Why is the definition of monopoly so hard to understand? Every site i go there is always someone who thinks Apple has a monopoly on OSX.
Apple does not have a monopoly on OSX.
Amiga, Inc does not have a monopoly on AmigaOS
Sun does not have a monopoly on Solaris OS
Be Inc does not have a monopoly on BeOS.
Microsoft does not have a monopoly on Windows.
MS doesn't have to license Windows to anyone if they don't want to.
Apple does not have to license OSX to anyone. Hell, Apple can license Windows for its hardeware if it wanted to.
Lenovo, Dell, Toshiba, Sony can all develop their own OS if they want to put in the resources and use it with their own brand of hardware. Amiga, Sun, sell or sold their own software on their hardware just like apple.
Apple computers are part of the personal desktop computer industry. If you dont like its product you choose a computer from other manufacturers. But MS's OS dominates this industry, which Apple choose not install on its computers.
(p.s. the Dew and BMW analogy that i read in other threads just confuses the issue more)
Wouldn't this amount to negotiating with blackmailers? I hope Apple destroys Psystar. With their line of argumentation, the micro OS's embedded in coffeemakers would also violate anti-trust laws.
Hmmm. Suppose I buy Coffeemaker A and Coffeemaker B and notice that they both use the same embedded processor. I prefer the software features of Coffeemaker A but I prefer the hardware features of Coffeemaker B. So, I pull the EEPROM out of Coffeemaker A and plug it into Coffeemaker B and -- surprise -- it works and I have my dream coffeemaker. Do either coffeemaker company have a legal case against me? I don't think so.
Now suppose Coffeemaker A Inc. sells EEPROMs with updated software every two years or so for $19. My friend likes my custom coffeemaker, so he buys a $19 EEPROM from Coffeemaker A Inc. and a whole coffeemaker from Coffeemaker B Inc. and installs the EEPROM in the unintended machine. Again, against all odds, it works and my friend is happy with his custom coffeemaker. Does either company have a case against him? I don't think so.
Finally, let's suppose that Coffeemaker B, Inc. notices that lots of people are putting Coffeemaker A EEPROMs in their hardware and decide to sell and market "Coffeemaker A compatible" coffeemakers with instructions to buy an EEPROM from Coffeemaker A Inc. and install it. Does Coffeemaker A Inc. have a case against Coffeemaker B Inc.? Maybe, but I don't see it.
Absolute worst-case scenario should Psystar win is that Apple will just discontinue the option to purchase OSX CD's at a retail level. Hackers and whiners would be forever stuck at 10.5 since the only option to get to 10.6 and above is to have an actual Apple computer with some method to authenticate the machine to qualify for an OSX upgrade. Either download OSX upgrades and have it validate the machine or purchase it at an Apple store only with an original purchase receipt and somehow encrypt the binaries to unlock only for that specific serial#.
Case closed. A year from now, this will all be a memory and hopefully, the whiners will wilt away.
People that support Psystar or feel entitled to an "Open" OSX system are either clueless, ignorant, selfish or all of the above. This is all about a company's right to protect its IP property. Any other company would do the exact same thing but for some reason, the whiners think Apple should be excluded from that.
Call me clueless, but while you do have a right to protect your IP, when you release it you are subject to US and International Copyright Laws (such as Fair Use). You may so at your own desire never release a product and not be subject to these rules. The EULA is way more than Copyright and it still hasn't been tested in a court of law weither Apple can tell you what hardware you can put your copy of the IP in. When I buy a song, I can play it in any player and even copy to different formats (such as MP3) in certain countries by Fair Use. The IP holder really has jack shit to say about this except not selling the product containing their IP.
In addition this has more to do about a Apple Monopoly then IP. If I buy an Apple computer and love OS X and buy $2000 of software that runs on OS X, i'm pretty much at this point from a legal standpoint required to continue to buy Apple Hardware if I want to use my $2000 software (unless all those licenses can be transfered to Windows or Linux, provided such versions even exist) or I was unwilling to not use OS X. If I didn't like the features (such as no Firewire in a 13in laptop) I would still have to buy Apple to use my software and OS X. This is a quasi monopoly unlike Windows or Linux where I can change Hardware and still keep my licensed copy of Linux or Windows and associates software I have gathered over the years.
Third, I find it odd that so many of you have so little faith in Apple Hardware. Maybe its because you are cheapos and would go buy the cheapest thing that ran OS X. Apple Hardware is very well designed. I for example like how the fans can't be blocked on my White Macbook like they can on most pcs (too close to a Wall, or against a pillow while you 'snuggle' on the couch).
Fourth. Windows Vista does not cost $600. You can't compare the price to Leopard as Leopard is an upgrade from say Tiger. Vista upgrade is $129 from Home Premium and $199 for Ultimate. Retail is for when you can't upgrade or build a new computer. But even then you can get OEM for cheap if wish (which is tied to a board). The fact of the matter is that most Windows sales are OEM though which gives Microsoft less money than Retail and more towards the Upgrade pricing. So Snow Leopard could introduce an Upgrade and a Retail version which can check quite easily if that computer is an Apple or not...
While Apple does have everyright to its IP, it has certain obligations and laws to consider when it places those on the market. IP laws were NEVER designed to withhold IP from the masses but rather so that the creator could profit from their ideas and talent. Thus I believe and would hope a court would find that Apple is wrong in its current interpretation of Law. Proof is that eventually IP retires from Copyright... it has always been a way to let us all enjoy art, music and now movies, software and other IP.
The problem is APPLE KNOWS that there is a hackintosh community, they don't really care cause only hobbyist does this, what Psycrap is doing is COMMERCIALIZING a non-apple branded PC bundled with OS X, besides again, the OSX86 is NOT happy with what Psycrap is doing, they use the makers code without paying loyalties or even paying them. So Psycrap here is wrong from both sides.
Wouldn't this amount to negotiating with blackmailers? I hope Apple destroys Psystar. With their line of argumentation, the micro OS's embedded in coffeemakers would also violate anti-trust laws. It's a feeble argument and Psystar must be blown out of the water.
Why must they be blown out of the water? And how is Psystar a blackmailer?
Apple should just super encrypt its boot up process in hardware with the proper Mac firmware key that can be issued at the time of purchase of a real Mac. That way no Mac OSX could work on a non-licensed Mac. All future paid upgrade purchases could be bought and verified with an original Mac purchase through Apple's software update program from a database of hardware sales. No personal ownership info need be supplied, particularly in the used Mac market, because if you have the hardware, ownership is implied and the firmware key would be already in the database from the original purchase.
Hmmm. Suppose I buy Coffeemaker A and Coffeemaker B and notice that they both use the same embedded processor. I prefer the software features of Coffeemaker A but I prefer the hardware features of Coffeemaker B. So, I pull the EEPROM out of Coffeemaker A and plug it into Coffeemaker B and -- surprise -- it works and I have my dream coffeemaker. Do either coffeemaker company have a legal case against me? I don't think so.
Now suppose Coffeemaker A Inc. sells EEPROMs with updated software every two years or so for $19. My friend likes my custom coffeemaker, so he buys a $19 EEPROM from Coffeemaker A Inc. and a whole coffeemaker from Coffeemaker B Inc. and installs the EEPROM in the unintended machine. Again, against all odds, it works and my friend is happy with his custom coffeemaker. Does either company have a case against him? I don't think so.
Finally, let's suppose that Coffeemaker B, Inc. notices that lots of people are putting Coffeemaker A EEPROMs in their hardware and decide to sell and market "Coffeemaker A compatible" coffeemakers with instructions to buy an EEPROM from Coffeemaker A Inc. and install it. Does Coffeemaker A Inc. have a case against Coffeemaker B Inc.? Maybe, but I don't see it.
If you try to turn a profit by selling Coffeemaker's A's copyrighted and patented software in another coffeemaker without getting explicit permission you are hurting Coffeemaker A's business model and if people are calling Coffeemaler A if they have issues because the LED states that it's a Coffeemaker A then you are soiling their brand as well. All that is easily considered stealing, even if you bought the Coffeemaker A firmware from Coffeemaker A the did not give you license to resell their software.
Popular fiction first come out as hardcover books. I think it takes about at year before the paperbacks are usually released. I can't reprint the words of a new hardcover book in a cheaper paper binding to turn a profit because I think the publishing company is charging me a "hardcover tax".
And maybe what Apple is concerned over, is not NOW but what about after Snow Leopard comes out?
By getting this put off for sometime, Apple gets to announce Snow Leopard and anything else New and ground breaking, while keeping these folks at bay.
Then with all of this extra time, Apple gets to put all of it's ducks in a row, and do what's right, best and legal in the end.
This might include:
- Change Snow Leopards coding
- Add coding to new Mac's / Software that makes copying hard, ALMOST impossible or Illegal?
- Change pricing in some way, as to make it so folks won't want to offer a "Cheap" option, because as a "Cheap" option, they won't make enough money to make it worth it?
- Just put this nuisance Law-suit away for awhie and deal with the real issues at hand i.e., New Computers, iPhones, iPods, Laptops, iTV, ipad, iPDA or what ever in hell they are going to come out with soon … oh, and running a company like Apple without dealing with this kind of bulshit … at least not right now.
Steve has a lot on his mind, with Apple's growth and his health, the last thing he likely wants to deal with is this. Not to mention the BIG news coming in January.
I get see the relation. Dell has nothing to do with MS' Windows licensing. If MS sells software, if it get a sale on Macs then it's a sale, and it's a full price, not an OEM version, in many cases. MS did limit Vista installs in virtualized mode to Business or Ultimate or something, but I think they even lifted that.
What would that accomplish? Apple would be forced to sell their OS X versions at the same price as WindowsVista Ultime install discs for around $600? How does that help Mac users, who have been getting it for $129 because they've already bought a Mac.
How does it help Apple, who makes it's money from HW? You vision to force Apple to support any and all HW options which is a major complexity for Windows so we'll see new OS X features and more legacy code, and while Apple will increase their marketshare they won't increase their profit from all the additional R&D, software support, and the loss of profit per sale since Windows has to sell about 10(?) OEM versions of Windows to get the same profit that Apple gets from one sale of a Mac? Not to mention it completely ruins the Apple's Mac brand.
What Mac does that compare to? Plus you have mentioned some basic specs without considering all the things that make a Mac a Mac. like build quality, attention to detail, better optimized drivers, 1 year support of any parts all in a single, simple package. I use OSx86 too, for fun, and it's not ideal for any main use machine.
With the Bootcamp question the other poster posited, it has nothing to do with Microsoft licensing. He asked what keeps Dell from making a Bootcamp like application. The answer is - nothing. All Bootcamp is, is a utility to reboot the system into another operating system. It also happens to help the user by initially re-partitioning the hard drive to be able to install the other O/S. Anyone can do this. The trick to run Mac OS X is implementing a legal EFI emulator (or just include the chip on the mainboard in the first place). The practice of Apple using software to "brick" a system based on the hardware or software it is using should be deemed illegal and unethical. We're supposed to be a free country here and our freedom to innovate and freedom to experiment should be protected.
I can't believe you'd use the RIAA argument to justify Apple having to compete on selling an O/S. If everyone truly believes OS X is a better operating system, then it should be able to hold its own in the free market.
Also, once again you use the phantom and untrue argument of forcing Apple to have to support other hardware vendor's equipment. Complete FUD. Show me the department at Microsoft that makes other vendor's software drivers. You can't, because there is none. The only thing Microsoft does is provide developer assistance on how to hook to their system APIs, just like Apple does now through the Apple Developer community. The computer vendors and hardware accessory market are on their own to provide drivers. You can see this plainly by visiting any of their support sites. If they don't make a driver, then their stuff won't work with Mac OS X, plain and simple.
You want to support Apple, that's fine, but find a better, truthful argument, and stop spreading FUD. I like Apple and enjoy my Apple Macbook, but I'm against their trying to manipulate the market, and I think we're all seeing that they know their vendor lock-in policies are about to blow up in their face. Apple has the money to take this to trial and put Psystar out of business, but they know that their case is weak and might get ruled against. That's why they?re going with arbitration - non-binding arbitration at that.
I said way back when Psystar started taking orders that this whole thing will might end with Apple paying Psystar to go away. This development makes me believe that may be even more likely now. If Apple felt they could crush Psystar as easily as some believe, I don't think they would do what essentially amounts to backing down.
Unless Apple's lawyers were instructed to go as easily as possible on this guy? Don't want to be seen as the bad guy, optics is everything, etc, etc???
I think people should have the right to use software as they please. If someone pays their money then they should be able to install OS X on any machine they wish - Apple hardware or not. If a company wants to help individuals make that easier, so much the better.
Should Apple have any legal obligation to provide these people with support? Certainly not. They shouldn't be forced to provide drivers for other hardware or change their product to accommodate these people.
I said way back when Psystar started taking orders that this whole thing will might end with Apple paying Psystar to go away. This development makes me believe that may be even more likely now. If Apple felt they could crush Psystar as easily as some believe, I don't think they would do what essentially amounts to backing down.
Unless Apple's lawyers were instructed to go as easily as possible on this guy? Don't want to be seen as the bad guy, optics is everything, etc, etc???
How does your argument help out out Apple as a company in the future. If Psystar can get paid off by Apple after illegally selling their stolen IP, then what is to stop any one of us from starting their own Psystar? What has been stopped the big PC vendors from selling Mac OS X on their systems? They certainly have asked and they certainly want to get out from under MS' stronghold. Not showing your hand isn't the same as not as backing down.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL
I think people should have the right to use software as they please. If someone pays their money then they should be able to install OS X on any machine they wish - Apple hardware or not. If a company wants to help individuals make that easier, so much the better.
Should Apple have any legal obligation to provide these people with support? Certainly not. They shouldn't be forced to provide drivers for other hardware or change their product to accommodate these people.
And despite what trboyden wants to believe, all that is possible with the OSx86 Project.
Hmmm. Suppose I buy Coffeemaker A and Coffeemaker B and notice that they both use the same embedded processor. I prefer the software features of Coffeemaker A but I prefer the hardware features of Coffeemaker B. So, I pull the EEPROM out of Coffeemaker A and plug it into Coffeemaker B and -- surprise -- it works and I have my dream coffeemaker. Do either coffeemaker company have a legal case against me? I don't think so.
Now suppose Coffeemaker A Inc. sells EEPROMs with updated software every two years or so for $19. My friend likes my custom coffeemaker, so he buys a $19 EEPROM from Coffeemaker A Inc. and a whole coffeemaker from Coffeemaker B Inc. and installs the EEPROM in the unintended machine. Again, against all odds, it works and my friend is happy with his custom coffeemaker. Does either company have a case against him? I don't think so.
Finally, let's suppose that Coffeemaker B, Inc. notices that lots of people are putting Coffeemaker A EEPROMs in their hardware and decide to sell and market "Coffeemaker A compatible" coffeemakers with instructions to buy an EEPROM from Coffeemaker A Inc. and install it. Does Coffeemaker A Inc. have a case against Coffeemaker B Inc.? Maybe, but I don't see it.
Love your argument, its the first one that makes sense.
This case is all about vendor lock-in. In this country you could even patent the creation of that custom coffee maker because you invented an "improved" product. Now whether its actually improved as in being better is not the issue, improved in this case means revised. Could company "A" stop selling the EEPROM and totally screw you, absolutely, but that is the free market as they hurt themselves in doing so. What they can't do is not sell to you because you are a potential competitor. This is what the Psystar case is about. Anti-competitive practices are illegal. Period. Doesn't matter what your EULA or License terms say. If you sell something to the public, anyone can take that and incorporate it into a new product. It's not like Psystar is not paying for the operating system, which would be illegal, they are paying full retail value - they don't even get a reseller discount. Apple's choices are don't sell OS X to the public, or sell it at a price that would make it not feasible for use in creating a Mac-compatible system.
As long as they are calling it a Mac-compatible system and not a Mac, Psystar is not doing anything wrong. Just because you don't like their crappy implementation, doesn't mean they're doing anything illegal. After-all, this is how the PC market was invented by creating IBM-compatible PCs.
How does your argument help out out Apple as a company in the future. If Psystar can get paid off by Apple after illegally selling their stolen IP, then what is to stop any one of us from starting their own Psystar? What has been stopped the big PC vendors from selling Mac OS X on their systems? They certainly have asked and they certainly want to get out from under MS' stronghold. Not showing your hand isn't the same as not as backing down.
Again this is a free market, if Apple can't compete fairly in a free market, they don't deserve to exist in the future. Psystar has not been convicted of selling stolen IP (which they haven't, they simply install a retail copy of OS X on standard Intel based hardware), so stating it as if it were a fact that they supposedly stole Apple's IP is just more FUD.
What has stopped the big PC vendors? One, risk - they want to see how this case works out. Two, they'd have to come up with a system that is user-friendly to avoid support nightmares. Psystar's systems suck, but a certain segment will still buy them because they want it anyways and Psystar can get away with it because they are small. Big PC vendors are all about the mainstream public, which wouldn't put up with the issues of the OSx86 project.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
And despite what trboyden wants to believe, all that is possible with the OSx86 Project.
And your point is what? Psystar's systems work for their clients who are too lazy to build their own OSx86 systems. Anyone could go out and build a NAS box, but people still buy an expensive EMC NAS system for the support and the so-call value added features they supposedly supply (features commonly available for free with the FreeNAS project).
...they simply install a retail copy of OS X on standard Intel based hardware), so stating it as if it were a fact that they supposedly stole Apple's IP is just more FUD...
No, they don't. They 'sell' you a retail version of OS X, but they 'install' a hacked copy of OS X that can only be had by illegally downloading and which has core aspects of the OS altered to run on non-Mac PCs. That 'sale' of OS X to you is their short-sided attempt to pull a fast on Apple byt saying that they technically offered a legal version of the software with the hacked software they installed.
Where did you get the idea that they simply inserted a fresh OS X disc and added a few drivers to make it work? The only non-Mac PC solution that doesn't violate Apple's IP or copyright is EFiX, but MoBo support is still in its infancy.
I think people should have the right to use software as they please. If someone pays their money then they should be able to install OS X on any machine they wish - Apple hardware or not. If a company wants to help individuals make that easier, so much the better.
Should Apple have any legal obligation to provide these people with support? Certainly not. They shouldn't be forced to provide drivers for other hardware or change their product to accommodate these people.
I don't think Apple cared too much about what Psystar was doing until they started to crack and distribute their updates. Psystar had no legal right to do that even if the company was just helping to make it easier for its customer to update their systems.
However, the fact is that people don't have the right to do anything they want with software they have purchased a license to use. Psystar had no OEM distribution license nor a reseller authorization from Apple retail. They crossed the line plain and simple. The fact that you think it right don't make it right or legal.
Comments
Apple does not have a monopoly on OSX.
Amiga, Inc does not have a monopoly on AmigaOS
Sun does not have a monopoly on Solaris OS
Be Inc does not have a monopoly on BeOS.
Microsoft does not have a monopoly on Windows.
MS doesn't have to license Windows to anyone if they don't want to.
Apple does not have to license OSX to anyone. Hell, Apple can license Windows for its hardeware if it wanted to.
Lenovo, Dell, Toshiba, Sony can all develop their own OS if they want to put in the resources and use it with their own brand of hardware. Amiga, Sun, sell or sold their own software on their hardware just like apple.
Apple computers are part of the personal desktop computer industry. If you dont like its product you choose a computer from other manufacturers. But MS's OS dominates this industry, which Apple choose not install on its computers.
(p.s. the Dew and BMW analogy that i read in other threads just confuses the issue more)
Wouldn't this amount to negotiating with blackmailers? I hope Apple destroys Psystar. With their line of argumentation, the micro OS's embedded in coffeemakers would also violate anti-trust laws.
Hmmm. Suppose I buy Coffeemaker A and Coffeemaker B and notice that they both use the same embedded processor. I prefer the software features of Coffeemaker A but I prefer the hardware features of Coffeemaker B. So, I pull the EEPROM out of Coffeemaker A and plug it into Coffeemaker B and -- surprise -- it works and I have my dream coffeemaker. Do either coffeemaker company have a legal case against me? I don't think so.
Now suppose Coffeemaker A Inc. sells EEPROMs with updated software every two years or so for $19. My friend likes my custom coffeemaker, so he buys a $19 EEPROM from Coffeemaker A Inc. and a whole coffeemaker from Coffeemaker B Inc. and installs the EEPROM in the unintended machine. Again, against all odds, it works and my friend is happy with his custom coffeemaker. Does either company have a case against him? I don't think so.
Finally, let's suppose that Coffeemaker B, Inc. notices that lots of people are putting Coffeemaker A EEPROMs in their hardware and decide to sell and market "Coffeemaker A compatible" coffeemakers with instructions to buy an EEPROM from Coffeemaker A Inc. and install it. Does Coffeemaker A Inc. have a case against Coffeemaker B Inc.? Maybe, but I don't see it.
Absolute worst-case scenario should Psystar win is that Apple will just discontinue the option to purchase OSX CD's at a retail level. Hackers and whiners would be forever stuck at 10.5 since the only option to get to 10.6 and above is to have an actual Apple computer with some method to authenticate the machine to qualify for an OSX upgrade. Either download OSX upgrades and have it validate the machine or purchase it at an Apple store only with an original purchase receipt and somehow encrypt the binaries to unlock only for that specific serial#.
Case closed. A year from now, this will all be a memory and hopefully, the whiners will wilt away.
People that support Psystar or feel entitled to an "Open" OSX system are either clueless, ignorant, selfish or all of the above. This is all about a company's right to protect its IP property. Any other company would do the exact same thing but for some reason, the whiners think Apple should be excluded from that.
Call me clueless, but while you do have a right to protect your IP, when you release it you are subject to US and International Copyright Laws (such as Fair Use). You may so at your own desire never release a product and not be subject to these rules. The EULA is way more than Copyright and it still hasn't been tested in a court of law weither Apple can tell you what hardware you can put your copy of the IP in. When I buy a song, I can play it in any player and even copy to different formats (such as MP3) in certain countries by Fair Use. The IP holder really has jack shit to say about this except not selling the product containing their IP.
In addition this has more to do about a Apple Monopoly then IP. If I buy an Apple computer and love OS X and buy $2000 of software that runs on OS X, i'm pretty much at this point from a legal standpoint required to continue to buy Apple Hardware if I want to use my $2000 software (unless all those licenses can be transfered to Windows or Linux, provided such versions even exist) or I was unwilling to not use OS X. If I didn't like the features (such as no Firewire in a 13in laptop) I would still have to buy Apple to use my software and OS X. This is a quasi monopoly unlike Windows or Linux where I can change Hardware and still keep my licensed copy of Linux or Windows and associates software I have gathered over the years.
Third, I find it odd that so many of you have so little faith in Apple Hardware. Maybe its because you are cheapos and would go buy the cheapest thing that ran OS X. Apple Hardware is very well designed. I for example like how the fans can't be blocked on my White Macbook like they can on most pcs (too close to a Wall, or against a pillow while you 'snuggle' on the couch).
Fourth. Windows Vista does not cost $600. You can't compare the price to Leopard as Leopard is an upgrade from say Tiger. Vista upgrade is $129 from Home Premium and $199 for Ultimate. Retail is for when you can't upgrade or build a new computer. But even then you can get OEM for cheap if wish (which is tied to a board). The fact of the matter is that most Windows sales are OEM though which gives Microsoft less money than Retail and more towards the Upgrade pricing. So Snow Leopard could introduce an Upgrade and a Retail version which can check quite easily if that computer is an Apple or not...
While Apple does have everyright to its IP, it has certain obligations and laws to consider when it places those on the market. IP laws were NEVER designed to withhold IP from the masses but rather so that the creator could profit from their ideas and talent. Thus I believe and would hope a court would find that Apple is wrong in its current interpretation of Law. Proof is that eventually IP retires from Copyright... it has always been a way to let us all enjoy art, music and now movies, software and other IP.
OQO model e2
http://www.oqo.com
Or something similar or better from Apple, like this:
Next Apple moves will be Books and Games?
http://spidouz.wordpress.com/2008/09...ooks-and-games
FOR THE ULTIMATE HANDHELD POCKET MAC. Because even the MacBook Air is too heavy and large for us.
Wouldn't this amount to negotiating with blackmailers? I hope Apple destroys Psystar. With their line of argumentation, the micro OS's embedded in coffeemakers would also violate anti-trust laws. It's a feeble argument and Psystar must be blown out of the water.
Why must they be blown out of the water? And how is Psystar a blackmailer?
The fix is simple BUT everyone would cry fowl
Only the ones who don't know what words mean.
Why must they be blown out of the water? And how is Psystar a blackmailer?
Dude!!1! Because Apple is totally awesome!!
Only the ones who don't know what words mean.
Who says you're not a bird of prey? At any rate, people would cry foul!
Hmmm. Suppose I buy Coffeemaker A and Coffeemaker B and notice that they both use the same embedded processor. I prefer the software features of Coffeemaker A but I prefer the hardware features of Coffeemaker B. So, I pull the EEPROM out of Coffeemaker A and plug it into Coffeemaker B and -- surprise -- it works and I have my dream coffeemaker. Do either coffeemaker company have a legal case against me? I don't think so.
Now suppose Coffeemaker A Inc. sells EEPROMs with updated software every two years or so for $19. My friend likes my custom coffeemaker, so he buys a $19 EEPROM from Coffeemaker A Inc. and a whole coffeemaker from Coffeemaker B Inc. and installs the EEPROM in the unintended machine. Again, against all odds, it works and my friend is happy with his custom coffeemaker. Does either company have a case against him? I don't think so.
Finally, let's suppose that Coffeemaker B, Inc. notices that lots of people are putting Coffeemaker A EEPROMs in their hardware and decide to sell and market "Coffeemaker A compatible" coffeemakers with instructions to buy an EEPROM from Coffeemaker A Inc. and install it. Does Coffeemaker A Inc. have a case against Coffeemaker B Inc.? Maybe, but I don't see it.
If you try to turn a profit by selling Coffeemaker's A's copyrighted and patented software in another coffeemaker without getting explicit permission you are hurting Coffeemaker A's business model and if people are calling Coffeemaler A if they have issues because the LED states that it's a Coffeemaker A then you are soiling their brand as well. All that is easily considered stealing, even if you bought the Coffeemaker A firmware from Coffeemaker A the did not give you license to resell their software.
Popular fiction first come out as hardcover books. I think it takes about at year before the paperbacks are usually released. I can't reprint the words of a new hardcover book in a cheaper paper binding to turn a profit because I think the publishing company is charging me a "hardcover tax".
By getting this put off for sometime, Apple gets to announce Snow Leopard and anything else New and ground breaking, while keeping these folks at bay.
Then with all of this extra time, Apple gets to put all of it's ducks in a row, and do what's right, best and legal in the end.
This might include:
- Change Snow Leopards coding
- Add coding to new Mac's / Software that makes copying hard, ALMOST impossible or Illegal?
- Change pricing in some way, as to make it so folks won't want to offer a "Cheap" option, because as a "Cheap" option, they won't make enough money to make it worth it?
- Just put this nuisance Law-suit away for awhie and deal with the real issues at hand i.e., New Computers, iPhones, iPods, Laptops, iTV, ipad, iPDA or what ever in hell they are going to come out with soon … oh, and running a company like Apple without dealing with this kind of bulshit … at least not right now.
Steve has a lot on his mind, with Apple's growth and his health, the last thing he likely wants to deal with is this. Not to mention the BIG news coming in January.
IMO
Skip
I get see the relation. Dell has nothing to do with MS' Windows licensing. If MS sells software, if it get a sale on Macs then it's a sale, and it's a full price, not an OEM version, in many cases. MS did limit Vista installs in virtualized mode to Business or Ultimate or something, but I think they even lifted that.
What would that accomplish? Apple would be forced to sell their OS X versions at the same price as WindowsVista Ultime install discs for around $600? How does that help Mac users, who have been getting it for $129 because they've already bought a Mac.
How does it help Apple, who makes it's money from HW? You vision to force Apple to support any and all HW options which is a major complexity for Windows so we'll see new OS X features and more legacy code, and while Apple will increase their marketshare they won't increase their profit from all the additional R&D, software support, and the loss of profit per sale since Windows has to sell about 10(?) OEM versions of Windows to get the same profit that Apple gets from one sale of a Mac? Not to mention it completely ruins the Apple's Mac brand.
What Mac does that compare to? Plus you have mentioned some basic specs without considering all the things that make a Mac a Mac. like build quality, attention to detail, better optimized drivers, 1 year support of any parts all in a single, simple package. I use OSx86 too, for fun, and it's not ideal for any main use machine.
With the Bootcamp question the other poster posited, it has nothing to do with Microsoft licensing. He asked what keeps Dell from making a Bootcamp like application. The answer is - nothing. All Bootcamp is, is a utility to reboot the system into another operating system. It also happens to help the user by initially re-partitioning the hard drive to be able to install the other O/S. Anyone can do this. The trick to run Mac OS X is implementing a legal EFI emulator (or just include the chip on the mainboard in the first place). The practice of Apple using software to "brick" a system based on the hardware or software it is using should be deemed illegal and unethical. We're supposed to be a free country here and our freedom to innovate and freedom to experiment should be protected.
I can't believe you'd use the RIAA argument to justify Apple having to compete on selling an O/S. If everyone truly believes OS X is a better operating system, then it should be able to hold its own in the free market.
Also, once again you use the phantom and untrue argument of forcing Apple to have to support other hardware vendor's equipment. Complete FUD. Show me the department at Microsoft that makes other vendor's software drivers. You can't, because there is none. The only thing Microsoft does is provide developer assistance on how to hook to their system APIs, just like Apple does now through the Apple Developer community. The computer vendors and hardware accessory market are on their own to provide drivers. You can see this plainly by visiting any of their support sites. If they don't make a driver, then their stuff won't work with Mac OS X, plain and simple.
You want to support Apple, that's fine, but find a better, truthful argument, and stop spreading FUD. I like Apple and enjoy my Apple Macbook, but I'm against their trying to manipulate the market, and I think we're all seeing that they know their vendor lock-in policies are about to blow up in their face. Apple has the money to take this to trial and put Psystar out of business, but they know that their case is weak and might get ruled against. That's why they?re going with arbitration - non-binding arbitration at that.
Unless Apple's lawyers were instructed to go as easily as possible on this guy? Don't want to be seen as the bad guy, optics is everything, etc, etc???
Should Apple have any legal obligation to provide these people with support? Certainly not. They shouldn't be forced to provide drivers for other hardware or change their product to accommodate these people.
I said way back when Psystar started taking orders that this whole thing will might end with Apple paying Psystar to go away. This development makes me believe that may be even more likely now. If Apple felt they could crush Psystar as easily as some believe, I don't think they would do what essentially amounts to backing down.
Unless Apple's lawyers were instructed to go as easily as possible on this guy? Don't want to be seen as the bad guy, optics is everything, etc, etc???
How does your argument help out out Apple as a company in the future. If Psystar can get paid off by Apple after illegally selling their stolen IP, then what is to stop any one of us from starting their own Psystar? What has been stopped the big PC vendors from selling Mac OS X on their systems? They certainly have asked and they certainly want to get out from under MS' stronghold. Not showing your hand isn't the same as not as backing down.
I think people should have the right to use software as they please. If someone pays their money then they should be able to install OS X on any machine they wish - Apple hardware or not. If a company wants to help individuals make that easier, so much the better.
Should Apple have any legal obligation to provide these people with support? Certainly not. They shouldn't be forced to provide drivers for other hardware or change their product to accommodate these people.
And despite what trboyden wants to believe, all that is possible with the OSx86 Project.
Hmmm. Suppose I buy Coffeemaker A and Coffeemaker B and notice that they both use the same embedded processor. I prefer the software features of Coffeemaker A but I prefer the hardware features of Coffeemaker B. So, I pull the EEPROM out of Coffeemaker A and plug it into Coffeemaker B and -- surprise -- it works and I have my dream coffeemaker. Do either coffeemaker company have a legal case against me? I don't think so.
Now suppose Coffeemaker A Inc. sells EEPROMs with updated software every two years or so for $19. My friend likes my custom coffeemaker, so he buys a $19 EEPROM from Coffeemaker A Inc. and a whole coffeemaker from Coffeemaker B Inc. and installs the EEPROM in the unintended machine. Again, against all odds, it works and my friend is happy with his custom coffeemaker. Does either company have a case against him? I don't think so.
Finally, let's suppose that Coffeemaker B, Inc. notices that lots of people are putting Coffeemaker A EEPROMs in their hardware and decide to sell and market "Coffeemaker A compatible" coffeemakers with instructions to buy an EEPROM from Coffeemaker A Inc. and install it. Does Coffeemaker A Inc. have a case against Coffeemaker B Inc.? Maybe, but I don't see it.
Love your argument, its the first one that makes sense.
This case is all about vendor lock-in. In this country you could even patent the creation of that custom coffee maker because you invented an "improved" product. Now whether its actually improved as in being better is not the issue, improved in this case means revised. Could company "A" stop selling the EEPROM and totally screw you, absolutely, but that is the free market as they hurt themselves in doing so. What they can't do is not sell to you because you are a potential competitor. This is what the Psystar case is about. Anti-competitive practices are illegal. Period. Doesn't matter what your EULA or License terms say. If you sell something to the public, anyone can take that and incorporate it into a new product. It's not like Psystar is not paying for the operating system, which would be illegal, they are paying full retail value - they don't even get a reseller discount. Apple's choices are don't sell OS X to the public, or sell it at a price that would make it not feasible for use in creating a Mac-compatible system.
As long as they are calling it a Mac-compatible system and not a Mac, Psystar is not doing anything wrong. Just because you don't like their crappy implementation, doesn't mean they're doing anything illegal. After-all, this is how the PC market was invented by creating IBM-compatible PCs.
How does your argument help out out Apple as a company in the future. If Psystar can get paid off by Apple after illegally selling their stolen IP, then what is to stop any one of us from starting their own Psystar? What has been stopped the big PC vendors from selling Mac OS X on their systems? They certainly have asked and they certainly want to get out from under MS' stronghold. Not showing your hand isn't the same as not as backing down.
Again this is a free market, if Apple can't compete fairly in a free market, they don't deserve to exist in the future. Psystar has not been convicted of selling stolen IP (which they haven't, they simply install a retail copy of OS X on standard Intel based hardware), so stating it as if it were a fact that they supposedly stole Apple's IP is just more FUD.
What has stopped the big PC vendors? One, risk - they want to see how this case works out. Two, they'd have to come up with a system that is user-friendly to avoid support nightmares. Psystar's systems suck, but a certain segment will still buy them because they want it anyways and Psystar can get away with it because they are small. Big PC vendors are all about the mainstream public, which wouldn't put up with the issues of the OSx86 project.
And despite what trboyden wants to believe, all that is possible with the OSx86 Project.
And your point is what? Psystar's systems work for their clients who are too lazy to build their own OSx86 systems. Anyone could go out and build a NAS box, but people still buy an expensive EMC NAS system for the support and the so-call value added features they supposedly supply (features commonly available for free with the FreeNAS project).
...they simply install a retail copy of OS X on standard Intel based hardware), so stating it as if it were a fact that they supposedly stole Apple's IP is just more FUD...
No, they don't. They 'sell' you a retail version of OS X, but they 'install' a hacked copy of OS X that can only be had by illegally downloading and which has core aspects of the OS altered to run on non-Mac PCs. That 'sale' of OS X to you is their short-sided attempt to pull a fast on Apple byt saying that they technically offered a legal version of the software with the hacked software they installed.
Where did you get the idea that they simply inserted a fresh OS X disc and added a few drivers to make it work? The only non-Mac PC solution that doesn't violate Apple's IP or copyright is EFiX, but MoBo support is still in its infancy.
I think people should have the right to use software as they please. If someone pays their money then they should be able to install OS X on any machine they wish - Apple hardware or not. If a company wants to help individuals make that easier, so much the better.
Should Apple have any legal obligation to provide these people with support? Certainly not. They shouldn't be forced to provide drivers for other hardware or change their product to accommodate these people.
I don't think Apple cared too much about what Psystar was doing until they started to crack and distribute their updates. Psystar had no legal right to do that even if the company was just helping to make it easier for its customer to update their systems.
However, the fact is that people don't have the right to do anything they want with software they have purchased a license to use. Psystar had no OEM distribution license nor a reseller authorization from Apple retail. They crossed the line plain and simple. The fact that you think it right don't make it right or legal.