MS's market share is irrelevant. If they were to announce tomorrow that they would move to this market arrangement, would they be allowed to? Or would they be considered a monopoly? That is the question.
Again a monopoly is not illegal. Anti-competitive abuse of a monopoly is illegal.
MS abused its monopoly to stifle and destroy competition. That is why they have been punished.
Ummm, no. Repackaging an O/S with a different GUI and other components doesn't make the whole your IP. Only the parts you invented are your IP. OS X is a trademark. The parts you mentioned are indeed Apple IP. But what you are saying, as a comparison, is that just because Gnome is a GUI, they must own the IP for Linux. This is not the case.
Darwin (which is the underlying open source operating system for OS X) is perfectably usable without the OS X IP pieces. Just throw Gnome or KDE or any other GUI on it, and there you go.
Can you run Mac applications without the Apple IP parts, no of course not. But that's not the argument here.
Update 2: AppleInsider reader Shane writes in to let us know that quick glance of the source code for Psystar.com reveals the company's webpages was slapped together with help from this web template.
You'd think for a company that wants to challenge Apple's EULA to sell computers that can run Mac OS X, that the corporation's website would have used Apple's iWeb.
Ummm, no. Repackaging an O/S with a different GUI and other components doesn't make the whole your IP. Only the parts you invented are your IP. OS X is a trademark. The parts you mentioned are indeed Apple IP. But what you are saying, as a comparison, is that just because Gnome is a GUI, they must own the IP for Linux. This is not the case.
I'm not sure what you are arguing but you are basically repeating the same thing I said. As I said anyone is free to use Mach kernal, XNU, or Darwin. Those are parts of OS X. But those parts are not OS X as a whole.
Quote:
Darwin (which is the underlying open source operating system for OS X) is perfectably usable without the OS X IP pieces. Just throw Gnome or KDE or any other GUI on it, and there you go.
But this isn't what Psystar is doing. This combination of code is not OS X.
Quote:
Can you run Mac applications without the Apple IP parts, no of course not. But that's not the argument here.
The whole point of this controversy is that Psystar plans to ship computers installed with OS X with intent to run Mac applications. I'm not sure what other argument you are making.
Software have copyrights. Installing a software is considered reproduction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_copyright). Therefore if someone (in this case Psystar) started installing a copy of OS X on non-Apple hardware and sell it, then it is considered a copyright violation as per the terms at which Psystar agreed upon when buying and installing the software.
You'd think for a company that wants to challenge Apple's EULA to sell computers that can run Mac OS X, that the corporation's website would have used Apple's iWeb.
I guess I was out of date. Apparently it is possible to make an iWeb-based web store, with some third party help.
MS's market share is irrelevant. If they were to announce tomorrow that they would move to this market arrangement, would they be allowed to? Or would they be considered a monopoly? That is the question.
And don't even try to convince me there would be a mass exodus to Linux. Until the feuding Lunix flavors can "get their ducks in a row" Linux will never become a mainstrem OS.
-Clive
The point isn't that the linux folks would get their ducks in a row. The point is that Dell and HP have to sell SOMETHING.
MS' marketshare means everything with respect to a monopoly. Without an 70%+ share they don't likely fall into that monopoly status anymore so why would anyone scream "Monopoly"?
What? You think that MS can instantly create the infrastructure comparable to Dell, HP, etc by waving their hands? The only scenario where this would work is if they bought Dell.
Even then, they'd be selling a LOT less OS's. The entire rest of the industry would HAVE to switch to Linux or Solaris. They'd be sinking an assload of money and developers into Wine and Linux and paying game companies to port to OpenGL/Linux.
Windows dominance would end in a couple years.
No one would scream Monopoly! Everyone would be screaming OMG Windows is SOOOO DEAD and likely cheering.
Something funny is happening on their website. I added a $399 system in my shopping basket. As I check out, my basket showing $1,659.99!!! I didn't go through the registration though. Did anyone tried that?
I don't think monopoly comes into it. Apples hardware can run any OS, so you're not being forced down any one route. By the same token, you aren't forced to buy OSX, therfore not forced to buy Apple hardware. My understanding of a monopoly is when consumer choice is removed - as in the case of Microsoft, who's OS broke if you tried to remove IE. But I could be wrong.
Really?! Now I'm out of date. My iWeb comment was not to be taken serioously. That's why the emoticon "wink"
Where would one find those third party help apps that can help an iWeb developed website be more of a store, shopping cart, etc.?
I did a Google search, some software on MacUpdate showed up. There looked like a few other good hits, but I didn't look too hard to see if it was any good.
For some reason, I'm emoticon blind. I don't know why, I just don't notice them. I didn't think it was serious, but I thought I'd take a look.
The fact that this is for selling hardware only for $399 and if you want OSX you have to pay an additional $155 and "they" install it for "free". Sadly, for them, anyone who pays attention knows that OSX costs $129. Which tells me it isn't free. At best this is a rip off. At worst it's a scam.
The fact that this is for selling hardware only for $399 and if you want OSX you have to pay an additional $155 and "they" install it for "free". Sadly, for them, anyone who pays attention knows that OSX costs $129. Which tells me it isn't free. At best this is a rip off. At worst it's a scam.
Apple didn't grab someone elses operating system and put it into someone elses hardware and try to flog it on a cheap template website whilst trying to trade off the name of the successful company they got the software from.
I am an apple zealot, have been since I was a kid going through school on the IIe but...
In fact, that is almost exactly what apple did. How easy it is to forget that the mouse, and the idea of a gui was not in fact apples technology.
I can guarntee your story would be different if Microsoft made computers and forced Windows users to buy their brand in order to use the OS. Then you all would be screaming "Monopoly."
While it's true that this Psystar guy has a lot to prove before he can be considered trustworthy, that doesn't render his efforts complete bunk. You said that he's working out of his [garage] but didn't have a great idea like Woz? Then why is it that Woz himself said today that he'd be interested in getting one? Certainly Woz can afford a mess of MacPros and is certainly smart enough to build his own hackintosh. Why then would he be interested in this commercialized Hackintosh? If it piqued his interest, certainly it's not simply a dismissible idea.
Perhaps you don't know your idols as well as you think you do.
-Clive
I didn't just sign on to flame you.... I registered eons ago but never posted because I actually work. A FT job along with another corporation I own. I just think you're brain isn't working right. You inspired me to take the time to try and make a point.
If MS wanted to adopt the Apple model then that would be their prerogative. THEY OWN THE CODE... just like Apple owns OSX... What part of that do you not understand???
You nor Psystar have no more right to STEAL Apple's property then Apple or MS has a right to steal a truly unique product idea from you or Psystar. That's what has made the USA as rich as it is. If you think that merely because something is there that you have a right to use it your logic is fatally flawed. This is not Linux, which is great, but it's not OSX.
Even if the company or person is rich it doesn't make you right to do what you're illuding to. Stealing is Stealing!!
Psystar is totally dismissible. They don't have a legal foot to stand on. He is making a weak ass attempt thieving something he has NO RIGHTS TO. And as such he deserves what he brings upon himself.
The fact that you support this shows weak character on your part. Apple owns OSX.... period!
I really don't get people who criticizing those who defend their intellectual properties. I mean, I'm a relatively green graphic designer/comic book artist... but, if I saw someone using one of my creations, fuck the lawyers, I'm getting a softball bat, and some of my bigger guy friends.
I understand your attitude. When I was much, much younger I heard through the grapevine that a particular producer had stolen one of my feature scripts and was trying to put a movie together with it. For some reason I went over to the guy's house with a baseball bat (I still remember it was a 34 Hank Aaron), teed off on his porchlight and got his attention. We later made an option deal after I explained that it would be much cheaper paying me, and I was a better writer for any rewrites he might need than anyone he could afford. I can't believe I did that now, but at the time it worked.
Woz is to Apple the way that Jimmy Carter is to politics.
Both are irrelevant and somewhat annoying.
The fact that Woz did that proves you're totally right....LOL..... I never knew he was like that but it suddenly makes a lot of sense why he's no longer "involved" in the company.
Apple didn't grab someone elses operating system and put it into someone elses hardware and try to flog it on a cheap template website whilst trying to trade off the name of the successful company they got the software from.
Didn't B. Gates sell someone else's OS to IBM? He did pay around $50 k for it, but he didn't build it.
Comments
MS's market share is irrelevant. If they were to announce tomorrow that they would move to this market arrangement, would they be allowed to? Or would they be considered a monopoly? That is the question.
Again a monopoly is not illegal. Anti-competitive abuse of a monopoly is illegal.
MS abused its monopoly to stifle and destroy competition. That is why they have been punished.
Again a monopoly is not illegal. Anti-competitive abuse of a monopoly is illegal.
MS abused its monopoly to stifle and destroy competition. That is why they have been punished.
NO, not the "M" word again!
That last thread went off the rails real bad. Could we please avoid starting that off-topic debate all over again? Please?
Darwin (which is the underlying open source operating system for OS X) is perfectably usable without the OS X IP pieces. Just throw Gnome or KDE or any other GUI on it, and there you go.
Can you run Mac applications without the Apple IP parts, no of course not. But that's not the argument here.
Update 2: AppleInsider reader Shane writes in to let us know that quick glance of the source code for Psystar.com reveals the company's webpages was slapped together with help from this web template.
[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]
You'd think for a company that wants to challenge Apple's EULA to sell computers that can run Mac OS X, that the corporation's website would have used Apple's iWeb.
Ummm, no. Repackaging an O/S with a different GUI and other components doesn't make the whole your IP. Only the parts you invented are your IP. OS X is a trademark. The parts you mentioned are indeed Apple IP. But what you are saying, as a comparison, is that just because Gnome is a GUI, they must own the IP for Linux. This is not the case.
I'm not sure what you are arguing but you are basically repeating the same thing I said. As I said anyone is free to use Mach kernal, XNU, or Darwin. Those are parts of OS X. But those parts are not OS X as a whole.
Darwin (which is the underlying open source operating system for OS X) is perfectably usable without the OS X IP pieces. Just throw Gnome or KDE or any other GUI on it, and there you go.
But this isn't what Psystar is doing. This combination of code is not OS X.
Can you run Mac applications without the Apple IP parts, no of course not. But that's not the argument here.
The whole point of this controversy is that Psystar plans to ship computers installed with OS X with intent to run Mac applications. I'm not sure what other argument you are making.
You'd think for a company that wants to challenge Apple's EULA to sell computers that can run Mac OS X, that the corporation's website would have used Apple's iWeb.
I guess I was out of date. Apparently it is possible to make an iWeb-based web store, with some third party help.
I guess I was out of date. Apparently it is possible to make an iWeb-based web store, with some third party help.
Really?! Now I'm out of date. My iWeb comment was not to be taken serioously. That's why the emoticon "wink"
Where would one find those third party help apps that can help an iWeb developed website be more of a store, shopping cart, etc.?
MS's market share is irrelevant. If they were to announce tomorrow that they would move to this market arrangement, would they be allowed to? Or would they be considered a monopoly? That is the question.
And don't even try to convince me there would be a mass exodus to Linux. Until the feuding Lunix flavors can "get their ducks in a row" Linux will never become a mainstrem OS.
-Clive
The point isn't that the linux folks would get their ducks in a row. The point is that Dell and HP have to sell SOMETHING.
MS' marketshare means everything with respect to a monopoly. Without an 70%+ share they don't likely fall into that monopoly status anymore so why would anyone scream "Monopoly"?
What? You think that MS can instantly create the infrastructure comparable to Dell, HP, etc by waving their hands? The only scenario where this would work is if they bought Dell.
Even then, they'd be selling a LOT less OS's. The entire rest of the industry would HAVE to switch to Linux or Solaris. They'd be sinking an assload of money and developers into Wine and Linux and paying game companies to port to OpenGL/Linux.
Windows dominance would end in a couple years.
No one would scream Monopoly! Everyone would be screaming OMG Windows is SOOOO DEAD and likely cheering.
Really?! Now I'm out of date. My iWeb comment was not to be taken serioously. That's why the emoticon "wink"
Where would one find those third party help apps that can help an iWeb developed website be more of a store, shopping cart, etc.?
I did a Google search, some software on MacUpdate showed up. There looked like a few other good hits, but I didn't look too hard to see if it was any good.
For some reason, I'm emoticon blind. I don't know why, I just don't notice them. I didn't think it was serious, but I thought I'd take a look.
The fact that this is for selling hardware only for $399 and if you want OSX you have to pay an additional $155 and "they" install it for "free". Sadly, for them, anyone who pays attention knows that OSX costs $129. Which tells me it isn't free. At best this is a rip off. At worst it's a scam.
Amen.
I didn't think Woz was having any money problems, I don't understand why the price is a consideration.
How do you think the rich get rich? They don't spend THEIR money!
Apple didn't grab someone elses operating system and put it into someone elses hardware and try to flog it on a cheap template website whilst trying to trade off the name of the successful company they got the software from.
I am an apple zealot, have been since I was a kid going through school on the IIe but...
In fact, that is almost exactly what apple did. How easy it is to forget that the mouse, and the idea of a gui was not in fact apples technology.
Okay the flamming begin.
You registered just to flame me? How pathetic.
I can guarntee your story would be different if Microsoft made computers and forced Windows users to buy their brand in order to use the OS. Then you all would be screaming "Monopoly."
While it's true that this Psystar guy has a lot to prove before he can be considered trustworthy, that doesn't render his efforts complete bunk. You said that he's working out of his [garage] but didn't have a great idea like Woz? Then why is it that Woz himself said today that he'd be interested in getting one? Certainly Woz can afford a mess of MacPros and is certainly smart enough to build his own hackintosh. Why then would he be interested in this commercialized Hackintosh? If it piqued his interest, certainly it's not simply a dismissible idea.
Perhaps you don't know your idols as well as you think you do.
-Clive
I didn't just sign on to flame you.... I registered eons ago but never posted because I actually work. A FT job along with another corporation I own. I just think you're brain isn't working right. You inspired me to take the time to try and make a point.
If MS wanted to adopt the Apple model then that would be their prerogative. THEY OWN THE CODE... just like Apple owns OSX... What part of that do you not understand???
You nor Psystar have no more right to STEAL Apple's property then Apple or MS has a right to steal a truly unique product idea from you or Psystar. That's what has made the USA as rich as it is. If you think that merely because something is there that you have a right to use it your logic is fatally flawed. This is not Linux, which is great, but it's not OSX.
Even if the company or person is rich it doesn't make you right to do what you're illuding to. Stealing is Stealing!!
Psystar is totally dismissible. They don't have a legal foot to stand on. He is making a weak ass attempt thieving something he has NO RIGHTS TO. And as such he deserves what he brings upon himself.
The fact that you support this shows weak character on your part. Apple owns OSX.... period!
I really don't get people who criticizing those who defend their intellectual properties. I mean, I'm a relatively green graphic designer/comic book artist... but, if I saw someone using one of my creations, fuck the lawyers, I'm getting a softball bat, and some of my bigger guy friends.
I understand your attitude. When I was much, much younger I heard through the grapevine that a particular producer had stolen one of my feature scripts and was trying to put a movie together with it. For some reason I went over to the guy's house with a baseball bat (I still remember it was a 34 Hank Aaron), teed off on his porchlight and got his attention. We later made an option deal after I explained that it would be much cheaper paying me, and I was a better writer for any rewrites he might need than anyone he could afford. I can't believe I did that now, but at the time it worked.
Woz is to Apple the way that Jimmy Carter is to politics.
Both are irrelevant and somewhat annoying.
The fact that Woz did that proves you're totally right....LOL..... I never knew he was like that but it suddenly makes a lot of sense why he's no longer "involved" in the company.
Apple didn't grab someone elses operating system and put it into someone elses hardware and try to flog it on a cheap template website whilst trying to trade off the name of the successful company they got the software from.
Didn't B. Gates sell someone else's OS to IBM? He did pay around $50 k for it, but he didn't build it.