Wouldn't apple be trying to do it already since people are doing their own hackintoshes?
Well buy announcing the App store apple pretty much kill jailbreaking already if that's what you mean, most of the good games & good apps have disappear from app tap already, i guess since the app store is going to be available to more than 10 million people everyone is in a hurry to license the apps so they can get at least $1 per user
"A situation in which a single company or group owns all or nearly all of the market for a given type of product or service. By definition, monopoly is characterized by an absence of competition."
There is no competition in the Mac market and that is not illegal.
That's just stupid.
The "given TYPE of product" is a computer. Not a mac - if you don't want a mac, you just buy a PC which serves the same purpose.
Aside from that, doesn't your logic imply that EVERY company has a monopoly if "type of product" is defined as the brand of product? Of course there's competition in the mac market. It's called a PC, and it's the reason Macs have single digit market share.
And for the record, I didn't say it was bad/illegal/whatever. I'm just saying it simply IS NOT a monopoly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by frankiilacomposer
? Mac Pro's and Macbook Pro's hardly move off the shelves in the apple stores compared to iMacs, Macbooks, Minis and especially iPhones.
Do you have a source or is that just speculation? I'd be shocked if the minis are outselling any other mac models, especially the MB pro.
It is not good that the Mac is a monopoly of Apple. Mac OS X should run on any Intel hardware, being made by Apple or others. Greed is never good. And we want a Mac miniTOWER that Apple does no make, but others can offer. And so on. Windows people can choose the hardware they want from a myriad of vendors. Mac users cannot. That is not good for the Mac community. And by Mac I mean Mac OS X, of course. Apple, move on!
Well buy announcing the App store apple pretty much kill jailbreaking already if that's what you mean, most of the good games & good apps have disappear from app tap already, i guess since the app store is going to be available to more than 10 million people everyone is in a hurry to license the apps so they can get at least $1 per user
What does that have to do with hackintoshes?
Apple has tried repeatedly to kill jailbreaking and so far every attempt seems to have failed. I wouldn't be surprised if the iTunes store is worked around as well.
The point is, Apple already tries to have the OS detect if it's genuine mac hardware or not. Problem is, the mac is 99% the same as PC hardware, and it hasn't been too hard for people to hack the rest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zunx
It is not good that the Mac is a monopoly of Apple. Mac OS X should run on any Intel hardware, being made by Apple or others. Greed is never good.
So I guess along the same lines, it's not good that only Coke can make Coke and only Toyota can make toyotas? That's "greed" on the part of Coke? You seriously think any company should be able to make Coke or Toyotas? Why would any business go to the trouble of creating a product if any other company could just make the exact same thing?
And again, THE MAC IS NOT A MONOPOLY. Unless you use twisted logic to define "monopoly" in a way that EVERY product from EVERY company is a monopoly.
Personally, and I know this is such a lovely topic around here, I think that anything that has a better GPU is worth it and I say Hurrah, Hurrah for the OSX86 and companies like this.
? Pro users DO not make up the base, its all iPods and iPhone users.
? Mac Pro's and Macbook Pro's hardly move off the shelves in the apple stores compared to iMacs, Macbooks, Minis and especially iPhones.
? For a few hundred, you can build a great machines, buy a dual DVI nvidia card and have a machine the romps a Mac Pro for a fraction of the cost.
? Apple charges $600 for 4 GB of RAM, you can buy RAM at New Egg for $104 dollars and most memory will have a lifetime warranty so no worries should it fail in a year or so.
The whole notion that Apple is still on its high horse with graphic cards drives me nuts - they still think the PROS will flock to the cheap-o systems if they released a cheap machine with a $50 graphic card. So what if they do? They are such a small portion of the market. Personally, I don't think its a matter of "if" but a matter of "when" as Apple needs to get a grip.
While the machine is probably ugly, I think you're better of building your own machine for much cheaper.
Here is a link for a HACK for less than $800 and with the exception of one benchmark, it beats the Mac Pro -
And to think as an Apple user I pat them on the back -
I think there is a group of us, PRO PC until Apple went X86 (as Steve used to FUDGE all the numbers), that are POST X86 Apple users, and those of us who are, are also savvy to INTEL say vs AMD and know what cost a GPU or MEMORY is, and how (APPLE) Intel used to operate until AMD came along with their first 1.0 GHZ Athlon. I think competition and seeing better machines cheaper may someday force Apple to wake up and release a overall decent machine thats not crippled in any department.
Right now, if you want to play any game at all that uses 3D, you have to get an iMac, however, if you want a laptop, you have NO CHOICE but to purchase a Macbook Pro.
Since you can't buy a Mac Pro as slow as the one they benchmarked anymore, I'm not sure how relevant those benchmarks are. Current Mac Pros have twice as many cores at higher MHz. They also did not appear to benchmark any "pro" operations at all, only simple consumer stuff. If you're going to just play around with the computer don't get a pro! If you're going to do a lot of compiles or high-end video/rendering you're going to get several times the performance over the "Hackintosh".
In short, you generally get what you pay for if you're pushing your machine to the limit. If not, your return on investment will top out somewhere-- probably significantly short of the Mac Pro's sweet spot.
And, of course, don't buy your RAM from Apple.
That leaves the sub-$1000 pro-sumer market wide open. It's a market Apple doesn't address at all. iMacs are too expensive and are bundled with what is for most people an unnecessary extra monitor. The mini doesn't have a graphics card and is severely underpowered for the price. That's why this clone is so interesting to so many people.
That leaves the sub-$1000 pro-sumer market wide open. It's a market Apple doesn't address at all. iMacs are too expensive and are bundled with what is for most people an unnecessary extra monitor. The mini doesn't have a graphics card and is severely underpowered for the price. That's why this clone is so interesting to so many people.
That's the key right there. The only reason this exists is because apple doesn't offer any reasonably priced mid to low end boxes, specifically a midtower. If apple would finally release one, it would make this whole thing moot.
I doubt this will make much of a splash, but I think it will focus public attention on the hole in Apple's product line and put some pressure on apple. And I think that's a good thing.
Seriously, These guys have t be insane. Apple's software is Apple's software. Plain and simple.
And Microsoft said that their software was their software, and they had the right to integrate Internet Explorer into their software.
At issue is whether Apple's EULA is legal to be bound to a specific hardware. Microsoft's "EULA", in essence, was to force everyone to use IE if they wanted Windows. The federal anti-trust regulators here in the US and in Europe decided that Microsoft had too much of a monopoly in the browser department, and forced MS to 'play nice' with other software makers. Why shouldn't Apple be told to 'play nice' with other hardware makers?
The saving grace for Apple is that they're still a two-bit player, relatively speaking.
Have we all forgotten our computing history? The whole reason Microsoft became so successful was that they specifically allowed their OS to be used on multiple types of computers. Previous to that, the OS and hardware were almost always locked together (e.g., the original Macintosh). Also, Psystar would be aiding and abetting software piracy if they specifically marketed a machine for the purposes of allowing a purchaser to buy/install a copy of OSX in violation of the EULA.
Whoa there pardner.
MS became successful because of brilliant manipulation of exclusive licensing agreements with hardware manufacturers (i.e. thou shalt ship with no other OS), FUD tactics that killed upstart competitors, and business practices that gave their applications home field advantage, grandfathering them into corporations.
What is certainly true is that Windows is the nightmare is is PRECISELY because of the open hardware model that it is now chained to.
There are interesting competition law points here. If we assume that the relevant market is 'Computer hardware capable of running Mac OS X' then clearly Apple is in a dominant position with 100% market share. It is not completely unforseeable that Apple could be forced to licence OS X or remove the relevant paragraphs from the agreement.
Of course, one could argue that in that case, Nokia should be releasing its software so that Sony Ericsson users can use it etc.
A few complaints to national competition authorities might raise some interesting results.
Except it really doesn't work that way. The fact that Microsoft has a monopoly in Windows isn't what got them in trouble. What got them in trouble was that they used their monopoly in abusive ways. They used their monopoly in one area (operating systems) to illegally interfere with businesses in another area (web browsers and Netscape). Mac hardware and the Mac OS are not two seperate markets. They are a single market. MS also used their monopoly to force PC makers to include Windows on all of their computers, even if the customer didn't want it included. There probably would have been nothing illegal if they had told HP that they had to exclude Windows an certain models, but forcing them to include it and pay for it was an abuse of their monopoly.
Apple doesn't abuse their "monopoly" (and I use that term very loosely!) in OS X. They don't force other companies to buy it and include it with their hardware. If they chose not to license it to you, that's their [perfectly legal] choice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison
Idiots
If Microsoft wanted to write into their EULA that windows should only be installable on Dells they "could". It wouldn't be smart but they could if they wanted to.
"Robert" should be kept away from the press. What a moron. This company will soon be a footnote. I'm sure they have a legal departmen that matches Apple's in every way<sarcasm>
If Apple could shut down Thinksecret over rumors they're going to do a number on this little company that makes Thinksecret look like a love tap on the ass.
In fact, MS's Vista license does actually preclude you from installing certain versions on virtual machines. I think they relaxed it a bit from the original version; but by license, you are not allowed to install the lower end versions of Vista on virtual PCs. So you could have a Dell running a fully license version of Vista. But if you then wanted to buy the retail version of the low-end Vista (whatever it's called...who can keep track!) and install it in a virtual machine running on that Dell, you would be in violation of the license agreement. It's MS's property that you are licensing, and they have decided that they don't want their product used in that way...perfectly legal!
Mac is a BRAND that belongs to APPLE, the same way that an XBox is a brand of Microsoft's or a Camry is a brand of Toyota. The Mac brand (let me repeat) BELONGS TO APPLE.
Macs are not synonymous to PCs. A Mac is a brand of computer, just as a Sony Vaio or Dell Dimension is a brand of computer. A PC is not a brand of computer but is pretty much synonymous with being a computer. It is a short for "Personal Computer". A Mac, however, is a different class of computer that runs an operating system currently known as OSX (also a brand that BELONGS TO APPLE), whereas most other computers run the Windows operating system that is a brand of Microsoft. Microsoft has different usage terms for their OS than does Apple and because these OSs are owned by the company that developed them, that company has the right to state what those usage terms are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zunx
It is not good that the Mac is a monopoly of Apple. Mac OS X should run on any Intel hardware, being made by Apple or others. Greed is never good. And we want a Mac miniTOWER that Apple does no make, but others can offer. And so on. Windows people can choose the hardware they want from a myriad of vendors. Mac users cannot. That is not good for the Mac community. And by Mac I mean Mac OS X, of course. Apple, move on!
And Microsoft said that their software was their software, and they had the right to integrate Internet Explorer into their software.
At issue is whether Apple's EULA is legal to be bound to a specific hardware. Microsoft's "EULA", in essence, was to force everyone to use IE if they wanted Windows. The federal anti-trust regulators here in the US and in Europe decided that Microsoft had too much of a monopoly in the browser department, and forced MS to 'play nice' with other software makers. Why shouldn't Apple be told to 'play nice' with other hardware makers?
The saving grace for Apple is that they're still a two-bit player, relatively speaking.
I disagree. The issues was not that they had a monopoly in the browser department. As I stated above, the issue is that they used a monopoly in one market to gain advantage in another market. The courts viewed the OS and the browser as two seperate markets. The rulings were that MS illegally "tied" the two seperate things together. No court has ever said that MS can't make Internet Explorer and include it with every copy of Windows. They said they can't tie it to Windows the way they did.
So, Apple's "saving grace," if you must use that term, is that Mac hardware and the Mac OS are NOT two seperate markets. They are sold as a single product. You are buying the hardware and licensing the software (which you can pay to upgrade if you chose). And the last time I checked, Apple's OS department isn't forcing Apple's hardware department to sell hardware with the Mac OS against their will! So unless Apple is threatening to sue itself, there really is no comparison between Apple's monopoly and Microsoft's monopoly.
You cannot have a monopoly on something that is your own brand. Windows is a brand that belongs to Microsoft and OSX is a brand that belongs to Apple. Neither of these companies can have a monopoly on a brand they created.
Microsoft's monopoly wasn't in Windows but in their share of computer operating systems and their influence as a result of this share. This share allowed them the ability to dictate to people what they use on their computers and this is where it got them into trouble.
Apple doesn't have a monopoly because their OS is tied to their hardware (Macs). The features they put into their OS only goes so far as to impact their own computer brand (Macs), not the computer industry. However, as Apple delves into sectors of the computer industry (i.e. music, Internet, etc.), they are entering markets that are no longer tied to their own brand and are becoming increasingly at risk of creating monopolies. But these monopolies are separate from the issue we're discussing here, which is the fact that OSX is an Apple product, tied to the Mac, which is another Apple product. There is no possibility of a monopoly here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin
Except it really doesn't work that way. The fact that Microsoft has a monopoly in Windows isn't what got them in trouble. What got them in trouble was that they used their monopoly in abusive ways. They used their monopoly in one area (operating systems) to illegally interfere with businesses in another area (web browsers and Netscape). Mac hardware and the Mac OS are not two seperate markets. They are a single market. MS also used their monopoly to force PC makers to include Windows on all of their computers, even if the customer didn't want it included. There probably would have been nothing illegal if they had told HP that they had to exclude Windows an certain models, but forcing them to include it and pay for it was an abuse of their monopoly.
Apple doesn't abuse their "monopoly" (and I use that term very loosely!) in OS X. They don't force other companies to buy it and include it with their hardware. If they chose not to license it to you, that's their [perfectly legal] choice.
In fact, MS's Vista license does actually preclude you from installing certain versions on virtual machines. I think they relaxed it a bit from the original version; but by license, you are not allowed to install the lower end versions of Vista on virtual PCs. So you could have a Dell running a fully license version of Vista. But if you then wanted to buy the retail version of the low-end Vista (whatever it's called...who can keep track!) and install it in a virtual machine running on that Dell, you would be in violation of the license agreement. It's MS's property that you are licensing, and they have decided that they don't want their product used in that way...perfectly legal!
At issue is whether Apple's EULA is legal to be bound to a specific hardware. Microsoft's "EULA", in essence, was to force everyone to use IE if they wanted Windows. The federal anti-trust regulators here in the US and in Europe decided that Microsoft had too much of a monopoly in the browser department, and forced MS to 'play nice' with other software makers. Why shouldn't Apple be told to 'play nice' with other hardware makers?
Because MS had a monopoly in the computer OS market (not the browser market) and was leveraging it to help their other products. Apple doesn't have a monopoly.
Right now Apple depends only on the legal system to protect their software copyrights. There is a warning message buried in the OS code that discourages piracy, but that is about it. But way back in the early days they used a ROM chip to prevent others from running the OS on non-Apple computers. Since they are clearly capable of hardware locking their OS, if necessary, they could easily choose to go that route again. Either way you can depend on Apple protecting their brand.
Right now Apple depends only on the legal system to protect their software copyrights. There is a warning message buried in the OS code that discourages piracy, but that is about it. But way back in the early days they used a ROM chip to prevent others from running the OS on non-Apple computers. Since they are clearly capable of hardware locking their OS, if necessary, they could easily choose to go that route again. Either way you can depend on Apple protecting their brand.
I don't know about that. In the early days there was little danger of other people building mac hardware without permission just because the mac hardware was so vastly different from PC hardware so the job would be extremely difficult.
Now that their hardware is nearly identical to PC hardware, they can try to do hardware locking, and they've tried at least a little bit already. But I don't know how successful they can be. Obviously they could make their machines more different than PC hardware, or add some sort of hardware copy protection, but that would take away some of the benefit of using commodity hardware not to mention I don't know how they'd do it while still letting the OS run on all the intel macs already in use that didn't have new hardware protection.
Considering that apple has so far failed to stop hackintoshes, it seems like their best bet is either the legal front, or the possibility that "clones" just don't end up selling well.
Macs and OSX are parts of Apple's brand. They created the systems. They own the brands. What do you not understand?
What you said is like saying there is no competition in the Civic market because only Honda makes Civics.
Get real.
Getting a little snippy aren't we.
Yes, Macs and OSX are parts of Apple's brand. Yes they own the brands. I think everyone has a pretty firm grasp on that, thanks. I'll throw your question back at you; What do you not understand about the definition of Monopoly?
Where can you by another computer running Mac OSX. Apple has the monopoly for the Mac market. I've only been able to by Macs running the Mac OS from Apple since my first Mac in 1987. ( Except for that 1 Power Computing box back 11 years ago or so), but...
The car analogy is getting old and never worked for me. Honda doesn't have a monopoly on the roads or the gas they operate on, just their brand. Dell or HP doesn't have a monopoly on the operating system they run on, just their brand. Apple has a monopoly on the operating system and they have their brand. No other brand drives on the Mac OSX road, no other brand runs on that Mac OSX fuel.
Comments
What you said is like saying there is no competition in the Civic market because only Honda makes Civics.
Get real.
There is no competition in the Mac market and that is not illegal.
Wouldn't apple be trying to do it already since people are doing their own hackintoshes?
Well buy announcing the App store apple pretty much kill jailbreaking already if that's what you mean, most of the good games & good apps have disappear from app tap already, i guess since the app store is going to be available to more than 10 million people everyone is in a hurry to license the apps so they can get at least $1 per user
Apple has a monopoly in the Mac market. There is nothing wrong with that.
Monopoly
"A situation in which a single company or group owns all or nearly all of the market for a given type of product or service. By definition, monopoly is characterized by an absence of competition."
There is no competition in the Mac market and that is not illegal.
That's just stupid.
The "given TYPE of product" is a computer. Not a mac - if you don't want a mac, you just buy a PC which serves the same purpose.
Aside from that, doesn't your logic imply that EVERY company has a monopoly if "type of product" is defined as the brand of product? Of course there's competition in the mac market. It's called a PC, and it's the reason Macs have single digit market share.
And for the record, I didn't say it was bad/illegal/whatever. I'm just saying it simply IS NOT a monopoly.
? Mac Pro's and Macbook Pro's hardly move off the shelves in the apple stores compared to iMacs, Macbooks, Minis and especially iPhones.
Do you have a source or is that just speculation? I'd be shocked if the minis are outselling any other mac models, especially the MB pro.
Where did you get 155? List price is $129 and many places have it cheaper.
www.psystar.com
I'm sure Tiger is probably an option as well.
Not at at www.psystar.com.
Well buy announcing the App store apple pretty much kill jailbreaking already if that's what you mean, most of the good games & good apps have disappear from app tap already, i guess since the app store is going to be available to more than 10 million people everyone is in a hurry to license the apps so they can get at least $1 per user
What does that have to do with hackintoshes?
Apple has tried repeatedly to kill jailbreaking and so far every attempt seems to have failed. I wouldn't be surprised if the iTunes store is worked around as well.
The point is, Apple already tries to have the OS detect if it's genuine mac hardware or not. Problem is, the mac is 99% the same as PC hardware, and it hasn't been too hard for people to hack the rest.
It is not good that the Mac is a monopoly of Apple. Mac OS X should run on any Intel hardware, being made by Apple or others. Greed is never good.
So I guess along the same lines, it's not good that only Coke can make Coke and only Toyota can make toyotas? That's "greed" on the part of Coke? You seriously think any company should be able to make Coke or Toyotas? Why would any business go to the trouble of creating a product if any other company could just make the exact same thing?
And again, THE MAC IS NOT A MONOPOLY. Unless you use twisted logic to define "monopoly" in a way that EVERY product from EVERY company is a monopoly.
Personally, and I know this is such a lovely topic around here, I think that anything that has a better GPU is worth it and I say Hurrah, Hurrah for the OSX86 and companies like this.
? Pro users DO not make up the base, its all iPods and iPhone users.
? Mac Pro's and Macbook Pro's hardly move off the shelves in the apple stores compared to iMacs, Macbooks, Minis and especially iPhones.
? For a few hundred, you can build a great machines, buy a dual DVI nvidia card and have a machine the romps a Mac Pro for a fraction of the cost.
? Apple charges $600 for 4 GB of RAM, you can buy RAM at New Egg for $104 dollars and most memory will have a lifetime warranty so no worries should it fail in a year or so.
The whole notion that Apple is still on its high horse with graphic cards drives me nuts - they still think the PROS will flock to the cheap-o systems if they released a cheap machine with a $50 graphic card. So what if they do? They are such a small portion of the market. Personally, I don't think its a matter of "if" but a matter of "when" as Apple needs to get a grip.
While the machine is probably ugly, I think you're better of building your own machine for much cheaper.
Here is a link for a HACK for less than $800 and with the exception of one benchmark, it beats the Mac Pro -
http://lifehacker.com/software/bench...rks-322866.php
And to think as an Apple user I pat them on the back -
I think there is a group of us, PRO PC until Apple went X86 (as Steve used to FUDGE all the numbers), that are POST X86 Apple users, and those of us who are, are also savvy to INTEL say vs AMD and know what cost a GPU or MEMORY is, and how (APPLE) Intel used to operate until AMD came along with their first 1.0 GHZ Athlon. I think competition and seeing better machines cheaper may someday force Apple to wake up and release a overall decent machine thats not crippled in any department.
Right now, if you want to play any game at all that uses 3D, you have to get an iMac, however, if you want a laptop, you have NO CHOICE but to purchase a Macbook Pro.
Since you can't buy a Mac Pro as slow as the one they benchmarked anymore, I'm not sure how relevant those benchmarks are. Current Mac Pros have twice as many cores at higher MHz. They also did not appear to benchmark any "pro" operations at all, only simple consumer stuff. If you're going to just play around with the computer don't get a pro! If you're going to do a lot of compiles or high-end video/rendering you're going to get several times the performance over the "Hackintosh".
In short, you generally get what you pay for if you're pushing your machine to the limit. If not, your return on investment will top out somewhere-- probably significantly short of the Mac Pro's sweet spot.
And, of course, don't buy your RAM from Apple.
That leaves the sub-$1000 pro-sumer market wide open. It's a market Apple doesn't address at all. iMacs are too expensive and are bundled with what is for most people an unnecessary extra monitor. The mini doesn't have a graphics card and is severely underpowered for the price. That's why this clone is so interesting to so many people.
That leaves the sub-$1000 pro-sumer market wide open. It's a market Apple doesn't address at all. iMacs are too expensive and are bundled with what is for most people an unnecessary extra monitor. The mini doesn't have a graphics card and is severely underpowered for the price. That's why this clone is so interesting to so many people.
That's the key right there. The only reason this exists is because apple doesn't offer any reasonably priced mid to low end boxes, specifically a midtower. If apple would finally release one, it would make this whole thing moot.
I doubt this will make much of a splash, but I think it will focus public attention on the hole in Apple's product line and put some pressure on apple. And I think that's a good thing.
Seriously, These guys have t be insane. Apple's software is Apple's software. Plain and simple.
And Microsoft said that their software was their software, and they had the right to integrate Internet Explorer into their software.
At issue is whether Apple's EULA is legal to be bound to a specific hardware. Microsoft's "EULA", in essence, was to force everyone to use IE if they wanted Windows. The federal anti-trust regulators here in the US and in Europe decided that Microsoft had too much of a monopoly in the browser department, and forced MS to 'play nice' with other software makers. Why shouldn't Apple be told to 'play nice' with other hardware makers?
The saving grace for Apple is that they're still a two-bit player, relatively speaking.
Have we all forgotten our computing history? The whole reason Microsoft became so successful was that they specifically allowed their OS to be used on multiple types of computers. Previous to that, the OS and hardware were almost always locked together (e.g., the original Macintosh). Also, Psystar would be aiding and abetting software piracy if they specifically marketed a machine for the purposes of allowing a purchaser to buy/install a copy of OSX in violation of the EULA.
Whoa there pardner.
MS became successful because of brilliant manipulation of exclusive licensing agreements with hardware manufacturers (i.e. thou shalt ship with no other OS), FUD tactics that killed upstart competitors, and business practices that gave their applications home field advantage, grandfathering them into corporations.
What is certainly true is that Windows is the nightmare is is PRECISELY because of the open hardware model that it is now chained to.
There are interesting competition law points here. If we assume that the relevant market is 'Computer hardware capable of running Mac OS X' then clearly Apple is in a dominant position with 100% market share. It is not completely unforseeable that Apple could be forced to licence OS X or remove the relevant paragraphs from the agreement.
Of course, one could argue that in that case, Nokia should be releasing its software so that Sony Ericsson users can use it etc.
A few complaints to national competition authorities might raise some interesting results.
Except it really doesn't work that way. The fact that Microsoft has a monopoly in Windows isn't what got them in trouble. What got them in trouble was that they used their monopoly in abusive ways. They used their monopoly in one area (operating systems) to illegally interfere with businesses in another area (web browsers and Netscape). Mac hardware and the Mac OS are not two seperate markets. They are a single market. MS also used their monopoly to force PC makers to include Windows on all of their computers, even if the customer didn't want it included. There probably would have been nothing illegal if they had told HP that they had to exclude Windows an certain models, but forcing them to include it and pay for it was an abuse of their monopoly.
Apple doesn't abuse their "monopoly" (and I use that term very loosely!) in OS X. They don't force other companies to buy it and include it with their hardware. If they chose not to license it to you, that's their [perfectly legal] choice.
Idiots
If Microsoft wanted to write into their EULA that windows should only be installable on Dells they "could". It wouldn't be smart but they could if they wanted to.
"Robert" should be kept away from the press. What a moron. This company will soon be a footnote. I'm sure they have a legal departmen that matches Apple's in every way<sarcasm>
If Apple could shut down Thinksecret over rumors they're going to do a number on this little company that makes Thinksecret look like a love tap on the ass.
In fact, MS's Vista license does actually preclude you from installing certain versions on virtual machines. I think they relaxed it a bit from the original version; but by license, you are not allowed to install the lower end versions of Vista on virtual PCs. So you could have a Dell running a fully license version of Vista. But if you then wanted to buy the retail version of the low-end Vista (whatever it's called...who can keep track!) and install it in a virtual machine running on that Dell, you would be in violation of the license agreement. It's MS's property that you are licensing, and they have decided that they don't want their product used in that way...perfectly legal!
Mac is a BRAND that belongs to APPLE, the same way that an XBox is a brand of Microsoft's or a Camry is a brand of Toyota. The Mac brand (let me repeat) BELONGS TO APPLE.
Macs are not synonymous to PCs. A Mac is a brand of computer, just as a Sony Vaio or Dell Dimension is a brand of computer. A PC is not a brand of computer but is pretty much synonymous with being a computer. It is a short for "Personal Computer". A Mac, however, is a different class of computer that runs an operating system currently known as OSX (also a brand that BELONGS TO APPLE), whereas most other computers run the Windows operating system that is a brand of Microsoft. Microsoft has different usage terms for their OS than does Apple and because these OSs are owned by the company that developed them, that company has the right to state what those usage terms are.
It is not good that the Mac is a monopoly of Apple. Mac OS X should run on any Intel hardware, being made by Apple or others. Greed is never good. And we want a Mac miniTOWER that Apple does no make, but others can offer. And so on. Windows people can choose the hardware they want from a myriad of vendors. Mac users cannot. That is not good for the Mac community. And by Mac I mean Mac OS X, of course. Apple, move on!
And Microsoft said that their software was their software, and they had the right to integrate Internet Explorer into their software.
At issue is whether Apple's EULA is legal to be bound to a specific hardware. Microsoft's "EULA", in essence, was to force everyone to use IE if they wanted Windows. The federal anti-trust regulators here in the US and in Europe decided that Microsoft had too much of a monopoly in the browser department, and forced MS to 'play nice' with other software makers. Why shouldn't Apple be told to 'play nice' with other hardware makers?
The saving grace for Apple is that they're still a two-bit player, relatively speaking.
I disagree. The issues was not that they had a monopoly in the browser department. As I stated above, the issue is that they used a monopoly in one market to gain advantage in another market. The courts viewed the OS and the browser as two seperate markets. The rulings were that MS illegally "tied" the two seperate things together. No court has ever said that MS can't make Internet Explorer and include it with every copy of Windows. They said they can't tie it to Windows the way they did.
So, Apple's "saving grace," if you must use that term, is that Mac hardware and the Mac OS are NOT two seperate markets. They are sold as a single product. You are buying the hardware and licensing the software (which you can pay to upgrade if you chose). And the last time I checked, Apple's OS department isn't forcing Apple's hardware department to sell hardware with the Mac OS against their will! So unless Apple is threatening to sue itself, there really is no comparison between Apple's monopoly and Microsoft's monopoly.
Microsoft's monopoly wasn't in Windows but in their share of computer operating systems and their influence as a result of this share. This share allowed them the ability to dictate to people what they use on their computers and this is where it got them into trouble.
Apple doesn't have a monopoly because their OS is tied to their hardware (Macs). The features they put into their OS only goes so far as to impact their own computer brand (Macs), not the computer industry. However, as Apple delves into sectors of the computer industry (i.e. music, Internet, etc.), they are entering markets that are no longer tied to their own brand and are becoming increasingly at risk of creating monopolies. But these monopolies are separate from the issue we're discussing here, which is the fact that OSX is an Apple product, tied to the Mac, which is another Apple product. There is no possibility of a monopoly here.
Except it really doesn't work that way. The fact that Microsoft has a monopoly in Windows isn't what got them in trouble. What got them in trouble was that they used their monopoly in abusive ways. They used their monopoly in one area (operating systems) to illegally interfere with businesses in another area (web browsers and Netscape). Mac hardware and the Mac OS are not two seperate markets. They are a single market. MS also used their monopoly to force PC makers to include Windows on all of their computers, even if the customer didn't want it included. There probably would have been nothing illegal if they had told HP that they had to exclude Windows an certain models, but forcing them to include it and pay for it was an abuse of their monopoly.
Apple doesn't abuse their "monopoly" (and I use that term very loosely!) in OS X. They don't force other companies to buy it and include it with their hardware. If they chose not to license it to you, that's their [perfectly legal] choice.
In fact, MS's Vista license does actually preclude you from installing certain versions on virtual machines. I think they relaxed it a bit from the original version; but by license, you are not allowed to install the lower end versions of Vista on virtual PCs. So you could have a Dell running a fully license version of Vista. But if you then wanted to buy the retail version of the low-end Vista (whatever it's called...who can keep track!) and install it in a virtual machine running on that Dell, you would be in violation of the license agreement. It's MS's property that you are licensing, and they have decided that they don't want their product used in that way...perfectly legal!
At issue is whether Apple's EULA is legal to be bound to a specific hardware. Microsoft's "EULA", in essence, was to force everyone to use IE if they wanted Windows. The federal anti-trust regulators here in the US and in Europe decided that Microsoft had too much of a monopoly in the browser department, and forced MS to 'play nice' with other software makers. Why shouldn't Apple be told to 'play nice' with other hardware makers?
Because MS had a monopoly in the computer OS market (not the browser market) and was leveraging it to help their other products. Apple doesn't have a monopoly.
Build me an equivalent Dual Xeon DELL System.
holy crap. are people that stupid??
here you go mdriftmeyer....
The dual quad core 2.8 ghz mac pro with 2 GB ram and a 256 MB video card is $2800
the dual quad core 2.8 ghz dell with 2 GB of ram and a 256 MB video card is $3800
Right now Apple depends only on the legal system to protect their software copyrights. There is a warning message buried in the OS code that discourages piracy, but that is about it. But way back in the early days they used a ROM chip to prevent others from running the OS on non-Apple computers. Since they are clearly capable of hardware locking their OS, if necessary, they could easily choose to go that route again. Either way you can depend on Apple protecting their brand.
I don't know about that. In the early days there was little danger of other people building mac hardware without permission just because the mac hardware was so vastly different from PC hardware so the job would be extremely difficult.
Now that their hardware is nearly identical to PC hardware, they can try to do hardware locking, and they've tried at least a little bit already. But I don't know how successful they can be. Obviously they could make their machines more different than PC hardware, or add some sort of hardware copy protection, but that would take away some of the benefit of using commodity hardware not to mention I don't know how they'd do it while still letting the OS run on all the intel macs already in use that didn't have new hardware protection.
Considering that apple has so far failed to stop hackintoshes, it seems like their best bet is either the legal front, or the possibility that "clones" just don't end up selling well.
Macs and OSX are parts of Apple's brand. They created the systems. They own the brands. What do you not understand?
What you said is like saying there is no competition in the Civic market because only Honda makes Civics.
Get real.
Getting a little snippy aren't we.
Yes, Macs and OSX are parts of Apple's brand. Yes they own the brands. I think everyone has a pretty firm grasp on that, thanks. I'll throw your question back at you; What do you not understand about the definition of Monopoly?
Where can you by another computer running Mac OSX. Apple has the monopoly for the Mac market. I've only been able to by Macs running the Mac OS from Apple since my first Mac in 1987. ( Except for that 1 Power Computing box back 11 years ago or so), but...
The car analogy is getting old and never worked for me. Honda doesn't have a monopoly on the roads or the gas they operate on, just their brand. Dell or HP doesn't have a monopoly on the operating system they run on, just their brand. Apple has a monopoly on the operating system and they have their brand. No other brand drives on the Mac OSX road, no other brand runs on that Mac OSX fuel.
And when can I get nokia software on my PC?