Apple isn't suing individual users. Pystar and these companies are PROFITING off copyrighted material. This is what you fail to grasp.
You do yourself no favors by saying I fail to grasp what Apple is doing. It is perfectly legal to make profits using copyrighted materials. All companies do it. For example, law firms make profits using business suits that are copyrighted designs by Armani. Also, Wal-Mart makes profits using light bulbs that often have proprietary design. This does not mean a copyright holder can dictate what people do with their product after purchase. It is a slippery slope argument that in my view is completely bunk. Rather, the copyright holder can scream and make noises, but the licensees retain their right to fair use. The only way for Apple to regain that right is to enter a consensual settlement (for example if apple pays me $10 million). Then maybe I would be willing to entertain Apple's opinion on what kind of machine I should be running.
It is perfectly legal to make profits using copyrighted materials. All companies do it. For example, law firms make profits using business suits that are copyrighted designs by Armani.
Overall, it certainly has improved. Your sentence above is quite clearly stated and easy to understand.
Seriously, in your previous life, were you a nun at Sacred Heart Elementary? Your constant harping on people about the way they communicate reminds me of one rather LARGE "lady" that used to beat the crud out of people who had the unnatural sin of writing left handed.
Actually tying it to the specific machine comes right after that although it's so onerous they may hold off on that for a while.
That was always the Unix way. At least since the the 80s when when I got involved with Unix (Solaris) you always had to have a machine id to install anything. Often times it involved calling the publisher to get the a validation code. Example Adobe Illustrator for Solaris. Bet you didn't know that ever existed.
No actually it's one of many effective ways to restate the problem. Now let's say Armani wrote a label inside their suits with an EULA telling lawyers, "you cannot use Armani suits while you are litigating at the District Court in Philadelphia." Now what if you do it? Can Armani shut you down? Of course not, it would be ludicrous. Sure Armani owns a copyright, that's why you paid for the suit. That is all you owe them. That, and don't copy their trademarked designs. But of course you can utilize them as you please.... "fair use." You paid for it.
Of course he is. I suppose that plagiarism is OK too. He no longer needs to write another paper for his courses. He can just copy them instead. What's wrong with that?
No actually it's one of many effective ways to restate the problem. Now let's say Armani wrote a label inside their suits with an EULA telling lawyers, "you cannot use Armani suits while you are litigating at the District Court in Philadelphia." Now what if you do it? Can Armani shut you down? Of course not, it would be ludicrous. Sure Armani owns a copyright, that's why you paid for the suit. That is all you owe them. That, and don't copy their trademarked designs. But of course you can utilize them as you please.... "fair use." You paid for it.
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you aren't a philosophy student because you would be failing horribly for your ludicrous lack of reasoning and logic skills. Your analogies are completely nonsensical and no relevance to what Apple is actually doing.
If you don't even understand the problem, then you should just not opine about it.
It's quite shocking that some people don't seem to understand the basic principles (and the reasons for them) of Intellectual Property.
It's dead simple: you run into a problem when you use copyrighted material any way you like, especially without the consent (explicit, written, stated, etc.) of the author/creator/owner. Purchasing the copyrighted material does not give you complete ownership of the product, only the right to use it according to certain conditions. Most often, you can break it, burn it, throw it away, eat it, use it as a door stop, and sometimes modify it for personal use, but most often you're not allowed to modify it and run a business behind it, or otherwise resell the item as part of retail business/enterprise, regardless of the item's condition.
That's about as simple and dumbed-down as the issue gets. These principles have been in play in one form or another for most of our lifetimes, and have become clarified and broadened to apply to software, electronic data, and similar products.
If you have a problem with the foregoing, then you have a problem with the entire principle and reason for the existence of such a thing as "Intellectual Property", which would make you, at best, completely ignorant and obstinate about an entire sector of retail, and at worst, just plain dumb.
If you were a computer or software-maker in the current market, would you be interested in seeing the erosion and destruction of the principle of the EULA? If you do, you won't last very long, as there would be no point to producing anything.
You should take a closer look at Marketshare's figures sometime. They show that the Mac has gained share every single quarter for 4.5 years!
That's actually common knowledge.
Especially since 2006, OS X/Mac share has been steadily increasing. It hit new records every year since. i'm not sure about Q1/Q2 2009, though. Although Apple is experiencing the smallest contraction in computer sales in the entire industry. But the Premium end of the market has always been smaller (but much more lucrative) than the lower ends.
Isn't this a bit over the top. After all were talking about computers there not exactly complex. There all made from standard parts and it's not like apple even put there machines together.
And how is it going to lead them to have to support products they didn't sell? If anyone took one of these to apple to fix they just wouldn't do anything, same as when you take an apple product that's out of warrenty. If it's an os problem then they were paid and it's still there fault.
I can't really see a problem here it gives consumers more choice and freedom. After all if you sell some software in a box people should be allowed to use it how they want. A pencil company couldn't specify people only use there pencils with there paper because they see other paper as inferio.
Way to lack any conventional logic or basic understanding of software/hardware interaction. As these are technically hackintoshes, some features don't work properly or more slowly than they would officially. People are going to attribute this, at least in part, to Mac OS X. Apple also employs relatively rigorous QC, especially compared to a small group of hacks like Quo. That means, more than likely, we will see more hardware failures. I also doubt that Quo will be able to offer service that is as quick, friendly and efficient as Apple's. This also tarnishes their brand image, as again, even if because of ignorance on the part of consumers, people assume it is Apple's fault. As far as the support goes, I was referring to telephone support. Apple often doesn't even ask for a Serial Number. I want that caliber of service to continue on; not be muddled by some half ass generic mishandling of OS X. Apple created OS X. Why is it anyone's right to be able to manipulate it to make money off of their R&D? Oh right, because you're a cheap ass.
Despite the shrinking number of desktops being sold Apple commands an even larger financial gain from their desktop line than their notebook line in comparison to other vendors. The AIO desktop has been a very successful for Apple for decades.
I tried to google it but I don?t have time to look this stuff up again. AI has done plenty of articles on it with links to their sources so they can be found through this site. The fact remains that Apple?s Mac line is very successful, despite not fitting everyone?s needs.
That is unfortunate they can?t tell the difference between Apple obviously caring about marketshare within their business model and Apple only caring about marketshare within caring about profits or strategy. These people shouldn?t run businesses.
BruceP?s reply was to someone who made their own OSx86 Mac. There are only two methods they could have used to build it. They could have used the complex Boot-132 which requires a non-hacked copy of OS X, which can be bought or DLed illegally or they simply torrented the pre-hacked version of OS X with would explain why 10.5.7 FUBARed their system since they probably didn?t wait for the hacked version of the point update before installing. The latter option is a copyright violated (hacked) and stolen (illegally downloaded) copy of OS X which are both illegal actions.
I don't have the latest figures, but Apple's market share for all computers sold in the US is/was ~7% and worldwide ~ 3%. Correct me if I'm wrong. Last I saw, Apple's market share for laptop retail sales was ~16%.
If as you and others say, the desktop computers Apple sells has virtually captured 100% of the available market they target(ie. the 9% figure), then Apple needs to stop giving lip service to expanding market share, because logically by these arguments they can not expand their market share with their current line-up.
This argument also does not address what may be best in the consumers interest and ignores the disadvantages, for many consumers, of the AIO design.
-uses expensive laptop parts.
-monitor built in(different service lives and not very green).
-lack of upgradability as tech changes.
-desktop clutter
I concede on the hackintosh argument as I don't know the law, except that it was my understanding, mistakenly I guess, that there was a way to modify the EFI interface without hacking Mac OS X to get it running, as far as I knew the EFI interface is not Apple's.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss
A point that deserves to be emphasized. Apple competes against Microsoft, but they can't be expected to compete against every Windows PC vendor, from big ones like HP, down to the street-corner screwdriver shop. Anybody who thinks they can or should try to compete against the entire range of PC vendors is being unrealistic. Apple has chosen where they want to be in the computer market, and they've been very successful in this market of late. Apple may not make products that suit everyone's tastes, priorities or budget -- but then, neither does every Windows PC vendor. If Apple doesn't make the perfect product for you, then that's just tough. Don't buy a Mac. Just don't expect them to change their entire business model to suit you. It isn't going to happen anyway.
No one in any of these threads concerning the mythical xMac suggests Apple should offer the infinite # of desktkop models the other OEMs offer. One will do nicely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by piot
Exactly! You say 37%. OK let's work with that.
What percentage of those desktops are going to business and the enterprise.? Windows IT guys who don't want the Mac OS sullying their networks. 40%... 50% ? Let's call it 40.
Now we are down to 22% of the market.
You say that AIOs are a tiny fraction of the market. Maybe but all the major PC vendors sell them and Dell now has a two lines of AIO. Dell also sells a model that directly competes with a Mac Mini and lots of PC guys sell hi-end towers and gaming rigs that spar with the Mac Pro.
So let's strike out a further .... say 15%.
Now we are down to 22% of the market.
That 22% comprises of low to midrange upgradeable tower desktops sold to ... consumers.
And what are these consumers buying? Well I don't know for sure but Dell's desktop page might give as a clue. Dell has SEVEN desktop tower models that start at less than $400.00. Even the most ardent xMac fan will understand that Apple is never going to compete with that end of the market. I am going to assume that those type of systems account for approx another 60% (of the remainder). If you disagree with any of my figures ... well insert your own!
Your 37% has now dwindled to around 9%. That's mid-range, mid-priced, upgradable, consumer tower PCs. !!
60 million PCs sold in the US in 2008 (Gartner)
9% =5.4 million
Possible Apple share? Say 9% of 9% ? = 480,000
Not such a huge market now.
Your entire argument confirms that Apple can not and specifically will not attempt to increase market share, as they have captured virtually 100% of the market they are targeting.
Your entire argument confirms that Apple can not and specifically will not attempt to increase market share, as they have captured virtually 100% of the market they are targeting.
Rubbish! My entire argument (maybe a bit laboured) is that your figure of 37%, as the potential xMac market.... is actually a lot lower.
And if I am right that may just provide the rational behind Apple not providing this elusive Headless iMac!
We can agree that, while Apple maintains their pricing strategy and Microsoft maintains it's lock on the enterprise then their is a glass ceiling on the amount of share they can gain. However they still have a way to go before they hit that.
Your entire argument confirms that Apple can not and specifically will not attempt to increase market share, as they have captured virtually 100% of the market they are targeting.
I never really thought of it like that, but why not target more people? With Apple's profits they could definitely expand customer support to handle the added responsibility of more customers.
Well currently at Net Applications Q1 and Q2 for this share are level pegging. 9.77% Historically the data shows only very small increases for the Mac in Q2 and Q3. I don't expect it will be any different this year.
One thing to note is that 2009 looks like the year of the mobile platforms. Those platforms are effectively making the desktop/notebook slice of the pie smaller.
No one in any of these threads concerning the mythical xMac suggests Apple should offer the infinite # of desktkop models the other OEMs offer. One will do nicely.
I can't prove the truth of this statement, and neither can you, I suspect. Either way, you have missed my point, which is: Apple has chosen where they want to be positioned in the computer market. If as a result, they don't make the computer for you, then don't buy a Mac -- and don't expect them to make any given type of Mac just because you think they should.
Comments
just joking dude .. So anyway has my over all writing skills, improved enough for me to be understood?
Overall, it certainly has improved. Your sentence above is quite clearly stated and easy to understand.
Apple isn't suing individual users. Pystar and these companies are PROFITING off copyrighted material. This is what you fail to grasp.
You do yourself no favors by saying I fail to grasp what Apple is doing. It is perfectly legal to make profits using copyrighted materials. All companies do it. For example, law firms make profits using business suits that are copyrighted designs by Armani. Also, Wal-Mart makes profits using light bulbs that often have proprietary design. This does not mean a copyright holder can dictate what people do with their product after purchase. It is a slippery slope argument that in my view is completely bunk. Rather, the copyright holder can scream and make noises, but the licensees retain their right to fair use. The only way for Apple to regain that right is to enter a consensual settlement (for example if apple pays me $10 million). Then maybe I would be willing to entertain Apple's opinion on what kind of machine I should be running.
It is perfectly legal to make profits using copyrighted materials. All companies do it. For example, law firms make profits using business suits that are copyrighted designs by Armani.
You're joking right?
Overall, it certainly has improved. Your sentence above is quite clearly stated and easy to understand.
Seriously, in your previous life, were you a nun at Sacred Heart Elementary? Your constant harping on people about the way they communicate reminds me of one rather LARGE "lady" that used to beat the crud out of people who had the unnatural sin of writing left handed.
Actually tying it to the specific machine comes right after that although it's so onerous they may hold off on that for a while.
That was always the Unix way. At least since the the 80s when when I got involved with Unix (Solaris) you always had to have a machine id to install anything. Often times it involved calling the publisher to get the a validation code. Example Adobe Illustrator for Solaris. Bet you didn't know that ever existed.
You're joking right?
No actually it's one of many effective ways to restate the problem. Now let's say Armani wrote a label inside their suits with an EULA telling lawyers, "you cannot use Armani suits while you are litigating at the District Court in Philadelphia." Now what if you do it? Can Armani shut you down? Of course not, it would be ludicrous. Sure Armani owns a copyright, that's why you paid for the suit. That is all you owe them. That, and don't copy their trademarked designs. But of course you can utilize them as you please.... "fair use." You paid for it.
I like that OS X comes with absolutely no trialware.
Hmmm...I could have sworn that Office was a trial app on some machines.
You're joking right?
Of course he is. I suppose that plagiarism is OK too. He no longer needs to write another paper for his courses. He can just copy them instead. What's wrong with that?
No actually it's one of many effective ways to restate the problem. Now let's say Armani wrote a label inside their suits with an EULA telling lawyers, "you cannot use Armani suits while you are litigating at the District Court in Philadelphia." Now what if you do it? Can Armani shut you down? Of course not, it would be ludicrous. Sure Armani owns a copyright, that's why you paid for the suit. That is all you owe them. That, and don't copy their trademarked designs. But of course you can utilize them as you please.... "fair use." You paid for it.
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you aren't a philosophy student because you would be failing horribly for your ludicrous lack of reasoning and logic skills. Your analogies are completely nonsensical and no relevance to what Apple is actually doing.
If you don't even understand the problem, then you should just not opine about it.
Keep an eye on OS net share http://marketshare.hitslink.com/os-m...e.aspx?qprid=9 - OS X has never passed 10% and is on a slow decline,
Why on earth are you pointing us to figures that show everybody growing .... except Windows?
And I mean everybody! That table shows the Mac, Linux, iPhone, iPod Touch... even android and "Others"... all putting on market share.
You should take a closer look at Marketshare's figures sometime. They show that the Mac has gained share every single quarter for 4.5 years!
If you want to say something negative about Apple's marketshare then you need to find some other data.
It's dead simple: you run into a problem when you use copyrighted material any way you like, especially without the consent (explicit, written, stated, etc.) of the author/creator/owner. Purchasing the copyrighted material does not give you complete ownership of the product, only the right to use it according to certain conditions. Most often, you can break it, burn it, throw it away, eat it, use it as a door stop, and sometimes modify it for personal use, but most often you're not allowed to modify it and run a business behind it, or otherwise resell the item as part of retail business/enterprise, regardless of the item's condition.
That's about as simple and dumbed-down as the issue gets. These principles have been in play in one form or another for most of our lifetimes, and have become clarified and broadened to apply to software, electronic data, and similar products.
If you have a problem with the foregoing, then you have a problem with the entire principle and reason for the existence of such a thing as "Intellectual Property", which would make you, at best, completely ignorant and obstinate about an entire sector of retail, and at worst, just plain dumb.
If you were a computer or software-maker in the current market, would you be interested in seeing the erosion and destruction of the principle of the EULA? If you do, you won't last very long, as there would be no point to producing anything.
You should take a closer look at Marketshare's figures sometime. They show that the Mac has gained share every single quarter for 4.5 years!
That's actually common knowledge.
Especially since 2006, OS X/Mac share has been steadily increasing. It hit new records every year since. i'm not sure about Q1/Q2 2009, though. Although Apple is experiencing the smallest contraction in computer sales in the entire industry. But the Premium end of the market has always been smaller (but much more lucrative) than the lower ends.
Isn't this a bit over the top. After all were talking about computers there not exactly complex. There all made from standard parts and it's not like apple even put there machines together.
And how is it going to lead them to have to support products they didn't sell? If anyone took one of these to apple to fix they just wouldn't do anything, same as when you take an apple product that's out of warrenty. If it's an os problem then they were paid and it's still there fault.
I can't really see a problem here it gives consumers more choice and freedom. After all if you sell some software in a box people should be allowed to use it how they want. A pencil company couldn't specify people only use there pencils with there paper because they see other paper as inferio.
Way to lack any conventional logic or basic understanding of software/hardware interaction. As these are technically hackintoshes, some features don't work properly or more slowly than they would officially. People are going to attribute this, at least in part, to Mac OS X. Apple also employs relatively rigorous QC, especially compared to a small group of hacks like Quo. That means, more than likely, we will see more hardware failures. I also doubt that Quo will be able to offer service that is as quick, friendly and efficient as Apple's. This also tarnishes their brand image, as again, even if because of ignorance on the part of consumers, people assume it is Apple's fault. As far as the support goes, I was referring to telephone support. Apple often doesn't even ask for a Serial Number. I want that caliber of service to continue on; not be muddled by some half ass generic mishandling of OS X. Apple created OS X. Why is it anyone's right to be able to manipulate it to make money off of their R&D? Oh right, because you're a cheap ass.
Also
Apple TAKE THEM DOWN! I will NOT put up with feeling like there was a more practical route in wanting to work with OS X!
Despite the shrinking number of desktops being sold Apple commands an even larger financial gain from their desktop line than their notebook line in comparison to other vendors. The AIO desktop has been a very successful for Apple for decades.
I tried to google it but I don?t have time to look this stuff up again. AI has done plenty of articles on it with links to their sources so they can be found through this site. The fact remains that Apple?s Mac line is very successful, despite not fitting everyone?s needs.
That is unfortunate they can?t tell the difference between Apple obviously caring about marketshare within their business model and Apple only caring about marketshare within caring about profits or strategy. These people shouldn?t run businesses.
BruceP?s reply was to someone who made their own OSx86 Mac. There are only two methods they could have used to build it. They could have used the complex Boot-132 which requires a non-hacked copy of OS X, which can be bought or DLed illegally or they simply torrented the pre-hacked version of OS X with would explain why 10.5.7 FUBARed their system since they probably didn?t wait for the hacked version of the point update before installing. The latter option is a copyright violated (hacked) and stolen (illegally downloaded) copy of OS X which are both illegal actions.
I don't have the latest figures, but Apple's market share for all computers sold in the US is/was ~7% and worldwide ~ 3%. Correct me if I'm wrong. Last I saw, Apple's market share for laptop retail sales was ~16%.
If as you and others say, the desktop computers Apple sells has virtually captured 100% of the available market they target(ie. the 9% figure), then Apple needs to stop giving lip service to expanding market share, because logically by these arguments they can not expand their market share with their current line-up.
This argument also does not address what may be best in the consumers interest and ignores the disadvantages, for many consumers, of the AIO design.
-uses expensive laptop parts.
-monitor built in(different service lives and not very green).
-lack of upgradability as tech changes.
-desktop clutter
I concede on the hackintosh argument as I don't know the law, except that it was my understanding, mistakenly I guess, that there was a way to modify the EFI interface without hacking Mac OS X to get it running, as far as I knew the EFI interface is not Apple's.
A point that deserves to be emphasized. Apple competes against Microsoft, but they can't be expected to compete against every Windows PC vendor, from big ones like HP, down to the street-corner screwdriver shop. Anybody who thinks they can or should try to compete against the entire range of PC vendors is being unrealistic. Apple has chosen where they want to be in the computer market, and they've been very successful in this market of late. Apple may not make products that suit everyone's tastes, priorities or budget -- but then, neither does every Windows PC vendor. If Apple doesn't make the perfect product for you, then that's just tough. Don't buy a Mac. Just don't expect them to change their entire business model to suit you. It isn't going to happen anyway.
No one in any of these threads concerning the mythical xMac suggests Apple should offer the infinite # of desktkop models the other OEMs offer. One will do nicely.
Exactly! You say 37%. OK let's work with that.
What percentage of those desktops are going to business and the enterprise.? Windows IT guys who don't want the Mac OS sullying their networks. 40%... 50% ? Let's call it 40.
Now we are down to 22% of the market.
You say that AIOs are a tiny fraction of the market. Maybe but all the major PC vendors sell them and Dell now has a two lines of AIO. Dell also sells a model that directly competes with a Mac Mini and lots of PC guys sell hi-end towers and gaming rigs that spar with the Mac Pro.
So let's strike out a further .... say 15%.
Now we are down to 22% of the market.
That 22% comprises of low to midrange upgradeable tower desktops sold to ... consumers.
And what are these consumers buying? Well I don't know for sure but Dell's desktop page might give as a clue. Dell has SEVEN desktop tower models that start at less than $400.00. Even the most ardent xMac fan will understand that Apple is never going to compete with that end of the market. I am going to assume that those type of systems account for approx another 60% (of the remainder). If you disagree with any of my figures ... well insert your own!
Your 37% has now dwindled to around 9%. That's mid-range, mid-priced, upgradable, consumer tower PCs. !!
60 million PCs sold in the US in 2008 (Gartner)
9% =5.4 million
Possible Apple share? Say 9% of 9% ? = 480,000
Not such a huge market now.
Your entire argument confirms that Apple can not and specifically will not attempt to increase market share, as they have captured virtually 100% of the market they are targeting.
Your entire argument confirms that Apple can not and specifically will not attempt to increase market share, as they have captured virtually 100% of the market they are targeting.
Rubbish! My entire argument (maybe a bit laboured) is that your figure of 37%, as the potential xMac market.... is actually a lot lower.
And if I am right that may just provide the rational behind Apple not providing this elusive Headless iMac!
We can agree that, while Apple maintains their pricing strategy and Microsoft maintains it's lock on the enterprise then their is a glass ceiling on the amount of share they can gain. However they still have a way to go before they hit that.
Your entire argument confirms that Apple can not and specifically will not attempt to increase market share, as they have captured virtually 100% of the market they are targeting.
I never really thought of it like that, but why not target more people? With Apple's profits they could definitely expand customer support to handle the added responsibility of more customers.
i'm not sure about Q1/Q2 2009, though.
Well currently at Net Applications Q1 and Q2 for this share are level pegging. 9.77% Historically the data shows only very small increases for the Mac in Q2 and Q3. I don't expect it will be any different this year.
One thing to note is that 2009 looks like the year of the mobile platforms. Those platforms are effectively making the desktop/notebook slice of the pie smaller.
No one in any of these threads concerning the mythical xMac suggests Apple should offer the infinite # of desktkop models the other OEMs offer. One will do nicely.
I can't prove the truth of this statement, and neither can you, I suspect. Either way, you have missed my point, which is: Apple has chosen where they want to be positioned in the computer market. If as a result, they don't make the computer for you, then don't buy a Mac -- and don't expect them to make any given type of Mac just because you think they should.