Amended Psystar complaint vs. Apple repeats copyright claims

12357

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 140
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BenRoethig View Post


    There is no designed for Mac OS X anymore. Everything under the hood consists of stock PC parts. The only difference between a Dell laptop and one of Apple's products are the enclosure (does not need drivers), EFI firmware instead of BIOS, and the operating system.



    Again, just not true.



    Look at other posts in this thread or better yet, look it up yourself. This idea that an Apple is just the same parts and made the same way as a Dell box is just a complete falsehood.
  • Reply 82 of 140
    halvrihalvri Posts: 146member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by stevielee View Post


    I swear that some of you posting on this thread must really be "Apple Insiders" - the way that you are bleating on and on in defense of Apples's defenseless, anti-consumer, anti-choice and anti-trust market monopoly in regards to OSX compatible hardware. Do some of you have stock in Apple as well?



    As a certified Apple Tech and freelance Consultant, I have bought and sold hundreds of thousands of dollars in Apple's hardware and software. I have no problems respecting Apple's right to protect their branded and designed products (software/hardware) from being illegally copied or patent compromised by another company without due compensation, or prior authorization from Apple.



    What I am strongly objecting to - is Apple's position that only Apple can sell the hardware that can run it's software exclusively. And the fact that Apple is purposely writing code into it's OS that specifically locks the user of their software into using ONLY Apple's own proprietary hardware (closed loop business model), is precisely why the EU ( as well as other parts of the world outside the US ) will not legally recognize Apple's absurd monopoly as it now stands.



    We all know what Apple is really afraid of here - real competition in the hardware market. Once Apple loses it's current stranglehold over the hardware that can run it's OS and applications, then the whole "we don't do $500 computers" arrogance is kaput overnight.



    Apple has put out some great machines/hardware like the current model iMacs and the intel Mac Mini (badly in need of a upgrade), and they have also sold some really overpriced and overhyped stinkers- like the cheaply made, underspeced, recently discontinued, plastic Macbooks, or the bad logic board (ram slot failures) G4 Powerbooks and the whole G5 Powermac fiasco - especially the "Liquid Cooled" Dual processor models that sold for almost 3K and are now fancy doorstops or sculpture for many unlucky owners.



    I know that there is a boatload of crappy PC hardware out there with just as many if not more issued concerning quality and performance - so there is no perfect alternative hardware for running OSX, but at least one should have the option (CHOICE) as a consumer in purchasing or building a computer that can run any OS that is sold in the retail market - especially when they all basically on on the very same hardware.



    In this economy, Apple will not be able to continue forcing us OSX users/fans to purchase ONLY their "high-end" computers and other hardware without resistance. We WILL hack, modify, or reconfigure any and all products to suit our needs as an end user/owner. OSX can run as easily and efficiently on a generic $500 laptop or desktop, as well as a top-of-the-line Mac Pro. Apple knows this - that's why they are fighting so hard too keep the hardware loop closed by modifying OSX - purposely limiting it's compatibility to only Apple branded machines. OSX flies on an AMD quad core, and is quite respectable on a $399 Asus EEE PC.



    http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/dreams-ca...-pc-323279.php.



    Psystar might not win their battle against the Big Bad Apple and it's phalanx of lawyers, but they are another necessary chink in Apple's Anti-Competitive hardware armor that will eventually have to open up and liberate OSX from Apple only equipment.



    OSX may be the best OS available right now and I'd be willing to pay more for it, but not if it's crippled and closed - opening it up will only make it better and more widely used, Apple's hardware revenue be damned.



    The only one showing arrogance here is you. Apple offers a vastly superior alternative to microsoft precisely because it ties the OS and hardware together. The customer service is better because you don't have to deal with multiple vendors, the operating system is better because it doesn't suffer from PC bloatware, & and the hardware is better because Apple tests on higher standards and doesn't have to sacrifice quality to play the price game (just look at where that has gotten Dell: near death).



    If you don't like the choices Apple offers you, then, by all means, look into what Microsoft has to offer. If you don't like those choices, then try some Linux distros. The idea that Apple should be required to sell to multiple hardware vendors to satisfy you is ridiculous. Part of why Apple makes such a good all around product is that it's not the populous product that Microsoft is. It doesn't have to be everything to everyone. I'm assuming you like OS X precisely because it lacks the issues which plague Windows, which is why you need to realize that all you're fighting for is to make OS X into Vista.



    Apple isn't limiting your choice because it's afraid of hardware competition because it already competes directly against Windows hardware manufacturers. Apple is limiting its (which means not yours) OS to its hardware to give you the benefits inherent in that relationship because it provides a better experience that every single one of its competitors.



    You have no legal rights to an operating system because you do not own it in any way, shape, or form. Simply desiring to put it on cheaper hardware doesn't mean Apple has to oblige you. Again, you have many choices other than OS X of which you can take advantage.



    And please stop invoking the European Union and Gizmodo in your arguments. The European Union has very little power beyond policing and monetary standards. Its courts have little power in the international realm to do anything more than impose fines. Beyond that, though, the EU is the single worst legal authority you can possibly invoke. The entire thing is falling apart progressively because its structuring and its rulings are providing its population with the exact opposite of their intended effect. The CAP was created to benefit nations with farming subsidies, which is now becoming a drag given the way its currently allotted. And their really is not such thing as realism in EU anti-trust laws. The idea that an operating system cannot ship with anything or else run the risk of being in violation is something even I'll defend Microsoft on. The EU isn't protecting its consumers, it destroying the value in even the simplest products because, again, Europe wants everything to be everything to everyone, which is why none of it will amount to anything. And get real, Gizmodo is the most anti-Apple blog on the face of the earth, especially given how many saintly pieces they run on Bill Gates all while still referring to Steve Jobs as "he who commands the reality distortion field." My g-d, why don't you just quote CNET and its worthless reviews and propaganda.



    You're fighting for a false proposition.
  • Reply 83 of 140
    Imagine if Psystar got taken seriously. I can just imagine the speech!





    "It is 2009 Apple eventually lets Psystar clone Apple machines under license.



    Two years later Apple stop selling the hardware due to the fierce competition from the mac clones. The Apple software market is becoming the mainstream over shadowing Windows.



    It is 10 years later and apples operating systems have started to lag behind the others because of a lack of money for research and development.



    Two years later Apple what was a young fledgling company is now bankrupt because they let the clones in."






    Please throw Psystar out straight away.
  • Reply 84 of 140
    rainrain Posts: 538member
    Man, this is the best debate ever on these forums.



    Awesome comments and points made by both sides.

    This judge is going to be deliberating until 2012. Or siding with whoever buys him out first.



    Personally, I like the software/hardware strategy of Apple. It's what distinguishes Apple from Microsoft. It's what makes Apple great.

    It's also why Apple was decimated by Microsoft.

    It's also why Apple still sucks the big sweaty nut sack in the sky in some ways.



    My dual 2ghz G5 3rd generation, blew up on me 3 weeks after the Applecare ran out on it. Apple's reply was "too f***ing bad.. ha ha, sucker".

    After paying $200 for 'Certified Apple Diagnostics', the solution was $1100 for a processor that may or may not be the problem, or $980 for a new logic board that may or may not be the problem.

    And Apple's policy is, they don't allow returns on parts. So it was like playing black/red split on a roulette table at the casino.

    $2100 to fix a machine 3 weeks out of extended warranty that I paid $400 for.



    (oh, and i love how apple made it so that you need an 'Apple certified allen key' to access the processors)



    So now i'm kinda in the camp of "gee... wish I could have picked up a part for 1/9th the cost tha t Apple wanted to rape me on, yet don't want to lose the synergy they have with their products.



    I do feel stifled by having to use Apple Hardware. Like when I had to pay $740 for the ATI X800 video card for my G5 thats now dead, when the EXACT SAME CARD for PC was $120.



    I've had way too many of their products fail on me lately.

    So for the purpose of brand loyalty, I guess Apple needs Pystar to win, it could be the best thing for them in the long run.



    Bricking is just wrong... on so many many levels. It's so very anti-Apple and everything we, as a community fought against for so long.

    It also shows that Apple is afraid it can't innovate enough to stay ahead.

    They seem to be following the Sony model of the 90's, with the stores, proprietary equipment, software. Look where they are now.



    I guess my wish would be that Apple stops raping people like it's a big freak'n orgy. If it takes Pystar winning the lawsuit to make Apple focused on quality and innovation again... I guess i'm all for it.



    Anyone else miss 'Happy Mac'?

    That lil dude represented a different corporate attitude.
  • Reply 85 of 140
    OK, I'm nuts, but if OSX could run on any manufacturer's PC natively, in a few years MS could easily be out of the OS business.
  • Reply 86 of 140
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by thomasaiwilcox View Post


    Imagine if Psystar got taken seriously. I can just imagine the speech!





    "It is 2009 Apple eventually lets Psystar clone Apple machines under license.



    Two years later Apple stop selling the hardware due to the fierce competition from the mac clones. The Apple software market is becoming the mainstream over shadowing Windows.



    It is 10 years later and apples operating systems have started to lag behind the others because of a lack of money for research and development.



    Two years later Apple what was a young fledgling company is now bankrupt because they let the clones in."






    Please throw Psystar out straight away.





    If in the year 2019, we still have the same situation with OSX (on Apple branded machines ONLY), Windows (even worse than it is now), with only Linux being the sole OS that can be installed on either a PC or Mac- then the future of computing is very bleak indeed. Hopefully, with the ongoing implosion and subsequent restructuring of the global economy -by then - we'll have come to recognize the benefits of a more "open-sourced" landscape for the computing world.



    Of course, all the speculation of what will, or will not happen in 10 years from now with computing - will be moot - if our consumption of fossil fuels continues at the rate we are using it now.



    http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/clima...ght-18648.html



    And in response to the posters on this thread who are pounding the Apple party line - I commend your undying loyalty to your company (a couple of you have to be Apple employees or stockholders), but sooner or later, whether it is Psystar, or another opportunistic venture, Apple will have to eventually concede it's monopoly on the OSX compatible hardware front ( especially if Apple ignores the economic realities happening right now and continues to release ONLY high end $1000+++ machines ). And now, with Argentina and Germany jumping into Apple's exclusive, OSX hardware pool, it will take even more restrictive efforts and anti-competitive measures from Apple to stem this tide - which will further hurt not only Apple, but all of the fans/users of OSX (PC or MAC).



    http://www.computerworld.com/action/...intsrc=hm_list



    Apple has been aggressively flaunting it's ability to run Windows on their Intel machines - even in those lame Mac/PC television commercials. Do you Apple Monopolist seriously think that it is going to stay ONLY a one way street in Apple's favor? It has been partly Apple themselves that have sparked and encouraged this "cross-platform" OS integration.



    OSX WILL be liberated from Apple ONLY machines - whether any of you like it or not. And in the next few years (when Jobs is long retired), OSX will be pre-installed on computers of all makes, kinds and costs. Those of you who are fighting this are the past. The future is OPEN!
  • Reply 87 of 140
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bsenka View Post


    That's certainly the claim that the software companies keep making, thankfully the courts are increasingly ruling against such nonsense.



    When I buy a physical product at a store, I sign no lease or license agreement. I flat out purchased a physical product. It's mine to do what ever I want with it. Home depot can't tell me what I can or cannot build with the lumber I buy, Apple cannot tell me what computer I can install their OS onto. Home Depot cannot stop me from building something with that lumber and turning around and selling that new product for my own profit, Apple can't stop me from installing that OS onto a PC I build and turning around and selling that.



    You are seriously missing the point of intellectual property rights. If you buy a photograph of a beautiful scene photographed and copyrighted by Ansel Adams, you can take it home and plaster stuff all over it if you want, but you cannot copy it into your computer, print out a thousand copies of it on photographic paper and sell them for $10 each. This would be a violation of copyright laws and violation of intellectual property rights. This is totally different from buying a piece of lumber, or a bunch of ball bearings.

    Your argument sounds to me like the rationalization used by thieves to steal music and to buy one copy of a software program, then make 20 copies for friends. Just because you can do it does not mean it is legal. If you make copies for friends because you don't like the price or the manufacturer it's not only stealing as if you had walked into a store and taken them off the shelf and walked out without paying, it's also mean, malicious and vile. If you make 20 copies of the latest million seller album and even if you give them away, you are still stealing from the musician or artist, who has most likely lost out on 20 more sales. If you don't think the album is worth the $15 or whatever, that still doesn't give you the right to make multiple copies, and it's certainly an immoral thing to do. For example, if you were a programmer, and you spent a year working away on a great new program, then after releasing it you discovered that half the copies in existence were simply copied onto another disc and given or sold cheaper to someone else, wouldn't you be pissed off that you had lost 50% of all the money you should have made after pouring your heart and soul into this project for an entire year? Money which you deserve after having sweated for a year to create this great new product? Of course you would be mad. This is the way to look at this and many other challenges in life, not just whether or not it would make someone mad, but whether of not it is fundamentally unfair and you would feel ripped off it is happened to you.

    I don't know all the details of what Psychotic Komputer Kompany is doing, but it sounds like they are buying copies of Mac OS X and then hacking them to make them work on their hardware. If this is true, another false analogy you might come up with (So I will shoot it down now before you use it) is that it's like buying a Ford and taking it to a body shop and getting it modified to look cooler or have fancy fins on it or whatever. However, that is a false analogy, as the OS is the most important piece of how it functions. So a more correct analogy would be you went a bought a Ford, then changed the suspension, the engine and the transmission out (selling them perhaps to someone else for parts), and put cheaper crap in in its place, then you sold it as if it was a Ford. Certainly Ford would be pissed at you when people started wrecking their cars or having them blowup on them, and suing Ford about it when it was your cheap parts that caused the accidents.

    Similarly, Apple has the right to come up with it's own products that are an integral mixture of software and hardware, all controlled by them, and not have to support a competing company that wants to rip off the equivalent of hundreds of years of one person working on software development, and then commercially sell it to others without ever paying Apple a cent for all the development work (and NO, the $129 does not begin to cover the hundreds of millions they've put into development over the years, it just gets them a little back from people who've already invested thousands into their hardware which is what really pays to keep them afloat. That's why they can undersell Apple on hardware prices, is by not having to spend 20% of everything they earn to develop the next version, and by buying cheaper crappier parts, and then also the idea that they should be allowed to undersell Apple's own products would actually be VERY detrimental to the consumer, as Apple would probably go under if it had to compete without getting large margins which allow them to have the R&D needed to come up with the next great idea.

    So, Microsoft, gets away with ripping off Apple's OS X by developing something of their own that looks a little like the Apple product, but is never as good, so it doesn't matter as much, and it is their right to copy something else as long as they had to do all the programming themselves and work out the bugs themselves etc. However, Psypuke is not allowed to steal Apple's OS and resell it with a crappy box, and especially is not allowed to hack the OS (that is definitely severely illegal ! ! )

    So, think about it, if you were Apple, maybe you?d decide to license your operating system, but knowing that you?d spent many years developing it (as well as paying over $400 million to Next Computers to buy their OS), you?d probably lease the OS to other manufacturers for $500 or $700, you certainly wouldn?t give away the main reason you have an advantage in the marketplace for a miserable $129. (And remember, if you buy the full version of Windows, it costs around $279, more than double Apple?s OS price. Part of the reason for this is that they can make up some of the R&D expenses on the price of their excellent hardware, that most people are willing to pay a premium for because they know it?s so much better.)

    In conclusion, I think you haven?t been looking at it from the point of view of either what?s good for the consumer in the long run - which is to let Apple flourish and keep pushing the computing world (and consumer world) forward, nor have you been accurately making analogies. Comparing a very sophisticated OS that?s been in the making for nearly 20 yrs (counting the time at Next) to an undifferentiated piece of wood at Home Depot totally misses the point of all the intellectual property rights that are inherent in products that require a lot of originality to produce, as opposed to a piece of wood that anyone can cut to certain dimensions.

    I agree with most of the others here that this Thieving company should just all rent a boat, sail out into the Gulf Stream (or the Gulf of Mexico, depending on which Florida coast they are closest to) and tie large boulders around their ankles and throw them overboard. That way we would need less of the hated class of attorneys, and we would be rid of a bunch of ?expletive deleted? amoral, lying thieving, scum who perhaps could then have their 15 minutes of fame by being listed on the Darwin?s Awards for this year!

    Now, similarly, imagine that
  • Reply 88 of 140
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    When you choose to go to a different OS you are going to need to update your SW in most cases. Only a few commercial developers create for multiple platforms and allow switching across the platforms. Why is that Apple's fault? Are you suggesting that all OSes should be exactly the same?



    Its apple's fault because they put be in the position for a difficult move I would rather not make. But they would rather sell their OS to weak minded lemmings who are only interested in flash and social considerations, not what a computer can actually do. Anyone higher than iLife level they no longer want because they require actual useable features and not gimmicks.



    Quote:

    As for switching to Windows, you can install the pay for MacDrive or the free HFSEXplorer or TransMac to let Windows machines read and write to HFS+. You also have more common solutions, like optical media, formatting an external drive as FAT32 and all the various ways you send data over the internet, like FTP, SSH, HTTP, and email. For being black and white, as you say, there sure are a colourful assortment of options at hand.



    Yeah you can accept a semi-useless laptop on a stick like the iMac, pay twice as much for a workstation which Apple may or may drop in the future like they did desktops, or you can make a perilous, costly, and time consuming move to windows. Wow what a great array of excellent options. What ever one you pick you end up losing.
  • Reply 89 of 140
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by OldMacGuy View Post


    OK, I'm nuts, but if OSX could run on any manufacturer's PC natively, in a few years MS could easily be out of the OS business.



    I wouldn't go that far, but 30-40% would not be unreasonable. The OS is capable of far more than what Apple's current lineup is.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by thomasaiwilcox View Post


    Imagine if Psystar got taken seriously. I can just imagine the speech!





    "It is 2009 Apple eventually lets Psystar clone Apple machines under license.



    Two years later Apple stop selling the hardware due to the fierce competition from the mac clones. The Apple software market is becoming the mainstream over shadowing Windows.



    It is 10 years later and apples operating systems have started to lag behind the others because of a lack of money for research and development.



    Two years later Apple what was a young fledgling company is now bankrupt because they let the clones in."






    Please throw Psystar out straight away.



    Would you rather have this scenario:



    The current fad ends and most of the switchers return to windows like they did with the original Bondi iMac, Apple's strong-armed irreparably harmed its relationship with professional users (the ones who were buying Macs when nobody else was), and Apple's relationship with mobile developers leads them to focus on android or WebOS. Who is left to keep Apple afloat? Psystar and their basement factory are of no concern to Apple, but they are a sign that all is not right. They're burning way too many bridges for their profits. If Apple wants to go completely in the mainstream consumer direction, that's their choice. Don't hold the people that allow them to be in the position for these huge profits hostage to do it. If they don't want to make certain types of machines, let someone else do it. The road they're traveling may be fruitful now, but sooner or later their choices will catch up with them.
  • Reply 90 of 140
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BenRoethig View Post


    Its apple's fault because they put be in the position for a difficult move I would rather not make.



    Apple knows that switching is a big step for people, hence their very successful campaign to get people to switch. They will even migrate your files from old system to your new system for free in Mac Stores.



    Apple AND Windows use proprietary file systems. But Microsoft not offering a way for non-technical users such as yourself to go back to Windows easily is somehow Apple's fault? I don't think you've really thought this through.
  • Reply 91 of 140
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BenRoethig View Post


    I wouldn't go that far, but 30-40% would not be unreasonable. The OS is capable of far more than what Apple's current lineup is.



    It's capable of far less, too. Running on fa less, that is. It ran great on my MSI WInd. One of the most important aspects was the power management of OS X. With Netbooks you get small batteries, which reduce cost, weight and size so having an efficient OS is important.



    Note: That does not mean I think Apple should be forced to sell its OS to any vendor and produce a machine that any forum poster can dream up just because it suits their particular needs.
  • Reply 92 of 140
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    Apple knows that switching is a big step for people, hence their very successful campaign to get people to switch. They will even migrate your files from old system to your new system for free in Mac Stores.



    Really, will they move my files from the iMac to another brand because they have chosen to no longer make an affordable machine that is suitable?



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    It's capable of far less, too. Running on fa less, that is. It ran great on my MSI WInd. One of the most important aspects was the power management of OS X. With Netbooks you get small batteries, which reduce cost, weight and size so having an efficient OS is important.



    Another great example of how much Ive and Jobs are stifling this OS.



    Quote:

    Note: That does not mean I think Apple should be forced to sell its OS to any vendor and produce a machine that any forum poster can dream up just because it suits their particular needs.



    Dream it up? Apple made it for many many years. In fact there was a time not too long ago when the PowerMac was considered Apple's flagship. They just choose to discontinue it (Note, the MacPro is step beyond the G-series PowerMacs, not a replacement) because of a personal preference for pretty and thin but severely bottlenecked all in ones.
  • Reply 93 of 140
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BenRoethig View Post


    Really, will they move my files from the iMac to another brand because they have chosen to no longer make an affordable machine that is suitable?



    Don't be an ass!
  • Reply 94 of 140
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BenRoethig View Post


    I'm also free to spend a large bundle replacing all of my software and lose a good portion of my files while figuring out how in God's name I'm going to transfer my files that can be read by windows from a Mac using HFS+ to a windows machine using NTFS. Its so black and white to you people, everyday practicality has no room in your argument. Steve Jobs' Apple is infallible and its up to the user to adapt to that. Personally, I prefer the days before his little power trip when you didn't have make major concession to have either the hardware or operating system you wanted. You could have both.







    You have only yourself to blame for your issues with Apple.



    We live in a world where people can "own" intellectual property & sell that IP to whomever they wish. A lot of people & companies do this. Hence, consumers get to choose from a dizzying panoply of IP - art, computers, music, cars, houses, clothing, literature, &c, etc.



    Your argument, more properly directed against yourself than Apple, becomes neutered when we recall that in in our world full of all kinds of IP to buy - we have choice. Choice to buy or not buy, use or not use. With choice comes responsibility. A responsibility to be aware of what we are getting ourselves into with our choice(s).



    If I choose to cross the road against traffic & become struck by a car - whom do I blame, BenRoethig, myself or the driver? I believe you would blame the driver of the car. I would blame myself for making a poor, poor choice.



    I see a lot of self-entitled consumeritis in your words. Get that checked out, or it can worsen over time.





    Oh, by the way, you can transfer files on your Mac to an NTFS drive using a cool little program called Macfuse.



    http://www.hackszine.com/blog/archiv...fs_drives.html



    http://code.google.com/p/macfuse/
  • Reply 95 of 140
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    Don't be an ass!



    Ditto





    Dude, Ben, start your own PC/OS manufacturing company. Last time I checked, you are totally free to start competition against any company you feel is making an inferior product. In fact, I strongly suggest to _anyone_ who has an argument with Apple's "limits" they impose on their IP - start your own company & make a better product.
  • Reply 96 of 140
    halvrihalvri Posts: 146member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by stevielee View Post


    If in the year 2019, we still have the same situation with OSX (on Apple branded machines ONLY), Windows (even worse than it is now), with only Linux being the sole OS that can be installed on either a PC or Mac- then the future of computing is very bleak indeed. Hopefully, with the ongoing implosion and subsequent restructuring of the global economy -by then - we'll have come to recognize the benefits of a more "open-sourced" landscape for the computing world.



    Of course, all the speculation of what will, or will not happen in 10 years from now with computing - will be moot - if our consumption of fossil fuels continues at the rate we are using it now.



    http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/clima...ght-18648.html



    And in response to the posters on this thread who are pounding the Apple party line - I commend your undying loyalty to your company (a couple of you have to be Apple employees or stockholders), but sooner or later, whether it is Psystar, or another opportunistic venture, Apple will have to eventually concede it's monopoly on the OSX compatible hardware front ( especially if Apple ignores the economic realities happening right now and continues to release ONLY high end $1000+++ machines ). And now, with Argentina and Germany jumping into Apple's exclusive, OSX hardware pool, it will take even more restrictive efforts and anti-competitive measures from Apple to stem this tide - which will further hurt not only Apple, but all of the fans/users of OSX (PC or MAC).



    http://www.computerworld.com/action/...intsrc=hm_list



    Apple has been aggressively flaunting it's ability to run Windows on their Intel machines - even in those lame Mac/PC television commercials. Do you Apple Monopolist seriously think that it is going to stay ONLY a one way street in Apple's favor? It has been partly Apple themselves that have sparked and encouraged this "cross-platform" OS integration.



    OSX WILL be liberated from Apple ONLY machines - whether any of you like it or not. And in the next few years (when Jobs is long retired), OSX will be pre-installed on computers of all makes, kinds and costs. Those of you who are fighting this are the past. The future is OPEN!



    Do you have any idea what the definition of monopoly even is. Most of us aren't even trying to push Apple's party line, we just find your complete misinterpretation of copyright law frustrating. There are several businesses who successfully use the same business model as Apple who would have to compromise their entire structure to accommodate your ridiculous demands (RIM being a good example).



    10% does not constitute a monopoly (even 25% doesn't reach that echelon of law). You're astounding ego doesn't change that fact. Again, Apple is an entire package, not just an operating system. Just because you only like one piece of it, doesn't give you the right to demand it.
  • Reply 97 of 140
    halvrihalvri Posts: 146member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BenRoethig View Post


    Its apple's fault because they put be in the position for a difficult move I would rather not make. But they would rather sell their OS to weak minded lemmings who are only interested in flash and social considerations, not what a computer can actually do. Anyone higher than iLife level they no longer want because they require actual useable features and not gimmicks.







    Yeah you can accept a semi-useless laptop on a stick like the iMac, pay twice as much for a workstation which Apple may or may drop in the future like they did desktops, or you can make a perilous, costly, and time consuming move to windows. Wow what a great array of excellent options. What ever one you pick you end up losing.



    A semi useless lap-top on a stick? Wow, my iMac runs Aperture 2, Final Cut Express 4. Adobe Creative Suite 4, & acts as a server admin on a daily basis and works perfectly. The Mac Pro is for people who seriously need high end computing, that's why it's a workstation, not a simple computer. And Apple does not sell its OS to weak minded people, it simply a consumer oriented business, not an enterprise oriented one.
  • Reply 98 of 140
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BenRoethig View Post


    Its apple's fault because they put be in the position for a difficult move I would rather not make. But they would rather sell their OS to weak minded lemmings who are only interested in flash and social considerations, not what a computer can actually do. Anyone higher than iLife level they no longer want because they require actual useable features and not gimmicks.







    Yeah you can accept a semi-useless laptop on a stick like the iMac, pay twice as much for a workstation which Apple may or may drop in the future like they did desktops, or you can make a perilous, costly, and time consuming move to windows. Wow what a great array of excellent options. What ever one you pick you end up losing.



    What a tool you are. A semi - useless laptop o a stick? What amazing things are you doing in your advanced underground lair? Such tiresome trash - the Apple tax and all that. The divide between Mac and PC prices has been getting slimmer and slimmer. I've had my iMac on for literally *months* at a time without a crash in my music studio, where I routinely run many plugins and haven't had any problems with it.



    Go to PC land, feel good about your $500 Windows box or whatever you are boobing on about. Your sense of entitlement is silly. Having used iLife since its inception, I don't think its all "flash and social considerations."
  • Reply 99 of 140
    Boy, all of you Apple Flacks are getting to be seriously over-zealous, thin skinned, and an increasingly cranky bunch of orthodox parishioners in the church of Mactology - even resorting to foul name calling - like "ass" and "tool", and ironic accusations of "amazing ego"- without realizing that the man with the most "amazing ego", is Heir Jobs himself.



    And please, stop with all your "copyright, copyright, copyright" mantra drivel. Like copyright laws are sacrosanct or impugnable as they stand and are used/misused in the US right now.



    Using copyright protection as a method of stifling competition and enforcing anti-competitive practices (as all the drug companies do with their despicable "extended patents"), is the oldest trick in the book and does end up slowing down direct competition for a time, but inevitably, outside challenges to these "copyrighted" fortresses, will end up busting down the "copyrighted" gates to the heathen barbarians outside (Psystar etc). And yes, I do consider Apple a "monopoly" - their business model consisting of controlling every aspect in anything Apple produces, does, says, or even thinks - right down to the most minute detail of public perception.



    Apple may be the best of the worst - as American businesses go right now, but the little "computer company that could" is surely looking and acting more and more like the evil empire Microsoft each and every day...

    I can't even keep track of the number or new anti-competitive, anti-trust, anti-consumers, patent infringement suits that are filed against Apple and their practices (especially connected with iTunes, iPod, and iPhone) this past month alone.



    Oh, to be such a beleaguered , misunderstood behemoth. Do we rabble not see that it was Apple who prodded us all to "Think Different"?

    But to think really differently (like outside of Apple's business model box), would be a bridge too far I think.....



    Whatever became of that pretty blond in a track suit that threw the hammer at the screen?
  • Reply 100 of 140
    davidwdavidw Posts: 1,346member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by stevielee View Post


    Using copyright protection as a method of stifling competition and enforcing anti-competitive practices (as all the drug companies do with their despicable "extended patents"), is the oldest trick in the book and does end up slowing down direct competition for a time, but inevitably, outside challenges to these "copyrighted" fortresses, will end up busting down the "copyrighted" gates to the heathen barbarians outside (Psystar etc). And yes, I do consider Apple a "monopoly" - their business model consisting of controlling every aspect in anything Apple produces, does, says, or even thinks - right down to the most minute detail of public perception.



    So so basically you're saying that record companies should be forced to compete with people making music avaiable online for free. And movie studios should priced their DVD's to complete with those black market movies you find at a flea market. Rather than have the right to enforce copyright laws to protect their IP from being stolen in the first place. Do you really think that any company that invested a lot money to develop their IP can make the same amount of profit as those that choose to steal that IP and sell it for less? And how does the consumers benifit when companies calls it quit and stop making CD's, DVD's and new drugs because there's nothing in place to protect that they can even recover the cost it takes to do so? Everyone would just sit around and wait for some else to spend the money to develop something new and then just steal that idea for their own use.



    You can't tell a drug company to invest the billions of dollars it takes in R&D to develop an inhalable insulin. And when they do, turn around and tell them they no longer have the any rights to the drug and let any company market that product. If they knew that in the first place they wouldn't have even invested a dime into the R&D to develop it.



    If it weren't for the protection of copyright laws, OSX would not even exist today. What company in their right mind would spend the hundreds of millions of dollars it take to develop an OS just so that others, that have incurred no developement cost, gets to use it for next to nothing? (Let's not forget that the relative low price of the retail OSX is to reward those that already invested in a Mac. And now Psystar wants to try to screw that up by claiming they have the same rights as a user that already purchased a Mac.)
Sign In or Register to comment.