"What we want to do is to provide an alternative, an option," he says.
This guy has a case of "Apple has too much and we deserve some".
Apple covered their asses by writing their own operating system. Just because a company forced the OS to run on non-Apple hardware doesn't mean the world is entitled to start a business over it.
That's like walking up to a stranger in a restaurant and taking food off their plate because they have too much.
Hypothetically, if Apple lost that is along the lines of what would happen. But they won't. The whole premise makes me think they are getting taken for a ride by their lawyers after they ponied up a retainer.
Taken for a ride or being underwritten by someone with very deep pockets. Even if they win the case, they will ultimately lose the battle.
Over the long haul, I still expect Apple to use some proprietary hardware component to eliminate future challenges that revolve around "essentially generic hardware". Even if that was not a motivating factor at the time of the P.A. Semi acquisition, I think it has now come into play.
The more immediate response if Apple loses would be to raise the retail price of the OS and use vouchers or registration to qualify buyers for a discount, as others have suggested. Apple could also extend AppleCare to provide an OS update service.
hmmmm... I though that was the whole idea of copyright laws, to protect the copyright owner against people like Psystar. If Psystar succeed, god forbids, Mac owners might lose the luxury of upgrading their OS for $129. Apple may fight the clone market by pumping up the price of Mac OS DVD so high that it becomes impossible for clone makers to compete with Apple systems. However, Apple might also offer some type of discount for verified (don't ask me how) Mac owners.
The only thing Psystar has going for them is that the OS is sold separately from the hardware and it is not called an upgrade as there is no upgrade pricing.
NO, the only thing Psystar has going for them is that their lawyers ARE their dumb-ass brothers-in-law!!!
"Apple is characterized as a monopoly-like entity..."
And that's where their entire argument goes down the toilet. The market is for OPERATING SYSTEMS, not copies of OSX.
In the OS market, Apple is under 10 percent, pretty much the opposite of a monopoly.
Apple would only have a monopoly if Windows didn't exist.
I can't wait for this nonsense to be over and Psystar to get their ass handed to them. Honestly, I don't know why their lawyers were even stupid enough to take this case.
Are Psystar's lawyers working on contingency? If not, they get paid whether they win or lose. Obviously, if they win they hit the cash cow but I'm hearing a big flushing sound right now and it's coming from Psystar's office.
Somebody has money to burn. They are the new SCO scourge.
So let's, for the sake of argument, say that Psystar is allowed to separate the Mac OS software from the Mac hardware and build their clones. Now, let's think things through a little further...
People start to buy Psystar's computers with Mac OS installed and find that there are issues here and there with hardware compatibility (since Psystar can't possibly clone every little detail of Apple's hardware). Is Apple then supposed make the necessary changes to Mac OS X to fix the issues? Or will Psystar want Apple to open-source Mac OS X completely so that they can make the changes themselves?
Obviously the Darwin kernel is open source and so there are some areas where Psystar could fix the problems themselves (assuming they have a team of software developers), but there are other areas of Mac OS which aren't open source which could cause problems with incompatible hardware.
This is exactly the reason why Apple wants to keep the OS software tightly bound to their hardware: because they don't want to spend effort supporting every two bit hardware manufacturer that comes along trying to undersell the next guy.
I'm all for competition, but seriously, some of the PC hardware which is out there is complete garbage.
I've owned or used a Mac since the 512K version came out in the 80's (the 128K was a little weak) So it may come as a surprise to some on this forum that I really, really wish Psystar had a leg to stand on legally. I know they'll lose, but I wish they wouldn't.
Of course Apple has a right to do what they do. At the beginning they controlled pretty much every commercially available application as well. It guaranteed a safe, stable platform. But I say let the OS be licensed - I think it would open up a new revenue stream for Apple, first from those who would love to run OS X but can't afford the hardware, and then from those who have grown to love the OS after trying it but now want the cool hardware to match.
I'm not saying it would be easy; hardware compatability issues and piracy issues would become much more of a problem. Apple would risk looking like Microsoft unless they also got into the business of approving various platforms as being acceptable for OS X, but I suppose that brings us right back to the beginning...
Apple need to have some sort of system where they certify certain hardware parts (not OEM's but actual hadrware parts). So for example they can certify only this processor, this type of ram, video card etc.
Then the OEM's (Acer, Dell, sony, toshiba etc) could put together all those hardware parts and build there own machine. Apple would obviously have to licence OS X to the OEM's to allow them to put OS X on those machines
This way Apple would not have to support every single hardware configuration, only the ones they choose too
However an issue with this method of opening OS X to other OEM's is that the other OEM's will most likely undercut Apple with the price of the machines. Therefore you may see more people buying dell machines with OS X then iMacs for example. On the other hand Apple would still be making money because they would be licensing their OS to these other OEM's
The small portion of customers....funny...who? MacWorld? They bought it and proved what a POS it really is. When people buy a Mac, they want quality, and they are not overpriced!
Apple has a right not to license their software. They are not required to allow cloning. They already learned their lesson in the past and they are not going to do it again.
Good analogy with the game consoles. Those devices are not cloned either.
I love the side by side photos of the Mac Pro and the Psystar in the review by MacWorld...showing the quality and workmanship going into the design of the Mac Pro, and the piece of shit job done with the Psystar! Duh, choice is obvious.
I've owned or used a Mac since the 512K version came out in the 80's (the 128K was a little weak) So it may come as a surprise to some on this forum that I really, really wish Psystar had a leg to stand on legally. I know they'll lose, but I wish they wouldn't.
Of course Apple has a right to do what they do. At the beginning they controlled pretty much every commercially available application as well. It guaranteed a safe, stable platform. But I say let the OS be licensed - I think it would open up a new revenue stream for Apple, first from those who would love to run OS X but can't afford the hardware, and then from those who have grown to love the OS after trying it but now want the cool hardware to match.
I'm not saying it would be easy; hardware compatability issues and piracy issues would become much more of a problem. Apple would risk looking like Microsoft unless they also got into the business of approving various platforms as being acceptable for OS X, but I suppose that brings us right back to the beginning...
You may want to read your history books. Apple did license their OS in the nineties. It did not end well.
You want compatibility with all hardware?? Go with Windows from Microsoft.
See how well Windows works with hardware with inferior drivers/components???
You want Open source for the masses?? Go with Linux
See how well it works on the desktop when you have thousands of developers each with their own different coding style and ideas as to how it should function? Try finding drivers for new pieces of hardware.
There are plenty of options.
All-in-all, it's actually a pretty funny thing to see as it evolves. One would have to admire the bravado that Psystar is touting but I don't see this as a David-vs-Goliath epic. I really wonder what these guys at Psystar were thinking. I really think it's going to end badly for them and they will have to move back into their parents' basement.
I said it before and I will say it again Pystar has more of a chance to be successful here than many are giving them credit.
First; Apple is and has engaged in monopolistic practices, there os no way to come to any other conclusion. They have 100% of the Mac OS market. That very fact will hurt them unless they can twist the fact that OS/X is just another UNIX variant competing in the UNIX work station market. Apples marketing of Mac hardware could be a problem too.
Second I doubt the EULA means much of anything and may even be illegal in some states. I think this is one of the reasons Apple waited until they had a copyright issue to go after Pystar. Even here there are protections for Pystar for interoperability. The question is did they cross the line.
In the long run I suspect that Pystars success will depend on the political environment. If the political landscape changes such that the justice department becomes more active in enforcing laws already on the books then Apple will have more trouble than it can afford.
Which brings up a point don't vote for Obama if you want to see companies like Apple continue to be successful. Apple would likely end up with 100's of government hot shots after them due to atleast a half dozen problem areas. Of course if they (Apple) gets much worst they might draw attention anyways.
I'm not saying it would be easy; hardware compatability issues and piracy issues would become much more of a problem. Apple would risk looking like Microsoft unless they also got into the business of approving various platforms as being acceptable for OS X, but I suppose that brings us right back to the beginning...
Because right now Apple needs more quality control issues.
Apple is already biting off way more than it can chew!
Psystar will disappear pretty quick unless they are secretly being bankrolled by Microsoft...
I really do not think MS is bankrolling Psystar. If Psystar were to win the case, it would make it easy for Windows licensees like Dell and HP to offer a better alternative to a Windows PC.
Because right now Apple needs more quality control issues.
You need to be more specific as there will always be some quality control issues somewhere in a mass-produced product line, but I seriously doubt it runs across the entire Apple product line.
Quote:
Originally Posted by .:R2theT
Apple is already biting off way more than it can chew!
If you had been around when Apple first started you would know that Apple has always bitten off more than it can chew as it is SOP for Apple since the beginning?Apple thrives on it!
I'm not sure what your point is, or whether you're disagreeing with what I said - your response doesn't seem to have anything to do with what I said. Maybe you just misread my post?
A monopoly doesn't come from having a majority of a market, it comes from having almost all of it, in the range of 90%+. Windows fits that. I don't know the iPod market share, but it's probably pretty close. Wii might be the biggest seller, but they're probably nowhere close to 50 percent of the market much less 90.
I was being sarcastic. The iPod, with its 70% market share and the Wii, with its dominant position this generation does not a monopoly make.
A monopoly position is achieved not by obtaining some magic market share percentage, but by achieving said majority percentage through anti-competitive means. Microsoft's Windows doesn't have a monopolistic position on the PC desktop because Windows incredibly popular, but because Microsoft's operating system is sold as the default operating system on every new PC sold thanks to their use of exclusive, anti-consumer, anti-competitive OEM licensing deals with third party hardware vendors like Dell, HP, Gateway, etc. that stifle competition from alternatives like Linux.
There's nothing illegal about Apple's exclusive use of their operating system on their Macs. Same thing with iPods and iPhones. Apple isn't illegally trying to stop RIM from selling their Blackberry phones, which run their own custom Blackberry operating system.
Not only that, Apple also promotes open, industry standards like AAC and MP3 for audio and MPEG-4 H.264 for video. Most of their OS is open: Mach/BSD, Unix, Darwin. Safari is one of the most, if not the most, standards-compliant browsers. They also leverage work done by the open source community, like SproutCore for MobileMe's web apps. This is in stark contrast to Microsoft's closed operating system, their promotion of proprietary formats like WMA for audio and WMV, their standards-noncompliant Internet Explorer web browser.
It isn't illegal for other vertical systems - i.e. products that incorporate hardware and an operating system from the same company - like videogame consoles to exist. All modern video game systems have some kind of custom operating system, but nobody is crying about Nintendo not letting them use their custom operating system with cloned hardware, or Microsoft or Sony for similarly not letting other hardware vendors use their console's operating systems.
People have the choice to use vertical systems or not use vertical systems. But when buying PCs, people don't have a choice. Consumers have a choice in the hardware company, but the operating system is Windows, whether they like it or not.
First; Apple is and has engaged in monopolistic practices, there os no way to come to any other conclusion. They have 100% of the Mac OS market. That very fact will hurt them unless they can twist the fact that OS/X is just another UNIX variant competing in the UNIX work station market. Apples marketing of Mac hardware could be a problem too.
One test to determine if a monopoly exists has historically been whether or not there is a viable substitute. I am certain that Microsoft would argue that Windows is a very viable substitute to OS X. In fact, I suspect their new $300M ad campaign to try to drive that very point home.
Comments
This guy has a case of "Apple has too much and we deserve some".
Apple covered their asses by writing their own operating system. Just because a company forced the OS to run on non-Apple hardware doesn't mean the world is entitled to start a business over it.
That's like walking up to a stranger in a restaurant and taking food off their plate because they have too much.
That's like walking up to a stranger in a restaurant and taking food off their plate because they have too much.
We prefer car analogies. Always car analogies!
So, it's like walking up to a stranger and taking food off their car because they have too much.
Hypothetically, if Apple lost that is along the lines of what would happen. But they won't. The whole premise makes me think they are getting taken for a ride by their lawyers after they ponied up a retainer.
Taken for a ride or being underwritten by someone with very deep pockets. Even if they win the case, they will ultimately lose the battle.
Over the long haul, I still expect Apple to use some proprietary hardware component to eliminate future challenges that revolve around "essentially generic hardware". Even if that was not a motivating factor at the time of the P.A. Semi acquisition, I think it has now come into play.
The more immediate response if Apple loses would be to raise the retail price of the OS and use vouchers or registration to qualify buyers for a discount, as others have suggested. Apple could also extend AppleCare to provide an OS update service.
abusing its copyright
[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]
hmmmm... I though that was the whole idea of copyright laws, to protect the copyright owner against people like Psystar. If Psystar succeed, god forbids, Mac owners might lose the luxury of upgrading their OS for $129. Apple may fight the clone market by pumping up the price of Mac OS DVD so high that it becomes impossible for clone makers to compete with Apple systems. However, Apple might also offer some type of discount for verified (don't ask me how) Mac owners.
The only thing Psystar has going for them is that the OS is sold separately from the hardware and it is not called an upgrade as there is no upgrade pricing.
NO, the only thing Psystar has going for them is that their lawyers ARE their dumb-ass brothers-in-law!!!
"Apple is characterized as a monopoly-like entity..."
And that's where their entire argument goes down the toilet. The market is for OPERATING SYSTEMS, not copies of OSX.
In the OS market, Apple is under 10 percent, pretty much the opposite of a monopoly.
Apple would only have a monopoly if Windows didn't exist.
I can't wait for this nonsense to be over and Psystar to get their ass handed to them. Honestly, I don't know why their lawyers were even stupid enough to take this case.
Are Psystar's lawyers working on contingency? If not, they get paid whether they win or lose. Obviously, if they win they hit the cash cow but I'm hearing a big flushing sound right now and it's coming from Psystar's office.
Somebody has money to burn. They are the new SCO scourge.
People start to buy Psystar's computers with Mac OS installed and find that there are issues here and there with hardware compatibility (since Psystar can't possibly clone every little detail of Apple's hardware). Is Apple then supposed make the necessary changes to Mac OS X to fix the issues? Or will Psystar want Apple to open-source Mac OS X completely so that they can make the changes themselves?
Obviously the Darwin kernel is open source and so there are some areas where Psystar could fix the problems themselves (assuming they have a team of software developers), but there are other areas of Mac OS which aren't open source which could cause problems with incompatible hardware.
This is exactly the reason why Apple wants to keep the OS software tightly bound to their hardware: because they don't want to spend effort supporting every two bit hardware manufacturer that comes along trying to undersell the next guy.
I'm all for competition, but seriously, some of the PC hardware which is out there is complete garbage.
Of course Apple has a right to do what they do. At the beginning they controlled pretty much every commercially available application as well. It guaranteed a safe, stable platform. But I say let the OS be licensed - I think it would open up a new revenue stream for Apple, first from those who would love to run OS X but can't afford the hardware, and then from those who have grown to love the OS after trying it but now want the cool hardware to match.
I'm not saying it would be easy; hardware compatability issues and piracy issues would become much more of a problem. Apple would risk looking like Microsoft unless they also got into the business of approving various platforms as being acceptable for OS X, but I suppose that brings us right back to the beginning...
Then the OEM's (Acer, Dell, sony, toshiba etc) could put together all those hardware parts and build there own machine. Apple would obviously have to licence OS X to the OEM's to allow them to put OS X on those machines
This way Apple would not have to support every single hardware configuration, only the ones they choose too
However an issue with this method of opening OS X to other OEM's is that the other OEM's will most likely undercut Apple with the price of the machines. Therefore you may see more people buying dell machines with OS X then iMacs for example. On the other hand Apple would still be making money because they would be licensing their OS to these other OEM's
Apple has a right not to license their software. They are not required to allow cloning. They already learned their lesson in the past and they are not going to do it again.
Good analogy with the game consoles. Those devices are not cloned either.
I love the side by side photos of the Mac Pro and the Psystar in the review by MacWorld...showing the quality and workmanship going into the design of the Mac Pro, and the piece of shit job done with the Psystar! Duh, choice is obvious.
I've owned or used a Mac since the 512K version came out in the 80's (the 128K was a little weak) So it may come as a surprise to some on this forum that I really, really wish Psystar had a leg to stand on legally. I know they'll lose, but I wish they wouldn't.
Of course Apple has a right to do what they do. At the beginning they controlled pretty much every commercially available application as well. It guaranteed a safe, stable platform. But I say let the OS be licensed - I think it would open up a new revenue stream for Apple, first from those who would love to run OS X but can't afford the hardware, and then from those who have grown to love the OS after trying it but now want the cool hardware to match.
I'm not saying it would be easy; hardware compatability issues and piracy issues would become much more of a problem. Apple would risk looking like Microsoft unless they also got into the business of approving various platforms as being acceptable for OS X, but I suppose that brings us right back to the beginning...
You may want to read your history books. Apple did license their OS in the nineties. It did not end well.
You want compatibility with all hardware?? Go with Windows from Microsoft.
See how well Windows works with hardware with inferior drivers/components???
You want Open source for the masses?? Go with Linux
See how well it works on the desktop when you have thousands of developers each with their own different coding style and ideas as to how it should function? Try finding drivers for new pieces of hardware.
There are plenty of options.
All-in-all, it's actually a pretty funny thing to see as it evolves. One would have to admire the bravado that Psystar is touting but I don't see this as a David-vs-Goliath epic. I really wonder what these guys at Psystar were thinking. I really think it's going to end badly for them and they will have to move back into their parents' basement.
First; Apple is and has engaged in monopolistic practices, there os no way to come to any other conclusion. They have 100% of the Mac OS market. That very fact will hurt them unless they can twist the fact that OS/X is just another UNIX variant competing in the UNIX work station market. Apples marketing of Mac hardware could be a problem too.
Second I doubt the EULA means much of anything and may even be illegal in some states. I think this is one of the reasons Apple waited until they had a copyright issue to go after Pystar. Even here there are protections for Pystar for interoperability. The question is did they cross the line.
In the long run I suspect that Pystars success will depend on the political environment. If the political landscape changes such that the justice department becomes more active in enforcing laws already on the books then Apple will have more trouble than it can afford.
Which brings up a point don't vote for Obama if you want to see companies like Apple continue to be successful. Apple would likely end up with 100's of government hot shots after them due to atleast a half dozen problem areas. Of course if they (Apple) gets much worst they might draw attention anyways.
Dave
Psystar will disappear pretty quick unless they are secretly being bankrolled by Microsoft...
MS would be the last people to back Psystar;
I'm not saying it would be easy; hardware compatability issues and piracy issues would become much more of a problem. Apple would risk looking like Microsoft unless they also got into the business of approving various platforms as being acceptable for OS X, but I suppose that brings us right back to the beginning...
Because right now Apple needs more quality control issues.
Apple is already biting off way more than it can chew!
Psystar will disappear pretty quick unless they are secretly being bankrolled by Microsoft...
I really do not think MS is bankrolling Psystar. If Psystar were to win the case, it would make it easy for Windows licensees like Dell and HP to offer a better alternative to a Windows PC.
Because right now Apple needs more quality control issues.
You need to be more specific as there will always be some quality control issues somewhere in a mass-produced product line, but I seriously doubt it runs across the entire Apple product line.
Apple is already biting off way more than it can chew!
If you had been around when Apple first started you would know that Apple has always bitten off more than it can chew as it is SOP for Apple since the beginning?Apple thrives on it!
I'm not sure what your point is, or whether you're disagreeing with what I said - your response doesn't seem to have anything to do with what I said. Maybe you just misread my post?
A monopoly doesn't come from having a majority of a market, it comes from having almost all of it, in the range of 90%+. Windows fits that. I don't know the iPod market share, but it's probably pretty close. Wii might be the biggest seller, but they're probably nowhere close to 50 percent of the market much less 90.
I was being sarcastic. The iPod, with its 70% market share and the Wii, with its dominant position this generation does not a monopoly make.
A monopoly position is achieved not by obtaining some magic market share percentage, but by achieving said majority percentage through anti-competitive means. Microsoft's Windows doesn't have a monopolistic position on the PC desktop because Windows incredibly popular, but because Microsoft's operating system is sold as the default operating system on every new PC sold thanks to their use of exclusive, anti-consumer, anti-competitive OEM licensing deals with third party hardware vendors like Dell, HP, Gateway, etc. that stifle competition from alternatives like Linux.
There's nothing illegal about Apple's exclusive use of their operating system on their Macs. Same thing with iPods and iPhones. Apple isn't illegally trying to stop RIM from selling their Blackberry phones, which run their own custom Blackberry operating system.
Not only that, Apple also promotes open, industry standards like AAC and MP3 for audio and MPEG-4 H.264 for video. Most of their OS is open: Mach/BSD, Unix, Darwin. Safari is one of the most, if not the most, standards-compliant browsers. They also leverage work done by the open source community, like SproutCore for MobileMe's web apps. This is in stark contrast to Microsoft's closed operating system, their promotion of proprietary formats like WMA for audio and WMV, their standards-noncompliant Internet Explorer web browser.
It isn't illegal for other vertical systems - i.e. products that incorporate hardware and an operating system from the same company - like videogame consoles to exist. All modern video game systems have some kind of custom operating system, but nobody is crying about Nintendo not letting them use their custom operating system with cloned hardware, or Microsoft or Sony for similarly not letting other hardware vendors use their console's operating systems.
People have the choice to use vertical systems or not use vertical systems. But when buying PCs, people don't have a choice. Consumers have a choice in the hardware company, but the operating system is Windows, whether they like it or not.
Hope that makes sense.
First; Apple is and has engaged in monopolistic practices, there os no way to come to any other conclusion. They have 100% of the Mac OS market. That very fact will hurt them unless they can twist the fact that OS/X is just another UNIX variant competing in the UNIX work station market. Apples marketing of Mac hardware could be a problem too.
One test to determine if a monopoly exists has historically been whether or not there is a viable substitute. I am certain that Microsoft would argue that Windows is a very viable substitute to OS X. In fact, I suspect their new $300M ad campaign to try to drive that very point home.