And if Apple let anybody use their OSX then what will make a Mac better than anyone else's computer hardware? Apple competes in the computer hardware market and do not make most of the hardware in their Macs. They put a lot of design effort into it but in the end it's made by the same manufacturers that make all others computer hardware. Apple hardware has a competitive edge over their competitors because of OSX. (Even you stated that there is very little difference in hardware.) So do you really think that it's fair that Apple should have to give up their competitive edge? It's not as though Apple is using some third party OS and is forcing that third party to not license that OS to their competitors. OSX belongs to Apple. Apple spent 400 million dollars to acquire it's basic framework from NeXT and spent billions of dollars more to develop it to where it is now. OSX is what makes a Mac experience better that their competitors in the computer hardware market. Apple competitors may have the same access to the hardware Apple uses but they don't have access to OSX. And Apple has every right to keep it that way.
No, Apple's hardware does not have a competitive edge because of OS X. That is impossible. OS X isn't a hardware feature. I will agree that OS X itself is a competitive edge, but that edge can only be used to sell the software itself. Apple can let the OS X "halo effect" sell the hardware, or better yet, let the hardware sell itself - but Apple cannot forcibly tie OS to their own hardware set just to garnish more sales because that hardware set serves no special technical purpose, as opposed to, say, the XBox OS and hardware (the example that so many like to bring up).
No, Apple's hardware does not have a competitive edge because of OS X. That is impossible.
It's quite possible and it's the reason why many people prefer Macs. OS X has drivers and software that is tailored to the very limited HW that Apple uses. This makes the HW perform better than using generic drivers. It also allows Apple to offer new HW and SW combinations that take advantage of Apple's unique Mac combination.
For a recent example look up articles on Synaptics new multi-touch trackpad. This is something that Macs have had for years and that Apple has taken to a whole new level this year with the MBA and MBP. Furthermore, the main complains on this tech is that chicken/egg dilemma may make this tech from Synaptic a lame duck before gets going. But Apple designed the larger trackpad, the drivers and frameworks for multi-touch, and the re-wrote their software to directly take advantage of this specific HW/SW association at the same time.
I'm not sure where I stand on this, to be honest. I'll be interested to see how this develops.
Am I right in saying:
1. Apple wants to remain the exclusive manufacturer of hardware capable of running the Mac OS
2. Psystar hasn't attempted to pass off Mac OS as their own product under a different name
I don't know much about the legalities, but to my mind, Psystar hasn't taken Pepsi's Mountain Dew, and rebottled it as their own. Psystar aren't attempting to pass off Mountain Dew as their product. Psystar are being completely transparent in the fact that they are reselling undoctored Mountain Dew.
Actually, it is much worse than that. They are buying the syrup that is supposed to be used in an approved delivery system but adding some of their own ingredients and bottling it as original unadulterated brand name product. Psystar has to modify the installer and updaters to bypass Apple restrictions.
Actually, it is much worse than that. They are buying the syrup that is supposed to be used in an approved delivery system but adding some of their own ingredients and bottling it as original unadulterated brand name product. Psystar has to modify the installer and updaters to bypass Apple restrictions.
They are just removing a software lock like how some 3rd party ink makers had do and that went to court and lexmark lost the case.
A software lock is not something that can just be removed. You have to both remove and insert code.
yes but lexmark tryed to use the DMCA to take that to court and they LOST the case so this is same in a few ways forcing you to use lexmark ink on lexmark printers is the same as forcing you to buy apple hardware to use mac osx and apple is using software to lock out mac osx on non apple hardware.
yes but lexmark tryed to use the DMCA to take that to court and they LOST the case so this is same in a few ways forcing you to use lexmark ink on lexmark printers is the same as forcing you to buy apple hardware to use mac osx and apple is using software to lock out mac osx on non apple hardware.
Actually it is the other way around. If Lexmark ink only worked on Lexmark printers there would be no case.
And since Apple in competing in the computer hardware market, how do they make their hardware "better" (besides looks) than that of Dell, HP or Acer? They developed OSX for it and to differentiated from other venders computer hardware they call it a Mac. Would you deny HP, Dell or Acer the right to make their hardware "better" than their competitors. Would you force HP, Dell or Acer to give up any competitive edge they may have to their competitors.
Given that Apple is trying to grow its marketshare, it has to embrace industry standard components. I don't think any of us want to go back to the days where we had to pay through the nose for proprietary kit. So there is a limit to how much better Apple can differentiate their hardware. But where Apple can make its hardware better, is through intelligent, beautiful, product design.
But Apple can't claim that Mac OS runs better on Apple hardware than on generic kit, because as I've said already, Apple hardware is generic. They could claim that it's the perfect complement, but that's an entirely different claim.
I guess it comes down to whether you view Mac OS on Apple hardware as one thing, or two distinct things. I personally believe it's two separate things, and that Apple is in the business of selling well designed, high-margin, low performance generic hardware on the coat tails of an outstanding OS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW
They don't. They claim that running OSX is a superior experience over Windows.
Actually, they do claim that their OS runs better on their hardware. It's their biggest sales pitch (and has been for years) for purchasing a Mac. They rave about the interplay of hardware and software, and they claim the resulting experience is so super smooth because they control both the hardware and software. They have complete control over every single aspect of the system. Again, my point is that this is a false claim because Apple hardware is now generic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW
Bravo...you're not as clueless it first seems.
I wouldn't bank on that, I'm actually pretty clueless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW
Apple hardware has a competitive edge over their competitors because of OSX. (Even you stated that there is very little difference in hardware.) So do you really think that it's fair that Apple should have to give up their competitive edge? It's not as though Apple is using some third party OS and is forcing that third party to not license that OS to their competitors. OSX belongs to Apple. Apple spent 400 million dollars to acquire it's basic framework from NeXT and spent billions of dollars more to develop it to where it is now. OSX is what makes a Mac experience better that their competitors in the computer hardware market. Apple competitors may have the same access to the hardware Apple uses but they don't have access to OSX. And Apple has every right to keep it that way.
You make a good point, and this is where I'm undecided... I'm not sure of the legalities involved.
To my mind, Apple has developed the best operating system known to man. But that doesn't give them the right to tie it up with their own hardware, especially given that their own hardware is no different to every one else's hardware, and that there is no tangible benefit to the end user.
I think my main gripe, is that Apple is attempting to pull the wool over people eyes by claiming that their hardware is in someway different to every one else's hardware – when anybody who knows anything about the components under the hood will tell you that the exact opposite is true. If anything, Apple are guilty of hindering the possibilities of the Mac OS through their choice of components and procrastination with regards to adopting new technologies.
Yeah, I think that's what's pissing me off... it being blatantly lied to.
There are several things that interest me:
1. in theory, there is nothing to stop OS X running on x86 hardware.
2. Apple 'tweaked' OS X so that it would not work on anything other than Apple hardware, via the TP module.
3. do you buy OS X, or do you license it? – I'm not sure if that debate was ever finalised? The last I heard, even if the software developers claimed you were licensing the software the judge said you were in fact purchasing it outright.
4. if you buy OS X you can't run it on anything but Apple hardware.
5. the only reason that OS X runs smoother on Apple hardware compared to generic hardware is driver support – a situation that has been engineered by Apple and the TP situation.
I suspect Psystar will attempt to 'reveal' the lengths that Apple has gone to in order to tie their Mac OS to the Mac hardware, and the fact that Apple hardware doesn't in fact provide a superior platform for the Mac OS.
If the only thing that comes out of this is Apple's claim that they need to control both the hardware and the software is shown to be a lie, then that's a fairly satisfying victory in itself.
The iPhone is an interesting example. The reason the iPhone works so well is because Apple controls the hardware and the software – and Apple are right to make this particular claim. But the day that the iPhone hardware is identical to every other handset out there, is the day that they have to stop claiming that their hardware is better at running the iPhone OS.
It's not as simple as rebottling Mountain Dew. It's Pepsi selling you the syrup (OS X) and saying you can only use it with Pepsi-brand carbonated water (Apple's hardware). The argument is that Apple is leveraging OS X to acquire hardware sales that they didn't "earn" (by the hardware's own merit).
What is really relevant to this particular motion, specifically dismissing Psystar's "APPLE IS A MONOPOLY" countersuit, doesn't really have anything to do with that monopoly.
Psystar is countersuing Apple claiming they are a monopoly and anticompetitive.
This would be like a smaller bottler suing Pepsi and wanting to bottle their own pepsi, claming that Pepsico has a monopoly on Pepsi. A razor company can try and make compatible razors to the Schick handle, but there's no way they're going to sue Schick for having a monopoly on "Schick razors" and win.
Apple points out that Psystar simply is using the wrong definition of "monopoly". And they're right.
And I and many others have pointed out the exact same thing on this and numerous other threads.
Whether any of Psystar's arguments have any merit is a separate issue, but there's no question they're wrong calling Apple a monopoly.
The first issue I have is Apple saying there isn't such a thing as a Mac OS market.
No, you're misunderstanding the terms. Sure, there is a market for Macs. Apple is just saying that when it comes to monopolies, the entire competitive market is defined as "computers" since a consumer is free to buy a PC if they don't like the Mac or Apple for whatever reason.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Second if you end up at the wrong end of an anti trust investigation you can end up doing business with people you don't want to deal with. I'm not really sure why Apple even suggested that this is an issue because one could interpet it as an anti competitive practice.
Apple DIDN'T suggest this. Psystar filed an antitrust/monopoly countersuit and Apple is just asking to have it thrown out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
As to the reselling of the Apple OS CD, Apple doesn't have a leg to stand on there either if recent copy right rulings against the music industry can be applied to Apples installation disk.
Apple's main case isn't reselling, it's that their copyright is being violated because Psystar is selling a *modified* version of OSX, which violates the Derivative Works part of US copyright law.
People really need to separate the idea of apple losing this case based on the facts and the laws from WISHING Apple would lose so you could get whatever it is you're wishing for.
I agree with everyone who is stating that Psystar is in clear violation of the license agreement for OS X. But the point that's being missed here is what the real beef of this, whether that license term "Apple-labeled", is legally enforceable. This is why Psystar filed the countersuit; Apple clearly is involved in product tying: "I make this so if you want to buy it you must buy suchandsuch from me too".
Except that "tying" only applies when the two products are unrelated (like forcing a bookstore to buy an unpopular title or else they don't get to sell the latest Harry Potter). If the two products are related, it's completely legal. And an argument can certainly be made that a computer and OS are related.
If a court were to declare the OSX/Mac situation "tying" it would be a huge precedent for the technology industry and have huge implications for things ranging from game consoles to GPSs to cel phones and beyond. I just don't see that happening.
What's the problem with Psystar making a profit using a product they bought from Apple?
The problem is that Psystar can only do it by installing a modified version of OSX, which is a violation of copyright law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five
The blade refills are akin to the hardware, i.e. the unnecessary thing whose purchase is being demanded by Apple even though other 3rd-party blades fit the razor handle perfectly.
Except that it doesn't fit perfectly. You can't install OSX on a PC without a hack.
The first issue I have is Apple saying there isn't such a thing as a Mac OS market.
No, you're misunderstanding the terms. Sure, there is a market for Macs. Apple is just saying that when it comes to monopolies, the entire competitive market is defined as "computers" since a consumer is free to buy a PC if they don't like the Mac or Apple for whatever reason.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Second if you end up at the wrong end of an anti trust investigation you can end up doing business with people you don't want to deal with. I'm not really sure why Apple even suggested that this is an issue because one could interpet it as an anti competitive practice.
Apple DIDN'T suggest this. Psystar filed an antitrust/monopoly countersuit and Apple is just asking to have it thrown out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
As to the reselling of the Apple OS CD, Apple doesn't have a leg to stand on there either if recent copy right rulings against the music industry can be applied to Apples installation disk.
Apple's main case isn't reselling, it's that their copyright is being violated because Psystar is selling a *modified* version of OSX, which violates the Derivative Works part of US copyright law.
People really need to separate the idea of apple losing this case based on the facts and the laws from WISHING Apple would lose so you could get whatever it is you're wishing for.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five
but Apple cannot forcibly tie OS to their own hardware set just to garnish more sales because that hardware set serves no special technical purpose
Why not?
Crayola can forcibly tie sales of Red crayons to sales of Green crayons by only putting them in the same box.
Microsoft can forcibly tie sales of Word to Excel.
Hasbro can forcibly tie sales of Limited Edition Han Solo action figures to Millennium Falcon toys.
There's nothing illegal about "tying" related products together.
not true the courts have said that printers can't be tied to there own ink and lock out 3rd party ink.
That's not tying.
You can buy the printer with no ink. You can buy the ink with no printer. Tying would be if the ink and printer were only sold together (which I'm sure would be legal). I don't know what the lexmark thing would be described as, but "tying" doesn't fit.
And tying isn't necessarily illegal, only in certain cases.
The one absolute is that you can not legally define a "market" by siting a brand name. The "market" must be defined in such a way that it doesn't single out any company competing in that "market". Otherwise any laws written pertaining to that "market" will be unjust because it will single out the company mentioned.
The first sentence that you wrote there is correct but ultimately not relevant because it is not generally necessary to refer to a company by name in order to produce a definition of a market that is specific to that company and its products. The exception would be a product that is truly generic and not distingsuishable from competing products in any way. The rest of what you wrote is NOT true and is counter-intuitive and counter-logical, the reason being that if a company totally takes over a particular market, any suitable definition of that market would implicity single out that company's product. This is manifest, and that is why it is preposterous to argue that the definition of a market cannot single out any one company's product. The argument that the definition of a market cannot single out any one company's product is every bit as contrived and silly as all of the arguments that people are putting forth in these Psystar threads. I have no doubt that the courts at one point of time, and possibly still, regarded this as a meaningful criteria by which to judge whether a proposed "market" qualifies as a market to which the anti-trust laws would be applied. But even if the courts thought so, that doesn't make it an absolute, objective definition. The legal definitions that courts deal with are quite often contrived, due to the fact that legislators make laws that are poorly defined and formulated, leaving it for the courts to try and figure out what it really means. There was never, ever any absolute, objective way to define what constitures a "market", and there was never, ever any absolute, objective way to define what constitures a "monopoly". The definitions are necessarily contrived, and all of these arguments and analogies that are appearing here add up to nothing but folly.
OK--Periodically someone will say something like: "please, no more car analogies." I think there are two reasons for this, one illegitimate: because they don't help their side, and one legitimate: because they fail to capture the difference between hardware and software.
Follow me with a little thought experiment: suppose the US auto industry hadn't self-destructed in the 60s and 70s and had survived into the modern era where cars are controlled by numerous computer modules, in particular, the Engine Management System. The automotive world is still divided between Ford Guys and GM Guys, except for a few MoPar perverts. (Please don't flame me; I was a MoPar pervert.)
Suddenly, Ford, at enormous expense in time and money, makes a decisive breakthrough in EMS software. Their cars, equipped with this new software, trounce GM cars in performance, mileage, emissions, etc. They also make this new software available to install on existing Fords (for $129.) Maybe it doesn't even occur to them to call it an "upgrade" because obviously, it would only work on a Ford.
Of course, all engines are basically the same, and this SW could be rewritten slightly to work on anybody's cars. Suppose GM buys a copy of it, modifies it so it works on their engines, and markets it as an option on their new cars: "Now available with Ford Engine Management Software!"
Right now, you can buy third-party software to modify your existing EMS to improve performance, mileage, emissions; whatever you want to maximize. Most companies sell the programming tool to reflash your EEPROMs as part of the kit, but a lot of people already own their own. This is just the equivalent of Installer or Software Update: it means that any software can be installed on any car that it will work on.
Now: is what GM is doing legal? I say no. There's nothing to prevent them from putting in the same time and effort and designing their own EMS to be just as good. Should they be able to appropriate some other company's work, developed as a selling point for their own cars, to sell their own? I say no. Many people on this forum would apparently say yes. The question is, how will a court decide?
Suppose the difference was really decisive: GM cars were constantly stalling, belching black smoke, and every day there was something new wrong with them, while Fords worked perfectly. (That's the reverse of my experience back in the day, but this is a thought experiment!) Would the atrocious mileage and emissions of GM cars be such a point of public policy that a judge might require Ford to license their EMS? Who knows?
The only aspect of the computer OS situation that might rise to the level of public policy, is of course security. With 500,000 Windows viruses and no OS X viruses (one trojan, supposedly,) the reasonable thing to do would be to enjoin Microsoft against selling Windows until they can make it secure enough to not constitute a hazard to the computer-using community. On the other hand, MS has had 20 years to do so, and is manifestly incapable of it. A court might rule that Apple should be forced to license their OS to prevent a security disaster worse than the many that have already afflicted the Windows-using world. Not likely, but it's the only way I can see the law entering into the matter and forcing one company to share their proprietary work with everyone else.
Given that Apple is trying to grow its marketshare, it has to embrace industry standard components. I don't think any of us want to go back to the days where we had to pay through the nose for proprietary kit. So there is a limit to how much better Apple can differentiate their hardware. But where Apple can make its hardware better, is through intelligent, beautiful, product design.
What I mean, and maybe didn't make it clear, is that when I refer to "Apple hardware", I'm mean the computer as a whole. Not the individual parts that makes it up. In this case Apple hardware (whole computer) is better than a Dell, HP or Acer because it has OSX. The whole is greater than the sum of it's parts.
Quote:
But Apple can't claim that Mac OS runs better on Apple hardware than on generic kit, because as I've said already, Apple hardware is generic. They could claim that it's the perfect complement, but that's an entirely different claim.
Yes they can, when OSX (out of the box) only runs on Apple hardware (whole computer). And when Apple OSX is designed to run best on a Mac. Can OSX be made to run as smoothly on other companies hardware (whole computer) as it does on a Mac. Yes. But that's not the issue. Apple doesn't have to put any effort or invest any money into making OSX run on their competitors hardware (whole computer).
A classic example is iTunes software only works with an iPod. Can they make Apple write iTunes so that it works with other MP3 players?
Quote:
I guess it comes down to whether you view Mac OS on Apple hardware as one thing, or two distinct things. I personally believe it's two separate things, and that Apple is in the business of selling well designed, high-margin, low performance generic hardware on the coat tails of an outstanding OS.
It's the exact same business model as Dell, HP and Acer. At the same price point of a Mac, a Dell or HP computer will also be well designed, high margined, uses the same "low performance generic hardware" and to many, on the coat tails of an outstanding OS (XP ). Show me where HP or Dell don't make as much of a margin on their $2000.00 laptops as Apple does on their MacPro. Show me how the same "low performance generic hardware" in a Mac is somehow slower on a Mac than on a Dell or HP. In fact, many people that likes to use Vista claims that a Mac is the best computer to run it on. How can this be if every computer maker uses that same "low performance generic hardware"? Don't be confuse that just because Dell and HP has overall margins in the mid teens that they don't make 20% to 30% magin on their more "expensive" computers. It's selling computers at $800 and below that's is bringing down their (Dell and HP) overall margins. And Apple, for now, is not aggressively competing at those price points. So Apple's overall margin remains high.
Quote:
Actually, they do claim that their OS runs better on their hardware. It's their biggest sales pitch (and has been for years) for purchasing a Mac. They rave about the interplay of hardware and software, and they claim the resulting experience is so super smooth because they control both the hardware and software. They have complete control over every single aspect of the system. Again, my point is that this is a false claim because Apple hardware is now generic.
Then how do you explain that many Vista users claims that Vista also runs better on a Mac than computers from other companies, using the same generic hardware.
Quote:
I wouldn't bank on that, I'm actually pretty clueless.
Well acceptance is the first step to solving the problem.
Quote:
You make a good point, and this is where I'm undecided... I'm not sure of the legalities involved.
To my mind, Apple has developed the best operating system known to man. But that doesn't give them the right to tie it up with their own hardware, especially given that their own hardware is no different to every one else's hardware, and that there is no tangible benefit to the end user.
And would Apple have developed the "best operating system know to Man" if they knew they couldn't tie it to their own hardware? What incentive will Apple have to continue to develop upon OSX if they're forced to share it with their competitors? What benefit is it to Man if OSX becomes like Vista? Apple chooses not to compete with Microsoft in the computer operating system market. Instead, they want to compete with Dell, HP, Acer and the likes in the computer hardware (whole computers) market. Therefore they have every right to keep their IP to themselves in order to make their hardware (whole computer) a better product than their competitors.
Quote:
I think my main gripe, is that Apple is attempting to pull the wool over people eyes by claiming that their hardware is in someway different to every one else's hardware ? when anybody who knows anything about the components under the hood will tell you that the exact opposite is true. If anything, Apple are guilty of hindering the possibilities of the Mac OS through their choice of components and procrastination with regards to adopting new technologies.
Yeah, I think that's what's pissing me off... it being blatantly lied to.
Your're way off off base here. And I don't have the time to list all the "new technology" that were first found on a Mac. If anything Apple has always been the leader in adopting "new technology". It's getting rid of the old technology too soon that irks many Mac users.
Quote:
There are several things that interest me:
1. in theory, there is nothing to stop OS X running on x86 hardware.
Apple is stopping OSX from running on any x86 hardware. OSX is Apple IP and they can use it anyway they see fit.
Quote:
2. Apple 'tweaked' OS X so that it would not work on anything other than Apple hardware, via the TP module.
Not quite right. OSX will load on a Mac with a G4 or G5 PPC chip. There's no TP module in those Macs.
Quote:
3. do you buy OS X, or do you license it? ? I'm not sure if that debate was ever finalised? The last I heard, even if the software developers claimed you were licensing the software the judge said you were in fact purchasing it outright.
It doesn't matter either way you look at it. The one thing for sure is that you can not alter it in order to profit from it. That's why most hackers do not sell the hacks they write. They can hack it and use it on their own machine and make a claim that's it a "hobby" of theirs. So long as they paid for an original copy. And Apple doesn't go after all of these people. But hackers would cross the line to breaking the law if they tried to market their hack. They are in a gray area when they publish (and make the hack available for free) their hacks or encourage others to do it
Quote:
4. if you buy OS X you can't run it on anything but Apple hardware.
Every so often you do get it. and many here keep explaining the reason why it's this way. But once again, Apple is in the business of selling computer hardware (whole computers). And OSX is Apple way of making their computer hardware (whole computer) better than their competitors.
Quote:
5. the only reason that OS X runs smoother on Apple hardware compared to generic hardware is driver support ? a situation that has been engineered by Apple and the TP situation.
And it also run smoother on a Mac is because OSX doesn't have to run any other computer hardware (whole computers) besides a Mac. It's not bloated down with all the necessary codes it would take to make it run (out of the box) on all the other generic computers out there. Would you be happy if OSX ran like Vista but it will also run on thousands of computers that you will never own?
.
Quote:
I suspect Psystar will attempt to 'reveal' the lengths that Apple has gone to in order to tie their Mac OS to the Mac hardware, and the fact that Apple hardware doesn't in fact provide a superior platform for the Mac OS.
If the only thing that comes out of this is Apple's claim that they need to control both the hardware and the software is shown to be a lie, then that's a fairly satisfying victory in itself.
And what does a "superior platform" have to do with Apple rights to do as they want with their IP. Apple doesn't have to show anybody why they "need" to control the hardware and software. They can just do it. And the only justification they need to continue to do so is the general perspection that a Mac running OSX is superior to any other computer running Windows. They don't need to prove that they can make OSX run better on a Dell or HP. It doesn't matter. OSX is Apple's IP. Just because you can take OSX and make it run better on your generic computer doesn't mean that Apple has to. And Apple doesn't have to license out their IP so that you can profit from it.
Once again, "tying" is not always illegal. And Apple is not "tying" (in the illegal sense) OSX to their hardware. You can buy OSX with out having to buy a Mac. No one forces you to buy a Mac in order to buy OSX.
Game consoles works the same way. PlayStation games are "tied" to PlayStations consoles. And there is a region code on PlayStation games. I can not play a region 3 game on a region 1 console. But I can install an "illegal" chip in a region 1 console that will allow it to play games from any other any regions. This shows that there is nothing inherently stopping a region 3 game from playing on a region 1 console. Except what Sony did to their games and consoles so that it won't do so easily. Sony wants to control the software (game) and hardware (game console). You can show a judge what great lengths Sony went to to prevent a region 3 game from playing on their region 1 console till you're blue in the face. It won't do any good because in the end it's Sony's IP and they can do as the wish. And so far it's been like this since the first PlayStation and still exist today in game consoles and DVD players (both home and computer).
Anothe example. There are many foreign region 3 coded movies that don't exist in region 1. The region code "ties" me to a region 3 (or a no region) player. Can I take a region 3 movie and rip a copy without the region code (with the software in my Mac) so that I can play it on my Sony region 1 DVD player? It's a gray area, but so long as I own the original I'll be safe from being sought after. Now, can I claim that there is no reason why this movie can't be played on a region 1 DVD player and rip 1000's of copies to sell to other people that might want to play this movie on a "superior" Sony region 1 player? The movie is some one else's IP and if they don't want to make it region 1 (or region free) so that I can play it on my "superior" Sony region 1 DVD player instead of a cheap no name region free player, they can legally do that.
Quote:
The iPhone is an interesting example. The reason the iPhone works so well is because Apple controls the hardware and the software ? and Apple are right to make this particular claim. But the day that the iPhone hardware is identical to every other handset out there, is the day that they have to stop claiming that their hardware is better at running the iPhone OS.
Don't hold your breathe. Apple owns over 200 patents on the hardware (and software) that makes up an iPhone. And that's just this generation. We have no idea what new technology Apple is planning for their hardware and is already some how incorporated into OSX.
But even if they can no longer make that claim. Apple still don't have to release OSX to other cell phone makers.
Comments
I'm just going to say.... I say Apple wins.
And if Apple let anybody use their OSX then what will make a Mac better than anyone else's computer hardware? Apple competes in the computer hardware market and do not make most of the hardware in their Macs. They put a lot of design effort into it but in the end it's made by the same manufacturers that make all others computer hardware. Apple hardware has a competitive edge over their competitors because of OSX. (Even you stated that there is very little difference in hardware.) So do you really think that it's fair that Apple should have to give up their competitive edge? It's not as though Apple is using some third party OS and is forcing that third party to not license that OS to their competitors. OSX belongs to Apple. Apple spent 400 million dollars to acquire it's basic framework from NeXT and spent billions of dollars more to develop it to where it is now. OSX is what makes a Mac experience better that their competitors in the computer hardware market. Apple competitors may have the same access to the hardware Apple uses but they don't have access to OSX. And Apple has every right to keep it that way.
No, Apple's hardware does not have a competitive edge because of OS X. That is impossible. OS X isn't a hardware feature. I will agree that OS X itself is a competitive edge, but that edge can only be used to sell the software itself. Apple can let the OS X "halo effect" sell the hardware, or better yet, let the hardware sell itself - but Apple cannot forcibly tie OS to their own hardware set just to garnish more sales because that hardware set serves no special technical purpose, as opposed to, say, the XBox OS and hardware (the example that so many like to bring up).
-Clive
*Standing ovation* Bravo. Everybody please read Messiah's 3-port marathon.
Jeez, sorry about that guys, that kind of got away from me there.
It's an interesting subject though, right?
I'm keen to see how it all pans out...
No, Apple's hardware does not have a competitive edge because of OS X. That is impossible.
It's quite possible and it's the reason why many people prefer Macs. OS X has drivers and software that is tailored to the very limited HW that Apple uses. This makes the HW perform better than using generic drivers. It also allows Apple to offer new HW and SW combinations that take advantage of Apple's unique Mac combination.
For a recent example look up articles on Synaptics new multi-touch trackpad. This is something that Macs have had for years and that Apple has taken to a whole new level this year with the MBA and MBP. Furthermore, the main complains on this tech is that chicken/egg dilemma may make this tech from Synaptic a lame duck before gets going. But Apple designed the larger trackpad, the drivers and frameworks for multi-touch, and the re-wrote their software to directly take advantage of this specific HW/SW association at the same time.
I'm not sure where I stand on this, to be honest. I'll be interested to see how this develops.
Am I right in saying:
1. Apple wants to remain the exclusive manufacturer of hardware capable of running the Mac OS
2. Psystar hasn't attempted to pass off Mac OS as their own product under a different name
I don't know much about the legalities, but to my mind, Psystar hasn't taken Pepsi's Mountain Dew, and rebottled it as their own. Psystar aren't attempting to pass off Mountain Dew as their product. Psystar are being completely transparent in the fact that they are reselling undoctored Mountain Dew.
Actually, it is much worse than that. They are buying the syrup that is supposed to be used in an approved delivery system but adding some of their own ingredients and bottling it as original unadulterated brand name product. Psystar has to modify the installer and updaters to bypass Apple restrictions.
Actually, it is much worse than that. They are buying the syrup that is supposed to be used in an approved delivery system but adding some of their own ingredients and bottling it as original unadulterated brand name product. Psystar has to modify the installer and updaters to bypass Apple restrictions.
They are just removing a software lock like how some 3rd party ink makers had do and that went to court and lexmark lost the case.
They are just removing a software lock like how some 3rd party ink makers had do and that went to court and lexmark lost the case.
A software lock is not something that can just be removed. You have to replace or insert new code to accomplish it.
A software lock is not something that can just be removed. You have to both remove and insert code.
yes but lexmark tryed to use the DMCA to take that to court and they LOST the case so this is same in a few ways forcing you to use lexmark ink on lexmark printers is the same as forcing you to buy apple hardware to use mac osx and apple is using software to lock out mac osx on non apple hardware.
yes but lexmark tryed to use the DMCA to take that to court and they LOST the case so this is same in a few ways forcing you to use lexmark ink on lexmark printers is the same as forcing you to buy apple hardware to use mac osx and apple is using software to lock out mac osx on non apple hardware.
Actually it is the other way around. If Lexmark ink only worked on Lexmark printers there would be no case.
And since Apple in competing in the computer hardware market, how do they make their hardware "better" (besides looks) than that of Dell, HP or Acer? They developed OSX for it and to differentiated from other venders computer hardware they call it a Mac. Would you deny HP, Dell or Acer the right to make their hardware "better" than their competitors. Would you force HP, Dell or Acer to give up any competitive edge they may have to their competitors.
Given that Apple is trying to grow its marketshare, it has to embrace industry standard components. I don't think any of us want to go back to the days where we had to pay through the nose for proprietary kit. So there is a limit to how much better Apple can differentiate their hardware. But where Apple can make its hardware better, is through intelligent, beautiful, product design.
But Apple can't claim that Mac OS runs better on Apple hardware than on generic kit, because as I've said already, Apple hardware is generic. They could claim that it's the perfect complement, but that's an entirely different claim.
I guess it comes down to whether you view Mac OS on Apple hardware as one thing, or two distinct things. I personally believe it's two separate things, and that Apple is in the business of selling well designed, high-margin, low performance generic hardware on the coat tails of an outstanding OS.
They don't. They claim that running OSX is a superior experience over Windows.
Actually, they do claim that their OS runs better on their hardware. It's their biggest sales pitch (and has been for years) for purchasing a Mac. They rave about the interplay of hardware and software, and they claim the resulting experience is so super smooth because they control both the hardware and software. They have complete control over every single aspect of the system. Again, my point is that this is a false claim because Apple hardware is now generic.
Bravo...you're not as clueless it first seems.
I wouldn't bank on that, I'm actually pretty clueless.
Apple hardware has a competitive edge over their competitors because of OSX. (Even you stated that there is very little difference in hardware.) So do you really think that it's fair that Apple should have to give up their competitive edge? It's not as though Apple is using some third party OS and is forcing that third party to not license that OS to their competitors. OSX belongs to Apple. Apple spent 400 million dollars to acquire it's basic framework from NeXT and spent billions of dollars more to develop it to where it is now. OSX is what makes a Mac experience better that their competitors in the computer hardware market. Apple competitors may have the same access to the hardware Apple uses but they don't have access to OSX. And Apple has every right to keep it that way.
You make a good point, and this is where I'm undecided... I'm not sure of the legalities involved.
To my mind, Apple has developed the best operating system known to man. But that doesn't give them the right to tie it up with their own hardware, especially given that their own hardware is no different to every one else's hardware, and that there is no tangible benefit to the end user.
I think my main gripe, is that Apple is attempting to pull the wool over people eyes by claiming that their hardware is in someway different to every one else's hardware – when anybody who knows anything about the components under the hood will tell you that the exact opposite is true. If anything, Apple are guilty of hindering the possibilities of the Mac OS through their choice of components and procrastination with regards to adopting new technologies.
Yeah, I think that's what's pissing me off... it being blatantly lied to.
There are several things that interest me:
1. in theory, there is nothing to stop OS X running on x86 hardware.
2. Apple 'tweaked' OS X so that it would not work on anything other than Apple hardware, via the TP module.
3. do you buy OS X, or do you license it? – I'm not sure if that debate was ever finalised? The last I heard, even if the software developers claimed you were licensing the software the judge said you were in fact purchasing it outright.
4. if you buy OS X you can't run it on anything but Apple hardware.
5. the only reason that OS X runs smoother on Apple hardware compared to generic hardware is driver support – a situation that has been engineered by Apple and the TP situation.
I suspect Psystar will attempt to 'reveal' the lengths that Apple has gone to in order to tie their Mac OS to the Mac hardware, and the fact that Apple hardware doesn't in fact provide a superior platform for the Mac OS.
If the only thing that comes out of this is Apple's claim that they need to control both the hardware and the software is shown to be a lie, then that's a fairly satisfying victory in itself.
The iPhone is an interesting example. The reason the iPhone works so well is because Apple controls the hardware and the software – and Apple are right to make this particular claim. But the day that the iPhone hardware is identical to every other handset out there, is the day that they have to stop claiming that their hardware is better at running the iPhone OS.
It's not as simple as rebottling Mountain Dew. It's Pepsi selling you the syrup (OS X) and saying you can only use it with Pepsi-brand carbonated water (Apple's hardware). The argument is that Apple is leveraging OS X to acquire hardware sales that they didn't "earn" (by the hardware's own merit).
What is really relevant to this particular motion, specifically dismissing Psystar's "APPLE IS A MONOPOLY" countersuit, doesn't really have anything to do with that monopoly.
Psystar is countersuing Apple claiming they are a monopoly and anticompetitive.
This would be like a smaller bottler suing Pepsi and wanting to bottle their own pepsi, claming that Pepsico has a monopoly on Pepsi. A razor company can try and make compatible razors to the Schick handle, but there's no way they're going to sue Schick for having a monopoly on "Schick razors" and win.
Apple points out that Psystar simply is using the wrong definition of "monopoly". And they're right.
And I and many others have pointed out the exact same thing on this and numerous other threads.
Whether any of Psystar's arguments have any merit is a separate issue, but there's no question they're wrong calling Apple a monopoly.
The first issue I have is Apple saying there isn't such a thing as a Mac OS market.
No, you're misunderstanding the terms. Sure, there is a market for Macs. Apple is just saying that when it comes to monopolies, the entire competitive market is defined as "computers" since a consumer is free to buy a PC if they don't like the Mac or Apple for whatever reason.
Second if you end up at the wrong end of an anti trust investigation you can end up doing business with people you don't want to deal with. I'm not really sure why Apple even suggested that this is an issue because one could interpet it as an anti competitive practice.
Apple DIDN'T suggest this. Psystar filed an antitrust/monopoly countersuit and Apple is just asking to have it thrown out.
As to the reselling of the Apple OS CD, Apple doesn't have a leg to stand on there either if recent copy right rulings against the music industry can be applied to Apples installation disk.
Apple's main case isn't reselling, it's that their copyright is being violated because Psystar is selling a *modified* version of OSX, which violates the Derivative Works part of US copyright law.
People really need to separate the idea of apple losing this case based on the facts and the laws from WISHING Apple would lose so you could get whatever it is you're wishing for.
I agree with everyone who is stating that Psystar is in clear violation of the license agreement for OS X. But the point that's being missed here is what the real beef of this, whether that license term "Apple-labeled", is legally enforceable. This is why Psystar filed the countersuit; Apple clearly is involved in product tying: "I make this so if you want to buy it you must buy suchandsuch from me too".
Except that "tying" only applies when the two products are unrelated (like forcing a bookstore to buy an unpopular title or else they don't get to sell the latest Harry Potter). If the two products are related, it's completely legal. And an argument can certainly be made that a computer and OS are related.
If a court were to declare the OSX/Mac situation "tying" it would be a huge precedent for the technology industry and have huge implications for things ranging from game consoles to GPSs to cel phones and beyond. I just don't see that happening.
What's the problem with Psystar making a profit using a product they bought from Apple?
The problem is that Psystar can only do it by installing a modified version of OSX, which is a violation of copyright law.
The blade refills are akin to the hardware, i.e. the unnecessary thing whose purchase is being demanded by Apple even though other 3rd-party blades fit the razor handle perfectly.
Except that it doesn't fit perfectly. You can't install OSX on a PC without a hack.
The first issue I have is Apple saying there isn't such a thing as a Mac OS market.
No, you're misunderstanding the terms. Sure, there is a market for Macs. Apple is just saying that when it comes to monopolies, the entire competitive market is defined as "computers" since a consumer is free to buy a PC if they don't like the Mac or Apple for whatever reason.
Second if you end up at the wrong end of an anti trust investigation you can end up doing business with people you don't want to deal with. I'm not really sure why Apple even suggested that this is an issue because one could interpet it as an anti competitive practice.
Apple DIDN'T suggest this. Psystar filed an antitrust/monopoly countersuit and Apple is just asking to have it thrown out.
As to the reselling of the Apple OS CD, Apple doesn't have a leg to stand on there either if recent copy right rulings against the music industry can be applied to Apples installation disk.
Apple's main case isn't reselling, it's that their copyright is being violated because Psystar is selling a *modified* version of OSX, which violates the Derivative Works part of US copyright law.
People really need to separate the idea of apple losing this case based on the facts and the laws from WISHING Apple would lose so you could get whatever it is you're wishing for.
but Apple cannot forcibly tie OS to their own hardware set just to garnish more sales because that hardware set serves no special technical purpose
Why not?
Crayola can forcibly tie sales of Red crayons to sales of Green crayons by only putting them in the same box.
Microsoft can forcibly tie sales of Word to Excel.
Hasbro can forcibly tie sales of Limited Edition Han Solo action figures to Millennium Falcon toys.
There's nothing illegal about "tying" related products together.
There's nothing illegal about "tying" related products together.
not true the courts have said that printers can't be tied to there own ink and lock out 3rd party ink.
not true the courts have said that printers can't be tied to there own ink and lock out 3rd party ink.
That's not tying.
You can buy the printer with no ink. You can buy the ink with no printer. Tying would be if the ink and printer were only sold together (which I'm sure would be legal). I don't know what the lexmark thing would be described as, but "tying" doesn't fit.
And tying isn't necessarily illegal, only in certain cases.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tying_(commerce)
The article specifically mentions video game consoles as an example of vertical tying, but one that isn't illegal.
The one absolute is that you can not legally define a "market" by siting a brand name. The "market" must be defined in such a way that it doesn't single out any company competing in that "market". Otherwise any laws written pertaining to that "market" will be unjust because it will single out the company mentioned.
The first sentence that you wrote there is correct but ultimately not relevant because it is not generally necessary to refer to a company by name in order to produce a definition of a market that is specific to that company and its products. The exception would be a product that is truly generic and not distingsuishable from competing products in any way. The rest of what you wrote is NOT true and is counter-intuitive and counter-logical, the reason being that if a company totally takes over a particular market, any suitable definition of that market would implicity single out that company's product. This is manifest, and that is why it is preposterous to argue that the definition of a market cannot single out any one company's product. The argument that the definition of a market cannot single out any one company's product is every bit as contrived and silly as all of the arguments that people are putting forth in these Psystar threads. I have no doubt that the courts at one point of time, and possibly still, regarded this as a meaningful criteria by which to judge whether a proposed "market" qualifies as a market to which the anti-trust laws would be applied. But even if the courts thought so, that doesn't make it an absolute, objective definition. The legal definitions that courts deal with are quite often contrived, due to the fact that legislators make laws that are poorly defined and formulated, leaving it for the courts to try and figure out what it really means. There was never, ever any absolute, objective way to define what constitures a "market", and there was never, ever any absolute, objective way to define what constitures a "monopoly". The definitions are necessarily contrived, and all of these arguments and analogies that are appearing here add up to nothing but folly.
Follow me with a little thought experiment: suppose the US auto industry hadn't self-destructed in the 60s and 70s and had survived into the modern era where cars are controlled by numerous computer modules, in particular, the Engine Management System. The automotive world is still divided between Ford Guys and GM Guys, except for a few MoPar perverts. (Please don't flame me; I was a MoPar pervert.)
Suddenly, Ford, at enormous expense in time and money, makes a decisive breakthrough in EMS software. Their cars, equipped with this new software, trounce GM cars in performance, mileage, emissions, etc. They also make this new software available to install on existing Fords (for $129.) Maybe it doesn't even occur to them to call it an "upgrade" because obviously, it would only work on a Ford.
Of course, all engines are basically the same, and this SW could be rewritten slightly to work on anybody's cars. Suppose GM buys a copy of it, modifies it so it works on their engines, and markets it as an option on their new cars: "Now available with Ford Engine Management Software!"
Right now, you can buy third-party software to modify your existing EMS to improve performance, mileage, emissions; whatever you want to maximize. Most companies sell the programming tool to reflash your EEPROMs as part of the kit, but a lot of people already own their own. This is just the equivalent of Installer or Software Update: it means that any software can be installed on any car that it will work on.
Now: is what GM is doing legal? I say no. There's nothing to prevent them from putting in the same time and effort and designing their own EMS to be just as good. Should they be able to appropriate some other company's work, developed as a selling point for their own cars, to sell their own? I say no. Many people on this forum would apparently say yes. The question is, how will a court decide?
Suppose the difference was really decisive: GM cars were constantly stalling, belching black smoke, and every day there was something new wrong with them, while Fords worked perfectly. (That's the reverse of my experience back in the day, but this is a thought experiment!) Would the atrocious mileage and emissions of GM cars be such a point of public policy that a judge might require Ford to license their EMS? Who knows?
The only aspect of the computer OS situation that might rise to the level of public policy, is of course security. With 500,000 Windows viruses and no OS X viruses (one trojan, supposedly,) the reasonable thing to do would be to enjoin Microsoft against selling Windows until they can make it secure enough to not constitute a hazard to the computer-using community. On the other hand, MS has had 20 years to do so, and is manifestly incapable of it. A court might rule that Apple should be forced to license their OS to prevent a security disaster worse than the many that have already afflicted the Windows-using world. Not likely, but it's the only way I can see the law entering into the matter and forcing one company to share their proprietary work with everyone else.
Given that Apple is trying to grow its marketshare, it has to embrace industry standard components. I don't think any of us want to go back to the days where we had to pay through the nose for proprietary kit. So there is a limit to how much better Apple can differentiate their hardware. But where Apple can make its hardware better, is through intelligent, beautiful, product design.
What I mean, and maybe didn't make it clear, is that when I refer to "Apple hardware", I'm mean the computer as a whole. Not the individual parts that makes it up. In this case Apple hardware (whole computer) is better than a Dell, HP or Acer because it has OSX. The whole is greater than the sum of it's parts.
But Apple can't claim that Mac OS runs better on Apple hardware than on generic kit, because as I've said already, Apple hardware is generic. They could claim that it's the perfect complement, but that's an entirely different claim.
Yes they can, when OSX (out of the box) only runs on Apple hardware (whole computer). And when Apple OSX is designed to run best on a Mac. Can OSX be made to run as smoothly on other companies hardware (whole computer) as it does on a Mac. Yes. But that's not the issue. Apple doesn't have to put any effort or invest any money into making OSX run on their competitors hardware (whole computer).
A classic example is iTunes software only works with an iPod. Can they make Apple write iTunes so that it works with other MP3 players?
I guess it comes down to whether you view Mac OS on Apple hardware as one thing, or two distinct things. I personally believe it's two separate things, and that Apple is in the business of selling well designed, high-margin, low performance generic hardware on the coat tails of an outstanding OS.
It's the exact same business model as Dell, HP and Acer. At the same price point of a Mac, a Dell or HP computer will also be well designed, high margined, uses the same "low performance generic hardware" and to many, on the coat tails of an outstanding OS (XP
Actually, they do claim that their OS runs better on their hardware. It's their biggest sales pitch (and has been for years) for purchasing a Mac. They rave about the interplay of hardware and software, and they claim the resulting experience is so super smooth because they control both the hardware and software. They have complete control over every single aspect of the system. Again, my point is that this is a false claim because Apple hardware is now generic.
Then how do you explain that many Vista users claims that Vista also runs better on a Mac than computers from other companies, using the same generic hardware.
I wouldn't bank on that, I'm actually pretty clueless.
Well acceptance is the first step to solving the problem.
You make a good point, and this is where I'm undecided... I'm not sure of the legalities involved.
To my mind, Apple has developed the best operating system known to man. But that doesn't give them the right to tie it up with their own hardware, especially given that their own hardware is no different to every one else's hardware, and that there is no tangible benefit to the end user.
And would Apple have developed the "best operating system know to Man" if they knew they couldn't tie it to their own hardware? What incentive will Apple have to continue to develop upon OSX if they're forced to share it with their competitors? What benefit is it to Man if OSX becomes like Vista? Apple chooses not to compete with Microsoft in the computer operating system market. Instead, they want to compete with Dell, HP, Acer and the likes in the computer hardware (whole computers) market. Therefore they have every right to keep their IP to themselves in order to make their hardware (whole computer) a better product than their competitors.
I think my main gripe, is that Apple is attempting to pull the wool over people eyes by claiming that their hardware is in someway different to every one else's hardware ? when anybody who knows anything about the components under the hood will tell you that the exact opposite is true. If anything, Apple are guilty of hindering the possibilities of the Mac OS through their choice of components and procrastination with regards to adopting new technologies.
Yeah, I think that's what's pissing me off... it being blatantly lied to.
Your're way off off base here. And I don't have the time to list all the "new technology" that were first found on a Mac. If anything Apple has always been the leader in adopting "new technology". It's getting rid of the old technology too soon that irks many Mac users.
There are several things that interest me:
1. in theory, there is nothing to stop OS X running on x86 hardware.
Apple is stopping OSX from running on any x86 hardware. OSX is Apple IP and they can use it anyway they see fit.
2. Apple 'tweaked' OS X so that it would not work on anything other than Apple hardware, via the TP module.
Not quite right. OSX will load on a Mac with a G4 or G5 PPC chip. There's no TP module in those Macs.
3. do you buy OS X, or do you license it? ? I'm not sure if that debate was ever finalised? The last I heard, even if the software developers claimed you were licensing the software the judge said you were in fact purchasing it outright.
It doesn't matter either way you look at it. The one thing for sure is that you can not alter it in order to profit from it. That's why most hackers do not sell the hacks they write. They can hack it and use it on their own machine and make a claim that's it a "hobby" of theirs. So long as they paid for an original copy. And Apple doesn't go after all of these people. But hackers would cross the line to breaking the law if they tried to market their hack. They are in a gray area when they publish (and make the hack available for free) their hacks or encourage others to do it
4. if you buy OS X you can't run it on anything but Apple hardware.
Every so often you do get it.
5. the only reason that OS X runs smoother on Apple hardware compared to generic hardware is driver support ? a situation that has been engineered by Apple and the TP situation.
And it also run smoother on a Mac is because OSX doesn't have to run any other computer hardware (whole computers) besides a Mac. It's not bloated down with all the necessary codes it would take to make it run (out of the box) on all the other generic computers out there. Would you be happy if OSX ran like Vista but it will also run on thousands of computers that you will never own?
.
I suspect Psystar will attempt to 'reveal' the lengths that Apple has gone to in order to tie their Mac OS to the Mac hardware, and the fact that Apple hardware doesn't in fact provide a superior platform for the Mac OS.
If the only thing that comes out of this is Apple's claim that they need to control both the hardware and the software is shown to be a lie, then that's a fairly satisfying victory in itself.
And what does a "superior platform" have to do with Apple rights to do as they want with their IP. Apple doesn't have to show anybody why they "need" to control the hardware and software. They can just do it. And the only justification they need to continue to do so is the general perspection that a Mac running OSX is superior to any other computer running Windows. They don't need to prove that they can make OSX run better on a Dell or HP. It doesn't matter. OSX is Apple's IP. Just because you can take OSX and make it run better on your generic computer doesn't mean that Apple has to. And Apple doesn't have to license out their IP so that you can profit from it.
Once again, "tying" is not always illegal. And Apple is not "tying" (in the illegal sense) OSX to their hardware. You can buy OSX with out having to buy a Mac. No one forces you to buy a Mac in order to buy OSX.
Game consoles works the same way. PlayStation games are "tied" to PlayStations consoles. And there is a region code on PlayStation games. I can not play a region 3 game on a region 1 console. But I can install an "illegal" chip in a region 1 console that will allow it to play games from any other any regions. This shows that there is nothing inherently stopping a region 3 game from playing on a region 1 console. Except what Sony did to their games and consoles so that it won't do so easily. Sony wants to control the software (game) and hardware (game console). You can show a judge what great lengths Sony went to to prevent a region 3 game from playing on their region 1 console till you're blue in the face. It won't do any good because in the end it's Sony's IP and they can do as the wish. And so far it's been like this since the first PlayStation and still exist today in game consoles and DVD players (both home and computer).
Anothe example. There are many foreign region 3 coded movies that don't exist in region 1. The region code "ties" me to a region 3 (or a no region) player. Can I take a region 3 movie and rip a copy without the region code (with the software in my Mac) so that I can play it on my Sony region 1 DVD player? It's a gray area, but so long as I own the original I'll be safe from being sought after. Now, can I claim that there is no reason why this movie can't be played on a region 1 DVD player and rip 1000's of copies to sell to other people that might want to play this movie on a "superior" Sony region 1 player?
The iPhone is an interesting example. The reason the iPhone works so well is because Apple controls the hardware and the software ? and Apple are right to make this particular claim. But the day that the iPhone hardware is identical to every other handset out there, is the day that they have to stop claiming that their hardware is better at running the iPhone OS.
Don't hold your breathe. Apple owns over 200 patents on the hardware (and software) that makes up an iPhone. And that's just this generation. We have no idea what new technology Apple is planning for their hardware and is already some how incorporated into OSX.
But even if they can no longer make that claim. Apple still don't have to release OSX to other cell phone makers.