A judge already threw out Psystar's anti-trust and monopoly claims that mirror your own words. Apple does offer HW that others don't have, but you have at the whole machine, not just the parts that can be found in other PCs. You also have to understand some basics about business and how that trying to force Apple to socialize its OS is not an aspect of a free market because OS X and Mac are not a market, they are simply part of the PC market.
but added that Psystar's pleadings "fail to allege facts plausibly supporting the counterintuitive claim that Apple’s operating system is so unique that it suffers no actual or potential competitors."
thus the judge is not approving of apple's business model but effectively saying that due to being too small a market share it doesn't affect enough people
don't think for an instant the US govt or the EU wouldn't haul Apple into court for business models such as this if they had the same market share as MS.
I think you may have hurt "It"'s feeler or something Krupps.....
Hey "It"...... Apple makes and designs it's hardware/package. This is still America despite your vapid whining..... Apple can charge whatever they want and most importantly.... what the market is willing to PAY. This may be a foreign idea but Apple is actually in business to make $ and there's nothing wrong with that. Free Market Economics..... fancy set of words I know... but look them up. If you want to save $ then buy a used machine or a mini.
Man I did it Krupps.... I tried to engage "It" again.... that's it... I'll get back to work now.
I think you may have hurt "It"'s feeler or something Krupps.....
Hey "It"...... Apple makes and designs it's hardware/package. This is still America despite your vapid whining..... Apple can charge whatever they want and most importantly.... what the market is willing to PAY. This may be a foreign idea but Apple is actually in business to make $ and there's nothing wrong with that. Free Market Economics..... fancy set of words I know... but look them up. If you want to save $ then buy a used machine or a mini.
Man I did it Krupps.... I tried to engage "It" again.... that's it... I'll get back to work now.
Z
The free market describes a situation where there are individuals willing to pay for a range prices offered by individuals within the Mac market, including Psystar, for the same hardware and the same software that Apple offers. I think you are confused about the economics behind this whole discussion.
By the way, when you say such juvenile things, referencing your comments to genitalia or mental capacity, you only bring attention to your own deficiencies.
Competition is a good thing. Apple needs to get its act together on pricing and start offering discounts on its products to start competing with Psystar.
Psystar = Fucking hacking thieving bastards. And even then they are only able to do that because of the work done by others in the OSX86 scene.
Its unbelievable the number of idiots that believe its their god given right to nick other peoples software or dictate to a company how they should do business. Get with the real world FFS.
As far as I remember, they are paying for the retail copies of the OS, one per computer.
Blah. MS added a extended warranty. I'm sure you do tell people to get the replacement plan, it's your job. Just like the people in the Apple store try to get you get Apple Care. My friend has a 360 and it's fine. Stop spreading bullshit lies about products. I'd like to know how you can see into the future and see his 360 dying.
Ever have to deal with Microsoft's extended warranty? Get the store replacement plan, it is MUCH easier. BTW, Microsoft was pretty much forced to extend the warranty (on the red ring of death only) because of the number of quality issues. But arranging a repair or replacement from Microsoft is a HUGE pain. As far as it being my job to tell people that? I'm confused, I design buildings, how would telling people to buy replacement plans on XBoxes be part of my job?
(not to put words in Marvin's mouth but) I think his point is that large IP and licensing issues aside, Psystar is targeting a market niche that Apple leaves unserved; and, that Apple servicing that niche alone will squash Psystar.
I completely understand that rationale. However, one cannot put aside IP and licensing issues in this case. If Apple does not want to service that niche market (for whatever reason), that does not in any way grant another company from essentially hijacking Apple's IP property without permission and running ahead with it.
I don't sit around pondering why Apple is not helping me by making a lower-end MacPro. They're not doing it. I move on with my life. Quite a few people here spend too much time locked up in their parent's basement to not have that ability I suppose.
Let Psystar (or their backers) develop their own OSX competitor and run with it. Oh wait, that would take serious capital and R&D effort. Why do that when they can just rip-off Apple?
don't think for an instant the US govt or the EU wouldn't haul Apple into court for business models such as this if they had the same market share as MS.
Exactly!
Apple has nowhere near the market share of Windows... so why the hell do you keep on about antitrust?
Just a question here... how does something like the Axiotron Modbook work then? Is that another hardware maker using OSX as an operating system? How do they get away with it?
I'm just asking so please don't rip my head off.
I think they use an actual Apple brand computer and then modify it to be a tablet.
The original computer is authorized to use the OS, so I guess it is OK.
Just a question here... how does something like the Axiotron Modbook work then? Is that another hardware maker using OSX as an operating system? How do they get away with it?
I'm just asking so please don't rip my head off.
Axiotron take Macs from Apple and modify them by replacing the display with a touch display so Apple are still making their hardware sale.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal
So then you support company 'B' for stealing the IP of company 'A', markets and sells the product using the stolen IP from company 'A' simply because of the argument that company 'A' does not make what the community wants so therefore company 'B' is justified in filling that niche while company 'A' does all the work and receives nothing?
Nice argument.
And don't even tell me that Apple does get their revenue from Psystar buying the $129 retail license UPGRADE!
Psystar bundle a copy of the OS and charge the user for it:
"The price includes a retail copy of Leopard in its original package."
They aren't stealing any IP except from the OSX86 team. They are building their own computers and buying software to run on it. It's similar to Microsoft making an app to run on Windows and someone building an application like Crossover to run it without needing to buy Windows.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterO
(not to put words in Marvin's mouth but) I think his point is that large IP and licensing issues aside, Psystar is targeting a market niche that Apple leaves unserved; and, that Apple servicing that niche alone will squash Psystar.
That's right. Although I also want to see Apple suffer for the bad decisions I think they make . It's true none of us have a right to make that kind of assertion really but take the analogy of fishing.
If there is a shortage of fish in the sea and it is in everyone's best interests to fish less; given that fish are a natural resource, why does anyone have the right to say to an individual they can't fish? The reason is that preventing the unethical behavior of a minority is in the interests of the majority.
Apple are being the unethical ones here IMO because they are not only saying if you want to use OS X, you must buy into their hardware models, they are also saying you can only buy any 3rd party Mac OS X software if you buy into their hardware model. Microsoft doesn't do that and they encourage a free market.
It's not illegal and I don't think Psystar have a case but I'm still on their side because I'm squarely in the camp rooting for a mid-range headless Mac and I'm not moving. This is what Psystar are selling and doing so are saying to Apple, this is what people are asking for and if you won't provide it then we will. That is how the free market works, supply and demand. If you don't meet the demand, people will use whatever means to do so. This is how Napster arose, people wanted the convenience of digital downloads but nobody would offer it legitimately. Now Apple and others come along and meet the demand legally.
Yes, Napster did things illegally and they got shut down. This will likely happen to Psystar although I haven't seen anything illegal besides possibly breaking an EULA. But this issue won't back down just through a lawsuit. I'm not being swayed by Apple no matter how shiny they make the screens, it's not what I want. Many others are the same.
It will back down when Apple step up to the plate and offer options. It's not the same kind of thing as saying well Eizo make expensive displays, they should be made to sell more affordable products so that I can use a good product but still afford it. This isn't the issue. If you can't afford it, you can get any other display and do the same job. Buying a personal computer and an OS covers so much of an industry that one company in control of the whole thing becomes a monopoly.
Apple are monopolizing the phone industry right now. What if you want to setup an app store to host and sell iphone apps? You can't do it. Is it illegal? No, but I think it's unethical. People want the freedom to choose what apps to offer and what apps to download, hence we have people turning to jailbreaking and installer.app.
Consumers want freedom, businesses want control. You can never have all of both but Apple always takes too much control and some consumers want their freedom back.
It's not illegal and I don't think Psystar have a case but I'm still on their side because I'm squarely in the camp rooting for a mid-range headless Mac and I'm not moving.
That says it all really doesn't it? You want a product from a company.... and they don't make it. That's not unethical. That's just bad luck for you.
In order to back up this sense of entitlement people start shouting that "it must be illegal" and wrongly quote cases and legal matters they they clearly don't understand properly.
Then a judge tosses all the antitrust stuff out of the window and the claim changes to "immoral" or "unethical".
And for good measure, we normally get the statement that there are millions of people demanding the 'missing' systems from Apple, and Apple could make a lot of money from filling the gap. Ironic really when, in the same breath Apple is accused of being greedy.
Competition is a good thing. Apple needs to get its act together on pricing and start offering discounts on its products to start competing with Psystar.
No... What needs to happen is for me to talk to your parents and ask them not let you out of the basement anymore. I hear trolls are happy in dark and damp areas.
Psystar bundle a copy of the OS and charge the user for it:
"The price includes a retail copy of Leopard in its original package."
They aren't stealing any IP except from the OSX86 team. They are building their own computers and buying software to run on it. It's similar to Microsoft making an app to run on Windows and someone building an application like Crossover to run it without needing to buy Windows.
Yes, Napster did things illegally and they got shut down. This will likely happen to Psystar although I haven't seen anything illegal besides possibly breaking an EULA.
So you tell me that Psystar is okay because they charge the buyers for the retail copy of OSX (an UPGRADE not FULL LICENSE) and then turn around a few paragraphs later and say they are breaking the EULA?
You're flip-flopping everything to rationalize this. It doesn't matter what company/manufacturer/etc is being discussed. As long as they are not breaking any laws, they don't have to sell to you if they don't want to. Most people just accept that and move on with their lives. You on the other hand decide that if I can't get product 'A' legally, then I will basically get it on the black market.
Who cares if Apple is not achieving full market-penetration by not serving that niche? It is their right to do whatever they want to do with their product. Why is this concept so hard for people to understand and accept?
Apple are monopolizing the phone industry right now. What if you want to setup an app store to host and sell iphone apps? You can't do it. Is it illegal? No, but I think it's unethical. People want the freedom to choose what apps to offer and what apps to download, hence we have people turning to jailbreaking and installer.app.
Consumers want freedom, businesses want control. You can never have all of both but Apple always takes too much control and some consumers want their freedom back.
Consumers have absolute freedom already. Nothing has been taken away from them. Last time I checked, Nokia, Samsung, Motorola, Blackberry, etc.. all make phones too and users are more than happy and welcomed to buy from a different company. Just like their Macs, when you buy their iPhone, you're actually buying their ecosystem, not just the phone itself. This model has been hugely successful for them.
In the beginning, everyone praises Apple for introducing the iPhone and "sticking it to the man" (the wireless industry) and revolutionizing the smartphone market. But after the honeymoon is over, you put Apple over the coals for being "too successful" and scream "monopoly" and "conspiracy". Get over yourselves!
The truth is that any other person/company would love to be in the position Apple is in and would do everything and anything (legally) to keep them at the top just like Jobs has.
That says it all really doesn't it? You want a product from a company.... and they don't make it. That's not unethical. That's just bad luck for you.
Maybe but as I say, when you are in a market like the personal computer industry, it has such a huge impact on everyday life that having one company dictate all the rules in all aspects of the chain is anti-competitive.
Put it another way, the only way they are getting away with this is because they don't have a large market share. If they had a 90% share like Microsoft and a whole load of legacy software was tied to their OS for whatever reasons, I'm pretty sure they would be made to give up their hardware control to enable a free market.
Again is it illegal? No but back to the fish analogy, if the minority behaves in a way that adversely affects a majority then measures will be made to keep the system fair for everyone despite there seeming to be no reason why the minority can act however they please.
This is where the stories about Microsoft and IE come in. Was bundling IE with Windows illegal? Of course not so what was the problem? Microsoft used their OS uniquity to gain an unfair browser market share that no 3rd party developer could match and still hasn't matched to this day. Who decides what's fair and unfair? To Microsoft, the move is clearly unfair as they did nothing illegal but to a majority of people wanting an open, free internet, it wasn't in their best interests.
To people wanting an open, free personal computer system, Apple's business model is similarly not in the interests of a majority. Like I say, the fact they don't have a majority share is the only thing that makes their setup acceptable. The bigger it grows, the less fair it becomes as thousands upon thousand of people lose their jobs as a result of not being able to compete.
Quote:
Originally Posted by piot
And for good measure, we normally get the statement that there are millions of people demanding the 'missing' systems from Apple, and Apple could make a lot of money from filling the gap. Ironic really when, in the same breath Apple is accused of being greedy.
Greedy for control, not for money. I don't think people care if Apple make a lot of money from it so long as their supply meets consumer demand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal
So you tell me that Psystar is okay because they charge the buyers for the retail copy of OSX (an UPGRADE not FULL LICENSE) and then turn around a few paragraphs later and say they are breaking the EULA?
You said they stole the IP, they didn't if they bought a full copy of Leopard for each system. Breaking the EUA doesn't change that. If it is indeed an upgrade disc then I would agree that's wrong, how do you know this is the case?
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal
Just like their Macs, when you buy their iPhone, you're actually buying their ecosystem, not just the phone itself. This model has been hugely successful for them.
It's not that easy to equate every object in different markets and say they work the same way. Mobile phone unlocking is considered fair to a lot of people, phone companies don't think it's a problem tying someone to a network for 18 months. I personally think that practice should be illegal or made 6 months at most. Technology moves on quickly but you are forced into an older system for 1.5 years or else have to pay up the whole amount to buy out of it - subsidies complicate things but still.
If you buy a car, the manufacturer would love to have you get repairs done at the dealership but people tend to go to a local mechanic to get it done for a fraction of the price. This is a fair system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal
In the beginning, everyone praises Apple for introducing the iPhone and "sticking it to the man" (the wireless industry) and revolutionizing the smartphone market. But after the honeymoon is over, you put Apple over the coals for being "too successful" and scream "monopoly" and "conspiracy". Get over yourselves!
I'm not sure that the same people said the same things but it's not hypocritical to have both opinions at once. Yes it is good that they shook up the industry but you can also observe that they are attempting to monopolize it at the same time. In fact under the same circumstances. Windows mobile and symbian are not exclusive to one device.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal
The truth is that any other person/company would love to be in the position Apple is in and would do everything and anything to keep them at the top just like Jobs has.
That I agree with. Exclusivity is one of the strongest selling points for any given brand, games consoles are one example. No XBox game can ever run on a PS3, you have to buy the hardware in order to run it. It's not illegal but it's unethical. If you pay for a much more expensive PS3 and find that Gears of War only runs on an XBox, it's not a nice experience. I guess a more appropriate example would be owning a cheaper XBox and wanting to play Resistance, which is only available for the more expensive PS3.
Does this mean that you have the right to expect Resistance for the cheaper machine? Not really but it's an anti-competitive practice. Again it's freedom vs control. Sony wants more control over the game market, gamers want the freedom to have ultimate choice of software. In a world where credit card companies who cause financial crises are bailed out by governments during times of financial crisis, who has the right to say what's fair any more?
Do we always allow businesses to dictate whatever terms they like? Imagine if Microsoft suddenly put in their EULA that if you purchase Windows, you can only ever use it with a Microsoft mouse. Is it their right to do that? Or would their market share make that move anti-competitive?
effectively the market share limit for the tying charge is around 30%
Quote:
U.S. law on product tying evolved from common law and strongly suggests that, unless a seller has a 30 percent market share, there are plenty of alternatives for consumers, thus the harm to competition is minimal, Steuer said.
so the fact that apple hasn't been charged yet doesn't mean their business practises are correct
it just means that it's not worth taking them to court just yet
but if / when their market share clicks over that 30% threshold...
Comments
A judge already threw out Psystar's anti-trust and monopoly claims that mirror your own words. Apple does offer HW that others don't have, but you have at the whole machine, not just the parts that can be found in other PCs. You also have to understand some basics about business and how that trying to force Apple to socialize its OS is not an aspect of a free market because OS X and Mac are not a market, they are simply part of the PC market.
except that Psystar has until December 8th to respond... it's not completely out yet.
and note the judges decision which states
but added that Psystar's pleadings "fail to allege facts plausibly supporting the counterintuitive claim that Apple’s operating system is so unique that it suffers no actual or potential competitors."
thus the judge is not approving of apple's business model but effectively saying that due to being too small a market share it doesn't affect enough people
don't think for an instant the US govt or the EU wouldn't haul Apple into court for business models such as this if they had the same market share as MS.
I think you may have hurt "It"'s feeler or something Krupps.....
Hey "It"...... Apple makes and designs it's hardware/package. This is still America despite your vapid whining..... Apple can charge whatever they want and most importantly.... what the market is willing to PAY. This may be a foreign idea but Apple is actually in business to make $ and there's nothing wrong with that. Free Market Economics..... fancy set of words I know... but look them up. If you want to save $ then buy a used machine or a mini.
Man I did it Krupps.... I tried to engage "It" again.... that's it... I'll get back to work now.
Z
I rest my case.
I think you may have hurt "It"'s feeler or something Krupps.....
Hey "It"...... Apple makes and designs it's hardware/package. This is still America despite your vapid whining..... Apple can charge whatever they want and most importantly.... what the market is willing to PAY. This may be a foreign idea but Apple is actually in business to make $ and there's nothing wrong with that. Free Market Economics..... fancy set of words I know... but look them up. If you want to save $ then buy a used machine or a mini.
Man I did it Krupps.... I tried to engage "It" again.... that's it... I'll get back to work now.
Z
The free market describes a situation where there are individuals willing to pay for a range prices offered by individuals within the Mac market, including Psystar, for the same hardware and the same software that Apple offers. I think you are confused about the economics behind this whole discussion.
By the way, when you say such juvenile things, referencing your comments to genitalia or mental capacity, you only bring attention to your own deficiencies.
WHAT?!?!?!?!
Fucking hello? Psystar - Innovation?????
Psystar = Fucking hacking thieving bastards. And even then they are only able to do that because of the work done by others in the OSX86 scene.
Its unbelievable the number of idiots that believe its their god given right to nick other peoples software or dictate to a company how they should do business. Get with the real world FFS.
As far as I remember, they are paying for the retail copies of the OS, one per computer.
Blah. MS added a extended warranty. I'm sure you do tell people to get the replacement plan, it's your job. Just like the people in the Apple store try to get you get Apple Care. My friend has a 360 and it's fine. Stop spreading bullshit lies about products. I'd like to know how you can see into the future and see his 360 dying.
Ever have to deal with Microsoft's extended warranty? Get the store replacement plan, it is MUCH easier. BTW, Microsoft was pretty much forced to extend the warranty (on the red ring of death only) because of the number of quality issues. But arranging a repair or replacement from Microsoft is a HUGE pain. As far as it being my job to tell people that? I'm confused, I design buildings, how would telling people to buy replacement plans on XBoxes be part of my job?
(not to put words in Marvin's mouth but) I think his point is that large IP and licensing issues aside, Psystar is targeting a market niche that Apple leaves unserved; and, that Apple servicing that niche alone will squash Psystar.
I completely understand that rationale. However, one cannot put aside IP and licensing issues in this case. If Apple does not want to service that niche market (for whatever reason), that does not in any way grant another company from essentially hijacking Apple's IP property without permission and running ahead with it.
I don't sit around pondering why Apple is not helping me by making a lower-end MacPro. They're not doing it. I move on with my life. Quite a few people here spend too much time locked up in their parent's basement to not have that ability I suppose.
Let Psystar (or their backers) develop their own OSX competitor and run with it. Oh wait, that would take serious capital and R&D effort. Why do that when they can just rip-off Apple?
don't think for an instant the US govt or the EU wouldn't haul Apple into court for business models such as this if they had the same market share as MS.
Exactly!
Apple has nowhere near the market share of Windows... so why the hell do you keep on about antitrust?
Just a question here... how does something like the Axiotron Modbook work then? Is that another hardware maker using OSX as an operating system? How do they get away with it?
I'm just asking so please don't rip my head off.
I think they use an actual Apple brand computer and then modify it to be a tablet.
The original computer is authorized to use the OS, so I guess it is OK.
Just a question here... how does something like the Axiotron Modbook work then? Is that another hardware maker using OSX as an operating system? How do they get away with it?
I'm just asking so please don't rip my head off.
Axiotron take Macs from Apple and modify them by replacing the display with a touch display so Apple are still making their hardware sale.
So then you support company 'B' for stealing the IP of company 'A', markets and sells the product using the stolen IP from company 'A' simply because of the argument that company 'A' does not make what the community wants so therefore company 'B' is justified in filling that niche while company 'A' does all the work and receives nothing?
Nice argument.
And don't even tell me that Apple does get their revenue from Psystar buying the $129 retail license UPGRADE!
Psystar bundle a copy of the OS and charge the user for it:
"The price includes a retail copy of Leopard in its original package."
They aren't stealing any IP except from the OSX86 team. They are building their own computers and buying software to run on it. It's similar to Microsoft making an app to run on Windows and someone building an application like Crossover to run it without needing to buy Windows.
(not to put words in Marvin's mouth but) I think his point is that large IP and licensing issues aside, Psystar is targeting a market niche that Apple leaves unserved; and, that Apple servicing that niche alone will squash Psystar.
That's right. Although I also want to see Apple suffer for the bad decisions I think they make
If there is a shortage of fish in the sea and it is in everyone's best interests to fish less; given that fish are a natural resource, why does anyone have the right to say to an individual they can't fish? The reason is that preventing the unethical behavior of a minority is in the interests of the majority.
Apple are being the unethical ones here IMO because they are not only saying if you want to use OS X, you must buy into their hardware models, they are also saying you can only buy any 3rd party Mac OS X software if you buy into their hardware model. Microsoft doesn't do that and they encourage a free market.
It's not illegal and I don't think Psystar have a case but I'm still on their side because I'm squarely in the camp rooting for a mid-range headless Mac and I'm not moving. This is what Psystar are selling and doing so are saying to Apple, this is what people are asking for and if you won't provide it then we will. That is how the free market works, supply and demand. If you don't meet the demand, people will use whatever means to do so. This is how Napster arose, people wanted the convenience of digital downloads but nobody would offer it legitimately. Now Apple and others come along and meet the demand legally.
Yes, Napster did things illegally and they got shut down. This will likely happen to Psystar although I haven't seen anything illegal besides possibly breaking an EULA. But this issue won't back down just through a lawsuit. I'm not being swayed by Apple no matter how shiny they make the screens, it's not what I want. Many others are the same.
It will back down when Apple step up to the plate and offer options. It's not the same kind of thing as saying well Eizo make expensive displays, they should be made to sell more affordable products so that I can use a good product but still afford it. This isn't the issue. If you can't afford it, you can get any other display and do the same job. Buying a personal computer and an OS covers so much of an industry that one company in control of the whole thing becomes a monopoly.
Apple are monopolizing the phone industry right now. What if you want to setup an app store to host and sell iphone apps? You can't do it. Is it illegal? No, but I think it's unethical. People want the freedom to choose what apps to offer and what apps to download, hence we have people turning to jailbreaking and installer.app.
Consumers want freedom, businesses want control. You can never have all of both but Apple always takes too much control and some consumers want their freedom back.
Point taken, and it is unfortunate.
But most digital stores have region issues. How well does iTunes serve your region?
Rights and Regions mess everything for us. At least can download podcast from USA store
But still you can find here almost everything but blue ray movies. Very small selection, maybe 30
movies.
Macs still mostly $300.00 above USA price but some models doesn't warm up the shelf like the new MB & MBP.
Exactly!
Apple has nowhere near the market share of Windows... so why the hell do you keep on about antitrust?
because it's a position which goes against anti-trust laws
and they'll slip under the radar just because the market share isn't big enough to warrant chasing
are you trying to say that their business model doesn't break either US or anti-trust models ?
check out tying which is one of the anti-trust practises
you want to buy my OS, you'll have to buy my hardware...
Apple will get away with this for a while under one of the get out clauses (number 3)
Success on a tying claim typically requires proof of four elements:
(1) two separate products or services are involved;
(2) the purchase of the tying product is conditioned on the additional purchase of the tied product;
(3) the seller has sufficient market power in the market for the tying product;
(4) a not insubstantial amount of interstate commerce in the tied product market is affected.
but only until market share increases..
It's not illegal and I don't think Psystar have a case but I'm still on their side because I'm squarely in the camp rooting for a mid-range headless Mac and I'm not moving.
That says it all really doesn't it? You want a product from a company.... and they don't make it. That's not unethical. That's just bad luck for you.
In order to back up this sense of entitlement people start shouting that "it must be illegal" and wrongly quote cases and legal matters they they clearly don't understand properly.
Then a judge tosses all the antitrust stuff out of the window and the claim changes to "immoral" or "unethical".
And for good measure, we normally get the statement that there are millions of people demanding the 'missing' systems from Apple, and Apple could make a lot of money from filling the gap. Ironic really when, in the same breath Apple is accused of being greedy.
Competition is a good thing. Apple needs to get its act together on pricing and start offering discounts on its products to start competing with Psystar.
No... What needs to happen is for me to talk to your parents and ask them not let you out of the basement anymore. I hear trolls are happy in dark and damp areas.
Psystar bundle a copy of the OS and charge the user for it:
"The price includes a retail copy of Leopard in its original package."
They aren't stealing any IP except from the OSX86 team. They are building their own computers and buying software to run on it. It's similar to Microsoft making an app to run on Windows and someone building an application like Crossover to run it without needing to buy Windows.
Yes, Napster did things illegally and they got shut down. This will likely happen to Psystar although I haven't seen anything illegal besides possibly breaking an EULA.
So you tell me that Psystar is okay because they charge the buyers for the retail copy of OSX (an UPGRADE not FULL LICENSE) and then turn around a few paragraphs later and say they are breaking the EULA?
You're flip-flopping everything to rationalize this. It doesn't matter what company/manufacturer/etc is being discussed. As long as they are not breaking any laws, they don't have to sell to you if they don't want to. Most people just accept that and move on with their lives. You on the other hand decide that if I can't get product 'A' legally, then I will basically get it on the black market.
Who cares if Apple is not achieving full market-penetration by not serving that niche? It is their right to do whatever they want to do with their product. Why is this concept so hard for people to understand and accept?
Apple are monopolizing the phone industry right now. What if you want to setup an app store to host and sell iphone apps? You can't do it. Is it illegal? No, but I think it's unethical. People want the freedom to choose what apps to offer and what apps to download, hence we have people turning to jailbreaking and installer.app.
Consumers want freedom, businesses want control. You can never have all of both but Apple always takes too much control and some consumers want their freedom back.
Consumers have absolute freedom already. Nothing has been taken away from them. Last time I checked, Nokia, Samsung, Motorola, Blackberry, etc.. all make phones too and users are more than happy and welcomed to buy from a different company. Just like their Macs, when you buy their iPhone, you're actually buying their ecosystem, not just the phone itself. This model has been hugely successful for them.
In the beginning, everyone praises Apple for introducing the iPhone and "sticking it to the man" (the wireless industry) and revolutionizing the smartphone market. But after the honeymoon is over, you put Apple over the coals for being "too successful" and scream "monopoly" and "conspiracy". Get over yourselves!
The truth is that any other person/company would love to be in the position Apple is in and would do everything and anything (legally) to keep them at the top just like Jobs has.
As far as I remember, they are paying for the retail copies of the OS, one per computer.
Those are upgrades, so what OS is Psystar upgrading FROM? did Apple licence them the use of Apples proprietary OS?
NOPE.
a point many seem to miss, or just plain fail to understand.
-Or Cheney.
That says it all really doesn't it? You want a product from a company.... and they don't make it. That's not unethical. That's just bad luck for you.
Maybe but as I say, when you are in a market like the personal computer industry, it has such a huge impact on everyday life that having one company dictate all the rules in all aspects of the chain is anti-competitive.
Put it another way, the only way they are getting away with this is because they don't have a large market share. If they had a 90% share like Microsoft and a whole load of legacy software was tied to their OS for whatever reasons, I'm pretty sure they would be made to give up their hardware control to enable a free market.
Again is it illegal? No but back to the fish analogy, if the minority behaves in a way that adversely affects a majority then measures will be made to keep the system fair for everyone despite there seeming to be no reason why the minority can act however they please.
This is where the stories about Microsoft and IE come in. Was bundling IE with Windows illegal? Of course not so what was the problem? Microsoft used their OS uniquity to gain an unfair browser market share that no 3rd party developer could match and still hasn't matched to this day. Who decides what's fair and unfair? To Microsoft, the move is clearly unfair as they did nothing illegal but to a majority of people wanting an open, free internet, it wasn't in their best interests.
To people wanting an open, free personal computer system, Apple's business model is similarly not in the interests of a majority. Like I say, the fact they don't have a majority share is the only thing that makes their setup acceptable. The bigger it grows, the less fair it becomes as thousands upon thousand of people lose their jobs as a result of not being able to compete.
And for good measure, we normally get the statement that there are millions of people demanding the 'missing' systems from Apple, and Apple could make a lot of money from filling the gap. Ironic really when, in the same breath Apple is accused of being greedy.
Greedy for control, not for money. I don't think people care if Apple make a lot of money from it so long as their supply meets consumer demand.
So you tell me that Psystar is okay because they charge the buyers for the retail copy of OSX (an UPGRADE not FULL LICENSE) and then turn around a few paragraphs later and say they are breaking the EULA?
You said they stole the IP, they didn't if they bought a full copy of Leopard for each system. Breaking the EUA doesn't change that. If it is indeed an upgrade disc then I would agree that's wrong, how do you know this is the case?
Just like their Macs, when you buy their iPhone, you're actually buying their ecosystem, not just the phone itself. This model has been hugely successful for them.
It's not that easy to equate every object in different markets and say they work the same way. Mobile phone unlocking is considered fair to a lot of people, phone companies don't think it's a problem tying someone to a network for 18 months. I personally think that practice should be illegal or made 6 months at most. Technology moves on quickly but you are forced into an older system for 1.5 years or else have to pay up the whole amount to buy out of it - subsidies complicate things but still.
If you buy a car, the manufacturer would love to have you get repairs done at the dealership but people tend to go to a local mechanic to get it done for a fraction of the price. This is a fair system.
In the beginning, everyone praises Apple for introducing the iPhone and "sticking it to the man" (the wireless industry) and revolutionizing the smartphone market. But after the honeymoon is over, you put Apple over the coals for being "too successful" and scream "monopoly" and "conspiracy". Get over yourselves!
I'm not sure that the same people said the same things but it's not hypocritical to have both opinions at once. Yes it is good that they shook up the industry but you can also observe that they are attempting to monopolize it at the same time. In fact under the same circumstances. Windows mobile and symbian are not exclusive to one device.
The truth is that any other person/company would love to be in the position Apple is in and would do everything and anything to keep them at the top just like Jobs has.
That I agree with. Exclusivity is one of the strongest selling points for any given brand, games consoles are one example. No XBox game can ever run on a PS3, you have to buy the hardware in order to run it. It's not illegal but it's unethical. If you pay for a much more expensive PS3 and find that Gears of War only runs on an XBox, it's not a nice experience. I guess a more appropriate example would be owning a cheaper XBox and wanting to play Resistance, which is only available for the more expensive PS3.
Does this mean that you have the right to expect Resistance for the cheaper machine? Not really but it's an anti-competitive practice. Again it's freedom vs control. Sony wants more control over the game market, gamers want the freedom to have ultimate choice of software. In a world where credit card companies who cause financial crises are bailed out by governments during times of financial crisis, who has the right to say what's fair any more?
Do we always allow businesses to dictate whatever terms they like? Imagine if Microsoft suddenly put in their EULA that if you purchase Windows, you can only ever use it with a Microsoft mouse. Is it their right to do that? Or would their market share make that move anti-competitive?
effectively the market share limit for the tying charge is around 30%
U.S. law on product tying evolved from common law and strongly suggests that, unless a seller has a 30 percent market share, there are plenty of alternatives for consumers, thus the harm to competition is minimal, Steuer said.
so the fact that apple hasn't been charged yet doesn't mean their business practises are correct
it just means that it's not worth taking them to court just yet
but if / when their market share clicks over that 30% threshold...