt-child tantrum is achieving its goal of winning them the sympathy of their supporters. Poor little rich kids!
I hope Apple succeeds in squashing Psystar, and nuke their remains into oblivion, so that they can continue to impose their domination on their unsuspecting cult-following.
What kind of crazy post is that?
Isn't that the American Way though? Keeping up with the Jones'?
Keeping up with the Jones' means buying what the Jones' have.
If, in this case, we're talking about Mac's, it means buying a real Mac, not some cheap knock-off as Psystar would have people do.
So Apple is going after Psystar to squash the competition!
hardly. Psystar is more than welcome to do as other companies have and make their own OS. they can even base it around the Open Source code available to anyone.
Macintosh computers are not a market in and of themselves. so there is no competition to be squashed. The courts have ruled such on this matter. they have also ruled that Apple has a right to restrict what hardware is used with their software, even to the point of saying that said hardware must be assembled and sold via them and select resellers of their choosing.
What kind of crazy post is that?
Like I posted earlier... it's a one hit and run!
[melgross]
I believe US laws relating to electronics and computers are very seriously messed up, but Psystar is in the moral right. No, that is not my reasoning
And on the "Mom" comment, I must protest. It's unrelated, but since when is price the sole determinant of whether one should or should not have something?
There is so much wrong with what you just said. The idea that a company that did not spend a cent developing an operating system, designing hardware, running popular stores, or doing any research and development of any sort that simply threw together some cheap shit parts and someone else's hard work is morally right is one serious mind fuck.
As all the other's have said, a company, by right, has a monopoly over its own product. The only time that becomes a problem in the sense of legal monopoly is when there is no effective alternative. Apple computers represent 4% of computers sold worldwide, while Microsoft represents over 90%.
People are well aware before purchasing an Apple computer that its operating system was only made to work on its hardware (it's a selling point for g-d's sake). If they disagree with that, then the only thing stopping them from purchasing from the competition is themselves. I hate to sound like the Windows fanboys I hate so much, but there are very few things one operating system can do that the other can not. The ultimate difference is the difference in experience that the two platforms provide and a vertically aligned process is essential to the experience that Apple provides its users. The idea that you can provide a premium experience with bargain basement hardware is rather offensive (that's like putting a Pinto engine in a Mercedes).
Anyway, to answer what you said when you last responded to me: Richard Stallman also said that people who use proprietary software feel trapped and unable to do anything. I don't think I have to take a vote to know that 99% of the world completely and utterly disagrees with him on that point. I don't exactly feel walled up on all sides when I use Final Cut or Aperture. I don't know any other way to say this, but Richard Stallman is a great representation for the Linux community: a 56 year old unmarried bum with a little more than a slight case of the crazies followed by thieves and cheapskates alike.
And yes, he is a communist: he's a strong believer in the idea that no one's ideas belong to them. Admitting that people are going to criticize him for that doesn't make it any less true. I'm not afraid of the concept of Communism because of its history, I dislike it on principle because it's antithetical to human instinct on even a cellular level.
One last thing: what's illegal and what's immoral are not intertwined for a friggin reason. My sense of morality is different from the next person's and morality standards differ substantially across different cultures and ethnicities. If you can't understand that then you really don't understand the purpose of the legal code at all.
So Apple is going after Psystar to squash the competition! As a computer engineer with more than thirty years experience in the industry, I have always believed in the concepts and practice of healthy competition for many reasons, more notable of which are: (i) to encourage improvement and innovation (ii) lower cost (iii) offer choices in product selection and services and, most important of all (iv) assure that the consumer is the beneficiary of fair, innovative, and unrestricted competition.
Apple has always cultivated and propagated an elitist attitude with regards to their choice of preferred user, and they continue to demonstrate this rather ugly side of the company's character. This may just be a syndrome of over-zealous wannabes who are fulfilling the mandate of founder Steve Jobs.
This is just another shameless demonstration of greed and avarice on the part of Apple, whose spoilt-child tantrum is achieving its goal of winning them the sympathy of their supporters. Poor little rich kids!
I hope Apple succeeds in squashing Psystar, and nuke their remains into oblivion, so that they can continue to impose their domination on their unsuspecting cult-following.
Question: what bubble do you seem to believe Apple operates within? It's not as if people who are considering Apple computers and not also considering Windows based computers. Would Apple be putting out "Mac vs. PC" ads if the two were not competing in some way?
Please, do tell me how PC manufacturers are competing, because when the biggest difference between some of them is a gigabyte of RAM, that's not choice or competition, that's over-saturation. Lemme give you my version of your list:
1) Slightly faster processors and a new color scheme every few months are not innovations.
2) Lower cost is great, the problem is that when you apply that concept to electronics, that almost always means you're getting lower quality parts, especially given the slim margins most PC OEMs sell on. When price is often the single thing differentiating a pair of products, skimping or else removing something is often the quickest way to cheapen up something enough to retain margin.
3) You have every right to consider any of the various Windows computers on the market with Macs. If the Mac doesn't meet your needs or desires, then buy the PC. You see, if enough people choose one over the other, the lesser one will eventually have to adapt. The same concept is true of services, which can be applied to either.
4) You see, here's the world we live in: this one can never and will never be possible. There is really no such thing as fairness in business and innovation stems from real, not perceived competition. Every PC OEM runs some variant of Windows and none are really any different than the other in all practicality. There is no impetus for innovation in an environment where price is the only real factor in a purchase.
You have a very narrow-minded view of the world. Just take a look at Windows 7 and tell me Microsoft hasn't spent the last decade ripping off OS X's UI. This new "taskbar" shocked even me: I never thought Microsoft would alter that to be such a blatant dock rip-off. And take a look at the Google Sidebar and the Vista Widgets bar next to each other and try to discern a feasible difference.
Microsoft's entire career resulted from reverse engineering the original Mac OS and the company has followed suit for the succeeding thirty years. Innovation is counterintuitive to who Microsoft as a company is. So, saying that twenty or so different lap-tops with slightly different designs and almost no other discernible differences running the exact same operating system is in any way what's keeping innovation moving along is, quite frankly, the fucking stupidest thing I've ever heard.
Microsoft is a behemoth beholden to conservative business interests and OEMs that compete solely on price, rather than features. Microsoft is where innovation goes to die. I say that not as a fanboy, but as a spectator. It took them six years to release an utterly broken OS and then another three to fix it. If it would focus on coming up with original ideas and not redoing everyone else's, it might actually get some cred from me one day. And none of the OEMs care to do anything especially innovative anymore because people are all buying the cheap, low margin stuff and the market suffers as a result.
I could go into all of the half-assed development platforms MS has released over the years, but .Net alone speaks louder than I ever could. Apple and Google are the only things keeping Microsoft moving in any direction.
Question: what bubble do you seem to believe Apple operates within? It's not as if people who are considering Apple computers and not also considering Windows based computers. Would Apple be putting out "Mac vs. PC" ads if the two were not competing in some way?
Please, do tell me how PC manufacturers are competing, because when the biggest difference between some of them is a gigabyte of RAM, that's not choice or competition, that's over-saturation. Lemme give you my version of your list:
1) Slightly faster processors and a new color scheme every few months are not innovations.
2) Lower cost is great, the problem is that when you apply that concept to electronics, that almost always means you're getting lower quality parts, especially given the slim margins most PC OEMs sell on. When price is often the single thing differentiating a pair of products, skimping or else removing something is often the quickest way to cheapen up something enough to retain margin.
3) You have every right to consider any of the various Windows computers on the market with Macs. If the Mac doesn't meet your needs or desires, then buy the PC. You see, if enough people choose one over the other, the lesser one will eventually have to adapt. The same concept is true of services, which can be applied to either.
4) You see, here's the world we live in: this one can never and will never be possible. There is really no such thing as fairness in business and innovation stems from real, not perceived competition. Every PC OEM runs some variant of Windows and none are really any different than the other in all practicality. There is no impetus for innovation in an environment where price is the only real factor in a purchase.
You have a very narrow-minded view of the world. Just take a look at Windows 7 and tell me Microsoft hasn't spent the last decade ripping off OS X's UI. This new "taskbar" shocked even me: I never thought Microsoft would alter that to be such a blatant dock rip-off. And take a look at the Google Sidebar and the Vista Widgets bar next to each other and try to discern a feasible difference.
Microsoft's entire career resulted from reverse engineering the original Mac OS and the company has followed suit for the succeeding thirty years. Innovation is counterintuitive to who Microsoft as a company is. So, saying that twenty or so different lap-tops with slightly different designs and almost no other discernible differences running the exact same operating system is in any way what's keeping innovation moving along is, quite frankly, the fucking stupidest thing I've ever heard.
Microsoft is a behemoth beholden to conservative business interests and OEMs that compete solely on price, rather than features. Microsoft is where innovation goes to die. I say that not as a fanboy, but as a spectator. It took them six years to release an utterly broken OS and then another three to fix it. If it would focus on coming up with original ideas and not redoing everyone else's, it might actually get some cred from me one day. And none of the OEMs care to do anything especially innovative anymore because people are all buying the cheap, low margin stuff and the market suffers as a result.
I could go into all of the half-assed development platforms MS has released over the years, but .Net alone speaks louder than I ever could. Apple and Google are the only things keeping Microsoft moving in any direction.
All I have to say is: GREAT post!
That's plain fraud.
4) You see, here's the world we live in: this one can never and will never be possible. There is really no such thing as fairness in business and innovation stems from real, not perceived competition. Every PC OEM runs some variant of Windows and none are really any different than the other in all practicality. There is no impetus for innovation in an environment where price is the only real factor in a purchase.
An often overlooked factor. The Windows PC business is a commodity industry, in all but name. The manufacturers distinguish their products from each mainly on the basis of price. They control virtually nothing else, not even the functionalities of the products they sell. It's a pretty odd deal, which somewhere along the line, a lot of people decided was perfectly normal. In fact the way Apple runs its business is far more normal. They make the entire product. They decide how it will function. This is the way the vast majority of consumer products companies operate, the Windows PC business being the exception, not the rule. It's bizarre to me how many people are convinced that the Windows PC industry is normal, and Apple's model of doing business is weird and even dangerous -- when in reality, just the opposite is true.
An often overlooked factor. The Windows PC business is a commodity industry, in all but name. The manufacturers distinguish their products from each mainly on the basis of price. They control virtually nothing else, not even the functionalities of the products they sell. It's a pretty odd deal, which somewhere along the line, a lot of people decided was perfectly normal. In fact the way Apple runs its business is far more normal. They make the entire product. They decide how it will function. This is the way the vast majority of consumer products companies operate, the Windows PC business being the exception, not the rule. It's bizarre to me how many people are convinced that the Windows PC industry is normal, and Apple's model of doing business is weird and even dangerous -- when in reality, just the opposite is true.
It's because Windows is ubiquitous. People are just so used to it that they think different plastic on the case makes one model sufficiently different from another company's.
When they come upon Apple, it's so different to what they're used to that it must be wrong.
It's because Windows is ubiquitous. People are just so used to it that they think different plastic on the case makes one model sufficiently different from another company's.
When they come upon Apple, it's so different to what they're used to that it must be wrong.
It's only so different if you compare it to the Windows PC business. Apple's approach is entirely conventional, when considered by industrial norms. By that standard, it's the PC business which is the odd man out.
It's only so different if you compare it to the Windows PC business. Apple's approach is entirely conventional, when considered by industrial norms. By that standard, it's the PC business which is the odd man out.
I'm not arguing that. It's perception that talks though. Most people don't notice most things around them.