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.
Absolutely correct, and applies perfectly to this case. As long as you actually pay for your copy of OS X, it is none of Apple's business what computer you install it on, regardless of what the EULA says. And a company that wants to resell legally purchased copies of OS X in/with a different computer are no more guilty of anything than a mens wear store that sells a Hathaway shirt with an Armani suit in a store that's on a main floor of high rise teeming with law firms.
Absolutely correct, and applies perfectly to this case. As long as you actually pay for your copy of OS X, it is none of Apple's business what computer you install it on, regardless of what the EULA says. And a company that wants to resell legally purchased copies of OS X in/with a different computer are no more guilty of anything than a mens wear store that sells a Hathaway shirt with an Armani suit in a store that's on a main floor of high rise teeming with law firms.
Absolutely incorrect, and it applies not at all in this case.
You may not trade on the intellectual property owned by others without their express permission. Period, full stop.
Not only is it not that cut and dry, in many cases it's completely false.
Name one, but re-read what I wrote first. The key word here is "trade." As the purchaser of a product covered by IP protections, you have certain rights reserved ("fair use") but none that I am aware of that permits you to trade on someone else's IP. The entire purpose behind IP protection is to reserve trade rights for the owner exclusively. Without those protections, IP is valueless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by piot
.... or perhaps Dr Millmoss will give you your meds.
No, but he can have some of mine if he asks nicely.
Name one, but re-read what I wrote first. The key word here is "trade." As the purchaser of a product covered by IP protections, you have certain rights reserved ("fair use") but none that I am aware of that permits you to trade on someone else's IP.
You can buy and resell most things without the original creators permission. I can buy copies of Twilight, make my own casket-looking box, put the book and a clove of garlic in said box and sell those. Stephenie Meyer has no right whatsoever to stop me if the copies of the book I'm reselling are legally purchased originals, even if the book's indicia clearly had a "no reselling" clause in it.
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.
It's not rubbish, it's from your numbers, albeit those numbers include some assumptions you made.
Now you say they have a way to go to get to that glass ceiling. In the US, that would be from ~7% to ~9%.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss
I can't prove the truth of this statement, and neither can you, I suspect.
Granted, I haven't read all these threads in all the boards, but have read them @ Appleinsider, Arstechnica, MacLife(formerly known as MacAddict) and Macrumors over the course several years and not once have I read one post advocating Apple offer the plethora of models other OEMs do. The only time this subject comes up is when someone defending Apple's product line-up brings it up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss
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.
I haven't missed your point at all. You bring up another argument that posters defending Apple continually bring up, which basically boils down to if "you don't like it" buy Windows machines. This is not an argument and strays from any valid points that are made, such as piot's points about dwindling markets for desktops.
The point is that Apple executives have in the past repeatedly suggested they are indeed interested in gaining market share, yet as piot said, Apple has imposed a glass ceiling and you say,"Apple has chosen where they want to be positioned in the computer market."
Why the pretense on Apple's part for expanding market share?
Where did I say I expect Apple "to make any given type of Mac just because you think they should."? I know they won't, have known it for years. I accept it and my family owns a Powerbook G4, an iMac G5, have bought an iBook for one daughter and a Macbook from my other daughter.
That doesn't muzzle me though, when as an AAPL stockholder I believe they can indeed expand market share and maintain gross margins. Remember, AAPL does not pay dividends (note: I'm not advocating they do), so any profits I as an investor can expect must come from growth/expansion and increase in share price. Right now and for the foreseeable future AAPL is relying on iPhone and iPods for growth, with laptops dramatically increasing market share in the past. The advent of the net books, or whatever they are called, may impact laptops, we'll see.
And again, all of these arguments still don't address the inherent disadvantages of the Mac Mini or the iMac for many consumers. Even people defending Apple's strategy often admit an xMac would suit their needs better, but like me stick with Apple.
You can buy and resell most things without the original creators permission. I can buy copies of Twilight, make my own casket-looking box, put the book and a clove of garlic in said box and sell those. Stephenie Meyer has no right whatsoever to stop me if the copies of the book I'm reselling are legally purchased originals, even if the book's indicia clearly had a "no reselling" clause in it.
We're not simply talking about resale. This is where most people are getting mixed up and consequently come up with analogies that just don't apply to this instance.
I've made this point several times before and at the risk of having it ignored again by those who don't want to deal with it -- the product in question here is the Macintosh computer. It's not the hardware alone, nor the software alone, but the combination of the two which makes up the product known as a Macintosh computer. Apple has exclusive right to make and sell Macintosh computers, and they have that right irrespective of whether some parts of that product can be purchased individually. Purchasing one part of a protected product does not give anyone the right to duplicate the rest of the product and sell it without permission from the rights holder. That's just basic to IP protections. Without that, you have no IP protections whatsoever. I realize that some people would prefer the world that way, but I'd dismiss their views on the subject as fantastical.
I haven't missed your point at all. You bring up another argument that posters defending Apple continually bring up, which basically boils down to if "you don't like it" buy Windows machines. This is not an argument and strays from any valid points that are made, such as piot's points about dwindling markets for desktops.
I think you have, at least in part. For one, my purpose is not to "defend Apple." The argument that if you don't like the products Apple produces, then don't buy them, applies equally to every other product on the face of the Earth. It's hardly a radical or weird principle when applied to Apple's products. What I do find radical and weird is the implication that Apple deliberately hamstrings their own profitability. The total evidence you have for this is that they don't make a product you wish that they did. That's pretty thin evidence, IMO.
BTW, I've been an AAPL shareholder for over ten years. During that time I've seen them do some pretty dumb things, so I'm not an apologist for Apple's management. Still over the last several years their execution has been brilliant by any reasonable standard. Consequently I am prepared to give them the benefit of any doubts I might have.
Also FWIW, I wish they did pay a dividend and believe they should be paying one.
I think you have, at least in part. For one, my purpose is not to "defend Apple." The argument that if you don't like the products Apple produces, then don't buy them, applies equally to every other product on the face of the Earth.
It's kind of an odd thing though being that we're talking about computers here. It's not like we're getting pissed at the high prices of legos. In this day in age, having a computer is something that's absolutely needed, but it's becoming such a norm that without one, life becomes rather difficult when trying to have the same opportunities as the next person.
We'll be seeing many new innovations in the computing world in the next 10 years that will smear that "Windows or OSX" only option, but until then, saying "If you don't like it, then buy Windows" is NOT like saying the same thing for every other product on the face of the Erf.
I live and work in the LA area. Assuming that most people who read this site are tech savvy, a simple whois query can see that this person is all over the internet in legal issues, past and failed websites.
IMHO, this guy is just looking for a quick buck and/or notoriety.
It's not rubbish, it's from your numbers, albeit those numbers include some assumptions you made.
Yes my numbers were 'assumed' but I believe that they might prove a little more accurate than " I want a product.... ergo everyone else must want the same product".
Quote:
Now you say they have a way to go to get to that glass ceiling. In the US, that would be from ~7% to ~9%.
Apple executives have in the past repeatedly suggested they are indeed interested in gaining market share, yet as piot said, Apple has imposed a glass ceiling
Rickrag, I have no idea why you keep saying that Apple has reached their limit in sales growth.
Yes I believe there is a soft limit to the amount of share that Apple can achieve in the PC market. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT LIMIT IS... but as I said before I don't think they have reached it.
A couple of points:
Apple has already hit over 9% in the US... so that's not the limit.
Apple's worldwide market share have risen from 1.9% in 2004 to 3.4 in 2008.... so it's growth but a steady rather than stellar rate.
Rickrag, how can Apple gain marketshare?
By selling more Macs! (and growing faster than the PC competition)
How can Apple try to sell more Macs?
They could advertise more
They could advertise more outside the US
They could open more Apple stores
They could open more Apple stores in countries outside the US
They could partner with more 3rd party resellers
They could open online stores in new countries
Unfriendly exchange rates (for the consumer) could become friendly (ask lemon le bon in the UK )
They could attract more pro markets with software. Like they have done with Audio, Photo and Video.
They might simply update the specs on their systems a little more often
The iPod halo effect might be coming to a close... but the iPhone halo is just starting
They might benefit from even more people switching to notebooks.
They also might prosper from the PC world hitting rock bottom on prices.
You get my drift?
Quote:
Why the pretense on Apple's part for expanding market share?
Right now and for the foreseeable future AAPL is relying on iPhone and iPods for growth
I don't see any pretence. They have increased Mac sales and market share for over four years. Even in this economy, with a downturn in ALL computer sales APPLE (remember with the most expensive and limited choice!) still managed to increase their share a little.
As for growth, well iPod has probably come to the end of it's growth cycle and the iPhone has only just got started. Ask HP (the number one PC manufacturer) if they are looking for growth from their PC client division.
Quote:
Even people defending Apple's strategy often admit an xMac would suit their needs better, but like me stick with Apple.
I nearly missed that line! So what really is your point? A lot of people want an xMac .... actually only some of people want an xMac ... actually some of those people will just buy another Mac. Looks like you agree with Apple.
I live and work in the LA area. Assuming that most people who read this site are tech savvy, a simple whois query can see that this person is all over the internet in legal issues, past and failed websites.
IMHO, this guy is just looking for a quick buck and/or notoriety.
Actually that is a good point. A few of us here have swerved, somewhat from the original post.
Care to enlighten us about Mr De Silva's greatest hits?
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?
I am probably older than most of you. But thanks for the amusing ad hominem attacks. Do you guys have anything substantial to say (apparently nothing to do with EULA)? I didn't read Apple's lawsuit, just the reports. So it's not clear to me why making Apple compatible machines would he illegal. Please remind the readers why, if you know.
It's kind of an odd thing though being that we're talking about computers here. It's not like we're getting pissed at the high prices of legos. In this day in age, having a computer is something that's absolutely needed, but it's becoming such a norm that without one, life becomes rather difficult when trying to have the same opportunities as the next person.
We'll be seeing many new innovations in the computing world in the next 10 years that will smear that "Windows or OSX" only option, but until then, saying "If you don't like it, then buy Windows" is NOT like saying the same thing for every other product on the face of the Erf.
I don't really follow your logic. If Apple was the only company making computers, then maybe I'd see your point. Not too long ago, we were damned close to having no choice, and a lot of supposedly intelligent and informed people were putting forth the theory that where computers were concerned, choice didn't really matter. But today Apple is providing a real and viable choice, so that in my book is a completely good thing.
It's kind of an odd thing though being that we're talking about computers here. It's not like we're getting pissed at the high prices of legos. In this day in age, having a computer is something that's absolutely needed, but it's becoming such a norm that without one, life becomes rather difficult when trying to have the same opportunities as the next person.
We'll be seeing many new innovations in the computing world in the next 10 years that will smear that "Windows or OSX" only option, but until then, saying "If you don't like it, then buy Windows" is NOT like saying the same thing for every other product on the face of the Erf.
What a stupid argument.
If we extend your argument, then Hyundai should be allowed to sell systems blatantly copied from BMW and with BMW logos on the dashboard because everyone needs a car and BMWs are too expensive for some people.
No one is stopping anyone from buying a computer if they feel that they need one. Apple is simply stopping people from illegally abusing Apple's intellectual property. That's not the same thing.
I am probably older than most of you. But thanks for the amusing ad hominem attacks. Do you guys have anything substantial to say (apparently nothing to do with EULA)? I didn't read Apple's lawsuit, just the reports. So it's not clear to me why making Apple compatible machines would he illegal. Please remind the readers why, if you know.
This was explained in some detail in numerous posts and as recently as my post #150. I predicted that this explanation would be ignored. What a shock when it was.
So because you could not get your own way, you cheated, in fact you broke the law.
Your story sounds lame anyway . Too small too big too fast too many buttons . Or did you save a ton of money by stealing software. and hackintosh is a very low life word . Right up there with hacker .
I wonder why did the MINI not work for you ? It can run two large screens ? No ?
Anyway good luck
Good bye
Your knee-jerk reaction to Benthic is very superficial and quite ill-informed. A mini is a very underpowered piece of hardware. For only a couple of hundred more and a little sweat equity, one can create a Hackintosh that leaves the mini in the dust. How do I know? After helping a friend build one last year and seeing how well it worked, I built my own. For CPU-intensive applications, it's coming in roughly 3x faster than my old mini -- the benefit of a quad-core processor with bigger cache and 4x as much RAM. Tasks that used to take over two hours on the mini are done in well under an hour. Not to mention I can do a ton more customization than on the mini. An absurd amount of HD space, quiet 120mm fans everywhere controlled by a 6-channel fan controller, built-in media card reader, 12 USB 2.0 ports, etc. And with all that horsepower, the CPU is currently running cool as a cucumber at 38ºC. Yes, 1% of the functionality is missing, mainly things like sleep, but I think it's a fair tradeoff. Is it the equal of a Mac Pro? No. But at roughly 1/3 the price of a Pro, I'm happy. And it easily outperforms not only the mini, but the much more expensive iMacs, too.
Oh, and I did buy retail packages of Leopard and iWorks for it. Just so you know.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bwik
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.
That is the poorest display of logic I have seen in months! It doesn't work on so man levels that if your later post wasn't so defensive I would have thought you left off the sarcasm tags.
Quote:
Originally Posted by applebook
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.
Agreed. And that post is no an ad hom, that is related very directly to the content of the post and the logical skill displayed in crafting something so ludicrous.
The only thing to say is that if we follow your logic bwik, we should all be in jail for gross negligence and theft.
Your fallacy is that Psystar buys similar, but not the same quality material for the "Armani suit". Then sews it using a similar but not quite the same cut, followed by sewing in a genuine Amani label. Finally they add their own label to the suit that says it is just like an Armani suit, but an "open design". At several places in the sequence they clearly violated Armani's rights in the name of an "open platform" to purchase your suit. Clearly that is good for the entire industry right? Not.
Comments
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.
Absolutely correct, and applies perfectly to this case. As long as you actually pay for your copy of OS X, it is none of Apple's business what computer you install it on, regardless of what the EULA says. And a company that wants to resell legally purchased copies of OS X in/with a different computer are no more guilty of anything than a mens wear store that sells a Hathaway shirt with an Armani suit in a store that's on a main floor of high rise teeming with law firms.
Absolutely correct, and applies perfectly to this case. As long as you actually pay for your copy of OS X, it is none of Apple's business what computer you install it on, regardless of what the EULA says. And a company that wants to resell legally purchased copies of OS X in/with a different computer are no more guilty of anything than a mens wear store that sells a Hathaway shirt with an Armani suit in a store that's on a main floor of high rise teeming with law firms.
Absolutely incorrect, and it applies not at all in this case.
You may not trade on the intellectual property owned by others without their express permission. Period, full stop.
Absolutely correct, and applies perfectly to this case.
If you and bwik sit down over there... someone will be around shortly to give you your glasses of milk.
You may not trade on the intellectual property owned by others without their express permission. Period, full stop.
Not only is it not that cut and dry, in many cases it's completely false.
Not only is it not that cut and dry, in many cases it's completely false.
Name one, but re-read what I wrote first. The key word here is "trade." As the purchaser of a product covered by IP protections, you have certain rights reserved ("fair use") but none that I am aware of that permits you to trade on someone else's IP. The entire purpose behind IP protection is to reserve trade rights for the owner exclusively. Without those protections, IP is valueless.
.... or perhaps Dr Millmoss will give you your meds.
No, but he can have some of mine if he asks nicely.
Name one, but re-read what I wrote first. The key word here is "trade." As the purchaser of a product covered by IP protections, you have certain rights reserved ("fair use") but none that I am aware of that permits you to trade on someone else's IP.
You can buy and resell most things without the original creators permission. I can buy copies of Twilight, make my own casket-looking box, put the book and a clove of garlic in said box and sell those. Stephenie Meyer has no right whatsoever to stop me if the copies of the book I'm reselling are legally purchased originals, even if the book's indicia clearly had a "no reselling" clause in it.
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.
It's not rubbish, it's from your numbers, albeit those numbers include some assumptions you made.
Now you say they have a way to go to get to that glass ceiling. In the US, that would be from ~7% to ~9%.
I can't prove the truth of this statement, and neither can you, I suspect.
Granted, I haven't read all these threads in all the boards, but have read them @ Appleinsider, Arstechnica, MacLife(formerly known as MacAddict) and Macrumors over the course several years and not once have I read one post advocating Apple offer the plethora of models other OEMs do. The only time this subject comes up is when someone defending Apple's product line-up brings it up.
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.
I haven't missed your point at all. You bring up another argument that posters defending Apple continually bring up, which basically boils down to if "you don't like it" buy Windows machines. This is not an argument and strays from any valid points that are made, such as piot's points about dwindling markets for desktops.
The point is that Apple executives have in the past repeatedly suggested they are indeed interested in gaining market share, yet as piot said, Apple has imposed a glass ceiling and you say,"Apple has chosen where they want to be positioned in the computer market."
Why the pretense on Apple's part for expanding market share?
Where did I say I expect Apple "to make any given type of Mac just because you think they should."? I know they won't, have known it for years. I accept it and my family owns a Powerbook G4, an iMac G5, have bought an iBook for one daughter and a Macbook from my other daughter.
That doesn't muzzle me though, when as an AAPL stockholder I believe they can indeed expand market share and maintain gross margins. Remember, AAPL does not pay dividends (note: I'm not advocating they do), so any profits I as an investor can expect must come from growth/expansion and increase in share price. Right now and for the foreseeable future AAPL is relying on iPhone and iPods for growth, with laptops dramatically increasing market share in the past. The advent of the net books, or whatever they are called, may impact laptops, we'll see.
And again, all of these arguments still don't address the inherent disadvantages of the Mac Mini or the iMac for many consumers. Even people defending Apple's strategy often admit an xMac would suit their needs better, but like me stick with Apple.
You can buy and resell most things without the original creators permission. I can buy copies of Twilight, make my own casket-looking box, put the book and a clove of garlic in said box and sell those. Stephenie Meyer has no right whatsoever to stop me if the copies of the book I'm reselling are legally purchased originals, even if the book's indicia clearly had a "no reselling" clause in it.
We're not simply talking about resale. This is where most people are getting mixed up and consequently come up with analogies that just don't apply to this instance.
I've made this point several times before and at the risk of having it ignored again by those who don't want to deal with it -- the product in question here is the Macintosh computer. It's not the hardware alone, nor the software alone, but the combination of the two which makes up the product known as a Macintosh computer. Apple has exclusive right to make and sell Macintosh computers, and they have that right irrespective of whether some parts of that product can be purchased individually. Purchasing one part of a protected product does not give anyone the right to duplicate the rest of the product and sell it without permission from the rights holder. That's just basic to IP protections. Without that, you have no IP protections whatsoever. I realize that some people would prefer the world that way, but I'd dismiss their views on the subject as fantastical.
I haven't missed your point at all. You bring up another argument that posters defending Apple continually bring up, which basically boils down to if "you don't like it" buy Windows machines. This is not an argument and strays from any valid points that are made, such as piot's points about dwindling markets for desktops.
I think you have, at least in part. For one, my purpose is not to "defend Apple." The argument that if you don't like the products Apple produces, then don't buy them, applies equally to every other product on the face of the Earth. It's hardly a radical or weird principle when applied to Apple's products. What I do find radical and weird is the implication that Apple deliberately hamstrings their own profitability. The total evidence you have for this is that they don't make a product you wish that they did. That's pretty thin evidence, IMO.
BTW, I've been an AAPL shareholder for over ten years. During that time I've seen them do some pretty dumb things, so I'm not an apologist for Apple's management. Still over the last several years their execution has been brilliant by any reasonable standard. Consequently I am prepared to give them the benefit of any doubts I might have.
Also FWIW, I wish they did pay a dividend and believe they should be paying one.
I think you have, at least in part. For one, my purpose is not to "defend Apple." The argument that if you don't like the products Apple produces, then don't buy them, applies equally to every other product on the face of the Earth.
It's kind of an odd thing though being that we're talking about computers here. It's not like we're getting pissed at the high prices of legos. In this day in age, having a computer is something that's absolutely needed, but it's becoming such a norm that without one, life becomes rather difficult when trying to have the same opportunities as the next person.
We'll be seeing many new innovations in the computing world in the next 10 years that will smear that "Windows or OSX" only option, but until then, saying "If you don't like it, then buy Windows" is NOT like saying the same thing for every other product on the face of the Erf.
IMHO, this guy is just looking for a quick buck and/or notoriety.
It's not rubbish, it's from your numbers, albeit those numbers include some assumptions you made.
Yes my numbers were 'assumed' but I believe that they might prove a little more accurate than " I want a product.... ergo everyone else must want the same product".
Now you say they have a way to go to get to that glass ceiling. In the US, that would be from ~7% to ~9%.
Apple executives have in the past repeatedly suggested they are indeed interested in gaining market share, yet as piot said, Apple has imposed a glass ceiling
Rickrag, I have no idea why you keep saying that Apple has reached their limit in sales growth.
Yes I believe there is a soft limit to the amount of share that Apple can achieve in the PC market. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT LIMIT IS... but as I said before I don't think they have reached it.
A couple of points:
Apple has already hit over 9% in the US... so that's not the limit.
Apple's worldwide market share have risen from 1.9% in 2004 to 3.4 in 2008.... so it's growth but a steady rather than stellar rate.
Rickrag, how can Apple gain marketshare?
By selling more Macs! (and growing faster than the PC competition)
How can Apple try to sell more Macs?
They could advertise more
They could advertise more outside the US
They could open more Apple stores
They could open more Apple stores in countries outside the US
They could partner with more 3rd party resellers
They could open online stores in new countries
Unfriendly exchange rates (for the consumer) could become friendly (ask lemon le bon in the UK
They could attract more pro markets with software. Like they have done with Audio, Photo and Video.
They might simply update the specs on their systems a little more often
The iPod halo effect might be coming to a close... but the iPhone halo is just starting
They might benefit from even more people switching to notebooks.
They also might prosper from the PC world hitting rock bottom on prices.
You get my drift?
Why the pretense on Apple's part for expanding market share?
Right now and for the foreseeable future AAPL is relying on iPhone and iPods for growth
I don't see any pretence. They have increased Mac sales and market share for over four years. Even in this economy, with a downturn in ALL computer sales APPLE (remember with the most expensive and limited choice!) still managed to increase their share a little.
As for growth, well iPod has probably come to the end of it's growth cycle and the iPhone has only just got started. Ask HP (the number one PC manufacturer) if they are looking for growth from their PC client division.
Even people defending Apple's strategy often admit an xMac would suit their needs better, but like me stick with Apple.
I nearly missed that line!
I live and work in the LA area. Assuming that most people who read this site are tech savvy, a simple whois query can see that this person is all over the internet in legal issues, past and failed websites.
IMHO, this guy is just looking for a quick buck and/or notoriety.
Actually that is a good point. A few of us here have swerved, somewhat from the original post.
Care to enlighten us about Mr De Silva's greatest hits?
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?
I am probably older than most of you. But thanks for the amusing ad hominem attacks. Do you guys have anything substantial to say (apparently nothing to do with EULA)? I didn't read Apple's lawsuit, just the reports. So it's not clear to me why making Apple compatible machines would he illegal. Please remind the readers why, if you know.
It's kind of an odd thing though being that we're talking about computers here. It's not like we're getting pissed at the high prices of legos. In this day in age, having a computer is something that's absolutely needed, but it's becoming such a norm that without one, life becomes rather difficult when trying to have the same opportunities as the next person.
We'll be seeing many new innovations in the computing world in the next 10 years that will smear that "Windows or OSX" only option, but until then, saying "If you don't like it, then buy Windows" is NOT like saying the same thing for every other product on the face of the Erf.
I don't really follow your logic. If Apple was the only company making computers, then maybe I'd see your point. Not too long ago, we were damned close to having no choice, and a lot of supposedly intelligent and informed people were putting forth the theory that where computers were concerned, choice didn't really matter. But today Apple is providing a real and viable choice, so that in my book is a completely good thing.
It's kind of an odd thing though being that we're talking about computers here. It's not like we're getting pissed at the high prices of legos. In this day in age, having a computer is something that's absolutely needed, but it's becoming such a norm that without one, life becomes rather difficult when trying to have the same opportunities as the next person.
We'll be seeing many new innovations in the computing world in the next 10 years that will smear that "Windows or OSX" only option, but until then, saying "If you don't like it, then buy Windows" is NOT like saying the same thing for every other product on the face of the Erf.
What a stupid argument.
If we extend your argument, then Hyundai should be allowed to sell systems blatantly copied from BMW and with BMW logos on the dashboard because everyone needs a car and BMWs are too expensive for some people.
No one is stopping anyone from buying a computer if they feel that they need one. Apple is simply stopping people from illegally abusing Apple's intellectual property. That's not the same thing.
I am probably older than most of you. But thanks for the amusing ad hominem attacks. Do you guys have anything substantial to say (apparently nothing to do with EULA)? I didn't read Apple's lawsuit, just the reports. So it's not clear to me why making Apple compatible machines would he illegal. Please remind the readers why, if you know.
This was explained in some detail in numerous posts and as recently as my post #150. I predicted that this explanation would be ignored. What a shock when it was.
So because you could not get your own way, you cheated, in fact you broke the law.
Your story sounds lame anyway . Too small too big too fast too many buttons . Or did you save a ton of money by stealing software. and hackintosh is a very low life word . Right up there with hacker .
I wonder why did the MINI not work for you ? It can run two large screens ? No ?
Anyway good luck
Good bye
Your knee-jerk reaction to Benthic is very superficial and quite ill-informed. A mini is a very underpowered piece of hardware. For only a couple of hundred more and a little sweat equity, one can create a Hackintosh that leaves the mini in the dust. How do I know? After helping a friend build one last year and seeing how well it worked, I built my own. For CPU-intensive applications, it's coming in roughly 3x faster than my old mini -- the benefit of a quad-core processor with bigger cache and 4x as much RAM. Tasks that used to take over two hours on the mini are done in well under an hour. Not to mention I can do a ton more customization than on the mini. An absurd amount of HD space, quiet 120mm fans everywhere controlled by a 6-channel fan controller, built-in media card reader, 12 USB 2.0 ports, etc. And with all that horsepower, the CPU is currently running cool as a cucumber at 38ºC. Yes, 1% of the functionality is missing, mainly things like sleep, but I think it's a fair tradeoff. Is it the equal of a Mac Pro? No. But at roughly 1/3 the price of a Pro, I'm happy. And it easily outperforms not only the mini, but the much more expensive iMacs, too.
Oh, and I did buy retail packages of Leopard and iWorks for it. Just so you know.
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.
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.
Agreed. And that post is no an ad hom, that is related very directly to the content of the post and the logical skill displayed in crafting something so ludicrous.
The only thing to say is that if we follow your logic bwik, we should all be in jail for gross negligence and theft.
Your fallacy is that Psystar buys similar, but not the same quality material for the "Armani suit". Then sews it using a similar but not quite the same cut, followed by sewing in a genuine Amani label. Finally they add their own label to the suit that says it is just like an Armani suit, but an "open design". At several places in the sequence they clearly violated Armani's rights in the name of an "open platform" to purchase your suit. Clearly that is good for the entire industry right? Not.