My father in law 86 years old on a fixed income with advanced macular degeneration will be forced to pay a data fee to AT&T if the phone he gets happens to be a smartphone?
We have a tough time getting him a phone...
1. The buttons must be fairly large
2. The screen... yea its a light as far as he's concerned... he'd need a 10" iPhone to in any way use a phone screen... lol
How they feel charging this man for data just because the 'big button phone' we happen to find has a web browser in it?
Wow that sucks!
P.S. If anyone knows of any GSM phones for people who are vision impaired please let me know! So far I haven't had much luck...
The PS case is really just anther challenge of Apple's core business practice. Apple is a closed, vertical market that controls every aspect of a product. Apple does not just make an mp3 player; they supply the music store and sync software as well. Apple does not just make computers; they make computing experiences by controlling the OS. They do not just make the iPhone; they make the platform and ecosystem in which it runs.
Another model is to just make hardware that can run generic software. Still another model is to make software that can run on generic hardware. No one solution is right for everyone. Some want a blank box that will take any software. Others want the hardware and software to be made for each other and tightly integrated. To my knowledge, neither point of view is immoral or illegal. When Apple first launched its hardware/software integration strategy, a lot of people said it wouldn't work, they even said it was shortsighted, still others said it was just plain stupid; but none, to my knowledge, said it was illegal. It didn't become illegal in some people's minds until it became successful.
Now, there are special interests who want to see Apple destroyed by making their model of integration illegal. Others are simply ignorant of what makes Apple so successful. People look at Apple and say that if they were more like MS, they would be more successful. Apple does not have to adopt an open model. That is not who they are or what they do. PS is just one of a long line of people who are jealous of Apple's success and want to take through the courts what they can't touch in the marketplace.
How long will it be before someone sues Apple for tying the iPhone OS to the iPhone?
How many of you are old enough to remember claims of "SUAIs" (sudden unintended acceleration incidents) in Audis? Many years ago (in the 80s, I think) 60 Minutes did a very slanted piece about it, and Audis began going crazy everywhere, running spouses through garage walls, going off into pools... dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!
It was such an epidemic, everybody KNEW it had to be real, and the only questions being asked where (1) what causes this dreadful thing where the car suddenly accelerates, usually while the person is stamping on the brake as hard as possible? (2) why is Audi hiding it? and (3) Why can't (or won't) the Department of Transportation get to the bottom of it?
After a $2 million study (1 or 2 million, I can't remember anymore), it was determined that "pedal misapplication" was the cause. Yep, the dumb buggers had stepped on the gas after all.
Why does this exploding iPhone thing reek of that?
I do remember that with Audi but I never new the outcome was Audi was exonerated! Just goes to show!
Wow, really? Do you not get the point or are you just trying to be argumentative?
Ok, in case you really don't understand... an iPhone without a data plan is essentially an iPod touch (with a cell phone). Since many, many people have found the touch to be a useful device, even with the crippling omission of no ATT data plan, it stands to reason that an iPhone without a data plan could, just possibly, actually still be useful.
In fact, since ATT feels that it's necessary to require users to get a data plan, that suggests that there are smartphone users out there who choose not to have a data plan. Further evidence that a smartphone without a data plan is still useful.
And while it doesn't affect iPhone users as they are already required to have a data plan, the point we are trying to make is that this is an obvious ploy by ATT to get more money from people for services they may not use. Perhaps the FCC should add that to their list of things to investigate.
I see where you are going...iPhone without a data plan via ATT but able to do everything when in a Hotspot/wifi....I like it. I hate having to pay ATT the $30 for the Data plan. And I would like the option.
Jail time for Pystar owners, now that I fully agree with given they are found guilty. Torture, dismemberment, forgin objects placed in orfaces, or death, I do not agree with at all.
Since they're not being charged with a crime, I don't see why you'd agree. This is a lawsuit. A civil action, not a criminal action. You aren't found "guilty" or "innocent" in a civil suit, and you aren't at risk for jail time in either event.
Here is what I think is amusing (or proof of conspiracy if you like to think that way.) If Psytar were to win in court and force Apple to allow clones, companies like HP and Dell would crush Psytar into oblivion with their own Mac clones.
How in the heck could any court force apple to sell its own product to a competitor. I don't get why this could ever possibly happen.
BTW, PC makers (Dell, HP,Sony etc) who sell Windows pre-installed have a special license with MS to copy the OS onto the PCs that they sell. LICENSE.
The PS case is really just anther challenge of Apple's core business practice. Apple is a closed, vertical market that controls every aspect of a product. Apple does not just make an mp3 player; they supply the music store and sync software as well. Apple does not just make computers; they make computing experiences by controlling the OS. They do not just make the iPhone; they make the platform and ecosystem in which it runs.
Another model is to just make hardware that can run generic software. Still another model is to make software that can run on generic hardware. No one solution is right for everyone. Some want a blank box that will take any software. Others want the hardware and software to be made for each other and tightly integrated. To my knowledge, neither point of view is immoral or illegal. When Apple first launched its hardware/software integration strategy, a lot of people said it wouldn't work, they even said it was shortsighted, still others said it was just plain stupid; but none, to my knowledge, said it was illegal. It didn't become illegal in some people's minds until it became successful.
Now, there are special interests who want to see Apple destroyed by making their model of integration illegal. Others are simply ignorant of what makes Apple so successful. People look at Apple and say that if they were more like MS, they would be more successful. Apple does not have to adopt an open model. That is not who they are or what they do. PS is just one of a long line of people who are jealous of Apple's success and want to take through the courts what they can't touch in the marketplace.
How long will it be before someone sues Apple for tying the iPhone OS to the iPhone?
Oh, don't kid yourself, the problem runs much deeper than that. There are certainly special interests (of which Michael Dell is likely a party) that would like to see Apple taken down to protect their business interests, but there's also a rising tide of self-entitled citizens who don't seem to understand that just because something can be done, doesn't mean it should be done. The internet has really put entirely too much information at people's fingertips for them to consciously and constructively use. People have absolutely no respect anymore for the fact that not all businesses like to conduct themselves in the same way.
These guys need to be prosecuted in a criminal court for grand theft and larceny. Can you buy a Toyota Engine and put it a Chevrolet chassis and sell it?
I don't know if that's even an applicable comparison. I haven't heard of anyone getting in trouble for doing that. Besides, I'm pretty sure engines are sold, not licensed. An applicable comparison might be to copy someone else's engine and sell a copy.
There is no Court in the Country that is going to force Apple to sell OSX to third parties much less sell it at $29. Furthermore, Apple sells OSX for $29 only to people who already own Leopard. If you have Tiger you are supposed to pay something like $179. So, if Apple were forced to sell OSX, which is highly unlikely, the price would be much higher for PC users.
Finally, perhaps you didn't consider the possibility that PC manufacturers and Microsoft do not necessarily share the same interests. THe manufacturers want to sell PCs, and they could care less what OS is on them as long as they are selling. Microsoft only wants PCs to sell with it's own OS, not Apples. There is no way in hell Microsoft is funding Psystar. Some wholly owned shell company Dell created maybe, Microsoft never.
Quote:
Originally Posted by surferfromuk
Whichever set of idiots is backing Psystar are playing a very dangerous game because if Apple does lose the lawsuit they will have no alternative but to instantly and immediately license OSX to all PC hardware vendors at $29 a copy.
Sure wifi is great but most people don't sit around indoors all day next to the wifi.
Wow, I beg to differ. I'd guess most people DO sit around indoors most of the day next to WiFi.
Most people spend the bulk of their day either at home or at their work/office. Does your office have WiFi? Most offices I know do now. As does every McDonald's, Starbucks, most cafes, you name it. Heck, open WiFi is pretty common even sitting in the park - at least in urban areas around here. About the only time most people are going to regularly be away from WiFi is when they're driving to/from work, and if you're driving you'd damn well better not be monkeying with your iPhone! (bus/rail commuters are a different story, of course)
FWIW, as an iPod Touch owner, I find that >90% of the time I want to use my Touch I have a signal available.
Yes, this is not the case for all people in all cities, but it seems to be more and more prevalent. I look forward to the day when people are not so tyrannized and bullied by the cell companies that they feel the billing schemes and requirements are reasonable. I will have zero sympathy for the cell companies when (not if) they slowly start losing the customers they paid so much to build up over the past few years!
Florida-based Psystar is hoping to bring Apple's latest operating system to its line of knock-off Macs. In a complaint filed in a Florida court Thursday, Psystar seeks an injunction and damages due to Apple's "anticompetitive attempts to tie Mac OS X Snow Leopard to its Macintosh line of computers."
The filing claims that Psystar is entitled to be able to buy copies of Snow Leopard on the market and install them onto its own computers that it re-sells. The suit alleges that the company is already capable of installing the new operating system on its hardware.
they already filed and lost this suit like a year ago. nothing has changed other than the software version.,
the court says that Apple has all legal right to tie the OS to their hardware etc. they will say the same thing again given that Apple still doesn't have market strength to make it an antitrust issue.
Psystar is just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dorotea
How in the heck could any court force apple to sell its own product to a competitor. I don't get why this could ever possibly happen.
well if Apple, like Microsoft, held a dominant share of the market, then tying hardware and software would give certain hardware companies unfair advantage in their market. this is a no-no under anti-trust. just like using your dominance in the OS market to push one web browser over all others is a no-no (that got Microsoft in big trouble).
HOWEVER, the courts have already heard this case. From Psystar, who tried to claim that Apple had 100% share of the market, via claiming that there is such a thing as a Macintosh Market. The courts tossed it, saying that no, the market is Personal Computer Systems/Operating Software and Apple lacks anything close to dominance and therefore at this point in time can do whatever they what. including restrict the hardware and sellers of said hardware for use with their software.
that it is now Snow Leopard and not Leopard does not change this.
also, it is very likely that Psystar is using the same DCMA violating bootloaders as before. and thus increasing the chance of this going to a criminal level of damages. Which goes hand in hand with the 'unexpected' loss of all sales data. But even without that data, they would face some monetary damages per the various copyright laws, which actually state that profit is not a factor in whether a violation has occurred. you can give the information/technology away and still be in violation. the sales data would just dig them in deeper.
As for the ATT thing, I"m personally happy. ATT is risking a lot of trouble making special rules for the iphone. they are better off treating all smart phones the same. yeah, customers won't like it but with luck the FCC is going to decide that the time for no more sim locks has come and all carriers that can support a phones technology can have it and then we can choose to stay ATT or go to T-Mobile who might take advantage of the sitch and offer a better deal. like say $25 for unlimited data AND texting with MMS actually working.
My father in law 86 years old on a fixed income with advanced macular degeneration will be forced to pay a data fee to AT&T if the phone he gets happens to be a smartphone?
We have a tough time getting him a phone...
1. The buttons must be fairly large
2. The screen... yea its a light as far as he's concerned... he'd need a 10" iPhone to in any way use a phone screen... lol
How they feel charging this man for data just because the 'big button phone' we happen to find has a web browser in it?
Wow that sucks!
P.S. If anyone knows of any GSM phones for people who are vision impaired please let me know! So far I haven't had much luck...
There are phones marketed specifically towards the elderly. If he's a member of the AARP, check whatever magazines he gets from them. Maybe in Reader's Digest? I'm trying to recall whatever my grandparents read. I think those are better fits than smart phones, even the iPhone has tiny text and small buttons, the main exception being the one screen used to dial.
I put in "big button cell phone" into Google and found this:
I can't tell if it's GSM, is there a particular reason for GSM? If he has hearing aids, something not GSM will work better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by webmail
I know for a fact Pystar = Dell.
Just remember when you hear that a year from now, that I told you already.
Color me skeptical, for all I know, you're imagining connections that aren't there and have no first hand knowledg. If you have actual information and you're privy to this, can you explain how they couldn't afford to pay their original legal team?
As for the ATT thing, I"m personally happy. ATT is risking a lot of trouble making special rules for the iphone. they are better off treating all smart phones the same. yeah, customers won't like it but with luck the FCC is going to decide that the time for no more sim locks has come and all carriers that can support a phones technology can have it and then we can choose to stay ATT or go to T-Mobile who might take advantage of the sitch and offer a better deal. like say $25 for unlimited data AND texting with MMS actually working.
I'm sure (hope) that the FCC sees the difference of someone using a WiFi capable smart phone without data from the cell network. I'd love an iPhone because it is smart. I don't need the cell phone to be smart. There is plenty WiFi for my iPod Touch around here, but absolutely no AT&T 3G coverage at all. I just need a regular cell phone. Having WiFi smart phone for my data needs just makes me not have to carry two devices. So why should I be forced into a $30 data plan on the cell network? This is what the FCC needs to investigate.
Also, I wouldn't plan on T-Mobile offing a competing data plan anytime soon, since they are owned by AT&T.
they already filed and lost this suit like a year ago. nothing has changed other than the software version.,
the court says that Apple has all legal right to tie the OS to their hardware etc. they will say the same thing again given that Apple still doesn't have market strength to make it an antitrust issue.
Um, please point to where that ruling was issued? The current case is scheduled to be heard in full court in January. The only thing that I know that has been thrown out as far as Psystar's suit goes was their original reasoning for their suit, which the judge said was wrong, so they filed a second reason that the judge has accepted as worthy of being heard (regardless of whether or not its legally valid). I still question Psystar's open admission in a legal brief that they were able to write code to get Snow Leopard working properly the same day the software came out and the brief was filed. That means they're either very very quick, or they were engaged in some not so kosher work.
And why do so many people seem to think there's a link between Psystar and Dell??? Dell is losing market share to HP and Acer, Apple isn't really their problem. So unless Michael Dell simply wants to try and dick with Steve Jobs, I don't see how there's a legit link. M$ I can see, but no Dell who probably wouldn't sell many OSX PCs even if they were allowed to.
I don't know if that's even an applicable comparison. I haven't heard of anyone getting in trouble for doing that. Besides, I'm pretty sure engines are sold, not licensed. An applicable comparison might be to copy someone else's engine and sell a copy.
It's a poor analogy. A better one might be if you bought Toyota engines and decided that you could now build and sell Toyotas. The software license isn't the key. People get the wrong ideas about this situation because they focus too much on the license. You can't start building someone else's proprietary product just because you are able to buy one or all of the parts that make up that product.
Recently, the Florida company deposed Apple executive Phil Schiller, only to suggest he was unprepared during attorney questioning. Psystar's deposition of numerous Apple executives was part of a lawsuit filed by the official Mac maker. That trial is set to begin in California in January of 2010.
Why didn't you tell the WHOLE story:
Court orders Psystar to pay Apple $5,000 for baseless discovery motion
Wed, Aug 26, 2009News
UPDATE: The $5,000 payment Psytar is required to pay Apple stems from Psystar CEO Rudy Pedrazza lying during his deposition, and causing Apple?s legal team to incur unnecessary legal fees.
As a result of filing a motion that Judge Alsup found to be completely baseless, Psystar was ordered earlier this week to pay Apple $5,000 in attorneys fees and, perhaps, to send a message to the beleaguered clonemaker that its antics are starting to wear thin.
Here?s what went down.
The discovery process between Psystar and Apple is in full swing, and it wasn?t too long ago that Psystar bragged on its website that it would soon be deposing some of the higher ups at Apple, with the most notable name on the list being that of Phil Schiller, Apple?s Senior VP of Worldwide Product Marketing.
After deposing Schiller, Psystar filed a motion with the court alleging that Schiller ?appeared at his deposition wholly unprepared and unwilling to testify? when questioned about how Psystar?s clone business hurt Apple?s bottom line.
Apple soon responded with its own motion arguing that the information sought by Psystar at Schiller?s deposition was completely outside the scope of what Schiller was qualified and legally expected to answer. Schiller is a marketing guy, and as Apple points out, Psystar?s line of questioning about Apple?s lost profits and gross margins are typically reserved for a designated expert witness.
From the outset, Psystar?s counsel disregarded the scope of testimony for which Mr. Schiller was designated. Despite Apple?s objections, Psystar?s counsel sought testimony on the quantification of damages - the subject of expert testimony - rather than the injury suffered by Apple. Mr. Schiller was fully prepared to discuss the non-quantifiable, irreparable injury to Apple but Psystar?s counsel chose not to ask those questions and terminated the deposition instead.
Even more intriguing was Apple?s assertion that Psystar?s motion was misleading and purposefully left out a number of key facts.
After hearing both sides of the story, Judge Alsup issued a minute entry requiring Psystar to pay Apple $5,000 and requesting that both parties file supplemental briefs with the court by Thursday, August 27.
The ruling from Judge Alsup is somewhat unusual, and suggests that Psystar?s conduct in filing its motion to compel was particularly egregious. Our guess is that Psystar either filed a misleading brief which left out important facts (as Apple claims), or that Psystar?s questioning of Schiller was so unreasonably broad that its motion to compel the court for yet another deposition was a waste of time and a blatant misuse of the court?s resources. Either way, Psystar may soon realize that it?s strategy to take on Apple guns blazin? might not be the best idea when your legal case is tenuous at best.
But with a twist. Sell a non-Apple hardware version of Mac OS for $999.99 Which would make Pystars computers uncompetitive if they legally acquired the software. But Still charge only $29 for apple computer users to upgrade. Apples argument would be that the OEM Apple HW buyer is subsidizing the OS cost and hence gets it cheaper. Whereas a Pystar buyer has no subsidy and has to pay fair value for the OS. Similar to a Cell phone plan where you buy with or without contract.
Comments
My father in law 86 years old on a fixed income with advanced macular degeneration will be forced to pay a data fee to AT&T if the phone he gets happens to be a smartphone?
We have a tough time getting him a phone...
1. The buttons must be fairly large
2. The screen... yea its a light as far as he's concerned... he'd need a 10" iPhone to in any way use a phone screen... lol
How they feel charging this man for data just because the 'big button phone' we happen to find has a web browser in it?
Wow that sucks!
P.S. If anyone knows of any GSM phones for people who are vision impaired please let me know! So far I haven't had much luck...
Dave
Another model is to just make hardware that can run generic software. Still another model is to make software that can run on generic hardware. No one solution is right for everyone. Some want a blank box that will take any software. Others want the hardware and software to be made for each other and tightly integrated. To my knowledge, neither point of view is immoral or illegal. When Apple first launched its hardware/software integration strategy, a lot of people said it wouldn't work, they even said it was shortsighted, still others said it was just plain stupid; but none, to my knowledge, said it was illegal. It didn't become illegal in some people's minds until it became successful.
Now, there are special interests who want to see Apple destroyed by making their model of integration illegal. Others are simply ignorant of what makes Apple so successful. People look at Apple and say that if they were more like MS, they would be more successful. Apple does not have to adopt an open model. That is not who they are or what they do. PS is just one of a long line of people who are jealous of Apple's success and want to take through the courts what they can't touch in the marketplace.
How long will it be before someone sues Apple for tying the iPhone OS to the iPhone?
How many of you are old enough to remember claims of "SUAIs" (sudden unintended acceleration incidents) in Audis? Many years ago (in the 80s, I think) 60 Minutes did a very slanted piece about it, and Audis began going crazy everywhere, running spouses through garage walls, going off into pools... dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!
It was such an epidemic, everybody KNEW it had to be real, and the only questions being asked where (1) what causes this dreadful thing where the car suddenly accelerates, usually while the person is stamping on the brake as hard as possible? (2) why is Audi hiding it? and (3) Why can't (or won't) the Department of Transportation get to the bottom of it?
After a $2 million study (1 or 2 million, I can't remember anymore), it was determined that "pedal misapplication" was the cause. Yep, the dumb buggers had stepped on the gas after all.
Why does this exploding iPhone thing reek of that?
I do remember that with Audi but I never new the outcome was Audi was exonerated! Just goes to show!
Wow, really? Do you not get the point or are you just trying to be argumentative?
Ok, in case you really don't understand... an iPhone without a data plan is essentially an iPod touch (with a cell phone). Since many, many people have found the touch to be a useful device, even with the crippling omission of no ATT data plan, it stands to reason that an iPhone without a data plan could, just possibly, actually still be useful.
In fact, since ATT feels that it's necessary to require users to get a data plan, that suggests that there are smartphone users out there who choose not to have a data plan. Further evidence that a smartphone without a data plan is still useful.
And while it doesn't affect iPhone users as they are already required to have a data plan, the point we are trying to make is that this is an obvious ploy by ATT to get more money from people for services they may not use. Perhaps the FCC should add that to their list of things to investigate.
I see where you are going...iPhone without a data plan via ATT but able to do everything when in a Hotspot/wifi....I like it. I hate having to pay ATT the $30 for the Data plan. And I would like the option.
Jail time for Pystar owners, now that I fully agree with given they are found guilty. Torture, dismemberment, forgin objects placed in orfaces, or death, I do not agree with at all.
Since they're not being charged with a crime, I don't see why you'd agree. This is a lawsuit. A civil action, not a criminal action. You aren't found "guilty" or "innocent" in a civil suit, and you aren't at risk for jail time in either event.
Just remember when you hear that a year from now, that I told you already.
Here is what I think is amusing (or proof of conspiracy if you like to think that way.) If Psytar were to win in court and force Apple to allow clones, companies like HP and Dell would crush Psytar into oblivion with their own Mac clones.
How in the heck could any court force apple to sell its own product to a competitor. I don't get why this could ever possibly happen.
BTW, PC makers (Dell, HP,Sony etc) who sell Windows pre-installed have a special license with MS to copy the OS onto the PCs that they sell. LICENSE.
PSYSTAR DOES NOT HAVE AN AGREEMENT WITH APPLE.
The PS case is really just anther challenge of Apple's core business practice. Apple is a closed, vertical market that controls every aspect of a product. Apple does not just make an mp3 player; they supply the music store and sync software as well. Apple does not just make computers; they make computing experiences by controlling the OS. They do not just make the iPhone; they make the platform and ecosystem in which it runs.
Another model is to just make hardware that can run generic software. Still another model is to make software that can run on generic hardware. No one solution is right for everyone. Some want a blank box that will take any software. Others want the hardware and software to be made for each other and tightly integrated. To my knowledge, neither point of view is immoral or illegal. When Apple first launched its hardware/software integration strategy, a lot of people said it wouldn't work, they even said it was shortsighted, still others said it was just plain stupid; but none, to my knowledge, said it was illegal. It didn't become illegal in some people's minds until it became successful.
Now, there are special interests who want to see Apple destroyed by making their model of integration illegal. Others are simply ignorant of what makes Apple so successful. People look at Apple and say that if they were more like MS, they would be more successful. Apple does not have to adopt an open model. That is not who they are or what they do. PS is just one of a long line of people who are jealous of Apple's success and want to take through the courts what they can't touch in the marketplace.
How long will it be before someone sues Apple for tying the iPhone OS to the iPhone?
Oh, don't kid yourself, the problem runs much deeper than that. There are certainly special interests (of which Michael Dell is likely a party) that would like to see Apple taken down to protect their business interests, but there's also a rising tide of self-entitled citizens who don't seem to understand that just because something can be done, doesn't mean it should be done. The internet has really put entirely too much information at people's fingertips for them to consciously and constructively use. People have absolutely no respect anymore for the fact that not all businesses like to conduct themselves in the same way.
These guys need to be prosecuted in a criminal court for grand theft and larceny. Can you buy a Toyota Engine and put it a Chevrolet chassis and sell it?
I don't know if that's even an applicable comparison. I haven't heard of anyone getting in trouble for doing that. Besides, I'm pretty sure engines are sold, not licensed. An applicable comparison might be to copy someone else's engine and sell a copy.
Finally, perhaps you didn't consider the possibility that PC manufacturers and Microsoft do not necessarily share the same interests. THe manufacturers want to sell PCs, and they could care less what OS is on them as long as they are selling. Microsoft only wants PCs to sell with it's own OS, not Apples. There is no way in hell Microsoft is funding Psystar. Some wholly owned shell company Dell created maybe, Microsoft never.
Whichever set of idiots is backing Psystar are playing a very dangerous game because if Apple does lose the lawsuit they will have no alternative but to instantly and immediately license OSX to all PC hardware vendors at $29 a copy.
Sure wifi is great but most people don't sit around indoors all day next to the wifi.
Wow, I beg to differ. I'd guess most people DO sit around indoors most of the day next to WiFi.
Most people spend the bulk of their day either at home or at their work/office. Does your office have WiFi? Most offices I know do now. As does every McDonald's, Starbucks, most cafes, you name it. Heck, open WiFi is pretty common even sitting in the park - at least in urban areas around here. About the only time most people are going to regularly be away from WiFi is when they're driving to/from work, and if you're driving you'd damn well better not be monkeying with your iPhone! (bus/rail commuters are a different story, of course)
FWIW, as an iPod Touch owner, I find that >90% of the time I want to use my Touch I have a signal available.
Yes, this is not the case for all people in all cities, but it seems to be more and more prevalent. I look forward to the day when people are not so tyrannized and bullied by the cell companies that they feel the billing schemes and requirements are reasonable. I will have zero sympathy for the cell companies when (not if) they slowly start losing the customers they paid so much to build up over the past few years!
Psystar wants to sell Snow Leopard
Florida-based Psystar is hoping to bring Apple's latest operating system to its line of knock-off Macs. In a complaint filed in a Florida court Thursday, Psystar seeks an injunction and damages due to Apple's "anticompetitive attempts to tie Mac OS X Snow Leopard to its Macintosh line of computers."
The filing claims that Psystar is entitled to be able to buy copies of Snow Leopard on the market and install them onto its own computers that it re-sells. The suit alleges that the company is already capable of installing the new operating system on its hardware.
they already filed and lost this suit like a year ago. nothing has changed other than the software version.,
the court says that Apple has all legal right to tie the OS to their hardware etc. they will say the same thing again given that Apple still doesn't have market strength to make it an antitrust issue.
Psystar is just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
How in the heck could any court force apple to sell its own product to a competitor. I don't get why this could ever possibly happen.
well if Apple, like Microsoft, held a dominant share of the market, then tying hardware and software would give certain hardware companies unfair advantage in their market. this is a no-no under anti-trust. just like using your dominance in the OS market to push one web browser over all others is a no-no (that got Microsoft in big trouble).
HOWEVER, the courts have already heard this case. From Psystar, who tried to claim that Apple had 100% share of the market, via claiming that there is such a thing as a Macintosh Market. The courts tossed it, saying that no, the market is Personal Computer Systems/Operating Software and Apple lacks anything close to dominance and therefore at this point in time can do whatever they what. including restrict the hardware and sellers of said hardware for use with their software.
that it is now Snow Leopard and not Leopard does not change this.
also, it is very likely that Psystar is using the same DCMA violating bootloaders as before. and thus increasing the chance of this going to a criminal level of damages. Which goes hand in hand with the 'unexpected' loss of all sales data. But even without that data, they would face some monetary damages per the various copyright laws, which actually state that profit is not a factor in whether a violation has occurred. you can give the information/technology away and still be in violation. the sales data would just dig them in deeper.
As for the ATT thing, I"m personally happy. ATT is risking a lot of trouble making special rules for the iphone. they are better off treating all smart phones the same. yeah, customers won't like it but with luck the FCC is going to decide that the time for no more sim locks has come and all carriers that can support a phones technology can have it and then we can choose to stay ATT or go to T-Mobile who might take advantage of the sitch and offer a better deal. like say $25 for unlimited data AND texting with MMS actually working.
So lemme get this straight...
My father in law 86 years old on a fixed income with advanced macular degeneration will be forced to pay a data fee to AT&T if the phone he gets happens to be a smartphone?
We have a tough time getting him a phone...
1. The buttons must be fairly large
2. The screen... yea its a light as far as he's concerned... he'd need a 10" iPhone to in any way use a phone screen... lol
How they feel charging this man for data just because the 'big button phone' we happen to find has a web browser in it?
Wow that sucks!
P.S. If anyone knows of any GSM phones for people who are vision impaired please let me know! So far I haven't had much luck...
There are phones marketed specifically towards the elderly. If he's a member of the AARP, check whatever magazines he gets from them. Maybe in Reader's Digest? I'm trying to recall whatever my grandparents read. I think those are better fits than smart phones, even the iPhone has tiny text and small buttons, the main exception being the one screen used to dial.
I put in "big button cell phone" into Google and found this:
http://www.jitterbug.com/Phones/
I can't tell if it's GSM, is there a particular reason for GSM? If he has hearing aids, something not GSM will work better.
I know for a fact Pystar = Dell.
Just remember when you hear that a year from now, that I told you already.
Color me skeptical, for all I know, you're imagining connections that aren't there and have no first hand knowledg. If you have actual information and you're privy to this, can you explain how they couldn't afford to pay their original legal team?
As for the ATT thing, I"m personally happy. ATT is risking a lot of trouble making special rules for the iphone. they are better off treating all smart phones the same. yeah, customers won't like it but with luck the FCC is going to decide that the time for no more sim locks has come and all carriers that can support a phones technology can have it and then we can choose to stay ATT or go to T-Mobile who might take advantage of the sitch and offer a better deal. like say $25 for unlimited data AND texting with MMS actually working.
I'm sure (hope) that the FCC sees the difference of someone using a WiFi capable smart phone without data from the cell network. I'd love an iPhone because it is smart. I don't need the cell phone to be smart. There is plenty WiFi for my iPod Touch around here, but absolutely no AT&T 3G coverage at all. I just need a regular cell phone. Having WiFi smart phone for my data needs just makes me not have to carry two devices. So why should I be forced into a $30 data plan on the cell network? This is what the FCC needs to investigate.
Also, I wouldn't plan on T-Mobile offing a competing data plan anytime soon, since they are owned by AT&T.
they already filed and lost this suit like a year ago. nothing has changed other than the software version.,
the court says that Apple has all legal right to tie the OS to their hardware etc. they will say the same thing again given that Apple still doesn't have market strength to make it an antitrust issue.
Um, please point to where that ruling was issued? The current case is scheduled to be heard in full court in January. The only thing that I know that has been thrown out as far as Psystar's suit goes was their original reasoning for their suit, which the judge said was wrong, so they filed a second reason that the judge has accepted as worthy of being heard (regardless of whether or not its legally valid). I still question Psystar's open admission in a legal brief that they were able to write code to get Snow Leopard working properly the same day the software came out and the brief was filed. That means they're either very very quick, or they were engaged in some not so kosher work.
And why do so many people seem to think there's a link between Psystar and Dell??? Dell is losing market share to HP and Acer, Apple isn't really their problem. So unless Michael Dell simply wants to try and dick with Steve Jobs, I don't see how there's a legit link. M$ I can see, but no Dell who probably wouldn't sell many OSX PCs even if they were allowed to.
I don't know if that's even an applicable comparison. I haven't heard of anyone getting in trouble for doing that. Besides, I'm pretty sure engines are sold, not licensed. An applicable comparison might be to copy someone else's engine and sell a copy.
It's a poor analogy. A better one might be if you bought Toyota engines and decided that you could now build and sell Toyotas. The software license isn't the key. People get the wrong ideas about this situation because they focus too much on the license. You can't start building someone else's proprietary product just because you are able to buy one or all of the parts that make up that product.
Recently, the Florida company deposed Apple executive Phil Schiller, only to suggest he was unprepared during attorney questioning. Psystar's deposition of numerous Apple executives was part of a lawsuit filed by the official Mac maker. That trial is set to begin in California in January of 2010.
Why didn't you tell the WHOLE story:
Court orders Psystar to pay Apple $5,000 for baseless discovery motion
Wed, Aug 26, 2009News
UPDATE: The $5,000 payment Psytar is required to pay Apple stems from Psystar CEO Rudy Pedrazza lying during his deposition, and causing Apple?s legal team to incur unnecessary legal fees.
As a result of filing a motion that Judge Alsup found to be completely baseless, Psystar was ordered earlier this week to pay Apple $5,000 in attorneys fees and, perhaps, to send a message to the beleaguered clonemaker that its antics are starting to wear thin.
Here?s what went down.
The discovery process between Psystar and Apple is in full swing, and it wasn?t too long ago that Psystar bragged on its website that it would soon be deposing some of the higher ups at Apple, with the most notable name on the list being that of Phil Schiller, Apple?s Senior VP of Worldwide Product Marketing.
After deposing Schiller, Psystar filed a motion with the court alleging that Schiller ?appeared at his deposition wholly unprepared and unwilling to testify? when questioned about how Psystar?s clone business hurt Apple?s bottom line.
Apple soon responded with its own motion arguing that the information sought by Psystar at Schiller?s deposition was completely outside the scope of what Schiller was qualified and legally expected to answer. Schiller is a marketing guy, and as Apple points out, Psystar?s line of questioning about Apple?s lost profits and gross margins are typically reserved for a designated expert witness.
From the outset, Psystar?s counsel disregarded the scope of testimony for which Mr. Schiller was designated. Despite Apple?s objections, Psystar?s counsel sought testimony on the quantification of damages - the subject of expert testimony - rather than the injury suffered by Apple. Mr. Schiller was fully prepared to discuss the non-quantifiable, irreparable injury to Apple but Psystar?s counsel chose not to ask those questions and terminated the deposition instead.
Even more intriguing was Apple?s assertion that Psystar?s motion was misleading and purposefully left out a number of key facts.
After hearing both sides of the story, Judge Alsup issued a minute entry requiring Psystar to pay Apple $5,000 and requesting that both parties file supplemental briefs with the court by Thursday, August 27.
The ruling from Judge Alsup is somewhat unusual, and suggests that Psystar?s conduct in filing its motion to compel was particularly egregious. Our guess is that Psystar either filed a misleading brief which left out important facts (as Apple claims), or that Psystar?s questioning of Schiller was so unreasonably broad that its motion to compel the court for yet another deposition was a waste of time and a blatant misuse of the court?s resources. Either way, Psystar may soon realize that it?s strategy to take on Apple guns blazin? might not be the best idea when your legal case is tenuous at best.
But with a twist. Sell a non-Apple hardware version of Mac OS for $999.99 Which would make Pystars computers uncompetitive if they legally acquired the software. But Still charge only $29 for apple computer users to upgrade. Apples argument would be that the OEM Apple HW buyer is subsidizing the OS cost and hence gets it cheaper. Whereas a Pystar buyer has no subsidy and has to pay fair value for the OS. Similar to a Cell phone plan where you buy with or without contract.