... If someone can build a machine that will install and run an off the shelf copy of OS X then, regardless of what the EULA might say, there is very little that Apple can do to stop them selling those machines.
Apple can stop selling off-the-shelf OS X. Then what will Psystar do? Sell machines with recommendations on how to hack an upgrade and how to violate a EULA? Who does Psystar think they are? Sony with the video tape recorder arguing copyright of taping shows on TV?
To keep selling OS X alone, the only interesting thing this case does is force Apple to sell those OS X packages as "upgrades". They are never referred to as an upgrade from Apple (ie. something requiring a previously installed Apple OS.) and I'm not sure why.
An upgrade version was referenced when Apple doled out OS X v10.1 for about $20, and then someone hacked the CD to remove the check for the previous OS install - as it was a full install.
...1) Its actually an upgrade at retail. You can't buy a stand alone MacOS X install; you can only officially buy it to use on a mac (Says for use on Macintosh computers only on the box), which already came with OS X. Therefore it is automatically sold as an upgrade....
While this may be philosophically true, it does not explicitly state on the the retail box that it is an upgrade. The upgrade idea would imply a discount, that Apple is loathe to provide. For example, I would pay the same price for 10.5 when upgrading from 10.3 as I would for upgrading from 10.4 - even if that 10.4 was on a mac that originally ran 10.3 and I paid to "upgrade" that Mac to 10.4 and now 10.5 - all you Apple types know exactly what I am talking about regarding their pricing and why those Software Coupons are meaningless in terms of customer loyalty or discounts (or anything for that matter!)
if it did, Apple would be justified in previous requirements in the same way EVERY SOFTWARE VENDOR is justified in publishing a requirements spec for what their software will run on, even if someone could hack an upgrade to work without requiring a previous version. Psystar would set a dangerous precedent for winning for all software vendors, so if there is a conspiracy behind them funding this, put your money on a hardware-only company... Dell?
I can take someone's bank card and hack the PIN until it spits out money at an ATM, but that doesn't mean I own the card and make it do what I want (ie. get money) because I can quote armchair lawyers who say possession is nine-tenths of the law.
Not quite. It's like suing Nintendo for stipulating that Wii games are only allowed to run on a Wii, and not on any other hardware, regardless of whether this is possible or not. And here things are not so clear cut.
The one similar case I know well was Bleem!, a PlayStation emulator for the PC and Dreamcast. It was an emulator that did NOT require an (illegal) copy of the PlayStation BIOS as it was able to emulate it. Sony sued and eventually lost, all though they 'won' in the sense that they put Bleem! out of business with the cost of defending themselves. Sony also lost a similar case against Connectix VGS, a PlayStation emulator for Macs.
I'm no lawyer, and there may well be significant differences in the cases, but on the surface it would seem that Apple may well eventually lose their case against Psystar. I don't like the idea, but I think it's more of a case of "when" than "if".
But Sony did win many cases against "mod chip" makers. A "mod chip" altered the boot code in an original PlayStationX (not sure if this was how it worked on a PS2) so that it will play games with any region code. (US players mainly wanted to play Japanese games becasue they weren't available here.) The game on the disk was not altered in any way shape or form. And the game played fine in a PlayStation of a diffent region. (Except that everything is in a foreign language.)
It also allowed the PlayStation to play a copied game. Sony "copy protection" (if you can call it that) was to press bad sectors into an original game disk. Many burner programs at the time stop the burn or imaging process when it encountered these bad sectors and thus would not copy the game. But there were burner programs that simply ignored the bad sectors and kept on burning. But the copied game will not have any bad sectors. And the PlayStation itself looks for these bad sectors. If they aren't present, it will not play the game. The "mod chip" circumvented this check and the copied game played just fine.
Judging from many posters here, Sony shouldn't have had a case because
1. You bought the game, it's your game and you should be able to play it on your Playstation. The region code is a violation of my rights as a consumer. There is no compatibility issue with my hardware except for Sony adding the region code to prevent me from playing a region 3 game on a region 1 PlayStation.
2. You have the right to make backup copies of your games and be able to play them on your PlayStation. Putting in bad sector is not DMCA because it's too easy to circumvent. The only reason for putting bad sectors is so that only an original game will work in a PlayStation. This is illegal because it takes away my rights to make back up copies.
3. You are not altering any of the software codes on the game disk. Therefore you are not violating any copyright laws.
4. It's your hardware and you can modify it anyway you like. And you have the right to make money selling modifying hardware. And Sony would be in violation of the Sherman Act and anti-trust laws if they try to stop me.
But Sony did prevail. However, you can still find on the Interent the instructions on how to encode your own eprom chip so you can make your own "mod chip". Just don't try make a business out of it, by selling them.
For one Apple sells tens of millions of copies of OS X. Microsoft sells multiple hundreds of millions of copies of Windows. Windows enormous marketshare sustains Microsoft.
If Apple sold $200 retail OS X it would loose an average $1,250 computer sale.
Which makes better business sense, $200 or $1,250?
The EULA states that Apple has sold you an upgrade.
The fact that OS X costs $130 instead of $600 is your discount.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimDreamworx
While this may be philosophically true, it does not explicitly state on the the retail box that it is an upgrade. The upgrade idea would imply a discount, that Apple is loathe to provide.
The person that purchases the software and the hardware is not a part of the chain here. Companies are not people. In this case, a company is purchasing the software to undercut Apple's hardware sales. This case is not about a regular person buying OSX and installing it on a personal machine that he or she sees fit. It is about a company buying OSX to make a profit at the expense of the company who makes the software.
Moreover, some people don't seem to understand that having a monopoly in a copyright is legal. In fact, it is in the Constitution. People have some limited rights to use legally purchased software as they see fit for personal use regardless of what Apple says, but this is provided that such use doesn't interfere with Apple's business.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaarrrgggh
You are forgetting about an important piece of the chain-- the person that purchases the software and the hardware.
This time around they are getting closer to issues that I consider important: How much can a software vendor restrict the rights of someone who purchases their product. Implicitly, this challenges EULAs as a class of contract.
Copyright law doesn't work like that. Apple's software is protected whether it be on the DVD or on the hardrive. Copying over the original work on the hardrive creates a derivative work, which is also protected under Copyright law. Stated differently: You cannot alter the original work in any way or form for commercial gain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by archer75
You can install straight from a retail DVD. You prep the partition with an EFI emulator. Nothing illegal about that. Then install the Retail copy of leopard. An unmodified disc. After it's complete you can then copy some new files over.
So you don't have to modify a thing on the disc itself. And once installed you are free to install software and tweak your system so how would copying over and replacing a couple of files be any different? As long as you never altered the retail DVD itself?
The case that Sony lost with Connectix I don't' think is applicable because the suit I believe predated the DMCA. The DMCA makes it much harder for companies like Connectix.
Moreover, Connectix won because the court found that Connectix wasn't really costing Sony money. Sony made money on the video game sales. Connectix was just creating another medium to play those games, ultimately making Sony money. IN other words, Connectix wasn't competing with Sony because Sony was selling game consuls at a loss to break even in order to make money on the games. Here Psystar is trying to compete with Apple using Apple's software to do it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelab
Not quite. It's like suing Nintendo for stipulating that Wii games are only allowed to run on a Wii, and not on any other hardware, regardless of whether this is possible or not. And here things are not so clear cut.
The one similar case I know well was Bleem!, a PlayStation emulator for the PC and Dreamcast. It was an emulator that did NOT require an (illegal) copy of the PlayStation BIOS as it was able to emulate it. Sony sued and eventually lost, all though they 'won' in the sense that they put Bleem! out of business with the cost of defending themselves. Sony also lost a similar case against Connectix VGS, a PlayStation emulator for Macs.
I'm no lawyer, and there may well be significant differences in the cases, but on the surface it would seem that Apple may well eventually lose their case against Psystar. I don't like the idea, but I think it's more of a case of "when" than "if".
Yes, THEY ARE legally sheltered. It's their Intellectual property. Not yours. Not Psystars. They have the rights to do with it as they please. They can LEGALLY say, HP you can use it and Dell you can not. They can give it away if they want, and they can certainly keep other companies from using it entirely all together. It's how it works. If this system wasn't in place many companies would fold. No engineering would ever take place. Everyone would be ripping each other off and only the person that could steal it and resell it the cheapest would ever make the profit. Our economy would completely collapse (lolol I know it has already). But it would be ten times worse.
You should take another look at the EULA, apple is NOT selling and giving up rights to it. They are basically leasing it for use on an Apple labeled system.
Hahahaha. Competition KILLING the economy? You're hilarious. Go take an econ class.
Even in your flawed assumption that there would be a lack of innovation, that would NOT stifle demand. Your second flawed assumption is that people only pick the cheapest product available. False. Even if there was a free-market OS X, Apple would not go out of business because they know how to make the most stable platforms, which is something that many people value over price.
Regardless, this whole lawless economy rant of yours is taking me way out of context. I'm not saying Apple should be forced to sell OS X to everyone. It's their right to choose to whom they sell and how they sell it. Subsequently, when they sell OS X to someone and do so at a subsidized price, they assume the consumer is going to use it in a Mac. There are no guarantees in business, my friend, and if this is news to you, maybe you should work in the private sector, or better yet, run your own business. Development of OS X was a calculated investment. Apple CHOSE to do so, and CHOSES to subsidize the price under the assumption that a combination of OS X sales and hardware sales will recuperate those costs.
Running with this though, what if a user hasn't bought a Mac and purchases a copy of OS X, but never installs it? Is Apple losing money? No, of course not. So what's the difference if I use my existing non-Mac hardware and purchase OS X? Again, Apple gains the software sale. Now what changes when I install OS X? Apple already lost the hardware sale, already gained a software sale, I'm not adding any support burden since my system is a hack and no Genius is going help me sync my iPod.
The software sale is an added bonus for Apple!
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
You are going off the rails now. Having your intellectual property stolen has nothing to do with business risk. Yes theft is against the law. What do the automobile bail outs have to do with any of this, besides your attempt to throw up a straw man.
Now hang on a minute here, you're changing the argument. I'm not talking about stealing intellectual property. I'm talking about Apple subsidizing their product. If Sony goes out of business because they sold too many PS3s at a loss, is the law supposed to protect them? Likewise, if Apple fails to recuperate the development costs of OS X, should the law protect them?
This is all I am saying.
YOU added the words "intellectual property" and "theft," words which are NOT part of my argument.
If Apple can't make money selling OS X at the price it does, it needs to raise the price of OS X. Simple as that. They must take responsibility for making sure their own products are profitable, and not rely on the law to protect them.
THAT is the connection with automotive bail-outs, by the way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
This is not at all true. Copywrites, patents, and trademarks are all valid on consumed products. When you buy a DVD, you own the plastic disc, you do not own the movie, you have been licensed the right to privately view the movie under the studios terms. When you by a book, you own the paper, but you do not own the words on the page, you have been licensed the right to read the words under the publishers terms.
Neither am I arguing that, nor is that truly the issue at stake.
The issue at stake is that Paramount is selling a DVD and then mandating that you can only use it on a Paramount Brand DVD-player... something I vehemently believe is a violation of consumer rights.
Any law that protects such behavior is unconstitutional in my eyes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
That $130 copy of OS X does not support or sustain Apple as a company.
Quote:
Originally Posted by emig647
To elaborate though, that $130 copy of OS X does not support or sustain the investment Apple has put into OS X.
Again, that's Apple's problem. They chose to subsidize it. If they're not making their money back, they should charge more for OS X.
Hahahaha. Competition KILLING the economy? You're hilarious. Go take an econ class.
Even in your flawed assumption that there would be a lack of innovation, that would NOT stifle demand. Your second flawed assumption is that people only pick the cheapest product available. False. Even if there was a free-market OS X, Apple would not go out of business because they know how to make the most stable platforms, which is something that many people value over price.
Regardless, this whole lawless economy rant of yours is taking me way out of context. I'm not saying Apple should be forced to sell OS X to everyone. It's their right to choose to whom they sell and how they sell it. Subsequently, when they sell OS X to someone and do so at a subsidized price, they assume the consumer is going to use it in a Mac. There are no guarantees in business, my friend, and if this is news to you, maybe you should work in the private sector, or better yet, run your own business. Development of OS X was a calculated investment. Apple CHOSE to do so, and CHOSES to subsidize the price under the assumption that a combination of OS X sales and hardware sales will recuperate those costs.
Running with this though, what if a user hasn't bought a Mac and purchases a copy of OS X, but never installs it? Is Apple losing money? No, of course not. So what's the difference if I use my existing non-Mac hardware and purchase OS X? Again, Apple gains the software sale. Now what changes when I install OS X? Apple already lost the hardware sale, already gained a software sale, I'm not adding any support burden since my system is a hack and no Genius is going help me sync my iPod.
The software sale is an added bonus for Apple!
-Clive
Wow you are the one that needs to take an economics class my friend.
Competition KILLING the economy? You're hilarious. Go take an econ class...
We are in a supply and demand economy. That means whoever has the cheapest product and the most of it will come out on top. I can give plenty of examples of companies that copied other companies with CRAPPIER products and came out on top. #1? Microsoft.
But this whole point came up from specific examples in my head. I drive a Mitsubishi Evolution. There are a lot of after market parts for these cars. One of the biggest and best is Voltex. Voltex has been making quality products out of Japan for years. They do massive R&D, and come out with the absolute best products. They mainly do aerodynamic products such as lips, wings, etc. Recently they came out with a very nice carbon fiber hood that dissipates heat, and creates more pressure on the top of the hood creating more force. This hood blew away the competition. In order to make their R&D costs back the hood had to be sold for $800. Along comes Seibon, and makes a carbon fiber mold of it. They use slightly crappier material, but it still works. They turn around and sell it for half the pricee. Voltex can't move their quality hood because Seibon is close-enough and is half price. Voltex announced last month they aren't producing the hood any more and are thinking of getting out of Evo products all together.
If companies are allowed to gain access to the rights of Intellectual Property any time they want in our supply and demand economy, yes it will stiffle innovation. If people are just going to be blatanly ripped off at any time, it's going to prevent the big boys with money investing into innovation while the little guy can just take it make money more money off of it. These are the primary reasons IP exists. If you had taken an econ class you would know this.
Running with this though, what if a user hasn't bought a Mac and purchases a copy of OS X, but never installs it? Is Apple losing money? No, of course not. So what's the difference if I use my existing non-Mac hardware and purchase OS X? Again, Apple gains the software sale. Now what changes when I install OS X? Apple already lost the hardware sale, already gained a software sale, I'm not adding any support burden since my system is a hack and no Genius is going help me sync my iPod.
But that's the problem with apple being forced to give it up. They WOULD be forced to support it. You keep shrugging off apple's business model. That is THEIR business MODEL. It is THEIR right to choose that model. It is their right to protect that model. I don't understand how ANYONE can say, apple can't do what they want with their property. Who can re-sell it. The point you bringing up about you buying OS X and installing it on a hack is completely different than you doing that on a MASS level.
Which is one of the reasons Apple doesn't go after the OSX86 community any more. There is no need to screw these guys. They are hobbyists. I love most of this community, they are a bunch of great guys. And psystar is going to screw that up big time if they don't go away. Psystar brings nothing to the table but a lot of mess. If they can get the courts to force apple to let any company use their OS then many companies will also pull this lever. And it won't just be gaming console and computer operating systems. It will be embedded devices like car electronics, scanning electronics, printer electronics, you name it, it will be forced to be handed over because well they could BUY the printer and get it off of it.
YOU added the words "intellectual property" and "theft," words which are NOT part of my argument.
If Apple can't make money selling OS X at the price it does, it needs to raise the price of OS X. Simple as that. They must take responsibility for making sure their own products are profitable, and not rely on the law to protect them.
THAT is the connection with automotive bail-outs, by the way.
Intellectual property theft is what Psystar is doing. You may want to ignore that because its inconvenient to your argument.
Apple does not need to raise the price because it is not selling a new copy of OS X it is selling an upgrade to OS X.
Quote:
The issue at stake is that Paramount is selling a DVD and then mandating that you can only use it on a Paramount Brand DVD-player... something I vehemently believe is a violation of consumer rights.
Any law that protects such behavior is unconstitutional in my eyes.
It is not at all unconstitutional. Their are many examples of companies with vertical business models. As long as that company is not a monopoly or does not practice unfair anticompetitive behavior. Clear of those issues you are free to sell your products any way you want.
Psystar has two other viable OS choices it could use on its machines, or Psystar is free to build its own OS. Their is nothing that makes OS X the only choice.
Psystar has two other viable OS choices it could use on its machines, or Psystar is free to build its own OS. Their is nothing that makes OS X the only choice.
Which it does sell windows machines too i believe.
Is it me or does it sound like the old SCO vs. IBM/Novell/Daimler Chrysler/and basically all Linux users and distributors worldwide?
A ridiculous claim with no backing. Like someone had said, it's like saying you can't play Wii games on a non-Wii system. Apple has the rights to limit their software license to their own machines because it's their software. The person or company who creates a certain software is and can be able to make up their own rules. If you don't like it, too bad, you can't use it legally.
Suck it up Psystar, go shoot yourself and just die; you're just wasting people's time and your money in this idiotic fight.
Hahahaha. Competition KILLING the economy? You're hilarious. Go take an econ class.
Even in your flawed assumption that there would be a lack of innovation, that would NOT stifle demand. Your second flawed assumption is that people only pick the cheapest product available. False. Even if there was a free-market OS X, Apple would not go out of business because they know how to make the most stable platforms, which is something that many people value over price.
Regardless, this whole lawless economy rant of yours is taking me way out of context. I'm not saying Apple should be forced to sell OS X to everyone. It's their right to choose to whom they sell and how they sell it. Subsequently, when they sell OS X to someone and do so at a subsidized price, they assume the consumer is going to use it in a Mac. There are no guarantees in business, my friend, and if this is news to you, maybe you should work in the private sector, or better yet, run your own business. Development of OS X was a calculated investment. Apple CHOSE to do so, and CHOSES to subsidize the price under the assumption that a combination of OS X sales and hardware sales will recuperate those costs.
Running with this though, what if a user hasn't bought a Mac and purchases a copy of OS X, but never installs it? Is Apple losing money? No, of course not. So what's the difference if I use my existing non-Mac hardware and purchase OS X? Again, Apple gains the software sale. Now what changes when I install OS X? Apple already lost the hardware sale, already gained a software sale, I'm not adding any support burden since my system is a hack and no Genius is going help me sync my iPod.
The software sale is an added bonus for Apple!
Now hang on a minute here, you're changing the argument. I'm not talking about stealing intellectual property. I'm talking about Apple subsidizing their product. If Sony goes out of business because they sold too many PS3s at a loss, is the law supposed to protect them? Likewise, if Apple fails to recuperate the development costs of OS X, should the law protect them?
This is all I am saying.
YOU added the words "intellectual property" and "theft," words which are NOT part of my argument.
If Apple can't make money selling OS X at the price it does, it needs to raise the price of OS X. Simple as that. They must take responsibility for making sure their own products are profitable, and not rely on the law to protect them.
THAT is the connection with automotive bail-outs, by the way.
Neither am I arguing that, nor is that truly the issue at stake.
The issue at stake is that Paramount is selling a DVD and then mandating that you can only use it on a Paramount Brand DVD-player... something I vehemently believe is a violation of consumer rights.
Any law that protects such behavior is unconstitutional in my eyes.
Again, that's Apple's problem. They chose to subsidize it. If they're not making their money back, they should charge more for OS X.
-Clive
If Paramount was in the business of selling DVD players, they can put out a movie that only plays on their DVD players. No laws broken, what so ever. Microsoft puts out Halo3. It can only be played on an Xbox. Any laws broken?
Buy a Porsche fuel pump and guess what. You have to buy a Porsche to use it. Most consumers (except some of those posting on this thread) aren't that dumb. People that buy a Porsche fuel pump already own a Porsche. Except for the few hobbiest tinkering around with autos. People that buy OSX in a box already own a Mac. Except for the few hobbiest tinkering around with computers.
I don't know or every heard of anyone purchasing OSX in a box, bringing it home, try to load it into his Dell PC and then cried out, "Holy shit. I've been had. OSX won't load on my Dell. Apple is up to no good. I better get on the AppleInsider forum and complain about this!".
And don't think that just because you have a choice of DVD players that there isn't a "monopoly" involve. Buy a BluRay movie and you have to use a BluRay player. But I have a choice of BluRay players, you claim. But every BluRay player (along with every BluRay movie) has to pay Sony a license fee. You have to pay Sony no matter what company BluRay player you buy. The same goes for music CD's. Every music CD pressed and every player (includung the drive in a computer) that plays a music CD pays Philips and Sony (I believe) for a license to use the technology that goes into making the Compact Disc.
Apple just don't want to license out their IP. Nothing wrong with that. Nothing illegal about that. It's the model that works best for Apple. Sony on the other hand don't have to license out BluRay. If they don't, BluRay may go the way of Beta. But still Sony, is not forced to license out BluRay. But Sony does because it's the business model thay they want to persue this time around.
The rest of your argument wouldn't sit very well with the drug companies. Are you saying that if a drug company invest billions of dollars in R&D to come up with a new drug, that they can't keep some other company from producing it? The billions they spent in R&D is their problem, not the problem of the company trying to profit off their research? If this was the case, why should any drug company spend the billions of dollars it takes to develop new drugs? The cost of R&D for the drug and any new drugs are "subsidized" in the price of the drugs they sell, for the life of the patent they hold on it. Once a drug goes generic, they can still make money off it. But not enough to pay for the R&D of new drugs. It's the profit from the sales of drugs that they still hold patents on, that subsidizes the R&D for the development new drugs. Most drugs fail. But the one that does succeed pays for itself and all the failed attempts. That's if the company aren't forced to give up their IP and compete with companies that invested nothing into the R&D but want to sell a generic version.
Do you think Psystar going to spent any money on improving OSX? Where are the innovations for OSX going to come from if not from Apple? And if OSX fails to innovate past the competition, then where is the demand for OSX going to come from? People use OSX because it's better than Windows. Not becuase it's cheaper than Windows. Once OSX fail to be better the Windows, demand will drop. Regardless of price. Your "lack of innovation will NOT stifle demand" statement is way off.
A Mac subsidizes OSX because this is Apple's business model. Buy a Mac and it's guarantee that you can upgrade it, at a reasonble price, in the future. My 2003 G4 PowerMac started with Panther and can still run Leopard. (This may be the last OSX for it if the rumors for Snow Leopard are correct.) I don't know of any Mac that didn't run a least the next two OS after the time of purchase. Apple does the needed R&D to make sure OSX still runs on older Macs because the price of a Mac subsidizes the future development of OSX for it. This actually adds value to a Mac. This is why OSX is only $130.00. Mac owners already paid for some of it's development with their purchase of a Mac. Apple is not trying to recoup the cost of developing OSX by selling OSX in a box. They selling OSX in a box for the benifit of Mac owners that wants to upgrade. And they are entitle to upgrade at a reasonble price because they subsidized the development of OSX with their Mac purchase.
Abode subsidizes the future development Photoshop with every full price purchase of Photoshop. Therefore, they charge an upgrade price for anyone that purchased a full priced copy of Photoshop. This is fair for both the Photoshop users and Abode. What if someone came along and found a way to load an upgrade copy of Photoshop without having to prove they bought a full version. And they made a business of it by selling upgrade version of Photoshop with the necessary hack to use it without the proof of a prior version. And Abode sales of Photshop drops. You're saying that Abode is at fault because they shouldn't be selling the upgrade version for such a low price.
Apple isn't asking the government to step in and protect them from losses due to sales of off the shelf copy of OSX. Apple is asking the government to just protect what is rightfully their's. And the government has the duty to do so because the government made the laws that are being broken. It doesn't matter if Apple is losing money by selling off the shelf copy of OSX. They have every right to do so. MS and Sony loses money on every game console sold. So what. MS and Sony still has the right to have the government step in and protect the use of their IP. That's all Apple is asking from the government. Not welfare or food stamps. There's no similiarity between this and the US auto industry bail out plans. Judging by how the people in charge of running a US auto maker ran their business, "Intellectual Property" would be an oxymoron.
Dell on the other hand don't subsidize the development of future OS. Dell do not make the OS and thus can not guarantee that the next MS OS will work on it. They can't even guarentee that the next update will work on it. Dell wants you to buy new hardware every time a new OS comes out. That's their business model.
MS on the other hand do not make the hardware. They develop their new OS for the newest hardware available. It's just luck on whether it will work on an older sytem or not. It's the new hardware the consumers buy that will pay for the new OS. The cost of older hardware only paid for the OS it came with. The upgrade version of Windows is only meant for the people lucky enough to have an older system that can run it. Otherwise the vast marjority of them have to get their new version of Windows by buying a new computer. Good for MS. Good for Dell. Not so good for the consumers.
Abode subsidizes the future development Photoshop with every full price purchase of Photoshop. Therefore, they charge an upgrade price for anyone that purchased a full priced copy of Photoshop. This is fair for both the Photoshop users and Abode. What if someone came along and found a way to load an upgrade copy of Photoshop without having to prove they bought a full version. And they made a business of it by selling upgrade version of Photoshop with the necessary hack to use it without the proof of a prior version. And Abode sales of Photshop drops. You're saying that Abode is at fault because they shouldn't be selling the upgrade version for such a low price.
This is probably the best analogy I have read during these debates. /thumbsup
The issue at stake is that Paramount is selling a DVD and then mandating that you can only use it on a Paramount Brand DVD-player... something I vehemently believe is a violation of consumer rights.
Of course it's okay to do that! The Master-branded padlock your parents are using on your door to prevent you from leaving the the basement will not work with your Schlage key. Apparently, the lack of sunlight is affecting your ability to think things through logically.
Comments
When you buy OS X, you own the plastic disc, you are licensed the right to use the software under Apple's terms.
That $130 copy of OS X does not support or sustain Apple as a company.
GET'IM Teno!
To elaborate though, that $130 copy of OS X does not support or sustain the investment Apple has put into OS X.
GET'IM Teno!
To elaborate though, that $130 copy of OS X does not support or sustain the investment Apple has put into OS X.
how about $200 a copy the price best vista ver?
... If someone can build a machine that will install and run an off the shelf copy of OS X then, regardless of what the EULA might say, there is very little that Apple can do to stop them selling those machines.
Apple can stop selling off-the-shelf OS X. Then what will Psystar do? Sell machines with recommendations on how to hack an upgrade and how to violate a EULA? Who does Psystar think they are? Sony with the video tape recorder arguing copyright of taping shows on TV?
To keep selling OS X alone, the only interesting thing this case does is force Apple to sell those OS X packages as "upgrades". They are never referred to as an upgrade from Apple (ie. something requiring a previously installed Apple OS.) and I'm not sure why.
An upgrade version was referenced when Apple doled out OS X v10.1 for about $20, and then someone hacked the CD to remove the check for the previous OS install - as it was a full install.
...1) Its actually an upgrade at retail. You can't buy a stand alone MacOS X install; you can only officially buy it to use on a mac (Says for use on Macintosh computers only on the box), which already came with OS X. Therefore it is automatically sold as an upgrade....
While this may be philosophically true, it does not explicitly state on the the retail box that it is an upgrade. The upgrade idea would imply a discount, that Apple is loathe to provide. For example, I would pay the same price for 10.5 when upgrading from 10.3 as I would for upgrading from 10.4 - even if that 10.4 was on a mac that originally ran 10.3 and I paid to "upgrade" that Mac to 10.4 and now 10.5 - all you Apple types know exactly what I am talking about regarding their pricing and why those Software Coupons are meaningless in terms of customer loyalty or discounts (or anything for that matter!)
if it did, Apple would be justified in previous requirements in the same way EVERY SOFTWARE VENDOR is justified in publishing a requirements spec for what their software will run on, even if someone could hack an upgrade to work without requiring a previous version. Psystar would set a dangerous precedent for winning for all software vendors, so if there is a conspiracy behind them funding this, put your money on a hardware-only company... Dell?
I can take someone's bank card and hack the PIN until it spits out money at an ATM, but that doesn't mean I own the card and make it do what I want (ie. get money) because I can quote armchair lawyers who say possession is nine-tenths of the law.
Not quite. It's like suing Nintendo for stipulating that Wii games are only allowed to run on a Wii, and not on any other hardware, regardless of whether this is possible or not. And here things are not so clear cut.
The one similar case I know well was Bleem!, a PlayStation emulator for the PC and Dreamcast. It was an emulator that did NOT require an (illegal) copy of the PlayStation BIOS as it was able to emulate it. Sony sued and eventually lost, all though they 'won' in the sense that they put Bleem! out of business with the cost of defending themselves. Sony also lost a similar case against Connectix VGS, a PlayStation emulator for Macs.
I'm no lawyer, and there may well be significant differences in the cases, but on the surface it would seem that Apple may well eventually lose their case against Psystar. I don't like the idea, but I think it's more of a case of "when" than "if".
But Sony did win many cases against "mod chip" makers. A "mod chip" altered the boot code in an original PlayStationX (not sure if this was how it worked on a PS2) so that it will play games with any region code. (US players mainly wanted to play Japanese games becasue they weren't available here.) The game on the disk was not altered in any way shape or form. And the game played fine in a PlayStation of a diffent region. (Except that everything is in a foreign language.)
It also allowed the PlayStation to play a copied game. Sony "copy protection" (if you can call it that) was to press bad sectors into an original game disk. Many burner programs at the time stop the burn or imaging process when it encountered these bad sectors and thus would not copy the game. But there were burner programs that simply ignored the bad sectors and kept on burning. But the copied game will not have any bad sectors. And the PlayStation itself looks for these bad sectors. If they aren't present, it will not play the game. The "mod chip" circumvented this check and the copied game played just fine.
Judging from many posters here, Sony shouldn't have had a case because
1. You bought the game, it's your game and you should be able to play it on your Playstation. The region code is a violation of my rights as a consumer. There is no compatibility issue with my hardware except for Sony adding the region code to prevent me from playing a region 3 game on a region 1 PlayStation.
2. You have the right to make backup copies of your games and be able to play them on your PlayStation. Putting in bad sector is not DMCA because it's too easy to circumvent. The only reason for putting bad sectors is so that only an original game will work in a PlayStation. This is illegal because it takes away my rights to make back up copies.
3. You are not altering any of the software codes on the game disk. Therefore you are not violating any copyright laws.
4. It's your hardware and you can modify it anyway you like. And you have the right to make money selling modifying hardware. And Sony would be in violation of the Sherman Act and anti-trust laws if they try to stop me.
But Sony did prevail. However, you can still find on the Interent the instructions on how to encode your own eprom chip so you can make your own "mod chip". Just don't try make a business out of it, by selling them.
For one Apple sells tens of millions of copies of OS X. Microsoft sells multiple hundreds of millions of copies of Windows. Windows enormous marketshare sustains Microsoft.
If Apple sold $200 retail OS X it would loose an average $1,250 computer sale.
Which makes better business sense, $200 or $1,250?
how about $200 a copy the price best vista ver?
The fact that OS X costs $130 instead of $600 is your discount.
While this may be philosophically true, it does not explicitly state on the the retail box that it is an upgrade. The upgrade idea would imply a discount, that Apple is loathe to provide.
Moreover, some people don't seem to understand that having a monopoly in a copyright is legal. In fact, it is in the Constitution. People have some limited rights to use legally purchased software as they see fit for personal use regardless of what Apple says, but this is provided that such use doesn't interfere with Apple's business.
You are forgetting about an important piece of the chain-- the person that purchases the software and the hardware.
This time around they are getting closer to issues that I consider important: How much can a software vendor restrict the rights of someone who purchases their product. Implicitly, this challenges EULAs as a class of contract.
You can install straight from a retail DVD. You prep the partition with an EFI emulator. Nothing illegal about that. Then install the Retail copy of leopard. An unmodified disc. After it's complete you can then copy some new files over.
So you don't have to modify a thing on the disc itself. And once installed you are free to install software and tweak your system so how would copying over and replacing a couple of files be any different? As long as you never altered the retail DVD itself?
Moreover, Connectix won because the court found that Connectix wasn't really costing Sony money. Sony made money on the video game sales. Connectix was just creating another medium to play those games, ultimately making Sony money. IN other words, Connectix wasn't competing with Sony because Sony was selling game consuls at a loss to break even in order to make money on the games. Here Psystar is trying to compete with Apple using Apple's software to do it.
Not quite. It's like suing Nintendo for stipulating that Wii games are only allowed to run on a Wii, and not on any other hardware, regardless of whether this is possible or not. And here things are not so clear cut.
The one similar case I know well was Bleem!, a PlayStation emulator for the PC and Dreamcast. It was an emulator that did NOT require an (illegal) copy of the PlayStation BIOS as it was able to emulate it. Sony sued and eventually lost, all though they 'won' in the sense that they put Bleem! out of business with the cost of defending themselves. Sony also lost a similar case against Connectix VGS, a PlayStation emulator for Macs.
I'm no lawyer, and there may well be significant differences in the cases, but on the surface it would seem that Apple may well eventually lose their case against Psystar. I don't like the idea, but I think it's more of a case of "when" than "if".
Yes, THEY ARE legally sheltered. It's their Intellectual property. Not yours. Not Psystars. They have the rights to do with it as they please. They can LEGALLY say, HP you can use it and Dell you can not. They can give it away if they want, and they can certainly keep other companies from using it entirely all together. It's how it works. If this system wasn't in place many companies would fold. No engineering would ever take place. Everyone would be ripping each other off and only the person that could steal it and resell it the cheapest would ever make the profit. Our economy would completely collapse (lolol I know it has already). But it would be ten times worse.
You should take another look at the EULA, apple is NOT selling and giving up rights to it. They are basically leasing it for use on an Apple labeled system.
Hahahaha. Competition KILLING the economy? You're hilarious. Go take an econ class.
Even in your flawed assumption that there would be a lack of innovation, that would NOT stifle demand. Your second flawed assumption is that people only pick the cheapest product available. False. Even if there was a free-market OS X, Apple would not go out of business because they know how to make the most stable platforms, which is something that many people value over price.
Regardless, this whole lawless economy rant of yours is taking me way out of context. I'm not saying Apple should be forced to sell OS X to everyone. It's their right to choose to whom they sell and how they sell it. Subsequently, when they sell OS X to someone and do so at a subsidized price, they assume the consumer is going to use it in a Mac. There are no guarantees in business, my friend, and if this is news to you, maybe you should work in the private sector, or better yet, run your own business. Development of OS X was a calculated investment. Apple CHOSE to do so, and CHOSES to subsidize the price under the assumption that a combination of OS X sales and hardware sales will recuperate those costs.
Running with this though, what if a user hasn't bought a Mac and purchases a copy of OS X, but never installs it? Is Apple losing money? No, of course not. So what's the difference if I use my existing non-Mac hardware and purchase OS X? Again, Apple gains the software sale. Now what changes when I install OS X? Apple already lost the hardware sale, already gained a software sale, I'm not adding any support burden since my system is a hack and no Genius is going help me sync my iPod.
The software sale is an added bonus for Apple!
You are going off the rails now. Having your intellectual property stolen has nothing to do with business risk. Yes theft is against the law. What do the automobile bail outs have to do with any of this, besides your attempt to throw up a straw man.
Now hang on a minute here, you're changing the argument. I'm not talking about stealing intellectual property. I'm talking about Apple subsidizing their product. If Sony goes out of business because they sold too many PS3s at a loss, is the law supposed to protect them? Likewise, if Apple fails to recuperate the development costs of OS X, should the law protect them?
This is all I am saying.
YOU added the words "intellectual property" and "theft," words which are NOT part of my argument.
If Apple can't make money selling OS X at the price it does, it needs to raise the price of OS X. Simple as that. They must take responsibility for making sure their own products are profitable, and not rely on the law to protect them.
THAT is the connection with automotive bail-outs, by the way.
This is not at all true. Copywrites, patents, and trademarks are all valid on consumed products. When you buy a DVD, you own the plastic disc, you do not own the movie, you have been licensed the right to privately view the movie under the studios terms. When you by a book, you own the paper, but you do not own the words on the page, you have been licensed the right to read the words under the publishers terms.
Neither am I arguing that, nor is that truly the issue at stake.
The issue at stake is that Paramount is selling a DVD and then mandating that you can only use it on a Paramount Brand DVD-player... something I vehemently believe is a violation of consumer rights.
Any law that protects such behavior is unconstitutional in my eyes.
That $130 copy of OS X does not support or sustain Apple as a company.
To elaborate though, that $130 copy of OS X does not support or sustain the investment Apple has put into OS X.
Again, that's Apple's problem. They chose to subsidize it. If they're not making their money back, they should charge more for OS X.
-Clive
Hahahaha. Competition KILLING the economy? You're hilarious. Go take an econ class.
Even in your flawed assumption that there would be a lack of innovation, that would NOT stifle demand. Your second flawed assumption is that people only pick the cheapest product available. False. Even if there was a free-market OS X, Apple would not go out of business because they know how to make the most stable platforms, which is something that many people value over price.
Regardless, this whole lawless economy rant of yours is taking me way out of context. I'm not saying Apple should be forced to sell OS X to everyone. It's their right to choose to whom they sell and how they sell it. Subsequently, when they sell OS X to someone and do so at a subsidized price, they assume the consumer is going to use it in a Mac. There are no guarantees in business, my friend, and if this is news to you, maybe you should work in the private sector, or better yet, run your own business. Development of OS X was a calculated investment. Apple CHOSE to do so, and CHOSES to subsidize the price under the assumption that a combination of OS X sales and hardware sales will recuperate those costs.
Running with this though, what if a user hasn't bought a Mac and purchases a copy of OS X, but never installs it? Is Apple losing money? No, of course not. So what's the difference if I use my existing non-Mac hardware and purchase OS X? Again, Apple gains the software sale. Now what changes when I install OS X? Apple already lost the hardware sale, already gained a software sale, I'm not adding any support burden since my system is a hack and no Genius is going help me sync my iPod.
The software sale is an added bonus for Apple!
-Clive
Wow you are the one that needs to take an economics class my friend.
Competition KILLING the economy? You're hilarious. Go take an econ class...
We are in a supply and demand economy. That means whoever has the cheapest product and the most of it will come out on top. I can give plenty of examples of companies that copied other companies with CRAPPIER products and came out on top. #1? Microsoft.
But this whole point came up from specific examples in my head. I drive a Mitsubishi Evolution. There are a lot of after market parts for these cars. One of the biggest and best is Voltex. Voltex has been making quality products out of Japan for years. They do massive R&D, and come out with the absolute best products. They mainly do aerodynamic products such as lips, wings, etc. Recently they came out with a very nice carbon fiber hood that dissipates heat, and creates more pressure on the top of the hood creating more force. This hood blew away the competition. In order to make their R&D costs back the hood had to be sold for $800. Along comes Seibon, and makes a carbon fiber mold of it. They use slightly crappier material, but it still works. They turn around and sell it for half the pricee. Voltex can't move their quality hood because Seibon is close-enough and is half price. Voltex announced last month they aren't producing the hood any more and are thinking of getting out of Evo products all together.
If companies are allowed to gain access to the rights of Intellectual Property any time they want in our supply and demand economy, yes it will stiffle innovation. If people are just going to be blatanly ripped off at any time, it's going to prevent the big boys with money investing into innovation while the little guy can just take it make money more money off of it. These are the primary reasons IP exists. If you had taken an econ class you would know this.
Running with this though, what if a user hasn't bought a Mac and purchases a copy of OS X, but never installs it? Is Apple losing money? No, of course not. So what's the difference if I use my existing non-Mac hardware and purchase OS X? Again, Apple gains the software sale. Now what changes when I install OS X? Apple already lost the hardware sale, already gained a software sale, I'm not adding any support burden since my system is a hack and no Genius is going help me sync my iPod.
But that's the problem with apple being forced to give it up. They WOULD be forced to support it. You keep shrugging off apple's business model. That is THEIR business MODEL. It is THEIR right to choose that model. It is their right to protect that model. I don't understand how ANYONE can say, apple can't do what they want with their property. Who can re-sell it. The point you bringing up about you buying OS X and installing it on a hack is completely different than you doing that on a MASS level.
Which is one of the reasons Apple doesn't go after the OSX86 community any more. There is no need to screw these guys. They are hobbyists. I love most of this community, they are a bunch of great guys. And psystar is going to screw that up big time if they don't go away. Psystar brings nothing to the table but a lot of mess. If they can get the courts to force apple to let any company use their OS then many companies will also pull this lever. And it won't just be gaming console and computer operating systems. It will be embedded devices like car electronics, scanning electronics, printer electronics, you name it, it will be forced to be handed over because well they could BUY the printer and get it off of it.
YOU added the words "intellectual property" and "theft," words which are NOT part of my argument.
If Apple can't make money selling OS X at the price it does, it needs to raise the price of OS X. Simple as that. They must take responsibility for making sure their own products are profitable, and not rely on the law to protect them.
THAT is the connection with automotive bail-outs, by the way.
Intellectual property theft is what Psystar is doing. You may want to ignore that because its inconvenient to your argument.
Apple does not need to raise the price because it is not selling a new copy of OS X it is selling an upgrade to OS X.
The issue at stake is that Paramount is selling a DVD and then mandating that you can only use it on a Paramount Brand DVD-player... something I vehemently believe is a violation of consumer rights.
Any law that protects such behavior is unconstitutional in my eyes.
It is not at all unconstitutional. Their are many examples of companies with vertical business models. As long as that company is not a monopoly or does not practice unfair anticompetitive behavior. Clear of those issues you are free to sell your products any way you want.
Psystar has two other viable OS choices it could use on its machines, or Psystar is free to build its own OS. Their is nothing that makes OS X the only choice.
Psystar has two other viable OS choices it could use on its machines, or Psystar is free to build its own OS. Their is nothing that makes OS X the only choice.
Which it does sell windows machines too i believe.
A ridiculous claim with no backing. Like someone had said, it's like saying you can't play Wii games on a non-Wii system. Apple has the rights to limit their software license to their own machines because it's their software. The person or company who creates a certain software is and can be able to make up their own rules. If you don't like it, too bad, you can't use it legally.
Suck it up Psystar, go shoot yourself and just die; you're just wasting people's time and your money in this idiotic fight.
deltatux
Suck it up Psystar, go shoot yourself and just die; you're just wasting people's time and your money in this idiotic fight.
deltatux
Including my time arguing with people that just don't get the law / economics.
Hahahaha. Competition KILLING the economy? You're hilarious. Go take an econ class.
Even in your flawed assumption that there would be a lack of innovation, that would NOT stifle demand. Your second flawed assumption is that people only pick the cheapest product available. False. Even if there was a free-market OS X, Apple would not go out of business because they know how to make the most stable platforms, which is something that many people value over price.
Regardless, this whole lawless economy rant of yours is taking me way out of context. I'm not saying Apple should be forced to sell OS X to everyone. It's their right to choose to whom they sell and how they sell it. Subsequently, when they sell OS X to someone and do so at a subsidized price, they assume the consumer is going to use it in a Mac. There are no guarantees in business, my friend, and if this is news to you, maybe you should work in the private sector, or better yet, run your own business. Development of OS X was a calculated investment. Apple CHOSE to do so, and CHOSES to subsidize the price under the assumption that a combination of OS X sales and hardware sales will recuperate those costs.
Running with this though, what if a user hasn't bought a Mac and purchases a copy of OS X, but never installs it? Is Apple losing money? No, of course not. So what's the difference if I use my existing non-Mac hardware and purchase OS X? Again, Apple gains the software sale. Now what changes when I install OS X? Apple already lost the hardware sale, already gained a software sale, I'm not adding any support burden since my system is a hack and no Genius is going help me sync my iPod.
The software sale is an added bonus for Apple!
Now hang on a minute here, you're changing the argument. I'm not talking about stealing intellectual property. I'm talking about Apple subsidizing their product. If Sony goes out of business because they sold too many PS3s at a loss, is the law supposed to protect them? Likewise, if Apple fails to recuperate the development costs of OS X, should the law protect them?
This is all I am saying.
YOU added the words "intellectual property" and "theft," words which are NOT part of my argument.
If Apple can't make money selling OS X at the price it does, it needs to raise the price of OS X. Simple as that. They must take responsibility for making sure their own products are profitable, and not rely on the law to protect them.
THAT is the connection with automotive bail-outs, by the way.
Neither am I arguing that, nor is that truly the issue at stake.
The issue at stake is that Paramount is selling a DVD and then mandating that you can only use it on a Paramount Brand DVD-player... something I vehemently believe is a violation of consumer rights.
Any law that protects such behavior is unconstitutional in my eyes.
Again, that's Apple's problem. They chose to subsidize it. If they're not making their money back, they should charge more for OS X.
-Clive
If Paramount was in the business of selling DVD players, they can put out a movie that only plays on their DVD players. No laws broken, what so ever. Microsoft puts out Halo3. It can only be played on an Xbox. Any laws broken?
Buy a Porsche fuel pump and guess what. You have to buy a Porsche to use it. Most consumers (except some of those posting on this thread) aren't that dumb. People that buy a Porsche fuel pump already own a Porsche. Except for the few hobbiest tinkering around with autos. People that buy OSX in a box already own a Mac. Except for the few hobbiest tinkering around with computers.
I don't know or every heard of anyone purchasing OSX in a box, bringing it home, try to load it into his Dell PC and then cried out, "Holy shit. I've been had. OSX won't load on my Dell. Apple is up to no good. I better get on the AppleInsider forum and complain about this!".
And don't think that just because you have a choice of DVD players that there isn't a "monopoly" involve. Buy a BluRay movie and you have to use a BluRay player. But I have a choice of BluRay players, you claim. But every BluRay player (along with every BluRay movie) has to pay Sony a license fee. You have to pay Sony no matter what company BluRay player you buy. The same goes for music CD's. Every music CD pressed and every player (includung the drive in a computer) that plays a music CD pays Philips and Sony (I believe) for a license to use the technology that goes into making the Compact Disc.
Apple just don't want to license out their IP. Nothing wrong with that. Nothing illegal about that. It's the model that works best for Apple. Sony on the other hand don't have to license out BluRay. If they don't, BluRay may go the way of Beta. But still Sony, is not forced to license out BluRay. But Sony does because it's the business model thay they want to persue this time around.
The rest of your argument wouldn't sit very well with the drug companies. Are you saying that if a drug company invest billions of dollars in R&D to come up with a new drug, that they can't keep some other company from producing it? The billions they spent in R&D is their problem, not the problem of the company trying to profit off their research? If this was the case, why should any drug company spend the billions of dollars it takes to develop new drugs? The cost of R&D for the drug and any new drugs are "subsidized" in the price of the drugs they sell, for the life of the patent they hold on it. Once a drug goes generic, they can still make money off it. But not enough to pay for the R&D of new drugs. It's the profit from the sales of drugs that they still hold patents on, that subsidizes the R&D for the development new drugs. Most drugs fail. But the one that does succeed pays for itself and all the failed attempts. That's if the company aren't forced to give up their IP and compete with companies that invested nothing into the R&D but want to sell a generic version.
Do you think Psystar going to spent any money on improving OSX? Where are the innovations for OSX going to come from if not from Apple? And if OSX fails to innovate past the competition, then where is the demand for OSX going to come from? People use OSX because it's better than Windows. Not becuase it's cheaper than Windows. Once OSX fail to be better the Windows, demand will drop. Regardless of price. Your "lack of innovation will NOT stifle demand" statement is way off.
A Mac subsidizes OSX because this is Apple's business model. Buy a Mac and it's guarantee that you can upgrade it, at a reasonble price, in the future. My 2003 G4 PowerMac started with Panther and can still run Leopard. (This may be the last OSX for it if the rumors for Snow Leopard are correct.) I don't know of any Mac that didn't run a least the next two OS after the time of purchase. Apple does the needed R&D to make sure OSX still runs on older Macs because the price of a Mac subsidizes the future development of OSX for it. This actually adds value to a Mac. This is why OSX is only $130.00. Mac owners already paid for some of it's development with their purchase of a Mac. Apple is not trying to recoup the cost of developing OSX by selling OSX in a box. They selling OSX in a box for the benifit of Mac owners that wants to upgrade. And they are entitle to upgrade at a reasonble price because they subsidized the development of OSX with their Mac purchase.
Abode subsidizes the future development Photoshop with every full price purchase of Photoshop. Therefore, they charge an upgrade price for anyone that purchased a full priced copy of Photoshop. This is fair for both the Photoshop users and Abode. What if someone came along and found a way to load an upgrade copy of Photoshop without having to prove they bought a full version. And they made a business of it by selling upgrade version of Photoshop with the necessary hack to use it without the proof of a prior version. And Abode sales of Photshop drops. You're saying that Abode is at fault because they shouldn't be selling the upgrade version for such a low price.
Apple isn't asking the government to step in and protect them from losses due to sales of off the shelf copy of OSX. Apple is asking the government to just protect what is rightfully their's. And the government has the duty to do so because the government made the laws that are being broken. It doesn't matter if Apple is losing money by selling off the shelf copy of OSX. They have every right to do so. MS and Sony loses money on every game console sold. So what. MS and Sony still has the right to have the government step in and protect the use of their IP. That's all Apple is asking from the government. Not welfare or food stamps. There's no similiarity between this and the US auto industry bail out plans. Judging by how the people in charge of running a US auto maker ran their business, "Intellectual Property" would be an oxymoron.
Dell on the other hand don't subsidize the development of future OS. Dell do not make the OS and thus can not guarantee that the next MS OS will work on it. They can't even guarentee that the next update will work on it. Dell wants you to buy new hardware every time a new OS comes out. That's their business model.
MS on the other hand do not make the hardware. They develop their new OS for the newest hardware available. It's just luck on whether it will work on an older sytem or not. It's the new hardware the consumers buy that will pay for the new OS. The cost of older hardware only paid for the OS it came with. The upgrade version of Windows is only meant for the people lucky enough to have an older system that can run it. Otherwise the vast marjority of them have to get their new version of Windows by buying a new computer. Good for MS. Good for Dell. Not so good for the consumers.
Abode subsidizes the future development Photoshop with every full price purchase of Photoshop. Therefore, they charge an upgrade price for anyone that purchased a full priced copy of Photoshop. This is fair for both the Photoshop users and Abode. What if someone came along and found a way to load an upgrade copy of Photoshop without having to prove they bought a full version. And they made a business of it by selling upgrade version of Photoshop with the necessary hack to use it without the proof of a prior version. And Abode sales of Photshop drops. You're saying that Abode is at fault because they shouldn't be selling the upgrade version for such a low price.
This is probably the best analogy I have read during these debates. /thumbsup
The issue at stake is that Paramount is selling a DVD and then mandating that you can only use it on a Paramount Brand DVD-player... something I vehemently believe is a violation of consumer rights.
Of course it's okay to do that! The Master-branded padlock your parents are using on your door to prevent you from leaving the the basement will not work with your Schlage key. Apparently, the lack of sunlight is affecting your ability to think things through logically.
Does it make sense now?