It didn't matter that (some not all) clones were cheaper or more innovative than a Mac. They were still more expensive (a lot more expensive) than a comparable PC. The writing was on the wall. Apple and the clones were all fighting for the same dwindling market share. Eventually the clones would die off one at a time as Mac market share decreased. The clones could innovate past Apple all they want. But they didn't (or couldn't) innovate past the one thing that matter, the PC. And clones were dependent on Apple's OS. So if Apple dies first, so do all the clones. It's as simple as that. Or are you going to claim that the companies making clones were also capable of developing an OS for their computers?
You make valid points but the whole notion of the clones was to make Apple do what it hadn't been able to do and that was reinvent itself and get off its fat arse.
It didn't work of course, and it took the return of Steve Jobs and some famous lift sackings to terrify the Apple minions into line again.
You make valid points but the whole notion of the clones was to make Apple do what it hadn't been able to do and that was reinvent itself and get off its fat arse.
It didn't work of course, and it took the return of Steve Jobs and some famous lift sackings to terrify the Apple minions into line again.
Actually the whole point of the clone was to increase MacOS market shares. Apple felt that by having more than one hardware vender for their OS, that people would more likely buy into it. Apple thought they could be more like MS. Making money off the licensing of their OS. But instead of attracting new users to the MacOS, the clone makers ended up advertising their hardware to computer users that were already using Macs. In the 7 or 8 years that clones were available, Mac (including clones) market shares steady declined.
As advance as the AIM PPC chip was, Intel was able to keep up and eventual blew it away. Not with advancement in chip design. But advancement in chip manufacturing. No one thought that Intel could keep making thinner, smaller, faster and higher yield per wafer chips for as long as they did with the 486 and Pentium. They were literally following Moore's Law. Thus the PC saw a steady decrease in price and a steady increase in performance.
And when Windows 95 came out, it was going to be game over for Apple and the clones. Even though Windows 95 wasn't as good as OS8, it was good enough to keep computer users from switching to (or using if they a first time computer buyer) the more expensive Mac platform. Apple next generation OS, Copeland, was dead in the water. Apple would have survive the longest as it had no debt and billions in cash. So it was just a matter of time that the clones would have died off any ways. When Steve Jobs took over, US market share for Macs (including clones) was less than 5%. Not enough to support Apple, let alone 3 or 4 clone makers.
When we buy Macs, we hope that everything works as promised... But that doesn't happen always! So, WHY would anyone buy anything from PsyStar and such, and even pay them for Extended Warranty, if:
PsyStar is in Court against Apple
forget that. I knew I wasn't going to deal with them even before this stuff.
why?
1. if anything breaks I have to send it to Florida to get it fixed
2. I don't know that this guy/guys are actually trained to deal with Macs
3. when they were dumb enough to put a physical address the first one was a house in a residential area and the second I believe was a U store it place at the edge of a commercial/office zone. which makes me think this is one guy in mama's basement so who knows how long he'd have my computer or what he might do with any info he could pull off it.
with Apple, I have 4 stores in driving distance that train their techs and I have someone very clear to sue if I find out they looked at or possibly copied my personal data. Someone with enough money to pay the damages when I win.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell
Copyright law would likely allow regular folks to make those modifications to allow it to install on a PC despite Apple's license because it wouldn't sufficiently rob Apple of revenue because the use is for personal use, not profit. Psystar is directly costing Apple sales, however, and would be a big No No.
actually no. copyright law doesn't care about money. you can give something away and still be guilty of theft.
the issue with personal use is that you aren't advertising that you did it and you aren't helping someone else commit the same crime. so basically Apple doesn't know you did it and can't go after you (ie, what they don't know can't hurt them defense). so you still broke the law, but are way less likely to be caught.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gastroboy
People who submit to Apple's policies are rarely rewarded. Take for instance all those who went along with Apple's DRMed iTunes tracks, who are now sitting on damaged, old goods that they will be charged to replace.
that argument fails because the DRM tracks are still playable.
and of course you are being charged to replace them. or do you think that you should be able to buy a computer, use it for a year and then when a bigger badder one comes out, Apple should just give you one for free so now you have two computers but you only paid for one. cause that is basically what you are asking for. You have a perfectly good music file but you want them to just give you a better one for free. instead of being happy that they are willing to cut you a major deal if you want to get the bigger, better file for all your music which might be a small fortune at full price.
I say that Apple should drop that game. you want the new file, pay full price. no discounts. maximize those profits.
The owner of any good may decide how he will use his own property. By granting a license to use Mac OS X, Apple is trying to dictate how the owner of a license will use Mac OS X, to restrict the rights of fair use defined by laws.
Apple is trying to restrict the use of a Mac OS X licence beyond the time of sale when property is transferred from Apple to the buyer. This attempt is clearly abusive and ought to be barred by the Courts.
EULA's are very, very, very, *very* restrictive.
If I backup my Windows XP partition more than once, I've violated the EULA.
Comments
LOL they sure are coming up with new defense strategies from the top of their heads aren't they?
Their defense strategies stinks. So the "top of their head" is not the first place I would think it came from.
It didn't matter that (some not all) clones were cheaper or more innovative than a Mac. They were still more expensive (a lot more expensive) than a comparable PC. The writing was on the wall. Apple and the clones were all fighting for the same dwindling market share. Eventually the clones would die off one at a time as Mac market share decreased. The clones could innovate past Apple all they want. But they didn't (or couldn't) innovate past the one thing that matter, the PC. And clones were dependent on Apple's OS. So if Apple dies first, so do all the clones. It's as simple as that. Or are you going to claim that the companies making clones were also capable of developing an OS for their computers?
You make valid points but the whole notion of the clones was to make Apple do what it hadn't been able to do and that was reinvent itself and get off its fat arse.
It didn't work of course, and it took the return of Steve Jobs and some famous lift sackings to terrify the Apple minions into line again.
You make valid points but the whole notion of the clones was to make Apple do what it hadn't been able to do and that was reinvent itself and get off its fat arse.
It didn't work of course, and it took the return of Steve Jobs and some famous lift sackings to terrify the Apple minions into line again.
Actually the whole point of the clone was to increase MacOS market shares. Apple felt that by having more than one hardware vender for their OS, that people would more likely buy into it. Apple thought they could be more like MS. Making money off the licensing of their OS. But instead of attracting new users to the MacOS, the clone makers ended up advertising their hardware to computer users that were already using Macs. In the 7 or 8 years that clones were available, Mac (including clones) market shares steady declined.
As advance as the AIM PPC chip was, Intel was able to keep up and eventual blew it away. Not with advancement in chip design. But advancement in chip manufacturing. No one thought that Intel could keep making thinner, smaller, faster and higher yield per wafer chips for as long as they did with the 486 and Pentium. They were literally following Moore's Law. Thus the PC saw a steady decrease in price and a steady increase in performance.
And when Windows 95 came out, it was going to be game over for Apple and the clones. Even though Windows 95 wasn't as good as OS8, it was good enough to keep computer users from switching to (or using if they a first time computer buyer) the more expensive Mac platform. Apple next generation OS, Copeland, was dead in the water. Apple would have survive the longest as it had no debt and billions in cash. So it was just a matter of time that the clones would have died off any ways. When Steve Jobs took over, US market share for Macs (including clones) was less than 5%. Not enough to support Apple, let alone 3 or 4 clone makers.
legalities aside...
When we buy Macs, we hope that everything works as promised... But that doesn't happen always! So, WHY would anyone buy anything from PsyStar and such, and even pay them for Extended Warranty, if:
PsyStar is in Court against Apple
forget that. I knew I wasn't going to deal with them even before this stuff.
why?
1. if anything breaks I have to send it to Florida to get it fixed
2. I don't know that this guy/guys are actually trained to deal with Macs
3. when they were dumb enough to put a physical address the first one was a house in a residential area and the second I believe was a U store it place at the edge of a commercial/office zone. which makes me think this is one guy in mama's basement so who knows how long he'd have my computer or what he might do with any info he could pull off it.
with Apple, I have 4 stores in driving distance that train their techs and I have someone very clear to sue if I find out they looked at or possibly copied my personal data. Someone with enough money to pay the damages when I win.
Copyright law would likely allow regular folks to make those modifications to allow it to install on a PC despite Apple's license because it wouldn't sufficiently rob Apple of revenue because the use is for personal use, not profit. Psystar is directly costing Apple sales, however, and would be a big No No.
actually no. copyright law doesn't care about money. you can give something away and still be guilty of theft.
the issue with personal use is that you aren't advertising that you did it and you aren't helping someone else commit the same crime. so basically Apple doesn't know you did it and can't go after you (ie, what they don't know can't hurt them defense). so you still broke the law, but are way less likely to be caught.
People who submit to Apple's policies are rarely rewarded. Take for instance all those who went along with Apple's DRMed iTunes tracks, who are now sitting on damaged, old goods that they will be charged to replace.
that argument fails because the DRM tracks are still playable.
and of course you are being charged to replace them. or do you think that you should be able to buy a computer, use it for a year and then when a bigger badder one comes out, Apple should just give you one for free so now you have two computers but you only paid for one. cause that is basically what you are asking for. You have a perfectly good music file but you want them to just give you a better one for free. instead of being happy that they are willing to cut you a major deal if you want to get the bigger, better file for all your music which might be a small fortune at full price.
I say that Apple should drop that game. you want the new file, pay full price. no discounts. maximize those profits.
The owner of any good may decide how he will use his own property. By granting a license to use Mac OS X, Apple is trying to dictate how the owner of a license will use Mac OS X, to restrict the rights of fair use defined by laws.
Apple is trying to restrict the use of a Mac OS X licence beyond the time of sale when property is transferred from Apple to the buyer. This attempt is clearly abusive and ought to be barred by the Courts.
EULA's are very, very, very, *very* restrictive.