Lets be quite clear on this SSA, because you appear to be taking my point the wrong way.
When I say that the US market for a mid-range upgradeable consumer tower... "is actually shrinking" That's exactly what I mean! Not JUST the market SHARE.... but the actual number of potential customers.
I then gave you my reasoning. Apple nearly tripling their share over the last 4 years. Notebook sales overtaking desktops. The recent NetBook trend adding to the rise in NON-desktops. The fact that mainstream PC manufacturers are adding AOIs and mini desktops to their line-ups.
Add those trends to the real figures.
US PC sales in 2004: 62 million
US PC sales in 2004: 68 million (est.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by SSA
On desktops I am afraid it is. Except for Apple most of the AIO machines have been absymal failures. You can stand outside any store that sells computers and you will find that almost every desktop going out the door will be a minitower. Heck, even online you will find that excluding Macs the vast majority of the best selling computers are mini-towers. If you look at Amazon's top selling desktops half of them are HP mini-towers the last I checked.
Personally, I don't loiter outside PC stores. Quoting the Amazon best seller list is pretty unscientific.... but I'll play!
Today's Amazon top 50 desktops:
25% Apple products. Plus misc PC home servers and mini types.
25% HP and Sony All-In-Ones. The "absymal failures"
25% PC Towers under $ 500.00 (mini and maxi towers)
25% PC Towers OVER $ 500.00 (mini and maxi towers)
Quote:
The mini-tower configuration isn't some niche market. These potential Apple customers aren't theoretical, they are real people.
Yes of course they are. Hell I might even be one of them. But my contention is that Apple is already picking them off one by one. Even if the PC AOIs are not as successful as the iMac they are still selling. And the largest contributor to the desktop's decline is the rise of the notebook... in all it's shapes and sizes.
If you think that any of these trends are about to do a 360 then yes, perhaps the consumer tower will not end up as a niche product.
Absolute worst-case scenario should Psystar win is that Apple will just discontinue the option to purchase OSX CD's at a retail level. Hackers and whiners would be forever stuck at 10.5 since the only option to get to 10.6 and above is to have an actual Apple computer with some method to authenticate the machine to qualify for an OSX upgrade. Either download OSX upgrades and have it validate the machine or purchase it at an Apple store only with an original purchase receipt and somehow encrypt the binaries to unlock only for that specific serial#.
Case closed. A year from now, this will all be a memory and hopefully, the whiners will wilt away.
People that support Psystar or feel entitled to an "Open" OSX system are either clueless, ignorant, selfish or all of the above. This is all about a company's right to protect its IP property. Any other company would do the exact same thing but for some reason, the whiners think Apple should be excluded from that.
Apple's position is weak. I've said it from the start. (There's a link in my sig to my full argument, but the short version is that Psystar isn't breaking any laws and EULAs are not applicable nor are they proven effective in court in anything beyond piracy cases.)
I suspect Apple is going to go the Think Secret route and buy Psystar out of business. This case is going to set an important precedent that could have an impact on Apple's business. I don't think Apple would worry about the court costs if they had a strong enough case to put Psystar out of business and send a strong message to would-be Mac clone makers.
What Apple OS Market are you crapping about? Do Apple allow their OS to be installed on certain PC manufacturers like Dell or HP or some other brand? No, they made the OS and install it on their own product. Its not like they contract some other maker to make an OS specific for them that only they can use. So what, means that you should sue Sony PS3 because its console OS is specific on PS3, sew XBox 360 because their OS is specific to their hardware, sew every MP3 player out there because each has their own OS that can only run on their own system. Why don't you sew every company out there that make their own stuffs for their own products. You will be richer then Warren Buffett in no time.
I'm certainly not the first to point this out, but it apparently needs to be repeated. In all those cases you cite, the hardware seller does not offer the OS as a standalone, off-the-shelf product. OS X differs from all those other examples in that regard, and it's an important distinction because it has already been established in other court cases that the end user may install and hack that software to their heart's content and the EULA doesn't legally stop anyone from doing so. If Psystar were making iPod knock-offs or XBox knock-offs and reverse engineering the operating systems out of those machines to install on theirs, then your point would be valid.
Apple's position is weak. I've said it from the start. (There's a link in my sig to my full argument .....
Sadly I followed your link!
If one of your arguments is that it's real easy to buy a used Mac on Ebay with it's drive wiped clean..... and now your latest contention is that "this case is going to set an important precedent" due to Apple having to "buy Psystar out of business."..... and therefor allowing any 2 bit company to follow the same route..... then methinks you had better go back to law school.
If you have time perhaps take Business 101 in the evenings.
I'm certainly not the first to point this out, but it apparently needs to be repeated. In all those cases you cite, the hardware seller does not offer the OS as a standalone, off-the-shelf product. OS X differs from all those other examples in that regard, and it's an important distinction because it has already been established in other court cases that the end user may install and hack that software to their heart's content and the EULA doesn't legally stop anyone from doing so. If Psystar were making iPod knock-offs or XBox knock-offs and reverse engineering the operating systems out of those machines to install on theirs, then your point would be valid.
You are allowed to privately install OS X on any computer you choose. Apple doesn't care about that.
You are not allowed to create a volume business that competes directly with Apple using Apple's intellectual property without their permission.
Psystar hasn't put up the multi-millions it has taken to develop and maintain OS X. They are not free to do whatever they want with it.
I suspect Apple is going to go the Think Secret route and buy Psystar out of business.
All the other poor points aside about how OS X should be the only socialized OS in existence and how buying an OS license for consumer use being the same as being a reseller of that OS, what would buying Psystar do for Apple? What does Psystar have to offer Apple? How does Apple buying Psystar prevent every other startup and the big name vendors from then offering OS X, too? Do you not see how this would be an even bigger problem for Apple? Do you not see how this is bad for Mac users?
What would that accomplish? Apple would be forced to sell their OS X versions at the same price as WindowsVista Ultime install discs for around $600? How does that help Mac users, who have been getting it for $129 because they've already bought a Mac.
How does it help Apple, who makes it's money from HW? You vision to force Apple to support any and all HW options which is a major complexity for Windows so we'll see new OS X features and more legacy code, and while Apple will increase their marketshare they won't increase their profit from all the additional R&D, software support, and the loss of profit per sale since Windows has to sell about 10(?) OEM versions of Windows to get the same profit that Apple gets from one sale of a Mac? Not to mention it completely ruins the Apple's Mac brand.
First off Apple is a software company. Steve Jobs himself said it. Yes they sell hardware. So long as their hardware continues to have a level of desirability/reliability people will buy it, even if they can get the OS elsewhere. Your lack of faith in Apples hardware is showing.
Second, why would they need to charge $600 for the OS? It's my understanding that the hardware vendors themselves are the ones that make the drivers for the hardware they produce, not the OS maker. Apple doesn't directly need to support any hardware they chose not to support. It would be the responsibility of the vendors themselves to make sure they and the hardware they sell falls in line with Apples compatibility list.
Some of you are so stuck on the old model you can't see the better alternative. Right now Apple forces us to buy their machines if we want to run their OS. Meanwhile they do stupid things like remove firewire from $1300 computers. This would force Apple to be more competitive and benefit all of us.
Apple isn't going to lose money in this, the money they lose from hardware sales they would make back in OS sales to other machines. If you think this model doesn't work, look at Microsoft. No matter what your personal feelings are toward Microsoft they make more money then Apple. This is the perfect time for Apple to do this, in the 1990's it was not a perfect time at all.
First off Apple is a software company. Steve Jobs himself said it. Yes they sell hardware. So long as their hardware continues to have a level of desirability/reliability people will buy it, even if they can get the OS elsewhere. Your lack of faith in Apples hardware is showing.
The bold is true but even though Apple strives hard to make their hardware stand out from the rest, lets say if they make OS X open, then most people won't care about these stuffs anymore. What Apple is doing now with their hardware is something like marketing to ensure that you buy their hardware and their OS is one of the selling point.
Quote:
Some of you are so stuck on the old model you can't see the better alternative. Right now Apple forces us to buy their machines if we want to run their OS. Meanwhile they do stupid things like remove firewire from $1300 computers. This would force Apple to be more competitive and benefit all of us.
Yeah, cause that is funding the OSX development, you think you can get all the features in Leopard at the price you are paying for it now? Look at MSoft they needed to release multiple versions of Vista which contains different features just to make it cheaper for people. I agree they do stupid things but this do not mean that we should suddenly force Apple to open their OS, I will go for this movement, you don't like it, don't buy it. Its as simple as that.
Quote:
I'm certainly not the first to point this out, but it apparently needs to be repeated. In all those cases you cite, the hardware seller does not offer the OS as a standalone, off-the-shelf product. OS X differs from all those other examples in that regard, and it's an important distinction because it has already been established in other court cases that the end user may install and hack that software to their heart's content and the EULA doesn't legally stop anyone from doing so. If Psystar were making iPod knock-offs or XBox knock-offs and reverse engineering the operating systems out of those machines to install on theirs, then your point would be valid.
Yea, I know that you can hack the OS when you buy it YOURSELF, and INSTALL if YOURSELF, not like what Psycrap is doing.
Microsoft get the anti-competitive behavior cause you can install their OS on any product and Microsoft permits you to do so. Apple does not. Its different.
Apple isn't going to lose money in this, the money they lose from hardware sales they would make back in OS sales to other machines. If you think this model doesn't work, look at Microsoft. No matter what your personal feelings are toward Microsoft they make more money then Apple. This is the perfect time for Apple to do this, in the 1990's it was not a perfect time at all.
Talk about being stuck... Do you realize the value of Apple vs. the value of MS as a company is considerably high despite their very low worldwide OS X percentage in comparison to Windows? You seem to be under the impression that each Mac OS X sale somehow equals the same profit value as each Windows OS sale. In other words, you haven't considered how many Windows OEM sales have to be made to equal the sale of a single Mac. You also haven't considered why a beleaguered Apple from the 1990s and OEMs wanting to get out of the control of MS' Windows OS would not have done it then, but now when their model of marriaging has become successful it's now the "perfect time" to destroy the business model they started with, despite the loss in functionality by not having control of designing the OS and HW in tandem.
Apple's position is weak. I've said it from the start.
...
I don't think Apple would worry about the court costs if they had a strong enough case to put Psystar out of business and send a strong message to would-be Mac clone makers.
Precisely. Whatever people are trying to say to avoid this truth is silly.
If Apple had a case, they would make it. They actually don't have a case... and they seem to know that... which is indeed a worrisome sign for AAPL's future profit margins on hardware.
This is a bit of a trojan horse here. If Dell tried to do Mac clones they would risk their Dell $$$. But the Psystar dude, he has nothing to lose and everything to gain! He is a more powerful danger to Apple. Should he succeed, Dell can follow. \\
Apple will try to bribe him. But they have already shown they are unwilling to make a proper legal argument. We can only guess there is none to be made.
This is a bit of a trojan horse here. If Dell tried to do Mac clones they would risk their Dell $$$. But the Psystar dude, he has nothing to lose and everything to gain! He is a more powerful danger to Apple. Should he succeed, Dell can follow. \\
Apple will try to bribe him. But they have already shown they are unwilling to make a proper legal argument. We can only guess there is none to be made.
1) How exactly is a PC vendor with resources, like Dell, unable to make a good Mac clone, but Psystar is somehow more able?
2) A bribe, eh? And so everyone that makes an illegal Mac cloning business is going to be paid off by Apple? I can't imagine how that actually makes sense to you.
3) You et al. have still failed to make a proper legal argument as to why Psystar—and only Psystar—is allowed to be a reseller of another company's goods without their approval.
First off Apple is a software company. Steve Jobs himself said it. Yes they sell hardware. So long as their hardware continues to have a level of desirability/reliability people will buy it, even if they can get the OS elsewhere. Your lack of faith in Apples hardware is showing.
Apple does produce software, but the majority of its profits don't come from software. You think $129 covers the cost of developing and maintaing OS X.
You really think $1299 covers the cost of developing a supporting Final Cut Pro. When other video systems sell for tens of thousands.
These things are made to enhance Apple's hardware which is where they make the majority of their money.
Quote:
Some of you are so stuck on the old model you can't see the better alternative. Right now Apple forces us to buy their machines if we want to run their OS. Meanwhile they do stupid things like remove firewire from $1300 computers. This would force Apple to be more competitive and benefit all of us.
Apple isn't going to lose money in this, the money they lose from hardware sales they would make back in OS sales to other machines. If you think this model doesn't work, look at Microsoft. No matter what your personal feelings are toward Microsoft they make more money then Apple. This is the perfect time for Apple to do this, in the 1990's it was not a perfect time at all.
You need to look at the profit margins between Apple and the major Windows vendors and you will clearly see the difference.
MS is positioned to sell hundreds of millions of copies of Windows. If MS only sold the 8 - 10 million copies annually such as Apple, they would not continue to be nearly as profitable.
Precisely. Whatever people are trying to say to avoid this truth is silly.
If Apple had a case, they would make it. They actually don't have a case... and they seem to know that... which is indeed a worrisome sign for AAPL's future profit margins on hardware.
It makes much more sense to avoid going to court if you don't have to. That is the way most business would rather handle a suit. What makes you think you have to go to court to prove you are right?
1) How exactly does a PC vendor with resources, like Dell, to make a good Mac clone not be able to?
2) A bribe, eh? And so everyone that makes an illegal Mac cloning business is going to be paid off by Apple? I can't imagine how that actually makes sense to you.
3) You et al. have still failed to make a proper legal argument as to why Psystar?and only Psystar?is allowed to be a reseller of another company's goods without their approval.
1. The question is ungrammatical and I don't understand it. But I was saying Dell would prefer not to risk a successful lawsuit from Apple. Clearly Dell has a lot of money to lose and that is exactly why they would hesitate until another player proves it is legal.
2. I agree Apple's options are not good here. It is not my job to find a way out for Apple here.
3. Plenty of companies "resell" Mac OS X in the box, literally hundreds of private companies do that. But again, this is not my problem. I am just commenting on the facts and Apple's behavior and where that might lead us. We will know the truth in time. Cheers!
I'm certainly not the first to point this out, but it apparently needs to be repeated. In all those cases you cite, the hardware seller does not offer the OS as a standalone, off-the-shelf product. OS X differs from all those other examples in that regard, and it's an important distinction because it has already been established in other court cases that the end user may install and hack that software to their heart's content and the EULA doesn't legally stop anyone from doing so. If Psystar were making iPod knock-offs or XBox knock-offs and reverse engineering the operating systems out of those machines to install on theirs, then your point would be valid.
If I was a song writer, composed an album and had it copyrigthed, I can do as I please with my album. I can only release it in analog, 200g audiophile vinyl, selling at $30 an album, if I want. I don't ever have to release a digital CD version of my album. Now if you want, you can buy my 200g vinyl album and make a digital CD with the software in your computer for yourself. I can't stop you from that. But you can't start selling CD's of my album just because there's a market for it. Ever. Not even if you include an original 200g vinyl album with each purchase of that CD. You can't even include the CD for free with the purchase of an original album. It's my IP and I can do as I wish with it. And if I don't want to distribute a digital copy of it, that's how it going to be. It may not be good business practice and I may be losing sales. But in the end it's still my business, my IP and I can do as I please. And in a free market, no one can force me to give up any of my rights as the owner of the IP.
And see how far you get by suing me in court because I have a monopoly on my album and I'm forcing you to listen to it on vinyl record with inferior hardware. Or that I'm forcing you to buy an expensive turntable so that you can listen to my album in CD quality. Just see how far you get by claiming that you should be allow to market a CD of my IP because you are "improving" upon my work by removing the background noise inherent in vinyl.
Apple does produce software, but the majority of its profits don't come from software. You think $129 covers the cost of developing and maintaing OS X.
Apple these days is a hardware company insofar as that they make a lot of money off ipods and now the iphone, but ultimately most people buy MacOS for the software, not the hardware. Save for using EFI instead of BIOS what separates a Mac from any other x86 computer? Not much really. Beyond the slick chassis designs from Jonathan Ives there isn't much that makes a Mac a Mac except the software. While Apple sometimes gets early launches of products where they either are the first to market or very close to the first(eg. the Geforce 9400M, the Santa Rosa mobile chipset, Yonah based CPUs, Merom based CPUs, Penryn based CPUs, etc.), but generally speaking people aren't buying a Mac for the hardware specs. They buy a Mac for the Mac software experience. The thing that stops quite a few people is Apple's large hardware dongle in order to use it.
If you exclude a small cadre of people in the OSx86 project who managed to create their own Macs generally speaking one needs to buy a Mac in order to use the software. The notion that Apple couldn't be fairly profitable on selling their software. If you spread the costs of development over enough people you can easily make money selling an entire OS at that price point, just ask Microsoft. Even after their Xbox division is now profitable, their Windows and Office divisions still make up a bulk of their profit.
The usual argument against Apple licensing MacOS to others is that Apple would harm their corporate image because some Mac clone sellers may make cutrate computers that are unstable and make Apple's image look bad. This could reasonably be averted in that Apple could make limitations upon the vendors used to make any authorized Mac clones. Therefore, you couldn't use some no name cutrate vendor for your RAM or motherboard that might result in instability of said machines. Since these vendors would be paying for the privilege to resell machines with MacOS, Apple could let others take the risk of certain experiments like a Mac tablet for example. If interest in such a item really is too much of niche market then Apple wouldn't be on the hook for the losses.
This will never happen obviously due to the cult of Steve Jobs and his lieutenants who are little more than yes men to his agenda, but I don't think the idea of Apple exploring new products whether sold under the Apple name or through an authorized clone maker would be such a bad idea.
3. Plenty of companies "resell" Mac OS X in the box, literally hundreds of private companies do that. But again, this is not my problem. I am just commenting on the facts and Apple's behavior and where that might lead us. We will know the truth in time. Cheers!
Apple these days is a hardware company insofar as that they make a lot of money off ipods and now the iphone, but ultimately most people buy MacOS for the software, not the hardware.
Its true OS X is the major differentiator between the Mac and PC. Because of Apple's vertical business model. Apple is able to tailer OS X to its hardware as well as tailer its hardware to OS X.
This combines to create a better computer environment that the generic Windows box.
Quote:
The usual argument against Apple licensing MacOS to others is that Apple would harm their corporate image because some Mac clone sellers may make cutrate computers that are unstable and make Apple's image look bad. This could reasonably be averted in that Apple could make limitations upon the vendors used to make any authorized Mac clones. Therefore, you couldn't use some no name cutrate vendor for your RAM or motherboard that might result in instability of said machines. Since these vendors would be paying for the privilege to resell machines with MacOS, Apple could let others take the risk of certain experiments like a Mac tablet for example. If interest in such a item really is too much of niche market then Apple wouldn't be on the hook for the losses.
Why bother doing all of that when Apple's current business model is performing better than the PC business model. Why adopt the business model that is less profitable?
Apple's position is weak. I've said it from the start. (There's a link in my sig to my full argument, but the short version is that Psystar isn't breaking any laws and EULAs are not applicable nor are they proven effective in court in anything beyond piracy cases.)
You mean the short-sighted version.
Quote:
I suspect Apple is going to go the Think Secret route and buy Psystar out of business. This case is going to set an important precedent that could have an impact on Apple's business. I don't think Apple would worry about the court costs if they had a strong enough case to put Psystar out of business and send a strong message to would-be Mac clone makers.
Apple is not worry about the court cost. Apple wants to end this as quickly as possible. And going into non-binding arbitration is the fastest way to end this. Apple is confident that their case is so strong that Psystar is going to think twice about taking this to a costly drawn out court trial.
If Apple position was weak they would stall and wait for the months it's going to take before they can battle it out in court. Why would Apple go for it now it, with a weak case.
The flip side is that Psystar also agreed to the non-binding arbitration. Why aren't you saying that if Psystar had a strong case they would just take it to court and win it out right. Instead of a non-binding arbitration that they know Apple would fight in court anyways if it rules in Psystar favor.
Comments
When I say that the US market for a mid-range upgradeable consumer tower... "is actually shrinking" That's exactly what I mean! Not JUST the market SHARE.... but the actual number of potential customers.
I then gave you my reasoning. Apple nearly tripling their share over the last 4 years. Notebook sales overtaking desktops. The recent NetBook trend adding to the rise in NON-desktops. The fact that mainstream PC manufacturers are adding AOIs and mini desktops to their line-ups.
Add those trends to the real figures.
US PC sales in 2004: 62 million
US PC sales in 2004: 68 million (est.)
On desktops I am afraid it is. Except for Apple most of the AIO machines have been absymal failures. You can stand outside any store that sells computers and you will find that almost every desktop going out the door will be a minitower. Heck, even online you will find that excluding Macs the vast majority of the best selling computers are mini-towers. If you look at Amazon's top selling desktops half of them are HP mini-towers the last I checked.
Personally, I don't loiter outside PC stores. Quoting the Amazon best seller list is pretty unscientific.... but I'll play!
Today's Amazon top 50 desktops:
25% Apple products. Plus misc PC home servers and mini types.
25% HP and Sony All-In-Ones. The "absymal failures"
25% PC Towers under $ 500.00 (mini and maxi towers)
25% PC Towers OVER $ 500.00 (mini and maxi towers)
The mini-tower configuration isn't some niche market. These potential Apple customers aren't theoretical, they are real people.
Yes of course they are. Hell I might even be one of them. But my contention is that Apple is already picking them off one by one. Even if the PC AOIs are not as successful as the iMac they are still selling. And the largest contributor to the desktop's decline is the rise of the notebook... in all it's shapes and sizes.
If you think that any of these trends are about to do a 360 then yes, perhaps the consumer tower will not end up as a niche product.
Absolute worst-case scenario should Psystar win is that Apple will just discontinue the option to purchase OSX CD's at a retail level. Hackers and whiners would be forever stuck at 10.5 since the only option to get to 10.6 and above is to have an actual Apple computer with some method to authenticate the machine to qualify for an OSX upgrade. Either download OSX upgrades and have it validate the machine or purchase it at an Apple store only with an original purchase receipt and somehow encrypt the binaries to unlock only for that specific serial#.
Case closed. A year from now, this will all be a memory and hopefully, the whiners will wilt away.
People that support Psystar or feel entitled to an "Open" OSX system are either clueless, ignorant, selfish or all of the above. This is all about a company's right to protect its IP property. Any other company would do the exact same thing but for some reason, the whiners think Apple should be excluded from that.
mac os x is way to big to be download only.
I suspect Apple is going to go the Think Secret route and buy Psystar out of business. This case is going to set an important precedent that could have an impact on Apple's business. I don't think Apple would worry about the court costs if they had a strong enough case to put Psystar out of business and send a strong message to would-be Mac clone makers.
What Apple OS Market are you crapping about? Do Apple allow their OS to be installed on certain PC manufacturers like Dell or HP or some other brand? No, they made the OS and install it on their own product. Its not like they contract some other maker to make an OS specific for them that only they can use. So what, means that you should sue Sony PS3 because its console OS is specific on PS3, sew XBox 360 because their OS is specific to their hardware, sew every MP3 player out there because each has their own OS that can only run on their own system. Why don't you sew every company out there that make their own stuffs for their own products. You will be richer then Warren Buffett in no time.
I'm certainly not the first to point this out, but it apparently needs to be repeated. In all those cases you cite, the hardware seller does not offer the OS as a standalone, off-the-shelf product. OS X differs from all those other examples in that regard, and it's an important distinction because it has already been established in other court cases that the end user may install and hack that software to their heart's content and the EULA doesn't legally stop anyone from doing so. If Psystar were making iPod knock-offs or XBox knock-offs and reverse engineering the operating systems out of those machines to install on theirs, then your point would be valid.
Apple's position is weak. I've said it from the start. (There's a link in my sig to my full argument .....
Sadly I followed your link!
If one of your arguments is that it's real easy to buy a used Mac on Ebay with it's drive wiped clean..... and now your latest contention is that "this case is going to set an important precedent" due to Apple having to "buy Psystar out of business."..... and therefor allowing any 2 bit company to follow the same route..... then methinks you had better go back to law school.
If you have time perhaps take Business 101 in the evenings.
I'm certainly not the first to point this out, but it apparently needs to be repeated. In all those cases you cite, the hardware seller does not offer the OS as a standalone, off-the-shelf product. OS X differs from all those other examples in that regard, and it's an important distinction because it has already been established in other court cases that the end user may install and hack that software to their heart's content and the EULA doesn't legally stop anyone from doing so. If Psystar were making iPod knock-offs or XBox knock-offs and reverse engineering the operating systems out of those machines to install on theirs, then your point would be valid.
You are allowed to privately install OS X on any computer you choose. Apple doesn't care about that.
You are not allowed to create a volume business that competes directly with Apple using Apple's intellectual property without their permission.
Psystar hasn't put up the multi-millions it has taken to develop and maintain OS X. They are not free to do whatever they want with it.
I suspect Apple is going to go the Think Secret route and buy Psystar out of business.
All the other poor points aside about how OS X should be the only socialized OS in existence and how buying an OS license for consumer use being the same as being a reseller of that OS, what would buying Psystar do for Apple? What does Psystar have to offer Apple? How does Apple buying Psystar prevent every other startup and the big name vendors from then offering OS X, too? Do you not see how this would be an even bigger problem for Apple? Do you not see how this is bad for Mac users?
What would that accomplish? Apple would be forced to sell their OS X versions at the same price as WindowsVista Ultime install discs for around $600? How does that help Mac users, who have been getting it for $129 because they've already bought a Mac.
How does it help Apple, who makes it's money from HW? You vision to force Apple to support any and all HW options which is a major complexity for Windows so we'll see new OS X features and more legacy code, and while Apple will increase their marketshare they won't increase their profit from all the additional R&D, software support, and the loss of profit per sale since Windows has to sell about 10(?) OEM versions of Windows to get the same profit that Apple gets from one sale of a Mac? Not to mention it completely ruins the Apple's Mac brand.
First off Apple is a software company. Steve Jobs himself said it. Yes they sell hardware. So long as their hardware continues to have a level of desirability/reliability people will buy it, even if they can get the OS elsewhere. Your lack of faith in Apples hardware is showing.
Second, why would they need to charge $600 for the OS? It's my understanding that the hardware vendors themselves are the ones that make the drivers for the hardware they produce, not the OS maker. Apple doesn't directly need to support any hardware they chose not to support. It would be the responsibility of the vendors themselves to make sure they and the hardware they sell falls in line with Apples compatibility list.
Some of you are so stuck on the old model you can't see the better alternative. Right now Apple forces us to buy their machines if we want to run their OS. Meanwhile they do stupid things like remove firewire from $1300 computers. This would force Apple to be more competitive and benefit all of us.
Apple isn't going to lose money in this, the money they lose from hardware sales they would make back in OS sales to other machines. If you think this model doesn't work, look at Microsoft. No matter what your personal feelings are toward Microsoft they make more money then Apple. This is the perfect time for Apple to do this, in the 1990's it was not a perfect time at all.
First off Apple is a software company. Steve Jobs himself said it. Yes they sell hardware. So long as their hardware continues to have a level of desirability/reliability people will buy it, even if they can get the OS elsewhere. Your lack of faith in Apples hardware is showing.
The bold is true but even though Apple strives hard to make their hardware stand out from the rest, lets say if they make OS X open, then most people won't care about these stuffs anymore. What Apple is doing now with their hardware is something like marketing to ensure that you buy their hardware and their OS is one of the selling point.
Some of you are so stuck on the old model you can't see the better alternative. Right now Apple forces us to buy their machines if we want to run their OS. Meanwhile they do stupid things like remove firewire from $1300 computers. This would force Apple to be more competitive and benefit all of us.
Yeah, cause that is funding the OSX development, you think you can get all the features in Leopard at the price you are paying for it now? Look at MSoft they needed to release multiple versions of Vista which contains different features just to make it cheaper for people. I agree they do stupid things but this do not mean that we should suddenly force Apple to open their OS, I will go for this movement, you don't like it, don't buy it. Its as simple as that.
I'm certainly not the first to point this out, but it apparently needs to be repeated. In all those cases you cite, the hardware seller does not offer the OS as a standalone, off-the-shelf product. OS X differs from all those other examples in that regard, and it's an important distinction because it has already been established in other court cases that the end user may install and hack that software to their heart's content and the EULA doesn't legally stop anyone from doing so. If Psystar were making iPod knock-offs or XBox knock-offs and reverse engineering the operating systems out of those machines to install on theirs, then your point would be valid.
Yea, I know that you can hack the OS when you buy it YOURSELF, and INSTALL if YOURSELF, not like what Psycrap is doing.
Microsoft get the anti-competitive behavior cause you can install their OS on any product and Microsoft permits you to do so. Apple does not. Its different.
Apple isn't going to lose money in this, the money they lose from hardware sales they would make back in OS sales to other machines. If you think this model doesn't work, look at Microsoft. No matter what your personal feelings are toward Microsoft they make more money then Apple. This is the perfect time for Apple to do this, in the 1990's it was not a perfect time at all.
Talk about being stuck... Do you realize the value of Apple vs. the value of MS as a company is considerably high despite their very low worldwide OS X percentage in comparison to Windows? You seem to be under the impression that each Mac OS X sale somehow equals the same profit value as each Windows OS sale. In other words, you haven't considered how many Windows OEM sales have to be made to equal the sale of a single Mac. You also haven't considered why a beleaguered Apple from the 1990s and OEMs wanting to get out of the control of MS' Windows OS would not have done it then, but now when their model of marriaging has become successful it's now the "perfect time" to destroy the business model they started with, despite the loss in functionality by not having control of designing the OS and HW in tandem.
Apple's position is weak. I've said it from the start.
...
I don't think Apple would worry about the court costs if they had a strong enough case to put Psystar out of business and send a strong message to would-be Mac clone makers.
Precisely. Whatever people are trying to say to avoid this truth is silly.
If Apple had a case, they would make it. They actually don't have a case... and they seem to know that... which is indeed a worrisome sign for AAPL's future profit margins on hardware.
This is a bit of a trojan horse here. If Dell tried to do Mac clones they would risk their Dell $$$. But the Psystar dude, he has nothing to lose and everything to gain! He is a more powerful danger to Apple. Should he succeed, Dell can follow. \\
Apple will try to bribe him. But they have already shown they are unwilling to make a proper legal argument. We can only guess there is none to be made.
This is a bit of a trojan horse here. If Dell tried to do Mac clones they would risk their Dell $$$. But the Psystar dude, he has nothing to lose and everything to gain! He is a more powerful danger to Apple. Should he succeed, Dell can follow. \\
Apple will try to bribe him. But they have already shown they are unwilling to make a proper legal argument. We can only guess there is none to be made.
1) How exactly is a PC vendor with resources, like Dell, unable to make a good Mac clone, but Psystar is somehow more able?
2) A bribe, eh? And so everyone that makes an illegal Mac cloning business is going to be paid off by Apple? I can't imagine how that actually makes sense to you.
3) You et al. have still failed to make a proper legal argument as to why Psystar—and only Psystar—is allowed to be a reseller of another company's goods without their approval.
First off Apple is a software company. Steve Jobs himself said it. Yes they sell hardware. So long as their hardware continues to have a level of desirability/reliability people will buy it, even if they can get the OS elsewhere. Your lack of faith in Apples hardware is showing.
Apple does produce software, but the majority of its profits don't come from software. You think $129 covers the cost of developing and maintaing OS X.
You really think $1299 covers the cost of developing a supporting Final Cut Pro. When other video systems sell for tens of thousands.
These things are made to enhance Apple's hardware which is where they make the majority of their money.
Some of you are so stuck on the old model you can't see the better alternative. Right now Apple forces us to buy their machines if we want to run their OS. Meanwhile they do stupid things like remove firewire from $1300 computers. This would force Apple to be more competitive and benefit all of us.
Apple isn't going to lose money in this, the money they lose from hardware sales they would make back in OS sales to other machines. If you think this model doesn't work, look at Microsoft. No matter what your personal feelings are toward Microsoft they make more money then Apple. This is the perfect time for Apple to do this, in the 1990's it was not a perfect time at all.
You need to look at the profit margins between Apple and the major Windows vendors and you will clearly see the difference.
MS is positioned to sell hundreds of millions of copies of Windows. If MS only sold the 8 - 10 million copies annually such as Apple, they would not continue to be nearly as profitable.
Precisely. Whatever people are trying to say to avoid this truth is silly.
If Apple had a case, they would make it. They actually don't have a case... and they seem to know that... which is indeed a worrisome sign for AAPL's future profit margins on hardware.
It makes much more sense to avoid going to court if you don't have to. That is the way most business would rather handle a suit. What makes you think you have to go to court to prove you are right?
1) How exactly does a PC vendor with resources, like Dell, to make a good Mac clone not be able to?
2) A bribe, eh? And so everyone that makes an illegal Mac cloning business is going to be paid off by Apple? I can't imagine how that actually makes sense to you.
3) You et al. have still failed to make a proper legal argument as to why Psystar?and only Psystar?is allowed to be a reseller of another company's goods without their approval.
1. The question is ungrammatical and I don't understand it. But I was saying Dell would prefer not to risk a successful lawsuit from Apple. Clearly Dell has a lot of money to lose and that is exactly why they would hesitate until another player proves it is legal.
2. I agree Apple's options are not good here. It is not my job to find a way out for Apple here.
3. Plenty of companies "resell" Mac OS X in the box, literally hundreds of private companies do that. But again, this is not my problem. I am just commenting on the facts and Apple's behavior and where that might lead us. We will know the truth in time. Cheers!
I'm certainly not the first to point this out, but it apparently needs to be repeated. In all those cases you cite, the hardware seller does not offer the OS as a standalone, off-the-shelf product. OS X differs from all those other examples in that regard, and it's an important distinction because it has already been established in other court cases that the end user may install and hack that software to their heart's content and the EULA doesn't legally stop anyone from doing so. If Psystar were making iPod knock-offs or XBox knock-offs and reverse engineering the operating systems out of those machines to install on theirs, then your point would be valid.
If I was a song writer, composed an album and had it copyrigthed, I can do as I please with my album. I can only release it in analog, 200g audiophile vinyl, selling at $30 an album, if I want. I don't ever have to release a digital CD version of my album. Now if you want, you can buy my 200g vinyl album and make a digital CD with the software in your computer for yourself. I can't stop you from that. But you can't start selling CD's of my album just because there's a market for it. Ever. Not even if you include an original 200g vinyl album with each purchase of that CD. You can't even include the CD for free with the purchase of an original album. It's my IP and I can do as I wish with it. And if I don't want to distribute a digital copy of it, that's how it going to be. It may not be good business practice and I may be losing sales. But in the end it's still my business, my IP and I can do as I please. And in a free market, no one can force me to give up any of my rights as the owner of the IP.
And see how far you get by suing me in court because I have a monopoly on my album and I'm forcing you to listen to it on vinyl record with inferior hardware. Or that I'm forcing you to buy an expensive turntable so that you can listen to my album in CD quality. Just see how far you get by claiming that you should be allow to market a CD of my IP because you are "improving" upon my work by removing the background noise inherent in vinyl.
Apple does produce software, but the majority of its profits don't come from software. You think $129 covers the cost of developing and maintaing OS X.
Apple these days is a hardware company insofar as that they make a lot of money off ipods and now the iphone, but ultimately most people buy MacOS for the software, not the hardware. Save for using EFI instead of BIOS what separates a Mac from any other x86 computer? Not much really. Beyond the slick chassis designs from Jonathan Ives there isn't much that makes a Mac a Mac except the software. While Apple sometimes gets early launches of products where they either are the first to market or very close to the first(eg. the Geforce 9400M, the Santa Rosa mobile chipset, Yonah based CPUs, Merom based CPUs, Penryn based CPUs, etc.), but generally speaking people aren't buying a Mac for the hardware specs. They buy a Mac for the Mac software experience. The thing that stops quite a few people is Apple's large hardware dongle in order to use it.
If you exclude a small cadre of people in the OSx86 project who managed to create their own Macs generally speaking one needs to buy a Mac in order to use the software. The notion that Apple couldn't be fairly profitable on selling their software. If you spread the costs of development over enough people you can easily make money selling an entire OS at that price point, just ask Microsoft. Even after their Xbox division is now profitable, their Windows and Office divisions still make up a bulk of their profit.
The usual argument against Apple licensing MacOS to others is that Apple would harm their corporate image because some Mac clone sellers may make cutrate computers that are unstable and make Apple's image look bad. This could reasonably be averted in that Apple could make limitations upon the vendors used to make any authorized Mac clones. Therefore, you couldn't use some no name cutrate vendor for your RAM or motherboard that might result in instability of said machines. Since these vendors would be paying for the privilege to resell machines with MacOS, Apple could let others take the risk of certain experiments like a Mac tablet for example. If interest in such a item really is too much of niche market then Apple wouldn't be on the hook for the losses.
This will never happen obviously due to the cult of Steve Jobs and his lieutenants who are little more than yes men to his agenda, but I don't think the idea of Apple exploring new products whether sold under the Apple name or through an authorized clone maker would be such a bad idea.
3. Plenty of companies "resell" Mac OS X in the box, literally hundreds of private companies do that. But again, this is not my problem. I am just commenting on the facts and Apple's behavior and where that might lead us. We will know the truth in time. Cheers!
What hundreds of companies are these?
Apple these days is a hardware company insofar as that they make a lot of money off ipods and now the iphone, but ultimately most people buy MacOS for the software, not the hardware.
Its true OS X is the major differentiator between the Mac and PC. Because of Apple's vertical business model. Apple is able to tailer OS X to its hardware as well as tailer its hardware to OS X.
This combines to create a better computer environment that the generic Windows box.
The usual argument against Apple licensing MacOS to others is that Apple would harm their corporate image because some Mac clone sellers may make cutrate computers that are unstable and make Apple's image look bad. This could reasonably be averted in that Apple could make limitations upon the vendors used to make any authorized Mac clones. Therefore, you couldn't use some no name cutrate vendor for your RAM or motherboard that might result in instability of said machines. Since these vendors would be paying for the privilege to resell machines with MacOS, Apple could let others take the risk of certain experiments like a Mac tablet for example. If interest in such a item really is too much of niche market then Apple wouldn't be on the hook for the losses.
Why bother doing all of that when Apple's current business model is performing better than the PC business model. Why adopt the business model that is less profitable?
Apple's position is weak. I've said it from the start. (There's a link in my sig to my full argument, but the short version is that Psystar isn't breaking any laws and EULAs are not applicable nor are they proven effective in court in anything beyond piracy cases.)
You mean the short-sighted version.
I suspect Apple is going to go the Think Secret route and buy Psystar out of business. This case is going to set an important precedent that could have an impact on Apple's business. I don't think Apple would worry about the court costs if they had a strong enough case to put Psystar out of business and send a strong message to would-be Mac clone makers.
Apple is not worry about the court cost. Apple wants to end this as quickly as possible. And going into non-binding arbitration is the fastest way to end this. Apple is confident that their case is so strong that Psystar is going to think twice about taking this to a costly drawn out court trial.
If Apple position was weak they would stall and wait for the months it's going to take before they can battle it out in court. Why would Apple go for it now it, with a weak case.
The flip side is that Psystar also agreed to the non-binding arbitration. Why aren't you saying that if Psystar had a strong case they would just take it to court and win it out right. Instead of a non-binding arbitration that they know Apple would fight in court anyways if it rules in Psystar favor.