OS X on the MSI Wind is really very good (Apple like) experience.
Imagine a 10" Macbook Mini. (About the size of a hardback book) 2GB Ram. 802.11n & Bluetooth. A slightly reduced keyboard - weighing about 2 pounds. In terms of raw functionality, it's a little slower than the Macbook Air. But is very fast for browsing and writing.
It costs $600 or so after upgrading the Ram and the WiFi.
Apple should not licence OS X for any and all hardware. That would be a mistake of Microsoft proportions. But licensing to approved hardware could be very beneficial to consumers and to Apple.
And with it inherit many of the problems which Vista has to contend with.
Drivers, different system configurations, variable quality of parts etc
Then the question is whether it will be able to compete.
Of course like I said Apple could just stop selling OSX and only provide it with new computers, perhaps include some way to distribute OS updates that are tied to the particular mac.
No.
Apple are not as dumb as Microsoft. Apple can license OS X for use on non-Apple computers without going down the crap-hardware, unlicensed-driver model.
All it needs is a sticker program. Where vendors pay Apple for reference hardware designs, and get their hardware approved. Exactly as Apple does with Made for iPod hardware.
They make their $$$ on hardware sales, and allowing clones will decrease their ability to make these $$$ unless they sell Mac OSX at a high price premium.
Made for iPod hardware is different. That is about creating an ecosystem for the iPod, and providing things which Apple has no interest in providing. iPod accessories boost iPod sales.
Generic Macs decrease Apple's hardware sales.
Remember they've done clones, it was an unmitigated disaster. Great for consumers being able to get a cheaper 'Mac', not so good for Apple.
When Apple last licensed the OS - it was not a smart move. Clone manufacturers were offering hardware which was faster, cheaper and better than Apple's own hardware. So it was inevitable that Apples own hardware sales declined.
Nowadays I am not so sure.
Yes, the Macbook is so-so and overpriced in comparison to Windows equivalents.
But most of Apple's hardware is good value and sits in specific targeted niches.
There is no better All-in-One than the iMac. The Mac Pro is excellent. The Mac Mini is Unique. The Air is unique.
If people want this type of computer they will continue to buy a Mac. I don't think many people go out an buy an iMac, when they would prefer a Dell Mini Tower running OS X.
Some folks want Mini Towers - and are not buying Apple
Some folks want Netbooks - and are not buying Apple.
Some folks even want tablets.
So Apple ALREADY ARE losing hardware sales by not producing hardware that people want to buy. But with a licensing program, Apple could be making money. Apple could make more cash from a bundled OS X on a Dell... than Dell make on the hardware.
Hahah, just so that you are aware, karlfanz, your use of boldface is neither intimidating nor does it make your incorrect allegations of my "error" any more correct. If you're not willing to at least consider the possibility that my arguments *might* be true, you're not mature enough to be engaged in this discussion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by karlfanz
(Synopsis That and the fact that you are breaking the law by violating the DMCA by modding OS X or using other mechanisms to circumvent copyright protection systems. Please familiarize yourself with the law.
It doesn't matter if you or I or Psystar are guilty of violating DMCA by circumventing an artificial software lock. What matters is whether Apple uses anti-competitive means to ensure that bond between their hardware and their software, two things which some believe aren't necessarily related. Whether it's by the EULA or some coding in the software itself, if the court finds that Apple is illegally tying their sw to their hw, the violation of DMCA means little.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW
It's the lack of court cases that proves my point. MS has been selling the Xbox at a loss since day one. For what. To gain market share in the gaming console market. Yet, no lawsuits. Why not? Because MS does not hold a controlling share of the gaming console market. If they had over 70 % of the market they would not be allowed to do this.
Huh?????? No no. You said specifically that a large company could get busted for underselling and a small one couldn't. That is what I am referring to. I'm saying I've never heard of anyone getting busted for underselling at all. This is where I'd like for you to prove court case examples.
Tying is another story. There have been - and continue to be - Tying lawsuits. Do a web search.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW
This has nothing to do with the tying of products. Which I was replying to. MS is tying the Zune to Windows. Other lesser companies can make their MP3 players availble for both OSX and Windows. MS should be able to do the same.
The difference is that Microsoft doesn't make Zune software to run on OS X. Apple, however, DOES make aversion of OS X for x86 hardware. Though whatever means (EULA, hardware detection) they are preventing it from running on all x86 hardware.
This is akin to when MS was including lines of code in Windows "security updates" which caused inoperability with Netscape so that IE would become the dominant web browser.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW
You mean you can make it work on any generic Intel-compatible hardware. OSX doesn't do that out of the box. A good hacker also make Halo3 work on a PC. Even if it's only software emulation. That doesn't make it legal to do.
uhh... actually Emulation IS legal as I mentioned before. So is booting your computer with a custom bootloader. And if the OS X Retail install disk "happens" to work after that, well then that's just a bonus.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW
What so hard to understand is how you reach the conclusion that Apple is some how engaged in an anti-competitive practice. Even without the EULA, you can not load OSX into a generic PC without you modifying the software before it installs. This is an infringement of Apple copyright.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW
Wrong, what's legally preventing you from loading OSX into your generic PC is the infringment of Apple copyright on OSX. Even if you think you're not modifying it because the OSX DVD is still intact. You are modifying OSX in your PC before it installs.
See above. There's no infringement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW
There use to be a eprom chip that you could buy for around $10, that when soldered onto the PlayStation MB, would allow you to play burned games and other region code games. Gamers use to say that if they bought a Japanese game, they should be able to play it on their US Playstation. Or that they should be able to play back up game disc that they burned on a computer. Sony sued the makers/sellers of these mod chips. Sony won. How is this any different than you having to put in a CD, with a hack on it, before OSX will load into a generic PC?
I don't know the details of that court case so the reasons as to why the eprom retailers got shut down may or may not be helpful in deciding whether or not it has any bearing on this court case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW
So you would think that George Lucus is being anti-competitive if he doesn't allow you to use his Star Wars characters in a comic book your writing?
The whole point of getting something of value copyrighted is so that you can get a competitive edge on your rivals by owning something they can't have. And you shouldn't have to give it (the copyrighted material) up to level the playing field because your competitors crys foul.
Analogy FAIL. It's like George Lucas licensing the Star Wars characters to you for use in your crappy comic book but then forcing you to only use them on George Lucas Brand paper. Idiotic, unjustified Tying... and totally something Lucas would do.
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.
not only that but who is to say that the minor upgrades we get won't cost so as well. heck that could be where the cost actually comes in. we still get 10.6 for $129 but then when .1, .2 etc come out we have to pay another cost to get them. which is a nickel and dime game that would stink. right now we pay $129 for the OS AND all upgrades of that particular version.
I guess it was when they figured out they could make more money from razor-blades than selling razors.
Someone had a thought: "Let's underprice the razors - and make money back on blades!"
And so was born a con trick, to get more money from customers.
A week later, along comes 3rd party blades. Clone blades selling cheaper, engineered to fit the razors.
Waah - they our violating our copyright! We must demand that the law step in to prevent these rascals selling blades for our razors. It undermines our business model! We need a Victorian Millennium Copyright Act!
To me, these con tricks are essentially immoral. Companies should not rely on the law for protection, they should rely on making better products - and selling them profitably. 3rd party blades are not the problem. It's selling the razors too cheap in the first place.
Tie-ins, lock-ins, restrictive contracts are all tricks that companies use against the consumer. Such actions slow down the market, stifle innovation and have companies spending more on legal teams than they spend developing their products. Capitalism works better with transparent, fair markets.
The fact that companies have bribed legislators to outlaw people doing what they want with their own stuff is shameful.
Apple's OS is a brilliant bit of software. The MSI Wind is an awesome bit of hardware. (Well nearly awesome) If I paid for and legally own both, what is *morally* wrong with putting the one on the other?
I guess it was when they figured out they could make more money from razor-blades than selling razors.
Someone had a thought: "Let's underprice the razors - and make money back on blades!"
And so was born a con trick, to get more money from customers.
A week later, along comes 3rd party blades. Clone blades selling cheaper, engineered to fit the razors.
Waah - they our violating our copyright! We must demand that the law step in to prevent these rascals selling blades for our razors. It undermines our business model! We need a Victorian Millennium Copyright Act!
To me, these con tricks are essentially immoral. Companies should not rely on the law for protection, they should rely on making better products - and selling them profitably. 3rd party blades are not the problem. It's selling the razors too cheap in the first place.
Tie-ins, lock-ins, restrictive contracts are all tricks that companies use against the consumer. Such actions slow down the market, stifle innovation and have companies spending more on legal teams than they spend developing their products. Capitalism works better with transparent, fair markets.
The fact that companies have bribed legislators to outlaw people doing what they want with their own stuff is shameful.
Apple's OS is a brilliant bit of software. The MSI Wind is an awesome bit of hardware. (Well nearly awesome) If I paid for and legally own both, what is *morally* wrong with putting the one on the other?
I guess it was when they figured out they could make more money from razor-blades than selling razors.
Someone had a thought: "Let's underprice the razors - and make money back on blades!"
And so was born a con trick, to get more money from customers.
It's not a con when it results in lower cost for the consumer anyways even when you factor in the cost of the blades. I wouldn't buy an unlocked 3G but I did buy a subsidized one. Same concept.
Quote:
Tie-ins, lock-ins, restrictive contracts are all tricks that companies use against the consumer. Such actions slow down the market, stifle innovation and have companies spending more on legal teams than they spend developing their products. Capitalism works better with transparent, fair markets.
So why is it that Apple and OSX does not stife innovation or slow down the market in comparison to Linux or Windows?
It does not.
Quote:
Apple's OS is a brilliant bit of software. The MSI Wind is an awesome bit of hardware. (Well nearly awesome) If I paid for and legally own both, what is *morally* wrong with putting the one on the other?
The solution is then not to sell OSX as a retail item. My, that sure improved things hasn't it?
You paid for an upgrade to your operating system and you know it. Putting it on the Wind is the same as buying a single copy of Leopard and putting it on 5 machines.
It is a free market. If you don't like Apple simply move to Linux or Windows.
Imagine a world where you buy a phone at a fair price. And then use it with whichever service operator you chose. You could even go abroad and plug in a local sim. If you get bad service, boom! You can change service provider.
Imagine a world where printer inks are standardised and you buy your preferred brand of ink to go into your brand of printer. And where the scummy printer manufacturers did not try to use the DMCA to prevent you from buying whatever ink you damn well wanted.
Imagine a world where you can walk into a shop and pick a Sony or an Apple Laptop - and then go to the next shelf to select your preferred flavor of OS.
Or would you rather have a world where shifting bank accounts was penalised like cellphone contracts? Where every camera has non-standard memory card or non-standard film. Sorry sir - we only sell gas for Toyota's here.
Companies shy away from trading openly in flat markets because they fear competition. If OS X and Vista were sold as direct competitors - OS X would be a better product, and Vista would be a better product too. And you know it!
It's not a con when it results in lower cost for the consumer anyways even when you factor in the cost of the blades. I wouldn't buy an unlocked 3G but I did buy a subsidized one. Same concept.
Your "subsidized" iPhone comes with a larger long-term price tag. That was the conclusion of the "razor" example. You play a smaller up-front cost, but long-term, you're getting jacked. That's why it's a ploy to convince customers they're paying less when, actually, they're paying more.
So if Psystar sells a set of blades that "happens" to fit a Gillette razor, and sells them at a cheaper price, does that give Gillette the right to sue Psystar? Does that give Gillette the right to associate an EULA to their razor stating that it can ONLY be used with Gillette-brand blades, even though we all know the Psystar's blades work just as well and cost less?
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
So why is it that Apple and OSX does not stife innovation or slow down the market in comparison to Linux or Windows?
It does not.
Just because Linux and Windows are even worse examples of innovators, doesn't make Apple a shining star. The least stinky of three turds is still a turd.
If OS X was on the free market, you could bet your life, Apple would be "innovating" its hardware at a much more rapid pace. The Mac Mini is laughable, and the fact that the MacPro STILL doesn't have BluRay support is just embarrassing. If Apple sold just hardware, they would've been out of business ages ago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
The solution is then not to sell OSX as a retail item. My, that sure improved things hasn't it?
Actually, I think this would be an option. My interpretation (which may not be correct, IANAL) is that since it is available as a stand-alone product, it is subject to the complaint. If the only way you could acquire this update was through a paid software update, for example, there would be no question about how you're allowed to use the software.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
You paid for an upgrade to your operating system and you know it. Putting it on the Wind is the same as buying a single copy of Leopard and putting it on 5 machines.
Except that it's completely different.
The "Upgrade" designation is something Apple has never done. In fact, Jobs tends to go out of his way at Keynotes to point out that every copy of Leopard (or Tiger or Panther, etc) is the FULL VERSION.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
It is a free market. If you don't like Apple simply move to Linux or Windows.
If it was truly a free market, I would have the freedom to buy product A from one company and product B from another company, and use them as I choose... even if I choose to use them together, if technically possible.
It doesn't matter if you or I or Psystar are guilty of violating DMCA by circumventing an artificial software lock. What matters is whether Apple uses anti-competitive means to ensure that bond between their hardware and their software, two things which some believe aren't necessarily related. Whether it's by the EULA or some coding in the software itself, if the court finds that Apple is illegally tying their sw to their hw, the violation of DMCA means little.
Sorry but you are wrong here. Apple is not tying OSX to their Mac. One of the condition of tying is that you can not buy one without having to buy the other. When you buy a Mac, OSX is included. But you can buy OSX without having to buy a Mac. Apple is not forcing you to buy a Mac in order for you to buy OSX in a box. So there is no tying of OSX to a Mac.
Quote:
Huh?????? No no. You said specifically that a large company could get busted for underselling and a small one couldn't. That is what I am referring to. I'm saying I've never heard of anyone getting busted for underselling at all. This is where I'd like for you to prove court case examples.
No. Read it again. I said a company that owns 90% (or a majority)of the market vs a company that only owns 10% of the market. Size is of no importance.
MS got busted because they gave IE away for free with Windows. This put Netscape out of business. The Eu and certain Asian countries will not let MS bundle Media player software with Windows. But yet they let Apple bundle those type of software with OSX. Care to guess why?
Here's another company that owns a majority market share that's also in trouble
The difference is that Microsoft doesn't make Zune software to run on OS X. Apple, however, DOES make aversion of OS X for x86 hardware. Though whatever means (EULA, hardware detection) they are preventing it from running on all x86 hardware.
No Apple write OSX for their Mac. It just happens that Mac now uses an Intel x86 chip. OSX has been around since the IBM PPC G3. OSX Leopard still runs on a IBM PPC G5. There is no separate G5 version and x86 version. OSX is written for Macs. Period. Just because you can make it run on a generic PC with the help of a hack doesn't mean that Apple wrote OSX to run on a generic PC and then prevented it from doing so.
Quote:
This is akin to when MS was including lines of code in Windows "security updates" which caused inoperability with Netscape so that IE would become the dominant web browser.
Not even in the ball park with this one. MS sabotage some one elses program by preventing it from running/loading properly in Windows. IE became the dominate browser because it was free and bundled with Windows. Apple isn't sabotaging OSX so that it doesn't run on a generic PC. OSX doesn't run on a generic PC because it wasn't written for it. Just like how Halo3 doesn't work in a PlayStation. Halo3 wasn't written to work in a PlayStation. And Apple is not sabotaging your generic PC so that it doesn't run OSX.
Quote:
I don't know the details of that court case so the reasons as to why the eprom retailers got shut down may or may not be helpful in deciding whether or not it has any bearing on this court case.
In a nutshell. The eprom chip (mod chip) contained a small program that circumvented Sony's copy protection and region code detection in the PlayStation OS. The chip tricks the Playstation so that it will always see an original disc and the proper region code. No matter what disc is in the Playstation.
Analogy FAIL. It's like George Lucas licensing the Star Wars characters to you for use in your crappy comic book but then forcing you to only use them on George Lucas Brand paper. Idiotic, unjustified Tying... and totally something Lucas would do.
If that's the term of the license and you don't like it...don't use his characters. As far as the copyright law is concern, the Star Wars characters belongs to Lucas and he can set the terms of the licencse any way he pleases. If Lucas wants you to stand on your head while using his characters in your comic, well you have two options. Stand on your head or don't use his characters in your comic.
Imagine a world where you buy a phone at a fair price. And then use it with whichever service operator you chose. You could even go abroad and plug in a local sim. If you get bad service, boom! You can change service provider.
I will be able to eventually at $500+. $199 is a better option since I still need to buy a data plan anyway and AT&T isn't as horrid (at least in my city) as some folks make it out to be.
Printers are almost as disposible as the cartridges. You can get one from HP for $39. So...when printers improve every few years (like cell phones) do you want to pay $139 or $39 + 1 toner set?
Quote:
Companies shy away from trading openly in flat markets because they fear competition. If OS X and Vista were sold as direct competitors - OS X would be a better product, and Vista would be a better product too. And you know it!
No, it wouldn't. It would be a worse product because Apple would be a pale shadow of itself and unable to put the same kind of resources into OSX.
Apple doesn't "fear" competition. It just has a different business model that works very well for both it and it's customers.
Your "subsidized" iPhone comes with a larger long-term price tag.
It does not. It cost me $299 + $30/month for a data plan I would have to buy anyway. Therefore $600+ + $30/month is > $299 + $30/month.
Quote:
That was the conclusion of the "razor" example. You play a smaller up-front cost, but long-term, you're getting jacked. That's why it's a ploy to convince customers they're paying less when, actually, they're paying more.
Long term you're getting the convience of a disposable razor over a straight razor and better performance over a double edged safety razor (and somewhat safer since you can't cut yourself on a naked blade). Prior to the safety razor most shaving was done by a 2nd person (family member or barber).
As far as getting "jacked" you can by disposable razors for a $0.23 each on amazon. Double edged razor blades cost $0.17 each on amazon and for a GOOD razor kit it's $70+.
If you WANT to pay $3/catridge for 10 blades + aloe + backrub you can.
Quote:
So if Psystar sells a set of blades that "happens" to fit a Gillette razor, and sells them at a cheaper price, does that give Gillette the right to sue Psystar?
If they own the patent for the cartridge design, yes.
Quote:
Does that give Gillette the right to associate an EULA to their razor stating that it can ONLY be used with Gillette-brand blades, even though we all know the Psystar's blades work just as well and cost less?
You can buy bootleg DVDs for $1 on street corners too...
Quote:
Just because Linux and Windows are even worse examples of innovators, doesn't make Apple a shining star. The least stinky of three turds is still a turd.
Too bad they also cover the entire gamut of personal computer operating systems so that makes Apple best of breed. The assertion that their practice somehow retards innovation has zero basis in fact because you can't point at any other implementation/methodology that is superior.
Quote:
Except that it's completely different.
The "Upgrade" designation is something Apple has never done. In fact, Jobs tends to go out of his way at Keynotes to point out that every copy of Leopard (or Tiger or Panther, etc) is the FULL VERSION.
Full version only licensed for use on Apple computers. Therefore an upgrade to the OS you already had installed. So it's not completely different.
Actually, I think this would be an option. My interpretation (which may not be correct, IANAL) is that since it is available as a stand-alone product, it is subject to the complaint. If the only way you could acquire this update was through a paid software update, for example, there would be no question about how you're allowed to use the software.
Clive, the whole thrust of your argument has been that Apple is being anti-competitive. ie. Putting legal and technical systems in place to stop Psystar (or anyone else) from building and selling computers that run Mac OS X.
Are you now saying that if Apple changes the method of delivering OS updates (with the result that Psystar no longer has a business model), then they will no longer be acting in a "monopolistic" manner?
Apple doesn't "fear" competition. It just has a different business model that works very well for both it and it's customers.
These business models are like a disease. Once one company does it, others start to follow suit.
Then everybody does it. And you end up with a screwed market. Each company uses monopolistic methods and artificial incompatibility. The goal is to create barriers preventing the free migration of customers.
The consumer is losing out because brand-switching becomes ever more expensive. I can't afford to go to Nikon - Because all my lenses are Canon fit.
As time goes on the disease gets worse. Do you honestly want a world where you won't be allowed to use Fuji film in a Kodak camera. Where you violate your Lexmark warranty if you use the Staples paper.
And if one company is more successful than the others, you get the worst of all worlds. A de-facto standard emerges which is wholey owned by one corporation. A virtual monopoly. All competition has ceased.
Once that happens, the consumer really is screwed.
Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you Windows Vista. the product of year upon year of zero competition.
C.
From Wikipedia.... Entry on Adam Smith:
The Wealth of Nations expounds that the free market, while appearing chaotic and unrestrained, is actually guided to produce the right amount and variety of goods by a so-called "invisible hand". Smith believed that while human motives are often selfishness and greed, the competition in the free market would tend to benefit society as a whole by keeping prices low, while still building in an incentive for a wide variety of goods and services. Nevertheless, he was wary of businessmen and argued against the formation of monopolies.
Sorry but you are wrong here. Apple is not tying OSX to their Mac. One of the condition of tying is that you can not buy one without having to buy the other. When you buy a Mac, OSX is included. But you can buy OSX without having to buy a Mac. Apple is not forcing you to buy a Mac in order for you to buy OSX in a box. So there is no tying of OSX to a Mac.
Of course that's Apple's intent, but they don't specifically sell OS X as an "upgrade" and moreover, they constantly remind users that if they buy OS X, they are getting the full version! The fact that a Mac comes bundled with OS X is irrelevant. If a consumer buys OS X from a store, he can "only" use if it he owns a Mac. If the user doesn't own a Mac, he "must" buy one to use it. That Mac may be new from an Apple Store, or it may be used from eBay, but either way, the software that he purchased is "useless" unless he buys a Mac. Of course it's not actually useless since it'll work just fine on generic hardware... That sounds like Tying to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW
No. Read it again. I said a company that owns 90% (or a majority)of the market vs a company that only owns 10% of the market. Size is of no importance.
Then why are we disagreeing? I said early on that size didn't matter. Anti-competitive is anti-competitive, whether you are big or small. That was my point from the very beginning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW
MS got busted because they gave IE away for free with Windows. This put Netscape out of business. The Eu and certain Asian countries will not let MS bundle Media player software with Windows. But yet they let Apple bundle those type of software with OSX. Care to guess why?
Here's another company that owns a majority market share that's also in trouble
Now wait just a minute! You JUST got finished saying size was of no importance!
Attempting to monopolize using anti-competitive practices is illegal. Period.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW
No Apple write OSX for their Mac. It just happens that Mac now uses an Intel x86 chip. OSX has been around since the IBM PPC G3. OSX Leopard still runs on a IBM PPC G5. There is no separate G5 version and x86 version. OSX is written for Macs. Period. Just because you can make it run on a generic PC with the help of a hack doesn't mean that Apple wrote OSX to run on a generic PC and then prevented it from doing so.
"Apple writes OS X for their Mac..." which runs on an Intel processor, which uses the x86 instruction set. There's no possible way Apple can code OS X "for their Mac" and NOT code for the x86 instruction set. The "unfortunate" side-effect for Apple is that by doing so, their OS becomes inherently compatible with all hardware designed to work with x86 systems.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW
Not even in the ball park with this one. MS sabotage some one elses program by preventing it from running/loading properly in Windows. IE became the dominate browser because it was free and bundled with Windows. Apple isn't sabotaging OSX so that it doesn't run on a generic PC. OSX doesn't run on a generic PC because it wasn't written for it. Just like how Halo3 doesn't work in a PlayStation. Halo3 wasn't written to work in a PlayStation. And Apple is not sabotaging your generic PC so that it doesn't run OSX.
Whoever it was, it isn't important. The fact is that Windows included code in Windows to cause inoperability with another technology. Apple is doing the same thing by checking to make sure it's running on a genuine Mac. Yes, that's correct, there are lines of code in OS X which don't contribute to the functionality of the OS! Their purpose there is solely to ensure that the user stays confined to Apple's hardware.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW
In a nutshell. The eprom chip (mod chip) contained a small program that circumvented Sony's copy protection and region code detection in the PlayStation OS. The chip tricks the Playstation so that it will always see an original disc and the proper region code. No matter what disc is in the Playstation.
Sounds like the eprom chip was being used more as a pirating mechanism than a fair use mechanism. I think the circumstance is different here. Hackintosh builders aren't modifying OS X to bypass a security mechanism. They're teaching their hardware how to communicate with OS X natively.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW
If that's the term of the license and you don't like it...don't use his characters. As far as the copyright law is concern, the Star Wars characters belongs to Lucas and he can set the terms of the licencse any way he pleases. If Lucas wants you to stand on your head while using his characters in your comic, well you have two options. Stand on your head or don't use his characters in your comic.
A license agreement can only be as restrictive so far as that license doesn't break any laws. If a court finds Apple's hw/sw arrangement to be anti-competitive, the EULA will be overruled.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
Nice post, DavidW.
Why are you cheering him on? I always thought you were smarter than that.
The consumer is losing out because brand-switching becomes ever more expensive. I can't afford to go to Nikon - Because all my lenses are Canon fit.
Except that in your previous examples they don't. The cost to switch disposable razor brands or even printers is very small.
Quote:
And if one company is more successful than the others, you get the worst of all worlds. A de-facto standard emerges which is wholey owned by one corporation. A virtual monopoly. All competition has ceased.
That's not a virtual monopoly but a real one. Competition rarely ceases entirely.
Quote:
Once that happens, the consumer really is screwed.
Really? Because from where I sit Microsoft helped the consumer immensely vs what computing was like before. Because DOS was a heck of a lot cheaper than CP/M. Computers dropped rapidly in price all the while MS developed a monopoly on desktop operating systems.
Not a lot of screwing happened there to the consumer.
Quote:
Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you Windows Vista. the product of year upon year of zero competition.
Windows Vista is not nearly as bad as folks make it out to be. Not to mention that OSX and Linux DO exist and OSX is able to gain share against the incumbent Windows and the free Linux.
Comments
Imagine a 10" Macbook Mini. (About the size of a hardback book) 2GB Ram. 802.11n & Bluetooth. A slightly reduced keyboard - weighing about 2 pounds. In terms of raw functionality, it's a little slower than the Macbook Air. But is very fast for browsing and writing.
It costs $600 or so after upgrading the Ram and the WiFi.
Apple should not licence OS X for any and all hardware. That would be a mistake of Microsoft proportions. But licensing to approved hardware could be very beneficial to consumers and to Apple.
C.
And with it inherit many of the problems which Vista has to contend with.
Drivers, different system configurations, variable quality of parts etc
Then the question is whether it will be able to compete.
Of course like I said Apple could just stop selling OSX and only provide it with new computers, perhaps include some way to distribute OS updates that are tied to the particular mac.
No.
Apple are not as dumb as Microsoft. Apple can license OS X for use on non-Apple computers without going down the crap-hardware, unlicensed-driver model.
All it needs is a sticker program. Where vendors pay Apple for reference hardware designs, and get their hardware approved. Exactly as Apple does with Made for iPod hardware.
C.
They make their $$$ on hardware sales, and allowing clones will decrease their ability to make these $$$ unless they sell Mac OSX at a high price premium.
Made for iPod hardware is different. That is about creating an ecosystem for the iPod, and providing things which Apple has no interest in providing. iPod accessories boost iPod sales.
Generic Macs decrease Apple's hardware sales.
Remember they've done clones, it was an unmitigated disaster. Great for consumers being able to get a cheaper 'Mac', not so good for Apple.
Generic Macs decrease Apple's hardware sales.
When Apple last licensed the OS - it was not a smart move. Clone manufacturers were offering hardware which was faster, cheaper and better than Apple's own hardware. So it was inevitable that Apples own hardware sales declined.
Nowadays I am not so sure.
Yes, the Macbook is so-so and overpriced in comparison to Windows equivalents.
But most of Apple's hardware is good value and sits in specific targeted niches.
There is no better All-in-One than the iMac. The Mac Pro is excellent. The Mac Mini is Unique. The Air is unique.
If people want this type of computer they will continue to buy a Mac. I don't think many people go out an buy an iMac, when they would prefer a Dell Mini Tower running OS X.
Some folks want Mini Towers - and are not buying Apple
Some folks want Netbooks - and are not buying Apple.
Some folks even want tablets.
So Apple ALREADY ARE losing hardware sales by not producing hardware that people want to buy. But with a licensing program, Apple could be making money. Apple could make more cash from a bundled OS X on a Dell... than Dell make on the hardware.
C.
(Synopsis
It doesn't matter if you or I or Psystar are guilty of violating DMCA by circumventing an artificial software lock. What matters is whether Apple uses anti-competitive means to ensure that bond between their hardware and their software, two things which some believe aren't necessarily related. Whether it's by the EULA or some coding in the software itself, if the court finds that Apple is illegally tying their sw to their hw, the violation of DMCA means little.
It's the lack of court cases that proves my point. MS has been selling the Xbox at a loss since day one. For what. To gain market share in the gaming console market. Yet, no lawsuits. Why not? Because MS does not hold a controlling share of the gaming console market. If they had over 70 % of the market they would not be allowed to do this.
Huh?????? No no. You said specifically that a large company could get busted for underselling and a small one couldn't. That is what I am referring to. I'm saying I've never heard of anyone getting busted for underselling at all. This is where I'd like for you to prove court case examples.
Tying is another story. There have been - and continue to be - Tying lawsuits. Do a web search.
This has nothing to do with the tying of products. Which I was replying to. MS is tying the Zune to Windows. Other lesser companies can make their MP3 players availble for both OSX and Windows. MS should be able to do the same.
The difference is that Microsoft doesn't make Zune software to run on OS X. Apple, however, DOES make aversion of OS X for x86 hardware. Though whatever means (EULA, hardware detection) they are preventing it from running on all x86 hardware.
This is akin to when MS was including lines of code in Windows "security updates" which caused inoperability with Netscape so that IE would become the dominant web browser.
You mean you can make it work on any generic Intel-compatible hardware. OSX doesn't do that out of the box. A good hacker also make Halo3 work on a PC. Even if it's only software emulation. That doesn't make it legal to do.
uhh... actually Emulation IS legal as I mentioned before. So is booting your computer with a custom bootloader. And if the OS X Retail install disk "happens" to work after that, well then that's just a bonus.
What so hard to understand is how you reach the conclusion that Apple is some how engaged in an anti-competitive practice. Even without the EULA, you can not load OSX into a generic PC without you modifying the software before it installs. This is an infringement of Apple copyright.
Wrong, what's legally preventing you from loading OSX into your generic PC is the infringment of Apple copyright on OSX. Even if you think you're not modifying it because the OSX DVD is still intact. You are modifying OSX in your PC before it installs.
See above. There's no infringement.
There use to be a eprom chip that you could buy for around $10, that when soldered onto the PlayStation MB, would allow you to play burned games and other region code games. Gamers use to say that if they bought a Japanese game, they should be able to play it on their US Playstation. Or that they should be able to play back up game disc that they burned on a computer. Sony sued the makers/sellers of these mod chips. Sony won. How is this any different than you having to put in a CD, with a hack on it, before OSX will load into a generic PC?
I don't know the details of that court case so the reasons as to why the eprom retailers got shut down may or may not be helpful in deciding whether or not it has any bearing on this court case.
So you would think that George Lucus is being anti-competitive if he doesn't allow you to use his Star Wars characters in a comic book your writing?
The whole point of getting something of value copyrighted is so that you can get a competitive edge on your rivals by owning something they can't have. And you shouldn't have to give it (the copyrighted material) up to level the playing field because your competitors crys foul.
Analogy FAIL. It's like George Lucas licensing the Star Wars characters to you for use in your crappy comic book but then forcing you to only use them on George Lucas Brand paper. Idiotic, unjustified Tying... and totally something Lucas would do.
-Clive
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.
not only that but who is to say that the minor upgrades we get won't cost so as well. heck that could be where the cost actually comes in. we still get 10.6 for $129 but then when .1, .2 etc come out we have to pay another cost to get them. which is a nickel and dime game that would stink. right now we pay $129 for the OS AND all upgrades of that particular version.
Someone had a thought: "Let's underprice the razors - and make money back on blades!"
And so was born a con trick, to get more money from customers.
A week later, along comes 3rd party blades. Clone blades selling cheaper, engineered to fit the razors.
Waah - they our violating our copyright! We must demand that the law step in to prevent these rascals selling blades for our razors. It undermines our business model! We need a Victorian Millennium Copyright Act!
To me, these con tricks are essentially immoral. Companies should not rely on the law for protection, they should rely on making better products - and selling them profitably. 3rd party blades are not the problem. It's selling the razors too cheap in the first place.
Tie-ins, lock-ins, restrictive contracts are all tricks that companies use against the consumer. Such actions slow down the market, stifle innovation and have companies spending more on legal teams than they spend developing their products. Capitalism works better with transparent, fair markets.
The fact that companies have bribed legislators to outlaw people doing what they want with their own stuff is shameful.
Apple's OS is a brilliant bit of software. The MSI Wind is an awesome bit of hardware. (Well nearly awesome) If I paid for and legally own both, what is *morally* wrong with putting the one on the other?
C.
I guess it was when they figured out they could make more money from razor-blades than selling razors.
Someone had a thought: "Let's underprice the razors - and make money back on blades!"
And so was born a con trick, to get more money from customers.
A week later, along comes 3rd party blades. Clone blades selling cheaper, engineered to fit the razors.
Waah - they our violating our copyright! We must demand that the law step in to prevent these rascals selling blades for our razors. It undermines our business model! We need a Victorian Millennium Copyright Act!
To me, these con tricks are essentially immoral. Companies should not rely on the law for protection, they should rely on making better products - and selling them profitably. 3rd party blades are not the problem. It's selling the razors too cheap in the first place.
Tie-ins, lock-ins, restrictive contracts are all tricks that companies use against the consumer. Such actions slow down the market, stifle innovation and have companies spending more on legal teams than they spend developing their products. Capitalism works better with transparent, fair markets.
The fact that companies have bribed legislators to outlaw people doing what they want with their own stuff is shameful.
Apple's OS is a brilliant bit of software. The MSI Wind is an awesome bit of hardware. (Well nearly awesome) If I paid for and legally own both, what is *morally* wrong with putting the one on the other?
C.
*claps*
Bravo.
-Clive
I guess it was when they figured out they could make more money from razor-blades than selling razors.
Someone had a thought: "Let's underprice the razors - and make money back on blades!"
And so was born a con trick, to get more money from customers.
It's not a con when it results in lower cost for the consumer anyways even when you factor in the cost of the blades. I wouldn't buy an unlocked 3G but I did buy a subsidized one. Same concept.
Tie-ins, lock-ins, restrictive contracts are all tricks that companies use against the consumer. Such actions slow down the market, stifle innovation and have companies spending more on legal teams than they spend developing their products. Capitalism works better with transparent, fair markets.
So why is it that Apple and OSX does not stife innovation or slow down the market in comparison to Linux or Windows?
It does not.
Apple's OS is a brilliant bit of software. The MSI Wind is an awesome bit of hardware. (Well nearly awesome) If I paid for and legally own both, what is *morally* wrong with putting the one on the other?
The solution is then not to sell OSX as a retail item. My, that sure improved things hasn't it?
You paid for an upgrade to your operating system and you know it. Putting it on the Wind is the same as buying a single copy of Leopard and putting it on 5 machines.
It is a free market. If you don't like Apple simply move to Linux or Windows.
Imagine a world where printer inks are standardised and you buy your preferred brand of ink to go into your brand of printer. And where the scummy printer manufacturers did not try to use the DMCA to prevent you from buying whatever ink you damn well wanted.
Imagine a world where you can walk into a shop and pick a Sony or an Apple Laptop - and then go to the next shelf to select your preferred flavor of OS.
Or would you rather have a world where shifting bank accounts was penalised like cellphone contracts? Where every camera has non-standard memory card or non-standard film. Sorry sir - we only sell gas for Toyota's here.
Companies shy away from trading openly in flat markets because they fear competition. If OS X and Vista were sold as direct competitors - OS X would be a better product, and Vista would be a better product too. And you know it!
C.
It's not a con when it results in lower cost for the consumer anyways even when you factor in the cost of the blades. I wouldn't buy an unlocked 3G but I did buy a subsidized one. Same concept.
Your "subsidized" iPhone comes with a larger long-term price tag. That was the conclusion of the "razor" example. You play a smaller up-front cost, but long-term, you're getting jacked. That's why it's a ploy to convince customers they're paying less when, actually, they're paying more.
So if Psystar sells a set of blades that "happens" to fit a Gillette razor, and sells them at a cheaper price, does that give Gillette the right to sue Psystar? Does that give Gillette the right to associate an EULA to their razor stating that it can ONLY be used with Gillette-brand blades, even though we all know the Psystar's blades work just as well and cost less?
So why is it that Apple and OSX does not stife innovation or slow down the market in comparison to Linux or Windows?
It does not.
Just because Linux and Windows are even worse examples of innovators, doesn't make Apple a shining star. The least stinky of three turds is still a turd.
If OS X was on the free market, you could bet your life, Apple would be "innovating" its hardware at a much more rapid pace. The Mac Mini is laughable, and the fact that the MacPro STILL doesn't have BluRay support is just embarrassing. If Apple sold just hardware, they would've been out of business ages ago.
The solution is then not to sell OSX as a retail item. My, that sure improved things hasn't it?
Actually, I think this would be an option. My interpretation (which may not be correct, IANAL) is that since it is available as a stand-alone product, it is subject to the complaint. If the only way you could acquire this update was through a paid software update, for example, there would be no question about how you're allowed to use the software.
You paid for an upgrade to your operating system and you know it. Putting it on the Wind is the same as buying a single copy of Leopard and putting it on 5 machines.
Except that it's completely different.
The "Upgrade" designation is something Apple has never done. In fact, Jobs tends to go out of his way at Keynotes to point out that every copy of Leopard (or Tiger or Panther, etc) is the FULL VERSION.
It is a free market. If you don't like Apple simply move to Linux or Windows.
If it was truly a free market, I would have the freedom to buy product A from one company and product B from another company, and use them as I choose... even if I choose to use them together, if technically possible.
-Clive
Imagine a world where printer inks are standardised and you buy your preferred brand of ink to go into your brand of printer.
What is stopping that from happening now?
There are plenty of CE manufacturers that could build a printer.
It doesn't matter if you or I or Psystar are guilty of violating DMCA by circumventing an artificial software lock. What matters is whether Apple uses anti-competitive means to ensure that bond between their hardware and their software, two things which some believe aren't necessarily related. Whether it's by the EULA or some coding in the software itself, if the court finds that Apple is illegally tying their sw to their hw, the violation of DMCA means little.
Sorry but you are wrong here. Apple is not tying OSX to their Mac. One of the condition of tying is that you can not buy one without having to buy the other. When you buy a Mac, OSX is included. But you can buy OSX without having to buy a Mac. Apple is not forcing you to buy a Mac in order for you to buy OSX in a box. So there is no tying of OSX to a Mac.
Huh?????? No no. You said specifically that a large company could get busted for underselling and a small one couldn't. That is what I am referring to. I'm saying I've never heard of anyone getting busted for underselling at all. This is where I'd like for you to prove court case examples.
No. Read it again. I said a company that owns 90% (or a majority)of the market vs a company that only owns 10% of the market. Size is of no importance.
MS got busted because they gave IE away for free with Windows. This put Netscape out of business. The Eu and certain Asian countries will not let MS bundle Media player software with Windows. But yet they let Apple bundle those type of software with OSX. Care to guess why?
Here's another company that owns a majority market share that's also in trouble
http://www.democraticunderground.com...ss=102x3342245
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/st...ectid=10522218
The difference is that Microsoft doesn't make Zune software to run on OS X. Apple, however, DOES make aversion of OS X for x86 hardware. Though whatever means (EULA, hardware detection) they are preventing it from running on all x86 hardware.
No Apple write OSX for their Mac. It just happens that Mac now uses an Intel x86 chip. OSX has been around since the IBM PPC G3. OSX Leopard still runs on a IBM PPC G5. There is no separate G5 version and x86 version. OSX is written for Macs. Period. Just because you can make it run on a generic PC with the help of a hack doesn't mean that Apple wrote OSX to run on a generic PC and then prevented it from doing so.
This is akin to when MS was including lines of code in Windows "security updates" which caused inoperability with Netscape so that IE would become the dominant web browser.
Not even in the ball park with this one. MS sabotage some one elses program by preventing it from running/loading properly in Windows. IE became the dominate browser because it was free and bundled with Windows. Apple isn't sabotaging OSX so that it doesn't run on a generic PC. OSX doesn't run on a generic PC because it wasn't written for it. Just like how Halo3 doesn't work in a PlayStation. Halo3 wasn't written to work in a PlayStation. And Apple is not sabotaging your generic PC so that it doesn't run OSX.
I don't know the details of that court case so the reasons as to why the eprom retailers got shut down may or may not be helpful in deciding whether or not it has any bearing on this court case.
In a nutshell. The eprom chip (mod chip) contained a small program that circumvented Sony's copy protection and region code detection in the PlayStation OS. The chip tricks the Playstation so that it will always see an original disc and the proper region code. No matter what disc is in the Playstation.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061005-7913.html
http://news.spong.com/article/3884/S..._plague?cb=537
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/emergingtech...9161307,00.htm
Analogy FAIL. It's like George Lucas licensing the Star Wars characters to you for use in your crappy comic book but then forcing you to only use them on George Lucas Brand paper. Idiotic, unjustified Tying... and totally something Lucas would do.
If that's the term of the license and you don't like it...don't use his characters. As far as the copyright law is concern, the Star Wars characters belongs to Lucas and he can set the terms of the licencse any way he pleases. If Lucas wants you to stand on your head while using his characters in your comic, well you have two options. Stand on your head or don't use his characters in your comic.
Imagine a world where you buy a phone at a fair price. And then use it with whichever service operator you chose. You could even go abroad and plug in a local sim. If you get bad service, boom! You can change service provider.
I will be able to eventually at $500+. $199 is a better option since I still need to buy a data plan anyway and AT&T isn't as horrid (at least in my city) as some folks make it out to be.
Printers are almost as disposible as the cartridges. You can get one from HP for $39. So...when printers improve every few years (like cell phones) do you want to pay $139 or $39 + 1 toner set?
Companies shy away from trading openly in flat markets because they fear competition. If OS X and Vista were sold as direct competitors - OS X would be a better product, and Vista would be a better product too. And you know it!
No, it wouldn't. It would be a worse product because Apple would be a pale shadow of itself and unable to put the same kind of resources into OSX.
Apple doesn't "fear" competition. It just has a different business model that works very well for both it and it's customers.
Your "subsidized" iPhone comes with a larger long-term price tag.
It does not. It cost me $299 + $30/month for a data plan I would have to buy anyway. Therefore $600+ + $30/month is > $299 + $30/month.
That was the conclusion of the "razor" example. You play a smaller up-front cost, but long-term, you're getting jacked. That's why it's a ploy to convince customers they're paying less when, actually, they're paying more.
Long term you're getting the convience of a disposable razor over a straight razor and better performance over a double edged safety razor (and somewhat safer since you can't cut yourself on a naked blade). Prior to the safety razor most shaving was done by a 2nd person (family member or barber).
As far as getting "jacked" you can by disposable razors for a $0.23 each on amazon. Double edged razor blades cost $0.17 each on amazon and for a GOOD razor kit it's $70+.
If you WANT to pay $3/catridge for 10 blades + aloe + backrub you can.
So if Psystar sells a set of blades that "happens" to fit a Gillette razor, and sells them at a cheaper price, does that give Gillette the right to sue Psystar?
If they own the patent for the cartridge design, yes.
Does that give Gillette the right to associate an EULA to their razor stating that it can ONLY be used with Gillette-brand blades, even though we all know the Psystar's blades work just as well and cost less?
You can buy bootleg DVDs for $1 on street corners too...
Just because Linux and Windows are even worse examples of innovators, doesn't make Apple a shining star. The least stinky of three turds is still a turd.
Too bad they also cover the entire gamut of personal computer operating systems so that makes Apple best of breed. The assertion that their practice somehow retards innovation has zero basis in fact because you can't point at any other implementation/methodology that is superior.
Except that it's completely different.
The "Upgrade" designation is something Apple has never done. In fact, Jobs tends to go out of his way at Keynotes to point out that every copy of Leopard (or Tiger or Panther, etc) is the FULL VERSION.
Full version only licensed for use on Apple computers. Therefore an upgrade to the OS you already had installed. So it's not completely different.
Actually, I think this would be an option. My interpretation (which may not be correct, IANAL) is that since it is available as a stand-alone product, it is subject to the complaint. If the only way you could acquire this update was through a paid software update, for example, there would be no question about how you're allowed to use the software.
Clive, the whole thrust of your argument has been that Apple is being anti-competitive. ie. Putting legal and technical systems in place to stop Psystar (or anyone else) from building and selling computers that run Mac OS X.
Are you now saying that if Apple changes the method of delivering OS updates (with the result that Psystar no longer has a business model), then they will no longer be acting in a "monopolistic" manner?
Apple doesn't "fear" competition. It just has a different business model that works very well for both it and it's customers.
These business models are like a disease. Once one company does it, others start to follow suit.
Then everybody does it. And you end up with a screwed market. Each company uses monopolistic methods and artificial incompatibility. The goal is to create barriers preventing the free migration of customers.
The consumer is losing out because brand-switching becomes ever more expensive. I can't afford to go to Nikon - Because all my lenses are Canon fit.
As time goes on the disease gets worse. Do you honestly want a world where you won't be allowed to use Fuji film in a Kodak camera. Where you violate your Lexmark warranty if you use the Staples paper.
And if one company is more successful than the others, you get the worst of all worlds. A de-facto standard emerges which is wholey owned by one corporation. A virtual monopoly. All competition has ceased.
Once that happens, the consumer really is screwed.
Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you Windows Vista. the product of year upon year of zero competition.
C.
From Wikipedia.... Entry on Adam Smith:
The Wealth of Nations expounds that the free market, while appearing chaotic and unrestrained, is actually guided to produce the right amount and variety of goods by a so-called "invisible hand". Smith believed that while human motives are often selfishness and greed, the competition in the free market would tend to benefit society as a whole by keeping prices low, while still building in an incentive for a wide variety of goods and services. Nevertheless, he was wary of businessmen and argued against the formation of monopolies.
Sorry but you are wrong here. Apple is not tying OSX to their Mac. One of the condition of tying is that you can not buy one without having to buy the other. When you buy a Mac, OSX is included. But you can buy OSX without having to buy a Mac. Apple is not forcing you to buy a Mac in order for you to buy OSX in a box. So there is no tying of OSX to a Mac.
Of course that's Apple's intent, but they don't specifically sell OS X as an "upgrade" and moreover, they constantly remind users that if they buy OS X, they are getting the full version! The fact that a Mac comes bundled with OS X is irrelevant. If a consumer buys OS X from a store, he can "only" use if it he owns a Mac. If the user doesn't own a Mac, he "must" buy one to use it. That Mac may be new from an Apple Store, or it may be used from eBay, but either way, the software that he purchased is "useless" unless he buys a Mac. Of course it's not actually useless since it'll work just fine on generic hardware... That sounds like Tying to me.
No. Read it again. I said a company that owns 90% (or a majority)of the market vs a company that only owns 10% of the market. Size is of no importance.
Then why are we disagreeing? I said early on that size didn't matter. Anti-competitive is anti-competitive, whether you are big or small. That was my point from the very beginning.
MS got busted because they gave IE away for free with Windows. This put Netscape out of business. The Eu and certain Asian countries will not let MS bundle Media player software with Windows. But yet they let Apple bundle those type of software with OSX. Care to guess why?
Here's another company that owns a majority market share that's also in trouble
http://www.democraticunderground.com...ss=102x3342245
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/st...ectid=10522218
Now wait just a minute! You JUST got finished saying size was of no importance!
Attempting to monopolize using anti-competitive practices is illegal. Period.
No Apple write OSX for their Mac. It just happens that Mac now uses an Intel x86 chip. OSX has been around since the IBM PPC G3. OSX Leopard still runs on a IBM PPC G5. There is no separate G5 version and x86 version. OSX is written for Macs. Period. Just because you can make it run on a generic PC with the help of a hack doesn't mean that Apple wrote OSX to run on a generic PC and then prevented it from doing so.
"Apple writes OS X for their Mac..." which runs on an Intel processor, which uses the x86 instruction set. There's no possible way Apple can code OS X "for their Mac" and NOT code for the x86 instruction set. The "unfortunate" side-effect for Apple is that by doing so, their OS becomes inherently compatible with all hardware designed to work with x86 systems.
Not even in the ball park with this one. MS sabotage some one elses program by preventing it from running/loading properly in Windows. IE became the dominate browser because it was free and bundled with Windows. Apple isn't sabotaging OSX so that it doesn't run on a generic PC. OSX doesn't run on a generic PC because it wasn't written for it. Just like how Halo3 doesn't work in a PlayStation. Halo3 wasn't written to work in a PlayStation. And Apple is not sabotaging your generic PC so that it doesn't run OSX.
Whoever it was, it isn't important. The fact is that Windows included code in Windows to cause inoperability with another technology. Apple is doing the same thing by checking to make sure it's running on a genuine Mac. Yes, that's correct, there are lines of code in OS X which don't contribute to the functionality of the OS! Their purpose there is solely to ensure that the user stays confined to Apple's hardware.
In a nutshell. The eprom chip (mod chip) contained a small program that circumvented Sony's copy protection and region code detection in the PlayStation OS. The chip tricks the Playstation so that it will always see an original disc and the proper region code. No matter what disc is in the Playstation.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061005-7913.html
http://news.spong.com/article/3884/S..._plague?cb=537
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/emergingtech...9161307,00.htm
Sounds like the eprom chip was being used more as a pirating mechanism than a fair use mechanism. I think the circumstance is different here. Hackintosh builders aren't modifying OS X to bypass a security mechanism. They're teaching their hardware how to communicate with OS X natively.
If that's the term of the license and you don't like it...don't use his characters. As far as the copyright law is concern, the Star Wars characters belongs to Lucas and he can set the terms of the licencse any way he pleases. If Lucas wants you to stand on your head while using his characters in your comic, well you have two options. Stand on your head or don't use his characters in your comic.
A license agreement can only be as restrictive so far as that license doesn't break any laws. If a court finds Apple's hw/sw arrangement to be anti-competitive, the EULA will be overruled.
Nice post, DavidW.
Why are you cheering him on? I always thought you were smarter than that.
-Clive
The consumer is losing out because brand-switching becomes ever more expensive. I can't afford to go to Nikon - Because all my lenses are Canon fit.
Except that in your previous examples they don't. The cost to switch disposable razor brands or even printers is very small.
And if one company is more successful than the others, you get the worst of all worlds. A de-facto standard emerges which is wholey owned by one corporation. A virtual monopoly. All competition has ceased.
That's not a virtual monopoly but a real one. Competition rarely ceases entirely.
Once that happens, the consumer really is screwed.
Really? Because from where I sit Microsoft helped the consumer immensely vs what computing was like before. Because DOS was a heck of a lot cheaper than CP/M. Computers dropped rapidly in price all the while MS developed a monopoly on desktop operating systems.
Not a lot of screwing happened there to the consumer.
Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you Windows Vista. the product of year upon year of zero competition.
Windows Vista is not nearly as bad as folks make it out to be. Not to mention that OSX and Linux DO exist and OSX is able to gain share against the incumbent Windows and the free Linux.