It's not some added extra. It's something that can run with or without the Apple hardware. The Apple hardware can run Mac OS, Linux, and since the Intel Macs, also Windows. So no, Mac OS was never required.
Yes it is. You need to run OSX if you want all your Mac hardware to function the way Apple advertises. Sure you can run Windows and Linux (and several other Unix base OSes) But you may lose some of the hardware features. The multi-touch function of the touch pad and the iSight camera comes to mind. That's why Apple only sell their Mac with OSX. Apple wouldn't be able to advertise the multi-touch feature of their touch pad or features of their iSight camera if they sold their hardware with any other OS besides OSX.
Quote:
Quote by tawilson:Everyone thinks Apple and Microsoft are in direct competition with each other and assumes that the OS is what Apple is peddling. When in actual fact the OS is what everyone wants, but can't have unless they buy a Mac.
Quote:
And that's what the trial is about.
When determining anti-competitive cases, it doesn't matter what the consumers want. It's whether the consumers NEEDS OSX that will determine whether Apple is being anti-competitive. If there is no substitute for OSX then Apple may have an unfair advantage over their competitors. But there is no way in hell that you're going convince any judge or jury that MS Windows is not a viable choice. And there is no way in hell that you're going to convince a judge or jury that Apple has an unfair advantage because they are "tying" their OS to their hardware. Not when Apple has been doing this since the beginning of Apple Computers and all they got to show for it, after 30 years, is a 4% World market share. Just exactly how has Apple benefited from this "anti-competitive" practice?
That's spooky, my BSc is in Psychology. You love to lure people into making assumptions or judgments, and then pan them for it, don't you? You may be anonymous, but you're entirely transparent.
You just can't figure this out, can you. You make erroneous comments, then blame me for your mistakes. I didn't lure you into anything, what I do is just flat none of your business. If you think that's transparent, that's your choice.
You might do better to read what is posted, as opposed to replying to what was not said. They call that reading comprehension.
Unless the proverbial "I" tries to get married to another person of the same gender. In that case, it's everybody's business to try and stop me.
[/off-topic]
That makes you a liar for taking my remarks out of context. Liberals do this all the time, because they don't like the truth, as it doesn't serve their agenda.
To add to this. MS was found to coerce and reward its OEM partners for not bundling Netscape. IE also set its own proprietary web display standards. Which are all completely anti-competitive, completely illegal. And is nothing the same as what Apple is doing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW
The reason why Microsoft got in trouble with bundling IE with Windows was because Microsoft has a monopoly in the personal computer OS market. They were abusing their monopoly by bundling a browser with it. For free. This put Netscape out of business. Microsoft not only bundled IE with Windows. IE installed itself and could not be uninstalled. You could only set it as your non-default browser. Microsoft tried to prove that the browser was an integral part of Windows and could not be separated. They were proven wrong. Windows ran fine without IE. Microsoft still bundle IE with Windows. But now a consumer has a choice to install a browser from other companies. Without ever having to install IE.
When determining anti-competitive cases, it doesn't matter what the consumers want. It's whether the consumers NEEDS OSX that will determine whether Apple is being anti-competitive.
This essentially is the argument. They want a judge to force Apple to open OS X irregardless of if this actually upholds the law or not. They simply want it because they want it.
This essentially is the argument. They want a judge to force Apple to open OS X irregardless of if this actually upholds the law or not. They simply want it because they want it.
Perzactly!
Moreover, the consumer does not NEED OS X unless they're running a Mac, in which case they already have it.
That makes you a liar for taking my remarks out of context. Liberals do this all the time, because they don't like the truth, as it doesn't serve their agenda.
How can I possibly be lying about my conjecture about the the contents your mind, something about which I cannot possibly claim to have first-hand knowledge in the first place?
At worst, it makes me guilty of overgeneralizing. But since in this case, I meant it to be taken humorously rather than to actually make a serious point, I won't dwell on it. Hope you don't either.
You almost have this right. Sure, there is a license between Apple and myself. However, the license is only legally enforceable to the extend Apple's conditions are legal. Copyright allows the fair use of copyrightable software even if the use is prohibited under the license. Fair use generally protects personal use, not commercial use. If I were to take OSX and install it on a hackintosh, Apple would likely have no legal argument against me.
That's the odd thing about software licensing. If IBM for example came over to your place of business and required your signature on a contract before they installed your software then that would be a binding legal contract. But if you went to the Apple store and bought a packaged OS product, brought home and somehow installed it on a generic PC, you simply clicked on a button that said 'I Accept'.
Unless you actually signed a contract it isn't really legally binding. I know people who throw jury duty letters in the trash. If the court really wanted to force you to show up for jury duty they would have to get the sheriff to serve it to you and you would sign for it.
I don't think it is morally right to steal software or violate license agreements but whether or not it is enforceable is the question. Theoretically I could go to the Apple store and buy an upgrade disk and resell it to anyone for any price I want. What the buyer does with it is up to them. However Psystar is hacking the code and then reselling it as Apple's product which is clearly illegal.
You just can't figure this out, can you. You make erroneous comments, then blame me for your mistakes. I didn't lure you into anything, what I do is just flat none of your business. If you think that's transparent, that's your choice.
You might do better to read what is posted, as opposed to replying to what was not said. They call that reading comprehension.
And you'd be better off working on your sentence structure rather than throwing in medium sized words you clearly don't know the meaning of. If you don't understand that, ask your wife to explain it to you.
A lot of what is in EULAs is unenforceable and some of it is illegal.
I can accept Apple should not offer technical support for OS X on a Hackintosh. - But if Apple wants to tie its hardware and its software together, it needs to change OS X to an embedded OS. Selling boxed copies invites this kind of challenge.
And you'd be better off working on your sentence structure rather than throwing in medium sized words you clearly don't know the meaning of. If you don't understand that, ask your wife to explain it to you.
Do you move your mouth when you read?
I'll explain it to you. You don't comprehend what you read, which leads to your posting irrelevant remarks. From Hitler, you extrapolated Nazi, then you don't know that Hitler indeed had fans and still does. You're just incompetent.
I'll explain it to you. You don't comprehend what you read, which leads to your posting irrelevant remarks. From Hitler, you extrapolated Nazi, then you don't know that Hitler indeed had fans and still does. You're just incompetent.
I inferred Nazi by thinking laterally - we've been over and over this. I didn't say he had no fans, so take your own advice about learning to read.
The retail copies of OS X are a license for an upgrade of Mac purchased from Apple not a new license for a generic computer that was not purchased from Apple.
well..... according to the website, the word upgrade is not mentioned.
I inferred Nazi by thinking laterally - we've been over and over this. I didn't say he had no fans, so take your own advice about learning to read.
Go back and read what was posted. I used Hitler as an example of a criminal, you inappropriately brought Nazis into the thread, because you don't understand what you read. If you get paid to think, you're overpaid.
That will do it for me, I have better things to occupy my time. Rave on, alone.
That's the main point, Apple spent their money and resources developing the OS and Psystar feel they should entitled to it, how much of their resources was involved in creating Mac OSX, as you said if they want to compete they should develop their own OS and sell it with their computers to compete against Apple.
They bought a copy, but they didn't install that copy. Nor did they get permission to be reseller of OS X clones. This is s free market, a company has a right to protect it's investment. Trying to force Apple into having the only only socialist OS is insane.
Comments
It's not some added extra. It's something that can run with or without the Apple hardware. The Apple hardware can run Mac OS, Linux, and since the Intel Macs, also Windows. So no, Mac OS was never required.
Yes it is. You need to run OSX if you want all your Mac hardware to function the way Apple advertises. Sure you can run Windows and Linux (and several other Unix base OSes) But you may lose some of the hardware features. The multi-touch function of the touch pad and the iSight camera comes to mind. That's why Apple only sell their Mac with OSX. Apple wouldn't be able to advertise the multi-touch feature of their touch pad or features of their iSight camera if they sold their hardware with any other OS besides OSX.
Quote by tawilson:Everyone thinks Apple and Microsoft are in direct competition with each other and assumes that the OS is what Apple is peddling. When in actual fact the OS is what everyone wants, but can't have unless they buy a Mac.
And that's what the trial is about.
When determining anti-competitive cases, it doesn't matter what the consumers want. It's whether the consumers NEEDS OSX that will determine whether Apple is being anti-competitive. If there is no substitute for OSX then Apple may have an unfair advantage over their competitors. But there is no way in hell that you're going convince any judge or jury that MS Windows is not a viable choice. And there is no way in hell that you're going to convince a judge or jury that Apple has an unfair advantage because they are "tying" their OS to their hardware. Not when Apple has been doing this since the beginning of Apple Computers and all they got to show for it, after 30 years, is a 4% World market share. Just exactly how has Apple benefited from this "anti-competitive" practice?
Outside of a historian's intrigue, can you give some examples, some names, past or present, fans of Hitler?
Just curious...
Prescott Bush? Arguably it was Fritz Thyssen though...and he recanted.
That's spooky, my BSc is in Psychology. You love to lure people into making assumptions or judgments, and then pan them for it, don't you? You may be anonymous, but you're entirely transparent.
You just can't figure this out, can you. You make erroneous comments, then blame me for your mistakes. I didn't lure you into anything, what I do is just flat none of your business. If you think that's transparent, that's your choice.
You might do better to read what is posted, as opposed to replying to what was not said. They call that reading comprehension.
...what I do is just flat none of your business....
[off-topic]
Unless the proverbial "I" tries to get married to another person of the same gender. In that case, it's everybody's business to try and stop me.
[/off-topic]
[off-topic]
Unless the proverbial "I" tries to get married to another person of the same gender. In that case, it's everybody's business to try and stop me.
[/off-topic]
That makes you a liar for taking my remarks out of context. Liberals do this all the time, because they don't like the truth, as it doesn't serve their agenda.
The reason why Microsoft got in trouble with bundling IE with Windows was because Microsoft has a monopoly in the personal computer OS market. They were abusing their monopoly by bundling a browser with it. For free. This put Netscape out of business. Microsoft not only bundled IE with Windows. IE installed itself and could not be uninstalled. You could only set it as your non-default browser. Microsoft tried to prove that the browser was an integral part of Windows and could not be separated. They were proven wrong. Windows ran fine without IE. Microsoft still bundle IE with Windows. But now a consumer has a choice to install a browser from other companies. Without ever having to install IE.
When determining anti-competitive cases, it doesn't matter what the consumers want. It's whether the consumers NEEDS OSX that will determine whether Apple is being anti-competitive.
This essentially is the argument. They want a judge to force Apple to open OS X irregardless of if this actually upholds the law or not. They simply want it because they want it.
This essentially is the argument. They want a judge to force Apple to open OS X irregardless of if this actually upholds the law or not. They simply want it because they want it.
Perzactly!
Moreover, the consumer does not NEED OS X unless they're running a Mac, in which case they already have it.
That makes you a liar for taking my remarks out of context. Liberals do this all the time, because they don't like the truth, as it doesn't serve their agenda.
How can I possibly be lying about my conjecture about the the contents your mind, something about which I cannot possibly claim to have first-hand knowledge in the first place?
At worst, it makes me guilty of overgeneralizing. But since in this case, I meant it to be taken humorously rather than to actually make a serious point, I won't dwell on it. Hope you don't either.
You almost have this right. Sure, there is a license between Apple and myself. However, the license is only legally enforceable to the extend Apple's conditions are legal. Copyright allows the fair use of copyrightable software even if the use is prohibited under the license. Fair use generally protects personal use, not commercial use. If I were to take OSX and install it on a hackintosh, Apple would likely have no legal argument against me.
That's the odd thing about software licensing. If IBM for example came over to your place of business and required your signature on a contract before they installed your software then that would be a binding legal contract. But if you went to the Apple store and bought a packaged OS product, brought home and somehow installed it on a generic PC, you simply clicked on a button that said 'I Accept'.
Unless you actually signed a contract it isn't really legally binding. I know people who throw jury duty letters in the trash. If the court really wanted to force you to show up for jury duty they would have to get the sheriff to serve it to you and you would sign for it.
I don't think it is morally right to steal software or violate license agreements but whether or not it is enforceable is the question. Theoretically I could go to the Apple store and buy an upgrade disk and resell it to anyone for any price I want. What the buyer does with it is up to them. However Psystar is hacking the code and then reselling it as Apple's product which is clearly illegal.
You just can't figure this out, can you. You make erroneous comments, then blame me for your mistakes. I didn't lure you into anything, what I do is just flat none of your business. If you think that's transparent, that's your choice.
You might do better to read what is posted, as opposed to replying to what was not said. They call that reading comprehension.
And you'd be better off working on your sentence structure rather than throwing in medium sized words you clearly don't know the meaning of. If you don't understand that, ask your wife to explain it to you.
Do you move your mouth when you read?
A lot of what is in EULAs is unenforceable and some of it is illegal.
I can accept Apple should not offer technical support for OS X on a Hackintosh. - But if Apple wants to tie its hardware and its software together, it needs to change OS X to an embedded OS. Selling boxed copies invites this kind of challenge.
C.
And you'd be better off working on your sentence structure rather than throwing in medium sized words you clearly don't know the meaning of. If you don't understand that, ask your wife to explain it to you.
Do you move your mouth when you read?
I'll explain it to you. You don't comprehend what you read, which leads to your posting irrelevant remarks. From Hitler, you extrapolated Nazi, then you don't know that Hitler indeed had fans and still does. You're just incompetent.
Right I'm sure Psystar will put Apple out of business soon by selling their crap computers.
Psystar aren't selling Apple's crap computers, they are selling their own!
I'll explain it to you. You don't comprehend what you read, which leads to your posting irrelevant remarks. From Hitler, you extrapolated Nazi, then you don't know that Hitler indeed had fans and still does. You're just incompetent.
I inferred Nazi by thinking laterally - we've been over and over this. I didn't say he had no fans, so take your own advice about learning to read.
No one is arguing anything like this.
The retail copies of OS X are a license for an upgrade of Mac purchased from Apple not a new license for a generic computer that was not purchased from Apple.
well..... according to the website, the word upgrade is not mentioned.
http://store.apple.com/uk/product/MB...Dk1Mw#overview
I inferred Nazi by thinking laterally - we've been over and over this. I didn't say he had no fans, so take your own advice about learning to read.
Go back and read what was posted. I used Hitler as an example of a criminal, you inappropriately brought Nazis into the thread, because you don't understand what you read. If you get paid to think, you're overpaid.
That will do it for me, I have better things to occupy my time. Rave on, alone.
That's the main point, Apple spent their money and resources developing the OS and Psystar feel they should entitled to it, how much of their resources was involved in creating Mac OSX, as you said if they want to compete they should develop their own OS and sell it with their computers to compete against Apple.
yes and then psystar go and BUY a copy.
yes and then psystar go and BUY a copy.
They bought a copy, but they didn't install that copy. Nor did they get permission to be reseller of OS X clones. This is s free market, a company has a right to protect it's investment. Trying to force Apple into having the only only socialist OS is insane.
Psystar sell you a vanilla PC - which will accept a boxed (unpatched) copy of OS X.
The PC firmware does not violate any copyrights.
The hardware will also run Windows and Linux.
What would Apple do then?
C.