Psystar accuses Apple of anti-competitive tactics in countersuit

17891113

Comments

  • Reply 201 of 254
    wobegonwobegon Posts: 764member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DavidW View Post


    Apple killed the clones because they were hindering their ability to compete in the computer hardware market. Both the clones and Macs were competing in this market.



    Like JeffDM stated, from a legal standpoint, you can not define a "market" derived with a brand name. This would automatically create a monopoly for the maker of the brand. No matter what brand you use.



    Every company that create their own market with a product has a monoloply in it.



    RIMM has a monopoly in the market that consist of Blackberry users. But they do not have a monopoly in the cell phone market. GM has a monopoly in the market that consist of Corvette owners. But they do not have a monopoly in the consumer auto market. Apple has a monopoly in the market that consist of Mac users. But they do not have a monopoly in the consumer computer hardware market. But it's the cell phone market, consumer auto market and consumer computer hardware market that stands up to the legal definition of a "market".



    Microsoft has a monopoly in the market that consist of Windows users. But the only thing that legally counts is their monopoly in the consumer computer OS market.



    Interesting way to think about this, but - and perhaps this point has already been raised - the term monopoly isn't used by most people to describe RIM, GM, and Apple, all of which create vertical systems. Most people would say these companies have exclusive rights to the products they make. While monopoly may be technically right, it has taken on a different meaning in modern times to imply...a stake in a market achieved through anti-competitive means, like Microsoft's exclusive, anti-competitive OEM deals that tie their OS to third party hardware vendors' PCs, stifling competition from alternatives like Linux.



    You don't hear companies like Apple being recognized in the Top 20 Monopolies of 2008, right?



    It's sort of like how the word gay these days usually implies a sexual orientation, rather than being lighthearted and carefree.
  • Reply 202 of 254
    carniphagecarniphage Posts: 1,984member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DavidW View Post


    It is the problem of the companies to make money. And therefore they should be afforded the right to protect the income they can derive from selling their products in a free market. It would be a shame if drug companies stop searching for a cure for HIV, cancer or other diseases. Fuel cell battery companies stop researching for more efficient electric car batteries. Solar power company stop their research on solar panels. Musicians stop writing songs. Disney/Pixar stop making movies. Programer stop writing programs. All because no one is willing to protect these companies (or individuals) rights to recover the cost of such ventures from the "it's my own stuff and I do as I please with it" people.



    I promised not to insult anyone on this forum (apart from Bavlondon)

    But dude, you sound a lot like a lawyer.



    There is a massive difference between outlawing craven copyright violation - and outlawing 3rd party ink. If you can't see the difference, it makes this argument hard.

    Musicians need to recognize the value from their songs. For a period.

    Authors should be assured that when copies of their book is made, they will benefit.

    That's only fair and right. But such mechanisms need limits. And when it comes to patents, no one should be granted patent rights over obvious ideas. And if someone can produce similar products without copying. Then so be it.



    All works are derivative.



    Mickey Mouse was based on Mortimer Mouse who starred in Steamboat Willy, which was a cartoon version of Seamboat Bill, Starring Buster Keaton, who in turn was interpreting a song which....



    The world of ideas works best when these restrictions are weak. Blatent theft of ideas is wrong. But creating a different product with similar goals is not. Copyright and patent law should never stand in the way of competition. Because progress is more important than the profits of one greedy company.



    All products and works of art are derived from something else. This is not theft. It is progress.

    The holders of copyrights and patents deserve a fair period to derive benefit from their investment. But if they had their own way this period would be infinite. And that would be a disaster.



    Pixar could not make the Incredibles because Violet is a copy of The Fantastic 4's Invisible Girl. And is there was a patent on anthropomorphizing vehicles held by Thomas the Tank Engine, Cars would never have been made. When laws like this exist. It crushes innovation, and holds back competition.



    The world's most successful drug is about to come out of patent protection. Pfizer's Lipitor will become generic. The legal protection which it had runs out. Suddenly anyone can make it, for the lowest prices. Is this a disaster for Pfizer? Not really, in fact it is more of a problem for their competitors. Suddenly their products look overprices. It's a win for consumers.



    C.



    "All artists copy, great artists steal"

    Steve Jobs
  • Reply 203 of 254
    matt_smatt_s Posts: 299member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DavidW View Post


    Apple killed the clones because they were hindering their ability to compete in the computer hardware market. Both the clones and Macs were competing in this market.



    Like JeffDM stated, from a legal standpoint, you can not define a "market" derived with a brand name. This would automatically create a monopoly for the maker of the brand. No matter what brand you use.



    You are once again predicting what a jury of 12 people will decide, and that is dangerous and foolish ground.



    When folks tell me that "you cannot" do this and "you cannot" do that, naturally, I want to do exactly this and that



    It's a flaccid attitude and a ubiquitous negativity for which I personally have no respect. I simply don't have the time nor is there space here to tell you how many things I've accomplished over my long and blessed life after naysayers told me that I couldn't do it.



    Be wary of where you're stepping, because it's all getting a bit deep in here. Predicting legal success or failure in front of a jury with such plucky certainty is stunningly absurd, and casts a poor reflection upon yourself.



    Have a relaxing holiday weekend, and remember, you can now get great taste in a decaffeinated coffee
  • Reply 204 of 254
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,949member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post


    The world's most successful drug is about to come out of patent protection. Pfizer's Lipitor will become generic. The legal protection which it had runs out. Suddenly anyone can make it, for the lowest prices. Is this a disaster for Pfizer?



    Just a little perspective here. How many years did Pfizer get to make money from that drug exclusively? Patents run out after 20 years. How many years did Apple get so far to make money from Leopard? It's not even a year now. But it sounds like you're basically advocating revocation of the protections Apple gets after only 5% of the time of the drug you compared it against, even though both products might have cost a similar number of billions of dollars to develop.



    Quote:

    Not really, in fact it is more of a problem for their competitors. Suddenly their products look overprices. It's a win for consumers.



    In the game of making money, it really doesn't matter how much money your competitors make or don't make. If you don't make money, it really wouldn't matter much to you how someone else is doing.
  • Reply 205 of 254
    piotpiot Posts: 1,346member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by matt_s View Post


    It's a flaccid attitude and a ubiquitous negativity for which I personally have no respect. I simply don't have the time nor is there space here to tell you how many things I've accomplished over my long and blessed life after naysayers told me that I couldn't do it.



    However much we can all appreciate your sudden flowing prose.... and I personally recognize a similar band of naysayers... the question that still lays begging is .... did they tell you "that you couldn't do it" because they thought that you weren't capable...... or did they tell you "that you couldn't do it" because you would be breaking the law?
  • Reply 206 of 254
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    Just a little perspective here. How many years did Pfizer get to make money from that drug exclusively? Patents run out after 20 years. How many years did Apple get so far to make money from Leopard? It's not even a year now. But it sounds like you're basically advocating revocation of the protections Apple gets after only 5% of the time of the drug you compared it against, even though both products might have cost a similar number of billions of dollars to develop.







    In the game of making money, it really doesn't matter how much money your competitors make or don't make. If you don't make money, it really wouldn't matter much to you how someone else is doing.



    Going from memory of my third year pharmacology lectures but I think drug companies usually get between 5 and 10 years of exclusivity before their patent expires (it takes at least 10 years to bring a drug from "interesting compound" to marketing, and you pretty much patent them from early on, remembering that unlike a soft drink formula in order to publish articles, and get marketing approval, the world needs to know what it is).



    Which is the point, drug companies support research for those 10 years spending literally billions, and often funding drugs that never reach the market for one reason or another (which is the vast majority), because they know if they back a winner they will get those years to market the drug themselves and make a profit.



    Apple develops Mac OSX, and makes it (IMHO) the best operating system so that it can use it to support sales of its hardware. If that incentive goes, then why bother spending $$$ developing the best operating system you can, when a whole bunch of other companies can just use your work, put together some components and undercut you on price. You might as well do what everyone else is doing and do what some said Apple should have done a long time ago, turn Mac OS into a GUI over-top of windows. *shudders*



    These are (to my non-legal understanding) good examples of why we have copyright laws and patents, and why EULA's are important. They are fulfilling in these cases their intended objective, to stimulate development. The fact that Apple (or a drug company) makes $$$ is immaterial, the important fact is that they continue to develop new things.
  • Reply 207 of 254
    davidwdavidw Posts: 975member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post


    I promised not to insult anyone on this forum (apart from Bavlondon)

    But dude, you sound a lot like a lawyer.



    There is a massive difference between outlawing craven copyright violation - and outlawing 3rd party ink. If you can't see the difference, it makes this argument hard.

    Musicians need to recognize the value from their songs. For a period.

    Authors should be assured that when copies of their book is made, they will benefit.

    That's only fair and right. But such mechanisms need limits. And when it comes to patents, no one should be granted patent rights over obvious ideas. And if someone can produce similar products without copying. Then so be it.



    All works are derivative.



    Mickey Mouse was based on Mortimer Mouse who starred in Steamboat Willy, which was a cartoon version of Seamboat Bill, Starring Buster Keaton, who in turn was interpreting a song which....



    On agreement here. (except that lawyer remark) I always felt the artist/author copyright protection for songs and books should only last as long as about 30 years or for as long as the original artist/author is alive. Which ever is longer.



    Movies are a different story as it usaully takes an industry to make one. But 70 years sound reasonable.



    But that doesn't mean that some one would have the right to alter the original work after copyright protection ends. Just the right to use it or use the idea behind it without a license. If some one wants to write a modern version of "Gone With The Wind", fine. But leave the original work intact. Original artist and authors deserves at least that.



    Quote:

    The world of ideas works best when these restrictions are weak. Blatent theft of ideas is wrong. But creating a different product with similar goals is not. Copyright and patent law should never stand in the way of competition. Because progress is more important than the profits of one greedy company.



    But who gauges what is progress and what is greed. If a company market a quality product at a certain price because it's made locally. Should it be forced to give up it's rights to that product because some other company can make it cheaper in China. Consumers supposily wins when competition brings the price down. But is this progress? Is it progress when a company just want to market some ones elses intellectual property at a lower cost, without ever trying to improve upon it? Or is this greed? Is it greed when a company wants to hold on to it's intellectual property and uses some of the money derive from it to improve their products year after year? Would it be progress if companies like Dell, Acer and Lenovo, with their low R&D cost and low pricing, were able to put out of business companies like HP, IBM and Apple? Does the consumer win? If a company holds a piece of technology that makes his products better that his competitors, is it being greedy if it doesn't want to share that technology with a company whose only motive is to make it cheaper? In the long run, consumers only wins when companies thrives to make their products better. Consumers wins when they can pay the same (of a little more) as last year, for a new and better product. Paying less for a product that is the same as last year but made cheaper is not necessarily a win for consumers.



    Progress does not always immediately move in the direction of the consumers. Nor is lower price a sign of progress. But overtime, the consumers usually comes out ahead.







    Quote:

    All products and works of art are derived from something else. This is not theft. It is progress.

    The holders of copyrights and patents deserve a fair period to derive benefit from their investment. But if they had their own way this period would be infinite. And that would be a disaster.



    Pixar could not make the Incredibles because Violet is a copy of The Fantastic 4's Invisible Girl. And is there was a patent on anthropomorphizing vehicles held by Thomas the Tank Engine, Cars would never have been made. When laws like this exist. It crushes innovation, and holds back competition.



    The Invisable Woman and Thomas the Tank Engine are cover by Trademark laws. The only thing protected is their likeness and name (providing it isn't generic.) The idea of some one being able to turn invisable and an animated talking train is not copyrightable. Or at least it shouldn't be. I still remember reading "The Little Engine That Could". Over 40 years ago.



    But the Trademarked image (and name) of characters is something that, I think, should be protected for life. I would hate for my kids and their kids to not see the images of Superman, Batman, Bug Bunny, etc. the way I remember them and the way my father remember them. It would not be progress to see a commericail with an image of Superman with a "P" across his chest advertising Pampers. And then have to explain to my kids that that's not the same Superman I grew up with. Some things just can't and shouldn't be improved upon, in the name of progress.



    Quote:

    The world's most successful drug is about to come out of patent protection. Pfizer's Lipitor will become generic. The legal protection which it had runs out. Suddenly anyone can make it, for the lowest prices. Is this a disaster for Pfizer? Not really, in fact it is more of a problem for their competitors. Suddenly their products look overprices. It's a win for consumers.





    It is actually a win/win for consumers. Because Lipitor was only made possible because pfizer spent the hundreds of millions (if not billions) of dollars on R&D to get Lipitor to the market. Something they probablly wouldn't have done if there was no way of protecting their intellectual property (for a period of time) after they developed it. In the time pfizer had exclusive rights to market Lipitor they made back their R&D, any cost of any litigation pertaining to Lipitor, profit for it's shareholders and money for R&D for new drugs. But not all drugs works as well for a company as Lipitor did for pfizer. Vioxx from Merck for example.







    Quote:

    "All artists copy, great artists steal"

    Steve Jobs



    "My girlfriend always laughs during sex..... No matter what she's reading." Steve Jobs
  • Reply 208 of 254
    I've been reading all these arguments on this and several other forums for months now. They achieve a really high level of vitriol sometimes, and one has to ask: if you substituted the name of any other company for the name "Apple" in these stories, would the same people jump on these threads with such enthusiasm to suggest that Intellectual Property, developed at enormous expense over a long period of time, should be free for everyone to use?



    I think to ask the question is to answer it. There's just something about Apple that inspires such rabid hatred in some people that they become completely unhinged when discussing these issues. A lot of it boils down to this: "How dare they make something better than anybody else! That's elitism, pure and simple! They need to get taken down a peg; who do they think they are?"



    We wouldn't be having this discussion if Xerox PARC hadn't been willing to license their technology that created the first Mac (and LISA before that.) If they hadn't been willing to, would these same people argue that Apple should just use it anyway, "for the good of the consumer?" I doubt it. And when Microsoft stole the Mac's GUI, that was "good for the consumer" too? (Yes, I know that witling Sculley gave it away; all that means is that the theft was an inside job!)



    Apparently Apple is the only company that has no right to determine how their IP is used and by whom. I agree, however, that there's no telling what a jury will do in a case of this kind. Anyone who knows anything at all about the subject will be challenged for cause. If they can find them living in a cave somewhere, the jury that ultimately hears this case will be composed of people who have never used a computer and have no idea that there are two major platforms out there. In a situation like that, insane decisions are more than possible. I'm keeping my fingers crossed that Apple wins and slaps Psystar back into their parents' basement, but who knows?
  • Reply 209 of 254
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mac-sochist View Post


    I've been reading all these arguments on this and several other forums for months now. They achieve a really high level of vitriol sometimes, and one has to ask: if you substituted the name of any other company for the name "Apple" in these stories, would the same people jump on these threads with such enthusiasm to suggest that Intellectual Property, developed at enormous expense over a long period of time, should be free for everyone to use?



    I think to ask the question is to answer it. There's just something about Apple that inspires such rabid hatred in some people that they become completely unhinged when discussing these issues. A lot of it boils down to this: "How dare they make something better than anybody else! That's elitism, pure and simple! They need to get taken down a peg; who do they think they are?"



    We wouldn't be having this discussion if Xerox PARC hadn't been willing to license their technology that created the first Mac (and LISA before that.) If they hadn't been willing to, would these same people argue that Apple should just use it anyway, "for the good of the consumer?" I doubt it. And when Microsoft stole the Mac's GUI, that was "good for the consumer" too? (Yes, I know that witling Sculley gave it away; all that means is that the theft was an inside job!)



    Apparently Apple is the only company that has no right to determine how their IP is used and by whom. I agree, however, that there's no telling what a jury will do in a case of this kind. Anyone who knows anything at all about the subject will be challenged for cause. If they can find them living in a cave somewhere, the jury that ultimately hears this case will be composed of people who have never used a computer and have no idea that there are two major platforms out there. In a situation like that, insane decisions are more than possible. I'm keeping my fingers crossed that Apple wins and slaps Psystar back into their parents' basement, but who knows?



    It all comes down to jealousy. Apple sell computers like luxury cars. They specs of your European luxury cars are often no better than a locally produced car, but the build quality, the package, the symbolism and the general feel make them worth in consumers mind a higher price tag.



    A Mac is the same, number for number you can get a cheaper generic PC, you can even do much the same things (just the same as you can drive any car on the road much the same), but the package, how everything works together and yes to a degree even the symbolism makes it worth a higher price tag.



    Just like any other luxury item it breeds jealousy. You drive a sports car, people will say it is making up for other deficiencies, when what they really mean is damn I wish I could afford that, and so people have OS envy. The easiest way to cut mac users down is to say "Hah! We can have it all too, and cheaper!"



    Of course they don't get it all, they having OSX, they don't have a Mac, but just like people put a body kit and fake badges on their 2 litre Lancer and call it an Evo, people will put Mac OSX on a generic PC and say "Look I have a Mac, really".
  • Reply 210 of 254
    carniphagecarniphage Posts: 1,984member
    There are countries with weak or non-existent protections for intellectual property. Its a free for all.



    At the other extreme there are countries where you can get take out patent on an idea which is so obvious that a child could think it up. And where you can come up with blatantly monopolistic tricks and have it defended by the law.



    Both extremes are wrong.



    It's difficult balancing act for legislators.



    In principle legislators should act to defend the free market, protect consumers and outlaw monopolistic methods. But consumers only vote once in a while, whereas large corporations pay bribes/campaign contributions.



    Typical government action is to not take any action against monopolistic methods, despite the damage to the market. They only eventually act when a real monopoly emerges. Which in my opinion is too late.



    C.
  • Reply 211 of 254
    carniphagecarniphage Posts: 1,984member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    Just a little perspective here. How many years did Pfizer get to make money from that drug exclusively? Patents run out after 20 years. How many years did Apple get so far to make money from Leopard? It's not even a year now. But it sounds like you're basically advocating revocation of the protections Apple gets after only 5% of the time of the drug you compared it against, even though both products might have cost a similar number of billions of dollars to develop.



    I am not suggesting any such thing. Apple is entitled to get full benefit from selling OS X at full price. No one should be allowed to steal it.



    With the iPhone, the hardware and software comprises a single integrated device.



    But Macintosh computers and OS X are not so integrated. Macs are just standard Wintel PCs and are sold as having ability to run Windows and OS X.



    OS X is sold as a stand-alone box. And the only reason it will not install on a Sony Laptop is the Sony Laptop does not feature the Mac "dongle". It is trivial to remove the dongle checking, and Mac OS X will run on non Mac hardware.



    That's the smoking gun. The dongle is not intrinsic to the function of the the Mac. It's not there for copy protection. It is placed there for one reason; to create a walled garden for Mac hardware. Only Mac hardware is permitted to run OS X.



    Apple is not a monopoly. But if Microsoft played a similar dirty trick, we would all be howling foul!

    I'm sorry but MS Office is only compatible with PCs with the Microsoft Mouse. Yes $300 is a lot for a mouse, but it has 9 lasers!





    C.
  • Reply 212 of 254
    vineavinea Posts: 5,585member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post


    But Macintosh computers and OS X are not so integrated. Macs are just standard Wintel PCs and are sold as having ability to run Windows and OS X.



    Except that they aren't. Macs have a design minimum to ensure the quality of experience on the platform.



    Quote:

    OS X is sold as a stand-alone box. And the only reason it will not install on a Sony Laptop is the Sony Laptop does not feature the Mac "dongle". It is trivial to remove the dongle checking, and Mac OS X will run on non Mac hardware.



    Except not as well. Components will not work, features are missing and in general a hackintosh is a hobby not a machine you want to depend on. It is not trivial to make OSX run well on non-Apple hardware.



    EVEN if you accept that OS and PC is "tying" that is an acceptable legal reason to do so.



    Which I do not. That you use common components on your unique solution does not make it a common solution.
  • Reply 213 of 254
    carniphagecarniphage Posts: 1,984member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by vinea View Post


    Except that they aren't. Macs have a design minimum to ensure the quality of experience on the platform.



    Except not as well. Components will not work, features are missing and in general a hackintosh is a hobby not a machine you want to depend on. It is not trivial to make OSX run well on non-Apple hardware.




    Mac hardware is a subset of PC hardware. Period.

    Some PCs struggle to run OS X when their hardware includes devices alien to the Mac.



    It would be trivial for Sony (for instance) to design hardware avoiding such devices. Alternatively they might pay for OS X drivers. But it is very clear, there are absolutely no technical barriers to licensing.



    I agree Apple would be foolish to launch an OS that targets every Wintel PC. Microsoft certainly cannot manage it.



    C.



    Here's an article which covers some of the issues we have been discussing.

    http://arstechnica.com/articles/cult...arketshare.ars
  • Reply 214 of 254
    matt_smatt_s Posts: 299member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by piot View Post


    ...... or did they tell you "that you couldn't do it" because you would be breaking the law?



    Again, you're pre-judging the case. You continue to miss my point. You have a stultified, pre-completed opinion, a closed mind and will accept no alternative.



    Even in your off-handed remarks you illustrate your pre-disposition of one side over the other; sheriff, judge and jury rolled up into one bundle of adorable joy



    It's hard to be open minded and non-judgmental. Fortunately, here in the US of A, one is presumed innocent until proven guilty. What with the Patriot Act and all, that still is the case, isn't it?
  • Reply 215 of 254
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post


    I am not suggesting any such thing. Apple is entitled to get full benefit from selling OS X at full price. No one should be allowed to steal it.

    <snip>

    But Macintosh computers and OS X are not so integrated. Macs are just standard Wintel PCs and are sold as having ability to run Windows and OS X.



    But what is getting the "full benefit"?



    Currently EVERYONE who purchases a $129 OSX has already purchased OSX at least once before. They received a copy with their Mac.



    With Windows it's not the same. It's possible to buy Windows without having an earlier version of Windows (that you either bought for full price, or it came with your machine, or you're pirating anyway so the argument is moot). Microsoft charges more for those full copies of Windows.



    So is Apple getting the "full benefit" if people only need to pay the $129 charge it offers to existing Mac users?
  • Reply 216 of 254
    piotpiot Posts: 1,346member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by matt_s View Post


    Fortunately, here in the US of A, one is presumed innocent until proven guilty.



    Exactly!



    Curious that some people in this thread are presuming Apple's guilt.
  • Reply 217 of 254
    davidwdavidw Posts: 975member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post


    But Macintosh computers and OS X are not so integrated. Macs are just standard Wintel PCs and are sold as having ability to run Windows and OS X.



    Macs are not standard Wintel PCs. Macs are designed to run OSX. Wintel PCs are designed to run MS Windows. Apple selects the hardware in a Mac that offer the best price/performance for running OSX. And OSX is designed to run on the hardware found on Macs. Plus when you load Windows on to a Mac, you do not get to use all the features that are available on a Mac.





    Quote:

    OS X is sold as a stand-alone box. And the only reason it will not install on a Sony Laptop is the Sony Laptop does not feature the Mac "dongle". It is trivial to remove the dongle checking, and Mac OS X will run on non Mac hardware.



    That's the smoking gun. The dongle is not intrinsic to the function of the the Mac. It's not there for copy protection. It is placed there for one reason; to create a walled garden for Mac hardware. Only Mac hardware is permitted to run OS X.



    Just because you can "load" OSX on to a generic PC (with the help of a hack), this doesn't mean that OSX is running like it suppose to. Does your modem work? Microphone? Built in camera? Can you use all the features of your graphics card. Do you have sound? Ethernet? Bluetooth? Are all your ports supported? What about Mac programs? Do they run like they suppose to?





    I don't get you. You agree that drug companies like pfizer should be allow to "create walls" (for a period of time) around the drugs they design. This gives them the incentive to invest in R&D for new drugs. This guarantee them a time to recover the cost of developing a new drug, like Lipitor. After all, the drugs they design are made around a combination of generic chemicals. And any drug company can make it. The only thing preventing them from doing so are the "walls" created by the patents pfizer holds.



    Music and books are all written using a combination of standard musical notes and words. And yet there is a "wall" that prevents me from using my own words with some elses copyrighted musical notes. Or from using some elses copyrighted music or book in my money making project, without their permission. And we all agree that this "wall" created by copyright laws should exist (for a period of time) to protect the artist and authors.



    We also agree that consumers win when companies compete by bringing better products to the markets. The consumers has more choices. This forces competitors to make their products better. Or lower the price of the product they sell now. Competition brings on better products and lower price. This is how a free market should work.



    But yet you want to take away Apple's ability to compete with a better product by taking away their competitive advanage and make it available to their competitors. A Mac is a better product because of OSX. Everything else about is nothing but standard generic x86 hardware (As you like to keep reminding us). Apple is making a generic product better than their competitors. Now the companies making PCs similar a Mac (hardware wise) must sell them at a lower price because they don't have OSX. Microsoft is forced to make a better OS. The consumer has another choice in the market. It's a free market at work. What's the problem?



    I think this isn't about Apple not allowing OSX to run on a generic PC with their EULA. Is more about Apple not supporting it (or ever will). Even if Apple allowed OSX to run on a generic PC without offering any support, people would still complain. They would sue Apple for implying that OSX runs on all generic PCs when they can't get it to run it on their's. They would sue Apple claiming that Apple is how sabotaging OSX so that it doesn't run as well on a generic PC as it does on a Mac. The will sue Apple when Mac programs don't have all their features or keep crashing on their generic PC running OSX. The will sue Apple when drivers aren't made available for their standard generic x86 hardware. OSX will never run on any standard generic PC, as well as it does on a Mac. That is Apple's competitive edge.





    Quote:

    Apple is not a monopoly. But if Microsoft played a similar dirty trick, we would all be howling foul!

    I'm sorry but MS Office is only compatible with PCs with the Microsoft Mouse. Yes $300 is a lot for a mouse, but it has 9 lasers!C.



    That's because Microsoft IS a monolpoly. Duh! Microsoft has a market controlling share in both the OS and office suite market. It has already been explained to you that certain practices may be considered anti-competitive when you are a monopoly. Than when you only have a small percantage of the markert. Would you complain if HP or IBM marketed a machine, with a proprietory device that makes their machines better than the competition. Even if it can be shown that the device can easily be made compatible with all PCs. Adobe can come out with a killer graphics program that requires a $300 graphics tablet.



    If you want to run full Vista Professional (the only version that really compares with OSX), you're going to need a lot of RAM, a dedicated graphics card with VRAM, a fast processor and drivers for any of the standard generic x86 hardware that you have. A 5 year old generic PC might never be able to run Vista (even the cripple version) because drivers for it's standard generic x86 hardware are not available and may never be available. But all of this is spelled out for you on the side of the box for Vista. It list the minimum hardware requirements needed to run whatever version of Vista is in the box. So you really can't complain if you can't get Vista to run on your 5 year old standard generic x86 PC. On the side of the box that OSX comes in, it also list the hardware requirements for runiing OSX. It states that you need a Mac. Not a standard Wintel PC. So don't compalin if OSX doesn't work on your generic x86 Wintel PC. Even if you used a hack to install it. Because your Wintel machine was designed to run Windows.
  • Reply 218 of 254
    I've been unable to tear my eyes away from this car wreck...



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DavidW View Post


    Macs are not standard Wintel PCs. Macs are designed to run OSX. Wintel PCs are designed to run MS Windows. Apple selects the hardware in a Mac that offer the best price/performance for running OSX.



    If you truly believe this, sorry to say, but you are an idiot. You obviously know nothing about hardware, or really of anything you speak, so please just give it up. Wake yourself from your dillusional fantasy world and smell the reality: Macs are no different from PCs. There is no such thing as "Mac-specific-hardware!" The only difference is that one contains a security chip that OS X uses to detect whether the otherwise arbitrary bundle of hardware was purchased from Apple.



    Before you prepare your next ill-informed comment, take the time to actually learn something about hardware, please. It'll save you from sounding like you're desperate for a come-back.



    -Clive
  • Reply 219 of 254
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post


    I've been unable to tear my eyes away from this car wreck...







    If you truly believe this, sorry to say, but you are an idiot. You obviously know nothing about hardware, or really of anything you speak, so please just give it up. Wake yourself from your dillusional fantasy world and smell the reality: Macs are no different from PCs. There is no such thing as "Mac-specific-hardware!" The only difference is that one contains a security chip that OS X uses to detect whether the otherwise arbitrary bundle of hardware was purchased from Apple.



    Before you prepare your next ill-informed comment, take the time to actually learn something about hardware, please. It'll save you from sounding like you're desperate for a come-back.



    -Clive



    I was under the impression that Apple never used the TPM chip for preventing OS X installs on machines that did have it, the the TPM chips isn't in any current Macs sold.
  • Reply 220 of 254
    davidwdavidw Posts: 975member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post


    I've been unable to tear my eyes away from this car wreck...







    If you truly believe this, sorry to say, but you are an idiot. You obviously know nothing about hardware, or really of anything you speak, so please just give it up. Wake yourself from your dillusional fantasy world and smell the reality: Macs are no different from PCs. There is no such thing as "Mac-specific-hardware!" The only difference is that one contains a security chip that OS X uses to detect whether the otherwise arbitrary bundle of hardware was purchased from Apple.



    Before you prepare your next ill-informed comment, take the time to actually learn something about hardware, please. It'll save you from sounding like you're desperate for a come-back.



    -Clive



    You must mean the hardware found on a Mac is no different than what can be found on a PC. A Mac is different from a PC just on the fact that it runs OSX out of the box (without having to use a hack.). It's OSX that makes a Mac a Mac. Not the x86 hardware that it uses. But the hardware on Macs are specific to OSX. Not exclusive to OSX or to a Mac, mind you. OSX (out of the box) is written to only run on hardware (or similar hardware) that are found on Macs. Not all PC MB will work with OSX. And very few can be made to work 100% with OSX.(using a hack.) Even if Apple were to make it so that you didn't need the hack to load OSX on a PC. OSX will not run properly on most PCs. Using specific x86 hardware that are used in Macs increases your chance of getting OSX to work on a generic PC. This is why the easiest way to get OSX running on a PC (with a hack) is to configure the hardware on the PC as close to a Mac as possible. This isn't to fool OSX into thinking it's a Mac. (That's what the hack is for.) It's because OSX is only written to recognize a limited amount of hardware. Laptops are especially finicky as it's very hard to add or change the componets on them. Most OSX hack sites will tell you what x86 company hardware will work with OSX. This wouldn't be an issue if a Mac is the same as a PC. Can other companies x86 hardware be made to work with OSX . Yes. But what company selling x86 hardware at low margin is going to spend the resources to write OSX drivers so that a hand full of users can get a sound card or Wifi to work on a MB designed with Windows in mind? The hacking community may help out. But for sure Apple will not.



    On the other hand Windows will nearly work with all PC hardware out there. Including the hardware found on an Intel Mac. (Though Vista may only work on newer PC componets because of driver issues.)



    BTW- I believe you are wrong about the security chip. Though the chip (TCM or TPM) is present in a Mac. Apple does not use it to prevent the loading of OSX. Apple did make use of such a chip on the Intel Macs that they gave to developers. That was before Intel Macs were available to the public.
Sign In or Register to comment.