Psystar accuses Apple of anti-competitive tactics in countersuit

1356713

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 254
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by CREB View Post


    You need to be more specific as there will always be some quality control issues somewhere in a mass-produced product line, but I seriously doubt it runs across the entire Apple product line.



    How about MobileMe for a start?!



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by CREB View Post


    If you had been around when Apple first started you would know that Apple has always bitten off more than it can chew as it is SOP for Apple since the beginning?Apple thrives on it!



    Don't assume just because I don't have a high number of posts that I haven't been around since the beginning. And I agree that Apple does have the tendency to bite off more than it can chew. It just seems to me, and many others around these forums I might add, that of late Apple has been struggling more and more with its success.
  • Reply 42 of 254
    So, let's take this to it's logical extreme...apple goes out of business 'cause of Phystar...then there's no OS X....doesn't make sense, does it....these guys are idiots.
  • Reply 43 of 254
    "First; Apple is and has engaged in monopolistic practices, there os no way to come to any other conclusion. They have 100% of the Mac OS market."





    yeeesh. again with the monopoly on the MAC OS market.



    how many times will you read on here... does Sony has a monopoly on the PS3? Nitendo has a monopoly on the Wii??



    it's not about the OSX -- it's about a "computer" -- Apple is not the ONLY computer maker on the planet.



    you wanna make and edit documents? more than one OS can do it



    you wanna surf the net? more than one OS can do it



    you wanna listen to music? burn a CD? more than one OS can do it





    monopoly means you're the ONLY ONE doing it.



    easy enough definition I think ... though many people can't read it as it appears. LOL



  • Reply 44 of 254
    rot'napplerot'napple Posts: 1,839member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    filed a countering lawsuit in federal court, accusing the Mac maker of unfairly squeezing out possible rivals.



    Do these people even know how ridiculous they are?



    Hey Psystar, Apple has done no such thing, but if YOU want to be a possible rival to Apple, then start manufacturing your own Hardware / Software ecosystem and quit leeching off of Apple's 30+ year endeavor!



    It is that simple. There are no rights obliged you from Apple to keep you in business.



    Now like so many others, Psystar GO AWAY!
  • Reply 45 of 254
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


    I said it before and I will say it again Pystar has more of a chance to be successful here than many are giving them credit.



    First; Apple is and has engaged in monopolistic practices, there os no way to come to any other conclusion. They have 100% of the Mac OS market. That very fact will hurt them unless they can twist the fact that OS/X is just another UNIX variant competing in the UNIX work station market. Apples marketing of Mac hardware could be a problem too.



    Second I doubt the EULA means much of anything and may even be illegal in some states. I think this is one of the reasons Apple waited until they had a copyright issue to go after Pystar. Even here there are protections for Pystar for interoperability. The question is did they cross the line.



    In the long run I suspect that Pystars success will depend on the political environment. If the political landscape changes such that the justice department becomes more active in enforcing laws already on the books then Apple will have more trouble than it can afford.



    Which brings up a point don't vote for Obama if you want to see companies like Apple continue to be successful. Apple would likely end up with 100's of government hot shots after them due to atleast a half dozen problem areas. Of course if they (Apple) gets much worst they might draw attention anyways.



    Dave



    There is no MacOS market, just a PC market. Mac's and PC's *gulp* (I can't believe I am saying this) *gulp* do basically the same things, in fact, as one of the Mac ad's pointed out, a Mac is a PC (or maybe I was imagining things). All that a Mac is compared to a generic PC (which is the more appropriate term) is that they come with a suite of software designed to run on that system called Mac OSX, which together combine to make the Mac, which is the product which Apple pitch into the PC market, and they are a small part of that market indeed.



    It is like saying (as pointed out earlier), Microsoft have a 100% monopoly on the Xbox 360 market, they should be forced to release the OS so that another manufacturer can release a competing product. Of course we don't say that, we say Microsoft has a share of the console market with the Xbox 360.
  • Reply 46 of 254
    slewisslewis Posts: 2,080member
    Null.
  • Reply 47 of 254
    Is part of this argument the fact that Apple sells OS X as a product, whereas Microsoft and Sony don't sell the OS that runs the XBOX360 and PS3?



    -Kevin
  • Reply 48 of 254
    hirohiro Posts: 2,663member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


    I said it before and I will say it again Pystar has more of a chance to be successful here than many are giving them credit.



    First; Apple is and has engaged in monopolistic practices, there os no way to come to any other conclusion. They have 100% of the Mac OS market. That very fact will hurt them unless they can twist the fact that OS/X is just another UNIX variant competing in the UNIX work station market. Apples marketing of Mac hardware could be a problem too.



    Burger King has 100% of the Whopper market, are they in trouble? Oh wait, I can get a burger at McDonalds or I can make my own at home.



    Analogy mapping: MacOS->Whopper; Microsoft->McDonalds; make my own at home->Linux/BSDs.



    I don't think that argument has any legs at all.
  • Reply 49 of 254
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,946member
    I think enough people have established that you don't define a market by naming a specific brand product as the market. To define a market, it really needs to be a generic description.



    Even if it's a silly argument, it's enough of a pile-on.
  • Reply 50 of 254
    slewisslewis Posts: 2,080member
    Null.
  • Reply 51 of 254
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    I think enough people have established that you don't define a market by naming a specific brand product. Even if it's a silly argument, it's enough of a pile-on.



    Awwww... okay



    Can we rip into the ridiculous idea that Apple could compete with Microsoft releasing their OS as OEM so that other makers could make computers that run Mac OSX?



    Or that this will somehow be good for competition?



  • Reply 52 of 254
    slewisslewis Posts: 2,080member
    Null.
  • Reply 53 of 254
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,946member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Slewis View Post


    Heh, well I was hoping I'd be the first to respond to him, I'm sure a few others were writing their posts at the same time.



    Sebastian



    I hadn't thought of that, that does make sense, so much of it was within half an hour.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by flemsha View Post


    Awwww... okay



    Can we rip into the ridiculous idea that Apple could compete with Microsoft releasing their OS as OEM so that other makers could make computers that run Mac OSX?



    Or that this will somehow be good for competition?







    I think it's an interesting idea, but then, the problem is that they would all be competing against Apple using Apple's own OS, which Apple probably invested a few billion growing it over the last decade. $129 per computer would be giving away a lot of competitive advantage for the price, I think OS X is easily worth the same as Vista's box price. $129 is Apple's upgrade price.



    I really don't know if the debacle in the late 90's applies these days or not.
  • Reply 54 of 254
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Slewis View Post


    Actually it would be good for competition, only problem is it would be better for the competition than it would be for Apple or other hardware makers. Personally I think the world needs more Apples, IBMs, Bes, NeXTs, Acorns, and Amigas (without the Commodores), and less Microsofts.



    Sebastian



    That is perhaps true.



    Oh how I miss the days where I had a Commodore 64 for games and the family had an old Mac, and generic PC's were worthless pieces of junk with CGA graphics.



    Now I have a Mac, my Commodore 64 is long dead, and generic PC's are worthless pieces of junk with 3D graphics.



    Does kind of feel like the last hold-out against the computing mono-culture is happening.



    Edit: And the Commodore's were good fun in their day, not as sophisticated as an Amiga, but fun none the less.
  • Reply 55 of 254
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Slewis View Post


    Personally I think the world needs more Apples, IBMs, Bes, NeXTs, Acorns, and Amigas (without the Commodores), and less Microsofts.



    Sebastian



    I couldn't agree more. Sadly I was far too late in getting into the alternative PC market (read: after the deaths of most of the listed computers)
  • Reply 56 of 254
    wheelhotwheelhot Posts: 465member
    Quote:

    By insisting that its software be tied to its hardware, Apple is violating pro-competition laws that include the Clayton Antitrust Act and the Sherman Antitrust Act, Psystar claims. Apple is characterized as a monopoly-like entity, abusing its copyright to guarantee its position as the only authorized PC maker for the operating system.



    Ooh, yeah right, so you are saying that Sony PS3 OS, XBox 360 OS, iPod OS, iPhone OSX is violating pro-competition laws because they don't open it for other consoles to use it? They make it, they decide how they want to distribute it.



    Also Intel and AMD is also violating pro-competition laws cause they dont state the secret behind their chipset and processors for the competitors to copy. GET REAL PSYCRAPPEST!



    PSYSTAR IS A HERO WANNABEE!!!!!. They are in a delusional world where they think people have the right to own anything they want, so by taking others people work and saying that people who cant afford buying this expensive product needs it, hence it is their responsibility to bring it for the common people. I think its time for someone from the editorial board to write up and tell the world how screwed up Psystar is.



    Drop dead and die PSYCRAP!



    Oh yeah and take note of this phrase psycrap:

    made by Apple made FOR Apple.

    made by Microsoft made for EVERYONE!!!.



    See the difference you delusional childs?
  • Reply 57 of 254
    slewisslewis Posts: 2,080member
    Null.
  • Reply 58 of 254
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Slewis View Post


    Yeah, and sadly at least one was distracted after doing multi-quotes and hitting the reply button, and then not getting to the actual reply for a few minutes missing the chance to be the first responder. :-(







    Eh, I have nothing against the Commodore 64, but I do have something against the Commodore that acquired Amiga and then went bankrupt killing the Amiga.







    So was I, my first computer was an old DOS 5 or 6/Win 3 or 3.1(1) machine in 1998 or 1999.



    Sebastian





    My first was a Windows 3.1 machine in 1993, tho, the school I went to had Apple IIe's and Sister Beth (our librarian) had an original Macintosh.
  • Reply 59 of 254
    dickprinterdickprinter Posts: 1,060member
    He was going to spell it "looz" but he decided to look it up first.
  • Reply 60 of 254
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,946member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by skottichan View Post


    I couldn't agree more. Sadly I was far too late in getting into the alternative PC market (read: after the deaths of most of the listed computers)



    That is pretty much true for me, but I didn't get into computers at all until after then. At the time, Apple wasn't really interesting to me either.



    I think part of the problem of a house OS is that developing a competitive operating system is a major endeavor, and it's gotten harder as the years go by just because of the scale of what is expected. Everything that exists now works from or on top of a very large existing legacy code base and knowledge base, and there's the existing applications that need to be considered too, I don't think developers want to develop for multiple operating systems anymore.
Sign In or Register to comment.