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.
And Ford has 100% of the Mustang market
And Chevy has 100% of the Corvette market
And Porsche has 100% of the 911 market.
So Mr. Dave is going to go out and sue Porsche because he doesn't want to pay Porsche $70K for a Porsche 911, but wants to get the same 911 made by Ford for only $25K.
This can be made legal, but a simple lawsuit isn't going to cut it. You would need to abolish all of the Intellectual Property laws in USA ... and the Rest of the World (ROW) too.
And while that might sound neat for the near term, IP laws are the means of protecting the risk-taking from innovation. Without adequate Risk:Reward assurances, nearly all technological progress will grind to nearly a stop...afterall, why pay to develop something when someone will promptly steal it, scott-free?
Do you feel that it should be possible to design hardware and software together as a whole? Should that choice be allowed to exist?
I personally like having that choice, but others may prefer a Windows model where software and hardware are separate products not developed together. That's fine. But do you think the CHOICE to have hardware and software designed as one should be taken away from those who do want it?
We have the Microsoft choice: a different business model, which has advantages for the consumer (tons of PC models to choose from). But that model ALSO has disadvantages (quality control/code bloat, sluggish innovation, battling among partners) that harm the consumer. So yes, OS X on non-Apple machines might give you the Mac gamer rig (or pre-obsolete bargain config or whatever other config) that you want that Apple doesn't yet make. I sympathize with wanting more models. But you can't argue that such a move would ONLY have positives. There are negatives that are equally valid.
If you want Apple's hardware-and-software business model to be taken off the table, then we'll lose the very real advantages that it brings.
OS X is a better product BECAUSE Apple doesn't have to make every version, feature and patch run on other companies' hardware.
I'd like to keep that advantage, myself. Others, who prefer the other business model, have Microsoft as an option. Plus Linux is out there as a third model.
Why should we take away one of those business models--the one that has succeeded in creating OS X?
If you want to remove consumer choice, remove Windows instead please
Quote:
Originally Posted by netnothing
Is part of this argument the fact that Apple sells OS X as a product, whereas Microsoft and Sony don't sell the OS that runs the XBOX360 and PS3?
-Kevin
I doubt it, since Mac OS is a product you can only get with a Mac. The copies on the shelf are upgrades, in essence, to something you already bought as part of a Mac.
Honestly if Apple lost this case (they are not, Pystar is pretty fucked here) Microsoft would be the one who stands the most to lose, and it would mean they wouldn't be able to stop OEMs from selling XP past it's EOL date.
The reality is, if you make a product - you pretty much have complete legal control over it's sale and distribution. And that's the way it should be. This isn't fuking China - where everything is a free-for-all and thus innovation is non-existant.
The only thing Apple is not allowed to do, is prevent applications from working with OSX - that's about it.
Monopolies are thus characterized by a lack of economic competition for the good or service that they provide and a lack of viable substitute goods.[2] Alternatively (a modern and less common usage), it may be used as a verb or adjective to refer to the process (see Monopolism) by which a firm gains persistently greater market share than what is expected under perfect competition. The latter usage of the term is invoked in the theory of monopolistic competition.
Burger King has 100% of the Whopper market, are they in trouble? Oh wait, I can get a burger at McDonalds or I can make my own at home.
Exactly. It's not the same burger at McDonalds, but it's close enough that it's not a monopoly argument. If I made a "Greg Joke TM" that was only available printed on "Greg Stickers".... could I be sued by other sticker manufacturers because they weren't allowed to print "Greg Jokes" on their stuff?
On the other hand....
1) Lets say Apple's EULA is illegal. All Apple has to do is make OSX cost $500, and price the OSX upgrades at $129. Every Mac comes with a free copy of OSX... and subsequent upgrades cost the regular $129.
2) Perhaps Apple WANTS to be forced to do this. They could 'settle' the lawsuit by allowing people to buy OSX for any hardware without Apple support, and they could STRONGLY recommend to individuals and businesses that they buy genuine Apple hardware. If they're 'forced' to release OSX they protect themselves from complaints to a degree.
The reason Apple hardware is "expensive" is because Apple wants nothing but high-end computers in their lineups. They do not want the reputation of cheap low-end computers.
From my point of view, Psystar should receive the penalty because they broke Apple's EULA.
2) Perhaps Apple WANTS to be forced to do this. They could 'settle' the lawsuit by allowing people to buy OSX for any hardware without Apple support, and they could STRONGLY recommend to individuals and businesses that they buy genuine Apple hardware. If they're 'forced' to release OSX they protect themselves from complaints to a degree.
I doubt it. If Apple wanted to go that route they would have just done it. The reason they haven't gone that route (again), is because licensing the Mac OS nearly killed them the first time around and they don't want their OS running on POS hardware like the Psystar boxes - because that will inevitably lead people to equate the Mac OS with a crappy running system and thus drag Apple's reputation down along with Psystar.
You are a true republican ass. When was the last time a republican knew the true reality or facts?
I'm a republican. I like the idea of people taking care of themselves. Just because someone is a republican doesn't mean they're wrong, stupid, poor or rich, or anything. That's party discrimination. Yeah... Keep working hard on your job. Millions on welfare depend on you!
"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.
They're not saying Apple has a monopoly (which isn't illegal, btw.) They're saying Apple is exercising monopoly-like powers to unfairly push competitors out of the market... which is quite illegal. (See: Microsoft.)
I've said it from the start. Apple opened Pandora's box by suing Psystar and since the EULA isn't a legally binding contract, they don't have a whole lot to stand on. Psystar is actually breaking no laws here. (If you're interested in a lengthier version of my opinion, see the link to my blog in my sig.) I'm not so sure Apple will win this one and I'm completely perplexed by the fact that they decided to sue because it implies that there might be a market for the kind of thing Psystar is selling.
You know what might be a better tactic for Apple? Compete by making a low-end Mac tower or alleviating the Mini of its overpriced/underpowered status and drive Psystar out of the market by outdoing them.
I doubt it, since Mac OS is a product you can only get with a Mac. The copies on the shelf are upgrades, in essence, to something you already bought as part of a Mac.
Nonsense!
If I buy an old Mac on eBay with the hard drive wiped clean but without the original install CDs, you're saying its illegal for me to buy OS X off the shelf and install it? You would have to make that argument to take your position, and needless to say, that's ridiculous.
Anyway, I checked the boxes and packaging materials for both Tiger and Leopard retail and nowhere does the word "upgrade" appear (and no, even if the EULA says it is, that's not a legally binding contract so it's irrelevant.) If it's an upgrade, Apple's marketing people--and more importantly, the customers--don't seem to have been aware of it.
They're not saying Apple has a monopoly (which isn't illegal, btw.) They're saying Apple is exercising monopoly-like powers to unfairly push competitors out of the market... which is quite illegal. (See: Microsoft.)
I've said it from the start. Apple opened Pandora's box by suing Psystar and since the EULA isn't a legally binding contract, they don't have a whole lot to stand on. Psystar is actually breaking no laws here. (If you're interested in a lengthier version of my opinion, see the link to my blog in my sig.) I'm not so sure Apple will win this one and I'm completely perplexed by the fact that they decided to sue because it implies that there might be a market for the kind of thing Psystar is selling.
You know what might be a better tactic for Apple? Compete by making a low-end Mac tower or alleviating the Mini of its overpriced/underpowered status and drive Psystar out of the market by outdoing them.
Oky, are you actually reading this case? Apple has filed a Copyright infringement case, NOTHING to do with the EULA. They are illegally distributing another company's intellectual property.
Burger King has 100% of the Whopper market, are they in trouble? Oh wait, I can get a burger at McDonalds or I can make my own at home.
You're oversimplifying it to the point of absurdity. Let's complicate things a little to make your burger analogy a little closer to reality.
Burger King makes the Whopper and they put a special Burger King branded ketchup on it that they don't sell to competitors but is for sale on the shelves of your local grocery store. A local burger joint decides to start selling a new burger that is pretty much the same ingredients as the Whopper, including some of the off-the-shelf Burger King ketchup if the customer requests it. They're not calling it a Whopper, but they do advertise the fact that you can get some of that off-the-shelf Burger King brand ketchup on it so it tastes a lot like the original.
Do you think Burger King should still have the right to stop that?
They're not saying Apple has a monopoly (which isn't illegal, btw.) They're saying Apple is exercising monopoly-like powers to unfairly push competitors out of the market... which is quite illegal. (See: Microsoft.)
I've said it from the start. Apple opened Pandora's box by suing Psystar and since the EULA isn't a legally binding contract, they don't have a whole lot to stand on. Psystar is actually breaking no laws here. (If you're interested in a lengthier version of my opinion, see the link to my blog in my sig.) I'm not so sure Apple will win this one and I'm completely perplexed by the fact that they decided to sue because it implies that there might be a market for the kind of thing Psystar is selling.
You know what might be a better tactic for Apple? Compete by making a low-end Mac tower or alleviating the Mini of its overpriced/underpowered status and drive Psystar out of the market by outdoing them.
You need to do some research into what an illegal monopoly actually is.
Apple didn't open any "pandoras box". They are protecting their own property (OS X) which they created - they can decide how and in what manner it is to be used. Whether or not Psystar is breaking any laws is the whole reason the case has been brought to court.
Apple created OS X. That is their own property. Since they also sell their own hardware - they stipulate that OS X is to be used on their own hardware. If Psystar wants to compete against Apple they should do so by creating their own system (OS included) and selling it themselves - not by "hacking" Apple's operating system.
Why is that so hard to understand?
Let me use an analogy which I think you can understand (since you blog) - let's say you write an article on your blog. What if a reporter quotes your article word-for-word and actually benefits monetarily from the article you wrote. They made money by simply copying what you wrote. Would you be pissed? That is what Psystar is doing - they are using Apple's property (against it's wishes) and is competing against Apple with Apple's property.
If I buy an old Mac on eBay with the hard drive wiped clean but without the original install CDs, you're saying its illegal for me to buy OS X off the shelf and install it? You would have to make that argument to take your position, and needless to say, that's ridiculous.
Anyway, I checked the boxes and packaging materials for both Tiger and Leopard retail and nowhere does the word "upgrade" appear (and no, even if the EULA says it is, that's not a legally binding contract so it's irrelevant.) If it's an upgrade, Apple's marketing people--and more importantly, the customers--don't seem to have been aware of it.
That's why I said "upgrades in essence"--not in literal marketing language.
And the question of buying or selling a Mac without all its included parts and discs is not really relevant. I do not, in fact, make the argument you suggest. If anything, what's relevant is that the Mac came with a Mac OS licence, and if the Mac gets sold to you, then the seller probably shouldn't go selling the machine's OS discs to someone else separately. I would think that's their problem, though, not yours, and of no relevance to what you buy off the shelf. Anyway, it's an interesting scenario to look into, but I doubt Apple's lawyers have lost too much sleep over it
Once upon a time Mac hardware was unique. Now it's not.
Apple's current hardware is now entirely made from generic PC parts. Not the cheapest parts. But there is nothing in there that is unique to Apple. Windows runs on Macs. And it's easy for amateurs to get OS X to run on all manner of standard PC hardware. It's trivial to do so. The resulting "Hackintosh" machines work great. The only reason you can't simply shove OS X on a Dell is an artificial restriction within OS X.
So if Apple wanted to, it could release OS X as a direct competitor for Vista. It would sell boxed copies of OS X to run on machines that are certified for OS X. Apple would continue to sell its own line of certified hardware.
Many think this would be a mistake, because Apple's hardware is uncompetitive, and the subsequent loss of hardware sales would cost more than the new OS X revenue. Only the insiders at Apple would know for sure.
I personally think that this would be the best thing to happen to the World's computer industry.
So here is a thought exercise...
Imagine that Jobs and Apple *wanted* to do this. They have been wanting to do this for years. They want to enter the OS space. They want to take on Windows directly. But they are blocked by long-standing agreements with Microsoft. Their hands are tied.
But if Apple lost this case with Psystar... And the courts ruled that if Apple want to sell OS X as a product, it must be sold to any hardware capable of running it... Then suddenly those deals are moot. Apple's hands are untied.
Comments
We prefer car analogies. Always car analogies!
Your wish is my command.
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.
And Ford has 100% of the Mustang market
And Chevy has 100% of the Corvette market
And Porsche has 100% of the 911 market.
So Mr. Dave is going to go out and sue Porsche because he doesn't want to pay Porsche $70K for a Porsche 911, but wants to get the same 911 made by Ford for only $25K.
This can be made legal, but a simple lawsuit isn't going to cut it. You would need to abolish all of the Intellectual Property laws in USA ... and the Rest of the World (ROW) too.
And while that might sound neat for the near term, IP laws are the means of protecting the risk-taking from innovation. Without adequate Risk:Reward assurances, nearly all technological progress will grind to nearly a stop...afterall, why pay to develop something when someone will promptly steal it, scott-free?
-hh
Do you feel that it should be possible to design hardware and software together as a whole? Should that choice be allowed to exist?
I personally like having that choice, but others may prefer a Windows model where software and hardware are separate products not developed together. That's fine. But do you think the CHOICE to have hardware and software designed as one should be taken away from those who do want it?
We have the Microsoft choice: a different business model, which has advantages for the consumer (tons of PC models to choose from). But that model ALSO has disadvantages (quality control/code bloat, sluggish innovation, battling among partners) that harm the consumer. So yes, OS X on non-Apple machines might give you the Mac gamer rig (or pre-obsolete bargain config or whatever other config) that you want that Apple doesn't yet make. I sympathize with wanting more models. But you can't argue that such a move would ONLY have positives. There are negatives that are equally valid.
If you want Apple's hardware-and-software business model to be taken off the table, then we'll lose the very real advantages that it brings.
OS X is a better product BECAUSE Apple doesn't have to make every version, feature and patch run on other companies' hardware.
I'd like to keep that advantage, myself. Others, who prefer the other business model, have Microsoft as an option. Plus Linux is out there as a third model.
Why should we take away one of those business models--the one that has succeeded in creating OS X?
If you want to remove consumer choice, remove Windows instead please
Is part of this argument the fact that Apple sells OS X as a product, whereas Microsoft and Sony don't sell the OS that runs the XBOX360 and PS3?
-Kevin
I doubt it, since Mac OS is a product you can only get with a Mac. The copies on the shelf are upgrades, in essence, to something you already bought as part of a Mac.
The reality is, if you make a product - you pretty much have complete legal control over it's sale and distribution. And that's the way it should be. This isn't fuking China - where everything is a free-for-all and thus innovation is non-existant.
The only thing Apple is not allowed to do, is prevent applications from working with OSX - that's about it.
Apple is NOT a monopoly.
Burger King has 100% of the Whopper market, are they in trouble? Oh wait, I can get a burger at McDonalds or I can make my own at home.
Exactly. It's not the same burger at McDonalds, but it's close enough that it's not a monopoly argument. If I made a "Greg Joke TM" that was only available printed on "Greg Stickers".... could I be sued by other sticker manufacturers because they weren't allowed to print "Greg Jokes" on their stuff?
On the other hand....
1) Lets say Apple's EULA is illegal. All Apple has to do is make OSX cost $500, and price the OSX upgrades at $129. Every Mac comes with a free copy of OSX... and subsequent upgrades cost the regular $129.
2) Perhaps Apple WANTS to be forced to do this. They could 'settle' the lawsuit by allowing people to buy OSX for any hardware without Apple support, and they could STRONGLY recommend to individuals and businesses that they buy genuine Apple hardware. If they're 'forced' to release OSX they protect themselves from complaints to a degree.
Which brings up a point don't vote for Obama if you want to see companies like Apple continue to be successful.
Dave[/QUOTE]
You are a true republican ass. When was the last time a republican knew the true reality or facts?
From my point of view, Psystar should receive the penalty because they broke Apple's EULA.
2) Perhaps Apple WANTS to be forced to do this. They could 'settle' the lawsuit by allowing people to buy OSX for any hardware without Apple support, and they could STRONGLY recommend to individuals and businesses that they buy genuine Apple hardware. If they're 'forced' to release OSX they protect themselves from complaints to a degree.
I doubt it. If Apple wanted to go that route they would have just done it. The reason they haven't gone that route (again), is because licensing the Mac OS nearly killed them the first time around and they don't want their OS running on POS hardware like the Psystar boxes - because that will inevitably lead people to equate the Mac OS with a crappy running system and thus drag Apple's reputation down along with Psystar.
You are a true republican ass. When was the last time a republican knew the true reality or facts?
I'm a republican. I like the idea of people taking care of themselves. Just because someone is a republican doesn't mean they're wrong, stupid, poor or rich, or anything. That's party discrimination. Yeah... Keep working hard on your job. Millions on welfare depend on you!
MS would be the last people to back Psystar;
I'm sure you realize I was joking.
"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.
They're not saying Apple has a monopoly (which isn't illegal, btw.) They're saying Apple is exercising monopoly-like powers to unfairly push competitors out of the market... which is quite illegal. (See: Microsoft.)
I've said it from the start. Apple opened Pandora's box by suing Psystar and since the EULA isn't a legally binding contract, they don't have a whole lot to stand on. Psystar is actually breaking no laws here. (If you're interested in a lengthier version of my opinion, see the link to my blog in my sig.) I'm not so sure Apple will win this one and I'm completely perplexed by the fact that they decided to sue because it implies that there might be a market for the kind of thing Psystar is selling.
You know what might be a better tactic for Apple? Compete by making a low-end Mac tower or alleviating the Mini of its overpriced/underpowered status and drive Psystar out of the market by outdoing them.
I doubt it, since Mac OS is a product you can only get with a Mac. The copies on the shelf are upgrades, in essence, to something you already bought as part of a Mac.
Nonsense!
If I buy an old Mac on eBay with the hard drive wiped clean but without the original install CDs, you're saying its illegal for me to buy OS X off the shelf and install it? You would have to make that argument to take your position, and needless to say, that's ridiculous.
Anyway, I checked the boxes and packaging materials for both Tiger and Leopard retail and nowhere does the word "upgrade" appear (and no, even if the EULA says it is, that's not a legally binding contract so it's irrelevant.) If it's an upgrade, Apple's marketing people--and more importantly, the customers--don't seem to have been aware of it.
They're not saying Apple has a monopoly (which isn't illegal, btw.) They're saying Apple is exercising monopoly-like powers to unfairly push competitors out of the market... which is quite illegal. (See: Microsoft.)
I've said it from the start. Apple opened Pandora's box by suing Psystar and since the EULA isn't a legally binding contract, they don't have a whole lot to stand on. Psystar is actually breaking no laws here. (If you're interested in a lengthier version of my opinion, see the link to my blog in my sig.) I'm not so sure Apple will win this one and I'm completely perplexed by the fact that they decided to sue because it implies that there might be a market for the kind of thing Psystar is selling.
You know what might be a better tactic for Apple? Compete by making a low-end Mac tower or alleviating the Mini of its overpriced/underpowered status and drive Psystar out of the market by outdoing them.
Oky, are you actually reading this case? Apple has filed a Copyright infringement case, NOTHING to do with the EULA. They are illegally distributing another company's intellectual property.
Burger King has 100% of the Whopper market, are they in trouble? Oh wait, I can get a burger at McDonalds or I can make my own at home.
You're oversimplifying it to the point of absurdity. Let's complicate things a little to make your burger analogy a little closer to reality.
Burger King makes the Whopper and they put a special Burger King branded ketchup on it that they don't sell to competitors but is for sale on the shelves of your local grocery store. A local burger joint decides to start selling a new burger that is pretty much the same ingredients as the Whopper, including some of the off-the-shelf Burger King ketchup if the customer requests it. They're not calling it a Whopper, but they do advertise the fact that you can get some of that off-the-shelf Burger King brand ketchup on it so it tastes a lot like the original.
Do you think Burger King should still have the right to stop that?
MS would be the last people to back Psystar;
They did back SCO in a roundabout way, even though it was a hopeless case.
They're not saying Apple has a monopoly (which isn't illegal, btw.) They're saying Apple is exercising monopoly-like powers to unfairly push competitors out of the market... which is quite illegal. (See: Microsoft.)
I've said it from the start. Apple opened Pandora's box by suing Psystar and since the EULA isn't a legally binding contract, they don't have a whole lot to stand on. Psystar is actually breaking no laws here. (If you're interested in a lengthier version of my opinion, see the link to my blog in my sig.) I'm not so sure Apple will win this one and I'm completely perplexed by the fact that they decided to sue because it implies that there might be a market for the kind of thing Psystar is selling.
You know what might be a better tactic for Apple? Compete by making a low-end Mac tower or alleviating the Mini of its overpriced/underpowered status and drive Psystar out of the market by outdoing them.
You need to do some research into what an illegal monopoly actually is.
Apple didn't open any "pandoras box". They are protecting their own property (OS X) which they created - they can decide how and in what manner it is to be used. Whether or not Psystar is breaking any laws is the whole reason the case has been brought to court.
Apple created OS X. That is their own property. Since they also sell their own hardware - they stipulate that OS X is to be used on their own hardware. If Psystar wants to compete against Apple they should do so by creating their own system (OS included) and selling it themselves - not by "hacking" Apple's operating system.
Why is that so hard to understand?
Let me use an analogy which I think you can understand (since you blog) - let's say you write an article on your blog. What if a reporter quotes your article word-for-word and actually benefits monetarily from the article you wrote. They made money by simply copying what you wrote. Would you be pissed? That is what Psystar is doing - they are using Apple's property (against it's wishes) and is competing against Apple with Apple's property.
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.
I guess Sony is and has engaged in monopolistic practices because they have 100% of the Sony TV market.
I guess U2 is and has engaged in monopolistic practices because they create and sell 100% of the songs made by U2.
I guess Ragu is and has engaged in monopolistic practices because they have 100% of the Ragu Spaghetti Sauce market.
I guess Ford is and has engaged in monopolistic practices because they have 100% of the Ford Focus market.
Geez! Idiotic comments never cease.
Nonsense!
If I buy an old Mac on eBay with the hard drive wiped clean but without the original install CDs, you're saying its illegal for me to buy OS X off the shelf and install it? You would have to make that argument to take your position, and needless to say, that's ridiculous.
Anyway, I checked the boxes and packaging materials for both Tiger and Leopard retail and nowhere does the word "upgrade" appear (and no, even if the EULA says it is, that's not a legally binding contract so it's irrelevant.) If it's an upgrade, Apple's marketing people--and more importantly, the customers--don't seem to have been aware of it.
That's why I said "upgrades in essence"--not in literal marketing language.
And the question of buying or selling a Mac without all its included parts and discs is not really relevant. I do not, in fact, make the argument you suggest. If anything, what's relevant is that the Mac came with a Mac OS licence, and if the Mac gets sold to you, then the seller probably shouldn't go selling the machine's OS discs to someone else separately. I would think that's their problem, though, not yours, and of no relevance to what you buy off the shelf. Anyway, it's an interesting scenario to look into, but I doubt Apple's lawyers have lost too much sleep over it
Apple's current hardware is now entirely made from generic PC parts. Not the cheapest parts. But there is nothing in there that is unique to Apple. Windows runs on Macs. And it's easy for amateurs to get OS X to run on all manner of standard PC hardware. It's trivial to do so. The resulting "Hackintosh" machines work great. The only reason you can't simply shove OS X on a Dell is an artificial restriction within OS X.
So if Apple wanted to, it could release OS X as a direct competitor for Vista. It would sell boxed copies of OS X to run on machines that are certified for OS X. Apple would continue to sell its own line of certified hardware.
Many think this would be a mistake, because Apple's hardware is uncompetitive, and the subsequent loss of hardware sales would cost more than the new OS X revenue. Only the insiders at Apple would know for sure.
I personally think that this would be the best thing to happen to the World's computer industry.
So here is a thought exercise...
Imagine that Jobs and Apple *wanted* to do this. They have been wanting to do this for years. They want to enter the OS space. They want to take on Windows directly. But they are blocked by long-standing agreements with Microsoft. Their hands are tied.
But if Apple lost this case with Psystar... And the courts ruled that if Apple want to sell OS X as a product, it must be sold to any hardware capable of running it... Then suddenly those deals are moot. Apple's hands are untied.
C.