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.
Yup I agree with you because by doing this it can keep people like trboyden at bay.
Look, it seems trboyden got a lot of point on his own but you also don't know much about building your own hackintosh and the process into doing it. Psycrap uses code given freely by the OSx86 community and put that into their crappy PC without paying loyalties or asking permission from the maker of that certain driver. And then they install OS X into the PC solving the hassles from installing a hackintosh which has been made much easier. The problem I see here, not from the law point of view but from the consumer point of view is for a normal consumer who do now know about what Psycrap is doing is illegal, Apple do not authorize it, when something goes wrong with the OS, who will they go? Most likely they will go to Apple cause its Apple OS.
This is the reason why I don't enjoy US laws, cuz some of them is crappy. Consumers right...how about the makers right? A consumer has the choice if they want to use a product or not. So the consumers know that Apple do not sell their OS on other people hardware yet they still want to use the OS on normal PC cause they say that its not fair by locking the OS down, but hey, you dont create the program, you don't own the OS, its up to Apple to decide what THEY want to to do with their OS, if you don't like what Apple is doing, don't buy. Its as simple as that.
Also, from a Apple user perspective, if OS X were to be open, the outcome won't be good.
I perfectly understand licensing. It's an illegal one-way contract imposed by the licensor to make you use a product the way they want you to use it. And EULAs, which is where the clause your referring to is located, have been succesfully challenged and overuled in court making them invalid. Which is why this case is going to arbitration and not court.
Tell that to the thousands of artist, software developers, song writers .. etc. Tell them that you think that the licensing law that protect their work from being stolen is bad law. Maybe if you have invented something you will understand this issue better. While at it. why not challenge patents as well. I believe everyone agrees that patents are becoming so silly these days but we all agree that they are important and should be enforced even if the patent system is messed up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trboyden
Copyrights have no bearing on your case, however if they have a patent, you may be oblidged to pay a royalty on your derivitive work to them as compensation for the duration of their patent.
Only if they agree. You cannot force them to license or let you use their patent if they don't want you to. Even if you are welling to pay for it.
Quote:
If they don't stop hobbyists from stealing their IP, their IP is no longer valid under US trademark and patent law. Both trademarks and patents put the enforcement of trademarks and patents on the trademark and patent holders.
You cannot enforce it if you don't know who is doing it! The only way RIAA are able to prosecute copyrights violators is by getting their IP addresses from ISP since they are publicly sharing their music the same way PsyStar is publicly violating Mac OS copyrights. Many people are ripping their music and share them privately with friends and family members the same way many are hacking Mac OS to work on their PCs You cannot violate people privacy.
Yup I agree with you because by doing this it can keep people like trboyden at bay.
Look, it seems trboyden got a lot of point on his own but you also don't know much about building your own hackintosh and the process into doing it. Psycrap uses code given freely by the OSx86 community and put that into their crappy PC without paying loyalties or asking permission from the maker of that certain driver. And then they install OS X into the PC solving the hassles from installing a hackintosh which has been made much easier. The problem I see here, not from the law point of view but from the consumer point of view is for a normal consumer who do now know about what Psycrap is doing is illegal, Apple do not authorize it, when something goes wrong with the OS, who will they go? Most likely they will go to Apple cause its Apple OS.
This is the reason why I don't enjoy US laws, cuz some of them is crappy. Consumers right...how about the makers right? A consumer has the choice if they want to use a product or not. So the consumers know that Apple do not sell their OS on other people hardware yet they still want to use the OS on normal PC cause they say that its not fair by locking the OS down, but hey, you dont create the program, you don't own the OS, its up to Apple to decide what THEY want to to do with their OS, if you don't like what Apple is doing, don't buy. Its as simple as that.
Also, from a Apple user perspective, if OS X were to be open, the outcome won't be good.
Well said, some people believe that only the consumer should have any right, and the maker or manufacturer should have none. I mean how ludicrous is that. Apple products have always been expensive, you don't like it, don't buy their products, or save up, that's what I did and I was able to buy one. Apple can charge whatever the heck they want, they are growing and making money at these price points so why the heck should they change the prices, you don't think Dell and HP want to charge the prices Apple can, unfortunately they can't because they can't differentiate themselves and have to compete on prices. Trying to force Apple to do something that goes against their business model is absolutely nonsense. In fact these Psystar guys should be jailed for doing this.
On desktops I am afraid it is. Except for Apple most of the AIO machines have been absymal failures. You can stand outside any store that sells computers and you will find that almost every desktop going out the door will be a minitower. Heck, even online you will find that excluding Macs the vast majority of the best selling computers are mini-towers. If you look at Amazon's top selling desktops half of them are HP mini-towers the last I checked. The mini-tower configuration isn't some niche market. I sold computers for a living from '06-07 and I remember meeting a lot of people who were interested in buying a Mac and already owned a good size monitor that they liked(making the iMac a silly purchase), but wanted something with more power than the Mac Mini and found the Mac Pro overkill.
These potential Apple customers aren't theoretical, they are real people. Sticking your nose up at them and saying that they aren't significant is fine provided you don't mind the less options that a smaller Apple user base will entail. The more market share Apple has the more quantity and quality of software that will be made for MacOS. While there is plenty of software for MacOS, some of the ports are half-assed. If Apple had more market share, there would be more interest in quality control for Mac software.
Quote:
This year's growth area is the NetBook.
You're right. Most of the growth in laptops is in a space where Steve Jobs thinks that his company should wait and see. As the median average price drops Apple's potential market share will decline. Apple has largely gained mobile market share by simply taking over a majority of the >$1000 market. A some point Apple will run out of additional market share of the >$1000 market that they realistically can take over and their marketshare will flat line again. Another example of Apple ignoring the market, ultimately to their own detriment. There is no problem with creating innovative products high end products for the customers that want them, but just like Apple realized that there is a market for lower end ipods they need to realize that there is a market for a lower end laptop, much like there is a market for a mid range non-AIO desktop.
Quote:
Dell, Gateway and HP have joined Sony in offering desktop AIOs.
They offer them, but save for the HP Touchsmart, I haven't seen much evidence that any of the non-Apple AIO are selling very well. It appears Gateway has all, but officially pulled the plug on the Gateway One. Sony AIO line was fairly recently updated so I they haven't given up yet, but I wouldn't be surprised if Sony's AIO joins the grave along with their their failed TP and XL line HTPCs. Despite Dell now selling in retail AFAIK you wouldn't find a single Dell XPS One(Dell's AIO) in a retail store. If said model was so successful, I am sure somebody would sell it. Generally items that you can buy online only tend to be niche items that you would never sell sufficient volume to sell in retail.
Bottom line, most desktops sell for <$1000 and for the most part AIOs don't sell below this price point. You don't need to look at NDP or Gartner research numbers to know that.
Quote:
A lot of consumers (especially in the US) are already buying Apple solutions.
So because Apple is doing well lately, you are saying that they couldn't do better still by taking a slightly different strategy? You could use that same argument on why Apple shouldn't sell a laptop below $1000, but you don't need to be a genius to see that Apple won't be able to keep growing their marketshare for much longer without adding additional products to their lineup if the current trend towards cheaper laptops continues. While I agree that Apple doesn't want to harm their brand image by rushing products to market that are half baked, I think that Apple is running out of potential new customers that they can add without a new product line.
Quote:
I am not denying that there is a market for the product that you and others on this board seem to desire, but it's not as large as you think and in the US (Apple's largest market) it is actually shrinking.
The >$1000 laptop market is shrinking as a percentage of the laptop market as well, so by that line of reasoning Apple shouldn't have introduced the MBA. While Apple doesn't face questions about the viability of their OS like they did 8-10 years ago there is no question that bringing more users in the Apple userbase would help expand the the number of software developers for MacOS. Steve Ballmer may be stupid, but he was right when he screamed about "developers, developers, developers..." There are a lot of people that need Mac ports of just one or two applications to make the jump and a larger userbase makes it more likely that those applications will be ported. For the most part more users is virtually always a good thing in the Mac universe.
We're supposed to be a free country here and our freedom to innovate and freedom to experiment should be protected.
Our legal rights have nothing to do with how Apple chooses to sell its products.
Quote:
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.
You accuse him of spreading FUD. How does OS X not currently hold its own in the free market. It competes against an OS that holds 90% of the market.
Quote:
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.
Microsoft received a lot of criticism over Vista when it originally launched. Because drivers were inconsistent. MS had to work with vendors to help get the situation fixed. Apple would have to do the same.
Quote:
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.
This is a dictionary definition of FUD. How is Apple manipulating the market with an OS that is only around 3% of the market?
Their are lots of other products that have vertical systems. This business practice is nothing unique to Apple. In fact it dates back to the year 1901 with King Camp Gillette and the disposable safety razor.
You simply continue with distorted information. Apple stated they would do nothing to support any incompatibilities if you jailbreak your phone. Apple announced that this update may harm your phone if you've jail broken it. People did not listen and when it happened they accused Apple of doing it on purpose, when they were duly warned from the beginning on the risk of this practice.
Quote:
In a free market, the consumer decides what market a product maker is in with their wallet.
How does Apple prevent the consumer from deciding with their wallet?
Quote:
What kind of BS is that? There's no codes in an O/S that dictate what hardware it can work with, that's what drivers are for. If you install only the OS X essentials and then add the drivers you need, you have a decently streamlined OS X install. Vista is bloated because they have to support operating system APIs all the way back to Windows 95. One of these days Microsoft will get around to cutting people off like Apple did in the OS 9 to OS X transition. Then Windows won't be so bloated.
The difference between BIOS and EFI. If what you say is correct the hackintosh community would not have had to develop hacks to make a hackintosh.
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.
Not sure how you figure it that way. Apple should be the dominate force in this, so anything other then pushing this all the way to court looks like weakness on the part of Apple.
I never thought Apple had a very strong case. I actually hope Apple takes a beating on this seeing they allow Windows to run on their hardware but won't allow the reverse because SJ is a control freak.
If Psystar purchased legal copies of OSX they should be able to run it on any hardware they want, as should anyone else.
I think I have been paying too close attention in class. The fact is is Apple had a solid case they would be dropping the hammer on Psystar. Clearly they do not.
When this all started there were thread about how Apple was going to destroy Psytar, clearly wrong again.
At least IMO this is yet again another case where Apple wants two sets of rules, one for them and one for everyone else.
In any case if SJ keeps making poor choices about new hardware releases like adding stupid mini display ports and pulling firewire we aren't going to have to worry about this when there market share drops back down to about 2.2%.
I never thought Apple had a very strong case. I actually hope Apple takes a beating on this seeing they allow Windows to run on their hardware but won't allow the reverse because SJ is a control freak.
Yes, because the ONLY reason Apple sells computers (which include hardware and software) is because Steve is a control freak. Nope, has nothing to do with Apple's successful business model (of selling one product, hardware and software all included), or the fact that that businees model has led to their much smaller OS market share having 1 third of all revenues made on computers (note that that includes hardware and software sales). Nope, not at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by extremeskater
If Psystar purchased legal copies of OSX they should be able to run it on any hardware they want, as should anyone else.
What, says you? Why?
Oh, and Pystar purchased legal UPGRADE copies of Mac OSX, which they then altered and sold.
Quote:
Originally Posted by extremeskater
I think I have been paying too close attention in class. The fact is is Apple had a solid case they would be dropping the hammer on Psystar. Clearly they do not.
Yes, because clearly Apple loves to destroy people, which is what they would have done. Clearly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by extremeskater
When this all started there were thread about how Apple was going to destroy Psytar, clearly wrong again.
Yes, if it went to trial, which it has not. Clearly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by extremeskater
At least IMO this is yet again another case where Apple wants two sets of rules, one for them and one for everyone else.
And what rules would those be? That they get to chose how they sell their products? How is that different from any other company in the computer business?
Quote:
Originally Posted by extremeskater
In any case if SJ keeps making poor choices about new hardware releases like adding stupid mini display ports and pulling firewire we aren't going to have to worry about this when there market share drops back down to about 2.2%.
Clearly for you, opinion = fact. Clearly.
Forget not listening in class, you've never been.
And to the other poster arguing for Pystar in this thread, if you want the freedom to innovate, how about you create your own OS that you have the freedom to do with what you please? Apple owes you nothing, despite what you may think.
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.
If you buy a Dell, and love Windows Vista and buy $2000 of software that runs on Vista, you're pretty much at this point from a legal? standpoint required to continue to buy Windows OS software if you want to use your $2000 software. If you didn't like the features (I'm assuming you meant to say "of new Apple hardware" here) of new Windows OS software you would still have to buy Windows to use your software.
Whats the difference?
Quasi Monopoly? Nobody that has ever argued for Pystar and people like them have yet been able to explain how a company can have a monopoly on their own product.
Well said, some people believe that only the consumer should have any right, and the maker or manufacturer should have none. I mean how ludicrous is that. Apple products have always been expensive, you don't like it, don't buy their products, or save up, that's what I did and I was able to buy one. Apple can charge whatever the heck they want, they are growing and making money at these price points so why the heck should they change the prices, you don't think Dell and HP want to charge the prices Apple can, unfortunately they can't because they can't differentiate themselves and have to compete on prices. Trying to force Apple to do something that goes against their business model is absolutely nonsense. In fact these Psystar guys should be jailed for doing this.
Yup, I agree with you.
Quote:
And to the other poster arguing for Pystar in this thread, if you want the freedom to innovate, how about you create your own OS that you have the freedom to do with what you please? Apple owes you nothing, despite what you may think.
Yup, I agree with you too.
Quote:
Yes, because the ONLY reason Apple sells computers (which include hardware and software) is because Steve is a control freak. Nope, has nothing to do with Apple's successful business model (of selling one product, hardware and software all included), or the fact that that businees model has led to their much smaller OS market share having 1 third of all revenues made on computers (note that that includes hardware and software sales). Nope, not at all.
True, this seems to be the problem also because people don't know Steve is a control freak. Steve control freak attitude made what Apple is today, his control freak attitude made Apple to create products beyond the industry standard, a lot of new people who are buying Macs fail to realize this, they kept complaining, I want to install OS X on normal PCs or I want a fully upgradeable desktop.
Yeah, Jobs control freak isn't necessary good but it is one of the factors that make Apple successful today. Look at MSoft, during the early computer years, they made tons of money when they open up their OS, look what happen now, they need too have soo many programmers, their OS quality has become worse and many other problems the company is facing now.
I seriously suggest people to start watching Pirates of the Silicon Valley to know how do Bill Gates and Steve visioned their company. It will make you understand what and why Apple is doing now and why MS is having problem now.
Yes, because the ONLY reason Apple sells computers (which include hardware and software) is because Steve is a control freak. Nope, has nothing to do with Apple's successful business model (of selling one product, hardware and software all included), or the fact that that businees model has led to their much smaller OS market share having 1 third of all revenues made on computers (note that that includes hardware and software sales). Nope, not at all.
What, says you? Why?
Oh, and Pystar purchased legal UPGRADE copies of Mac OSX, which they then altered and sold.
Yes, because clearly Apple loves to destroy people, which is what they would have done. Clearly.
Yes, if it went to trial, which it has not. Clearly.
And what rules would those be? That they get to chose how they sell their products? How is that different from any other company in the computer business?
Clearly for you, opinion = fact. Clearly.
Forget not listening in class, you've never been.
And to the other poster arguing for Pystar in this thread, if you want the freedom to innovate, how about you create your own OS that you have the freedom to do with what you please? Apple owes you nothing, despite what you may think.
I will agree with you it has nothing to do with Apples business model and everything to do with SJ being a control freak. In fact Apples board wanted to market the OS to everyone years ago and SJ put the veto on that.
Freedom to do with as you wish? You mean like Linux?
Its funny how Mac users, use more freeware then any other group but want to hold onto control of their OS for dear life.
Apple can not use the "our hardware is special" anymore that went away the day they went to intel, nvidia, ati and are now using all the same hardware as everyone else. There is nothing special about Apple hardware.
Well except for the about to fail mini display port. Yeah that was a great idea. Also if any of you guys need a firewire port I have three on my Velocity Micro system.
Your just the typical fanboy thinking somehow Apple is elite. It isn't.
Also as far as a business model.
Apple users have been screaming give us the option of matte, everything going glossy
Give us Blu ray. Yeah good luck.
Mid tower that can be upgraded. Pipe dream, SJ doesn't trust you to upgrade he wants you to share his dream and only his dream. Or is that delusion.
By the way did I mention the new mini display port. Yeah that was a good idea, HDMI is over rated anyways. You know the rest or the world only uses that silly stuff like DVI and HDMI.
The more I look at this they better market their OS to the rest of the world doesnt look llike the hardware is going in the right direction.
I think you are exactly right. I am a little concerned though that Psystar might get some financial
backing from one or more large PC hardware companies who would like to see Psystar
prevail, so that other companies could sell Mac OS X installed on their machines. Such
support might allow Psystar to hang on longer in court, and would make the process
more costly for Apple.
When you really think about it, none of the big four (HP, Dell, Acer and Lenveno) hardware makers would really gain much by marketing a computer with OSX. That is, if they all got the license to sell computers with OSX. Apple world market share is about 4%. That would mean that if they took all of Apple's market share away, they each would only gain 1%. The rest of the hardware they sold with OSX would be cannibalizing their own sales.
Whose market share are they taking away if they market a $699 computer with OSX. Not Apple's. Whose market share are they taking away if they market a $1200 mini tower with OSX. Not Apple's. The same with a sub $900 notebook and high end gaming machines. The majority of these sales will come from consumers that would have bought a Dell, HP, Acer or Lenveno anyways. For sure Apple's hardware sales will suffer. But those market shares loss is hardly worth fighting for when you're one of the big four. And marketing a computer whose market shares will eventually come out of your own market shares is just not good business practice. Specially if it cost more to license OSX than Windows.
Now smaller companies like Sony, Toshiba or Panasonic would stand to gain a lot, if they get a license for OSX, because they can steal market shares from the big four. (Providing none of the big four gets a license for OSX.) Without resorting to fighting for market shares in the low margin sub $800 market. (Like what Apple does. ) But this doesn't do the consumers that are looking for a cheap computer with OSX any good. (But it may solve that world wide problem of no medium price mini tower with OSX.)
Marketing a computer with OSX is only worth the effort for one of the big four only if one of them get the license for OSX. This way they can steal market shares from the other three. The only other benefit of getting an OSX license, if you're one of the big four, is to loosen the strangle hold MS have on them, with Windows.
Licensing OSX to other computer hardware makers is really a no win proposition for Mac fans and AAPL shareholders.
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.
Nonsense. One can invest a lot of money in buying software (games) for the XBOX, PS3 and the Nintendo Wii. All of those also use off-the-shelf components.
Only when you can pirate the OS running any of these systems into your own common-PC-parts-system and try to sell it without ramification from Microsoft, Sony, or Nintendo will you have any kind of argument to stand on.
Apple is no different from these other so-called "Monopolies" yet I don't hear a single iota from any whiners screaming bloody-murder that these complete-package-systems ("consoles") are violating their god-given right to take a company's IP property and use it as they see fit.
I will agree with you it has nothing to do with Apples business model and everything to do with SJ being a control freak. In fact Apples board wanted to market the OS to everyone years ago and SJ put the veto on that.
And with good reasons. Apple licensed out their OS back in the 90's and saw their market share go from about 15% (US) to below 3%(US). The first thing Jobs did when he got back control of Apple in 1998 was to end their license agreement with the Mac clones makers. And in 10 years Apple is once again nearing double digit market share (US).
Quote:
Freedom to do with as you wish? You mean like Linux?
Its funny how Mac users, use more freeware then any other group but want to hold onto control of their OS for dear life.
By "freeware" do you mean software that the authors allow computer users to use for free. Or do you mean "freeware" as the pirated copy of Windows (In the form of 3.1, 95,98,ME,2000 or XP. Vista isn't worth pirating ) or MS Office that every PC owner I know have installed on their PC at one time or another?
Quote:
Apple can not use the "our hardware is special" anymore that went away the day they went to intel, nvidia, ati and are now using all the same hardware as everyone else. There is nothing special about Apple hardware.
Apple had always use the same internal hardware as everyone else. The only difference was the processor. It's just that no one notice until they switched to an Intel processor. My old G4 Power Mac has internal hardware made by Adaptec, ATI, Sony, Lucent and Seagate.
Quote:
Well except for the about to fail mini display port. Yeah that was a great idea. Also if any of you guys need a firewire port I have three on my Velocity Micro system.
And I bet you were one of them that was criticizing Apple for putting in Firewire port on their computers in the first place. Unless you got the Pismo laptop (2000) which had both Firewire and SCSI, Apple slowly did away with SCSI on their computers and replaced it with Firewire. If Apple didn't forge ahead with Firewire you wouldn't have any Firewire ports on your PC.
Quote:
Your just the typical fanboy thinking somehow Apple is elite. It isn't.
Also as far as a business model.
Apple users have been screaming give us the option of matte, everything going glossy
Give us Blu ray. Yeah good luck.
Mid tower that can be upgraded. Pipe dream, SJ doesn't trust you to upgrade he wants you to share his dream and only his dream. Or is that delusion.
In the 10 years that Jobs been in charge of Apple, Apple has manage to exceed (at one time at least ) the market cap of Dell, HP, IBM. Cisco, Oracle and Disney. And their US market share has risen from under 3% to nearly 10%. Not bad for a company that most said wouldn't make it past the century. And all this without marketing a mid price mini tower. No delusion here, Just reality. (Though maybe a little distorted for some. )
Quote:
By the way did I mention the new mini display port. Yeah that was a good idea, HDMI is over rated anyways. You know the rest or the world only uses that silly stuff like DVI and HDMI.
The more I look at this they better market their OS to the rest of the world doesnt look llike the hardware is going in the right direction.
And guess what? A mini display port can output DVI, VGA and HDMI. All you need is an adapter. (DVI and VGA adapter are already available from Apple and third party.) But really, the mini display port is meant to output to a second monitor. Not to an HDTV. And most monitor has either VGA or DVI. So Apple is covered. And since Apple laptops only have a DVD player (no BluRay yet.), who's going to use the laptop as a DVD player for an HDTV. Most people with TV's already have a DVD player hooked up to it.
And HDMI is over rated. It's nothing but DVI with sound (up to full 7.1 surround). But what monitor or HDTV have built in surround sound. Most have stereo if they have any built in speakers at all. To get the full surround you need to plug the HDMI into a surround receiver and then output the video from the receiver to the HDTV (or monitor). Usually by way of composite, component, VGA or S-video. And hi end receivers will have the DVI and HDMI outputs. You can accomplish the same by plugging your HDTV (or monitor) to a DVI port (or mini display with adapter) and your receiver to the audio port. (Or using an HDMI cable that has the audio split from it by way of RCA plug.) But if your monitor has a display port, you won't need to plug into the audio port.
Edit-My mistake. I thought my Apple "Pismo" laptop had SCSI. but it doesn't. The Apple laptop that preceded it, "Lombard", had SCSI but no Firewire. The "Pismo" replaced SCSI with Firewire in 2000.
I will agree with you it has nothing to do with Apples business model and everything to do with SJ being a control freak. In fact Apples board wanted to market the OS to everyone years ago and SJ put the veto on that.
Dude, you are an idiot, I written a few post behind asking to READ my signature about Apple is a hardware company. The bold is WRONG!!!!, Apple open up their OS, they lose more money, consumers happy. Yea, you would like that, you selfish person.
Quote:
Its funny how Mac users, use more freeware then any other group but want to hold onto control of their OS for dear life.
Huh? How sure are you that Mac users use more freeware then other group? Which group you referring to? Windows? Linux? And where you get this fact from?
Quote:
Well except for the about to fail mini display port. Yeah that was a great idea. Also if any of you guys need a firewire port I have three on my Velocity Micro system.
Fail mini display port? Well Apple just use it a couple of days ago and you call it FAIL!, you remind me of Ballmer which says no one will buy the iPhone. Are you Ballmer in disguise?
Quote:
Apple users have been screaming give us the option of matte, everything going glossy
Give us Blu ray. Yeah good luck.
Erm the rest of the market is going glossy too, so your point is? And what's up with this blu-ray stuffs, the technology is still NEW!!! its burning speed is still slow so Its not like a MUST have.
Quote:
Mid tower that can be upgraded. Pipe dream, SJ doesn't trust you to upgrade he wants you to share his dream and only his dream. Or is that delusion.
There is a reason why Apple prefer not to make fully upgradeable system, one of it is because then Apple will really look like some other PC manufacturers. The specs that they give in their AIO is very good, in fact good enough for most users.
Quote:
In the 10 years that Jobs been in charge of Apple, Apple has manage to exceed (at one time at least ) the market cap of Dell, HP, IBM. Cisco, Oracle and Disney. And their US market share has risen from under 3% to nearly 10%. Not bad for a company that most said wouldn't make it past the century. And all this without marketing a mid price mini tower. No delusion here, Just reality. (Though maybe a little distorted for some. )
you say it! :thumbsup:
Quote:
Apple had always use the same internal hardware as everyone else. The only difference was the processor. It's just that no one notice until they switched to an Intel processor. My old G4 Power Mac has internal hardware made by Adaptec, ATI, Sony, Lucent and Seagate.
Yup, you are right, extremeskater knowledge about Apple products and history seems very limited. It made me laugh sometimes reading his comments, he only know half of the stories. In fact its amazing he know those stories.
If you buy a Dell, and love Windows Vista and buy $2000 of software that runs on Vista, you're pretty much at this point from a legal? standpoint required to continue to buy Windows OS software if you want to use your $2000 software. If you didn't like the features (I'm assuming you meant to say "of new Apple hardware" here) of new Windows OS software you would still have to buy Windows to use your software.
Whats the difference?
Quasi Monopoly? Nobody that has ever argued for Pystar and people like them have yet been able to explain how a company can have a monopoly on their own product.
Except, you'd be wrong because I'd be able to use it under Linux with the WINE project. Something that Apple's vendor lock-in prevents you from doing with Apple software.
You accuse him of spreading FUD. How does OS X not currently hold its own in the free market. It competes against an OS that holds 90% of the market.
Is Apple an O/S or hardware company? You all keep changing the supposed facts to fit your arguments. Apple doesn't compete in the O/S market because they don't market it separately from their hardware.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
Microsoft received a lot of criticism over Vista when it originally launched. Because drivers were inconsistent. MS had to work with vendors to help get the situation fixed. Apple would have to do the same.
That's because Microsoft tried to break away from old APIs (like Apple did with the OS 9 to OS X transition) and the vendors responded with providing crappily coded drivers.
Because of the size of Microsoft's market, they have a lot harder time getting vendors to write code to Microsoft's specs. Because Apple's market share is smaller, they can dictate what they'll accept as a driver on their systems. I won't justify which approach works better, because both have their merits - wide product compatibility and availability vs. tighter control and generally, better quality drivers.
Besides, I thought Apple deosn't have to do anything they don't want to do, isn't that the basis of all your claims?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
This is a dictionary definition of FUD. How is Apple manipulating the market with an OS that is only around 3% of the market?
Their are lots of other products that have vertical systems. This business practice is nothing unique to Apple. In fact it dates back to the year 1901 with King Camp Gillette and the disposable safety razor.
Apple manipulates the Apple operating system market by actively preventing it from being used on the same, equal hardware provided by a different vendor. That's anti-competitive behavior which is an anti-trust violation under U.S. law. You can ask Microsoft about that, I do believe they had to pay a hefty fine for that same behavior. The fact that Apple holds a lower percentage of the PC market has no bearing on trying to prevent fair competition.
Gillette has been sued plenty of times for anti-competitive behavior.
Apple manipulates the Apple operating system market by actively preventing it from being used on the same, equal hardware provided by a different vendor. That's anti-competitive behavior which is an anti-trust violation under U.S. law. You can ask Microsoft about that, I do believe they had to pay a hefty fine for that same behavior. The fact that Apple holds a lower percentage of the PC market has no bearing on trying to prevent fair competition.
What Apple OS Market are you crapping about? Do Apple allow their OS to be installed on certain PC manufacturers like Dell or HP or some other brand? No, they made the OS and install it on their own product. Its not like they contract some other maker to make an OS specific for them that only they can use. So what, means that you should sue Sony PS3 because its console OS is specific on PS3, sew XBox 360 because their OS is specific to their hardware, sew every MP3 player out there because each has their own OS that can only run on their own system. Why don't you sew every company out there that make their own stuffs for their own products. You will be richer then Warren Buffett in no time.
Comments
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.
Yup I agree with you because by doing this it can keep people like trboyden at bay.
Look, it seems trboyden got a lot of point on his own but you also don't know much about building your own hackintosh and the process into doing it. Psycrap uses code given freely by the OSx86 community and put that into their crappy PC without paying loyalties or asking permission from the maker of that certain driver. And then they install OS X into the PC solving the hassles from installing a hackintosh which has been made much easier. The problem I see here, not from the law point of view but from the consumer point of view is for a normal consumer who do now know about what Psycrap is doing is illegal, Apple do not authorize it, when something goes wrong with the OS, who will they go? Most likely they will go to Apple cause its Apple OS.
This is the reason why I don't enjoy US laws, cuz some of them is crappy. Consumers right...how about the makers right? A consumer has the choice if they want to use a product or not. So the consumers know that Apple do not sell their OS on other people hardware yet they still want to use the OS on normal PC cause they say that its not fair by locking the OS down, but hey, you dont create the program, you don't own the OS, its up to Apple to decide what THEY want to to do with their OS, if you don't like what Apple is doing, don't buy. Its as simple as that.
Also, from a Apple user perspective, if OS X were to be open, the outcome won't be good.
I perfectly understand licensing. It's an illegal one-way contract imposed by the licensor to make you use a product the way they want you to use it. And EULAs, which is where the clause your referring to is located, have been succesfully challenged and overuled in court making them invalid. Which is why this case is going to arbitration and not court.
Tell that to the thousands of artist, software developers, song writers .. etc. Tell them that you think that the licensing law that protect their work from being stolen is bad law. Maybe if you have invented something you will understand this issue better. While at it. why not challenge patents as well. I believe everyone agrees that patents are becoming so silly these days but we all agree that they are important and should be enforced even if the patent system is messed up.
Copyrights have no bearing on your case, however if they have a patent, you may be oblidged to pay a royalty on your derivitive work to them as compensation for the duration of their patent.
Only if they agree. You cannot force them to license or let you use their patent if they don't want you to. Even if you are welling to pay for it.
If they don't stop hobbyists from stealing their IP, their IP is no longer valid under US trademark and patent law. Both trademarks and patents put the enforcement of trademarks and patents on the trademark and patent holders.
You cannot enforce it if you don't know who is doing it! The only way RIAA are able to prosecute copyrights violators is by getting their IP addresses from ISP since they are publicly sharing their music the same way PsyStar is publicly violating Mac OS copyrights. Many people are ripping their music and share them privately with friends and family members the same way many are hacking Mac OS to work on their PCs You cannot violate people privacy.
Yup I agree with you because by doing this it can keep people like trboyden at bay.
Look, it seems trboyden got a lot of point on his own but you also don't know much about building your own hackintosh and the process into doing it. Psycrap uses code given freely by the OSx86 community and put that into their crappy PC without paying loyalties or asking permission from the maker of that certain driver. And then they install OS X into the PC solving the hassles from installing a hackintosh which has been made much easier. The problem I see here, not from the law point of view but from the consumer point of view is for a normal consumer who do now know about what Psycrap is doing is illegal, Apple do not authorize it, when something goes wrong with the OS, who will they go? Most likely they will go to Apple cause its Apple OS.
This is the reason why I don't enjoy US laws, cuz some of them is crappy. Consumers right...how about the makers right? A consumer has the choice if they want to use a product or not. So the consumers know that Apple do not sell their OS on other people hardware yet they still want to use the OS on normal PC cause they say that its not fair by locking the OS down, but hey, you dont create the program, you don't own the OS, its up to Apple to decide what THEY want to to do with their OS, if you don't like what Apple is doing, don't buy. Its as simple as that.
Also, from a Apple user perspective, if OS X were to be open, the outcome won't be good.
Well said, some people believe that only the consumer should have any right, and the maker or manufacturer should have none. I mean how ludicrous is that. Apple products have always been expensive, you don't like it, don't buy their products, or save up, that's what I did and I was able to buy one. Apple can charge whatever the heck they want, they are growing and making money at these price points so why the heck should they change the prices, you don't think Dell and HP want to charge the prices Apple can, unfortunately they can't because they can't differentiate themselves and have to compete on prices. Trying to force Apple to do something that goes against their business model is absolutely nonsense. In fact these Psystar guys should be jailed for doing this.
Apart from the fact that.... it's not.
On desktops I am afraid it is. Except for Apple most of the AIO machines have been absymal failures. You can stand outside any store that sells computers and you will find that almost every desktop going out the door will be a minitower. Heck, even online you will find that excluding Macs the vast majority of the best selling computers are mini-towers. If you look at Amazon's top selling desktops half of them are HP mini-towers the last I checked. The mini-tower configuration isn't some niche market. I sold computers for a living from '06-07 and I remember meeting a lot of people who were interested in buying a Mac and already owned a good size monitor that they liked(making the iMac a silly purchase), but wanted something with more power than the Mac Mini and found the Mac Pro overkill.
These potential Apple customers aren't theoretical, they are real people. Sticking your nose up at them and saying that they aren't significant is fine provided you don't mind the less options that a smaller Apple user base will entail. The more market share Apple has the more quantity and quality of software that will be made for MacOS. While there is plenty of software for MacOS, some of the ports are half-assed. If Apple had more market share, there would be more interest in quality control for Mac software.
This year's growth area is the NetBook.
You're right. Most of the growth in laptops is in a space where Steve Jobs thinks that his company should wait and see. As the median average price drops Apple's potential market share will decline. Apple has largely gained mobile market share by simply taking over a majority of the >$1000 market. A some point Apple will run out of additional market share of the >$1000 market that they realistically can take over and their marketshare will flat line again. Another example of Apple ignoring the market, ultimately to their own detriment. There is no problem with creating innovative products high end products for the customers that want them, but just like Apple realized that there is a market for lower end ipods they need to realize that there is a market for a lower end laptop, much like there is a market for a mid range non-AIO desktop.
Dell, Gateway and HP have joined Sony in offering desktop AIOs.
They offer them, but save for the HP Touchsmart, I haven't seen much evidence that any of the non-Apple AIO are selling very well. It appears Gateway has all, but officially pulled the plug on the Gateway One. Sony AIO line was fairly recently updated so I they haven't given up yet, but I wouldn't be surprised if Sony's AIO joins the grave along with their their failed TP and XL line HTPCs. Despite Dell now selling in retail AFAIK you wouldn't find a single Dell XPS One(Dell's AIO) in a retail store. If said model was so successful, I am sure somebody would sell it. Generally items that you can buy online only tend to be niche items that you would never sell sufficient volume to sell in retail.
Bottom line, most desktops sell for <$1000 and for the most part AIOs don't sell below this price point. You don't need to look at NDP or Gartner research numbers to know that.
A lot of consumers (especially in the US) are already buying Apple solutions.
So because Apple is doing well lately, you are saying that they couldn't do better still by taking a slightly different strategy? You could use that same argument on why Apple shouldn't sell a laptop below $1000, but you don't need to be a genius to see that Apple won't be able to keep growing their marketshare for much longer without adding additional products to their lineup if the current trend towards cheaper laptops continues. While I agree that Apple doesn't want to harm their brand image by rushing products to market that are half baked, I think that Apple is running out of potential new customers that they can add without a new product line.
I am not denying that there is a market for the product that you and others on this board seem to desire, but it's not as large as you think and in the US (Apple's largest market) it is actually shrinking.
The >$1000 laptop market is shrinking as a percentage of the laptop market as well, so by that line of reasoning Apple shouldn't have introduced the MBA. While Apple doesn't face questions about the viability of their OS like they did 8-10 years ago there is no question that bringing more users in the Apple userbase would help expand the the number of software developers for MacOS. Steve Ballmer may be stupid, but he was right when he screamed about "developers, developers, developers..." There are a lot of people that need Mac ports of just one or two applications to make the jump and a larger userbase makes it more likely that those applications will be ported. For the most part more users is virtually always a good thing in the Mac universe.
We're supposed to be a free country here and our freedom to innovate and freedom to experiment should be protected.
Our legal rights have nothing to do with how Apple chooses to sell its products.
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.
You accuse him of spreading FUD. How does OS X not currently hold its own in the free market. It competes against an OS that holds 90% of the 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.
Microsoft received a lot of criticism over Vista when it originally launched. Because drivers were inconsistent. MS had to work with vendors to help get the situation fixed. Apple would have to do the same.
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.
This is a dictionary definition of FUD. How is Apple manipulating the market with an OS that is only around 3% of the market?
Their are lots of other products that have vertical systems. This business practice is nothing unique to Apple. In fact it dates back to the year 1901 with King Camp Gillette and the disposable safety razor.
Really? Where have you been?
Apple Bricking the iPhone
New Lawsuit Against Apple's Bricking of Unlocked iPhones
OSX86 Doesn't start after apple update?
Apple serves DMCA notice to OSx86 Project
You simply continue with distorted information. Apple stated they would do nothing to support any incompatibilities if you jailbreak your phone. Apple announced that this update may harm your phone if you've jail broken it. People did not listen and when it happened they accused Apple of doing it on purpose, when they were duly warned from the beginning on the risk of this practice.
In a free market, the consumer decides what market a product maker is in with their wallet.
How does Apple prevent the consumer from deciding with their wallet?
What kind of BS is that? There's no codes in an O/S that dictate what hardware it can work with, that's what drivers are for. If you install only the OS X essentials and then add the drivers you need, you have a decently streamlined OS X install. Vista is bloated because they have to support operating system APIs all the way back to Windows 95. One of these days Microsoft will get around to cutting people off like Apple did in the OS 9 to OS X transition. Then Windows won't be so bloated.
The difference between BIOS and EFI. If what you say is correct the hackintosh community would not have had to develop hacks to make a hackintosh.
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.
Not sure how you figure it that way. Apple should be the dominate force in this, so anything other then pushing this all the way to court looks like weakness on the part of Apple.
I never thought Apple had a very strong case. I actually hope Apple takes a beating on this seeing they allow Windows to run on their hardware but won't allow the reverse because SJ is a control freak.
If Psystar purchased legal copies of OSX they should be able to run it on any hardware they want, as should anyone else.
If Psystar purchased legal copies of OSX they should be able to run it on any hardware they want, as should anyone else.
You've not been listening in class.
You've not been listening in class.
I think I have been paying too close attention in class. The fact is is Apple had a solid case they would be dropping the hammer on Psystar. Clearly they do not.
When this all started there were thread about how Apple was going to destroy Psytar, clearly wrong again.
At least IMO this is yet again another case where Apple wants two sets of rules, one for them and one for everyone else.
In any case if SJ keeps making poor choices about new hardware releases like adding stupid mini display ports and pulling firewire we aren't going to have to worry about this when there market share drops back down to about 2.2%.
I never thought Apple had a very strong case. I actually hope Apple takes a beating on this seeing they allow Windows to run on their hardware but won't allow the reverse because SJ is a control freak.
Yes, because the ONLY reason Apple sells computers (which include hardware and software) is because Steve is a control freak. Nope, has nothing to do with Apple's successful business model (of selling one product, hardware and software all included), or the fact that that businees model has led to their much smaller OS market share having 1 third of all revenues made on computers (note that that includes hardware and software sales). Nope, not at all.
If Psystar purchased legal copies of OSX they should be able to run it on any hardware they want, as should anyone else.
What, says you? Why?
Oh, and Pystar purchased legal UPGRADE copies of Mac OSX, which they then altered and sold.
I think I have been paying too close attention in class. The fact is is Apple had a solid case they would be dropping the hammer on Psystar. Clearly they do not.
Yes, because clearly Apple loves to destroy people, which is what they would have done. Clearly.
When this all started there were thread about how Apple was going to destroy Psytar, clearly wrong again.
Yes, if it went to trial, which it has not. Clearly.
At least IMO this is yet again another case where Apple wants two sets of rules, one for them and one for everyone else.
And what rules would those be? That they get to chose how they sell their products? How is that different from any other company in the computer business?
In any case if SJ keeps making poor choices about new hardware releases like adding stupid mini display ports and pulling firewire we aren't going to have to worry about this when there market share drops back down to about 2.2%.
Clearly for you, opinion = fact. Clearly.
Forget not listening in class, you've never been.
And to the other poster arguing for Pystar in this thread, if you want the freedom to innovate, how about you create your own OS that you have the freedom to do with what you please? Apple owes you nothing, despite what you may think.
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.
If you buy a Dell, and love Windows Vista and buy $2000 of software that runs on Vista, you're pretty much at this point from a legal? standpoint required to continue to buy Windows OS software if you want to use your $2000 software. If you didn't like the features (I'm assuming you meant to say "of new Apple hardware" here) of new Windows OS software you would still have to buy Windows to use your software.
Whats the difference?
Quasi Monopoly? Nobody that has ever argued for Pystar and people like them have yet been able to explain how a company can have a monopoly on their own product.
Well said, some people believe that only the consumer should have any right, and the maker or manufacturer should have none. I mean how ludicrous is that. Apple products have always been expensive, you don't like it, don't buy their products, or save up, that's what I did and I was able to buy one. Apple can charge whatever the heck they want, they are growing and making money at these price points so why the heck should they change the prices, you don't think Dell and HP want to charge the prices Apple can, unfortunately they can't because they can't differentiate themselves and have to compete on prices. Trying to force Apple to do something that goes against their business model is absolutely nonsense. In fact these Psystar guys should be jailed for doing this.
Yup, I agree with you.
And to the other poster arguing for Pystar in this thread, if you want the freedom to innovate, how about you create your own OS that you have the freedom to do with what you please? Apple owes you nothing, despite what you may think.
Yup, I agree with you too.
Yes, because the ONLY reason Apple sells computers (which include hardware and software) is because Steve is a control freak. Nope, has nothing to do with Apple's successful business model (of selling one product, hardware and software all included), or the fact that that businees model has led to their much smaller OS market share having 1 third of all revenues made on computers (note that that includes hardware and software sales). Nope, not at all.
True, this seems to be the problem also because people don't know Steve is a control freak. Steve control freak attitude made what Apple is today, his control freak attitude made Apple to create products beyond the industry standard, a lot of new people who are buying Macs fail to realize this, they kept complaining, I want to install OS X on normal PCs or I want a fully upgradeable desktop.
Yeah, Jobs control freak isn't necessary good but it is one of the factors that make Apple successful today. Look at MSoft, during the early computer years, they made tons of money when they open up their OS, look what happen now, they need too have soo many programmers, their OS quality has become worse and many other problems the company is facing now.
I seriously suggest people to start watching Pirates of the Silicon Valley to know how do Bill Gates and Steve visioned their company. It will make you understand what and why Apple is doing now and why MS is having problem now.
Yes, because the ONLY reason Apple sells computers (which include hardware and software) is because Steve is a control freak. Nope, has nothing to do with Apple's successful business model (of selling one product, hardware and software all included), or the fact that that businees model has led to their much smaller OS market share having 1 third of all revenues made on computers (note that that includes hardware and software sales). Nope, not at all.
What, says you? Why?
Oh, and Pystar purchased legal UPGRADE copies of Mac OSX, which they then altered and sold.
Yes, because clearly Apple loves to destroy people, which is what they would have done. Clearly.
Yes, if it went to trial, which it has not. Clearly.
And what rules would those be? That they get to chose how they sell their products? How is that different from any other company in the computer business?
Clearly for you, opinion = fact. Clearly.
Forget not listening in class, you've never been.
And to the other poster arguing for Pystar in this thread, if you want the freedom to innovate, how about you create your own OS that you have the freedom to do with what you please? Apple owes you nothing, despite what you may think.
I will agree with you it has nothing to do with Apples business model and everything to do with SJ being a control freak. In fact Apples board wanted to market the OS to everyone years ago and SJ put the veto on that.
Freedom to do with as you wish? You mean like Linux?
Its funny how Mac users, use more freeware then any other group but want to hold onto control of their OS for dear life.
Apple can not use the "our hardware is special" anymore that went away the day they went to intel, nvidia, ati and are now using all the same hardware as everyone else. There is nothing special about Apple hardware.
Well except for the about to fail mini display port. Yeah that was a great idea. Also if any of you guys need a firewire port I have three on my Velocity Micro system.
Your just the typical fanboy thinking somehow Apple is elite. It isn't.
Also as far as a business model.
Apple users have been screaming give us the option of matte, everything going glossy
Give us Blu ray. Yeah good luck.
Mid tower that can be upgraded. Pipe dream, SJ doesn't trust you to upgrade he wants you to share his dream and only his dream. Or is that delusion.
By the way did I mention the new mini display port. Yeah that was a good idea, HDMI is over rated anyways. You know the rest or the world only uses that silly stuff like DVI and HDMI.
The more I look at this they better market their OS to the rest of the world doesnt look llike the hardware is going in the right direction.
I think you are exactly right. I am a little concerned though that Psystar might get some financial
backing from one or more large PC hardware companies who would like to see Psystar
prevail, so that other companies could sell Mac OS X installed on their machines. Such
support might allow Psystar to hang on longer in court, and would make the process
more costly for Apple.
When you really think about it, none of the big four (HP, Dell, Acer and Lenveno) hardware makers would really gain much by marketing a computer with OSX. That is, if they all got the license to sell computers with OSX. Apple world market share is about 4%. That would mean that if they took all of Apple's market share away, they each would only gain 1%. The rest of the hardware they sold with OSX would be cannibalizing their own sales.
Whose market share are they taking away if they market a $699 computer with OSX. Not Apple's. Whose market share are they taking away if they market a $1200 mini tower with OSX. Not Apple's. The same with a sub $900 notebook and high end gaming machines. The majority of these sales will come from consumers that would have bought a Dell, HP, Acer or Lenveno anyways. For sure Apple's hardware sales will suffer. But those market shares loss is hardly worth fighting for when you're one of the big four. And marketing a computer whose market shares will eventually come out of your own market shares is just not good business practice. Specially if it cost more to license OSX than Windows.
Now smaller companies like Sony, Toshiba or Panasonic would stand to gain a lot, if they get a license for OSX, because they can steal market shares from the big four. (Providing none of the big four gets a license for OSX.) Without resorting to fighting for market shares in the low margin sub $800 market. (Like what Apple does.
Marketing a computer with OSX is only worth the effort for one of the big four only if one of them get the license for OSX. This way they can steal market shares from the other three. The only other benefit of getting an OSX license, if you're one of the big four, is to loosen the strangle hold MS have on them, with Windows.
Licensing OSX to other computer hardware makers is really a no win proposition for Mac fans and AAPL shareholders.
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.
Nonsense. One can invest a lot of money in buying software (games) for the XBOX, PS3 and the Nintendo Wii. All of those also use off-the-shelf components.
Only when you can pirate the OS running any of these systems into your own common-PC-parts-system and try to sell it without ramification from Microsoft, Sony, or Nintendo will you have any kind of argument to stand on.
Apple is no different from these other so-called "Monopolies" yet I don't hear a single iota from any whiners screaming bloody-murder that these complete-package-systems ("consoles") are violating their god-given right to take a company's IP property and use it as they see fit.
I will agree with you it has nothing to do with Apples business model and everything to do with SJ being a control freak. In fact Apples board wanted to market the OS to everyone years ago and SJ put the veto on that.
And with good reasons. Apple licensed out their OS back in the 90's and saw their market share go from about 15% (US) to below 3%(US). The first thing Jobs did when he got back control of Apple in 1998 was to end their license agreement with the Mac clones makers. And in 10 years Apple is once again nearing double digit market share (US).
Freedom to do with as you wish? You mean like Linux?
Its funny how Mac users, use more freeware then any other group but want to hold onto control of their OS for dear life.
By "freeware" do you mean software that the authors allow computer users to use for free. Or do you mean "freeware" as the pirated copy of Windows (In the form of 3.1, 95,98,ME,2000 or XP. Vista isn't worth pirating
Apple can not use the "our hardware is special" anymore that went away the day they went to intel, nvidia, ati and are now using all the same hardware as everyone else. There is nothing special about Apple hardware.
Apple had always use the same internal hardware as everyone else. The only difference was the processor. It's just that no one notice until they switched to an Intel processor. My old G4 Power Mac has internal hardware made by Adaptec, ATI, Sony, Lucent and Seagate.
Well except for the about to fail mini display port. Yeah that was a great idea. Also if any of you guys need a firewire port I have three on my Velocity Micro system.
And I bet you were one of them that was criticizing Apple for putting in Firewire port on their computers in the first place. Unless you got the Pismo laptop (2000) which had both Firewire and SCSI, Apple slowly did away with SCSI on their computers and replaced it with Firewire. If Apple didn't forge ahead with Firewire you wouldn't have any Firewire ports on your PC.
Your just the typical fanboy thinking somehow Apple is elite. It isn't.
Also as far as a business model.
Apple users have been screaming give us the option of matte, everything going glossy
Give us Blu ray. Yeah good luck.
Mid tower that can be upgraded. Pipe dream, SJ doesn't trust you to upgrade he wants you to share his dream and only his dream. Or is that delusion.
In the 10 years that Jobs been in charge of Apple, Apple has manage to exceed (at one time at least
By the way did I mention the new mini display port. Yeah that was a good idea, HDMI is over rated anyways. You know the rest or the world only uses that silly stuff like DVI and HDMI.
The more I look at this they better market their OS to the rest of the world doesnt look llike the hardware is going in the right direction.
And guess what? A mini display port can output DVI, VGA and HDMI. All you need is an adapter. (DVI and VGA adapter are already available from Apple and third party.) But really, the mini display port is meant to output to a second monitor. Not to an HDTV. And most monitor has either VGA or DVI. So Apple is covered. And since Apple laptops only have a DVD player (no BluRay yet.), who's going to use the laptop as a DVD player for an HDTV. Most people with TV's already have a DVD player hooked up to it.
And HDMI is over rated. It's nothing but DVI with sound (up to full 7.1 surround). But what monitor or HDTV have built in surround sound. Most have stereo if they have any built in speakers at all. To get the full surround you need to plug the HDMI into a surround receiver and then output the video from the receiver to the HDTV (or monitor). Usually by way of composite, component, VGA or S-video. And hi end receivers will have the DVI and HDMI outputs. You can accomplish the same by plugging your HDTV (or monitor) to a DVI port (or mini display with adapter) and your receiver to the audio port. (Or using an HDMI cable that has the audio split from it by way of RCA plug.) But if your monitor has a display port, you won't need to plug into the audio port.
Edit-My mistake. I thought my Apple "Pismo" laptop had SCSI. but it doesn't. The Apple laptop that preceded it, "Lombard", had SCSI but no Firewire. The "Pismo" replaced SCSI with Firewire in 2000.
I will agree with you it has nothing to do with Apples business model and everything to do with SJ being a control freak. In fact Apples board wanted to market the OS to everyone years ago and SJ put the veto on that.
Dude, you are an idiot, I written a few post behind asking to READ my signature about Apple is a hardware company. The bold is WRONG!!!!, Apple open up their OS, they lose more money, consumers happy. Yea, you would like that, you selfish person.
Its funny how Mac users, use more freeware then any other group but want to hold onto control of their OS for dear life.
Huh? How sure are you that Mac users use more freeware then other group? Which group you referring to? Windows? Linux? And where you get this fact from?
Well except for the about to fail mini display port. Yeah that was a great idea. Also if any of you guys need a firewire port I have three on my Velocity Micro system.
Fail mini display port? Well Apple just use it a couple of days ago and you call it FAIL!, you remind me of Ballmer which says no one will buy the iPhone. Are you Ballmer in disguise?
Apple users have been screaming give us the option of matte, everything going glossy
Give us Blu ray. Yeah good luck.
Erm the rest of the market is going glossy too, so your point is? And what's up with this blu-ray stuffs, the technology is still NEW!!! its burning speed is still slow so Its not like a MUST have.
Mid tower that can be upgraded. Pipe dream, SJ doesn't trust you to upgrade he wants you to share his dream and only his dream. Or is that delusion.
There is a reason why Apple prefer not to make fully upgradeable system, one of it is because then Apple will really look like some other PC manufacturers. The specs that they give in their AIO is very good, in fact good enough for most users.
In the 10 years that Jobs been in charge of Apple, Apple has manage to exceed (at one time at least ) the market cap of Dell, HP, IBM. Cisco, Oracle and Disney. And their US market share has risen from under 3% to nearly 10%. Not bad for a company that most said wouldn't make it past the century. And all this without marketing a mid price mini tower. No delusion here, Just reality. (Though maybe a little distorted for some. )
you say it! :thumbsup:
Apple had always use the same internal hardware as everyone else. The only difference was the processor. It's just that no one notice until they switched to an Intel processor. My old G4 Power Mac has internal hardware made by Adaptec, ATI, Sony, Lucent and Seagate.
Yup, you are right, extremeskater knowledge about Apple products and history seems very limited. It made me laugh sometimes reading his comments, he only know half of the stories. In fact its amazing he know those stories.
If you buy a Dell, and love Windows Vista and buy $2000 of software that runs on Vista, you're pretty much at this point from a legal? standpoint required to continue to buy Windows OS software if you want to use your $2000 software. If you didn't like the features (I'm assuming you meant to say "of new Apple hardware" here) of new Windows OS software you would still have to buy Windows to use your software.
Whats the difference?
Quasi Monopoly? Nobody that has ever argued for Pystar and people like them have yet been able to explain how a company can have a monopoly on their own product.
Except, you'd be wrong because I'd be able to use it under Linux with the WINE project. Something that Apple's vendor lock-in prevents you from doing with Apple software.
You accuse him of spreading FUD. How does OS X not currently hold its own in the free market. It competes against an OS that holds 90% of the market.
Is Apple an O/S or hardware company? You all keep changing the supposed facts to fit your arguments. Apple doesn't compete in the O/S market because they don't market it separately from their hardware.
Microsoft received a lot of criticism over Vista when it originally launched. Because drivers were inconsistent. MS had to work with vendors to help get the situation fixed. Apple would have to do the same.
That's because Microsoft tried to break away from old APIs (like Apple did with the OS 9 to OS X transition) and the vendors responded with providing crappily coded drivers.
Because of the size of Microsoft's market, they have a lot harder time getting vendors to write code to Microsoft's specs. Because Apple's market share is smaller, they can dictate what they'll accept as a driver on their systems. I won't justify which approach works better, because both have their merits - wide product compatibility and availability vs. tighter control and generally, better quality drivers.
Besides, I thought Apple deosn't have to do anything they don't want to do, isn't that the basis of all your claims?
This is a dictionary definition of FUD. How is Apple manipulating the market with an OS that is only around 3% of the market?
Their are lots of other products that have vertical systems. This business practice is nothing unique to Apple. In fact it dates back to the year 1901 with King Camp Gillette and the disposable safety razor.
Apple manipulates the Apple operating system market by actively preventing it from being used on the same, equal hardware provided by a different vendor. That's anti-competitive behavior which is an anti-trust violation under U.S. law. You can ask Microsoft about that, I do believe they had to pay a hefty fine for that same behavior. The fact that Apple holds a lower percentage of the PC market has no bearing on trying to prevent fair competition.
Gillette has been sued plenty of times for anti-competitive behavior.
Apple manipulates the Apple operating system market by actively preventing it from being used on the same, equal hardware provided by a different vendor. That's anti-competitive behavior which is an anti-trust violation under U.S. law. You can ask Microsoft about that, I do believe they had to pay a hefty fine for that same behavior. The fact that Apple holds a lower percentage of the PC market has no bearing on trying to prevent fair competition.
What Apple OS Market are you crapping about? Do Apple allow their OS to be installed on certain PC manufacturers like Dell or HP or some other brand? No, they made the OS and install it on their own product. Its not like they contract some other maker to make an OS specific for them that only they can use. So what, means that you should sue Sony PS3 because its console OS is specific on PS3, sew XBox 360 because their OS is specific to their hardware, sew every MP3 player out there because each has their own OS that can only run on their own system. Why don't you sew every company out there that make their own stuffs for their own products. You will be richer then Warren Buffett in no time.