Psystar wins one, loses one in defense against Apple

1235

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 109
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Halvri View Post


    And to answer your question: yes Apple does. Were the courts to decide otherwise, the copyright system itself would have to be called wholly into question given the manner in which it has been employed in other arenas. Why should Blackberry be able to tie its mobile OS and phones, why should Sony be allowed to use the Cross Media Bar in only its PlayStation & TV lines. Beyond that, though, why should a corporation not be forced to code its software for architectures it doesn't support just in case the consumer wants to use them.



    If a company no longer retains control of its intellectual property, then its a short slide downhill before the entire system defaults. Whoever said the consumer is always right never owned a business.



    My point, and I think other's, is not that Apple or any other manufacturer can't say: This is intended to be installed only on our hardware, and we will only provide support if it is installed on our hardware. That is perfectly fine.



    But for a manufacturer to say: We forbid you by force of law from installing this product on anything but our hardware. That is over-reaching. If I can walk into Best Buy and pick up a copy of anything, why should the manufacturer of said product be able to FORBID me under penalty of fines, jail, etc. from doing whatever I want with that product (besides making multiple copies for resale) - including installing it on non-authorized hardware and reselling it. The manufacturer is under no obligation express or implied once I violate the license terms, but they can't forbid me from doing something they don't like.



    Analogy: If I buy a shovel, the manufacturer expects me to dig holes or move dirt in some way. If I instead use the shovel to fight bears or as a bullet proof vest, that is of no concern to the manufacturer, and they can't FORBID me from doing so.



    I think the music analogy is good, too. If I buy a Sony label CD, should Sony have the right to tell me I can ONLY play that song on Sony devices? Even assuming Sony rolls R&D costs into the price of their devices - much like they do with the Playstation 3, given that CD players are legally available from a variety of different manufacturers?



    Apple's problem here is they've adopted a "standard", widely available from multiple manufacturers, hardware platform. I don't believe the government can reasonably expect to enforce any restriction on consumers from installing Apple's software on anything that'll run it.



    - Jasen.
  • Reply 82 of 109
    fairlyfairly Posts: 102member
    I've seen this story reported elsewhere. At many other sites. All those other sites attempt to report the story succinctly - and objectively. Only you feel the irrepressible need to drench it in Kool-Aid.
  • Reply 83 of 109
    fairlyfairly Posts: 102member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jasenj1 View Post


    My point, and I think other's, is not that Apple or any other manufacturer can't say: This is intended to be installed only on our hardware, and we will only provide support if it is installed on our hardware. That is perfectly fine.



    But for a manufacturer to say: We forbid you by force of law from installing this product on anything but our hardware. That is over-reaching.



    (snip)



    Apple's problem here is they've adopted a "standard", widely available from multiple manufacturers, hardware platform. I don't believe the government can reasonably expect to enforce any restriction on consumers from installing Apple's software on anything that'll run it.



    - Jasen.



    This is totally spot on. Apple may have only 5% of the market but what they're doing is still monopolistic within their sector. A lot of things go on inside Apple but I think Steve Jobs is the driving force behind this "whole banana" mindset. "It's my ball and you play by my rules or I take my ball away." That's simply not good for the industry. I think Apple shareholders will ultimately reap a profit here.
  • Reply 84 of 109
    fairlyfairly Posts: 102member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by macarena View Post


    Apple can do something simple here.



    I can't believe it. You're openly speculating in how Apple can cripple the market and free competition.
  • Reply 85 of 109
    halvrihalvri Posts: 146member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jasenj1 View Post


    My point, and I think other's, is not that Apple or any other manufacturer can't say: This is intended to be installed only on our hardware, and we will only provide support if it is installed on our hardware. That is perfectly fine.



    But for a manufacturer to say: We forbid you by force of law from installing this product on anything but our hardware. That is over-reaching. If I can walk into Best Buy and pick up a copy of anything, why should the manufacturer of said product be able to FORBID me under penalty of fines, jail, etc. from doing whatever I want with that product (besides making multiple copies for resale) - including installing it on non-authorized hardware and reselling it. The manufacturer is under no obligation express or implied once I violate the license terms, but they can't forbid me from doing something they don't like.



    Analogy: If I buy a shovel, the manufacturer expects me to dig holes or move dirt in some way. If I instead use the shovel to fight bears or as a bullet proof vest, that is of no concern to the manufacturer, and they can't FORBID me from doing so.



    I think the music analogy is good, too. If I buy a Sony label CD, should Sony have the right to tell me I can ONLY play that song on Sony devices? Even assuming Sony rolls R&D costs into the price of their devices - much like they do with the Playstation 3, given that CD players are legally available from a variety of different manufacturers?



    Apple's problem here is they've adopted a "standard", widely available from multiple manufacturers, hardware platform. I don't believe the government can reasonably expect to enforce any restriction on consumers from installing Apple's software on anything that'll run it.



    - Jasen.



    And as others have said, Apple has never taken steps to prosecute the "Hackintosh" community. They are doing exactly what you speak of and Apple turns a blind eye because most of them are hobbyist. Under U.S. law, if you own your IP in full and are not a monopoly, you do, in fact, have the right to dictate its usage.



    Your analogy was terrible. In this CD case Sony is simply profiteering by locking its CDs to its hardware while offering the consumer no ultimate benefit to buying into its scheme. Apple locking its operating system to its hardware has tangible, legally defendable, benefits to the end user. It's the exact same concept with mobile phones. Because there is only one set of hardware for the iPhone and a limited set of hardware for Blackberries, Apple & RIM can push more performance out of their products.



    As noted before, the store bought version of OS X has to be hacked in order to work on other devices and its license agreement states very clearly that you must own a MacIntosh computer in order to install it. You are agreeing to those terms by right of purchasing it. Taking a shovel and using it as a bullet proof vest is not something you knowingly sign a licensing agreement for and given it's a physical item, no one would likely ever see you using it that way to stop it.



    Intellectual Property law is alot more complex than you're giving it credit for. You example of Apple being under no penalty for denying to help you if your break its license. Here's the problem: you are knowingly violating that license in order to try and force the company into a certain legal position. In doing that, you are crossing a legal boundary that will ultimately come back to bite you.



    I mean honestly, plenty of people run hacked versions of windows that they never paid for and Microsoft doesn't prosecute them. That doesn't mean it doesn't retain the right to do so if its desires to. The case doesn't just affect Apple, several other companies would be taken down were Apple to lose (which it won't, especially given the central focus of the case is related to reselling).
  • Reply 86 of 109
    halvrihalvri Posts: 146member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Fairly View Post


    This is totally spot on. Apple may have only 5% of the market but what they're doing is still monopolistic within their sector. A lot of things go on inside Apple but I think Steve Jobs is the driving force behind this "whole banana" mindset. "It's my ball and you play by my rules or I take my ball away." That's simply not good for the industry. I think Apple shareholders will ultimately reap a profit here.



    Yes, it is his ball and you do play by his rules. Apple is at 10% of the market and has substantial competition from Microsoft and various Linux distros. If you don't like Apple's rules, you retain every right to go play by Microsoft's or Canonical's or anyone else's.



    Apple has every right to define its IP as it sees fit so long as there is a viable alternative. It is utterly impossible at 10% market share to create a monopoly because the sector you speak of only exists because Apple does. As I said in other posts, the Blackberry OS only exists because RIM does. RIM isn't creating a monopoly of the RIM OS because you have the option of going to any of its smartphone competitors if you don't like the fact that its phones and OS and tied together.



    And there is no Mac industry. There is a computer industry and forcing Apple to become just another Microsoft does nothing good for the industry because then there's no real competition at all, there are simply two sides of the same coin. By tightly controlling its business model, Apple actually forces competitors to do better.
  • Reply 87 of 109
    piotpiot Posts: 1,346member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Fairly View Post


    This is totally spot on. Apple may have only 5% of the market but what they're doing is still monopolistic within their sector.



    You know what? You, or Apple, can act as 'monopolistic' as you like... as long as you are not actually a monopoly. And if you were really interested in the facts of this story....



    Quote:

    I've seen this story reported elsewhere. All those other sites attempt to report the story succinctly - and objectively.



    .... then you would know that the Judge has already dismissed Psystar's (and your) 'monopoly' claims.





    Quote:

    A lot of things go on inside Apple but I think Steve Jobs is the driving force behind this "whole banana" mindset. "It's my ball and you play by my rules or I take my ball away." That's simply not good for the industry.



    What a load of drivel! That "whole banana mindset" just happens to be Apple's business model, and has been for 30 years.



    Can you explain just how it's "bad for the industry"? Has Apple's Mac business held up the march of Windows onto 90% of the world's computers? Is Apple's tight integration, between hardware and software, responsible for the PC OEMs ONLY selling 290 million units last year?



    I'll tell you what would be bad for the industry. Turning Apple into another Microsoft.
  • Reply 88 of 109
    davidwdavidw Posts: 1,645member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jasenj1 View Post


    I think the music analogy is good, too. If I buy a Sony label CD, should Sony have the right to tell me I can ONLY play that song on Sony devices? Even assuming Sony rolls R&D costs into the price of their devices - much like they do with the Playstation 3, given that CD players are legally available from a variety of different manufacturers?



    Apple's problem here is they've adopted a "standard", widely available from multiple manufacturers, hardware platform. I don't believe the government can reasonably expect to enforce any restriction on consumers from installing Apple's software on anything that'll run it.



    - Jasen.



    And do you know why you can pick up a Sony CD and play it on a non Sony CD player in the first place? It's because all those other CD players PAID Sony and Philips a licence fee to sell players that can play the CD format. The CD format was developed by Sony and Philips. If you want to make a CD player that plays standard CD's, you got to pay for the license to do so. If Sony (and Philips) wanted you to use only their CD players, they wouldn't have licensed out their IP. It's the same with VHS, Beta, BluRay, DVD. etc. Apple don't have to license their IP. It's that simple. And not that hard to understand.
  • Reply 89 of 109
    ransom22ransom22 Posts: 3member
    I find it curious as to why so many people are talking about Apple selling their software on "their" hardware. It used to be that way, but Apple is now simply reselling market standard hardware. This is the cash cow for Apple. They did recently drop some of their prices, but until a month or so ago it would cost you $1500 to upgrade from 2GB to 8GB of RAM in the Mac Pro. Something that would cost you less than $200 from newegg. This is just one example of the "Apple Tax." This is what I believe is the major concern for Apple. If word gets out that Apple is overcharging for standard hardware then they may start to lose their already small portion of the market.



    Apple is a software company, not a hardware company. I do like their software for the most part, but I take issue with how their company is run. However, if they want to charge 10x the price on something and people are willing to pay for it, awesome. This is America and we still live in a Free Market society, at least for now. However, if I go to Apple's site and buy the latest OS, I own that and I can install it on anything I want, but I must accept the consequences if I screw something up. Apple is not losing money on their intellectual property when someone buys a Psystar box because their IP is only the OS. The hardware is the IP of Intel, Nvidia, WD, etc.
  • Reply 90 of 109
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,665member
    The idea that the IP of a complex piece of consumer electronics devolves to the manufacturers of its constituent parts is, um, wrong.
  • Reply 91 of 109
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Ransom22 View Post


    I find it curious as to why so many people are talking about Apple selling their software on "their" hardware. It used to be that way, but Apple is now simply reselling market standard hardware.



    The ?hardware? which you are obviously referring to the CPU was still available to all. It was just that MS chose not to make Windows* run on IBM and Motorola?s CPU. Linux and Unix ran on PPC in various flavours.



    * Although technically they been running Windows on PPC for their gaming platform, but that is not a consumer-grade PC system so we won?t count that.



    Quote:

    Apple is a software company, not a hardware company.



    Apple is both a HW and SW company. I can prove it! However, they make their money from their HW sales which is done through a certain business model that is beating out their HP and Dell competitors, despite each having 2.5x the marketshare of Apple?s Mac line in the US.



    Quote:

    I do like their software for the most part, but I take issue with how their company is run.



    Solution is simple, don?t buy a product from a company you have an issue with. If the market is monopolized unfairly, then file a grievance, but Macs are not a monopoly.



    Quote:

    However, if they want to charge 10x the price on something and people are willing to pay for it, awesome.



    Welcome to AI, but note that hyperbolic statements like that are not taken well without something to back it up. What non-Mac PC is 1/10th the price of a Mac PC with the same basic HW, functionality and services?



    It?s true that the base price for a Mac is higher than other vendor?s PCs and that one may not require what Apple brings to the table, but that is not the same thing as being outrageously priced when their net profit is only 6%.



    Quote:

    However, if I go to Apple's site and buy the latest OS, I own that and I can install it on anything I want, but I must accept the consequences if I screw something up. Apple is not losing money on their intellectual property when someone buys a Psystar box because their IP is only the OS. The hardware is the IP of Intel, Nvidia, WD, etc.



    Yes, they are, because those retail copies are priced for current Mac owners to upgrade their current OS. The only difference is that Apple doesn?t alter the code to make it upgrade only thus requiring you to first spend an hour installing your previous OS if you had formatted or preventing you from doing a clean install, doesn?t require a serial key to install it (you can install it on as many Macs as you wish, they currently use the honour system), and don?t have a half dozen versions of the full install and another half dozen versions of the upgrade discs on their shelves to confuse customers. They have a simple $129 price for Mac users.
  • Reply 92 of 109
    ransom22ransom22 Posts: 3member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    It?s true that the base price for a Mac is higher than other vendor?s PCs and that one may not require what Apple brings to the table, but that is not the same thing as being outrageously priced when their net profit is only 6%.



    I'm curious where you get that Apple's profit margin is 6%. Would you mind breeaking that down for me?
  • Reply 93 of 109
    piotpiot Posts: 1,346member
    Welcome Ransom 22. Good to meet you.



    I suspect you won't be staying long.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Ransom22 View Post


    I find it curious as to why so many people are talking about Apple selling their software on "their" hardware. It used to be that way, but Apple is now simply reselling market standard hardware.



    Yes I can see how curious it could be. Apple designs the machines, purchases the constituent parts and commissions factories to produce them. Apple then packages, advertises and sells them. Perhaps your concern is that Apple doesn't smelt their own bauxite?



    You have a point. I hear that the recycled plastic that Dell uses originally belonged to the Yoplait yogurt company.





    Quote:

    If word gets out that Apple is overcharging for standard hardware then they may start to lose their already small portion of the market.



    I wouldn't worry yourself too much. Anyone who is willing to pay over 2000 dollars for a computer is already a sandwich short of a .... well you get the idea



    Quote:

    I do like their software for the most part, but I take issue with how their company is run.



    Mmmmmm .... me too.



    Quote:

    This is America and we still live in a Free Market society, at least for now.



    Are those pesky pinkos back again?



    Quote:

    However, if I go to Apple's site and buy the latest OS, I own that and I can install it on anything I want



    Absolutely, positively, 100% correct. Because you bought it... you own it. Psystar bought it... so they own it too. Apple bought Next... so they own it too. Hey, even I bought it, and I bought it last.. so really it's mine.



    Quote:

    but I must accept the consequences if I screw something up.



    You will never screw up.



    Quote:

    Apple is not losing money on their intellectual property when someone buys a Psystar box because their IP is only the OS.



    Absofeckinlutely! Next only cost what... 400 million dollars?
  • Reply 94 of 109
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Halvri View Post




    No one benefits from OS X being open to any hardware because then you've simply reverted back to the Windows world of multi-vendor cluster f**ks when you have a problem and code so bloated as to need high end hardware for even simple tasks. The world you desire would leave you with nothing but two versions of the same bloated, worthless software that we all bought a Mac to escape.



    Is this a Mac fan admitting that OSX would suffer if it were in Windows situation? You just admitted that Apple relies on its exclusivity as one of its advantages, thus admitting Macs can never be mainstream without losing some of the qualities Mac addicts whinge about Windows not having. If this isn't evidence of e-snobbery I don't know what is. The Windows world that you have such disdain for is necessary, an operating system that provides most users needs without costing a fortune. Apple does not have the balls to go into this area. I don't think Windows is perfect in any way, but I accept it as a necessary evil because frankly look at the competition.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Halvri View Post


    Competition is not always a good thing and I'm tired of the overly European mindset that believes it is.



    I'm tired of the overly American mindset which has plunged the world into the current recession.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Halvri View Post


    Were the courts to decide otherwise, the copyright system itself would have to be called wholly into question given the manner in which it has been employed in other arenas. Why should Blackberry be able to tie its mobile OS and phones, why should Sony be allowed to use the Cross Media Bar in only its PlayStation & TV lines. Beyond that, though, why should a corporation not be forced to code its software for architectures it doesn't support just in case the consumer wants to use them.



    The examples you provide both make distinct hardware from other manufacturers. In Apple's case the only distinction is a modified EFI which can in fact be got around even without altering OSX code.



    Some guy got it right earlier, if the Apple experience as a whole is so good, then that experience should sell itself. If another company can take Apple's software and put it on other machines and provide a similar experience (or improved possibly because I think some of Psystar's machines were faster) at a much reduced cost, then it just goes to show how flawed Apple's model is. Of course it suits Apple to have such a huge markup on hardware, and perhaps legally they are entitled to do it, but I won't accept a word from those who defend Apple, or those who think Psystar are ripping them off.
  • Reply 95 of 109
    piotpiot Posts: 1,346member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by windywoo View Post


    Of course it suits Apple to have such a huge markup on hardware, and perhaps legally they are entitled to do it, but I won't accept a word from those who defend Apple, or those who think Psystar are ripping them off.



    Does your last sentence make any sense?



    Most people here who are defending Apple also believe that Apple are "legally entitled".

    If Apple is "legally entitled" to do what they do.... then Psystar IS "ripping them off".
  • Reply 96 of 109
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by piot View Post


    Most people here who are defending Apple also believe that Apple are "legally entitled".



    I think what we're saying, and maybe this is what you are saying too, is that Apple is "legally entitled" to sell their computers at an exhorbanent markup. The hardware is not Apple's, but Apple is simply reselling it as part of a package.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by piot View Post


    If Apple is "legally entitled" to do what they do.... then Psystar IS "ripping them off".



    Psystar is not making a profit off if anything from Apple. The price that they charge for OSX is exactly what it is if one were to get it directly from Apple. The difference is that Psystar is actually willing to sell their computers at market competitive prices. The only people getting ripped off are those buying their computers from Apple. However, Apple is not doing anything illegal, they are just takingthemselves out of the market. Apple has relied for too long on the ignorance of their users, but that ignorance is slowly fading and Apple will either have to adjust their business plan or they will fade away. Walmart became one of the only companies in the world that can compete with the oil companies and they did that by dropping their profit margin down to an average of 3%.
  • Reply 97 of 109
    piotpiot Posts: 1,346member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Ransom22 View Post


    I think what we're saying, and maybe this is what you are saying too, is that Apple is "legally entitled" to sell their computers at an exhorbanent markup.



    No. That is not what I am saying. Try to listen. I am saying that I believe Apple is legally entitled to restrict use of it's own OS to it's own hardware. So far, in this case, the Judge seems to agree.





    Quote:

    The hardware is not Apple's, but Apple is simply reselling it as part of a package.



    Don't be a tit. Of course it's Apple's hardware. Is a Ford car not "Ford's hardware" because Lucas makes the bloody lightbulbs?



    Psystar is installing OS X on non Apple hardware without Apple's permission.

    Psystar is selling their own hardware with a COPY of OS X without Apple's permission.

    Psystar is reselling the original OS discs without Apple's permission.





    Quote:

    Apple is not doing anything illegal,



    Look you can't keep saying that Psystar is doing nothing wrong AND neither is Apple. Either Apple has the right to maintain their business model ... or they don't. If they do.... then Psystar's business model is history.
  • Reply 98 of 109
    windywoowindywoo Posts: 8member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by piot View Post


    No. That is not what I am saying. Try to listen. I am saying that I believe Apple is legally entitled to restrict use of it's own OS to it's own hardware. So far, in this case, the Judge seems to agree.









    Don't be a tit. Of course it's Apple's hardware. Is a Ford car not "Ford's hardware" because Lucas makes the bloody lightbulbs?



    Psystar is installing OS X on non Apple hardware without Apple's permission.

    Psystar is selling their own hardware with a COPY of OS X without Apple's permission.

    Psystar is reselling the original OS discs without Apple's permission.









    Look you can't keep saying that Psystar is doing nothing wrong AND neither is Apple. Either Apple has the right to maintain their business model ... or they don't. If they do.... then Psystar's business model is history.



    Legality is not the same as morality. I am not disputing whether Apple has the right to sell their OS on one narrow set of hardware. When I hear the words "ripping off" it means to me that Psystar is somehow damaging Apple's income by selling cheaper machines. In fact, the damage is probably minimal, and from a moral stand point, justified. Fuck whether its legal, Psystar have shown that they can make better machines than Apple, at cheaper prices which run Apple's software better than Apple. They have basically shown just how over inflated Apple's margins are. I don't have any sympathy whatsoever for Apple, and the term "ripping them off" cannot be used towards Psystar when Apple themselves are blatant rip off merchants.
  • Reply 99 of 109
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,665member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by windywoo View Post


    Legality is not the same as morality. I am not disputing whether Apple has the right to sell their OS on one narrow set of hardware. When I hear the words "ripping off" it means to me that Psystar is somehow damaging Apple's income by selling cheaper machines. In fact, the damage is probably minimal, and from a moral stand point, justified. Fuck whether its legal, Psystar have shown that they can make better machines than Apple, at cheaper prices which run Apple's software better than Apple. They have basically shown just how over inflated Apple's margins are. I don't have any sympathy whatsoever for Apple, and the term "ripping them off" cannot be used towards Psystar when Apple themselves are blatant rip off merchants.



    You have a very odd sense of "morality." Apparently in involves something like "companies should be obliged to sell me things I want at the prices I want", which is less moral than childish.



    If you find Apple to be "blatant ripoff merchants", then you should not buy their products. You talk as if Apple's stuff were some kind of natural resource that Apple is unfairly hoarding. If you think it's worth buying, it's because of the work Apple has done, for which they have every right to charge whatever they want. It's a very odd position to take when you decouple the desirability of Apple's products from how Apple chooses to sell them.



    Do you imagine that there's a "good" Apple that actually makes products and a "bad" Apple that overcharges for them, and Psystar is "liberating" one from the other? You do understand that it's all of a piece, right, that the Apple products you apparently desire only exist because of Apple's business model?



    Of course Pystar can sell machines for less, they barely have any overhead. They've never had to do, nor will ever have to do, any R&D. They don't need to design anything, or contract out the manufacturing of anything, or maintain the staff and facilities to do any of those things.



    All they have to do is combine somebody else's software with somebody else's machine, and they're done.
  • Reply 100 of 109
    vineavinea Posts: 5,585member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by addabox View Post


    You have a very odd sense of "morality." Apparently in involves something like "companies should be obliged to sell me things I want at the prices I want", which is less moral than childish.



    Arguing with folks like that is simply pointless. They don't believe that big bad companies should own their own IP without understanding that without such ownership these big bad companies have zero incentive in providing many of the things they take for granted.
Sign In or Register to comment.