n fact, the damage is probably minimal, and from a moral stand point, justified
So windy, let me guess... you have never created.... and will probably never create any IP (that is worth anything!)... of your own?
I love how Windy?s comment has no idea what moral is. It?s his equivalent of saying that he only a few dollars from the guy and not all money and he didn?t kill even though he had a gun in which to rob him, so he was being moral. I?m sure he also follows the manta ?if no one finds out it?s okay?. It?s because of people like that that we had to create religion and then cultivate fears of an omnipotent being striking you done or making the rest or stage in life ?hell?.
Even IF Psystar wins against Apple, I seriously doubt it would negatively affect Apple. Consider this, Apple, like any other major brand has its strengths. People use the product for various reasons, I, for one like the quality, stability and performance of the Apple brand. If you like another major brand and you are happy with it, then buy it.
Apple has an loyal, installed base that would remain no matter what. They also have a tremendous ecosystem of all kinds of peripherals and accessories that help perpetuate the brand. IF Psystar won their case, they will have to persuade a very large and loyal following that their product is better.
Apple will NOT dry up and blow away like some dead leaf in the wind. They are too smart and too pervasive within the market for that to happen overnight. Everything and everyone declines from time to time and Apple has and possibly will again, but so will Psystar, even IF they did win their case.
Ultimately, someone will win and someone will lose, there isn't any other outcome, even if Apple were to lose, I'd still buy their hardware. I've been through the generic PC box phase and I didn't enjoy it. Computers are TOOLS to accomplish a task, even if that is entertainment, nothing more.
In the big scheme of things, we did fine without them for thousands of years. We could again survive without them if it was necessary. That is one of the best parts about this whole issue, mankind always finds a way to improve himself or his environment.
Even if either company disappeared from sight, we'd survive!
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.
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.
I don't talk about Apple's software as some sort of natural resource, the Apple fans do. They whine and moan about how terrible Windows is and yet whats the alternative? Overpriced Macs. If Apple truly have a better alternative they should have the balls to sell it at affordable prices, not as some sort of country club luxury. The internet is a part of the modern world, to restrict the security and stability to just those who have the most money is elitist, and cowardly. Cowardly because Apple knows that if their product was more widely available it would lose the exclusivity its customers crave.
I thought the current credit crunch was evidence that allowing large companies to do what they like was a bad idea. Seems you haven't learned. Any R&D costs must be minimal, since Apple now use standard PC parts and a BSD based operating system. And a large chunk of those R&D costs would be covered in the price Psystar paid for the software anyway.
By the way I don't have any IP that I have developed but if I did I wouldn't be charging the huge markups Apple do. What I do have is my IT skills which I hire to non-profit companies at below the usual rate. I make a good living from it too, although I don't have the luxury of turn of the century mansions to leave to rot and then get permission to demolish.
I love how Windy?s comment has no idea what moral is. It?s his equivalent of saying that he only a few dollars from the guy and not all money and he didn?t kill even though he had a gun in which to rob him, so he was being moral. I?m sure he also follows the manta ?if no one finds out it?s okay?. It?s because of people like that that we had to create religion and then cultivate fears of an omnipotent being striking you done or making the rest or stage in life ?hell?.
Were you drunk when you composed your normally coherent thoughts into a mix of hodge podge coherency?
I don't talk about Apple's software as some sort of natural resource, the Apple fans do. They whine and moan about how terrible Windows is and yet whats the alternative? Overpriced Macs. If Apple truly have a better alternative they should have the balls to sell it at affordable prices, not as some sort of country club luxury. The internet is a part of the modern world, to restrict the security and stability to just those who have the most money is elitist, and cowardly. Cowardly because Apple knows that if their product was more widely available it would lose the exclusivity its customers crave.
I thought the current credit crunch was evidence that allowing large companies to do what they like was a bad idea. Seems you haven't learned. Any R&D costs must be minimal, since Apple now use standard PC parts and a BSD based operating system. And a large chunk of those R&D costs would be covered in the price Psystar paid for the software anyway.
By the way I don't have any IP that I have developed but if I did I wouldn't be charging the huge markups Apple do. What I do have is my IT skills which I hire to non-profit companies at below the usual rate. I make a good living from it too, although I don't have the luxury of turn of the century mansions to leave to rot and then get permission to demolish.
Where to begin, where to begin? Oh good. Someone else already did.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox
What an interesting mixture of bluster, cluelessness, wishful thinking, randomly linked unrelated things, rationalization, and misplaced antagonism.
Gibberish, but interesting.
Otherwise I might have to address that Apple does have just a bit of R&D (a complete and unique hardware, software, multiple OS, internet, retail, brick and mortar, virtual, support, marketing, advertising and systems ecology unmatched by anyone - which all keeps evolving in sync at a brisk pace, that they don't buy one piece machined aluminum notebook cases from "Cases R Us," etc., etc. PS: healthy margins reinvested in R&D is what keeps healthy companies relevant, which is why commodity sellers so often fall by the wayside.
One could also note that once the R&D is recouped, MSoft will be selling Win 7 Ultimate for $400 with a cost of maybe four bucks worth of packaging, and that "Startup" customers will be buying all the same bits on their install discs, and ditto for MS Office 10, and I'd like to the survey of how many Mac (or iPhone, etc) customers are members of country clubs.
I videoed a wedding at one, one night. Does that count?
This is totally spot on. Apple may have only 5% of the market but what they're doing is still monopolistic within their sector.
'their sector' is personal computers, not Macintoshs (which are only one type of personal computer). thus they don't have market power, thus the tying (which is not inherently evil) is not abusive. This is why the Judge tossed the Anti-trust claims. the EULA is basically spelling out the tying that the courts have not said is okay since Apple lacks market share (which might be why Apple isn't hard core chasing said share in the first place).
the folks behind Psystar are being idiots. Apple only has copyright on select parts of the system, mainly the GUI. The core is all Unix/Linux based and is open source. Apple would not be able to stop them from using that open source, creating their own GUI and selling that. if Psystar was smart they might even be able to make a system that could run any Macintosh or Windows apps without the need for Boot Camp etc. Imagine that system. it would likely sell out.
but no Psystar had to cut corners and hack into the OS and will probably be dinged hard for it as a DCMA violation. and then there is the issue of proving they actually bought all those copies of Leopard and didn't steal them. certainly that idea will be in the minds of the judge and jury even if its not spelled out.
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.
and that is their right. they can make everything in house or 'buy' whatever parts they deem. put them together as they deem etc.
by letter of the law, my making my own machine and using Mac OSX on it is wrong. but if I do it for myself and don't sell it or advertise how I did it, don't make available the tools I used, Apple is going to leave me alone. at this point at least. same if I hack my iphone to use it on t-mobile. but it is when I make a business out of either that they can, and should, kick my butt seven ways to Sunday.
Comments
Fuck whether its legal,
Brilliant! A thoroughly well conceived and intelligent argument. Do you work for Psystar's legal team?
In fact, the damage is probably minimal, and from a moral stand point, justified
So windy, let me guess... you have never created.... and will probably never create any IP (that is worth anything!)... of your own?
Thought so.
n fact, the damage is probably minimal, and from a moral stand point, justified
So windy, let me guess... you have never created.... and will probably never create any IP (that is worth anything!)... of your own?
I love how Windy?s comment has no idea what moral is. It?s his equivalent of saying that he only a few dollars from the guy and not all money and he didn?t kill even though he had a gun in which to rob him, so he was being moral. I?m sure he also follows the manta ?if no one finds out it?s okay?. It?s because of people like that that we had to create religion and then cultivate fears of an omnipotent being striking you done or making the rest or stage in life ?hell?.
Apple has an loyal, installed base that would remain no matter what. They also have a tremendous ecosystem of all kinds of peripherals and accessories that help perpetuate the brand. IF Psystar won their case, they will have to persuade a very large and loyal following that their product is better.
Apple will NOT dry up and blow away like some dead leaf in the wind. They are too smart and too pervasive within the market for that to happen overnight. Everything and everyone declines from time to time and Apple has and possibly will again, but so will Psystar, even IF they did win their case.
Ultimately, someone will win and someone will lose, there isn't any other outcome, even if Apple were to lose, I'd still buy their hardware. I've been through the generic PC box phase and I didn't enjoy it. Computers are TOOLS to accomplish a task, even if that is entertainment, nothing more.
In the big scheme of things, we did fine without them for thousands of years. We could again survive without them if it was necessary. That is one of the best parts about this whole issue, mankind always finds a way to improve himself or his environment.
Even if either company disappeared from sight, we'd survive!
Give it a rest people...
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.
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.
I don't talk about Apple's software as some sort of natural resource, the Apple fans do. They whine and moan about how terrible Windows is and yet whats the alternative? Overpriced Macs. If Apple truly have a better alternative they should have the balls to sell it at affordable prices, not as some sort of country club luxury. The internet is a part of the modern world, to restrict the security and stability to just those who have the most money is elitist, and cowardly. Cowardly because Apple knows that if their product was more widely available it would lose the exclusivity its customers crave.
I thought the current credit crunch was evidence that allowing large companies to do what they like was a bad idea. Seems you haven't learned. Any R&D costs must be minimal, since Apple now use standard PC parts and a BSD based operating system. And a large chunk of those R&D costs would be covered in the price Psystar paid for the software anyway.
By the way I don't have any IP that I have developed but if I did I wouldn't be charging the huge markups Apple do. What I do have is my IT skills which I hire to non-profit companies at below the usual rate. I make a good living from it too, although I don't have the luxury of turn of the century mansions to leave to rot and then get permission to demolish.
Gibberish, but interesting.
I love how Windy?s comment has no idea what moral is. It?s his equivalent of saying that he only a few dollars from the guy and not all money and he didn?t kill even though he had a gun in which to rob him, so he was being moral. I?m sure he also follows the manta ?if no one finds out it?s okay?. It?s because of people like that that we had to create religion and then cultivate fears of an omnipotent being striking you done or making the rest or stage in life ?hell?.
Were you drunk when you composed your normally coherent thoughts into a mix of hodge podge coherency?
I don't talk about Apple's software as some sort of natural resource, the Apple fans do. They whine and moan about how terrible Windows is and yet whats the alternative? Overpriced Macs. If Apple truly have a better alternative they should have the balls to sell it at affordable prices, not as some sort of country club luxury. The internet is a part of the modern world, to restrict the security and stability to just those who have the most money is elitist, and cowardly. Cowardly because Apple knows that if their product was more widely available it would lose the exclusivity its customers crave.
I thought the current credit crunch was evidence that allowing large companies to do what they like was a bad idea. Seems you haven't learned. Any R&D costs must be minimal, since Apple now use standard PC parts and a BSD based operating system. And a large chunk of those R&D costs would be covered in the price Psystar paid for the software anyway.
By the way I don't have any IP that I have developed but if I did I wouldn't be charging the huge markups Apple do. What I do have is my IT skills which I hire to non-profit companies at below the usual rate. I make a good living from it too, although I don't have the luxury of turn of the century mansions to leave to rot and then get permission to demolish.
Where to begin, where to begin? Oh good. Someone else already did.....
What an interesting mixture of bluster, cluelessness, wishful thinking, randomly linked unrelated things, rationalization, and misplaced antagonism.
Gibberish, but interesting.
Otherwise I might have to address that Apple does have just a bit of R&D (a complete and unique hardware, software, multiple OS, internet, retail, brick and mortar, virtual, support, marketing, advertising and systems ecology unmatched by anyone - which all keeps evolving in sync at a brisk pace, that they don't buy one piece machined aluminum notebook cases from "Cases R Us," etc., etc. PS: healthy margins reinvested in R&D is what keeps healthy companies relevant, which is why commodity sellers so often fall by the wayside.
One could also note that once the R&D is recouped, MSoft will be selling Win 7 Ultimate for $400 with a cost of maybe four bucks worth of packaging, and that "Startup" customers will be buying all the same bits on their install discs, and ditto for MS Office 10, and I'd like to the survey of how many Mac (or iPhone, etc) customers are members of country clubs.
I videoed a wedding at one, one night. Does that count?
PS: Apple doesn't own the houses......
This is totally spot on. Apple may have only 5% of the market but what they're doing is still monopolistic within their sector.
'their sector' is personal computers, not Macintoshs (which are only one type of personal computer). thus they don't have market power, thus the tying (which is not inherently evil) is not abusive. This is why the Judge tossed the Anti-trust claims. the EULA is basically spelling out the tying that the courts have not said is okay since Apple lacks market share (which might be why Apple isn't hard core chasing said share in the first place).
the folks behind Psystar are being idiots. Apple only has copyright on select parts of the system, mainly the GUI. The core is all Unix/Linux based and is open source. Apple would not be able to stop them from using that open source, creating their own GUI and selling that. if Psystar was smart they might even be able to make a system that could run any Macintosh or Windows apps without the need for Boot Camp etc. Imagine that system. it would likely sell out.
but no Psystar had to cut corners and hack into the OS and will probably be dinged hard for it as a DCMA violation. and then there is the issue of proving they actually bought all those copies of Leopard and didn't steal them. certainly that idea will be in the minds of the judge and jury even if its not spelled out.
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.
and that is their right. they can make everything in house or 'buy' whatever parts they deem. put them together as they deem etc.
by letter of the law, my making my own machine and using Mac OSX on it is wrong. but if I do it for myself and don't sell it or advertise how I did it, don't make available the tools I used, Apple is going to leave me alone. at this point at least. same if I hack my iphone to use it on t-mobile. but it is when I make a business out of either that they can, and should, kick my butt seven ways to Sunday.