if you think that apple make fault free products (hardware or software) then you clearly haven't spent too long around these forums, or owned too much apple product in the past.
i don't think anyone is stupid enough to think or suggest that. for starters if it was true there wouldn't be a refurb store, would there?
on the whole, apple make great products - if a limited range is the price of this, so be it, get over it and/or move on.
You said they stole the IP, they didn't if they bought a full copy of Leopard for each system. Breaking the EUA doesn't change that. If it is indeed an upgrade disc then I would agree that's wrong, how do you know this is the case?
I'm not sure that the same people said the same things but it's not hypocritical to have both opinions at once. Yes it is good that they shook up the industry but you can also observe that they are attempting to monopolize it at the same time. In fact under the same circumstances. Windows mobile and symbian are not exclusive to one device.
What do you mean "if it is indeed an upgrade disc"?
Name one company - just one - that currently has an agreement with Apple to purchase a full-license copy of OSX? Last time I checked, any copy that is for sale by Apple in any fashion is an upgrade CD only for Apple machines only. You imply that there is an ability to purchase (legally) a full license, non-upgrade OSX package. I've never heard of it.
Last time I checked, every company is in the business to make that one killer product and get what they can out of it. In this case, Apple seems to be on a roll by making more than one killer product. But Apple is not doing this because they want to make the world a better place for our users to live in complete tech-harmony. They are doing this to make money. You call it control/monopoly. Everyone else would say Apple is just protecting their investment. They put a lot of R&D, money, advertising, brand-recognition to put them where they are and it's just not right (ethically and legally as far as I'm concerned) that some low-life company to skid in off the street and steal their hard work.
No disrespect or ranting intended. It's just that I don't understand why everyone singles out Apple when so many other people and companies do the exact same thing with their products.
That shell you so easily dismiss is hardware. While attractive to many it serves more than an aesthetic function. It creates the frame and the size and even offers a more environmentally friendly machine. If it's just a shell then why are other manufacturer's machines so thick in comparison? Why don't they have multi-gesture trackpads? While the thickness, extra HW features, and 'green' aspects mean little to you, they do serve a purpose that does seem to encourage sales.
yes, and ppl tend to forget that design costs money as well.
Competition is a good thing. Apple needs to get its act together on pricing and start offering discounts on its products to start competing with Psystar.
who's to say apple couldn't get the same treatment for locking out hardware suppliers
(market share will have something to do with this, but since marketshare is growing...)
My Apple Hardware History:
Powerbook G4: Replaced motherboards 3x, display, battery, Optical drive 2x, power adapter 3x, keyboard/trackpad assembly 2x. Special Note: one power supply caught on fire.
1) Apple gave me a Brand New in Box MacBook to replace the previous MacBook - a new version at the 1yr warranty period (actually 1 week before end of warranty)
2) Apple gave me a Brand New in Box MacBook Pro to replace the Powerbook even after the 3 year warranty.. though it should be noted that the last year of warranty was hell with it.
3) Apple gave me a Brand New in Box MacBook Pro (late 2008) to replace the MacBook Pro noted above.
And even now... my MacBook Pro has issues... like the Black Screen of Death when playing games... and static with audio.. trackpad was fixed with software.
In the END of all things... Apple has been VERY good to me. Especially when you consider that the Powerbook G4 that I bought 5 to 6 years ago... has morphed into the Late 2008 MacBook Pro.
I have also bought many other computers for my wife and parents... without any issues.
I know that my situation and history with Apple products is unique. I am NOT hard on my hardware... i treat it very VERY well. It us just that my RARE luck has lead me to these issues.
But I also know that:
1) Apple Does NOT make the Display
2) Apple Does NOT make the Harddrive
3) Apple Does NOT make the battery
4) Apple Does NOT make the CPU
5) ect...
The first generation of any product by any company is always riddled with issues. But when you consider that items like the iPhone have a remarkably smaller percentage of failure over a blackberry.... you realize that the commotions concerning them are silly... in fact... they have very low failures rates in general for an electronic device.
I also would not be surprised to find out that the same is true with their computers!!!
and... not to rehash what others have said about your anti-trust statement. Do yourself a favor... go to school and educate yourself on a few things. It is obvious you do not have the knowledge space in the area. Enough said!
ohh... and P.S.
I also have owned 3 iPod (Classic Style) that have all failed within 1 month. I wrote it off when they replaced my Powerbook and have never looked back.
You check it out! Because you don't appear to have understood it. It's not the best explanation of tying that I have seen, but it will do. Look at the first paragraph... the bookstore example.... and here's another....
Your local bookstore, Acme Books, is selling the latest 'Harry Potter' book.
However, they will only sell it to you if you ALSO buy a copy of "A History of Dental Decay"
That is tying!
You, and everyone else, go and buy the Harry Potter from any one of a hundred other bookshops.
Acme Books has done nothing wrong.. or illegal. Stupid, maybe ... but not illegal.
Acme Books does not have sufficient market power
But what if Acme Books owned ALL the bookshops?
What if you couldn't buy 'Harry Potter' anywhere else?
Maybe but as I say, when you are in a market like the personal computer industry, it has such a huge impact on everyday life that having one company dictate all the rules in all aspects of the chain is anti-competitive.
Apple is controlling all aspects of their own chain. Not their competitors.
Quote:
Put it another way, the only way they are getting away with this is because they don't have a large market share.
Are you and Ottwayross using the same scriptwriters? "getting away with it"? "under the radar"?
You both admit that Apple only has a small share of the computer market, yet you both fail to understand the significance of that fact.
Quote:
If they had a 90% share like Microsoft and a whole load of legacy software was tied to their OS for whatever reasons, I'm pretty sure they would be made to give up their hardware control to enable a free market.
You could be right. But they don't have 90%... so what's your problem?
Quote:
..but back to the fish analogy, if the minority behaves in a way that adversely affects a majority then measures will be made to keep the system fair for everyone despite there seeming to be no reason why the minority can act however they please.
Look, sorry Marvin, but your fish thing is a bit rubbish! A shortage of fish in the sea just has no relation to the PC market.
Quote:
Like I say, the fact they don't have a majority share is the only thing that makes their setup acceptable.
Right. So just to be clear. What Apple is doing with it's Mac business is:
Not illegal. Check!
However, it is unethical. Check!
Conversely, it is "acceptable" Check!
And will definitely be illegal sometime next week.... or at a future date... to be agreed upon.
Several people have analyzed and compared Apple computers to Dell, and have come up with conclusions - either that comparable Dells are about as expensive as Apple's, or that Dells are substandard in quality of components and design compared to the equivalents used in Apple.
However, my point is something competely different.
We accepts Gucci, Louis Vuitton, Chanel, etc., as upmarket brands, and we know that these are "brands" that carry a much higher price than their main market equivalents. If we can afford to buy the upmarket brand, and if we perceive ANY value in buying that brand, we buy the upmarket brand -- otherwise, we would just buy the main stream brands. The "value" could be anything - real, psychological, social, anything you care about. These brands take great care to retain their status and reputation - by using top notch materials, maintaining very high standards of quality, focussing on packaging of the product, as well as the design of the product, creating a really upmarket buying experience for the buyer, maintaining an image of exclusivity - these brands are the height of aspiration for the consumer.
In what way is Apple different from these upmarket brands? Apple also operates in exactly the same manner as these up-market brands. Why should Apple even have to justify its actions related to where they position their brand? Why should they justify the prices? Do the same people who question Apple's prices question the prices charged by Gucci and other up-market brands? Do they complain and raise a stink because Gucci does not choose to operate in the mass market category? Do they rationalize and justify the existence of piracy, where people sell fake "Gucci" bags for a lot cheaper?
Dell chooses to operate like Payless Shoe Store - while Apple chooses to operate like Bally. Yes - both companies sell shoes - but the prices charged by Payless Shoe Store are entirely different from the prices charged by Bally. If you look at the raw materials, etc., for the most part things are all the same.
Why cant we accept that Apple can use even WORSE components and WORSE design and WORSE software than Dell, and STILL charge higher? If the user still perceives a better value proposition from Apple, then the user is making his choice. Period.
Apple is CHOOSING to position its products in whatever way they want to position. It is Dells CHOICE to position its products however they want. Users are free to CHOOSE whether or not they can accept Apple products the way Apple positions them. If they dont want to accept, they are FREE to go elsewhere. Apple does not have an OBLIGATION to fulfill wishes of its users. If Apple finds it to be in their best interest to do something, then they would do it if they are smart. Even if something is in Apple's best interest, it does not mean Apple SHOULD be doing it.
There is another aspect to answering this question that people miss out entirely - While comparing the price of Apple and Dell, are people factoring in the cost of Anti-virus and Anti-Spyware software that the Dell needs? Do people factor in how much the performance of the machine is degraded because of this software? Cost should not simply be a blind comparison of up-front costs. It should be a Total Cost of Ownership, over the life of the product. And to be reasonable, it should also factor in the resale value, that a user can get if he chooses to sell the product when he is done with it.
A Lexus for 50K USD can be considered to be CHEAPER than a Ford for 30K USD, if you can sell the Lexus for 40K after 2 years, but you can only get 15K for the Jeep after 2 years. Just making a point - of course, the actual prices might be very different. And some people might consider the Lexus better value without even looking at resale value!
Accepted, a lot of people want cheaper computers from Apple. Accepted, Apple could dramatically increase market share if they offered cheaper alternatives. Accepted this might be a smart thing for Apple to do, and they will get a lot of direct and indirect benefits if their market share was higher. But just because of the above is true, does not FORCE Apple to operate in that way. Apple can still choose not to operate in the cheaper segment. Just because Apple chooses not to operate in the cheaper segment, does not mean some other company is allowed to operate in that segment.
There is also the popular misconception that Apple is able to get away with this, just because Apple's market share is low. And that if Apple had 90% of the market, they cant force people to buy Apple hardware to run Apple software. This is quite wrong. Large market share per se is not bad. Misusing the large market share is what is bad. Insisting that Apple software be run only on Apple hardware cannot be construed as "misuse".
Several people have analyzed and compared Apple computers to Dell, and have come up with conclusions - either that comparable Dells are about as expensive as Apple's, or that Dells are substandard in quality of components and design compared to the equivalents used in Apple.
However, my point is something competely different.
We accepts Gucci, Louis Vuitton, Chanel, etc., as upmarket brands, and we know that these are "brands" that carry a much higher price than their main market equivalents. If we can afford to buy the upmarket brand, and if we perceive ANY value in buying that brand, we buy the upmarket brand -- otherwise, we would just buy the main stream brands. The "value" could be anything - real, psychological, social, anything you care about. These brands take great care to retain their status and reputation - by using top notch materials, maintaining very high standards of quality, focussing on packaging of the product, as well as the design of the product, creating a really upmarket buying experience for the buyer, maintaining an image of exclusivity - these brands are the height of aspiration for the consumer.
In what way is Apple different from these upmarket brands? Apple also operates in exactly the same manner as these up-market brands. Why should Apple even have to justify its actions related to where they position their brand? Why should they justify the prices? Do the same people who question Apple's prices question the prices charged by Gucci and other up-market brands? Do they complain and raise a stink because Gucci does not choose to operate in the mass market category? Do they rationalize and justify the existence of piracy, where people sell fake "Gucci" bags for a lot cheaper?
Dell chooses to operate like Payless Shoe Store - while Apple chooses to operate like Bally. Yes - both companies sell shoes - but the prices charged by Payless Shoe Store are entirely different from the prices charged by Bally. If you look at the raw materials, etc., for the most part things are all the same.
Why cant we accept that Apple can use even WORSE components and WORSE design and WORSE software than Dell, and STILL charge higher? If the user still perceives a better value proposition from Apple, then the user is making his choice. Period.
Apple is CHOOSING to position its products in whatever way they want to position. It is Dells CHOICE to position its products however they want. Users are free to CHOOSE whether or not they can accept Apple products the way Apple positions them. If they dont want to accept, they are FREE to go elsewhere. Apple does not have an OBLIGATION to fulfill wishes of its users. If Apple finds it to be in their best interest to do something, then they would do it if they are smart. Even if something is in Apple's best interest, it does not mean Apple SHOULD be doing it.
There is another aspect to answering this question that people miss out entirely - While comparing the price of Apple and Dell, are people factoring in the cost of Anti-virus and Anti-Spyware software that the Dell needs? Do people factor in how much the performance of the machine is degraded because of this software? Cost should not simply be a blind comparison of up-front costs. It should be a Total Cost of Ownership, over the life of the product. And to be reasonable, it should also factor in the resale value, that a user can get if he chooses to sell the product when he is done with it.
A Lexus for 50K USD can be considered to be CHEAPER than a Ford for 30K USD, if you can sell the Lexus for 40K after 2 years, but you can only get 15K for the Jeep after 2 years. Just making a point - of course, the actual prices might be very different. And some people might consider the Lexus better value without even looking at resale value!
Accepted, a lot of people want cheaper computers from Apple. Accepted, Apple could dramatically increase market share if they offered cheaper alternatives. Accepted this might be a smart thing for Apple to do, and they will get a lot of direct and indirect benefits if their market share was higher. But just because of the above is true, does not FORCE Apple to operate in that way. Apple can still choose not to operate in the cheaper segment. Just because Apple chooses not to operate in the cheaper segment, does not mean some other company is allowed to operate in that segment.
There is also the popular misconception that Apple is able to get away with this, just because Apple's market share is low. And that if Apple had 90% of the market, they cant force people to buy Apple hardware to run Apple software. This is quite wrong. Large market share per se is not bad. Misusing the large market share is what is bad. Insisting that Apple software be run only on Apple hardware cannot be construed as "misuse".
Well said! No matter how obvious it can be described, there are individuals that will still continue to believe they are entitled to whatever they want even if that means obtaining it without consent of the other party.
Can't afford that Rolex? No problem! Just buy one from the street corner vendor for twenty bucks! It's the same thing!
Yes I am. And If you could only understand the salient facts, that you yourself keep repeating, you might even agree with me!
Here I rewrote the sentence for you ".... just because the market share isn't big enough to ACTUALLY BE BREAKING THE LAW."
You check it out! Because you don't appear to have understood it. It's not the best explanation of tying that I have seen, but it will do. Look at the first paragraph... the bookstore example.... and here's another....
Your local bookstore, Acme Books, is selling the latest 'Harry Potter' book.
However, they will only sell it to you if you ALSO buy a copy of "A History of Dental Decay"
That is tying!
You, and everyone else, go and buy the Harry Potter from any one of a hundred other bookshops.
Acme Books has done nothing wrong.. or illegal. Stupid, maybe ... but not illegal.
Acme Books does not have sufficient market power
But what if Acme Books owned ALL the bookshops?
What if you couldn't buy 'Harry Potter' anywhere else?
Can you see the difference Ottway?
thanks for your patronising response and your superb example...
i knew it was going to be a good one when you called your bookstore "acme" \
if you read any law article regarding Apple and tying (just type it into google)
you'll see that apple have used this model on a number of their products
in fact all their prominent products
ipods / itunes (legal proceedings underway)
iphone (legal proceedings finished against apple in some countries)
and now mac / OS (legal proceedings ongoing)
so it appears that Apple wants to use this business model for most things
whether or not their model is currently legal remains to be seen
as I stated before Psystar still has until December 8th to reply
regardless of the "salient" facts as market share increases, this business model will become less and less acceptable
that it is currently 'legal' (since it hasn't yet been declared illegal by a court) or that Psystar's claim has been initially rejected is not really the point
(although you can make it your point if you only want to state the obvious)
have a good read of this article and you might understand why Psystar 'lost' their first round
claiming that Mac OS is a single product market was a risky tactic, which obviously didn't work that judge
however, have no doubt that as Apple's market share increases more challenges will arise and most likely stick
you do understand that i'm not declaring apple's OS business model currently illegal right? - i agree that it's for a court to decide the legality of Apple's business models
i am saying that their current business model is unsuitable for significant market share growth (ie >30%)
Apple have already lost their battles in some countries over both the iphone (now sold without contract)
and iTunes (now selling songs without DRM)
the other things waiting in the wings are their professional software tools such as Logic and Final Cut
once that market share grows significantly (and I have no idea what the figures currently are)
expect some legal issues to come out - because this software can only be currently used on Apple hardware
only the App Store runs at full steam with all the stuff the same as USA App Store.
Rights and Regions mess everything for us. At least can download podcast from USA store
But still you can find here almost everything but blue ray movies. Very small selection, maybe 30
movies.
Macs still mostly $300.00 above USA price but some models doesn't warm up the shelf like the new MB & MBP.
i remember that twenty years ago apple's products were MUCH more expensive in europe, which let do a rather active grey market for apple II's.
aren't the current price differences largely the value added taxes that are usually included in the sticker price in europe? in north america you add any applicable taxes at the cash register. taxes vary from state to state in the US and are also different from province to province in Canada.
the other thing to consider are the currency fluctuations. for a while i think you could buy macs cheaper in Canada than the US, since the retail prices were set at a time when the loonie was actually worth more than the US dollar. right now - not so much...
What do you mean "if it is indeed an upgrade disc"?
Name one company - just one - that currently has an agreement with Apple to purchase a full-license copy of OSX? Last time I checked, any copy that is for sale by Apple in any fashion is an upgrade CD only for Apple machines only. You imply that there is an ability to purchase (legally) a full license, non-upgrade OSX package. I've never heard of it.
Utterly false. Your "checking" is purely imagination.
Nowhere on the Leopard packaging, disks or licensing agreement does it state that it is an "upgrade". I've never heard of an OS X Leopard "upgrade" package.
Now, the license agreement does state that, "You agree to not install, use, or run the Apple Software on a non-Apple labeled computer, or enable others to do so." ... and Apple gives you these nice Apple label stickers in the package!
Utterly false. Your "checking" is purely imagination.
Nowhere on the Leopard packaging, disks or licensing agreement does it state that it is an "upgrade". I've never heard of an OS X Leopard "upgrade" package.
Now, the license agreement does state that, "You agree to not install, use, or run the Apple Software on a non-Apple labeled computer, or enable others to do so." ... and Apple gives you these nice Apple label stickers in the package!
If Leopard discs are sold for use with Mac computers running Intel, PowerPC G5, or PowerPC G4 (867MHz or faster) processors or faster, and every Mac sold comes with a version of OS X installed, then the discs are being sold to upgrade a previous version of OS X to a new version of OS X. The logic shouldn't be that hard to follow.
If Leopard discs are sold for use with Mac computers running Intel, PowerPC G5, or PowerPC G4 (867MHz or faster) processors or faster, and every Mac sold comes with a version of OS X installed, then the discs are being sold to upgrade a previous version of OS X to a new version of OS X. The logic shouldn't be that hard to follow.
They don't say they are "sold for use with" anything.
What is sold is a full version of the OS, which could just as easily be used install over the same version of the OS or to downgrade from some future version of the OS. Your (and others') "upgrade" logic is purely imagination. You clearly neither own the retail packaged version of the software nor have read its packaging and contents.
They don't say they are "sold for use with" anything.
You are confusing with upgrade-only discs that MS sells with discs Apple sells that are priced for people who have previously purchased OS X and wish to upgrade their Mac's original OS.
Right from Apple's website:
Minimum System Requirements
Mac computer with an Intel, PowerPC G5, or PowerPC G4 (867MHz or faster) processor
512MB of physical RAM
DVD drive for installation
If you can't see Mac computer as proof that Apple is selling OS X to those that have previous purchased a Mac with OS X, then you surely won't see that if Psystar were to win (which isn't possible) Apple would just jack up the price of OS X to make buying a Mac more cost effective than buying a Hackintosh. This would of course hurt Mac owners wishing to upgrade as the price would now be higher, so they might go for an upgrade-ONLY disc at the current price to supplement the difference, but that wouldn't be very Mac-like as it would now require you to keep and install the old version of the OS before using the upgrade-only disc. Unless Apple can come up with a HW solution that would make installing OS X on other machines much more difficult than rewriting Mac OS X to run BIOS.
If any of these individuals can be traced they should watch their backs as if Apple's lawyers can get hold of them they will soon be worrying about losing their homes etc.
They basically buy these from Apple and sell them at the same $129. They also include a custom restore disc with a modified version of Leopard as the official one won't work but essentially, it equates to the full version of Leopard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal
No disrespect or ranting intended. It's just that I don't understand why everyone singles out Apple when so many other people and companies do the exact same thing with their products.
It's probably because they make products people want quite badly but people wish the conditions under which they are offered were better. If someone offered you a nice apple pie but then covered it with cheese, you'd probably say can I have it without the cheese on it. It's not your right to demand it but you would understand the buyer's frustration.
Quote:
Originally Posted by piot
your fish thing is a bit rubbish! A shortage of fish in the sea just has no relation to the PC market.
'I'm a PC and I sell fish'. It's not about the details of the analogy, it was about how laws can be written up based on very minor ethical points. If you kill someone, that's clearly illegal. If you use certain practices to drive everyone out of business, it's much harder to determine legality as it comes down to fairness.
You've correctly noted that the market share is the significant factor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal
We accepts Gucci, Louis Vuitton, Chanel, etc., as upmarket brands
Nothing else depends on those though. Think of all the Mac software in the world. It only runs on a Mac. There is no market that solely depends on Gucci. It's known as vendor lock-in. The fashion industry and a great number of industries don't have the equivalent. Some do like the printer market, hands up who uses compatible ink cartridges. Oh but that's ok I suppose because you bought the printer so why should you be ripped off on the ink.
I don't really want to advocate that Psystar should win and force Apple to license their OS because I think that will damage the brand. I really just want Psystar to give Apple a good wake-up call in the same way Napster was a wake-up call to the industry. I don't think many people wanted free music and watch artists go out of business, people just wanted a fair and convenient system and since it wasn't offered, simply stood behind the illegal practice of free music sharing until the situation was resolved.
Perhaps Apple won't make the moves people want for the very reason of maintaining a low market share. If they offer affordable, powerful desktops then their market-share will increase to the point where their business model starts to become anti-competitive. Catch-22 really. They can't satisfy customers so the customers turn to people like Psystar, as soon as Apple satisfy customers and increase their market share, they are anti-competitive.
The outcome I want to see is for Apple to win the case and put Psystar + others out of business but start offering machines using similar components in order to make Psystar's offerings irrelevant. People don't mind paying a premium on hardware as long as it's within reason. They shouldn't be made to do it but like I say, I want the whole case to be a wake-up call for them to start offering more sensible options.
When NeXT and Apple "merged" a lot of people were financially harmed, for example many of the employees from the worldwide NeXT divisions were not transferred to Apple. For example developers that worked on projects such as emerging web standards in the 90s throughout europe from both NeXT France and NeXT UK were laid off with no payouts. This was also the case for management of the European factions who had no place in the "merger"
This kind of action lead to an anti Apple mentality and backed by finance from former management, it can easily be seen why Psystar is able to continue in legal action against Apple. This is speculation based on being there at the time and losing a job at NeXT in the UK.
The thing is plain simple: if you can afford a great experience, you just buy it. That's it. Computers, cars, gaming, etc. All the same logic.
Apple spent a huge amount of money and efforts to build something amazing and when it's ready, proven and successful, everybody wants a piece of the action? Two letters: R&D. That's what is missing at Microsoft HQ or any PC manufacturer.
If your PC became a crap piece of tech because of the OS, you should complain with your manufacturer or Microsoft. That's your target. Stop saying that Apple should share their OS with the world. We're not in the Teletubbies planet. I want a Porsche too and I hope someday, working hard I will have one. That's the logic.
Also, I have high hopes about PC-BSD, for example. They are making an awesome OS based on FreeBSD too, just like OS X, that just works and they are getting there. LEGALLY. Why Psystar as a "good company", instead of steal, didn't join those guys to build a remarkable experience? Or tried to build a great computer using some Linux distro? Uhm?! There's a huge plan behind this company and I still don't know what it is.
One last thing. A guy has a PC bought from some weird place, assembled with different parts from everywhere (lord knows where), put it all together and he still expects to have a great experience? Flawless? Give me a break. This is what most people do and they still want to argue with some twisted logic.
Psystar must be destroyed. Not just because is Apple, but this lawsuit resumed pretty well what is wrong with the world today. Are you untalented? Lazy? Sue. Sue. Sue. Shout. Shout. Shout. Maybe you'll get what you want with no hard work.
I hate to say this, but the Trust discussions over at Slashdot on this desperate lawsuit attempt by Psystar are far more factual and current with Copyright law, Trusts and more.
Comments
if you think that apple make fault free products (hardware or software) then you clearly haven't spent too long around these forums, or owned too much apple product in the past.
i don't think anyone is stupid enough to think or suggest that.
on the whole, apple make great products - if a limited range is the price of this, so be it, get over it and/or move on.
You said they stole the IP, they didn't if they bought a full copy of Leopard for each system. Breaking the EUA doesn't change that. If it is indeed an upgrade disc then I would agree that's wrong, how do you know this is the case?
I'm not sure that the same people said the same things but it's not hypocritical to have both opinions at once. Yes it is good that they shook up the industry but you can also observe that they are attempting to monopolize it at the same time. In fact under the same circumstances. Windows mobile and symbian are not exclusive to one device.
What do you mean "if it is indeed an upgrade disc"?
Name one company - just one - that currently has an agreement with Apple to purchase a full-license copy of OSX? Last time I checked, any copy that is for sale by Apple in any fashion is an upgrade CD only for Apple machines only. You imply that there is an ability to purchase (legally) a full license, non-upgrade OSX package. I've never heard of it.
Last time I checked, every company is in the business to make that one killer product and get what they can out of it. In this case, Apple seems to be on a roll by making more than one killer product. But Apple is not doing this because they want to make the world a better place for our users to live in complete tech-harmony. They are doing this to make money. You call it control/monopoly. Everyone else would say Apple is just protecting their investment. They put a lot of R&D, money, advertising, brand-recognition to put them where they are and it's just not right (ethically and legally as far as I'm concerned) that some low-life company to skid in off the street and steal their hard work.
No disrespect or ranting intended. It's just that I don't understand why everyone singles out Apple when so many other people and companies do the exact same thing with their products.
That shell you so easily dismiss is hardware. While attractive to many it serves more than an aesthetic function. It creates the frame and the size and even offers a more environmentally friendly machine. If it's just a shell then why are other manufacturer's machines so thick in comparison? Why don't they have multi-gesture trackpads? While the thickness, extra HW features, and 'green' aspects mean little to you, they do serve a purpose that does seem to encourage sales.
yes, and ppl tend to forget that design costs money as well.
Competition is a good thing. Apple needs to get its act together on pricing and start offering discounts on its products to start competing with Psystar.
if you think that apple make fault free products (hardware or software) then you clearly haven't
spent too long around these forums, or owned too much apple product in the past.
these days Apple releases just as much dodgy hardware as the rest of the bunch
don't believe me? have a look at apple defects wiki - the list is very long for both the MB and MBP
plus it wouldn't be the first time apple has done something illegal regarding locking people into their corporate money grabbing ideas...
remember the original iphone launch?
remember what the courts in a number of countries (notably EU ones) made apple do? (because of legal issues no less)
they now must sell the iphone without being locked to a contract in those countries
this is the inverse (software locked to hardware)... but it's the same principle
plus who's to say this isn't an anti-trust case?
if microsoft can get charged and pay settlement to avoid conviction because they locked out suppliers of internet browsers
who's to say apple couldn't get the same treatment for locking out hardware suppliers
(market share will have something to do with this, but since marketshare is growing...)
My Apple Hardware History:
Powerbook G4: Replaced motherboards 3x, display, battery, Optical drive 2x, power adapter 3x, keyboard/trackpad assembly 2x. Special Note: one power supply caught on fire.
Macbook: Replaced casing 2x, Optical Drive 3x, power adapter 2x, battery 2x
Macbook Pro: Replaced motherboard 3x, optical drive 1x, display 1x, battery 1x, power adapter 1x
Now... the great point
1) Apple gave me a Brand New in Box MacBook to replace the previous MacBook - a new version at the 1yr warranty period (actually 1 week before end of warranty)
2) Apple gave me a Brand New in Box MacBook Pro to replace the Powerbook even after the 3 year warranty.. though it should be noted that the last year of warranty was hell with it.
3) Apple gave me a Brand New in Box MacBook Pro (late 2008) to replace the MacBook Pro noted above.
And even now... my MacBook Pro has issues... like the Black Screen of Death when playing games... and static with audio.. trackpad was fixed with software.
In the END of all things... Apple has been VERY good to me. Especially when you consider that the Powerbook G4 that I bought 5 to 6 years ago... has morphed into the Late 2008 MacBook Pro.
I have also bought many other computers for my wife and parents... without any issues.
I know that my situation and history with Apple products is unique. I am NOT hard on my hardware... i treat it very VERY well. It us just that my RARE luck has lead me to these issues.
But I also know that:
1) Apple Does NOT make the Display
2) Apple Does NOT make the Harddrive
3) Apple Does NOT make the battery
4) Apple Does NOT make the CPU
5) ect...
The first generation of any product by any company is always riddled with issues. But when you consider that items like the iPhone have a remarkably smaller percentage of failure over a blackberry.... you realize that the commotions concerning them are silly... in fact... they have very low failures rates in general for an electronic device.
I also would not be surprised to find out that the same is true with their computers!!!
and... not to rehash what others have said about your anti-trust statement. Do yourself a favor... go to school and educate yourself on a few things. It is obvious you do not have the knowledge space in the area. Enough said!
ohh... and P.S.
I also have owned 3 iPod (Classic Style) that have all failed within 1 month. I wrote it off when they replaced my Powerbook and have never looked back.
because it's a position which goes against anti-trust laws
and they'll slip under the radar just because the market share isn't big enough to warrant chasing
are you trying to say that their business model doesn't break either US or anti-trust models ?
Yes I am. And If you could only understand the salient facts, that you yourself keep repeating, you might even agree with me!
Here I rewrote the sentence for you ".... just because the market share isn't big enough to ACTUALLY BE BREAKING THE LAW."
check out tying
You check it out! Because you don't appear to have understood it. It's not the best explanation of tying that I have seen, but it will do. Look at the first paragraph... the bookstore example.... and here's another....
Your local bookstore, Acme Books, is selling the latest 'Harry Potter' book.
However, they will only sell it to you if you ALSO buy a copy of "A History of Dental Decay"
That is tying!
You, and everyone else, go and buy the Harry Potter from any one of a hundred other bookshops.
Acme Books has done nothing wrong.. or illegal. Stupid, maybe ... but not illegal.
Acme Books does not have sufficient market power
But what if Acme Books owned ALL the bookshops?
What if you couldn't buy 'Harry Potter' anywhere else?
Can you see the difference Ottway?
Maybe but as I say, when you are in a market like the personal computer industry, it has such a huge impact on everyday life that having one company dictate all the rules in all aspects of the chain is anti-competitive.
Apple is controlling all aspects of their own chain. Not their competitors.
Put it another way, the only way they are getting away with this is because they don't have a large market share.
Are you and Ottwayross using the same scriptwriters? "getting away with it"? "under the radar"?
You both admit that Apple only has a small share of the computer market, yet you both fail to understand the significance of that fact.
If they had a 90% share like Microsoft and a whole load of legacy software was tied to their OS for whatever reasons, I'm pretty sure they would be made to give up their hardware control to enable a free market.
You could be right. But they don't have 90%... so what's your problem?
..but back to the fish analogy, if the minority behaves in a way that adversely affects a majority then measures will be made to keep the system fair for everyone despite there seeming to be no reason why the minority can act however they please.
Look, sorry Marvin, but your fish thing is a bit rubbish! A shortage of fish in the sea just has no relation to the PC market.
Like I say, the fact they don't have a majority share is the only thing that makes their setup acceptable.
Right. So just to be clear. What Apple is doing with it's Mac business is:
Not illegal. Check!
However, it is unethical. Check!
Conversely, it is "acceptable" Check!
And will definitely be illegal sometime next week.... or at a future date... to be agreed upon.
Check!
However, my point is something competely different.
We accepts Gucci, Louis Vuitton, Chanel, etc., as upmarket brands, and we know that these are "brands" that carry a much higher price than their main market equivalents. If we can afford to buy the upmarket brand, and if we perceive ANY value in buying that brand, we buy the upmarket brand -- otherwise, we would just buy the main stream brands. The "value" could be anything - real, psychological, social, anything you care about. These brands take great care to retain their status and reputation - by using top notch materials, maintaining very high standards of quality, focussing on packaging of the product, as well as the design of the product, creating a really upmarket buying experience for the buyer, maintaining an image of exclusivity - these brands are the height of aspiration for the consumer.
In what way is Apple different from these upmarket brands? Apple also operates in exactly the same manner as these up-market brands. Why should Apple even have to justify its actions related to where they position their brand? Why should they justify the prices? Do the same people who question Apple's prices question the prices charged by Gucci and other up-market brands? Do they complain and raise a stink because Gucci does not choose to operate in the mass market category? Do they rationalize and justify the existence of piracy, where people sell fake "Gucci" bags for a lot cheaper?
Dell chooses to operate like Payless Shoe Store - while Apple chooses to operate like Bally. Yes - both companies sell shoes - but the prices charged by Payless Shoe Store are entirely different from the prices charged by Bally. If you look at the raw materials, etc., for the most part things are all the same.
Why cant we accept that Apple can use even WORSE components and WORSE design and WORSE software than Dell, and STILL charge higher? If the user still perceives a better value proposition from Apple, then the user is making his choice. Period.
Apple is CHOOSING to position its products in whatever way they want to position. It is Dells CHOICE to position its products however they want. Users are free to CHOOSE whether or not they can accept Apple products the way Apple positions them. If they dont want to accept, they are FREE to go elsewhere. Apple does not have an OBLIGATION to fulfill wishes of its users. If Apple finds it to be in their best interest to do something, then they would do it if they are smart. Even if something is in Apple's best interest, it does not mean Apple SHOULD be doing it.
There is another aspect to answering this question that people miss out entirely - While comparing the price of Apple and Dell, are people factoring in the cost of Anti-virus and Anti-Spyware software that the Dell needs? Do people factor in how much the performance of the machine is degraded because of this software? Cost should not simply be a blind comparison of up-front costs. It should be a Total Cost of Ownership, over the life of the product. And to be reasonable, it should also factor in the resale value, that a user can get if he chooses to sell the product when he is done with it.
A Lexus for 50K USD can be considered to be CHEAPER than a Ford for 30K USD, if you can sell the Lexus for 40K after 2 years, but you can only get 15K for the Jeep after 2 years. Just making a point - of course, the actual prices might be very different. And some people might consider the Lexus better value without even looking at resale value!
Accepted, a lot of people want cheaper computers from Apple. Accepted, Apple could dramatically increase market share if they offered cheaper alternatives. Accepted this might be a smart thing for Apple to do, and they will get a lot of direct and indirect benefits if their market share was higher. But just because of the above is true, does not FORCE Apple to operate in that way. Apple can still choose not to operate in the cheaper segment. Just because Apple chooses not to operate in the cheaper segment, does not mean some other company is allowed to operate in that segment.
There is also the popular misconception that Apple is able to get away with this, just because Apple's market share is low. And that if Apple had 90% of the market, they cant force people to buy Apple hardware to run Apple software. This is quite wrong. Large market share per se is not bad. Misusing the large market share is what is bad. Insisting that Apple software be run only on Apple hardware cannot be construed as "misuse".
Several people have analyzed and compared Apple computers to Dell, and have come up with conclusions - either that comparable Dells are about as expensive as Apple's, or that Dells are substandard in quality of components and design compared to the equivalents used in Apple.
However, my point is something competely different.
We accepts Gucci, Louis Vuitton, Chanel, etc., as upmarket brands, and we know that these are "brands" that carry a much higher price than their main market equivalents. If we can afford to buy the upmarket brand, and if we perceive ANY value in buying that brand, we buy the upmarket brand -- otherwise, we would just buy the main stream brands. The "value" could be anything - real, psychological, social, anything you care about. These brands take great care to retain their status and reputation - by using top notch materials, maintaining very high standards of quality, focussing on packaging of the product, as well as the design of the product, creating a really upmarket buying experience for the buyer, maintaining an image of exclusivity - these brands are the height of aspiration for the consumer.
In what way is Apple different from these upmarket brands? Apple also operates in exactly the same manner as these up-market brands. Why should Apple even have to justify its actions related to where they position their brand? Why should they justify the prices? Do the same people who question Apple's prices question the prices charged by Gucci and other up-market brands? Do they complain and raise a stink because Gucci does not choose to operate in the mass market category? Do they rationalize and justify the existence of piracy, where people sell fake "Gucci" bags for a lot cheaper?
Dell chooses to operate like Payless Shoe Store - while Apple chooses to operate like Bally. Yes - both companies sell shoes - but the prices charged by Payless Shoe Store are entirely different from the prices charged by Bally. If you look at the raw materials, etc., for the most part things are all the same.
Why cant we accept that Apple can use even WORSE components and WORSE design and WORSE software than Dell, and STILL charge higher? If the user still perceives a better value proposition from Apple, then the user is making his choice. Period.
Apple is CHOOSING to position its products in whatever way they want to position. It is Dells CHOICE to position its products however they want. Users are free to CHOOSE whether or not they can accept Apple products the way Apple positions them. If they dont want to accept, they are FREE to go elsewhere. Apple does not have an OBLIGATION to fulfill wishes of its users. If Apple finds it to be in their best interest to do something, then they would do it if they are smart. Even if something is in Apple's best interest, it does not mean Apple SHOULD be doing it.
There is another aspect to answering this question that people miss out entirely - While comparing the price of Apple and Dell, are people factoring in the cost of Anti-virus and Anti-Spyware software that the Dell needs? Do people factor in how much the performance of the machine is degraded because of this software? Cost should not simply be a blind comparison of up-front costs. It should be a Total Cost of Ownership, over the life of the product. And to be reasonable, it should also factor in the resale value, that a user can get if he chooses to sell the product when he is done with it.
A Lexus for 50K USD can be considered to be CHEAPER than a Ford for 30K USD, if you can sell the Lexus for 40K after 2 years, but you can only get 15K for the Jeep after 2 years. Just making a point - of course, the actual prices might be very different. And some people might consider the Lexus better value without even looking at resale value!
Accepted, a lot of people want cheaper computers from Apple. Accepted, Apple could dramatically increase market share if they offered cheaper alternatives. Accepted this might be a smart thing for Apple to do, and they will get a lot of direct and indirect benefits if their market share was higher. But just because of the above is true, does not FORCE Apple to operate in that way. Apple can still choose not to operate in the cheaper segment. Just because Apple chooses not to operate in the cheaper segment, does not mean some other company is allowed to operate in that segment.
There is also the popular misconception that Apple is able to get away with this, just because Apple's market share is low. And that if Apple had 90% of the market, they cant force people to buy Apple hardware to run Apple software. This is quite wrong. Large market share per se is not bad. Misusing the large market share is what is bad. Insisting that Apple software be run only on Apple hardware cannot be construed as "misuse".
Well said! No matter how obvious it can be described, there are individuals that will still continue to believe they are entitled to whatever they want even if that means obtaining it without consent of the other party.
Can't afford that Rolex? No problem! Just buy one from the street corner vendor for twenty bucks! It's the same thing!
Yes I am. And If you could only understand the salient facts, that you yourself keep repeating, you might even agree with me!
Here I rewrote the sentence for you ".... just because the market share isn't big enough to ACTUALLY BE BREAKING THE LAW."
You check it out! Because you don't appear to have understood it. It's not the best explanation of tying that I have seen, but it will do. Look at the first paragraph... the bookstore example.... and here's another....
Your local bookstore, Acme Books, is selling the latest 'Harry Potter' book.
However, they will only sell it to you if you ALSO buy a copy of "A History of Dental Decay"
That is tying!
You, and everyone else, go and buy the Harry Potter from any one of a hundred other bookshops.
Acme Books has done nothing wrong.. or illegal. Stupid, maybe ... but not illegal.
Acme Books does not have sufficient market power
But what if Acme Books owned ALL the bookshops?
What if you couldn't buy 'Harry Potter' anywhere else?
Can you see the difference Ottway?
thanks for your patronising response and your superb example...
i knew it was going to be a good one when you called your bookstore "acme"
if you read any law article regarding Apple and tying (just type it into google)
you'll see that apple have used this model on a number of their products
in fact all their prominent products
ipods / itunes (legal proceedings underway)
iphone (legal proceedings finished against apple in some countries)
and now mac / OS (legal proceedings ongoing)
so it appears that Apple wants to use this business model for most things
whether or not their model is currently legal remains to be seen
as I stated before Psystar still has until December 8th to reply
regardless of the "salient" facts as market share increases, this business model will become less and less acceptable
that it is currently 'legal' (since it hasn't yet been declared illegal by a court) or that Psystar's claim has been initially rejected is not really the point
(although you can make it your point if you only want to state the obvious)
have a good read of this article and you might understand why Psystar 'lost' their first round
claiming that Mac OS is a single product market was a risky tactic, which obviously didn't work that judge
however, have no doubt that as Apple's market share increases more challenges will arise and most likely stick
you do understand that i'm not declaring apple's OS business model currently illegal right? - i agree that it's for a court to decide the legality of Apple's business models
i am saying that their current business model is unsuitable for significant market share growth (ie >30%)
Apple have already lost their battles in some countries over both the iphone (now sold without contract)
and iTunes (now selling songs without DRM)
the other things waiting in the wings are their professional software tools such as Logic and Final Cut
once that market share grows significantly (and I have no idea what the figures currently are)
expect some legal issues to come out - because this software can only be currently used on Apple hardware
Rights and Regions mess everything for us. At least can download podcast from USA store
But still you can find here almost everything but blue ray movies. Very small selection, maybe 30
movies.
Macs still mostly $300.00 above USA price but some models doesn't warm up the shelf like the new MB & MBP.
i remember that twenty years ago apple's products were MUCH more expensive in europe, which let do a rather active grey market for apple II's.
aren't the current price differences largely the value added taxes that are usually included in the sticker price in europe? in north america you add any applicable taxes at the cash register. taxes vary from state to state in the US and are also different from province to province in Canada.
the other thing to consider are the currency fluctuations. for a while i think you could buy macs cheaper in Canada than the US, since the retail prices were set at a time when the loonie was actually worth more than the US dollar. right now - not so much...
What do you mean "if it is indeed an upgrade disc"?
Name one company - just one - that currently has an agreement with Apple to purchase a full-license copy of OSX? Last time I checked, any copy that is for sale by Apple in any fashion is an upgrade CD only for Apple machines only. You imply that there is an ability to purchase (legally) a full license, non-upgrade OSX package. I've never heard of it.
Utterly false. Your "checking" is purely imagination.
Nowhere on the Leopard packaging, disks or licensing agreement does it state that it is an "upgrade". I've never heard of an OS X Leopard "upgrade" package.
Now, the license agreement does state that, "You agree to not install, use, or run the Apple Software on a non-Apple labeled computer, or enable others to do so." ... and Apple gives you these nice Apple label stickers in the package!
Utterly false. Your "checking" is purely imagination.
Nowhere on the Leopard packaging, disks or licensing agreement does it state that it is an "upgrade". I've never heard of an OS X Leopard "upgrade" package.
Now, the license agreement does state that, "You agree to not install, use, or run the Apple Software on a non-Apple labeled computer, or enable others to do so." ... and Apple gives you these nice Apple label stickers in the package!
If Leopard discs are sold for use with Mac computers running Intel, PowerPC G5, or PowerPC G4 (867MHz or faster) processors or faster, and every Mac sold comes with a version of OS X installed, then the discs are being sold to upgrade a previous version of OS X to a new version of OS X. The logic shouldn't be that hard to follow.
If Leopard discs are sold for use with Mac computers running Intel, PowerPC G5, or PowerPC G4 (867MHz or faster) processors or faster, and every Mac sold comes with a version of OS X installed, then the discs are being sold to upgrade a previous version of OS X to a new version of OS X. The logic shouldn't be that hard to follow.
They don't say they are "sold for use with" anything.
What is sold is a full version of the OS, which could just as easily be used install over the same version of the OS or to downgrade from some future version of the OS. Your (and others') "upgrade" logic is purely imagination. You clearly neither own the retail packaged version of the software nor have read its packaging and contents.
They don't say they are "sold for use with" anything.
You are confusing with upgrade-only discs that MS sells with discs Apple sells that are priced for people who have previously purchased OS X and wish to upgrade their Mac's original OS.
Right from Apple's website:If you can't see Mac computer as proof that Apple is selling OS X to those that have previous purchased a Mac with OS X, then you surely won't see that if Psystar were to win (which isn't possible) Apple would just jack up the price of OS X to make buying a Mac more cost effective than buying a Hackintosh. This would of course hurt Mac owners wishing to upgrade as the price would now be higher, so they might go for an upgrade-ONLY disc at the current price to supplement the difference, but that wouldn't be very Mac-like as it would now require you to keep and install the old version of the OS before using the upgrade-only disc. Unless Apple can come up with a HW solution that would make installing OS X on other machines much more difficult than rewriting Mac OS X to run BIOS.
If any of these individuals can be traced they should watch their backs as if Apple's lawyers can get hold of them they will soon be worrying about losing their homes etc.
You mean "their parent's homes"... right?
You imply that there is an ability to purchase (legally) a full license, non-upgrade OSX package. I've never heard of it.
Prepare to be dazzled:
http://store.apple.com/us/product/MB576Z/A
They basically buy these from Apple and sell them at the same $129. They also include a custom restore disc with a modified version of Leopard as the official one won't work but essentially, it equates to the full version of Leopard.
No disrespect or ranting intended. It's just that I don't understand why everyone singles out Apple when so many other people and companies do the exact same thing with their products.
It's probably because they make products people want quite badly but people wish the conditions under which they are offered were better. If someone offered you a nice apple pie but then covered it with cheese, you'd probably say can I have it without the cheese on it. It's not your right to demand it but you would understand the buyer's frustration.
your fish thing is a bit rubbish! A shortage of fish in the sea just has no relation to the PC market.
'I'm a PC and I sell fish'. It's not about the details of the analogy, it was about how laws can be written up based on very minor ethical points. If you kill someone, that's clearly illegal. If you use certain practices to drive everyone out of business, it's much harder to determine legality as it comes down to fairness.
You've correctly noted that the market share is the significant factor.
We accepts Gucci, Louis Vuitton, Chanel, etc., as upmarket brands
Nothing else depends on those though. Think of all the Mac software in the world. It only runs on a Mac. There is no market that solely depends on Gucci. It's known as vendor lock-in. The fashion industry and a great number of industries don't have the equivalent. Some do like the printer market, hands up who uses compatible ink cartridges. Oh but that's ok I suppose because you bought the printer so why should you be ripped off on the ink.
I don't really want to advocate that Psystar should win and force Apple to license their OS because I think that will damage the brand. I really just want Psystar to give Apple a good wake-up call in the same way Napster was a wake-up call to the industry. I don't think many people wanted free music and watch artists go out of business, people just wanted a fair and convenient system and since it wasn't offered, simply stood behind the illegal practice of free music sharing until the situation was resolved.
Perhaps Apple won't make the moves people want for the very reason of maintaining a low market share. If they offer affordable, powerful desktops then their market-share will increase to the point where their business model starts to become anti-competitive. Catch-22 really. They can't satisfy customers so the customers turn to people like Psystar, as soon as Apple satisfy customers and increase their market share, they are anti-competitive.
The outcome I want to see is for Apple to win the case and put Psystar + others out of business but start offering machines using similar components in order to make Psystar's offerings irrelevant. People don't mind paying a premium on hardware as long as it's within reason. They shouldn't be made to do it but like I say, I want the whole case to be a wake-up call for them to start offering more sensible options.
This kind of action lead to an anti Apple mentality and backed by finance from former management, it can easily be seen why Psystar is able to continue in legal action against Apple. This is speculation based on being there at the time and losing a job at NeXT in the UK.
Apple spent a huge amount of money and efforts to build something amazing and when it's ready, proven and successful, everybody wants a piece of the action? Two letters: R&D. That's what is missing at Microsoft HQ or any PC manufacturer.
If your PC became a crap piece of tech because of the OS, you should complain with your manufacturer or Microsoft. That's your target. Stop saying that Apple should share their OS with the world. We're not in the Teletubbies planet. I want a Porsche too and I hope someday, working hard I will have one. That's the logic.
Also, I have high hopes about PC-BSD, for example. They are making an awesome OS based on FreeBSD too, just like OS X, that just works and they are getting there. LEGALLY. Why Psystar as a "good company", instead of steal, didn't join those guys to build a remarkable experience? Or tried to build a great computer using some Linux distro? Uhm?! There's a huge plan behind this company and I still don't know what it is.
One last thing. A guy has a PC bought from some weird place, assembled with different parts from everywhere (lord knows where), put it all together and he still expects to have a great experience? Flawless? Give me a break. This is what most people do and they still want to argue with some twisted logic.
Psystar must be destroyed. Not just because is Apple, but this lawsuit resumed pretty well what is wrong with the world today. Are you untalented? Lazy? Sue. Sue. Sue. Shout. Shout. Shout. Maybe you'll get what you want with no hard work.
Sorry for the rant guys, but enough is enough.