Absolutely correct, and applies perfectly to this case. As long as you actually pay for your copy of OS X, it is none of Apple's business what computer you install it on, regardless of what the EULA says.
As long as you don't sell it to somebody else I won't argue. Personal rights should be held in very high regard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsenka
And a company that wants to resell legally purchased copies of OS X in/with a different computer are no more guilty of anything than a mens wear store that sells a Hathaway shirt with an Armani suit in a store that's on a main floor of high rise teeming with law firms.
Dead wrong. Business plays by far different rules and laws than individuals not in business do.
Your logic on this particular example is broken too. The implication isn't mix and match an independent shirt, it would be sewing an Armani label into a similarly cut suit from the Mens Warehouse supplier and then weirdly selling it as not an Armani suit, but just as good as an Armani suit. Using the Armani name and trademarks liberally without permission as a way to bring notice to the suit nobody would have cared a whit about if it didn't have that Armani label.
You can buy and resell most things without the original creators permission. I can buy copies of Twilight, make my own casket-looking box, put the book and a clove of garlic in said box and sell those. Stephenie Meyer has no right whatsoever to stop me if the copies of the book I'm reselling are legally purchased originals, even if the book's indicia clearly had a "no reselling" clause in it.
Actually she can, and would take you to the cleaners in court if she wanted to.
Actually she can, and would take you to the cleaners in court if she wanted to.
I'm not so sure about this, although I'm basing my skepticism on half-remembered things I learned in law school more than a dozen years ago. Worse still, I've never in my life practiced intellectual property law. As a result, what I say below should not be considered accurate and is definitely not legal advice.
When you buy a book, you own that physical copy. You can read it, lend it, give it away, burn it, shred it, resell it, or do anything else you might want with it (except for hitting other people over the head or other intrinsically illegal acts). What copyright prevents you from doing is making a duplicate of the work. So if a person repackages a legitimately purchased book, the copyright holder really doesn't have a lot to say being that they were already fairly compensated.
Software and books don't analogize with each other perfectly however, and recently, artists have become rather creative at dividing up rights to works of art (I'm thinking of that glossy chrome blob in Chicago ... I think it is Chicago ... that people aren't supposed to photograph).
Also, I think someone above confused "fair use" and "first sale doctrine" with respect to selling used books. One's right to sell used books is not related to fair use, fair use being a type of duplication that is permitted.
Actually she can, and would take you to the cleaners in court if she wanted to.
Sorry, you are mistaken.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anagama
I'm not so sure about this, although I'm basing my skepticism on half-remembered things I learned in law school more than a dozen years ago. Worse still, I've never in my life practiced intellectual property law. As a result, what I say below should not be considered accurate and is definitely not legal advice.
When you buy a book, you own that physical copy. You can read it, lend it, give it away, burn it, shred it, resell it, or do anything else you might want with it (except for hitting other people over the head or other intrinsically illegal acts). What copyright prevents you from doing is making a duplicate of the work. So if a person repackages a legitimately purchased book, the copyright holder really doesn't have a lot to say being that they were already fairly compensated.
You are correct. First sale is clearly in the customer's favour. You buy it, you own it, you can turn around and sell it. It's now your property.
Quote:
Software and books don't analogize with each other perfectly
Not perfectly, but first sale has still been successfully applied with software. The have been cases where judges have essentially ruled that software is a purchase, not a license. Autodesk and Abobe have both lost similar cases.
The implication isn't mix and match an independent shirt, it would be sewing an Armani label into a similarly cut suit from the Mens Warehouse supplier and then weirdly selling it as not an Armani suit, but just as good as an Armani suit. Using the Armani name and trademarks liberally without permission as a way to bring notice to the suit nobody would have cared a whit about if it didn't have that Armani label.
These companies are not putting Apple logos on these boxes. They aren't Macs, and they don't claim they are. They're generic PC boxes with legally purchased OS X. Aftermarket value added.
In your example, it would have to be one item that is a real Armani, being sold as a set with something that is not, and is not labelled as one. Like the Hathaway/Armani example I already gave. Put a shirt in a suit, put an OS in a computer.
These companies are not putting Apple logos on these boxes. They aren't Macs, and they don't claim they are. They're generic PC boxes with legally purchased OS X. Aftermarket value added.
In your example, it would have to be one item that is a real Armani, being sold as a set with something that is not, and is not labelled as one. Like the Hathaway/Armani example I already gave. Put a shirt in a suit, put an OS in a computer.
OS X and Macs are integrated. The software is designed to work seamlessly with only Mac hardware certified hardware. What Pystar was doing was sort of partial counterfeiting. Use a real Rolex case and dial, then put a Japanese movement inside, and you would still have a counterfeit. OS X, like a real Rolex watch, is made up of more than just one genuine component.
Someone mentioned earlier that any software maker is liable for technically supporting its program/OS if a commercial vendor sells it, so if Apple allows Pystar to use its OS, then Apple would be forced to deal with Pystar buyers.
These companies are not putting Apple logos on these boxes. They aren't Macs, and they don't claim they are. They're generic PC boxes with legally purchased OS X. Aftermarket value added.
No. As I have pointed out countless times already, they are Macs. The hardware alone does not function as a Mac. The software alone does not function as a Mac. It is only the two in combination that makes it a Mac.
Quote:
In your example, it would have to be one item that is a real Armani, being sold as a set with something that is not, and is not labelled as one. Like the Hathaway/Armani example I already gave. Put a shirt in a suit, put an OS in a computer.
That analogy is ludicrous for the reasons already stated. Combined or not, the suit is a suit and a shirt is a shirt. They don't make anything together that they were not individually.
You are correct. First sale is clearly in the customer's favour. You buy it, you own it, you can turn around and sell it. It's now your property.
Not perfectly, but first sale has still been successfully applied with software. The have been cases where judges have essentially ruled that software is a purchase, not a license. Autodesk and Abobe have both lost similar cases.
No first sale does not apply business to business. Only to a consumer. The fact you gussied up a box with express purpose of selling the book value-added made you a business and subject to business to business laws and statutes.
Want to show your proverbial mental bare arse again?
Quote:
Originally Posted by anagama
I'm not so sure about this, although I'm basing my skepticism on half-remembered things I learned in law school more than a dozen years ago. Worse still, I've never in my life practiced intellectual property law. As a result, what I say below should not be considered accurate and is definitely not legal advice.
When you buy a book, you own that physical copy. You can read it, lend it, give it away, burn it, shred it, resell it, or do anything else you might want with it (except for hitting other people over the head or other intrinsically illegal acts). What copyright prevents you from doing is making a duplicate of the work. So if a person repackages a legitimately purchased book, the copyright holder really doesn't have a lot to say being that they were already fairly compensated.
Software and books don't analogize with each other perfectly however, and recently, artists have become rather creative at dividing up rights to works of art (I'm thinking of that glossy chrome blob in Chicago ... I think it is Chicago ... that people aren't supposed to photograph).
Also, I think someone above confused "fair use" and "first sale doctrine" with respect to selling used books. One's right to sell used books is not related to fair use, fair use being a type of duplication that is permitted.
No venom for you, just remember that there is a clear difference legally between being in business and being a consumer. The rights are different. Value-added still requires an agreement or license as the overall package may actually change the copyright holders message for the original item, and that message is what is being protected by the copyright (well the financial sale value is too, but that isn't a disputed issue in this instance).
These companies are not putting Apple logos on these boxes. They aren't Macs, and they don't claim they are. They're generic PC boxes with legally purchased OS X. Aftermarket value added.
In your example, it would have to be one item that is a real Armani, being sold as a set with something that is not, and is not labelled as one. Like the Hathaway/Armani example I already gave. Put a shirt in a suit, put an OS in a computer.
They are putting the Apple imprimatur on the boxes, the hardware doesn't have the logo (that's the non-Armani logo in my example), but the software is the genuine OS X (the Armani logo in my example). The box is explicitly being sold as every good as a Mac without being a Mac, exactly the same thing as selling the suit as as good as an Armani, but not being an Armani despite the label.
Your shirt example has nothing to do with the whole situation. As a completely third party item it is a relevant to Mac-ness as the ability of a Mac to run MS Office.
Your abilities to read without twisting away from fact are clearly in dispute, and your lack of skill in metaphor is utterly without peer.
They are putting the Apple imprimatur on the boxes, the hardware doesn't have the logo (that's the non-Armani logo in my example), but the software is the genuine OS X (the Armani logo in my example). The box is explicitly being sold as every good as a Mac without being a Mac, exactly the same thing as selling the suit as as good as an Armani, but not being an Armani despite the label.
This is a needless over-complication of the real issues, an abstraction where abstraction isn't really necessary or helpful. Installing OSX on non-Apple hardware doesn't make it just coincidentally work like a Macintosh, it makes it a Macintosh in all functional respects. If it didn't make the hardware a Macintosh in all functional respects, then the companies trying to do this would not be doing it. This is why it's so clear that they are trading on Apple's intellectual property. It's kind of a mystery to me why so many think that analogies explain the problems with this better than simply pointing the boney finger at the transgression itself.
I think you have, at least in part. For one, my purpose is not to "defend Apple." The argument that if you don't like the products Apple produces, then don't buy them, applies equally to every other product on the face of the Earth. It's hardly a radical or weird principle when applied to Apple's products. What I do find radical and weird is the implication that Apple deliberately hamstrings their own profitability. The total evidence you have for this is that they don't make a product you wish that they did. That's pretty thin evidence, IMO.
BTW, I've been an AAPL shareholder for over ten years. During that time I've seen them do some pretty dumb things, so I'm not an apologist for Apple's management. Still over the last several years their execution has been brilliant by any reasonable standard. Consequently I am prepared to give them the benefit of any doubts I might have.
Also FWIW, I wish they did pay a dividend and believe they should be paying one.
Where did I say or imply,"Apple deliberately hamstrings their own profitability". Again you change the subject. There is a difference between market share and profitability, although quite often they can go hand in hand.
As far as my evidence only being "they don't make a product you wish that they did", stroll down the aisles @ Best Buy or Fry's, visit online sales websites and ask yourself what style of computer consumers buy. Granted many of those computers are the low to mid range which is not Apples target market. Then look at their desktop market share. In the US for all computers it is ~7%. Consider this for a moment, ~7%, yet last I saw Apple's share of the retail sales for laptops was 16%(its probably changed since then) - so what does this say about desktop sales.
Related to this is the fact that the iMac and Mac mini are expensive because they use laptop parts, or do you disagree with this very fundamental fact. An xMac using desktop parts would lower Apple's expenses and quite possibly open the door to higher margins.
Quote:
Originally Posted by piot
Yes my numbers were 'assumed' but I believe that they might prove a little more accurate than " I want a product.... ergo everyone else must want the same product".
Rickrag, I have no idea why you keep saying that Apple has reached their limit in sales growth.
I didn't, you did, by your own numbers, I never said that nor do I believe that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by piot
Yes I believe there is a soft limit to the amount of share that Apple can achieve in the PC market. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT LIMIT IS... but as I said before I don't think they have reached it.
A couple of points:
Apple has already hit over 9% in the US... so that's not the limit.
That is for OS, which is different than market share. What that may mean is that people who buy Apple computers tend to hold on to them longer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by piot
Apple's worldwide market share have risen from 1.9% in 2004 to 3.4 in 2008.... so it's growth but a steady rather than stellar rate.
Rickrag, how can Apple gain marketshare?
By selling more Macs! (and growing faster than the PC competition)
How can Apple try to sell more Macs?
They could advertise more
They could advertise more outside the US
They could open more Apple stores
They could open more Apple stores in countries outside the US
They could partner with more 3rd party resellers
They could open online stores in new countries
Unfriendly exchange rates (for the consumer) could become friendly (ask lemon le bon in the UK )
They could attract more pro markets with software. Like they have done with Audio, Photo and Video.
They might simply update the specs on their systems a little more often
The iPod halo effect might be coming to a close... but the iPhone halo is just starting
They might benefit from even more people switching to notebooks.
They also might prosper from the PC world hitting rock bottom on prices.
You get my drift?
Or they could sell the most common style of computer on the Plant Earth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by piot
I don't see any pretence. They have increased Mac sales and market share for over four years. Even in this economy, with a downturn in ALL computer sales APPLE (remember with the most expensive and limited choice!) still managed to increase their share a little.
I thought their US market share for laptops actually declined this last quarter, probably due to the popularity of web books or whatever they're called.
Quote:
Originally Posted by piot
As for growth, well iPod has probably come to the end of it's growth cycle and the iPhone has only just got started. Ask HP (the number one PC manufacturer) if they are looking for growth from their PC client division.
I disagree, kind of, that the "iPod has probably come to the end of it's growth cycle". I believe it will morph into something else, don't know what, but will gain a second wind and sales spurts.
Yes, the iPhone has only scratched the surface, I'm confident Apple will agressively try and increase market share here, especially since it's the gift that keeps on giving, every month just like clockwork.
Quote:
Originally Posted by piot
I nearly missed that line! So what really is your point? A lot of people want an xMac .... actually only some of people want an xMac ... actually some of those people will just buy another Mac. Looks like you agree with Apple.
It is not a good policy to have your own customers settle for something. The design of the iMac (re: the fact that it is AIO) screams simplicity and ease of use for the user. But the price range is in the class of the more experienced / technically advanced user, you know the ones, the ones that do install PCI cards, change monitors when needed on a different schedule than computers, install an extra internal hard drive, etc. etc. Then to increase the frustration of those users, Apple uses laptop parts that have the effect of increasing cost or potentially reducing computing speed to use lower cost parts or a combination of both.
Me I accept it, I have only known Mac OS since the System 7 days. I'd be lost using Windows and don't want to try, Trapped I am.
Where did I say or imply,"Apple deliberately hamstrings their own profitability". Again you change the subject. There is a difference between market share and profitability, although quite often they can go hand in hand.
That's what I took as your implication, but you are certainly free to add to your argument so that I might understand it more clearly.
Quote:
As far as my evidence only being "they don't make a product you wish that they did", stroll down the aisles @ Best Buy or Fry's, visit online sales websites and ask yourself what style of computer consumers buy. Granted many of those computers are the low to mid range which is not Apples target market. Then look at their desktop market share. In the US for all computers it is ~7%. Consider this for a moment, ~7%, yet last I saw Apple's share of the retail sales for laptops was 16%(its probably changed since then) - so what does this say about desktop sales.
Related to this is the fact that the iMac and Mac mini are expensive because they use laptop parts, or do you disagree with this very fundamental fact. An xMac using desktop parts would lower Apple's expenses and quite possibly open the door to higher margins.
Ah, well you see -- you complain about my characterization of your argument, and then you go right ahead and confirm it. Clearly you presume to know something Apple does not about how and where they can make their desired margins. I suspect Apple knows better about this than either you or I, which goes a long way towards explaining their approach.
This is a needless over-complication of the real issues, an abstraction where abstraction isn't really necessary or helpful. Installing OSX on non-Apple hardware doesn't make it just coincidentally work like a Macintosh, it makes it a Macintosh in all functional respects. If it didn't make the hardware a Macintosh in all functional respects, then the companies trying to do this would not be doing it. This is why it's so clear that they are trading on Apple's intellectual property. It's kind of a mystery to me why so many think that analogies explain the problems with this better than simply pointing the boney finger at the transgression itself.
No, you simplify to far.
Unless the clone makers used EXACTLY the same components and the SAME motherboard to mount those components, the hardware drivers will be different or at least differently configured. This cannot be avoided except with hardware identical in spec to what Apple ships.
This means the hardware abstraction layer Apple designed explicitly for their set(s) of hardware is not guaranteed to work! ANY failure of that abstraction layer will not likely be attributed to the clone builder, exactly due to the overly simplified reasoning you have above!
So the clone maker skates because most of the time it works, so the hardware must be OK, right!?! It's just standard PC components right!?! And Apple takes the heat for a buggy operating system, which isn't buggy because of programming errors, but because of subtle timing incompatibilities in the low level hardware/driver interfaces.
That is the biggest problem Microsoft faces when shipping an operating system, getting the HAL down for a near unconstrained hardware set. It means they make a lot of very generic tradeoffs in the HAL and try to make up the differences in other optimizing choices in the kernel of the OS.
Frankly oversimplifying away those facts plays right into the hands of the clone backers who are trying to say the hardware is the same when it is not the same.
Frankly oversimplifying away those facts plays right into the hands of the clone backers who are trying to say the hardware is the same when it is not the same.
I don't honestly know what you are going on about. The point which begs to be understood here is that it makes no difference whether the hardware is exactly the same or somewhat different. What matters to the IP question is the ultimate product, which is a Macintosh computer. Unauthorized parties may not manufacture and sell Macintosh computers, and it really doesn't make any difference how they go about it.
No first sale does not apply business to business. Only to a consumer.
Many of the major court cases where the right of first sale has been upheld have specifically been business to business dealings. People buying bundled Adobe software, unbundling it, then reselling it a la carte. People buying bulk licenses for software, then selling them off individually. Libraries, video stores, used book stores, rental businesses (movies, games, etc).
That's what I took as your implication, but you are certainly free to add to your argument so that I might understand it more clearly.
Add what? Obviously Apple is not hamstringing profitability, they maintain some of the highest margins in the industry. Now you're being imperceptive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss
Ah, well you see -- you complain about my characterization of your argument, and then you go right ahead and confirm it. Clearly you presume to know something Apple does not about how and where they can make their desired margins. I suspect Apple knows better about this than either you or I, which goes a long way towards explaining their approach.
Not a single thing I said confirmed your argument that I implied "Apple deliberately hamstrings their own profitability".
Apple's insistence on offering the AIO iMac may indeed have more to do with Apple's design philosophy for consumers. Google Steve Jobs and aplpliance. Look up what Raskin contributed to this design philosophy.
Then reread what I said about the iMac, its price range and target markets. No wait, I'll explain again. It states that the iMac is designed for the less demanding computer user(ie. no expansion, built in monitor, etc.), but priced in the range of more demanding consumers who do want the ability to add the occasional PCI card, add another hard drive, etc. The price for this simplicity is more expensive laptop parts than used in desktops. This offers the potential for Apple to increase margins, not lower them and potentially increase market share at the same time.
Add what? Obviously Apple is not hamstringing profitability, they maintain some of the highest margins in the industry. Now you're being imperceptive.
Nice. Of course I know about Apple's margins. We're not debating that, or at least I thought we were not. Margins are one issue, growing total sales is another. A company can grow profits only so much (and not very much) by expanding margins. Apple isn't going to be able to grow profits significantly by increasing margins beyond what they are today. Profits grow by selling more product at those margins. Or is that "imperceptive" in your book?
Quote:
Not a single thing I said confirmed your argument that I implied "Apple deliberately hamstrings their own profitability".
Except when you said that Apple's talk about expanding their market share was a "pretense" (read: a falsehood), and that they'd created a "glass ceiling" for their growth (read: an artificial limitation). You appear to believe this for no other reason than they don't sell an "xMac" product. So that's more than an implication, it's in the plain language of your argument. Again, you are welcome to clarify your argument. In doing so, less hostility would be welcomed.
Quote:
Apple's insistence on offering the AIO iMac may indeed have more to do with Apple's design philosophy for consumers. Google Steve Jobs and aplpliance. Look up what Raskin contributed to this design philosophy.
Then reread what I said about the iMac, its price range and target markets. No wait, I'll explain again. It states that the iMac is designed for the less demanding computer user(ie. no expansion, built in monitor, etc.), but priced in the range of more demanding consumers who do want the ability to add the occasional PCI card, add another hard drive, etc. The price for this simplicity is more expensive laptop parts than used in desktops. This offers the potential for Apple to increase margins, not lower them and potentially increase market share at the same time.
I don't follow what you are arguing here, or how it relates to anything we've been discussing. Is Apple's growing their market share a "pretense" or not? Have they created a "glass ceiling" for their growth, or not?
No venom for you, just remember that there is a clear difference legally between being in business and being a consumer. The rights are different. Value-added still requires an agreement or license as the overall package may actually change the copyright holders message for the original item, and that message is what is being protected by the copyright (well the financial sale value is too, but that isn't a disputed issue in this instance).
Are you thinking of trademark issues? For example Pepsi selling some sort of derogatory re-packaging of a Coke product? I could see issues there and clearly, when reselling another company's products, one would have to avoid issues with trademarks, but if businesses can't sell stuff, or put together special offers, or create their own unique displays, or bundle the item with other things, then retail in America is dead.
Maybe it's true, but I'd like to see a citation rather than an assertion.
Nice. Of course I know about Apple's margins. We're not debating that, or at least I thought we were not. Margins are one issue, growing total sales is another. A company can grow profits only so much (and not very much) by expanding margins. Apple isn't going to be able to grow profits significantly by increasing margins beyond what they are today. Profits grow by selling more product at those margins. Or is that "imperceptive" in your book?
In Apple's case, yes, I agree in the case of desktop computers, Apple probably can't increase margins much and must rely on increased market share to grow the bottom line.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss
Except when you said that Apple's talk about expanding their market share was a "pretense" (read: a falsehood), and that they'd created a "glass ceiling" for their growth (read: an artificial limitation). You appear to believe this for no other reason than they don't sell an "xMac" product. So that's more than an implication, it's in the plain language of your argument. Again, you are welcome to clarify your argument. In doing so, less hostility would be welcomed.
I was arguing a point with piot. It was his argument that desktop market share is declining, which I don't dispute(although this may change again in the future who knows), although I will say that up until very recently the total # of desktops sold was still increasing. And that Apple has, I believe the number mentioned was, 70% of that consumer market.
It is patently obvious that the AIO computer is a very marginalized market. Apple gets by quite nicely in this market. It is also patently obvious that the vast majority of computers sold are not AIO, why?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss
I don't follow what you are arguing here, or how it relates to anything we've been discussing. Is Apple's growing their market share a "pretense" or not? Have they created a "glass ceiling" for their growth, or not?
Yes, the AIO design and the Mac mini have created a glass ceiling, if you will.
And yes, I concede, my comments although qualified with "may" and "pontentialy" could increase margins with an xMac do seem to indicate that Apple has hamstrung their profitability.
Comments
Absolutely correct, and applies perfectly to this case. As long as you actually pay for your copy of OS X, it is none of Apple's business what computer you install it on, regardless of what the EULA says.
As long as you don't sell it to somebody else I won't argue. Personal rights should be held in very high regard.
And a company that wants to resell legally purchased copies of OS X in/with a different computer are no more guilty of anything than a mens wear store that sells a Hathaway shirt with an Armani suit in a store that's on a main floor of high rise teeming with law firms.
Dead wrong. Business plays by far different rules and laws than individuals not in business do.
Your logic on this particular example is broken too. The implication isn't mix and match an independent shirt, it would be sewing an Armani label into a similarly cut suit from the Mens Warehouse supplier and then weirdly selling it as not an Armani suit, but just as good as an Armani suit. Using the Armani name and trademarks liberally without permission as a way to bring notice to the suit nobody would have cared a whit about if it didn't have that Armani label.
You can buy and resell most things without the original creators permission. I can buy copies of Twilight, make my own casket-looking box, put the book and a clove of garlic in said box and sell those. Stephenie Meyer has no right whatsoever to stop me if the copies of the book I'm reselling are legally purchased originals, even if the book's indicia clearly had a "no reselling" clause in it.
Actually she can, and would take you to the cleaners in court if she wanted to.
Actually she can, and would take you to the cleaners in court if she wanted to.
I'm not so sure about this, although I'm basing my skepticism on half-remembered things I learned in law school more than a dozen years ago. Worse still, I've never in my life practiced intellectual property law. As a result, what I say below should not be considered accurate and is definitely not legal advice.
See: First Sale Doctrine.
When you buy a book, you own that physical copy. You can read it, lend it, give it away, burn it, shred it, resell it, or do anything else you might want with it (except for hitting other people over the head or other intrinsically illegal acts). What copyright prevents you from doing is making a duplicate of the work. So if a person repackages a legitimately purchased book, the copyright holder really doesn't have a lot to say being that they were already fairly compensated.
Software and books don't analogize with each other perfectly however, and recently, artists have become rather creative at dividing up rights to works of art (I'm thinking of that glossy chrome blob in Chicago ... I think it is Chicago ... that people aren't supposed to photograph).
Also, I think someone above confused "fair use" and "first sale doctrine" with respect to selling used books. One's right to sell used books is not related to fair use, fair use being a type of duplication that is permitted.
Actually she can, and would take you to the cleaners in court if she wanted to.
Sorry, you are mistaken.
I'm not so sure about this, although I'm basing my skepticism on half-remembered things I learned in law school more than a dozen years ago. Worse still, I've never in my life practiced intellectual property law. As a result, what I say below should not be considered accurate and is definitely not legal advice.
See: First Sale Doctrine.
When you buy a book, you own that physical copy. You can read it, lend it, give it away, burn it, shred it, resell it, or do anything else you might want with it (except for hitting other people over the head or other intrinsically illegal acts). What copyright prevents you from doing is making a duplicate of the work. So if a person repackages a legitimately purchased book, the copyright holder really doesn't have a lot to say being that they were already fairly compensated.
You are correct. First sale is clearly in the customer's favour. You buy it, you own it, you can turn around and sell it. It's now your property.
Software and books don't analogize with each other perfectly
Not perfectly, but first sale has still been successfully applied with software. The have been cases where judges have essentially ruled that software is a purchase, not a license. Autodesk and Abobe have both lost similar cases.
The implication isn't mix and match an independent shirt, it would be sewing an Armani label into a similarly cut suit from the Mens Warehouse supplier and then weirdly selling it as not an Armani suit, but just as good as an Armani suit. Using the Armani name and trademarks liberally without permission as a way to bring notice to the suit nobody would have cared a whit about if it didn't have that Armani label.
These companies are not putting Apple logos on these boxes. They aren't Macs, and they don't claim they are. They're generic PC boxes with legally purchased OS X. Aftermarket value added.
In your example, it would have to be one item that is a real Armani, being sold as a set with something that is not, and is not labelled as one. Like the Hathaway/Armani example I already gave. Put a shirt in a suit, put an OS in a computer.
These companies are not putting Apple logos on these boxes. They aren't Macs, and they don't claim they are. They're generic PC boxes with legally purchased OS X. Aftermarket value added.
In your example, it would have to be one item that is a real Armani, being sold as a set with something that is not, and is not labelled as one. Like the Hathaway/Armani example I already gave. Put a shirt in a suit, put an OS in a computer.
OS X and Macs are integrated. The software is designed to work seamlessly with only Mac hardware certified hardware. What Pystar was doing was sort of partial counterfeiting. Use a real Rolex case and dial, then put a Japanese movement inside, and you would still have a counterfeit. OS X, like a real Rolex watch, is made up of more than just one genuine component.
Someone mentioned earlier that any software maker is liable for technically supporting its program/OS if a commercial vendor sells it, so if Apple allows Pystar to use its OS, then Apple would be forced to deal with Pystar buyers.
These companies are not putting Apple logos on these boxes. They aren't Macs, and they don't claim they are. They're generic PC boxes with legally purchased OS X. Aftermarket value added.
No. As I have pointed out countless times already, they are Macs. The hardware alone does not function as a Mac. The software alone does not function as a Mac. It is only the two in combination that makes it a Mac.
In your example, it would have to be one item that is a real Armani, being sold as a set with something that is not, and is not labelled as one. Like the Hathaway/Armani example I already gave. Put a shirt in a suit, put an OS in a computer.
That analogy is ludicrous for the reasons already stated. Combined or not, the suit is a suit and a shirt is a shirt. They don't make anything together that they were not individually.
Sorry, you are mistaken.
You are correct. First sale is clearly in the customer's favour. You buy it, you own it, you can turn around and sell it. It's now your property.
Not perfectly, but first sale has still been successfully applied with software. The have been cases where judges have essentially ruled that software is a purchase, not a license. Autodesk and Abobe have both lost similar cases.
No first sale does not apply business to business. Only to a consumer. The fact you gussied up a box with express purpose of selling the book value-added made you a business and subject to business to business laws and statutes.
Want to show your proverbial mental bare arse again?
I'm not so sure about this, although I'm basing my skepticism on half-remembered things I learned in law school more than a dozen years ago. Worse still, I've never in my life practiced intellectual property law. As a result, what I say below should not be considered accurate and is definitely not legal advice.
See: First Sale Doctrine.
When you buy a book, you own that physical copy. You can read it, lend it, give it away, burn it, shred it, resell it, or do anything else you might want with it (except for hitting other people over the head or other intrinsically illegal acts). What copyright prevents you from doing is making a duplicate of the work. So if a person repackages a legitimately purchased book, the copyright holder really doesn't have a lot to say being that they were already fairly compensated.
Software and books don't analogize with each other perfectly however, and recently, artists have become rather creative at dividing up rights to works of art (I'm thinking of that glossy chrome blob in Chicago ... I think it is Chicago ... that people aren't supposed to photograph).
Also, I think someone above confused "fair use" and "first sale doctrine" with respect to selling used books. One's right to sell used books is not related to fair use, fair use being a type of duplication that is permitted.
No venom for you, just remember that there is a clear difference legally between being in business and being a consumer. The rights are different. Value-added still requires an agreement or license as the overall package may actually change the copyright holders message for the original item, and that message is what is being protected by the copyright (well the financial sale value is too, but that isn't a disputed issue in this instance).
These companies are not putting Apple logos on these boxes. They aren't Macs, and they don't claim they are. They're generic PC boxes with legally purchased OS X. Aftermarket value added.
In your example, it would have to be one item that is a real Armani, being sold as a set with something that is not, and is not labelled as one. Like the Hathaway/Armani example I already gave. Put a shirt in a suit, put an OS in a computer.
They are putting the Apple imprimatur on the boxes, the hardware doesn't have the logo (that's the non-Armani logo in my example), but the software is the genuine OS X (the Armani logo in my example). The box is explicitly being sold as every good as a Mac without being a Mac, exactly the same thing as selling the suit as as good as an Armani, but not being an Armani despite the label.
Your shirt example has nothing to do with the whole situation. As a completely third party item it is a relevant to Mac-ness as the ability of a Mac to run MS Office.
Your abilities to read without twisting away from fact are clearly in dispute, and your lack of skill in metaphor is utterly without peer.
They are putting the Apple imprimatur on the boxes, the hardware doesn't have the logo (that's the non-Armani logo in my example), but the software is the genuine OS X (the Armani logo in my example). The box is explicitly being sold as every good as a Mac without being a Mac, exactly the same thing as selling the suit as as good as an Armani, but not being an Armani despite the label.
This is a needless over-complication of the real issues, an abstraction where abstraction isn't really necessary or helpful. Installing OSX on non-Apple hardware doesn't make it just coincidentally work like a Macintosh, it makes it a Macintosh in all functional respects. If it didn't make the hardware a Macintosh in all functional respects, then the companies trying to do this would not be doing it. This is why it's so clear that they are trading on Apple's intellectual property. It's kind of a mystery to me why so many think that analogies explain the problems with this better than simply pointing the boney finger at the transgression itself.
I think you have, at least in part. For one, my purpose is not to "defend Apple." The argument that if you don't like the products Apple produces, then don't buy them, applies equally to every other product on the face of the Earth. It's hardly a radical or weird principle when applied to Apple's products. What I do find radical and weird is the implication that Apple deliberately hamstrings their own profitability. The total evidence you have for this is that they don't make a product you wish that they did. That's pretty thin evidence, IMO.
BTW, I've been an AAPL shareholder for over ten years. During that time I've seen them do some pretty dumb things, so I'm not an apologist for Apple's management. Still over the last several years their execution has been brilliant by any reasonable standard. Consequently I am prepared to give them the benefit of any doubts I might have.
Also FWIW, I wish they did pay a dividend and believe they should be paying one.
Where did I say or imply,"Apple deliberately hamstrings their own profitability". Again you change the subject. There is a difference between market share and profitability, although quite often they can go hand in hand.
As far as my evidence only being "they don't make a product you wish that they did", stroll down the aisles @ Best Buy or Fry's, visit online sales websites and ask yourself what style of computer consumers buy. Granted many of those computers are the low to mid range which is not Apples target market. Then look at their desktop market share. In the US for all computers it is ~7%. Consider this for a moment, ~7%, yet last I saw Apple's share of the retail sales for laptops was 16%(its probably changed since then) - so what does this say about desktop sales.
Related to this is the fact that the iMac and Mac mini are expensive because they use laptop parts, or do you disagree with this very fundamental fact. An xMac using desktop parts would lower Apple's expenses and quite possibly open the door to higher margins.
Yes my numbers were 'assumed' but I believe that they might prove a little more accurate than " I want a product.... ergo everyone else must want the same product".
Rickrag, I have no idea why you keep saying that Apple has reached their limit in sales growth.
I didn't, you did, by your own numbers, I never said that nor do I believe that.
Yes I believe there is a soft limit to the amount of share that Apple can achieve in the PC market. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT LIMIT IS... but as I said before I don't think they have reached it.
A couple of points:
Apple has already hit over 9% in the US... so that's not the limit.
That is for OS, which is different than market share. What that may mean is that people who buy Apple computers tend to hold on to them longer.
Apple's worldwide market share have risen from 1.9% in 2004 to 3.4 in 2008.... so it's growth but a steady rather than stellar rate.
Rickrag, how can Apple gain marketshare?
By selling more Macs! (and growing faster than the PC competition)
How can Apple try to sell more Macs?
They could advertise more
They could advertise more outside the US
They could open more Apple stores
They could open more Apple stores in countries outside the US
They could partner with more 3rd party resellers
They could open online stores in new countries
Unfriendly exchange rates (for the consumer) could become friendly (ask lemon le bon in the UK
They could attract more pro markets with software. Like they have done with Audio, Photo and Video.
They might simply update the specs on their systems a little more often
The iPod halo effect might be coming to a close... but the iPhone halo is just starting
They might benefit from even more people switching to notebooks.
They also might prosper from the PC world hitting rock bottom on prices.
You get my drift?
Or they could sell the most common style of computer on the Plant Earth.
I don't see any pretence. They have increased Mac sales and market share for over four years. Even in this economy, with a downturn in ALL computer sales APPLE (remember with the most expensive and limited choice!) still managed to increase their share a little.
I thought their US market share for laptops actually declined this last quarter, probably due to the popularity of web books or whatever they're called.
As for growth, well iPod has probably come to the end of it's growth cycle and the iPhone has only just got started. Ask HP (the number one PC manufacturer) if they are looking for growth from their PC client division.
I disagree, kind of, that the "iPod has probably come to the end of it's growth cycle". I believe it will morph into something else, don't know what, but will gain a second wind and sales spurts.
Yes, the iPhone has only scratched the surface, I'm confident Apple will agressively try and increase market share here, especially since it's the gift that keeps on giving, every month just like clockwork.
I nearly missed that line!
It is not a good policy to have your own customers settle for something. The design of the iMac (re: the fact that it is AIO) screams simplicity and ease of use for the user. But the price range is in the class of the more experienced / technically advanced user, you know the ones, the ones that do install PCI cards, change monitors when needed on a different schedule than computers, install an extra internal hard drive, etc. etc. Then to increase the frustration of those users, Apple uses laptop parts that have the effect of increasing cost or potentially reducing computing speed to use lower cost parts or a combination of both.
Me I accept it, I have only known Mac OS since the System 7 days. I'd be lost using Windows and don't want to try, Trapped I am.
Where did I say or imply,"Apple deliberately hamstrings their own profitability". Again you change the subject. There is a difference between market share and profitability, although quite often they can go hand in hand.
That's what I took as your implication, but you are certainly free to add to your argument so that I might understand it more clearly.
As far as my evidence only being "they don't make a product you wish that they did", stroll down the aisles @ Best Buy or Fry's, visit online sales websites and ask yourself what style of computer consumers buy. Granted many of those computers are the low to mid range which is not Apples target market. Then look at their desktop market share. In the US for all computers it is ~7%. Consider this for a moment, ~7%, yet last I saw Apple's share of the retail sales for laptops was 16%(its probably changed since then) - so what does this say about desktop sales.
Related to this is the fact that the iMac and Mac mini are expensive because they use laptop parts, or do you disagree with this very fundamental fact. An xMac using desktop parts would lower Apple's expenses and quite possibly open the door to higher margins.
Ah, well you see -- you complain about my characterization of your argument, and then you go right ahead and confirm it. Clearly you presume to know something Apple does not about how and where they can make their desired margins. I suspect Apple knows better about this than either you or I, which goes a long way towards explaining their approach.
This is a needless over-complication of the real issues, an abstraction where abstraction isn't really necessary or helpful. Installing OSX on non-Apple hardware doesn't make it just coincidentally work like a Macintosh, it makes it a Macintosh in all functional respects. If it didn't make the hardware a Macintosh in all functional respects, then the companies trying to do this would not be doing it. This is why it's so clear that they are trading on Apple's intellectual property. It's kind of a mystery to me why so many think that analogies explain the problems with this better than simply pointing the boney finger at the transgression itself.
No, you simplify to far.
Unless the clone makers used EXACTLY the same components and the SAME motherboard to mount those components, the hardware drivers will be different or at least differently configured. This cannot be avoided except with hardware identical in spec to what Apple ships.
This means the hardware abstraction layer Apple designed explicitly for their set(s) of hardware is not guaranteed to work! ANY failure of that abstraction layer will not likely be attributed to the clone builder, exactly due to the overly simplified reasoning you have above!
So the clone maker skates because most of the time it works, so the hardware must be OK, right!?! It's just standard PC components right!?! And Apple takes the heat for a buggy operating system, which isn't buggy because of programming errors, but because of subtle timing incompatibilities in the low level hardware/driver interfaces.
That is the biggest problem Microsoft faces when shipping an operating system, getting the HAL down for a near unconstrained hardware set. It means they make a lot of very generic tradeoffs in the HAL and try to make up the differences in other optimizing choices in the kernel of the OS.
Frankly oversimplifying away those facts plays right into the hands of the clone backers who are trying to say the hardware is the same when it is not the same.
Frankly oversimplifying away those facts plays right into the hands of the clone backers who are trying to say the hardware is the same when it is not the same.
I don't honestly know what you are going on about. The point which begs to be understood here is that it makes no difference whether the hardware is exactly the same or somewhat different. What matters to the IP question is the ultimate product, which is a Macintosh computer. Unauthorized parties may not manufacture and sell Macintosh computers, and it really doesn't make any difference how they go about it.
No first sale does not apply business to business. Only to a consumer.
Many of the major court cases where the right of first sale has been upheld have specifically been business to business dealings. People buying bundled Adobe software, unbundling it, then reselling it a la carte. People buying bulk licenses for software, then selling them off individually. Libraries, video stores, used book stores, rental businesses (movies, games, etc).
That's what I took as your implication, but you are certainly free to add to your argument so that I might understand it more clearly.
Add what? Obviously Apple is not hamstringing profitability, they maintain some of the highest margins in the industry. Now you're being imperceptive.
Ah, well you see -- you complain about my characterization of your argument, and then you go right ahead and confirm it. Clearly you presume to know something Apple does not about how and where they can make their desired margins. I suspect Apple knows better about this than either you or I, which goes a long way towards explaining their approach.
Not a single thing I said confirmed your argument that I implied "Apple deliberately hamstrings their own profitability".
Apple's insistence on offering the AIO iMac may indeed have more to do with Apple's design philosophy for consumers. Google Steve Jobs and aplpliance. Look up what Raskin contributed to this design philosophy.
Then reread what I said about the iMac, its price range and target markets. No wait, I'll explain again. It states that the iMac is designed for the less demanding computer user(ie. no expansion, built in monitor, etc.), but priced in the range of more demanding consumers who do want the ability to add the occasional PCI card, add another hard drive, etc. The price for this simplicity is more expensive laptop parts than used in desktops. This offers the potential for Apple to increase margins, not lower them and potentially increase market share at the same time.
Add what? Obviously Apple is not hamstringing profitability, they maintain some of the highest margins in the industry. Now you're being imperceptive.
Nice. Of course I know about Apple's margins. We're not debating that, or at least I thought we were not. Margins are one issue, growing total sales is another. A company can grow profits only so much (and not very much) by expanding margins. Apple isn't going to be able to grow profits significantly by increasing margins beyond what they are today. Profits grow by selling more product at those margins. Or is that "imperceptive" in your book?
Not a single thing I said confirmed your argument that I implied "Apple deliberately hamstrings their own profitability".
Except when you said that Apple's talk about expanding their market share was a "pretense" (read: a falsehood), and that they'd created a "glass ceiling" for their growth (read: an artificial limitation). You appear to believe this for no other reason than they don't sell an "xMac" product. So that's more than an implication, it's in the plain language of your argument. Again, you are welcome to clarify your argument. In doing so, less hostility would be welcomed.
Apple's insistence on offering the AIO iMac may indeed have more to do with Apple's design philosophy for consumers. Google Steve Jobs and aplpliance. Look up what Raskin contributed to this design philosophy.
Then reread what I said about the iMac, its price range and target markets. No wait, I'll explain again. It states that the iMac is designed for the less demanding computer user(ie. no expansion, built in monitor, etc.), but priced in the range of more demanding consumers who do want the ability to add the occasional PCI card, add another hard drive, etc. The price for this simplicity is more expensive laptop parts than used in desktops. This offers the potential for Apple to increase margins, not lower them and potentially increase market share at the same time.
I don't follow what you are arguing here, or how it relates to anything we've been discussing. Is Apple's growing their market share a "pretense" or not? Have they created a "glass ceiling" for their growth, or not?
No venom for you, just remember that there is a clear difference legally between being in business and being a consumer. The rights are different. Value-added still requires an agreement or license as the overall package may actually change the copyright holders message for the original item, and that message is what is being protected by the copyright (well the financial sale value is too, but that isn't a disputed issue in this instance).
Are you thinking of trademark issues? For example Pepsi selling some sort of derogatory re-packaging of a Coke product? I could see issues there and clearly, when reselling another company's products, one would have to avoid issues with trademarks, but if businesses can't sell stuff, or put together special offers, or create their own unique displays, or bundle the item with other things, then retail in America is dead.
Maybe it's true, but I'd like to see a citation rather than an assertion.
Nice. Of course I know about Apple's margins. We're not debating that, or at least I thought we were not. Margins are one issue, growing total sales is another. A company can grow profits only so much (and not very much) by expanding margins. Apple isn't going to be able to grow profits significantly by increasing margins beyond what they are today. Profits grow by selling more product at those margins. Or is that "imperceptive" in your book?
In Apple's case, yes, I agree in the case of desktop computers, Apple probably can't increase margins much and must rely on increased market share to grow the bottom line.
Except when you said that Apple's talk about expanding their market share was a "pretense" (read: a falsehood), and that they'd created a "glass ceiling" for their growth (read: an artificial limitation). You appear to believe this for no other reason than they don't sell an "xMac" product. So that's more than an implication, it's in the plain language of your argument. Again, you are welcome to clarify your argument. In doing so, less hostility would be welcomed.
I was arguing a point with piot. It was his argument that desktop market share is declining, which I don't dispute(although this may change again in the future who knows), although I will say that up until very recently the total # of desktops sold was still increasing. And that Apple has, I believe the number mentioned was, 70% of that consumer market.
It is patently obvious that the AIO computer is a very marginalized market. Apple gets by quite nicely in this market. It is also patently obvious that the vast majority of computers sold are not AIO, why?
I don't follow what you are arguing here, or how it relates to anything we've been discussing. Is Apple's growing their market share a "pretense" or not? Have they created a "glass ceiling" for their growth, or not?
Yes, the AIO design and the Mac mini have created a glass ceiling, if you will.
And yes, I concede, my comments although qualified with "may" and "pontentialy" could increase margins with an xMac do seem to indicate that Apple has hamstrung their profitability.