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.
If greed is never good, why are you being greedy by demanding that Apple sell you the computer YOU want at the price YOU want to pay?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tink
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.
Silly argument. "Macintosh computers" is no more a market than "Dell computers". Furthermore, even if you DID make the silly argument that "Macintosh computers" is a separate market, it doesn't change anything. It would still be perfectly legal for Apple to have a monopoly on that market.
Let's say I invented a transporter device tomorrow and put it on the market. I priced it higher than you think is fair, but I have patents and other legal protection on my transporter product. In this case, I DO have a monopoly, but it's not illegal. In fact, it's the type of innovation that improves our economy's competitiveness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by junebughunter
agreed!
What minderbinder is arguing, without even realizing it is that all software should be open.
I like software embedded with my hardware, it always works better. That is in a sense what OS X is. You buy the hardware you get the software.
Why can't I install segway software on my ATV? Why can't I run my iPhone software on other hardware. Pretty much every device has with a microprocessor has software written for it. Why can't I run it on other hardware.
I don't ask these questions, cause I know. That's not how it was designed.
It doesn't even have anything to do with design. It has to do with the wishes of the people who made the product. For some strange reason, they want to make a profit and stay in business - so they can invent even more cool stuff. THAT is the problem with everything being free. When you remove incentives, innovation dies. That's why, after all these years, Linux still has a lousy UI. There's no incentive to do better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richardlol
If I buy this box made with standard components then I own it. If I buy a legal retail copy of OSX from them then I own that too. If I then pay a contractor a fee to install software I own on a box that I own then the only entity voilating anything is ME for not following the terms of the user agreement. As long as the company is a legit OSX reseller, then I don't see how they are in trouble.
That is not correct. The software from Apple does not become yours. You purchase a license to use it. Equally important, the retail boxed software you buy from Apple is technically an upgrade version (since it will only run on Apple hardware and all Apple hardware comes with the OS pre-installed. So you're violating the agreement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tink
Lots of snippy people today.
I don't think anything about this is stupid. You cannot buy a Mac OS computer from anywhere but Apple. I cannot just by a Dell or an HP to run the Mac OS on. If I want to run the Mac OS I have to buy Apple, thus the monopoly.
Companies can have a monopoly on their brand. That is the purpose of Trademark law and Tradedress both provide an effective monopoly for that branding that does not expire unless challenged an overturned by USPTO.
Once again there is no competition in the Mac market for other systems running the Mac OS. If I have tens of thousands invested in Mac software I cannot buy hardware for the OS from anyone else but Apple.
Just as if I have tens of thousands of dollars invested in spare Ferrari parts, they only work on Ferraris. What's your point?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tink
Yes there is lots of confusion over what constitutes Monopoly. I am not using the casual definition.
I am taking about the Mac OS market worth billions of dollars annually where there is only one player with a monopoly who controls the whole market.
There is no competition in the market and the monopoly is maintained through Trademark, Copywrite and Patents. Through the use of Trademark, Copywrite and Patents no other company can make a product to run the OS that is protected by Trademark, Copywrite and Patents.
Many, many companies would like a piece of this market (like the one this article is about) but they are not allowed to compete. This is the textbook definition of Monopoly...
No, it's not. A market can not be a brand. Even if there were no other computer makers, it would not be correct to state that there was a Dell Computer market. It WOULD be correct to state that there was a personal computer market with only one supplier.
For 99% of users, it is possible to switch from Mac OS X to Windows. There may be advantages and disadvantages (just as there are advantages and disadvantages to Ford, Honda, GM, etc). But the products are for all practical purposes interchangeable in terms of what they will do. That means they're in the same market.
The only way to try to put them into separate markets is to artificially divide the market into 'runs Mac software' vs 'runs Windows software'. That's the same as 'uses Honda engine' vs 'uses GM engine' in the car market. It does not divide the computer business into separate markets.
For 99% of users, it is possible to switch from Mac OS X to Windows. There may be advantages and disadvantages (just as there are advantages and disadvantages to Ford, Honda, GM, etc). But the products are for all practical purposes interchangeable in terms of what they will do. That means they're in the same market.
This is an important distinction. Part of what defines a monopoly (in addition to controlling share of the market) is the lack of reasonable substitutes. I cannot imagine that Dell, HP, Microsoft or the Linux adherents are going to admit that their offerings are not a viable alternative to a Mac. They will, in fact, argue that you can do the same things using their offerings as you can do on the Mac - web surfing, email, word processing, spreadsheets, image processsing and right on down the list - and they would be further supported by the fact that Apple has a very modest share of the person general-computing market. The fact that Apple's solutions have some advantages is evidence of good design, not the hallmark of a monopoly.
Although I can envision a new Apple ad campaign with the tagline "Apple - there's just no substitute."
Microsoft was trying to integrate their IE browser to the Windows OS and basically saying "This is Microsoft's BRAND. We have a right to do what we want with our software."
To those of you who are arguing that Apple has a right to keep a lock on both hardware and software because it's the Apple BRAND -- do you then agree that Microsoft has a right to integrate IE into the Windows OS as part of their BRAND?
The anti-trust regulators didn't think Microsoft had the right to make IE part of their BRAND.
I do hope Apple will pawn these guys to the ground because if they dont, DELL!!! will start doing just the same thing. Do you want DELL!! to run OS X (its possible) and sold it to the public?
Hell No!.
Anyway dont support these guys cause they are selling other peoples work. What am I talking about? there is actually a community called OSX86 where they have been offering walkthrough to installing OSX onto your PC machine for FREE!!!, even the patches and drivers. So Psystar is a scumbag by fooling the public by telling their PC can run OSX while in truth even Dell, HP, Compaq or any other PC can run OSX, the reason why they dont offer Leopard because its ILLEGAL!!!.
If you read though the hackintosh terms and condition, it has been stated in it.
Apple will definitely crush these guys to the ground because if they dont, other big PC companies will follow. Come on Apple! Crush these guys by the weekend!
Hackintosh is a fun idea to play with, but definitely not the solution if you planning to do important stuffs on your hackintosh.
intellectual property issues aside, just because somebody writes something down and gets you to acknowledge it does not make it legal
if i put a piece of tape across my doorway and say on a sign "if you cross the tape i blow your head off" i will be up on manslaughter charges no matter what the sign says and the court will say "we don't care if you own the property or not… your busted"
i dont think they are well thought out but i really like to see the court open cans of worms.
(point of interest… signing and returning warrantee cards often contracts you to LESS rights than you have under most state laws. Companies can not refuse to repair or replace defective items simply because you did not send in a "registration") this is another way corporations dupe people into signing agreements that are more beneficial to the company than the consumer.) Oh eliot where are you now that we need you!
you don't suppose Dell is financing their legal fees?
Look, no matter which way you go on the whole "monopoly" thing, Psystar is still selling computers with OSx86 on them, which is a pirated and modified copy of mac OSX. In the computers that they don't preinstall OS X on, they are encouraging the users to do it themselves, and in that sense they are supporting piracy. The Mac OS X license agreement CLEARLY states that it is Illegal to redistribute, copy, or modify OS X, and that it CANNOT be installed on any more then one Apple computer at a time.
Quote:
The software (including Boot ROM code), documentation and any fonts accompanying this License whether on disk, in read only memory, on any other media or in any other form (collectively the “Apple Software”) are licensed, not sold, to you by Apple Computer, Inc. (“Apple”)
...
This License allows you to install and use one copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time.
...
Except as and only to the extent permitted in this License and by applicable law, you may not copy, decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble, modify, or create derivative works of the Apple Software or any part thereof.
...
You may not rent, lease, lend, redistribute or sublicense the Apple Software.
...
This License is effective until terminated. Your rights under this License will terminate automatically without notice from Apple if you fail to comply with any term(s) of this License. Upon the termination of this License, you shall cease all use of the Apple Software and destroy all copies, full or partial, of the Apple Software.
No matter which way you spin it, this company is pirating software, violating the lisense agreement, and encouraging other users to do the same, and in that way, they are violating the law. End of story.
I think the car analogy has some merit, with the exception that software is licensed and has EULAs.
If you want a vTec engine from Honda you must buy a honda. If you then want to try to put it in your Ford that is fine, although don't expect any support or service from Honda or many other repair shops. However, if Ford wants manufacture and sell their cars with vTec engines they must buy the vTec engines from Honda. Honda may well not want this and are well within their rights to say no.
As for monopolies, they have been mentioned many times in this thread. A monopoly, first is not illegal, and second applies to products not brands.
The Open Computer just isn't cheaper when you buy one--it gets even cheaper when you buy more than one at a time! See the comparison between buying 5 Open Computers and 5 Mac Minis each similarly configured. You'll see that the difference is significant: $850! Outfit your whole family with Open Computers for less.
Yep, buying one "just isn't cheaper", so let's get FIVE! And guess what? Buy 500 of these and you can save $85000!!! WOW!!!
I don't have enough money to buy Rolls-Royce. So, Rolls-Royce should is monopoly and should be sued because they don't allow Kia to use their engines in their cars hence making me afford one.
I really cannot afford to buy a PS3. So, Sony is having a monopoly over their PS3 OS. They should allow cheap Chines hardware to run PS3 OS so I can play PS3 games and watch Blue-Ray movies.
What else? Apple have monopoly over their AppleTV software? iPhone? iPod?
Grow up..
Life is full of disappointment. If you cannot afford a Mac then get a cheap Windows or Linux PC.
Whether you can afford something or not is irrelevant to the question of whether a company enjoys a monopolistic position. If i owned a company that made all staples, you could still afford a staple and my company would still have a monopoly.
Sounds like you are sensitive about mac prices!!.. i thought all mac zealots believe macs are cheaper than Dells (i've never seen that but whatever floats your boat).
They got guts... but it will take a lot more than that to win this one. If they are "pre-pared" who is backing them? Apple just got th top HP attorney, and a pretty big increase in sales. Many court cases don't even need to be one by a verdict, economies of scale and bleeding a defense dry usually does the trick.
The Microsoft issue is very different from Apple's.
Microsoft has a monopoly on the operating system industry for PCs made by every manufacture, except Apple. That is not in dispute and as people have said, is not necessarily illegal.
The problem arose with IE because Microsoft was using their monopoly power to push their Internet browser into a position of dominance. This is where Microsoft went wrong and this is the distinction that caused Microsoft to lose their legal battle. There was nothing inherently wrong with Microsoft creating IE. It was the complete integration of IE (a largely inferior Internet browser) into the OS and thus pretty much destroying the competition.
Apple's own operating system only affects Apple branded hardware. There is no monopoly here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by frugality
Regarding the term 'BRAND':
Microsoft was trying to integrate their IE browser to the Windows OS and basically saying "This is Microsoft's BRAND. We have a right to do what we want with our software."
To those of you who are arguing that Apple has a right to keep a lock on both hardware and software because it's the Apple BRAND -- do you then agree that Microsoft has a right to integrate IE into the Windows OS as part of their BRAND?
The anti-trust regulators didn't think Microsoft had the right to make IE part of their BRAND.
This is a pretty poor analogy because in your example, you are talking about committing a crime. People don't simply have the right to just blow someone else's head off. In Apple's case, they are simply protecting their intellectual property, which they have every right to do, and legally, they have an extremely strong case when they decide to act on this issue... and they will.
Quote:
Originally Posted by taojones
if i put a piece of tape across my doorway and say on a sign "if you cross the tape i blow your head off" i will be up on manslaughter charges no matter what the sign says and the court will say "we don't care if you own the property or not? your busted"
I'm confused. When I saw someone play around with the work of the osx86project, which this supposedly uses, they were able to eject a CD simply dragging the CD to the trash just as on any ordinary Mac?
Edit: My point being, they don't even know what they're doing!!!
Although there has already been some rejoinder to this comment, and in that Minderbinder and Canucklehead have given excellent examples, they still haven't explained exactly where your reasoning is faulty.
You are making what is called a Category Mistake. You are confusing two different categories as being the same thing when they are not.
To use an example myself; a good friend of mine comes to visit me from out of state, and during his visit I offer to show him the university where I teach and so I take him and show him around. I introduce him to my colleagues and coworkers, I buy him lunch at the faculty club, I show him the interesting architecture of the buildings on campus, etc. At the end of the day, my friend says "You've introduced me to all these nice people, you've shown me some fascinating architecture, but you still haven't shown me the University!"
My friend is making a category mistake; he is assuming there is some thing that exists in and of itself separate from all the buildings and people that is "the university". He is not understanding that all of the buildings and people comprise the university.
You are making the same error in reasoning; you are assuming that Apple products are a a "market" that exist separately from the larger context of the industry involved with producing and selling computer products.
To reiterate what both Minderbinder and Canucklehead have already said; there is not Mac (or OS X) market; Macintosh computers are one product that is part of a larger entity that is the computer market.
I suspect that at this point, if you won't accept this, there are three reasons;
1) You're being deliberately perverse to annoy and irritate people.
2) You're refusing to change your position because you have some emotional or psychological investment and admitting you're wrong would create so much cognitive dissonance for you your brain would melt, or you'd have an emotional breakdown.
3) You're just too dense to see plain logic when it's staring you in the face.
Regardless; you are mistaken and the entire basis of your argument is false, even if you think you're right. Lots of people think the world is flat, but that doesn't make them right, and it doesn't make the world flat.
1) You're being deliberately perverse to annoy and irritate people.
Sorry, don't mean to be.
2) You're refusing to change your position because you have some emotional or psychological investment and admitting you're wrong would create so much cognitive dissonance for you your brain would melt, or you'd have an emotional breakdown.
I don't think thats the case, but that's very imaginative.
3) You're just too dense to see plain logic when it's staring you in the face.
This is probably closer then 1 or 2.
Basicly 1-3 are not the case, I am just trying to debate my point which touches on your following statement.
"You are making the same error in reasoning; you are assuming that Apple products are a "market" that exist separately from the larger context of the industry involved with producing and selling computer products."
I am arguing that the Mac OS does create a "market" that exist separately from the larger context of the computer industry. I don't think that this is erroneous.
I base this in part on the fact that there are numerous cottage industries based solely on the Mac OS and there are people and companies itching for a piece of the Apple hardware pie.
I am further arguing the point that within this market there is no competitive market because Apple controls the existing... (what could be called) the Mac market. Obviously, within the larger computer market Apple does not have a Monopoly at all. I don't think that Apple not being a Monopoly in the larger Computer market obfuscates the existence of a "Mac Market" that is an entity in itself, but that Apple controls because of a Monopoly position. That is the only point I am trying to make.
Whether you can afford something or not is irrelevant to the question of whether a company enjoys a monopolistic position. If i owned a company that made all staples, you could still afford a staple and my company would still have a monopoly.
Sounds like you are sensitive about mac prices!!.. i thought all mac zealots believe macs are cheaper than Dells (i've never seen that but whatever floats your boat).
In my opinion, Mac computers are not over priced, they are worth every penny. After 20 years with PCs, I would never pay $1 for a Dell, HP, or any other PC. I'd rather pay 15 to 20% more for a Mac and have the peace of mind (excellent warranty, stable OS, and NO VIRUSES). I even paid 10% more to get extended warranty when I bought my Mac. The only reason I have a Dell laptop is because the university gave it to me to use for my research (it sucks).
You know, there are reasons why Mercedes and BMW cost more than the average car. You only know why you drive one. The same goes for Macs, you have to own one to know why it cost more.
EDIT: I Forgot about my 10% educational discount. So, the real price increase for me is less than 10%. Furthermore, some Mac retailers offer up to $150 rebates (their ads are on AI front page).
Comments
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.
If greed is never good, why are you being greedy by demanding that Apple sell you the computer YOU want at the price YOU want to pay?
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.
Silly argument. "Macintosh computers" is no more a market than "Dell computers". Furthermore, even if you DID make the silly argument that "Macintosh computers" is a separate market, it doesn't change anything. It would still be perfectly legal for Apple to have a monopoly on that market.
Let's say I invented a transporter device tomorrow and put it on the market. I priced it higher than you think is fair, but I have patents and other legal protection on my transporter product. In this case, I DO have a monopoly, but it's not illegal. In fact, it's the type of innovation that improves our economy's competitiveness.
agreed!
What minderbinder is arguing, without even realizing it is that all software should be open.
I like software embedded with my hardware, it always works better. That is in a sense what OS X is. You buy the hardware you get the software.
Why can't I install segway software on my ATV? Why can't I run my iPhone software on other hardware. Pretty much every device has with a microprocessor has software written for it. Why can't I run it on other hardware.
I don't ask these questions, cause I know. That's not how it was designed.
It doesn't even have anything to do with design. It has to do with the wishes of the people who made the product. For some strange reason, they want to make a profit and stay in business - so they can invent even more cool stuff. THAT is the problem with everything being free. When you remove incentives, innovation dies. That's why, after all these years, Linux still has a lousy UI. There's no incentive to do better.
If I buy this box made with standard components then I own it. If I buy a legal retail copy of OSX from them then I own that too. If I then pay a contractor a fee to install software I own on a box that I own then the only entity voilating anything is ME for not following the terms of the user agreement. As long as the company is a legit OSX reseller, then I don't see how they are in trouble.
That is not correct. The software from Apple does not become yours. You purchase a license to use it. Equally important, the retail boxed software you buy from Apple is technically an upgrade version (since it will only run on Apple hardware and all Apple hardware comes with the OS pre-installed. So you're violating the agreement.
Lots of snippy people today.
I don't think anything about this is stupid. You cannot buy a Mac OS computer from anywhere but Apple. I cannot just by a Dell or an HP to run the Mac OS on. If I want to run the Mac OS I have to buy Apple, thus the monopoly.
Companies can have a monopoly on their brand. That is the purpose of Trademark law and Tradedress both provide an effective monopoly for that branding that does not expire unless challenged an overturned by USPTO.
Once again there is no competition in the Mac market for other systems running the Mac OS. If I have tens of thousands invested in Mac software I cannot buy hardware for the OS from anyone else but Apple.
Just as if I have tens of thousands of dollars invested in spare Ferrari parts, they only work on Ferraris. What's your point?
Yes there is lots of confusion over what constitutes Monopoly. I am not using the casual definition.
I am taking about the Mac OS market worth billions of dollars annually where there is only one player with a monopoly who controls the whole market.
There is no competition in the market and the monopoly is maintained through Trademark, Copywrite and Patents. Through the use of Trademark, Copywrite and Patents no other company can make a product to run the OS that is protected by Trademark, Copywrite and Patents.
Many, many companies would like a piece of this market (like the one this article is about) but they are not allowed to compete. This is the textbook definition of Monopoly...
No, it's not. A market can not be a brand. Even if there were no other computer makers, it would not be correct to state that there was a Dell Computer market. It WOULD be correct to state that there was a personal computer market with only one supplier.
For 99% of users, it is possible to switch from Mac OS X to Windows. There may be advantages and disadvantages (just as there are advantages and disadvantages to Ford, Honda, GM, etc). But the products are for all practical purposes interchangeable in terms of what they will do. That means they're in the same market.
The only way to try to put them into separate markets is to artificially divide the market into 'runs Mac software' vs 'runs Windows software'. That's the same as 'uses Honda engine' vs 'uses GM engine' in the car market. It does not divide the computer business into separate markets.
For 99% of users, it is possible to switch from Mac OS X to Windows. There may be advantages and disadvantages (just as there are advantages and disadvantages to Ford, Honda, GM, etc). But the products are for all practical purposes interchangeable in terms of what they will do. That means they're in the same market.
This is an important distinction. Part of what defines a monopoly (in addition to controlling share of the market) is the lack of reasonable substitutes. I cannot imagine that Dell, HP, Microsoft or the Linux adherents are going to admit that their offerings are not a viable alternative to a Mac. They will, in fact, argue that you can do the same things using their offerings as you can do on the Mac - web surfing, email, word processing, spreadsheets, image processsing and right on down the list - and they would be further supported by the fact that Apple has a very modest share of the person general-computing market. The fact that Apple's solutions have some advantages is evidence of good design, not the hallmark of a monopoly.
Although I can envision a new Apple ad campaign with the tagline "Apple - there's just no substitute."
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
To be even more precise one has to go to Newegg and order 800Mhz ECC Dual Fully Buffered RAM:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820148188
$151.99
That of course makes the price even worse for DELL.
Microsoft was trying to integrate their IE browser to the Windows OS and basically saying "This is Microsoft's BRAND. We have a right to do what we want with our software."
To those of you who are arguing that Apple has a right to keep a lock on both hardware and software because it's the Apple BRAND -- do you then agree that Microsoft has a right to integrate IE into the Windows OS as part of their BRAND?
The anti-trust regulators didn't think Microsoft had the right to make IE part of their BRAND.
I think this Mac clone thing will be interesting.
Hell No!.
Anyway dont support these guys cause they are selling other peoples work. What am I talking about? there is actually a community called OSX86 where they have been offering walkthrough to installing OSX onto your PC machine for FREE!!!, even the patches and drivers. So Psystar is a scumbag by fooling the public by telling their PC can run OSX while in truth even Dell, HP, Compaq or any other PC can run OSX, the reason why they dont offer Leopard because its ILLEGAL!!!.
If you read though the hackintosh terms and condition, it has been stated in it.
Apple will definitely crush these guys to the ground because if they dont, other big PC companies will follow. Come on Apple! Crush these guys by the weekend!
Hackintosh is a fun idea to play with, but definitely not the solution if you planning to do important stuffs on your hackintosh.
if i put a piece of tape across my doorway and say on a sign "if you cross the tape i blow your head off" i will be up on manslaughter charges no matter what the sign says and the court will say "we don't care if you own the property or not… your busted"
i dont think they are well thought out but i really like to see the court open cans of worms.
(point of interest… signing and returning warrantee cards often contracts you to LESS rights than you have under most state laws. Companies can not refuse to repair or replace defective items simply because you did not send in a "registration") this is another way corporations dupe people into signing agreements that are more beneficial to the company than the consumer.) Oh eliot where are you now that we need you!
you don't suppose Dell is financing their legal fees?
The software (including Boot ROM code), documentation and any fonts accompanying this License whether on disk, in read only memory, on any other media or in any other form (collectively the “Apple Software”) are licensed, not sold, to you by Apple Computer, Inc. (“Apple”)
...
This License allows you to install and use one copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time.
...
Except as and only to the extent permitted in this License and by applicable law, you may not copy, decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble, modify, or create derivative works of the Apple Software or any part thereof.
...
You may not rent, lease, lend, redistribute or sublicense the Apple Software.
...
This License is effective until terminated. Your rights under this License will terminate automatically without notice from Apple if you fail to comply with any term(s) of this License. Upon the termination of this License, you shall cease all use of the Apple Software and destroy all copies, full or partial, of the Apple Software.
No matter which way you spin it, this company is pirating software, violating the lisense agreement, and encouraging other users to do the same, and in that way, they are violating the law. End of story.
[200th post]
If you want a vTec engine from Honda you must buy a honda. If you then want to try to put it in your Ford that is fine, although don't expect any support or service from Honda or many other repair shops. However, if Ford wants manufacture and sell their cars with vTec engines they must buy the vTec engines from Honda. Honda may well not want this and are well within their rights to say no.
As for monopolies, they have been mentioned many times in this thread. A monopoly, first is not illegal, and second applies to products not brands.
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
Where is the monitor for the mac?.
The 5 by 5 Comparison
The Open Computer just isn't cheaper when you buy one--it gets even cheaper when you buy more than one at a time! See the comparison between buying 5 Open Computers and 5 Mac Minis each similarly configured. You'll see that the difference is significant: $850! Outfit your whole family with Open Computers for less.
Yep, buying one "just isn't cheaper", so let's get FIVE! And guess what? Buy 500 of these and you can save $85000!!! WOW!!!
I don't have enough money to buy Rolls-Royce. So, Rolls-Royce should is monopoly and should be sued because they don't allow Kia to use their engines in their cars hence making me afford one.
I really cannot afford to buy a PS3. So, Sony is having a monopoly over their PS3 OS. They should allow cheap Chines hardware to run PS3 OS so I can play PS3 games and watch Blue-Ray movies.
What else? Apple have monopoly over their AppleTV software? iPhone? iPod?
Grow up..
Life is full of disappointment. If you cannot afford a Mac then get a cheap Windows or Linux PC.
Whether you can afford something or not is irrelevant to the question of whether a company enjoys a monopolistic position. If i owned a company that made all staples, you could still afford a staple and my company would still have a monopoly.
Sounds like you are sensitive about mac prices!!.. i thought all mac zealots believe macs are cheaper than Dells (i've never seen that but whatever floats your boat).
They got guts... but it will take a lot more than that to win this one. If they are "pre-pared" who is backing them? Apple just got th top HP attorney, and a pretty big increase in sales. Many court cases don't even need to be one by a verdict, economies of scale and bleeding a defense dry usually does the trick.
Thunk Different.
these are some seriously hot chicks!!!.. when i saw them, i totally forgot what this thread was about. What we discussing again?
So its marketing doesn't include all the cost inside which to me is very ugly.
Microsoft has a monopoly on the operating system industry for PCs made by every manufacture, except Apple. That is not in dispute and as people have said, is not necessarily illegal.
The problem arose with IE because Microsoft was using their monopoly power to push their Internet browser into a position of dominance. This is where Microsoft went wrong and this is the distinction that caused Microsoft to lose their legal battle. There was nothing inherently wrong with Microsoft creating IE. It was the complete integration of IE (a largely inferior Internet browser) into the OS and thus pretty much destroying the competition.
Apple's own operating system only affects Apple branded hardware. There is no monopoly here.
Regarding the term 'BRAND':
Microsoft was trying to integrate their IE browser to the Windows OS and basically saying "This is Microsoft's BRAND. We have a right to do what we want with our software."
To those of you who are arguing that Apple has a right to keep a lock on both hardware and software because it's the Apple BRAND -- do you then agree that Microsoft has a right to integrate IE into the Windows OS as part of their BRAND?
The anti-trust regulators didn't think Microsoft had the right to make IE part of their BRAND.
I think this Mac clone thing will be interesting.
if i put a piece of tape across my doorway and say on a sign "if you cross the tape i blow your head off" i will be up on manslaughter charges no matter what the sign says and the court will say "we don't care if you own the property or not? your busted"
Lots of missing specs and questions.
How do I eject a CD without an Apple keyboard?
I'm confused. When I saw someone play around with the work of the osx86project, which this supposedly uses, they were able to eject a CD simply dragging the CD to the trash just as on any ordinary Mac?
Edit: My point being, they don't even know what they're doing!!!
Although there has already been some rejoinder to this comment, and in that Minderbinder and Canucklehead have given excellent examples, they still haven't explained exactly where your reasoning is faulty.
You are making what is called a Category Mistake. You are confusing two different categories as being the same thing when they are not.
To use an example myself; a good friend of mine comes to visit me from out of state, and during his visit I offer to show him the university where I teach and so I take him and show him around. I introduce him to my colleagues and coworkers, I buy him lunch at the faculty club, I show him the interesting architecture of the buildings on campus, etc. At the end of the day, my friend says "You've introduced me to all these nice people, you've shown me some fascinating architecture, but you still haven't shown me the University!"
My friend is making a category mistake; he is assuming there is some thing that exists in and of itself separate from all the buildings and people that is "the university". He is not understanding that all of the buildings and people comprise the university.
You are making the same error in reasoning; you are assuming that Apple products are a a "market" that exist separately from the larger context of the industry involved with producing and selling computer products.
To reiterate what both Minderbinder and Canucklehead have already said; there is not Mac (or OS X) market; Macintosh computers are one product that is part of a larger entity that is the computer market.
I suspect that at this point, if you won't accept this, there are three reasons;
1) You're being deliberately perverse to annoy and irritate people.
2) You're refusing to change your position because you have some emotional or psychological investment and admitting you're wrong would create so much cognitive dissonance for you your brain would melt, or you'd have an emotional breakdown.
3) You're just too dense to see plain logic when it's staring you in the face.
Regardless; you are mistaken and the entire basis of your argument is false, even if you think you're right. Lots of people think the world is flat, but that doesn't make them right, and it doesn't make the world flat.
1) You're being deliberately perverse to annoy and irritate people.
Sorry, don't mean to be.
2) You're refusing to change your position because you have some emotional or psychological investment and admitting you're wrong would create so much cognitive dissonance for you your brain would melt, or you'd have an emotional breakdown.
I don't think thats the case, but that's very imaginative.
3) You're just too dense to see plain logic when it's staring you in the face.
This is probably closer then 1 or 2.
Basicly 1-3 are not the case, I am just trying to debate my point which touches on your following statement.
"You are making the same error in reasoning; you are assuming that Apple products are a "market" that exist separately from the larger context of the industry involved with producing and selling computer products."
I am arguing that the Mac OS does create a "market" that exist separately from the larger context of the computer industry. I don't think that this is erroneous.
I base this in part on the fact that there are numerous cottage industries based solely on the Mac OS and there are people and companies itching for a piece of the Apple hardware pie.
I am further arguing the point that within this market there is no competitive market because Apple controls the existing... (what could be called) the Mac market. Obviously, within the larger computer market Apple does not have a Monopoly at all. I don't think that Apple not being a Monopoly in the larger Computer market obfuscates the existence of a "Mac Market" that is an entity in itself, but that Apple controls because of a Monopoly position. That is the only point I am trying to make.
Whether you can afford something or not is irrelevant to the question of whether a company enjoys a monopolistic position. If i owned a company that made all staples, you could still afford a staple and my company would still have a monopoly.
Sounds like you are sensitive about mac prices!!.. i thought all mac zealots believe macs are cheaper than Dells (i've never seen that but whatever floats your boat).
In my opinion, Mac computers are not over priced, they are worth every penny. After 20 years with PCs, I would never pay $1 for a Dell, HP, or any other PC. I'd rather pay 15 to 20% more for a Mac and have the peace of mind (excellent warranty, stable OS, and NO VIRUSES). I even paid 10% more to get extended warranty when I bought my Mac. The only reason I have a Dell laptop is because the university gave it to me to use for my research (it sucks).
You know, there are reasons why Mercedes and BMW cost more than the average car. You only know why you drive one. The same goes for Macs, you have to own one to know why it cost more.
EDIT: I Forgot about my 10% educational discount. So, the real price increase for me is less than 10%. Furthermore, some Mac retailers offer up to $150 rebates (their ads are on AI front page).