Judge Dismisses Psystar's Anti-Trust Counterclaim Against Apple

[IJ Reilly]

I understand that the original counterclaim was that Apple held a monopoly over the "OS X market" and abused that market. I understand how this is a flawed claim, which I stated in my very first post.

The difference between this and my "only chance for Psystar" is the thought that Apple shouldn't have to be a monopoly to be subject to anti-competitive laws. I know people don't think this way, which is precisely why I said that there is a very low probability of success.

Never did I mention the "ease" of breaking copyright or licenses, or any of the other stuff you invented. In fact, I've stated point-blank in other posts that what Psystar is doing is illegal.

So where exactly is your argument -- other than in your head?

Pleasant, as always.

I was responding to your assertion that if Psystar "was able to pass the argument that Apple's hardware is equivalent to generic hardware (and subsequently is irrelevant to the bundle) they might have a chance."

My response is that whether Apple's hardware is generic or proprietary or some combination of both is not at all relevant, for reasons I explained by way of analogy. Psystar never had any chance, because they'd fabricated a definition of a market which Apple controlled out of whole cloth. Antitrust law doesn't work that way.

[Clive At Five]

Pleasant, as always.

I was responding to your assertion that if Psystar "was able to pass the argument that Apple's hardware is equivalent to generic hardware (and subsequently is irrelevant to the bundle) they might have a chance."

My response is that whether Apple's hardware is generic or proprietary or some combination of both is not at all relevant, for reasons I explained by way of analogy. Psystar never had any chance, because they'd fabricated a definition of a market which Apple controlled out of whole cloth. Antitrust law doesn't work that way.

The relevance is in the "tying" argument. It's legal to tie two RELATED products. So if Apple can maintain that their hardware is actually unique and necessary to the performance of OS X then the bundling of OS X & its hardware would be legal. If, however, Apple's hardware was found to be not unique and unessential to OS X's performance, then the Tying argument has ground to stand on.

Of course this is extremely unlikely, as I've said.

[GQB]

hmm I think of it this way:

Apple more expensive = superior OS but not competitive hardware wise

Windows cheaper = subjective at times but overall poor OS but platforms can be had for cheaper with superior hardware than Apple

Linux greater than all but poor support out there. :-)



I'd agree if you add the addendum "for certain customers or markets" to each of those statement.
People get caught up in their own requirements, while Apple as this thing called a 'business plan' that defines their market.
Second guess as you look at the fact that Apple is the only computer maker currently growing its market in a disasterous economy.
I tend to think their business plan is correct.

[sinser]

I think that Apple won't never ever license it's OS. Those that are old enough already know what happened when PowerPC clones where all around and System 8.0 was licensed. I think it would be even worse today. Apple has just 10% of marketshare (in USA, much less worldwide) and would never survive without its hardware. Sure they could gain marketshare, but I don't think that much, MS Windows is a well established entity in the business and administrative world and Mac OS has no chance to change the status quo for the next 20 or more years. As for normal PC guys, most of them would just download Mac OS from some illegal source and then just throw it away as soon as some app or game doesn't run on it. I've always believed that Apple OS and HW are tied and unique, and I still believe and hope so.

[gnasher729]

The relevance is in the "tying" argument. It's legal to tie two RELATED products. So if Apple can maintain that their hardware is actually unique and necessary to the performance of OS X then the bundling of OS X & its hardware would be legal. If, however, Apple's hardware was found to be not unique and unessential to OS X's performance, then the Tying argument has ground to stand on.

"Tying" is absolutely legal as long as you don't have market power. If Apple is tying MacOS X to Apple hardware, then it is completely legal as long as Apple doesn't have market power. As an example, if Microsoft refused to let Dell use Windows, then Dell would be in deep trouble. Apple refusing Dell to use MacOS X is no problem for Dell at all.

[dejo]

vista home premium full oem is $109
vista ultimate full oem is $180 - $200
And is the upgrade the same price? If not, you missed their point.

[IJ Reilly]

The relevance is in the "tying" argument. It's legal to tie two RELATED products. So if Apple can maintain that their hardware is actually unique and necessary to the performance of OS X then the bundling of OS X & its hardware would be legal. If, however, Apple's hardware was found to be not unique and unessential to OS X's performance, then the Tying argument has ground to stand on.

Of course this is extremely unlikely, as I've said.

At least we agree on the unlikelihood of this being argued successfully. The tying argument is not relevant if only because it is very common for portions of proprietary products to be nonproprietary, as with the book example (and so many others we could mention). They can't be easily teased apart; the maker of the product is going to be given a lot of deference in the rights of ownership because it's the end product which is the protected item, not its constituent bits and pieces. Tying is very common, and certainly not illegal in most circumstances. It only becomes potentially illegal when it's shown to be an anticompetitive activity in a properly defined market. Psystar failed the first test (defining the market), so they don't get to make claims of illegal tying.

[icoffee]

There's no doubt that Psystar is a few tacos short of a fiesta, but here's the problem IMO. What exactly is an Apple computer? If you say it's manufactured by Apple with 100% of Apple components, then most Mac users don't own an Apple computer. Hard drive, memory upgrades, video card upgrades etc.

So let's say I wanted to build my own Mac Pro. I find an Apple logic board and case on ebay, buy a hard drive at a local computer shop, buy an aftermarket video card, and a non-Apple monitor. Is it still an Apple computer? Of course it is, as some parts of it were manufactured by Apple, but which parts count?

Take this example to the extreme now. I buy all intel parts and load an open source kext to run Mac OS X, because the motherboard won't run OSX without these few kexts. It seems that the only essential part of a computer being an Apple computer is the motherboard or part that decrypts the protection Apple has put into their OS. Is that how Apple specifically defines Apple hardware, no. By Apple's loose definition of "Apple hardware", owning an Apple keyboard (a keyboard is an essential part to running OS X- Mac OS X won't run without a keyboard at install) might suffice. Is that how the courts are going to interpret this? Probably not.

Now is decrypting the protection illegal? Yes. Is breaking the EULA illegal? Yes. Will the EULA hold? Yes. Will Psystar be shut down? Yes.

[Clive At Five]

"Tying" is absolutely legal as long as you don't have market power. If Apple is tying MacOS X to Apple hardware, then it is completely legal as long as Apple doesn't have market power. As an example, if Microsoft refused to let Dell use Windows, then Dell would be in deep trouble. Apple refusing Dell to use MacOS X is no problem for Dell at all.

What is wrong with you people. This is completely unrelated to what I was even saying.

Tying is legal between two related products. Conversely, Tying is illegal between two unrelated products. Some say that only Monopolies can be found guilty of anti-competitive practices and they may be right, even though this is a double-standard in my opinion.

Thanks for reading my posts thoroughly so that you actually understand what I'm saying rather than just blindly attacking me because I built a hackintosh. Boo freaking woo. Go cry to Steve Jobs.

[Clive At Five]

At least we agree on the unlikelihood of this being argued successfully. The tying argument is not relevant if only because it is very common for portions of proprietary products to be nonproprietary, as with the book example (and so many others we could mention). They can't be easily teased apart; the maker of the product is going to be given a lot of deference in the rights of ownership because it's the end product which is the protected item, not its constituent bits and pieces. Tying is very common, and certainly not illegal in most circumstances. It only becomes potentially illegal when it's shown to be an anticompetitive activity in a properly defined market. Psystar failed the first test (defining the market), so they don't get to make claims of illegal tying.

Now THERE'S a solid response and one I can agree with.

A+.

[robbyx]

IMHO, I think what Apple does actually hurts us the Apple consumers. By locking us into Apple branded hardware, we have very limited options. The OSx86 community has already shown that Leopard works fine on netbooks, tablets, and a variety of other hardware, that Apple refuses to produce. I don't have too much pity for Psystar, but I would like them to force Apple to allow for some sort new products. I've owned quite a few Apple's since they came out with OSX, so I'm obviously not anti-Apple. The fact is people want BluRay, Netbooks, Tablets, TouchScreens, and various other products that Apple isn't making. And from my experience, if people desire something it will create a market for that product, so Apple has created some of this problem themselves.

But where is the problem? A *handful* of vocal nerds wanting more juiced up hardware hardly constitutes a problem. Apple's sales are up every year. They have over 24 billion (!!!) dollars in the bank and no debt. Again, where's the problem?

Apple's model is vertically-integrated simplicity. They make the whole widget and the whole widget just works. You may not agree with their model, but that hardly constitutes a reason to change it. I've been a customer for 25 years and a shareholder for much of those. I *love* simplicity, so I stick with Apple. That's what sells me, not the need for bleeding edge hardware.

Step into the 21st century, people. Computers are APPLIANCES, not black holes for one's time. They should JUST WORK. And that's why Apple is selling more and more Macs than ever before. Customers are wising up and realizing that they don't need to fight with their computer to make them work.

If it makes you feel any better, I've been using genuine Apple products for over 20 years. After all these years, they've managed to alienate a faithful customer like me with terrible hardware offerings and cheap lock-in/lock-out tactics.

Are you kidding???! "Terrible" hardware??? I can't even take a word you write seriously.

The difference between this and my "only chance for Psystar" is the thought that Apple shouldn't have to be a monopoly to be subject to anti-competitive laws. I know people don't think this way, which is precisely why I said that there is a very low probability of success.

They don't think this way because it doesn't make sense!!! Apple designs and builds both the hardware and software. Why should a third party who has invested a BIG FAT ZERO into R&D benefit from the billions Apple has spent? Your blatant disrespect for intellectual property is astounding.

[robbyx]

Take this example to the extreme now. I buy all intel parts and load an open source kext to run Mac OS X, because the motherboard won't run OSX without these few kexts. It seems that the only essential part of a computer being an Apple computer is the motherboard or part that decrypts the protection Apple has put into their OS. Is that how Apple specifically defines Apple hardware, no. By Apple's loose definition of "Apple hardware", owning an Apple keyboard (a keyboard is an essential part to running OS X- Mac OS X won't run without a keyboard at install) might suffice. Is that how the courts are going to interpret this? Probably not.

Now is decrypting the protection illegal? Yes. Is breaking the EULA illegal? Yes. Will the EULA hold? Yes. Will Psystar be shut down? Yes.

Apple doesn't care about the Hackintosh community. In fact, I bet Jobs is kind of flattered. I sincerely doubt that Apple will ever challenge Hackintosh builders legally, despite the very clear language in the EULA. They simply don't care about the HANDFUL of people who want to build their own Macs.

Look at the Apple TV. How many hacks are available? Businesses have cropped up based around hacking the Apple TV. And guess what? Not a peep from Apple. Why? Because you still have to buy the Apple TV to hack it!

They want you to buy their hardware. They're hardly going to chase you down for building your own computer, but if you try to make a business out of it, as Psystar did, you can rest assured they will be all over you.

[Clive At Five]

Are you kidding???! "Terrible" hardware??? I can't even take a word you write seriously.

Compared with Gateway, Dell, eMachines, yes, Apple's hardware is superior... but if you honestly think Apple's offerings represent the greatest, most reliable technologies, you need to get out more... or maybe get out less if it means learning about what technology is available that Apple doesn't employ.... LIKE CHEAP, FAST DESKTOP-GRADE CPUs!!!!!!!!!!!

They don't think this way because it doesn't make sense!!! Apple designs and builds both the hardware and software. Why should a third party who has invested a BIG FAT ZERO into R&D benefit from the billions Apple has spent? Your blatant disrespect for intellectual property is astounding.

Just because Apple developed both doesn't make them bundle-able. Say Logitech develops an amazing computer mouse which it sells for $40. In the meantime, Logitech also sells an crappy Ice Cream maker bundled with the mouse for $400. You can buy a their mouse alone if you want, but you can only use it if you've bought the ice cream maker. The mouse works independent of the ice cream maker, but Logitech FORCES you to buy two unrelated products in order to use the one you want. ~THIS IS WHAT APPLE IS DOING~ It is also an illegal anti-competitive practice (Tying) which our legal system only imposes on monopolies.

So I ask you: Why should Apple benefit from hardware sales just because its bundled with a fantastic piece of software, especially when the software works perfectly on its own, and the hardware is unimpressive?

My respect ("disrespect" as you call it) for Apple's wonderful software is exactly why I BOUGHT a copy of Leopard instead of downloading it for free, like I easily could have done.

My disrespect for their lousy hardware is why I DIDN'T buy a Mac.

How is this so hard to understand?

[Hugh]

Do you know that the hardware is still overpriced?

Do you know that people have been making PCs for the past 20something years?

Do you know how the verdict and precedent was handed down in the cases vs. IBM?

Does every PC clone have an IBM logo on it?

All of that is relevant here, and the only thing that should come into question is the software. If OS X is available for Intel chips, there really isn't anything that oculd stop it from being installed on a non-Apple computer. DOS was sold to IBM; yet a version of DOS existed for Apple II/IIe/c/gs as well.

BL.

Hmmm.. You do know that MS had nothing to do with the DOS on the Apple //. Apple wrote their own DOS: DOS 3.2, DOS 3.3, ProDOS. Apple also had a pascal OS too, but I don't think that was all Apple. :/

Hugh

[mccldwll]

Why should Apple benefit from hardware sales just because its bundled with a fantastic piece of software, especially when the hardware itself is lackluster in comparison?

How is this so hard to understand?

Because it's aapl's intellectual property, and you can't legally, ethically get the software without buying the hardware. It's aapl's call, not your call. How is this so hard for you to understand?

[robbyx]

Compared with Gateway, Dell, eMachines, yes, Apple's hardware is superior... but if you honestly think Apple's offerings represent the greatest, most reliable technologies, you need to get out more... or maybe get out less if it means learning about what technology is available that Apple doesn't employ.... LIKE CHEAP, FAST DESKTOP-GRADE CPUs!!!!!!!!!!!

Sure, you can build a better box yourself. But that hardly qualifies Apple's hardware as "terrible." Geez.



Why should Apple benefit from hardware sales just because its bundled with a fantastic piece of software, especially when the hardware itself is lackluster in comparison?

Because that's what the Apple license says? Just because YOU don't like it, that doesn't change a thing. You're whining.

And, clearly, Apple doesn't care one bit about Hackintosh builders. They just don't want lame opportunists like Psystar ripping them off. Pretty easy to understand.

My respect for Apple's wonderful software is exactly why I BOUGHT a copy of Leopard instead of downloading for free, like I easily could have done.

No problem there!

My disrespect for their lousy hardware is why I DIDN'T buy a Mac.

First, their hardware is anything BUT lousy. I mean, really. It may not be bleeding edge, but who cares. I love my iMac. It's silent. It looks beautiful on my desk. The screen is nice and bright. Video looks great. Etc. Etc. Etc.

Could you build a better box, spec-wise? Sure. But going on and on about how Apple's hardware is "terrible" and "lousy" just makes you look foolish. Apple is about the PACKAGE: a great OS, beautiful hardware design, and competitive hardware offerings. You can't, under any circumstances, make a case for Apple's hardware being "terrible." That's just nerdy hyperbole.

[Clive At Five]

Because it's aapl's intellectual property, and you can't legally, ethically get the software without buying the hardware. It's aapl's call, not your call. How is this so hard for you to understand?

Untrue. I bought my copy of Leopard from an Apple store. If you think installing it on 3rd-party hardware is unethical, sorry, but I don't share your ethical compass.

Sure, you can build a better box yourself. But that hardly qualifies Apple's hardware as "terrible." Geez.

"Terrible" is my description and you don't have to agree. If you want clarity, the MacPro is too much power, and everything else is too weak. They have a bad array of hardware, they overcharge for RAM, they use old hardware in "new" computers GMA 950 in the 1+ year old MacMini, and they use mobile grade processors in desktop computers for the vain pursuit of making them thinner.

I summarize this as "terrible"

Because that's what the Apple license says? Just because YOU don't like it, that doesn't change a thing. You're whining.

No, I'm not whining, I'm standing up for what I believe to be right. (By the way, I added to my above post to respond more closely to your post.)

And, clearly, Apple doesn't care one bit about Hackintosh builders. They just don't want lame opportunists like Psystar ripping them off. Pretty easy to understand.

I'm not debating this. As I've said, probably a hundred times, what Psystar is doing is illegal!

First, their hardware is anything BUT lousy. I mean, really. It may not be bleeding edge, but who cares. I love my iMac. It's silent. It looks beautiful on my desk. The screen is nice and bright. Video looks great. Etc. Etc. Etc.

I am very glad your Mac serves you well. Apple's offerings are perfect for 95% of users. I wish I was one of those users. Unfortunately I'm not. I do enough Garage Band/Logic/Photoshop/gaming that I need something better than an iMac, but doesn't justify a Mac Pro. I did the iMac thing twice and I regretted it.

Could you build a better box, spec-wise? Sure. But going on and on about how Apple's hardware is "terrible" and "lousy" just makes you look foolish. Apple is about the PACKAGE: a great OS, beautiful hardware design, and competitive hardware offerings. You can't, under any circumstances, make a case for Apple's hardware being "terrible." That's just nerdy hyperbole.

It doesn't make me foolish, it's not a nerdy hyperbole, it just means I have higher standards than most. Like I said, I wish Apple made a package for me. I've been a long-loyal Apple user and the reason I put the time and effort into building a hackintosh is because I wanted to stay with Apple!!!

[matticus008]

It seems to me that you have no problem with people doing 'wrong' e.g. your speeding, but that it's ok if the person admits that it's wrong / not moral.
No. I have no problem with people accepting responsibility for their actions. I have a huge problem with rationalization that you're not doing anything wrong when you so plainly are.
Which is a bit of a paradox - you're saying it's ok to do wrong, AS LONG as you realise you are doing so, and are happy to be punished for it.
No, it's wrong to do wrong. But reality dictates that it will happen, and people sometimes make choices they know are wrong on some level. An adult worthy of respect accepts that reality and its consequences because of the greater driving force compelling them to act in the wrong.

A person who denies their wrong or attempts to deflect with what they perceive as a "wrong" on the other side when it clearly is has neither principles nor respect.

It boils down to the old saying, "two wrongs don't make a right". It is never right to violate someone else's rights. If you are starving and take a loaf of bread, you absolutely did something wrong, but you are justified by a greater need. That does not make it right to do.

If you choose to put together a hackintosh, that's your choice and not at all an earth-shattering event. But OS X is not yours, and it's not a choice you have the legal or ethical right to make. No matter what you do, it will remain wrong--completely wrong legally and mostly wrong ethically. As long as you're adult enough to accept that, you're a reasonable person. You can say it's not an egregious sin, and you'd be correct. It's most certainly not right, though.
But the point here is that the OP doesn't think he's doing wrong, but you're looking at it in a black and white "It's the law so it MUST be wrong and you MUST admit it or you're a liar and I have no respect for you".
It is the law so it is automatically a legal wrong. It's further an ethical wrong because there is no ethical justification for violating the law here. The common morality is similarly clear: it is wrong to take what is not yours to take. The individual morality of the choice is an unresolvable question.
Not every law is a good law or right or wrong because it is the law.
No. Breaking any law is by definition wrong. The rule of law is sacrosanct. That it can simultaneously be justifiable is part of the complexity of life. Claiming you're not doing "anything wrong" when breaking the law is an outright lie.
"Yes. By definition." Herein lies the problem. You agree with all law because you must, not because your heart tells you that it is a well-founded law.
You agree with all law because the rule of law is the most essential aspect of a free society. Breaking any law is automatically wrong. Something cannot be devoid of "wrong" if it is contrary to law. It may simultaneously be right in other aspects, but something can only be truly right if it is devoid of wrong.
Do I find my actions to be unethical? No.
So I should feel free to take anything from your house I think you don't need or shouldn't be entitled to keep if I buy something from you that you put on Craigslist?
They should not get my money for something they did not earn my sale.
You should not get the benefit of something you didn't pay for. You didn't pay for a right to install and use OS X on a machine that is 95% the same. Just as they didn't earn your money, you didn't earn their operating system.
No, absolutely not. I'll admit it's illegal, but I will not admit it is wrong.
And again, there is no possible construction of that statement that is not a total falsehood. Of course it is wrong. Something can only be right if it is legal, ethical, and moral all at once. Denying wrongdoing in the clear presence of legal and ethical wrongs is ludicrous. You simply cannot say with a straight face that you're doing the right thing by breaking the law, breaking your word, taking what is not yours to take, fraudulently asserting authority, and denying the autonomy of a rightful owner.
I'm not suggesting we legislate to disallow companies to bundle related products! But to disallow - by force of law - a consumer who has the will, the means, and the way to disassemble that bundle him or herself is wrong in my opinion.
That's asinine. Having "the will, the means, and the way" is not justification for an action. Everyone who seeks to commit an action in violation of the law has the will and the means, or there would be no need for the law.
Nay, I argue. By allowing Apple to bundle the unrelated products which are its hardware and software, you are allowing Apple to steal $500 to $5000 or more from me.
They're not forcing you to buy anything, nor are they reaching into your person and extracting the money against your will.
Why should I be forced to buy it? That is the antithesis of the free market.
No. In a free market, the seller has everything and the buyer gets what he buys. You're not advocating a free market at all, no matter how many times you repeat it.
One wasn't required by law to own a slave, but it would've been within one's rights to do so. Just because it's a right, doesn't make it right.
No. But violating someone else's right is automatically wrong, even if you don't agree they should have that right. If you feel a right is misplaced, then you need to get society to agree with you and change the right.

You do not have the legal or ethical authority to violate someone else's rights, ever. There's nothing more fundamental than that in American society.

[dejo]

The mouse works independent of the ice cream maker, but Logitech FORCES you to buy two unrelated products in order to use the one you want. ~THIS IS WHAT APPLE IS DOING~
How are Mac OS X and the hardware to run it on unrelated?

[Clive At Five]

"Yes. By definition." Herein lies the problem. You agree with all law because you must, not because your heart tells you that it is a well-founded law.
You agree with all law because the rule of law is the most essential aspect of a free society. Breaking any law is automatically wrong. Something cannot be devoid of "wrong" if it is contrary to law. It may simultaneously be right in other aspects, but something can only be truly right if it is devoid of wrong.

Thank you very much as you have proven without any effort of my own that lawyers don't have hearts. Your "ethics" are based on what has been declared from behind the judicial benches and legislative desks of people who are not you, instead of what would've been dictated by the object that used to inhabit that gap in your chest.

So I should feel free to take anything from your house I think you don't need or shouldn't be entitled to keep if I buy something from you that you put on Craigslist?

No, but if I sold you my JAE 50 Cable (http://paul.thejennis.com/JAE50/About.html) on Craigslist, it would be wrong of me to dictate the conditions under which you can use it, even if I was slimy enough to make you sign a license for a specific use with the ultimate goal of guaranteeing myself more money.

I know that it's slimy and wrong, which is why I would never do it, even though the law would support me in doing so.

With your Black & White view of right and wrong, it hardly makes sense to even argue with you, but I AM morbidly curious to see how soulless you actually are. So please do go on.

[IJ Reilly]

It's not inherently "immoral" to do something which is against the law. If you believe that, then you believe that Rosa Parks should have gone to the back of the bus. OTOH, I have a problem with those who'd argue that they have some moral authority to violate Apple's intellectual property rights. The sole justification for doing so is that it's a convenience for them. They may be able to convince themselves that they're making some sort of principled, ethical statement by doing so, but not me. All that's really being said here is that the product's cost is more than they want to pay, so they believe that they're entitled to shave it down. We often hear the same rationale coming from people who believe that recorded music should be free, when the decision they really should be making is to not buy a product if they don't like the price or the way it's sold.

[Clive At Five]

How are Mac OS X and the hardware to run it on unrelated?

OS X does not require Apple's hardware to run flawlessly. Apple's technology is 95% equivalent to generic hardware.

Juxtapose that with the oft-used XBox OS example: The hardware used for the XBox is unique, not commercially available, and the software is written for that unique hardware set. The hardware and software combination is essential for the performance of the device, ergo the bundling of the two is legally justified.

Versus Apple's hardware, it is not essential to the performance of OS X as the hackintosh community has shown us.

[IJ Reilly]

OS X does not require Apple's hardware to run flawlessly. It's technically 95% equivalent to generic hardware.

Not only is this not necessarily true, it would be completely irrelevant if it was true.

[Clive At Five]

It's not inherently "immoral" to do something which is against the law. If you believe that, then you believe that Rosa Parks should have gone to the back of the bus. OTOH, I have a problem with those who'd argue that they have some moral authority to violate Apple's intellectual property rights. The sole justification for doing so is that it's a convenience for them. They may be able to convince themselves that they're making some sort of principled, ethical statement by doing so, but not me. All that's really being said here is that the product's cost is more than they want to pay, so they believe that they're entitled to shave it down. We often hear the same rationale coming from people who believe that recorded music should be free, when the decision they really should be making is to not buy a product if they don't like the price or the way it's sold.

RE: price convenience. Not true. I don't want the excessive energy consumption of the Mac Pro. I don't want the noise or the heat. While the reduced price is an obvious benefit, it was made more on the basis on responsible spending than on the basis of penny pinching. The power consumed and delivered by my hackintosh are exactly what I need and nothing more. It's the perfect solution for my computing needs.

Certainly this doesn't make it legal, but it does support the ethicality of it since I made responsible use of the funds I use to also pay the rent and feed my family. Could I have purchased a Mac Pro? Yes, but it would've been a waste of money and energy.

That may not justify it for you but that's not my problem.

[matticus008]

Your "ethics" are based on what has been declared from behind the judicial benches and legislative desks of people who are not you
No, "my" ethics are those endemic to society, which includes respect for the rule of law. It is not defined by any ruling or statute.
No, but if I sold you my JAE 50 Cable on Craigslist, it would be wrong of me to dictate the conditions under which you can use it, even if I was slimy enough to make you sign a license for a specific use with the ultimate goal of guaranteeing myself more money.
Well, you could make no such restriction by license, for starters, but rolling with it for the moment, you've failed to make a distinction. Why do you get to put caps on what you're selling, but others do not? Why do you get to restrict the choices an owner has to sell what and how he sees fit? What justifies your failure to use the market you so worship to find a product that meets your needs within the bounds of law and ethics?
With your Black & White view of right and wrong
There's nothing black and white about it. You're the one flatly denying wrongdoing in the clear presence of wrongdoing. I am not denying the presence of elements that are right or justified in the process. You cannot say there is no wrongdoing in taking what is not yours to take.
It's not inherently "immoral" to do something which is against the law.
Absolutely. And where your fundamental rights are violated, it is entirely justified to stand up for them, sometimes even when there are ethical and legal wrongs that must be committed in the process. The difference here being that there is no fundamental right to the property of others.
All that's really being said here is that the product's cost is more than they want to pay, so they believe that they're entitled to shave it down.
Precisely. It's simple greed and false entitlement, not a moral crusade or a response to a moral or ethical wrong.

[alphaod]

If the judge said OS X on Apple hardware only was antitrust that would mean any company should be allowed to run iPhone OS on their devices; RIM wouldn't have to license their stuff to other companies. Yeah I don't see that happening.

[IJ Reilly]

That may not justify it for you but that's not my problem.

I'm not asking you to justify it to me or anyone else. Just don't try to offer up your rationalization as a form of entitlement. You don't have any entitlement to do what you've done; you have simply decided to overlook the legal issues for reasons entirely of your own. Reasons, which to be perfectly honest, don't interest me in the least.

[mccldwll]

Certainly this doesn't make it legal, but it does support the ethicality of it since I made responsible use of the funds I use to also pay the rent and feed my family. Could I have purchased a Mac Pro? Yes, but it would've been a waste of money and energy.
.

Are you raising your kids with that same warped ethical/moral compass--that as long as they, in their own views, judge something to be moral/ethical, then it doesn't matter what the law or the rest of society deems it to be? Very convenient. Very irresponsible.

[robbyx]

OTOH, I have a problem with those who'd argue that they have some moral authority to violate Apple's intellectual property rights. The sole justification for doing so is that it's a convenience for them.

Well said! It makes me realize how far we've fallen into an entitlement culture to see people argue so passionately for having some sort of inherent "right" to another's intellectual property. I truly wonder how they'd feel if it was there hard work being poached, but, let's be honest, the whiners never think like that...

It's very clear that Apple has no problem with Hackintosh builders. Jobs has, on many occasions, made it very clear that Apple *CHOOSES* not to address the needs of certain potential customers. In short, Apple doesn't care if you're a customer. They're interested in the 95% — for whom Apple's offerings are more than adequate. They're downright fantastic. No one does design like Apple.

So, build a Hackintosh. Is it morally wrong to violate the EULA? I don't know. Personally, if I built a Hackintosh, I'd buy the OS and feel no guilt at all in violating the EULA. Others might consider this "wrong." I don't. Either way, Apple doesn't care. But they're not going to make it easy for you either. Apple will never tolerate an easy solution — be it a clone maker or some kind of commercial software package. Nor should they.

[icoffee]

...
So, build a Hackintosh. Is it morally wrong to violate the EULA? I don't know. Personally, if I built a Hackintosh, I'd buy the OS and feel no guilt at all in violating the EULA. Others might consider this "wrong." I don't. Either way, Apple doesn't care. But they're not going to make it easy for you either. Apple will never tolerate an easy solution — be it a clone maker or some kind of commercial software package. Nor should they.

I'm not so sure that Apple doesn't care. Obviously, they've gone to some length to lock down Mac OS X to their hardware, and I am sure they pay their programmers to develop and implement new ways to do so. That R&D and programming costs money. With 1000s of members on hackintosh sites, Apple may be getting a few more switchers, but they're also losing revenue. Buying the OS is a good start, but honestly, how many hackintoshers buy the OS? I bet it's a pretty small percentage. All in all, I would think that Apple wouldn't be too happy about losing sales = money.

[domain]

RE: price convenience. Not true. I don't want the excessive energy consumption of the Mac Pro. I don't want the noise or the heat. While the reduced price is an obvious benefit, it was made more on the basis on responsible spending than on the basis of penny pinching. The power consumed and delivered by my hackintosh are exactly what I need and nothing more. It's the perfect solution for my computing needs.

Certainly this doesn't make it legal, but it does support the ethicality of it since I made responsible use of the funds I use to also pay the rent and feed my family. Could I have purchased a Mac Pro? Yes, but it would've been a waste of money and energy.

That may not justify it for you but that's not my problem.

Lets rephrase this scenario, and tell me it isn't something that is despicable (this is a hypothetical):

I am an office employee... surrounding me in the sea of cubes are other employees (and when it comes down to it, we are all just people right? doing a job right?). The guy sitting next to me works really hard, puts in long hours, and forgoes sleep on a regular basis, but the solutions he comes up with are amazing and would make my life much easier.

This isn't about time convenience, I just don't want to expend the excess time and energy consumption required to work with him on a solution so I can benefit from it as well. It isn't about pinching my hours, but rather responsible use of the time I actually have, and his solutions are exactly what I need to get my job done [so while he is at lunch I sneak into his cube and "borrow" them]. It's perfect!

Sure it isn't right to steal things from other employees, but I think the extra time I have available to spend with my family is more responsible then putting in late hours in the office. Could I have made the time? Probably, but think of all the other things I could use it for...

Truly some twisted logic. Keep in mind, I bear no particular ill-will against anyone that decides to build a "hackintosh"... but rather the truly frightening justifications people seem to come up with to make it "all seem okay". In fact, so long as you aren't like Pystar, and try to make a profit off such behavior, I don't really care... but that certainly doesn't put you in the right.

[robbyx]

I'm not so sure that Apple doesn't care. Obviously, they've gone to some length to lock down Mac OS X to their hardware, and I am sure they pay their programmers to develop and implement new ways to do so. That R&D and programming costs money.

Locking OS X to the hardware makes sense for many reasons. Obviously, Apple doesn't want to make it EASY to run OS X on any ugly old beige box. But I don't think they care much about the very few people who decide to build a Hackintosh. They're too busy worrying about building new stores and serving all of their new customers. Pursuing a handful of Hackintosh builders would be a total waste of resources and they know that.

Apple will only get serious about enforcing the EULA on Hackintoshes if Apple's sales drop. And I seriously doubt they will. After all, why build a Hackintosh? There aren't very many good reasons. Maybe you're a serious techie and get off on building computers. You'd build your PC, so why not your Hackintosh? I get that. Otherwise, Apple pretty much has you covered, at a reasonable - not CHEAP, reasonable - price.

My time is valuable to me and I don't really derive any pleasure from building a computer. I'd rather pick one off the shelf that does everything I need out of the box, no upgrades to make, and looks awesome. The fact that I have a beautiful, slim, silent flat screen floating on my desk with minimal wires is worth every extra penny. I routinely have to explain to PC users that there's nothing else to it. They're always looking for the tower. ;)

My guess is, there are many more consumers like me, people who want a simple, no-fuss, purchasing experience and who value design and style, than there are Hackintosh builders. Good design sells, and having a better OS sure doesn't hurt either! There's no incentive for me to spend my time building a Hackintosh. Of course, if Apple weren't the only supplier of MacOS-capable systems, I might consider a machine from another source. That's what Apple won't tolerate. They are concerned with anyone who tries to build a Hackintosh for commercial gain. Do that and they will tear you up.

[Clive At Five]

<snip>

Alter your hypothetical. Say your coworker agrees to license you his solution but only allows you to use it between the hours of 12 noon and 6pm. Instead you use it from 11am to 5pm. Are you breaking the terms of your contract? Yes. Are you ethically wrong for doing so? That's for you to decide. I happen to see it as inconsequential.

[IJ Reilly]

I'm not so sure that Apple doesn't care. Obviously, they've gone to some length to lock down Mac OS X to their hardware, and I am sure they pay their programmers to develop and implement new ways to do so.

At the moment, they choose to do very little to prevent it. If it becomes too common, they'd probably implement an authentication/registration scheme similar to Windows.

[icoffee]

At the moment, they choose to do very little to prevent it. If it becomes too common, they'd probably implement an authentication/registration scheme similar to Windows.

I agree with you that they are currently doing little to prevent installations on non-Apple hardware. While they might go the Windows authentication/activation route, I've been thinking that their acquisition of a chip company is just the beginning of Apple further distinguishing their hardware from other manufacturers after the switch to Intel. I think we are going to see more and more Mac hardware with unique chips, e.g. the recent H.264 chip in Macbooks. So while it's not a direct way of locking their software down, it does provide a unique incentive such as performance benefits with video (compared to other manufacturers) to buy Apple hardware and software. Just my 1/2 cent (inflation sux). :D

[Adamo]

Good.

I hope OS X stays on only Apple Macs.
I have no idea why you think so - why do you care if you're going to use Apple hardware regardless? It wouldn't have any effect on you whatsoever.

[IJ Reilly]

I agree with you that they are currently doing little to prevent installations on non-Apple hardware. While they might go the Windows authentication/activation route, I've been thinking that their acquisition of a chip company is just the beginning of Apple further distinguishing their hardware from other manufacturers after the switch to Intel. I think we are going to see more and more Mac hardware with unique chips, e.g. the recent H.264 chip in Macbooks. So while it's not a direct way of locking their software down, it does provide a unique incentive such as performance benefits with video (compared to other manufacturers) to buy Apple hardware and software. Just my 1/2 cent (inflation sux). :D

This could happen too, but I believe Apple hardware is already distinguished in other ways that the vast majority of Mac owners value. These distinctions will never impress the pure bang-for-buck crowd though, and I suspect that Apple will never sell Mac hardware that will provide them with many thrills, at least not for very long. They will always be seeking a PC that does more or less the same thing for cheaper, and given the commodity nature of the PC hardware business, they will probably find it.

I'm not necessarily predicting that Apple will implement a registration/authentication scheme for OSX, but if they do, I think we'll know whom to thank.

[mccldwll]

Alter your hypothetical. ..... Are you ethically wrong for doing so? That's for you to decide. I happen to see it as inconsequential.

That's what you've been doing throughout the thread--"altering the hypothetical" to frame it in a way which allows you to rationalize your actions. "Energy savings" and "terrible hardware" are just lame excuses. It's still the theft of someone else's intellectual property. You're not Jean Valjean, just a common shoplifter. It's illegal. It's unethical.

___________________

I am mccldwll and I approve this message.

[macbookairapple]

I have no idea why you think so - why do you care if you're going to use Apple hardware regardless? It wouldn't have any effect on you whatsoever.Of course it would, bring in all these clones and what we will get is windows.

[AlexisV]

I have no idea why you think so - why do you care if you're going to use Apple hardware regardless? It wouldn't have any effect on you whatsoever.

It would do if it caused them to triple the price of OS X Snow Leopard.

[bytethese]

But you totally miss the point, and sounds very close to fanboi.

Name one machine outside of a Mac that you can install OS X on.

Windows? can go on a Mac, PC, or even a DEC Alpha.

Linux? Macs, PCs, Sun workstations/servers, DEC Alphas, SGIs, Zseries, ARM, the entire lot.

OS X? Only Apple. What I believe Psystar was trying to do was correlate OS X only being used on Macs to Internet Explorer and the issues they had in the EU.

Yes, there is competition as far as the rest of the industry is concerned, but when it comes to OS X, Apple saying that it can only go onto Macs does start to smell of antitrust.

BL.

Wow, so when did Microsoft start selling computer systems? Linux, I'm sure there are Linux braded machines right? Oh wait, those are software vendors. :)

Apple makes Hardware and sells software to run on their hardware. They put in the effort of designing the hardware AND software. I don't see Microsoft, Red Hat, Ubuntu, etc selling laptops/desktops. :)

That's like suing RIM because their enterprise server software won't work with my iPhone or Treo.

[iParis]

Thank god.

There are many reasons why Apple wants OS X on Macs only.

[Clive At Five]

That's what you've been doing throughout the thread--"altering the hypothetical" to frame it in a way which allows you to rationalize your actions. "Energy savings" and "terrible hardware" are just lame excuses. It's still the theft of someone else's intellectual property. You're not Jean Valjean, just a common shoplifter. It's illegal. It's unethical.

So you are like matticus who thinks that every law is ethically right.

Law is a shifting slew of imperfect rules made by imperfect people.

I don't claim to know what is "right" and "wrong" but I know what my heart tells me. It tells me that if I've paid for a piece of software, and am not damaging Apple by putting it on 3rd party hardware, it's not wrong to do so.

You accuse me of living in an "entitlement" world... I see it just the opposite. Corporations feel entitled to continue control how a product is used after it is purchased and leaves to store! While this is legally allowed, I want to know how you ethically justify it?

For me to see a company sell something but say "you can only use this product on this other completely unrelated thing that only we sell" is wrong. Ethically. In my opinion. Can you, on the other hand, justify this behavior?

Of course you can. You'll just relegate it to being illegal and therefore wrong, just like matticus.

Most laws are well-founded, but that doesn't mean they are all ethically right. That said, bending or breaking laws isn't always ethically wrong. If you choose to allow your ethics to be determined by people who are not you, fine. You are a follower, as most are.

If your heart tells you differently, however, to allow other people's laws determine your behavior is to compromise your own beliefs. You might be willing to do that, but I am not. I choose to stand up for what I believe in and fight against what I don't.

-Clive

[dejo]

For me to see a company sell something but say "you can only use this product on this other completely unrelated thing that only we sell" is wrong.
You keep saying that the hardware is completely unrelated to Mac OS X when, in fact, they are most definitely wholly related. Can you use Mac OS X without any hardware? No. Therefore there's a relation there. The fact that Apple's hardware is, according to you, 95% equivalent to generic hardware, does not make it unrelated, it just makes it coincidental. If Apple were to sell Mac OS X and require you to buy that ice-cream maker with it, but you could still use Mac OS X on its own then, sure, those are unrelated products and probably constitutes illegal tying. But Mac OS X and the hardware to run it on will always be related no matter how much you claim otherwise.

[IJ Reilly]

I keep hearing about what your "heart" tells you, but I have yet to hear where your head comes into this. I have also not heard any "ethical" defense of your behavior, only one that involves you doing what you believe benefits you. Suffice to say, ethics have nothing to do with acting out of self-interest, unless you subscribe to objectivist claptrap about self-interest being the only legitimate form of ethics. Short of some credible line of reasoning backing up your claims of an ethical basis for violating someone else's rights, the characterization of people who choose to respect the rights of others as "followers" is nothing less than a crass insult.

[mccldwll]

So you are like matticus who thinks that every law is ethically right.

Law is a shifting slew of imperfect rules made by imperfect people.

I don't claim to know what is "right" and "wrong" but I know what my heart tells me. It tells me that if I've paid for a piece of software, and am not damaging Apple by putting it on 3rd party hardware, it's not wrong to do so.

You accuse me of living in an "entitlement" world... I see it just the opposite. Corporations feel entitled to continue control how a product is used after it is purchased and leaves to store! While this is legally allowed, I want to know how you ethically justify it?

For me to see a company sell something but say "you can only use this product on this other completely unrelated thing that only we sell" is wrong. Ethically. In my opinion. Can you, on the other hand, justify this behavior?

Of course you can. You'll just relegate it to being illegal and therefore wrong, just like matticus.

Most laws are well-founded, but that doesn't mean they are all ethically right. That said, bending or breaking laws isn't always ethically wrong. If you choose to allow your ethics to be determined by people who are not you, fine. You are a follower, as most are.

If your heart tells you differently, however, to allow other people's laws determine your behavior is to compromise your own beliefs. You might be willing to do that, but I am not. I choose to stand up for what I believe in and fight against what I don't.

-Clive

Nice try. The reality is that it's an upgrade for a buyer's existing mac system. The fact that it's sold in a complete form to make it easier for a consumer to install, and you to steal, is irrelevant. Wrapping yourself in a flag of "rugged individualism" is laughable. Again, you're not Jean Valjean but a common shoplifter. You're just trying to put lipstick on a pig.

[opeter]

Apple needs the competition I think, since anyone using an Apple knows how terrible Windows is. Apple charges ridiculous prices, and they know it. It won't be long until all of this backfires on them and Microsoft becomes the underdog.

Windows is not terrible, but Macfans are.

[mccldwll]

So you are like matticus who thinks that every law is ethically right.

Law is a shifting slew of imperfect rules made by imperfect people.

I don't claim to know what is "right" and "wrong" but I know what my heart tells me. It tells me that if I've paid for a piece of software, and am not damaging Apple by putting it on 3rd party hardware, it's not wrong to do so.

You accuse me of living in an "entitlement" world... I see it just the opposite. Corporations feel entitled to continue control how a product is used after it is purchased and leaves to store! While this is legally allowed, I want to know how you ethically justify it?

For me to see a company sell something but say "you can only use this product on this other completely unrelated thing that only we sell" is wrong. Ethically. In my opinion. Can you, on the other hand, justify this behavior?

Of course you can. You'll just relegate it to being illegal and therefore wrong, just like matticus.

Most laws are well-founded, but that doesn't mean they are all ethically right. That said, bending or breaking laws isn't always ethically wrong. If you choose to allow your ethics to be determined by people who are not you, fine. You are a follower, as most are.

If your heart tells you differently, however, to allow other people's laws determine your behavior is to compromise your own beliefs. You might be willing to do that, but I am not. I choose to stand up for what I believe in and fight against what I don't.

-Clive

Just ran into this somewhere else (and no, I'm not a golfer). What would you have done, since its only a dumb rule?:

By Jay Busbee
The true test of a man's character is what he does when no one is watching. John Wooden said that, or maybe it was Spider-Man. Whatever, it still holds true; being noble and upstanding is easy enough when you've got people watching, but when you're alone with yourself, when you could do the wrong thing (or avoid the right thing) and get away with it, well -- that's when you find out what kind of person you are.
By that standard, then, J.P. Hayes is among the best that sports has to offer. He played a nonconforming ball for a single hole of the second stage of Q School last weekend. He realized it more than a day after the "violation," called it on himself, and thus disqualified himself from Q School ... with some severe, career-altering effects down the line.
So how did this go down? So easily, you'll cringe:
On his 12th hole of the first round at Deerwood Country Club last Wednesday, Hayes' caddie reached into his golf bag, pulled out a ball and flipped it to Hayes, who missed the green with his tee shot. He then chipped on and marked his ball. It was then that Hayes realized the ball was not the same model Titleist with which he had started his round. That was in violation of the one-ball rule, which stipulates that a player must play the same model throughout a round.
Okay, so, two-stroke penalty, no big deal. He recovered well enough to put himself in position to finish in the top 20 and advance to the third and final round of Q School. The top 25 finishers in that round, plus ties, earn exempt status for the entire 2009 PGA season. So, breathe deep, think about how close you came to disaster, then tee it up for the next round.
Only, while Hayes was breathing deep, he realized something else -- not only did he play the wrong ball, he might have played a ball that wasn't even approved for play at all.
"It was a Titleist prototype, and somehow it had gotten into my bag," he said. "It had been four weeks since Titleist gave me some prototype balls and I tested them. I have no idea how or why it was still in there ... I called an official in Houston that night and said, 'I think I may have a problem. He said they'd call Titleist the next day. I pretty much knew at that point I was going to be disqualified."
Now, the easy move here would be to either do nothing or blame the caddy. Hayes rose above both those temptations, putting all the blame on himself and asserting that everybody else on the PGA in his shoes would have done the exact same thing. We'll never know, but let's hope so.
Also, Hayes already has more than $7 million in career earnings, so it's not like he'd consigned himself to another year working the counter at the Quik Stop. But still, knowing you're taking yourself out of the running for a year of career stability and wealth takes some serious situational ethics.
Would you do it?
Really?

[gnasher729]

What is wrong with you people. This is completely unrelated to what I was even saying.

Tying is legal between two related products. Conversely, Tying is illegal between two unrelated products. Some say that only Monopolies can be found guilty of anti-competitive practices and they may be right, even though this is a double-standard in my opinion.

No, tying is legal even between two unrelated products if the person doing the tying doesn't have market power. On my market stall, I'll sell you a pack of twenty Christmas cards, but only if you buy four oranges at the same time. That is tying of two unrelated products, and it is completely legal, because I have no market power. That is why Apple can tie the use of MacOS X to an Apple labeled computer: Because they have no market power in the operating system market.

Just because Apple developed both doesn't make them bundle-able. Say Logitech develops an amazing computer mouse which it sells for $40. In the meantime, Logitech also sells an crappy Ice Cream maker bundled with the mouse for $400. You can buy a their mouse alone if you want, but you can only use it if you've bought the ice cream maker. The mouse works independent of the ice cream maker, but Logitech FORCES you to buy two unrelated products in order to use the one you want. ~THIS IS WHAT APPLE IS DOING~ It is also an illegal anti-competitive practice (Tying) which our legal system only imposes on monopolies.

I don't think Logitech has market power in the market of computer mice. If Logitech did what you say, nobody would buy their computer mouse, no matter how amazing it is, except for a few dozen people who want an ice cream maker. Now if Logitech had a patent on computer mice, and you could only buy Logitech mice and nothing else, that would be entirely different. If you had no choice but to buy the unwanted ice cream maker because you need a computer mouse, then the tying would be illegal because it is combined with market power.

For me to see a company sell something but say "you can only use this product on this other completely unrelated thing that only we sell" is wrong. Ethically. In my opinion. Can you, on the other hand, justify this behavior?

In this particular case, it is well justified, but it is a bit more complex.

First, it is quite customary that a software upgrade is cheaper than buying a completely new software package. You get say Software V.6.0 either by paying $300, or by paying $100 plus stopping to use your legally installed copy of Software V.5.0. That happens in many places.

Second, it is quite customary that you give different prices to good customers to reward them than to non-customers. Like Dell might offer a printer or monitor very cheap to it existing PC customers.

These two added together, anyone who buys Leopard and installs it according to Apple's license, is in fact upgrading, and is a valuable previous customer for Apple. So _if_ Apple sold MacOS X with different license (upgrade, full version for Apple computers, full version for any computer of your choice), then clearly the upgrade version would be a lot cheaper than the other two versions, and the one that you would want (full version for any computer of your choice) would be the most expensive one. Apple doesn't sell the product you want; if they did sell it, it wouldn't be for $129.

Let's apply your argument to the Family Pack. For $199, you get MacOS X with a license that allows installation on up to five computers within the same household. Who gives Apple the right to restrict you in this way? It should be five copies, installed anywhere. Clearly you should be allowed to buy a Family Pack for $199, install one copy on your computer, then sell four copies to strangers for $129 each and make $317 profit.

[nookster]

Clive, you must be one hell of a big scary monster for your detractors to selflessly defend a multi billion corporation against the mighty power of your personal opinion, via the unbending self-righteousness of personal attacks.

This is part of the reason why I seldom participate anymore (and deleted a few other sites from my bookmarks), the small but vocal cell of zealots attempting to destroy sensible discussion yet again :rolleyes:

[Clive At Five]

You keep saying that the hardware is completely unrelated to Mac OS X when, in fact, they are most definitely wholly related. Can you use Mac OS X without any hardware? No. Therefore there's a relation there. The fact that Apple's hardware is, according to you, 95% equivalent to generic hardware, does not make it unrelated, it just makes it coincidental. If Apple were to sell Mac OS X and require you to buy that ice-cream maker with it, but you could still use Mac OS X on its own then, sure, those are unrelated products and probably constitutes illegal tying. But Mac OS X and the hardware to run it on will always be related no matter how much you claim otherwise.

While OS X obviously needs *some* hardware to run on, Apple requires you run it on only the hardware THEY sell. Meanwhile, there is nothing that distinguishes Apple's hardware from anyone else's except that Apple makes money off of it. THIS IS THE PURPOSE OF THE BUNDLING. TO FORCE PEOPLE TO BUY A $2000 COMPUTER TO RUN A $150 PIECE OF SOFTWARE.

If there was something unique about their HARDWARE that subsequently made the it essential to the bundle, then it would be a relevant connection. Alas, it is not.

In the mean time, if Apple thinks their OS is worth $2000, they should sell it for $2000.

I keep hearing about what your "heart" tells you, but I have yet to hear where your head comes into this. I have also not heard any "ethical" defense of your behavior, only one that involves you doing what you believe benefits you. Suffice to say, ethics have nothing to do with acting out of self-interest, unless you subscribe to objectivist claptrap about self-interest being the only legitimate form of ethics. Short of some credible line of reasoning backing up your claims of an ethical basis for violating someone else's rights, the characterization of people who choose to respect the rights of others as "followers" is nothing less than a crass insult.

Not every single action one takes is ethically right or ethically wrong. Eating a salad, for example, is neither "right" or "wrong," but rather ethically neutral. I choose not to partake in activities I see as ethically wrong. Building a hackintosh, in my opinion, is neither ethically right nor ethically wrong, but, instead, ethically neutral.

Meanwhile, am I building a hackintosh out of self-interest? You bet. 100% of everything we do is out of self-interest. Even charitable works we do are to make ourselves feel good or to satisfy our beliefs that we have an inherent duty to help others. I volunteer and give money to charitable causes because I feel like a selfish turd if I don't, and I don't want to feel like that.

You can continue to argue that every law-given right is automatically an ethical right, but I return again to the time in our history when we allowed AND ENFORCED slavery. Slaves were property. For someone to help a slave escape would be a violation of the slave-owner's property rights - and this right would have been enforced BY LAW. Does that make it ethically wrong to help a slave escape? You may disagree, but I'm going to assume not.

I know that it is an extreme example, but it illustrates a clear case of how law is not always ethically right. That said, under our current legal system, Apple has the law-given right to control how one uses a piece of software after it has been purchased. This does not make it an ethical right!

As I said before, just because it's a right doesn't make it right.

Nice try. The reality is that it's an upgrade for a buyer's existing mac system. The fact that it's sold in a complete form to make it easier for a consumer to install, and you to steal, is irrelevant. Wrapping yourself in a flag of "rugged individualism" is laughable. Again, you're not Jean Valjean but a common shoplifter. You're just trying to put lipstick on a pig.

Nowhere does Apple mention "upgrade" on the box, on the website, in the Apple store... in fact, Steve Jobs has bragged that every copy of Leopard is the full version.

This is neither here nor there.

Let's confront the accusation that I am a "shoplifter."

Many of you have argued that the $129 is the subsidized price for OS X having bought a Mac. I'm not certain I agree outright, but let's go with it. That means that the market value of OS X would be greater than $129.

Apple prices OS X at $129 because they believe people will upgrade at a pace that negates the risk of the subsidy. Yes, I said "risk." When a company subsidizes a product, it is taking a risk.

I do not think they are losing money by selling it for $129, but let's imagine that $129 per copy did not cover development and support costs. Now let's consider the slowing economy. It's not implausible that more people will perform a software upgrade rather than purchasing a new computer. Since Apple would be selling OS X at a loss, their Mac segment could actually begin LOSING money. Not just lower revenues, but negative revenues. Whose fault is this? Certainly not the people who bought Macs, because they abided by the rules. It was Apple who took the risk and decided to sell their product at a loss and their sales suffered accordingly.

Now let's take a different example. Let's maintain the assumption that Apple is selling OS X at a loss. What if a person didn't own a Mac, he bought a copy of OS X and never used it. Is the customer in the wrong? He never even broke any EULAs or anything else. He is completely legally untouchable. Is he a "shoplifter" as you call it? I'm going to assume your answer is "no" (please state if otherwise). So in the process of this transaction, this person purchased OS X legally, did not break the terms of use, but Apple still lost money. Whose fault is this? It's not the customer's since he abided by the law and paid the list price on the software. Once again, it is Apple's fault because they took the risk to subsidize the price of OS X.

Let me say this one more time: APPLE CHOOSES THE PRICE OF OS X. IF THEY SUBSIDIZE THE PRICE, THEY TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY RESULTING LOST REVENUE.

I have paid the price Apple has asked for OS X, therefore I cannot be at fault for Apple's loss. If Apple is losing money on OS X, they should charge more... I would gladly pay it for a fine piece of software. I will not, however, be demonized for not paying what I haven't been asked to. I will not take responsibility for Apple's pricing mechanisms. And I will not be called a "shoplifter" for being an outlier in Apple's risk formula.

-Clive

[IJ Reilly]

No, tying is legal even between two unrelated products if the person doing the tying doesn't have market power. On my market stall, I'll sell you a pack of twenty Christmas cards, but only if you buy four oranges at the same time. That is tying of two unrelated products, and it is completely legal, because I have no market power. That is why Apple can tie the use of MacOS X to an Apple labeled computer: Because they have no market power in the operating system market.

...

This is an excellent explanation. Thanks for going to the trouble.

Not every single action one takes is ethically right or ethically wrong. Eating a salad, for example, is neither "right" or "wrong," but rather ethically neutral. I choose not to partake in activities I see as ethically wrong. Building a hackintosh, in my opinion, is neither ethically right nor ethically wrong, but, instead, ethically neutral.

...

I'm sorry, but this is utter blather. I challenged you to come up with a rationale which goes beyond the "it's good for me so it must be right" reasoning, and quite clearly you can't.

[BaldiMac]

While OS X obviously needs *some* hardware to run on, Apple requires you run it on only the hardware THEY sell. Meanwhile, there is nothing that distinguishes Apple's hardware from anyone else's except that Apple makes money off of it. THIS IS THE PURPOSE OF THE BUNDLING. TO FORCE PEOPLE TO BUY A $2000 COMPUTER TO RUN A $150 PIECE OF SOFTWARE.

If there was something unique about their HARDWARE that subsequently made the it essential to the bundle, then it would be a relevant connection. Alas, it is not.

You are misappropriating the definition of "related". "Related" is not the same as "required". Obviously, computer hardware and the operating system are related. You keep calling them unrelated.

In the mean time, if Apple thinks their OS is worth $2000, they should sell it for $2000.

Apple does not sell OS X. They sell a license to use OS X.

That said, under our current legal system, Apple has the law-given right to control how one uses a piece of software after it has been purchased. This does not make it an ethical right!

As I said before, just because it's a right doesn't make it right.

How would Apple or any other software company be able to make money if they could not license their software? If Apple was not given the legal right to license their software, they would be selling the software itself. Every purchaser would have the same rights to copy, distribute, and modify the software as Apple. It would be as if copyright did not exist. What would be the incentive to create new software?

Nowhere does Apple mention "upgrade" on the box, on the website, in the Apple store... in fact, Steve Jobs has bragged that every copy of Leopard is the full version.

Though the word "upgrade" may not be used, the concept is the same. As the judge ruled, purchasers are aware that OS X can only be installed on Apple hardware. The system requirements are listed. The SLA is available on Apple's website.

This is neither here nor there.

Let's confront the accusation that I am a "shoplifter."

Many of you have argued that the $129 is the subsidized price for OS X having bought a Mac. I'm not certain I agree outright, but let's go with it. That means that the market value of OS X would be greater than $129.

Apple prices OS X at $129 because they believe people will upgrade at a pace that negates the risk of the subsidy. Yes, I said "risk." When a company subsidizes a product, it is taking a risk.

I do not think they are losing money by selling it for $129, but let's imagine that $129 per copy did not cover development and support costs. Now let's consider the slowing economy. It's not implausible that more people will perform a software upgrade rather than purchasing a new computer. Since Apple would be selling OS X at a loss, their Mac segment could actually begin LOSING money. Not just lower revenues, but negative revenues. Whose fault is this? Certainly not the people who bought Macs, because they abided by the rules. It was Apple who took the risk and decided to sell their product at a loss and their sales suffered accordingly.

Now let's take a different example. Let's maintain the assumption that Apple is selling OS X at a loss. What if a person didn't own a Mac, he bought a copy of OS X and never used it. Is the customer in the wrong? He never even broke any EULAs or anything else. He is completely legally untouchable. Is he a "shoplifter" as you call it? I'm going to assume your answer is "no" (please state if otherwise). So in the process of this transaction, this person purchased OS X legally, did not break the terms of use, but Apple still lost money. Whose fault is this? It's not the customer's since he abided by the law and paid the list price on the software. Once again, it is Apple's fault because they took the risk to subsidize the price of OS X.

Let me say this one more time: APPLE CHOOSES THE PRICE OF OS X. IF THEY SUBSIDIZE THE PRICE, THEY TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY RESULTING LOST REVENUE.

I have paid the price Apple has asked for OS X, therefore I cannot be at fault for Apple's loss. If Apple is losing money on OS X, they should charge more... I would gladly pay it for a fine piece of software. I will not, however, be demonized for not paying what I haven't been asked to. I will not take responsibility for Apple's pricing mechanisms. And I will not be called a "shoplifter" for being an outlier in Apple's risk formula.

-Clive

This is a weird tangent. Obviously, Apple is not losing money on each sale of boxed copy of OS X. Apple does not lose any money when someone purchases a box and sticks it on a shelf.

Apple has set the price of $129 for the box, the dvd, and a license to install OS X on an Apple labeled computer. I believe that most people would agree that Apple would charge a different (higher) price for a license to install it on other hardware. But they choose not to sell such a license.

Just because someone does not choose to sell something, does not give anyone the legal, moral, or ethical right to take it.

Of course, there may be other circumstances that impact the morality of the situation (stealing food to feed family), but I can't think of any that would come into play for a computer operating system.

[TechHistorian]

Most laws are well-founded, but that doesn't mean they are all ethically right. That said, bending or breaking laws isn't always ethically wrong. If you choose to allow your ethics to be determined by people who are not you, fine. You are a follower, as most are.

If your heart tells you differently, however, to allow other people's laws determine your behavior is to compromise your own beliefs. You might be willing to do that, but I am not. I choose to stand up for what I believe in and fight against what I don't.

I'll be the first to agree that the law and morality exist on separate planes and are not necessarily equivalent. But, no matter how much lofty rhetoric you use to wrap up your argument, you are not standing up for what you believe in and fighting for it. Civil disobedience rests upon a willingness to be prosecuted so as to show the fundamental immorality of unjust laws. Thoreau, Gandhi, and King were all willing to suffer the consequences of their illegal acts. Until and unless you submit your name and address to Apple and inform them that you are willingly violating their EULA as you find it immoral and unethical, you're not standing up for anything. You're not a "leader." You're just violating the law ... and getting away with it. Spare us the histrionics and get off the high horse.

[Clive At Five]

No, tying is legal even between two unrelated products if the person doing the tying doesn't have market power. On my market stall, I'll sell you a pack of twenty Christmas cards, but only if you buy four oranges at the same time. That is tying of two unrelated products, and it is completely legal, because I have no market power. That is why Apple can tie the use of MacOS X to an Apple labeled computer: Because they have no market power in the operating system market.

Are you kidding me? That's exactly what I had just said:

Tying is legal between two related products. Conversely, Tying is illegal between two unrelated products. Some say that only Monopolies can be found guilty of anti-competitive practices and they may be right, even though this is a double-standard in my opinion.

Thanks for reading my comments before blindly commenting negatively on them like I'M wrong. You are unbelievable.

I don't think Logitech has market power in the market of computer mice. If Logitech did what you say, nobody would buy their computer mouse, no matter how amazing it is, except for a few dozen people who want an ice cream maker. Now if Logitech had a patent on computer mice, and you could only buy Logitech mice and nothing else, that would be entirely different. If you had no choice but to buy the unwanted ice cream maker because you need a computer mouse, then the tying would be illegal because it is combined with market power.

If it's not right for a monopoly, what makes it right for Logitech? I know that no one cares what non-monopolies do, but does that justify it?

NO.

This is an excellent explanation. Thanks for going to the trouble.

Even though it was an "excellent" explanation of what I had just stated in plain english in the quote he was trying to deny? HAH! You make me laugh.

I'm sorry, but this is utter blather. I challenged you to come up with a rationale which goes beyond the "it's good for me so it must be right" reasoning, and quite clearly you can't.

Quite clearly you weren't reading - AGAIN! - and inventing arguments - AGAIN!

Everything we do is because "it's good for me." EVERYTHING. Things that we believe are ethically bad we don't do because it makes us feel bad. Feeling bad falls under the definition of "not good for me." Therefore there is no possible way for something someone does - who doesn't regret his or her actions - to think they've done wrong.

You're asking me to prove that 1 = 2.

Not to mention that you've already decided that what I've done is ethically wrong, and there's no changing your rigid mind, so no matter what I say, you won't care and you'll just dump some predictable "blather" of your own below this post. Have fun. I will not reply to any more illogical arguments that you invent. That said, reply wisely if you want a response.

You are misappropriating the definition of "related". "Related" is not the same as "required". Obviously, computer hardware and the operating system are related. You keep calling them unrelated.

You keep calling it "computer hardware." Apple doesn't let you install OS X on any old "computer hardware." It must be on hardware that THEY SELL.

Tying is justified when there's a reason for doing so. For Apple to tie OS X to their hardware only is not justified because there is no reason OS X must be installed on Apple's hardware. The purpose of the law is to ensure companies don't force customers to buy product B when they only want product A, the company sells product A separately, and said customer buys product A. This forcing of sales of product B (Apple's hardware) is precisely what Apple is doing.

Apple does not sell OS X. They sell a license to use OS X.

yeah yeah yeah.

How would Apple or any other software company be able to make money if they could not license their software? If Apple was not given the legal right to license their software, they would be selling the software itself. Every purchaser would have the same rights to copy, distribute, and modify the software as Apple. It would be as if copyright did not exist. What would be the incentive to create new software?

Selling a copy of a copyrighted work is not equivalent to selling the copyrighted work. Not only that, but purchasers of duplicates of copyrighted works are allowed to do with the copy what they please, so long as they aren't damaging the "brand."

For example: no artist has the right to sell you a duplicate painting then say, "now you can only hang this painting in a frame that I sell." Even if you were to buy the painting and frame, you can't be penalized for replacing the frame with a frame of your own... nor can you be penalized for painting a red smiley-face over top of the original painting after you bought it. You can do anything you want but violate copyright laws which include (but are not limited to) creating duplicates, selling duplicates, creating derivative works, selling derivative works, etc.

What Apple is doing with their EULA is far more overreaching than copyright enforcement. It's post-sale meddling, which is unethical. ("In my opinion")

Though the word "upgrade" may not be used, the concept is the same. As the judge ruled, purchasers are aware that OS X can only be installed on Apple hardware. The system requirements are listed. The SLA is available on Apple's website.

And it's the legal enforcement of this which I condemn. It's a violation of consumer rights. So long as I am not damaging the Apple brand, what I do with a product I purchase is no one else's business once I leave the store.

This is a weird tangent. Obviously, Apple is not losing money on each sale of boxed copy of OS X. Apple does not lose any money when someone purchases a box and sticks it on a shelf.

Apple has set the price of $129 for the box, the dvd, and a license to install OS X on an Apple labeled computer. I believe that most people would agree that Apple would charge a different (higher) price for a license to install it on other hardware. But they choose not to sell such a license.

Just because someone does not choose to sell something, does not give anyone the legal, moral, or ethical right to take it.

It's an important tangent. People are accusing me of theft! The only theft that is going on is Apple's legal attempts to try to hijack $2000 more out of my wallet.

Apple WOULD charge more if they weren't able to legally bully people into buying their hardware. However, freedom-obsessed "deviants" like me are not in their risk formula when they decide how much they can safely subsidize the price of OS X. Once again, it's not my fault they chose to subsidize the price of OS X. If they want to guarantee they earn the full market value of OS X on every sale, they should stop building it into the cost of every Mac, and start selling OS X at "full price."

They choose how to price their products, and I cannot be blamed or called a thief for abiding by that pricing structure.

Of course, there may be other circumstances that impact the morality of the situation (stealing food to feed family), but I can't think of any that would come into play for a computer operating system.

Even I don't believe in stealing food to feed my family. Theft is theft.

I'll be the first to agree that the law and morality exist on separate planes and are not necessarily equivalent. But, no matter how much lofty rhetoric you use to wrap up your argument, you are not standing up for what you believe in and fighting for it. Civil disobedience rests upon a willingness to be prosecuted so as to show the fundamental immorality of unjust laws. Thoreau, Gandhi, and King were all willing to suffer the consequences of their illegal acts. Until and unless you submit your name and address to Apple and inform them that you are willingly violating their EULA as you find it immoral and unethical, you're not standing up for anything. You're not a "leader." You're just violating the law ... and getting away with it. Spare us the histrionics and get off the high horse.

They have all my information, name, address, telephone number, and all the specs of my xHack, which I sent in the Registration Info when I first booted Leopard. They have all the info they need to prosecute me, which I've sent to them willingly.

-Clive

[IJ Reilly]

Quite clearly you weren't reading - AGAIN! - and inventing arguments - AGAIN!

Everything we do is because "it's good for me." EVERYTHING. Things that we believe are ethically bad we don't do because it makes us feel bad. Feeling bad falls under the definition of "not good for me." Therefore there is no possible way for something someone does - who doesn't regret his or her actions - to think they've done wrong.

You're asking me to prove that 1 = 2.

Not to mention that you've already decided that what I've done is ethically wrong, and there's no changing your rigid mind, so no matter what I say, you won't care and you'll just dump some predictable "blather" of your own below this post. Have fun. I will not reply to any more illogical arguments that you invent. That said, reply wisely if you want a response.

I heard you, and once again you confirm that my description of your views is accurate. Your full definition of what is right is what is good for you, that your ethics are completely relative to you. Don't worry about responding. If I wanted to have a shallow conversation, I'd talk to my cats. They also know that world is completely about them.

[Clive At Five]

They also know that world is completely about them.

The sooner you give up trying to convince yourself you believe otherwise, the sooner you can quit living in denial about how great you are.

What's the last thing you did that wasn't truly for you? That includes things you did for others because you felt you needed to, or did to make yourself feel good.

That's right. Join us cats.

-Clive

[gnasher729]

If it's not right for a monopoly, what makes it right for Logitech? I know that no one cares what non-monopolies do, but does that justify it?

If driving over 30 mph in a town is illegal, how can we justify driving 70 mph on a motorway? That is more than twice the speed limit inside a town. If selling alcohol to children is illegal, how can we justify selling chocolate to children, or alcohol to adults?

Tying two unrelated products is in itself not harmful. Having a monopoly is in itself not harmful. Combining both is harmful; it harms companies making products that compete with the tied product. We don't care if Logitech does something that Microsoft wouldn't be allowed to do, because when Logitech does it, it causes no harm.

You see, monopolies mustn't swindle old ladies out of their savings, because that is evil. And non-monopolies mustn't swindle old ladies out of their savings either, because it is just as evil, whether it is a monopoly doing it or a non-monopoly. Product tying is different: If a monopoly does it, it is harmful. If a non-monopoly does it, it isn't harmful. So it is not the same thing. Like selling alcohol to a 14 year old is not the same as selling alcohol to a 24 year old. It is not the tying, and not the selling alcohol, that is bad. It is the _combination_ with the fact that the tying is done by a monopoly, or the alcohol is sold to a child.

[haydn!]

Everything we do is because "it's good for me." EVERYTHING. Things that we believe are ethically bad we don't do because it makes us feel bad. Feeling bad falls under the definition of "not good for me." Therefore there is no possible way for something someone does - who doesn't regret his or her actions - to think they've done wrong.

You're asking me to prove that 1 = 2.


I don't quite grasp your definition there, it's quite flawed. Only doing things that only benefit yourself is an act of selfishness. Something that is not always good for you may often be good for someone else.

For example: Giving to charity is not good for you financially, but it's good for someone else as they'll benefit. So what about smoking, if you smoke, you seriously wouldn't believe that it was "good for you" would you? So quite clearly everything we do, isn't always because its just good for us. It's often human nature to give something, or do something, without expecting something in return.

Also, he's not asking you to prove 1 = 2, because that is obviously quite impossible. He's asking you to justify your illegal actions, which no matter how we look at it is also quite impossible. If you we're able to justify them. It wouldn't be illegal. Ethics doesn't come into it. Apple choosing not to sell Mac OS to an open market, or limiting its use to certain hardware is not unethical, its tough luck!

So actually, your own example of trying to prove 1 = 2, quite simply defines your own actions? Both are impossible to justify.

There really is a sense of "I want it this way, so it must be right" in some of the posts in this thread. Is the fact that a court of law have instructed that Apple's actions are clearly legal not enough for people to accept it?

Apple have the right to decide how their products are sold, and who they can be sold to. If Apple chooses not to sell to a certain segment of consumers, that is their right. There is nothing wrong with it. To put it simply, and actually quote Apple's own layers: Why should Apple help a hardware competitor sell computers?

[Clive At Five]

If driving over 30 mph in a town is illegal, how can we justify driving 70 mph on a motorway? That is more than twice the speed limit inside a town. If selling alcohol to children is illegal, how can we justify selling chocolate to children, or alcohol to adults?

Tying two unrelated products is in itself not harmful. Having a monopoly is in itself not harmful. Combining both is harmful; it harms companies making products that compete with the tied product. We don't care if Logitech does something that Microsoft wouldn't be allowed to do, because when Logitech does it, it causes no harm.

You see, monopolies mustn't swindle old ladies out of their savings, because that is evil. And non-monopolies mustn't swindle old ladies out of their savings either, because it is just as evil, whether it is a monopoly doing it or a non-monopoly. Product tying is different: If a monopoly does it, it is harmful. If a non-monopoly does it, it isn't harmful. So it is not the same thing. Like selling alcohol to a 14 year old is not the same as selling alcohol to a 24 year old. It is not the tying, and not the selling alcohol, that is bad. It is the _combination_ with the fact that the tying is done by a monopoly, or the alcohol is sold to a child.

Explain how being a monopoly makes tying harmful and how the non-monopoly does not.

Giving to charity is not good for you financially, but it's good for someone else as they'll benefit.

Why then do people give to charity? Two reasons.

Reason 1, because it will make them feel good. Feeling good is desirable. We exchange our monetary donations or volunteer work for the reward of feeling good.

Reason 2, because they feel as though that it is their moral obligation. If they do not fulfill that obligation, they will feel bad. Feeling bad is undesirable, so they do charitable things.

So what about smoking, if you smoke, you seriously wouldn't believe that it was "good for you" would you?

Smoking satisfies a short-term biological/neurological urge in exchange for the long-term side-effects. Again, people do it to feel good, which is desirable to them.

So quite clearly everything we do, isn't always because its just good for us. It's often human nature to give something, or do something, without expecting something in return.

Stop trying to convince yourself you're so noble! You do good things because it makes you feel good, or because you feel you must! Anything else you try to convince yourself of is a lie. Everything we do is to satisfy either our biological or spiritual needs.

Also, he's not asking you to prove 1 = 2, because that is obviously quite impossible. He's asking you to justify your illegal actions, which no matter how we look at it is also quite impossible. If you we're able to justify them. It wouldn't be illegal. Ethics doesn't come into it. Apple choosing not to sell Mac OS to an open market, or limiting its use to certain hardware is not unethical, its tough luck!

IN YOUR OPINION!

Your set of ethics are different from IJ's, mine, Steve Jobs' and everyone else on the planet. I happen think that controlling a product post-sale is ethically wrong.

[haydn!]

If a monopoly were tying customers in with products they'd be abusing their position by making it difficult for other companies to compete.

If company that has a smaller market share is tying customers in with products they're actually limiting their own ability to compete in an open market. Reducing your own ability to compete only has a negative impact against your own business, not the wider market. The courts have recognized this, and it is Apple's choose to be selective in how they sell their products.

Because of the massive market share Microsoft have, it would take a dozen more releases like Vista before Apple are in a position where they can be deemed anti competitive. But, it unlikely Microsoft will make the same mistakes again, and that Apple will ever hold a majority share of the market. Plus, if they did it is most likely Apple will have changed their business model in anticipation of this. Analysts have already speculated that they would expect Apple to license the OS to other hardware companies at some point in the future, if they had reached a 30% or higher market share. But if, or when this happens will also be Apple's choice.

[albusseverus]

Of course it would, bring in all these clones and what we will get is windows.

It would do if it caused them to triple the price of OS X Snow Leopard.

You're missing the point - Apple doesn't need to support crappy hardware. They keep on doing exactly what they're doing now and PC makers with machines good enough for Apple's specs can sell OS X for them (thanks very much).

Just because Microsoft does something stupid, doesn't mean Apple has to as well. Apple is under no obligation to support anyone but themselves.

If anything, this situation is Apple's doing. They have gone (a long way) out of their way to make PCs and sell Mac OS on them !

[haydn!]

IN YOUR OPINION!

Your set of ethics are different from IJ's, mine, Steve Jobs' and everyone else on the planet. I happen think that controlling a product post-sale is ethically wrong.

And your post was your opinion. However I'd have to disagree with you when you say my feeling on the matter would differ from Steve Jobs, or in fact everyone else on the planet.

It's unlikely we'd ever find out what Steve personally felt on the matter however I also find it unlikely he'd view the actions of his company to unethical.

Also, millions of people each year go out and by Mac computers and Mac OS (legally I might add). They also quite clearly don't have a problem with how Apple is doing business.

I think you confusing something being "ethically wrong" with "not getting what you want".

Apple quite clearly aren't out to serve every customer, and there is no court of law that would state Apple must offer that meets the need of every single consumer. If customers aren't happy with the services or products that Apple is offering - there are alternatives.

That of course, is my opinion.


Now, you'll have to excuse me. I'm off to ask a court of law to challenge KFC's ethics because they won't sell me a Big Mac.


(Okay, KFC and ethics in the same sentence probably was a bad idea!)

[IJ Reilly]

Now, you'll have to excuse me. I'm off to ask a court of law to challenge KFC's ethics because they won't sell me a Big Mac.

Nor will they give me the recipe for extra crispy. B*stards!

[Clive At Five]

And your post was your opinion. However hen you say my feeling on the matter would differ from Steve Jobs, or in fact everyone else on the planet.

I didn't say "feelings" and I didn't say "on the matter." I said set of ethics. Your complete set of ethics matches that of no one else's.

Also, millions of people each year go out and by Mac computers and Mac OS (legally I might add). They also quite clearly don't have a problem with how Apple is doing business.

I think you confusing something being "ethically wrong" with "not getting what you want".

I'm happy for those people who love their Macs, I really truly am. I used to be one of those people until my computing needs grew and Apple's hardware offerings shrunk. Even if I was a happy Mac user like I had been for many years, I still would not think Apple would be justified. You're assuming that my actions dictate my ethics when it is the other way around.

Apple quite clearly aren't out to serve every customer, and there is no court of law that would state Apple must offer that meets the need of every single consumer.

This is not even close to what I am asking for. You, like IJ, are inventing arguments and then conquering them in a petty attempt to make me look vanquished.

Now, you'll have to excuse me. I'm off to ask a court of law to challenge KFC's ethics because they won't sell me a Big Mac.

Again, completely different from believing that a company shouldn't be allowed to control a product's use post-sale, save for copyright protection.

But thanks for putting hyperbolistic words in my mouth instead of addressing the cases that I am actually making.

-Clive

[r.j.s]

Again, completely different from believing that a company shouldn't be allowed to control a product's use post-sale, save for copyright protection.
-Clive

That's the key here, you cannot buy OS X. Period. You buy a license and the physical media.

Apple is not telling anyone what they can and can't do with the physical product you bought, so your "painting" comparison is not valid.

They still own OS X, and when you buy a license, you are telling them that you agree to their terms of use - if you don't then you can either not buy a license or return your license.

[piot]

In the U.S., Apple's business practices must comply with anti-trust guidelines, which includes not participating in anti-competitive behavior. I'm not judge or jury, so I can't decide whether their closed model is or isn't anti-competitive (more specifically, "Tying"), but it is certainly going to be the focal point of PsyStar's defense.

And you were dead right! That indeed was Psystar's total defense. And the Judge (without the need for a jury) has just tossed it out of the window... so why do you still keep bringing it up?

Your emotional arguments and love/hate relationship with Apple are increasingly making you sound like a jilted lover.

[icoffee]

I'm happy for those people who love their Macs, I really truly am. I used to be one of those people until my computing needs grew and Apple's hardware offerings shrunk. Even if I was a happy Mac user like I had been for many years, I still would not think Apple would be justified. You're assuming that my actions dictate my ethics when it is the other way around.
-Clive

After reading countless posts with you and others going back and forth about how running OSX hardware is or is not ethical, legal, moral, etc. to run on non-Apple hardware, I HAVE to ask, which Apple hardware have you owned to be able to make the comparison that you outgrew Apple's current hardware offerings? You surely haven't outgrown a Mac Pro.

Sorry bud, just sounds to me like you're trying to deal with your own cognitive dissonance - "I'm an ethical person but I ripped off a company by hacking their OS." If you REALLY bought a copy of Leopard good for you, although I have a feeling you, like many others, just downloaded it. Why not just call a duck what it is, i.e. a duck. So you've hacked the OS, you're a HACKintosh user. Enjoy your hacked OS and tell yourself, "I'm a hacker, and I'm proud of it." Isn't that really the crux of what you're saying anyway?

BTW, I own many Macs from a G4MDD to an Intel Imac, a Powerbook G4 to a Macbook Core Duo. I also have a hackintosh that I play around with. Ive had fun learning with the hackgreat but still pay the piper Jobs too :) And yes, I do feel a little naughty when booting up the hack. Oh hackintosh OSX, you're like that woman in the Matrix with the red dress...so tempting and a bit naughty :D

Back to the point of this thread, I think THE DIFFERENCE here is that none of us have a little shop in Florida with the intent of hacking Apple's software to make a profit.

[sinser]

http://www.applepc.tk/

Click on "Think more different". Ok, it's italian but I think it's clear what they are selling. Looks like they will be in big troubles...

[matticus008]

So you are like matticus who thinks that every law is ethically right.
No. Respecting the rule of law is ethically right. The individual statute itself is a separate matter. You're just going to continue with your ludicrous claims and rationalization, but if nothing else, at least learn that much.
I don't claim to know what is "right" and "wrong"
Oh, but you do. You're "not doing anything wrong", remember?
Corporations feel entitled to continue control how a product is used after it is purchased and leaves to store!
They're allowed to control what they continue to own: the right to do and to authorize reproduction, distribution, derivation and so on. It applies just as well to them as to everything you own. It's not rocket science.
That said, bending or breaking laws isn't always ethically wrong. If you choose to allow your ethics to be determined by people who are not you, fine. You are a follower, as most are.
Yes, breaking the law is always ethically wrong in a society operating under the rule of law. This is the entire ontological basis of illegality. Your continued insistence on ignoring basic reality is completely outrageous. Whether your actions are justified does not erase the ethical wrongs committed in the process.
I choose to stand up for what I believe in and fight against what I don't.
Bull. You choose to sneak about and take what you want because you can get away with it. You're not fighting anything, except the persistent weight of reality.
Building a hackintosh, in my opinion, is neither ethically right nor ethically wrong, but, instead, ethically neutral.
Man, you sure are the king of the shifting argument. It's ethically wrong for someone to sell their own work as they see fit, but it's ethically neutral to take it without their permission. Glorious.
You can continue to argue that every law-given right is automatically an ethical right,
Nobody has ever said that. Not the person you're replying to, and certainly not me.
This does not make it an ethical right!
Nor does it make ignoring it for your own personal benefit any closer to being right!
in fact, Steve Jobs has bragged that every copy of Leopard is the full version.
In fact, he bragged that every copy is the premium version, as in Vista Premium. They're not at all the same.
So in the process of this transaction, this person purchased OS X legally, did not break the terms of use, but Apple still lost money.
No, they didn't. Without using the software, the person never received the benefit of the software and thus never incurred the cost of having to make software for that customer. Apple's costs for the disc and box are covered, and it hasn't gained the burden of an extra user.
THEY TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY RESULTING LOST REVENUE.
And YOU are responsible for the resulting unjust enrichment.
Explain how being a monopoly makes tying harmful and how the non-monopoly does not.
It's not a monopoly. It's a market power, which is not usually a monopoly. A market power, as has been explained more than once to you, has the power to assert control over competitors trying to sell their own products and from competing freely. Without market power, competitors are not harmed because they have not been manipulated by outside forces and continue to be able to set their own prices and market their own products.
Your set of ethics are different from IJ's, mine, Steve Jobs' and everyone else on the planet.
Ethics are a system of moral decisions judged socially or alternatively the study of moral behavior. Morals are based on the individual sense of right and wrong.

[gnasher729]

Explain how being a monopoly makes tying harmful and how the non-monopoly does not.

Because when a company has a monopoly in product A (that is, it has very little competition), and ties it with product B (which might have very strong competition), then many people will buy product B only because they have to since it is tied to A, and all the companies that compete with B lose out. This harms competition, because people buy product B, not on its merits, but because of the monopoly in product A.

When a company has no monopoly in product A and ties it with B, no such harm happens. It may be that product A is really good value and lots of people buy B because of that, but that is just a fair way of competing. The company will only sell if A + B together merit the purchase. There is no harm to competition.

[TiggsPanther]

You're missing the point - Apple doesn't need to support crappy hardware. They keep on doing exactly what they're doing now and PC makers with machines good enough for Apple's specs can sell OS X for them (thanks very much).

OK. Then this raises a vital question:
When something goes wrong, who will(*) the users go to for support?

As somebody who works in IT support, I can guarantee that a significant number will see that it's running Mac OS X and go to Apple support. Users don't always think far enough into who is actually responsible for fixing something, they just contact whoever they assume is the correct person.
And as somebody whose job it is to trawl through misdirected support emails on a near-daily basis, I know that it's possible to get support requests that are simply outside of your responsibility that the user is adamant is your job to fix.

Granted, a significant number will also just take it back to the shop or contact the manufacturer. But in all three cases, it's because people just see 'Oh, it's broken. I'd best take it to someone who actually knows about it.'

Apple will inevitably get some of that. They don't need it. Not for other people's product lines.

Also, testing for other hardware permutations will affect development time.
I also get the distinct impression (although I don't have actual law knowledge so I couild easily be off-base) that if they sell it as an OS for generic systems then they have to ensure that it is fit for purpose. And if it is untested and does something catastrophic to somebody's no-standard system, it's still Apple's legal responsibility. So they can't skip the testing phase, and would end up severely slowing down their development process.


(*) Not 'should', but 'will'.

[matticus008]

Because when a company has a monopoly in product A (that is, it has very little competition), and ties it with product B (which might have very strong competition)
This is indeed a good classical example, but of a narrow subtype and not of tying generally, and it's important that B is tied to A, and not A merely "with" B.

Tying, strictly speaking, has nothing to do with monopoly. Monopolies usually (but not always) have market power, so the actual parties overlap, but not the legal status or the terms.
When a company has no monopoly in product A and ties it with B, no such harm happens.
It's not just a monopoly. It is more common in actual practice for tying claims to come from firms attempting to create a monopoly and not from those having achieved one. The relevant question is not one of monopoly, but of market power.

[IJ Reilly]

http://www.applepc.tk/

Click on "Think more different". Ok, it's italian but I think it's clear what they are selling. Looks like they will be in big troubles...

No kidding. They are even using Apple's logo.

[gnasher729]

Hi Matticus, would you have an opinion to the following question: One of the things that Apple asks for is that all Psystar computers should be returned back to Psystar. If the court were to grant that request, what would happen if

1. A customer bought a Psystar computer and wants to keep it and run MacOS X on it and refuses to return it.
2. A customer bought a Psystar computer and wants to keep it and run Windows or Linux on it and refuses to return it.
3. A customer bought a Psystar computer and is willing to return it as long as he or she gets their money back, but Psystar has no cash to refund the money?

[Clive At Five]

After reading countless posts with you and others going back and forth about how running OSX hardware is or is not ethical, legal, moral, etc. to run on non-Apple hardware, I HAVE to ask, which Apple hardware have you owned to be able to make the comparison that you outgrew Apple's current hardware offerings? You surely haven't outgrown a Mac Pro.

I'm of the type that only uses what he needs. The Mac Pro is more than I need. More Energy, more noise, more heat, more power, more money. Could I afford a MacPro? Sure. It would be a waste of money, and I enjoy being fiscally responsible.

Sorry bud, just sounds to me like you're trying to deal with your own cognitive dissonance - "I'm an ethical person but I ripped off a company by hacking their OS." If you REALLY bought a copy of Leopard good for you, although I have a feeling you, like many others, just downloaded it. Why not just call a duck what it is, i.e. a duck. So you've hacked the OS, you're a HACKintosh user. Enjoy your hacked OS and tell yourself, "I'm a hacker, and I'm proud of it." Isn't that really the crux of what you're saying anyway?

yak yak yak, about the hack hack hack. It's hardly even a hack. In fact, the software on my computer is a vanilla install. The boot process is the only part modified, which convinces OS X that it's running on a genuine Apple... you know... because OS X code goes out of its way to make sure that the hardware returns Apple's Manufacturer ID.

Other than that, the only "hack" I had to perform was, again, adding a manufacturer ID to a kext, as it was the ONLY parameter blocking OS X from detecting my optical audio port. Built-in inoperability, people.

Other than that, yes, I am rather proud of my computer because I built it, I made it dual-boot XP and OS X like a champ. It even detects and runs my XP disk in Parallels, and it works amazingly. (Parallels is a must-buy, by the way.) And yes, I REALLY did buy Leopard. REALLY. I'll show you the box if you want.

I respect Apple's software, which is why I bought it. I don't respect their business practices. They have every right to target the markets that they do, and I don't expect them to offer a mid-tower just to satisfy my needs. I don't see the harm in offering an unsupported "system builder's" version for nerds like me who want to remain faithful to Apple, but don't see a hardware match in their arsenal.

In the meantime, for them to legally stomp out the Hackintosh movement would be a grave mistake (and I truly hope they do not pursue this course of action). Most of us have been long-time Apple-users who now feel alienated by their abandonment of prosumer models. I myself have been using Apple computers since our family's first Apple IIgs. Despite the constant criticism by my friends, I was a LOUD Apple evangelist. Now they're all using Macs.

I am and always have been a huge Apple fan. With their large growth in the last few years, they have had to make some changes to their business strategies. Some of those changes are good and some of them are not. I completely understand their motivation to use a closed hardware set. I just don't believe that they are right to legally close down all other options. Nevertheless, the law protects that decision of theirs, so they are entitled to make it, regardless of whether or not I agree.

The fact remains that I am loyal to Apple. This does not mean I will allow them to take advantage of me by shoving me into one of their target markets. I am NOT an average consumer, and I am NOT a professional. No amount of arguing will convince me to downgrade to the power of an iMac or upgrade to the power of a MacPro. I need exactly the power my hackintosh provides and until Apple offers hardware that fits those needs, I will not be purchasing another Mac. I will continue to purchase OS X, however, as I do wish to support the Apple products that I use and love.

BTW, I own many Macs from a G4MDD to an Intel Imac, a Powerbook G4 to a Macbook Core Duo. I also have a hackintosh that I play around with. Ive had fun learning with the hackgreat but still pay the piper Jobs too :) And yes, I do feel a little naughty when booting up the hack. Oh hackintosh OSX, you're like that woman in the Matrix with the red dress...so tempting and a bit naughty :D

Back to the point of this thread, I think THE DIFFERENCE here is that none of us have a little shop in Florida with the intent of hacking Apple's software to make a profit.

A Hackintosh??? You moral heathen! :rolleyes:

Agreed on your thesis here. The real matter at hand is Psystar. They are obviously breaking the law and, whether one agrees with that law or not, Psystar has earned their impending punishment.

No, they didn't. Without using the software, the person never received the benefit of the software and thus never incurred the cost of having to make software for that customer. Apple's costs for the disc and box are covered, and it hasn't gained the burden of an extra user.

I'd like to respond to everything you commented on, but I just don't have that kind of time, so I must pick and choose.

The development of OS X was an investment on Apple's part. They made that investment based on their belief that people would buy it. There are no manufacturing costs like with a computer, where a company can just build more units as they see fit. With OS X, all the ante is in the kitty up front. Their monetary burden is going to be the same whether one person buys it or 10,000,000 people do. In that respect, I EASED Apple's development burden in helping them recouping their investment.

Supporting OS X is another matter, however, and each supported copy accrues more costs for Apple. Luckily for them, since I'm ineligible for support, I do not extend that burden.

In fact, ignoring the tie to their hardware, I am the best possible outcome for Apple. One who purchases OS X and doesn't require support gives Apple the maximum return for their investment.

This, then, brings us back to the purpose of the tie: To ensure that OS X also brings hardware sales.

As is, I am not robbing Apple of anything, but in fact, bringing them more money. Either I build a PC and run Windows (Apple earns nothing on hardware and nothing on software), or I build a PC and run OS X (Apple earns nothing on hardware and $129 on software that they won't have to support). I'm doing Apple a favor by buying OS X.

Ethics are a system of moral decisions judged socially or alternatively the study of moral behavior. Morals are based on the individual sense of right and wrong.

So if I change all my "ethically wrongs" to "morally wrongs" would you be happy?

Because when a company has a monopoly in product A (that is, it has very little competition), and ties it with product B (which might have very strong competition), then many people will buy product B only because they have to since it is tied to A, and all the companies that compete with B lose out. This harms competition, because people buy product B, not on its merits, but because of the monopoly in product A.

When a company has no monopoly in product A and ties it with B, no such harm happens. It may be that product A is really good value and lots of people buy B because of that, but that is just a fair way of competing. The company will only sell if A + B together merit the purchase. There is no harm to competition.

Even when a company has a monopoly (or market power) on product A doesn't mean there isn't an alternative. Microsoft was ruled to have a monopoly on OSes yet we were all using Mac OS 8 or whatever it was. Monopoly/market power or not, if people don't want product B they should either buy just product A from a different company, or find a way to buy from the desired company and work around the tie.

Since this choice always exists, I still fail to see why a company must have market power or a monopoly before it becomes a legal issue. Either it's always a legal issue or its never a legal issue, but for the justice system to identify an arbitrary label like "market power" and say that it's okay for those without and not okay for those with... is not only ill-defined, but also a double-standard.

Hell, I have market power, since I am the sole source for the JAE 50 cable. It would still be wrong of me to say "you can only buy this cable if you buy this potholder my wife knit for $5." Not only would I dominate the JAE 50 cable market but I would use that dominance to guarantee that everyone in that market also buys my wife's potholder. Who cares if the market only has 100 people in it, it's still anti-competitive and wrong.

Also, testing for other hardware permutations will affect development time.
I also get the distinct impression (although I don't have actual law knowledge so I couild easily be off-base) that if they sell it as an OS for generic systems then they have to ensure that it is fit for purpose. And if it is untested and does something catastrophic to somebody's no-standard system, it's still Apple's legal responsibility.

If Apple changed its EULA to state that failure to comply with the terms would result in ineligibility for technical support of the product. That way, Apple wouldn't be specifically opening up OS X to everyone, but they wouldn't be closing it either. Anyone who took on the risk of installing OS X on unsupported hardware would know what they were getting into from the get-go.

Problem solved. Apple wouldn't have to spend time locking OS X to its own hardware but don't have to test for every hardware permutation out there... and Apple is no longer the bad-guy. This is my dream.

-Clive

[Hugh]

Hi Matticus, would you have an opinion to the following question: One of the things that Apple asks for is that all Psystar computers should be returned back to Psystar. If the court were to grant that request, what would happen if

1. A customer bought a Psystar computer and wants to keep it and run MacOS X on it and refuses to return it.
2. A customer bought a Psystar computer and wants to keep it and run Windows or Linux on it and refuses to return it.
3. A customer bought a Psystar computer and is willing to return it as long as he or she gets their money back, but Psystar has no cash to refund the money?

3 is what stopped me from buying a computer from them. :/

Hugh

[TiggsPanther]

If Apple changed its EULA to state that failure to comply with the terms would result in ineligibility for technical support of the product. That way, Apple wouldn't be specifically opening up OS X to everyone, but they wouldn't be closing it either. Anyone who took on the risk of installing OS X on unsupported hardware would know what they were getting into from the get-go.

Problem solved. Apple wouldn't have to spend time locking OS X to its own hardware but don't have to test for every hardware permutation out there... and Apple is no longer the bad-guy. This is my dream.

-Clive

I'm not sure it's as simple as that.

I still get the distinct impression that as soon as it's (legally) possible to install OSX on any PC system it then becomes expected.

If words in the EULA can't persuade people that they're not allowed to install OSX on unsupported hardware then how are they supposed to persuade people that they can't get Apple support?

Plus, as has been said before, even if they could do that then there's a good chance that there would be different editions for upgrading than for complete fresh installs.
1) The fresh install option would probably cost more.
2) The upgrade versions would be more onerous to make sure they were only being installed on legit hardware. (Or they'd just have the existing checks that the fresh version wouldn't - negating your argument about less time locking it down)
3) Surely a version released specifically for non-supported hardware would be a legal minefield if trying to claim non-responsibility. The words 'fit for purpose' spring to mind here.

[Quillz]

Apple needs the competition I think, since anyone using an Apple knows how terrible Windows is. Apple charges ridiculous prices, and they know it. It won't be long until all of this backfires on them and Microsoft becomes the underdog.
Wake me when Apple makes serious business hardware that poses a real threat to Exchange Server, Windows Server and Oracle. Until then, Microsoft will continue to have its majority market share.

[matticus008]

I respect Apple's software, which is why I bought it. I don't respect their business practices.
And the everlasting question remains, what gives you the right? If you don't respect their business practices, walk away.
In that respect, I EASED Apple's development burden in helping them recouping their investment.
In the same way that a car thief eases the owner's burden of maintenance and insurance costs.
This, then, brings us back to the purpose of the tie: To ensure that OS X also brings hardware sales.
The purpose of the tie is to make aggressively-priced updates available to their customers. Being that you are ineligible for the software without a Mac, it's not a question to pose. OS X exists particularly to make Macintosh computers attractive and distinctive to the market. In the same way that you have to buy an Audi to get their MMI, you've got to buy a Mac to get OS X. It's the very essence of differentiation.
So if I change all my "ethically wrongs" to "morally wrongs" would you be happy?
It still wouldn't make any sense.
Even when a company has a monopoly (or market power) on product A doesn't mean there isn't an alternative.
There's almost always an alternative. You're missing the point. When competitors lose the ability to make their own decisions about their own products, the market is harmed.

You don't see this because you don't think owners have a right to control what they own.
for the justice system to identify an arbitrary label like "market power" and say that it's okay for those without and not okay for those with... is not only ill-defined, but also a double-standard.
Well, all labels are arbitrary, 'marker power', being a threshold and thus a single, not double, standard, is quite fully and ripely defined.
Hell, I have market power, since I am the sole source for the JAE 50 cable. It would still be wrong of me
That's exactly the POINT.
Problem solved.
No. Problem ignored entirely and a straw man battered. Par for the course, though.
One of the things that Apple asks for is that all Psystar computers should be returned back to Psystar.
That's all machines in their possession or under their control. Those "in the wild" so to speak are simply gone, which takes care of the first two scenarios.

The reality is that the impounding and disposition won't really happen. There's no practical way to get the software back, and the customers are entitled to the computers, so there's no legal way to get them back.

[stanton]

The reality is that the impounding and disposition won't really happen. There's no practical way to get the software back, and the customers are entitled to the computers, so there's no legal way to get them back.
Actually if you purchase a stolen vehicle, the police will seize it even if you purchased it without knowing that it was stolen. So if Apple proves their claim in court, they could possibly have every right to require that Psystar return every copy of OSX out there. I do agree with you, however; that this probably won't happen.
It my guess that Apple's going to start making unique chipsets that are required to run OSX. I doubt it will be with Snow Leopard, but maybe the next release. Even with that though, I doubt there will be much of an impact globally on Apple clones. IP laws still aren't standardized on a global scale, and a serious manufacturer could easily setup shop somewhere else.
I guess my point is that if there really is a market for these clones, there's nothing Apple or the US judicial system can really do about it.

[Sun Baked]

Actually if you purchase a stolen vehicle, the police will seize it even if you purchased it without knowing that it was stolen. So if Apple proves their claim in court, they could possibly have every right to require that Psystar return every copy of OSX out there. I do agree with you, however; that this probably won't happen.

Won't happen, all the court will allow Apple to do at most is request the customer list and seize all machines still at Psystar.

When the grey market game consoles were being shipped to the UK, they were talking about taking the machines from customers due to a company importing them illegally. all I think they were able to do was seize the containers at the port of entry and clean them out of the company's storage area.

[Joe The Dragon]

Actually if you purchase a stolen vehicle, the police will seize it even if you purchased it without knowing that it was stolen. So if Apple proves their claim in court, they could possibly have every right to require that Psystar return every copy of OSX out there. I do agree with you, however; that this probably won't happen.
It my guess that Apple's going to start making unique chipsets that are required to run OSX. I doubt it will be with Snow Leopard, but maybe the next release. Even with that though, I doubt there will be much of an impact globally on Apple clones. IP laws still aren't standardized on a global scale, and a serious manufacturer could easily setup shop somewhere else.
I guess my point is that if there really is a market for these clones, there's nothing Apple or the US judicial system can really do about it.
The most that they can take is the software the hardware is 100% payed for.

also unique chipsets will not work as that will make today macs not work with the new software.

[IJ Reilly]

One thing we all know, is that any scheme to protect software from illegal duplication and installation can be defeated. It can be made more difficult, but not impossible -- and the more difficult it is made, the heavier the burden of compliance becomes for the paying customer. These things inevitably become a sort of honesty tax, paid only by people who play by the rules. At least up to this point, Mac owners have been living in nirvana compared to Windows users, because Apple hasn't needed to institute Draconian copy protection schemes, as Microsoft did long ago, to minimize piracy. Sadly, the party may be coming to an end for us. We can see how determined some people are to spoil it. They're peeing into the well, with great enthusiasm.

[macbookairapple]

One thing we all know, is that any scheme to protect software from illegal duplication and installation can be defeated. It can be made more difficult, but not impossible -- and the more difficult it is made, the heavier the burden of compliance becomes for the paying customer. These things inevitably become a sort of honesty tax, paid only by people who play by the rules. At least up to this point, Mac owners have been living in nirvana compared to Windows users, because Apple hasn't needed to institute Draconian copy protection schemes, as Microsoft did long ago, to minimize piracy. Sadly, the party may be coming to an end for us. We can see how determined some people are to spoil it. They're peeing into the well, with great enthusiasm.They are going to ruin it for the rest of us. :rolleyes:

[gehrbox]

One thing we all know, is that any scheme to protect software from illegal duplication and installation can be defeated. It can be made more difficult, but not impossible -- and the more difficult it is made, the heavier the burden of compliance becomes for the paying customer. These things inevitably become a sort of honesty tax, paid only by people who play by the rules. At least up to this point, Mac owners have been living in nirvana compared to Windows users, because Apple hasn't needed to institute Draconian copy protection schemes, as Microsoft did long ago, to minimize piracy. Sadly, the party may be coming to an end for us. We can see how determined some people are to spoil it. They're peeing into the well, with great enthusiasm.

You are absolutely correct and good analogy.

[nookster]

These posts have now has hit the titanium standard of finger pointing rationale. Tenuous, ridiculous, priceless.

Pretty soon someone will figure out how Clive is personally responsible for global recession.

[icoffee]

My dream would be to no longer have to use Apple's overpriced, under-specced, overheating products to run their excellent OS. But this lawsuit was stupid and destined to fail. I really don't think there's any fair legal route to force Apple to open its OS. But knowing our courts, ridiculous things can happen by activist judges. Regardless, the only truly fair thing is for Apple to choose to open its OS.

Umm...if their products are so under-specced and overheating, why is Apple growing in marketshare and why do previous Mac owners buy Apple time and time again? Apple makes one heck of a product from portable players to desktops. Shoot, even their keyboards are world class. Try a real Mac, you'll like it :)

Wake me when Apple makes serious business hardware that poses a real threat to Exchange Server, Windows Server and Oracle. Until then, Microsoft will continue to have its majority market share.

Microsoft will have its market share for quite some time, and Apple will continue to expand their user base for some time as well. At the current rate, we should be seeing Mac OS 10.7 before Windows 8 hits the shelves. That's what happens when you've got a smaller base and charge a competitive premium for a product - faster R&D, better profit margins, and less of a variety of hardware to develop for and support. As far as Exchange support, Apple has done wonders in the last 3 years, but what you should have really mentioned was Microsoft's developer tools in .net that are actually far ahead of Apple's objective C set. Apple is just starting to catch up in that area, and when they do, things are going to get a whole lot more interesting.



Problem solved. Apple wouldn't have to spend time locking OS X to its own hardware but don't have to test for every hardware permutation out there... and Apple is no longer the bad-guy. This is my dream.

-Clive

Clive, allow me to retort :D I could really care less what you think of Apple's business practices or how you justify buying an OS without accompanying hardware. For all the points you make about hardware, the one you fail to make consistently is the overall user experience. As I said before, I own multiple Macs and a hack. While a hack comes close to the Mac experience, it's not bullet proof nor is it vanilla. It's a pseudo Mac experience, and I'd even go so far to say about 95% (on a good point update).

A more accurate description would be vanilla with added sweetener to make up for the lack of true vanilla. I can say without a doubt that my Macs will update with two clicks for the next so many years, hack users depend on a hacking community (that will hopefully still be around) to provide methods to continue running OS X. Updating on a hack is never bullet proof, it depends on the previously developed code that assumes Apple's protection schemes won't change.

As far as the morality, ethicality of using a hack, I think you deserve more credit than some have given you in this thread. At least you bought the OS. Many Mac and Windows users fail to do just that.

Now add a Mac to your collection! You won't regret it :)

[H2SO4]

...and I for one am glad that Psystar got kicked in the butt. I do think Apple could be more friendly in the way that they market/design/protect their interests, but at the same time I have no problem with their practices. But software is not the same as hardware and needs a different type of protection. I can't go out and buy a car, go home, press copy and give my neighbour a bootleg copy can I? As long as Apple have made clear before you install/buy the kit I have no problem with their restrictions, and you shouldn't either.

I love Apple gear. Had an HP desktop as my first PC. Brought it home and plugged it in, nothing special, turned on XP loads up and I was away. It never seemed more than the sum of it's parts though. I had heard of Apple computers but without having actually seen/used one I had discounted them because everyone I spoke to, (99.5% of them), made at least these two statements;
1) They're really expensive.
2) There's no software for them.
By the way, the great majority of those had never used one either.

Anyways a few months into my HP, (NO-not due to porn), I began to get pop ups and such like of naked women, bought Norton. Not really much changed, fewer pop ups admittedly but now I had to contend with the computer grinding to a halt everytime Norton wanted to scan something if I so much as thought about it anything new.
After a while I became frustrated and didn't use the computer much.
Then one day out in PC World with a friend of mine I saw a PowerMac G4 MDD from across the store. Because it looked so striking I had to have a closer look, and ten minutes later I was putting it into the back of my car. Got this one home and I was just so struck by attention to detail and how the inside of the Mac looked better than the outside of my previous PC, and any other PC I'd seen. So It was a lot of money-I could have bought two PCs for the same outlay, I didn't know how to use it but I strangely felt it was money well spent.
For me that's what you get when you buy an Apple product. It doesn't really do any more than a PC does, it just makes the whole experience better while you do it. So why shouldn't they charge a premium?
Now I'm running a MacPro amongst other things and for someone that doesn't like fruit there's an awful lot of Apples in my house.

[sinser]

Sooner or later I guess Apple will be forced to introduce some kind of more restrictive kind of protection, by means of hardware or software (like for actual Windows O.S.). An other solution could be avoid selling separately Mac OS and giving it only bundled with the hardware and guaranteeing lifetime online updates to their customers until HW specs are met.

[Sun Baked]

Sooner or later I guess Apple will be forced to introduce some kind of more restrictive kind of protection, by means of hardware or software (like for actual Windows O.S.). An other solution could be avoid selling separately Mac OS and giving it only bundled with the hardware and guaranteeing lifetime online updates to their customers until HW specs are met.

With the new accounting rules after Enron, if you give lifetime updates away free that include significant new features for about 5 years -- you cannot book the sale revenue today, but over the 5 years. Anything that looks like a subscription has to be booked like one.

So Apple tried the nominal charge method for new features, and keeping the last OS up-to-date as far as security/major is concerned.

[IJ Reilly]

With the new accounting rules after Enron, if you give lifetime updates away free that include significant new features for about 5 years -- you cannot book the sale revenue today, but over the 5 years. Anything that looks like a subscription has to be booked like one.

So Apple tried the nominal charge method for new features, and keeping the last OS up-to-date as far as security/major is concerned.

That's the tidiest explanation of the post-Enron GAAP issues I've seen yet. Nice work!

Still I suppose it might be technically feasible for Apple to sell major OS upgrades through the Software Update preference panel, but at the very least, the downloads would be a bear.

[gregorsamsa]

These posts have now has hit the titanium standard of finger pointing rationale. Tenuous, ridiculous, priceless.


Presumably you've never participated in similar discussions on Macworld.UK, then? :)

I see your point though (ditto your previous post), but if Clive didn't enjoy or couldn't handle such exchanges, I'm sure he'd stay well out of it. In fact, I'm not aware of any Mac fora where someone can take on Apple's corporate line & avoid the same old "finger pointing" from those who tend to support Apple to the hilt. But it's all about opinion, man. FWIW, I own 2 Macs & have no plans to build a Hackintosh, but it's as much due to a lack of confidence & time as anything else. So good luck to all those who refuse to limit themselves to Apple's increasingly limited choice of hardware (quality notwithstanding) at, in some cases at least, premium prices. Besides, those who choose the Hackintosh path will always be in a very small minority &, in some ways, it may even benefit Apple in the long-term by attracting more switchers who later on might end up buying Macs anyway.

[Gasu E.]

But you totally miss the point, and sounds very close to fanboi.

Name one machine outside of a Mac that you can install OS X on.

Windows? can go on a Mac, PC, or even a DEC Alpha.

Linux? Macs, PCs, Sun workstations/servers, DEC Alphas, SGIs, Zseries, ARM, the entire lot.

OS X? Only Apple. What I believe Psystar was trying to do was correlate OS X only being used on Macs to Internet Explorer and the issues they had in the EU.

Yes, there is competition as far as the rest of the industry is concerned, but when it comes to OS X, Apple saying that it can only go onto Macs does start to smell of antitrust.

BL.

Consider HP-UX. AIX, Solaris (prior to their x86 version), z/OS. All these run only on proprietary hardware. Are you saying that these are violating anti-trust laws.

[IJ Reilly]

So good luck to all those who refuse to limit themselves to Apple's increasingly limited choice of hardware...

Sorry to hone in on just this one comment, but having made it I must assume that you're unfamiliar with the time (not long ago) when Apple's entire hardware product line fit in a two-by-two grid. Their hardware line practically sprawls now, by comparison.

[Clive At Five]

In the same way that a car thief eases the owner's burden of maintenance and insurance costs.

No, in the same way a "car thief" buys the car at full price but refuses to reap the benefits of the included warranty.

The purpose of the tie is to make aggressively-priced updates available to their customers. Being that you are ineligible for the software without a Mac, it's not a question to pose. OS X exists particularly to make Macintosh computers attractive and distinctive to the market.

Its obvious the purpose of the tie is to bring in the additional income of an integrated business model. Why else would've Jobs killed the clones? Mac OS ran BETTER on clones than it did on Apple's models...

The almighty dollar is the motivating factor to tie, my friend. Apple knows people want their OS so if they lock it into their own hardware, they trap the green.

These posts have now has hit the titanium standard of finger pointing rationale. Tenuous, ridiculous, priceless.

Pretty soon someone will figure out how Clive is personally responsible for global recession.

Oh, but I am. I never missed a payment on my loans, so I thought I was safe... little did I know that building a hackintosh would cause the collapse of the sub-prime mortgage market. Shame on me.

Clive, allow me to retort :D I could really care less what you think of Apple's business practices or how you justify buying an OS without accompanying hardware. For all the points you make about hardware, the one you fail to make consistently is the overall user experience. As I said before, I own multiple Macs and a hack. While a hack comes close to the Mac experience, it's not bullet proof nor is it vanilla. It's a pseudo Mac experience, and I'd even go so far to say about 95% (on a good point update).

A more accurate description would be vanilla with added sweetener to make up for the lack of true vanilla. I can say without a doubt that my Macs will update with two clicks for the next so many years, hack users depend on a hacking community (that will hopefully still be around) to provide methods to continue running OS X. Updating on a hack is never bullet proof, it depends on the previously developed code that assumes Apple's protection schemes won't change.

As far as the morality, ethicality of using a hack, I think you deserve more credit than some have given you in this thread. At least you bought the OS. Many Mac and Windows users fail to do just that.

Now add a Mac to your collection! You won't regret it :)

Add a Mac to my collection? I started using Apples with my family's IIgs, then our Performa 630CD, then my G3 iMac DV SE, then my G4 iMac... I even bought a used Cube because it was so beautiful. I've bought many Macs. I'm a long-time Apple evangelist. Unfortunately, they've managed to lose touch with many of us who were their most loyal customer base, especially during the dark days of the early-mid 90s.

I'm well informed on Apple's schtick... but I'm done playing fetch.

I'm very well-pleased with my Hack. I'd agree that it's about 95% of a Mac. It's still better than any of the many PCs I've built. I'd love to buy another Mac, but since the xHack is treating me so well, and is perfectly fit to my computing needs, I'm going to continue doing what I'm doing.

If Apple released an xMac, however...

-Clive

[Clive At Five]

Sorry to hone in on just this one comment, but having made it I must assume that you're unfamiliar with the time (not long ago) when Apple's entire hardware product line fit in a two-by-two grid. Their hardware line practically sprawls now, by comparison.

While this is true, the G4 PowerMac had a HUGE array of performance levels that it was worth several models.

Today's models outnumber those of the 2x2 matrix, but the performance of the desktop models only cover narrow bands of the spectrum.

-Clive

[gregorsamsa]

Sorry to hone in on just this one comment, but having made it I must assume that you're unfamiliar with the time (not long ago) when Apple's entire hardware product line fit in a two-by-two grid. Their hardware line practically sprawls now, by comparison.

Fair enough point, Apple increased hardware choices at one point, but perhaps a more relevant comparison today might be between Apple's hardware choices now & that of more recent times.

There's no need for me to dwell on it, as no doubt you'll be well aware of the veritable uproar caused in some professional circles due to Apple terminating matte-screen options on all their computers. Well for those who've invested heavily in OS X, & not just financially, who also work under variable conditions principally on laptops, but can't work with glossy screens, I have only sympathy for & can quite understand at least the temptation to access any one of a number of Hackintosh sites in order to run OS X on a matte-screen, laptop PC. If they succeed & that's the solution that works for them, then I have no issues with that whatsoever.

[albusseverus]

With the new accounting rules after Enron, if you give lifetime updates away free that include significant new features for about 5 years -- you cannot book the sale revenue today, but over the 5 years. Anything that looks like a subscription has to be booked like one.

So Apple tried the nominal charge method for new features, and keeping the last OS up-to-date as far as security/major is concerned.

Then, why didn't the 2.2 iPod Touch update attract a fee, this time?

I can't go out and buy a car, go home, press copy and give my neighbour a bootleg copy can I?


Let's get this perfectly clear - Psystar is NOT pirating Apple software - it is Selling genuine OS X (for Apple) increasing OS X market share and reaching customers who ordinarily wouldn't buy Mac. And once they're done with the leaf-blower hardware, they might take a look at the 'real thing'. Maybe second hand or refurbished at first, but this is only good news for Apple. It gets OS X into the lower end of the market, and saves Apple competing with cheap hardware, which it doesn't want to do.

Apple chose to build standard PCs and re-wrote OS X to run on them.

[matticus008]

Actually if you purchase a stolen vehicle, the police will seize it even if you purchased it without knowing that it was stolen.
Theory and practice. There is no practical way to get back infringing books already sold. Injunctive relief is for the present and the future, not the past. The award of damages is the remedy for past acts of infringement. Cars are seized because they are an asset that is tracked by the government, and recovery is only available to be ordered if the car is found.
So if Apple proves their claim in court, they could possibly have every right to require that Psystar return every copy of OSX out there.
No. There is no such possibility.
No, in the same way a "car thief" buys the car at full price but refuses to reap the benefits of the included warranty.
If the "car thief" drops a pile of cash on the desk and takes the car, that does not mean he hasn't stolen the car.
Its obvious the purpose of the tie is to bring in the additional income
The purpose of a tie is always to bring in additional income. There would be no point otherwise.
Let's get this perfectly clear - Psystar is NOT pirating Apple software
No, let's indeed get it perfectly clear. Psystar is pirating Apple software. Piracy, the unauthorized and illegal reproduction or distribution of materials protected by [copyright], is a legally recognized term dating back to the 1860s.

[Clive At Five]

If the "car thief" drops a pile of cash on the desk and takes the car, that does not mean he hasn't stolen the car.

"Stolen," mayhap by legal definition. Yet the merchandise was fully paid-for.

Once again, we're back to the original argument. You're a lawyer. You're programmed to think that "illegal" - by definition - means wrong. Let me tell you something: "illegal" only means "illegal" and nothing else. "Right" and "wrong" are undefinable constructs that we attempt to harness into laws.

-Clive

[IJ Reilly]

Fair enough point, Apple increased hardware choices at one point, but perhaps a more relevant comparison today might be between Apple's hardware choices now & that of more recent times.

There's no need for me to dwell on it, as no doubt you'll be well aware of the veritable uproar caused in some professional circles due to Apple terminating matte-screen options on all their computers. Well for those who've invested heavily in OS X, & not just financially, who also work under variable conditions principally on laptops, but can't work with glossy screens, I have only sympathy for & can quite understand at least the temptation to access any one of a number of Hackintosh sites in order to run OS X on a matte-screen, laptop PC. If they succeed & that's the solution that works for them, then I have no issues with that whatsoever.

Somebody is bound to complain about the absence of any given feature. I've heard something like an uproar over the lack of Blu-ray support, though in reality nobody can really say why they need it in the first place. The problem here is that if a comparison is made between Apple and every Windows OEM, including the screwdriver shops and home-builders, then Apple is obviously going to come up short in the variety department. The same would be true if any given Windows OEM is compared to the rest of the market. Does everyone give you the choice between matte and glossy displays? So it seems to me that some are saying that if Apple can't provide as much hardware variety as the other 95% of the PC market, combined (hardly a realistic expectation), that they feel justified in violating Apple's terms of use for OSX. This sounds to me like another convenient rationalization.

[matticus008]

"Stolen," mayhap by legal definition. Yet the merchandise was fully paid-for.
It doesn't matter. If someone takes something of yours, but reimburses you fully for its current value in their judgment, that does not excuse their act because it was not theirs to take, regardless of value or reimbursement. It does not invalidate their legal action against you, nor does it have any impact on the legal, ethical, and commonly moral wrong you have committed.
You're programmed to think that "illegal" - by definition - means wrong.
Illegal by definition does mean wrong. A legal wrong. It could not be illegal if it was not in some sense wrong. Right and wrong are easily defined, as long as you make the scope clear.

Why you're dredging this up again, who knows. What's individually morally right or wrong is totally irrelevant, and no one is talking about it.

[albusseverus]

What might really hurt Apple's case is that - I didn't see Apple refusing to supply Psystar with the OS X to sell with these machines.

Do we have any evidence that Apple has punished any downstream resellers for supplying Psystar?

So Apple supplied Psystar with legitimate copies of OS X to include with their PCs, then waited until the brand was established and now tries to sue them for selling Apple's product, that Apple supplied to them!!

[czachorski]

The almighty dollar is the motivating factor to tie, my friend.

While this statement is undoubtedly true, it also ignores the benefits to the customer of the tie. The two go hand in hand. I buy the product knowing there is a tie, because I am also intelligent enough to know that the tie itself is what enables many of the things that make Macs better for me. That is the basis of a transaction - two willing parties who find mutual benefit in what the other has.

[pdjudd]

What might really hurt Apple's case is that - I didn't see Apple refusing to supply Psystar with the OS X to sell with these machines.
Psystar never requested a legitimate license to use OSX so its irrelevant if was was refused or not. It actually hurts pystar more since they never made an effort to legally use Apple's copies to the extent of flagrant disregard.

Do we have any evidence that Apple has punished any downstream resellers for supplying Psystar?
What does that have to do with this case?

So Apple supplied Psystar with legitimate copies of OS X to include with their PCs, then waited until the brand was established and now tries to sue them for selling Apple's product, that Apple supplied to them!!

No they did not. Psystar used illegitimate licenses to hack OSX on hardware and tried to resell it - something they are not permitted by law to do. I can guarantee Apple was well aware of them on Day one and are under no obligation to strike on that first day. They could have waited as long as they wanted to since this is a civil suit.

[gregorsamsa]

Somebody is bound to complain about the absence of any given feature. I've heard something like an uproar over the lack of Blu-ray support, though in reality nobody can really say why they need it in the first place. The problem here is that if a comparison is made between Apple and every Windows OEM, including the screwdriver shops and home-builders, then Apple is obviously going to come up short in the variety department. The same would be true if any given Windows OEM is compared to the rest of the market. Does everyone give you the choice between matte and glossy displays? So it seems to me that some are saying that if Apple can't provide as much hardware variety as the other 95% of the PC market, combined (hardly a realistic expectation), that they feel justified in violating Apple's terms of use for OSX. This sounds to me like another convenient rationalization.

Well, some of the major PC-makers like HP & Dell do provide a choice of matte displays & in a highly competitive, cut-throat market as the PC one is, that alone strongly implies that there's enough demand for this option to justify continued production of those lines.

It's not really about Apple providing "as much hardware variety as the other 95% of the PC market". Apple already provided this option previously. In terminating that option, Apple have made a fairly ruthless business decision, pure & simple. Except it's not of course that simple for those affected by that decision. For those itinerant professionals reliant on using OS X with a non-reflective display to earn their living, that decision may feel like a betrayal. Thus, in the greater scheme of things, I think it's not so much a case of "another convenient rationalization" for running OS X on matte-screen, PC laptops, but more so an understandable rationalization.

[dejo]

There's no need for me to dwell on it, as no doubt you'll be well aware of the veritable uproar caused in some professional circles due to Apple terminating matte-screen options on all their computers.
All their computers? You forget the 17" MacBook Pro still provides you the option of glossy or matte display.

[Beric]

All their computers? You forget the 17" MacBook Pro still provides you the option of glossy or matte display.

Until the presumed January update. ;)

[nookster]

Presumably you've never participated in similar discussions on Macworld.UK, then? :)


Oh yes, I'm a member, been there, bought the mug, but I generally restrain myself :D

[IJ Reilly]

Well, some of the major PC-makers like HP & Dell do provide a choice of matte displays & in a highly competitive, cut-throat market as the PC one is, that alone strongly implies that there's enough demand for this option to justify continued production of those lines.

It's not really about Apple providing "as much hardware variety as the other 95% of the PC market". Apple already provided this option previously. In terminating that option, Apple have made a fairly ruthless business decision, pure & simple. Except it's not of course that simple for those affected by that decision. For those itinerant professionals reliant on using OS X with a non-reflective display to earn their living, that decision may feel like a betrayal. Thus, in the greater scheme of things, I think it's not so much a case of "another convenient rationalization" for running OS X on matte-screen, PC laptops, but more so an understandable rationalization.

A ruthless business decision? As in, lacking in pity? Betrayal, as in treacherous? Disloyal?

It's interesting the adjectives chosen to describe the corporation known as Apple. Earlier we had the horrifying charge that Apple was only interested in the "almighty dollar." What will we have next, penguins who eat fish? I am sorry for the sarcastic response, but truly, it seems some lose track of the simple proposition presented to us as consumers of products: either we like them, and buy, or don't like them, and consequently do not buy. The third choice, taking without paying, really is not a legitimate one. Not that rationalization isn't a great attraction; I know it is. In fact, it's the power behind virtually every illegitimate thing human beings do.

[TiggsPanther]

A ruthless I am sorry for the sarcastic response, but truly, it seems some lose track of the simple proposition presented to us as consumers of products: either we like them, and buy, or don't like them, and consequently do not buy. The third choice, taking without paying, really is not a legitimate one. Not that rationalization isn't a great attraction; I know it is. In fact, it's the power behind virtually every illegitimate thing human beings do.

This is one of the problems, really. When faced with two sub-optimal choices, we all want a third option. In many things, I know I often do.

Doesn't mean there's always a third option available.
Yes, in some cases there should be one. And in some cases there's even an obvious candidate (or two) that the option should be. (full self-install OSX discs, Clones, xMac, choose your poison according to your opinions....)

But, again, the reality of the situation is that it's not always there.

Yes, it would be nice if Apple provided a non-workstation, non-laptop-parts non-glossy option. But they are not obliged or provide it. Nor, as far as I know, are they obliged to allow others to do so.

The Mac platform (as a package) is the option. There are alternatives to it. The alternatives may not be ideal, but they are there. But some people, for whastever reason, refuse to accept that as a valid option.

Actually, I want Apple to release something headless and at least partly user-upgradeable. I want them to release the option that so many are clamouring for. (Or maybe even allow cheaper but licensed clones)
Because I'm sure that for every person who only goes Hackintosh in the lack of a viable alternative, there are probably several people who would still probably go Hackintosh because it's either cheaper or that it still doesn't scratch their particular itch.

The "problem" is that Apple/Mac/OSX can never be all things to all people. That's one of the problems that plagues Windows. Too many permutations. I still genuinely think that the narrow subset of hardware combinations is a major part of what gives the Mac its stability, and is a big part of why I like the platform.

If I want "installs on anything", I'll use Windows.
If I want "allowed to tweak to my heart's content", I'll use Linux.
When I want a better overall user experience, I'll use a Mac.

I have used, and do use, all three platforms. Each has its purpose, its pros, and its cons. And it does sometimes feel like all the current voices are shouting for Apple to give up what, to me, is what makes it one of the three major option.

[IJ Reilly]

The "problem" is that Apple/Mac/OSX can never be all things to all people. That's one of the problems that plagues Windows. Too many permutations. I still genuinely think that the narrow subset of hardware combinations is a major part of what gives the Mac its stability, and is a big part of why I like the platform.

Exactly, and I think this also summarizes Apple's marketing approach. They recognize that if they try to be all things to all people, that they end up being not much of anything to anyone. Consumers already have that choice -- it's called Windows.

[TiggsPanther]

Exactly, and I think this also summarizes Apple's marketing approach. They recognize that if they try to be all things to all people, that they end up being not much of anything to anyone. Consumers already have that choice -- it's called Windows.

Conversely, it would be nice if they provided one option in the 'Headless Desktop' Class.Leave it with an spare, empty drive bay and a PCI (or current equivalent) slot or two. Just enough to give an option for people who want the own screen / matte screen / external monitor / etc, without needing a full Mac Pro.

If nothing else, Apple may need to start weighing it up as even if they worry something like that would canibalise sales of the Mac Pro (or even iMac, for people who need more than a Mini) it's getting to the point where people defecting to Hackintoshes will eat into the same sales.
And at least a sale lost to another of their own products isn't a sale lost to other H/W manufacturers.

Whether you agree with Hackintosh/Psystar/etc or not(*), I think Apple have to realise that they are having to compete with them. And their options are either compete themselves or tread very heavily on infringements even to the point of chasing individuals. And I can see only one of these options actually going down well with the userbase...

(*) I personally don't, but I still think that Apple would benefit from the Carrot rather than the Stick approach.

[IJ Reilly]

At the risk of restarting the interminable "midrange tower/headless Mac" debate, I have to say I am confident that Apple will move their product line in whichever direction they expect to produce a return on investment. If they find themselves competing seriously with the hacked Mac market, they could respond in any number of ways. One way would be to release new Mac products. Another would be to serialize OSX and require registration and activation. We should be aware that Apple may not chose the response we'd prefer. So as I've always said in these discussions: be careful what you wish for, you might get it.

[TiggsPanther]

If they find themselves competing seriously with the hacked Mac market, they could respond in any number of ways. One way would be to release new Mac products. Another would be to serialize OSX and require registration and activation. We should be aware that Apple may not chose the response we'd prefer.

This is precisely why, personally, I'm anti-Hackintosh.

Much as I'd hope that Apple would take the former approach, I fear they'd be more likely to take the latter.

I really hope they would go the route that would foster more public goodwill, but I also see them feeling forced to take steps to really stop Hackintosh attempts. And I do worry that this is the more likely direction they'd take.
Currently, the purchase and installation of newer versions of OSX works on the honor system. But if they find that customers, although paying, are not honoring their requests then they may well decide to just lock down the OS Windows-style. Which I really hope they don't.

I guess it all boils down to whether they think they'd be risking their return on investment if they opened another product line, and whether that risk would outweigh what's basically just the backlash of a bunch of us geek-types from various message boards.

I'd like to believe they'd produce an xMac.
I'd like, in principle, to defend the rights of the Hackintosher over the irritating EULAs of software.
I just think that there's a very real risk of Apple just getting fed up of the whole thing and locking down a system that benefits from not currently having to jump through all the activation hoops that plague Windows.

[IJ Reilly]

I guess it all boils down to whether they think they'd be risking their return on investment if they opened another product line, and whether that risk would outweigh what's basically just the backlash of a bunch of us geek-types from various message boards.

Exactly. If Apple saw the demand for such a product going much beyond the geek crowd, then I have no doubt that they'd be making that product. Maybe some day they will -- but not because they're in the good will business, at least not if that good will doesn't translate into a profit in the end.

[Clive At Five]

I challenge the idea that Apple would lock OS X for activation. The folks they are attempting to lock out - the individuals behind the OSx86 project - are the same geniuses who will be the first to break the lock. The end result will be a failed attempt to thwart hackers and added annoyance to everyone else.

This is precisely what we have with Windows, and I don't think Apple will take that route.

[IJ Reilly]

Any why do you think Microsoft does it, knowing full well that they can never make their copy protection 100% effective?

Rationalization and denial -- they seem to go together.

[corinhorn]

Exactly. If Apple saw the demand for such a product going much beyond the geek crowd, then I have no doubt that they'd be making that product. Maybe some day they will -- but not because they're in the good will business, at least not if that good will doesn't translate into a profit in the end.I agree. Apple is in business to make money, not to placate every demand that geeks make. If it will be profitable and not conflict with Apple's core culture and business model, they will produce it.

[rickag]

At the risk of restarting the interminable "midrange tower/headless Mac" debate, I have to say I am confident that Apple will move their product line in whichever direction they expect to produce a return on investment. If they find themselves competing seriously with the hacked Mac market, they could respond in any number of ways. One way would be to release new Mac products. Another would be to serialize OSX and require registration and activation. We should be aware that Apple may not chose the response we'd prefer. So as I've always said in these discussions: be careful what you wish for, you might get it.
This sounds good, but I fear Apple's decision to forgo the mid to upper end tower is a philosophical decision and not an economic one.
I challenge the idea that Apple would lock OS X for activation. The folks they are attempting to lock out - the individuals behind the OSx86 project - are the same geniuses who will be the first to break the lock. The end result will be a failed attempt to thwart hackers and added annoyance to everyone else.

This is precisely what we have with Windows, and I don't think Apple will take that route.While I agree with your assesment concerning how the locks will be broken and annoyance to everyone else, I get the feeling Apple is moving closer to a position of protection of their intellectual property and may very well begin require activation of their OS. Hope I'm wrong.

[corinhorn]

While I agree with your assesment concerning how the locks will be broken and annoyance to everyone else, I get the feeling Apple is moving closer to a position of protection of their intellectual property and may very well begin require activation of their OS. Hope I'm wrong.I would hope you are wrong and that Apple is smarter than Microsoft. As it has been discussed many times, activation requirements do little to deter pirates and will annoy consumers who actually pay for the software. There would be no point in Apple taking this foolish step.

[gregorsamsa]

A ruthless business decision? As in, lacking in pity? Betrayal, as in treacherous? Disloyal?

It's interesting the adjectives chosen to describe the corporation known as Apple. Earlier we had the horrifying charge that Apple was only interested in the "almighty dollar." What will we have next, penguins who eat fish? I am sorry for the sarcastic response, but truly, it seems some lose track of the simple proposition presented to us as consumers of products: either we like them, and buy, or don't like them, and consequently do not buy. The third choice, taking without paying, really is not a legitimate one. Not that rationalization isn't a great attraction; I know it is. In fact, it's the power behind virtually every illegitimate thing human beings do.

No need to apologize for the sarcasm, as such pat reductionism is always amusing. :) It's also expected, as these kinds of discussions are often polarized between those who mostly defend the corporate line (in this case Apple's) to the hilt, & those who feel that consumers are taken for granted far too often, thus them breaking a few rules now & again really isn't that big a deal. I can make no apology for being in the latter camp.

"A ruthless business decision?" I think that's a fair description. Also, in this sense most similar accusations chucked at Microsoft by Apple fans (btw, I'm not saying you're a fanboy) are now equally applicable to Apple. The only reason to drop some of these options is more cost-cutting, motivated by pure greed. I mean, don't get me started on the cheap TN panels Apple use in their glossy 20" iMacs & how the 20" iMac's matte-screens they replaced were actually of better quality. But as Apple's corporate greed is fine, according to some thinking here, then you also shouldn't be surprised, or too annoyed, if we see consequences like an increase in the so-called hackintosh community.

As only Apple supply OS X, Apple know well enough the impact upon some people of denying Mac users certain hardware options, the same options that remain available throughout the PC industry. If Apple were struggling financially, people might respect such cost-cutting decisions from a business angle (even though many say they'd happily pay extra for more options), but Apple are billions in profit. If Apple offered, for eg., options of a consumer-priced, mid-tower, or matte -screen laptop, people like me might regard hackintosh users with far less approval. But as things stand, anyone who has the confidence & know-how to find a better personal solution using a hackintosh, has my respect.

Illegitimate it certainly is, but ultimately Apple have only themselves to blame if even more people start resorting to such illegitimate methods. FWIW, if you Google for it, you'll also find that OS X running on inexpensive netbooks seems to be growing all the time. Here again, Apple must take some responsibility, however indirectly. Steve Jobs recently stated that Apple do "no market research". :rolleyes: Well, if Apple want to stem further growth in the hackintosh community, perhaps it's time that they did some market research.

[piot]

This sounds good, but I fear Apple's decision to forgo the mid to upper end tower is a philosophical decision and not an economic one.

What's the philosophy? Do you really think that Apple wouldn't release such a product .... if it made them more money?

It's ironic that many people on this forum (and others!) accuse Apple of being greedy... yet simultaneously accuse them of turning down the cash because of some alleged control freakery mission.

Apple, Steve Jobs and the bean counters watched on as sales of the original iMac overtook their other desktop systems. The G4 iMac easily outsold the G4 towers (that people here, including Clive@5 longingly hark back to). Then, the Apple team can't have failed to notice that notebooks increasingly became the flavour of the month. Now, many of the major PC companies are selling AOIs and Dell is even selling bamboo coated mini-desktops.

Yes. Some people want a mid range, mid priced, upgradable tower. However that slice of the pie is getting smaller as we speak. You don't need to be a philosopher to see that.

[Clive At Five]

What's the philosophy? Do you really think that Apple wouldn't release such a product .... if it made them more money?

It's ironic that many people on this forum (and others!) accuse Apple of being greedy... yet simultaneously accuse them of turning down the cash because of some alleged control freakery mission.

Apple, Steve Jobs and the bean counters watched on as sales of the original iMac overtook their other desktop systems. The G4 iMac easily outsold the G4 towers (that people here, including Clive@5 longingly hark back to). Then, the Apple team can't have failed to notice that notebooks increasingly became the flavour of the month. Now, many of the major PC companies are selling AOIs and Dell is even selling bamboo coated mini-desktops.

Yes. Some people want a mid range, mid priced, upgradable tower. However that slice of the pie is getting smaller as we speak. You don't need to be a philosopher to see that.

To a certain extent, I do think Apple's refusal to offer a mid-tower is a bit of both. We all know the margins on consumer towers are very thin. We all know Apple likes fat profits... who doesn't?

At the same time, their philosophy has always been "anti-beige," if you will. Mid-towers are very beige.

The same thing happens whenever Apple launches a new product line:

Step 1: Apple says, "we'll never do "X" because we've seen the market and we don't like it."
Step 2: Apple tinkers with "X" until it fits their "anti-beige" formula.
Step 3: Apple launches their own "X"

Well, my friends, the iMac IS Apple's answer to the mid-tower market. I don't foresee them ever launching anything similar to a mid-tower. I could fathom another mockery of the tower (G4 Cube) or something else that totally fails to address the actual demands of those begging for something else (MacMini) but I could never see Apple launching an xMac tower.

[IJ Reilly]

This sounds good, but I fear Apple's decision to forgo the mid to upper end tower is a philosophical decision and not an economic one.

Companies can't afford philosophies, at least not in the way you describe it.

No need to apologize for the sarcasm, as such pat reductionism is always amusing. :) It's also expected, as these kinds of discussions are often polarized between those who mostly defend the corporate line (in this case Apple's) to the hilt, & those who feel that consumers are taken for granted far too often, thus them breaking a few rules now & again really isn't that big a deal. I can make no apology for being in the latter camp.

Stop right there. I don't "defend the corporate line" to the hilt, or any other place. I merely recognize the obvious, which is that companies are in business to maximize their profits, assuming they know how. And I think it's difficult to argue that Apple hasn't demonstrated that know-how pretty damned well over the last few years. I don't anthropomorphize corporations. I don't expect them to be nice, fair, or any of that touchy-feely nonsense. I fully expect them to be heartless money-making machines, with only one connection to you and I: getting and keeping us as customers. It's not an emotive relationship in the least.

So if anyone is engaging in reductionism here, it's not me.

[gregorsamsa]

Stop right there. I don't "defend the corporate line" to the hilt, or any other place. I merely recognize the obvious, which is that companies are in business to maximize their profits, assuming they know how. And I think it's difficult to argue that Apple hasn't demonstrated that know-how pretty damned well over the last few years. I don't anthropomorphize corporations. I don't expect them to be nice, fair, or any of that touchy-feely nonsense. I fully expect them to be heartless money-making machines, with only one connection to you and I: getting and keeping us as customers. It's not an emotive relationship in the least.

So if anyone is engaging in reductionism here, it's not me.

FWIW, I mostly agree with much of that, but I think it's a bit rich to then just criticize some consumers for finding better solutions via illegitimate methods, rather than also questioning whether Apple could be doing some things they already do quite well, even better (to repeat, for eg., how about lessening some of their corporate arrogance & doing some market research for a change?). :rolleyes: Perhaps some of the questions we might do well to be asking here aren't just why some people are increasingly resorting to using hackintoshes, but what is it that Apple are doing that drives more people to taking that route?

Also, the high-profit margins Apple make aren't that a great argument for doing things as well as they could be done. Otherwise we'd all be swearing by & extolling profitable products like Windows & MS Office. :)

Btw, being sarcastic about these issues is, IMO, being reductionist to a degree, whether that's intended or not.

[IJ Reilly]

FWIW, I mostly agree with much of that, but I think it's a bit rich to then just criticize some consumers for finding better solutions via illegitimate methods, rather than also questioning whether Apple could be doing some things they already do quite well, even better (to repeat, for eg., how about lessening some of their corporate arrogance & doing some market research for a change?). :rolleyes: Perhaps some of the questions we might do well to be asking here aren't just why some people are increasingly resorting to using hackintoshes, but what is it that Apple are doing that drives more people to taking that route?

Also, the high-profit margins Apple make aren't that a great argument for doing things as well as they could be done. Otherwise we'd all be swearing by & extolling profitable products like Windows & MS Office. :)

Btw, being sarcastic about these issues is, IMO, being reductionist to a degree, whether that's intended or not.

Apple has certainly been in a place in the past where it made sense to question their ability to profit from their business. I think it's a real stretch to make that argument today, especially if the basis for it is, in effect, "they didn't satisfy all of my personal desires today." An exaggeration? I don't think so. With each and every new product release, these boards are filled with hundreds of complaints that it lacks one or another of their pet features. These complaints often take the form of accusations that Apple is "losing touch." These people often sound jilted, as if Apple owes them something, or is in business just to make them happy.

We don't really know how many people are resorting to hacked Macs. We know only that it wasn't even possible until Apple moved to Intel. What I suspect is that the Mac hackers are not on a whole "forced" to resort to hacking -- most of them are tinkerers who simply enjoy the challenge. By in large it's the same group who enjoys building their own PCs. At this point, it's mostly about bragging rights. If it stays that way, then Apple probably doesn't need to do much to stop it. But that's also why Apple had to stop Psystar from trading on their patents, copyrights and trademarks.

[gregorsamsa]

Apple has certainly been in a place in the past where it made sense to question their ability to profit from their business. I think it's a real stretch to make that argument today, especially if the basis for it is, in effect, "they didn't satisfy all of my personal desires today." An exaggeration? I don't think so. With each and every new product release, these boards are filled with hundreds of complaints that it lacks one or another of their pet features. These complaints often take the form of accusations that Apple is "losing touch." These people often sound jilted, as if Apple owes them something, or is in business just to make them happy.

We don't really know how many people are resorting to hacked Macs. We know only that it wasn't even possible until Apple moved to Intel. What I suspect is that the Mac hackers are not on a whole "forced" to resort to hacking -- most of them are tinkerers who simply enjoy the challenge. By in large it's the same group who enjoys building their own PCs. At this point, it's mostly about bragging rights. If it stays that way, then Apple probably doesn't need to do much to stop it. But that's also why Apple had to stop Psystar from trading on their patents, copyrights and trademarks.

Whilst it's true to say that some people complain for the reasons you state, ie. from more-or-less unrealistic expectations, I think what's really pertinent is just how many people are complaining about similar issues. For eg., there are ongoing online petitions about bringing back matte-screen options that have thousands of signatures. One I could link here (but I'm not sure whether it's allowed) already has nearly 7,000.

I agree that the Psystar issue is quite different from the hackintoshers & that Apple had to take firm action here. I also think that in addition to protecting their "patents, copyrights and trademarks", there's also the realistic possibility that far more people would buy Psystar mid-towers running OS X than ever would have the confidence & know-how to feasibly maintain a hackintosh. As you say, the said hackers are probably mainly tinkerers, so limited in number & not really a threat to Apple. But a readily operational mid-tower, running OS X, could achieve considerable popularity amongst those consumers you describe as sounding "jilted".

Like most others here, I wholly accept that Apple are very unlikely to ever release a consumer mid-tower Mac, so maybe offering a decent update on the much-neglected Mini come January (something more than a GMA X3100, maybe a 9400M) would be the next best thing. :)

EDIT: Just checked - now 6,287 signatures, not "nearly 7,000".

[IJ Reilly]

Whilst it's true to say that some people complain for the reasons you state, ie. from more-or-less unrealistic expectations, I think what's really pertinent is just how many people are complaining about similar issues. For eg., there are ongoing online petitions about bringing back matte-screen options that have thousands of signatures. One I could link here (but I'm not sure whether it's allowed) already has nearly 7,000.

Signing an online petition -- now that takes real commitment!

Seriously, if Apple follows such things, and I'd assume that they do, then I'm sure that they evaluate how many of these signers are not going to buy a MacBook because they can't get a matte display. That calculation has to be balanced against the costs of complicating their manufacturing and inventory process. The same logic goes towards determining if it's cost effective to offer a mid-tower Mac to satisfy those who might tinker and hack to get one. I think some assume that the demand for such a thing is substantial because we're immersed in an online community where certain kinds of computer users are over-represented. Outside of online discussions, I've never heard this even mentioned, let alone described as some sort of major gap in Apple's Mac product offerings.

[Joe The Dragon]

Apple has certainly been in a place in the past where it made sense to question their ability to profit from their business. I think it's a real stretch to make that argument today, especially if the basis for it is, in effect, "they didn't satisfy all of my personal desires today." An exaggeration? I don't think so. With each and every new product release, these boards are filled with hundreds of complaints that it lacks one or another of their pet features. These complaints often take the form of accusations that Apple is "losing touch." These people often sound jilted, as if Apple owes them something, or is in business just to make them happy.

We don't really know how many people are resorting to hacked Macs. We know only that it wasn't even possible until Apple moved to Intel. What I suspect is that the Mac hackers are not on a whole "forced" to resort to hacking -- most of them are tinkerers who simply enjoy the challenge. By in large it's the same group who enjoys building their own PCs. At this point, it's mostly about bragging rights. If it stays that way, then Apple probably doesn't need to do much to stop it. But that's also why Apple had to stop Psystar from trading on their patents, copyrights and trademarks.

apple used to have $1200 to $1900 tower systems now they start at $2300

and the mini is over 1-2 years old.

The imacs dropped mate screens as well.

[TiggsPanther]

I think some assume that the demand for such a thing is substantial because we're immersed in an online community where certain kinds of computer users are over-represented. Outside of online discussions, I've never heard this even mentioned, let alone described as some sort of major gap in Apple's Mac product offerings.

Exactly.

Much as I wish it were otherwise (or, at least, much as I wish that the opinions of potential customers with actual computer knowledge mattered more than those of non-techies to people running tech companies) I don't think that the needs of techies actually amount to much in the grand scheme of things.

Of course we perceive these requirements as people hugely popular opinions with lots of following. Whether it's the ones we personally want or the ones that we hope don't occur, we see them as being major deals that 'everybody' has an opinion (whether for or against) on.
But that's because we spend time most days ready wesites devoted to Apple and/or Technology. Geeks. Experts. Audiophiles. Apple fanboys. MS lovers. Tinkerers. These sort of sites are full of those of us in those various categories.

In the grand computer-buying scheme of things, we're probably the minority. It's just that these sorts of sites don't tend to attract many of the general public who currently seem to be doing the bulk of the tech-buying.

It doesn't matter if we think a headless Mac would rock, or if it would be the Beginning Of The End. It's what Joe Sixpack thinks, and whether Apple think that there's enough of a non-minority requirement for such a machine.

apple used to have $1200 to $1900 tower systems now they start at $2300

and the mini is over 1-2 years old.

The imacs dropped mate screens as well.

Whether we like it or not (and I personally don't), the desktop/tower as a commercial machine seems to have had its day. Most people use laptops, even as students or as their office PCs. And the majority of actual desktop office PCs don't need upgradability. And any generic office that doesn't require Windows software (and wants a non-glossy screen) can probably make do with the Mini even at current specs.

We may shout the loudest, but our requirements are no longer the norm. Especially tno to Apple. It's just that we get a skewed perspective of what we and otehr wants as we frequent these sorts of websites.

[Clive At Five]

Outside of online discussions, I've never heard this even mentioned, let alone described as some sort of major gap in Apple's Mac product offerings.

It's funny you should say that.

The other day I ran into a guy with whom I used to go to high school. He's not particularly geeky, but, as many people my age are, he's savvy with computers. I used to evangelize Apple to him all the time and he used to kid me for it. The first thing he said when he saw me was, "You'd be so proud, I bought a Mac and I love it. I only with they had a mid-tower."

Realizing this is a single anecdote and not hard market evidence (which not even Apple cares to humor) I think that the demand for an Apple mid-tower is there. 90% of the desktop market keeps buying towers because they think they need the power, even when they don't.

Case in point, two weeks ago, I tried to talk a coworker out of getting his daughter a MacBook Pro for college. She was going to be studying fashion design. I told him, "At most she'll be using photoshop on an infrequent basis, for which the MacBook will be plenty powerful. Otherwise she'll be using her laptop to surf the net. Save yourself $1000 and get her a MacBook." Nevertheless, he INSISTED that she would need the power of the Pro...

Most could probably be content with a Performa...

-Clive

[Joe The Dragon]

Exactly.


Whether we like it or not (and I personally don't), the desktop/tower as a commercial machine seems to have had its day. Most people use laptops, even as students or as their office PCs. And the majority of actual desktop office PCs don't need upgradability. And any generic office that doesn't require Windows software (and wants a non-glossy screen) can probably make do with the Mini even at current specs.


The mini small case and harder to open case next to other systems? I don't think that offices like the idea of have to send the system out with HD is a good idea?

also it's specs are very poor next to other systems at the same price and 1gb or ram is too small.

Some offices want dual screen and they also reuse displays and the imac does not fit in with that.

Dual screen with the imac does not really fit in the that nice and some places may not have the desk space for a imac as well.

Also do you want to work on a 13.3" laptop screen or 15" one non apple systems at the same price or a 17" + LCD display hooked to a nice desktop at the same price?

[Joe The Dragon]

It's funny you should say that.

The other day I ran into a guy with whom I used to go to high school. He's not particularly geeky, but, as many people my age are, he's savvy with computers. I used to evangelize Apple to him all the time and he used to kid me for it. The first thing he said when he saw me was, "You'd be so proud, I bought a Mac and I love it. I only with they had a mid-tower."

Realizing this is a single anecdote and not hard market evidence (which not even Apple cares to humor) I think that the demand for an Apple mid-tower is there. 90% of the desktop market keeps buying towers because they think they need the power, even when they don't.

Case in point, two weeks ago, I tried to talk a coworker out of getting his daughter a MacBook Pro for college. She was going to be studying fashion design. I told him, "At most she'll be using photoshop on an infrequent basis, for which the MacBook will be plenty powerful. Otherwise she'll be using her laptop to surf the net. Save yourself $1000 and get her a MacBook." Nevertheless, he INSISTED that she would need the power of the Pro...

Most could probably be content with a Performa...

-Clive
The mac book pro has the bigger screen and that helps in design work and other stuff that does not need a lot of power.

[IJ Reilly]

Your anecdotes only go towards proving my point -- both of these people bought Macs that Apple actually makes, instead of not buying one, or holding out for a Mac they don't currently make, or hacking to get the exact Mac they would have preferred, or to save a few bucks. This suggests that Apple does not need to manufacture products to fully serve each and every preference.

At this point, I trust Apple's management to determine how best to balance their costs of manufacturing and inventory against the desire to serve every possible preference of every real or potential customer. If they weren't growing Mac sales at 5-10 times the rate of the rest of the industry, I might be tempted to second-guess them. My conclusion for now is that Apple must be doing something right.

[Clive At Five]

The mac book pro has the bigger screen and that helps in design work and other stuff that does not need a lot of power.

I also mentioned to him that if screen size was an issue, he could purchase both a MacBook and display for less than the price of the MacBook Pro. He didn't even mention that display size was an issue.

@IJ: Though the high school acquaintance of mine did settle for a computer that he admittedly loves, that doesn't mean his demand for a mid-tower is suddenly gone. Given the option, many people would choose the tower. That's untapped potential.

While recognizing that Apple's recent growth is rather astounding, we must be careful not to hide the possibility that it could be even more...

-Clive

[piot]

apple used to have $1200 to $1900 tower systems now they start at $2300

Yep! And at that time Apple sold about 3 million computers a year. This year they will sell 10 million.

[IJ Reilly]

@IJ: Though the high school acquaintance of mine did settle for a computer that he admittedly loves, that doesn't mean his demand for a mid-tower is suddenly gone. Given the option, many people would choose the tower. That's untapped potential.

The important point is, your acquaintance bought a Mac. Whether Apple could have made a greater profit selling him a different model or style is just a guess, and an uninformed one besides. Tapping every bit of sales potential also has a cost, which you are not acknowledging.

[gregorsamsa]

Signing an online petition -- now that takes real commitment!

Seriously, if Apple follows such things, and I'd assume that they do, then I'm sure that they evaluate how many of these signers are not going to buy a MacBook because they can't get a matte display. That calculation has to be balanced against the costs of complicating their manufacturing and inventory process. The same logic goes towards determining if it's cost effective to offer a mid-tower Mac to satisfy those who might tinker and hack to get one. I think some assume that the demand for such a thing is substantial because we're immersed in an online community where certain kinds of computer users are over-represented. Outside of online discussions, I've never heard this even mentioned, let alone described as some sort of major gap in Apple's Mac product offerings.

I presume you've not seen the petition then. I have & alongside many of those signatures are comments stating that many of these people will now seek other solutions, some after owning Macs for well over a decade. Even if we assume that some of those comments are made in the heat of the moment & won't be carried through, within its context, those others who will switch (for hardware reasons alone) either to Linux, Windows or use a hackintosh, seem to me to be making a pretty big commitment.

Also, I'm not sure that Apple do follow these things. As for "calculation... balanced against their costs", to me that seems a weak defence. So the likes of Dell, HP, et al don't make those calculations? They surely must do & perhaps even more so due to the strong competitiveness running throughout the PC industry, yet all these companies believe in offering at least reasonable choice to consumers. If Apple now don't lose market-share due to their short-sighted policy of decreasing choice even further, I think they can consider themselves lucky that the well-publicized shortcomings of Vista (pre-SP1) seem to have stuck in the minds of the general public, even if at least some of those criticisms are no longer applicable.

[IJ Reilly]

I presume you've not seen the petition then. I have & alongside many of those signatures are comments stating that many of these people will now seek other solutions, some after owning Macs for well over a decade. Even if we assume that some of those comments are made in the heat of the moment & won't be carried through, within its context, those others who will switch (for hardware reasons alone) either to Linux, Windows or use a hackintosh, seem to me to be making a pretty big commitment.

Also, I'm not sure that Apple do follow these things. As for "calculation... balanced against their costs", to me that seems a weak defence. So the likes of Dell, HP, et al don't make those calculations? They surely must do & perhaps even more so due to the strong competitiveness running throughout the PC industry, yet all these companies believe in offering at least reasonable choice to consumers. If Apple now don't lose market-share due to their short-sighted policy of decreasing choice even further, I think they can consider themselves lucky that the well-publicized shortcomings of Vista (pre-SP1) seem to have stuck in the minds of the general public, even if at least some of those criticisms are no longer applicable.

I don't think it's weak at all. I think making the assumption that Apple is stupid, unaware, or hostile towards the demands of the market is a weak avenue of attack. If Dell, HP and the other Windows OEMs are so much better at addressing these demands, why is Apple growing their sales at 5-10 times the rate they are? At some point, you need to acknowledge this, even if it does require admitting that maybe Apple does have a good grasp of what they are doing.

[Clive At Five]

The important point is, your acquaintance bought a Mac. Whether Apple could have made a greater profit selling him a different model or style is just a guess, and an uninformed one besides. Tapping every bit of sales potential also has a cost, which you are not acknowledging.

Certainly, I wouldn't deny that to tap a market requires cost.

Nowhere did I suggest, however, tapping "every bit of sales potential..." only the one that claims the greatest majority of all desktop sales... the mid-tower. :rolleyes:

-Clive

[maestro55]

I still do not understand why everyone is siding with Apple on this issue. The bottom line is Psystar did break the current laws; however, Apple does have a monopoly on their OS and while they might not be legally bound to allow their prosperity software to run on other hardware, it would certainly be a good move for competition and might bring the price of Apple hard ware down. I don't think cheaper Macs would mean less profit for Apple, as they would simply sell more.

[gregorsamsa]

I don't think it's weak at all. I think making the assumption that Apple is stupid, unaware, or hostile towards the demands of the market is a weak avenue of attack. If Dell, HP and the other Windows OEMs are so much better at addressing these demands, why is Apple growing their sales at 5-10 times the rate they are? At some point, you need to acknowledge this, even if it does require admitting that maybe Apple does have a good grasp of what they are doing.

"Why is Apple growing their sales at 5-10 times?" Obviously there'll be a number of reasons for this growth, but I think it'd be very difficult for anyone to credibly argue against enormous disillusionment with Vista not playing a significant role. But I've said previously that Apple do what they do, very well. I've no issues with what they offer, more so with what they don't offer, but so easily could do. So I believe that they could do even better by, for eg., not alienating a significant number of their professional user-base, as seems to have happened recently.

[IJ Reilly]

"Why is Apple growing their sales at 5-10 times?" Obviously there'll be a number of reasons for this growth, but I think it'd be very difficult for anyone to credibly argue against enormous disillusionment with Vista not playing a significant role. But I've said previously that Apple do what they do, very well. I've no issues with what they offer, more so with what they don't offer, but so easily could do. So I believe that they could do even better by, for eg., not alienating a significant number of their professional user-base, as seems to have happened recently.

To be clear, what I am challenging is the basis of the certainty that you (and others) know more about selling computers than Apple does. And again, if Apple was performing poorly in this market, as they have at other times, then the second-guessing might well be justified. But with Apple substantially outperforming their competitors by a wide margin, I think it takes more than anecdotes or beliefs to support an argument that they could do even better, if only they'd do it your way instead of theirs.

[gregorsamsa]

To be clear, what I am challenging is the basis of the certainty that you (and others) know more about selling computers than Apple does. And again, if Apple was performing poorly in this market, as they have at other times, then the second-guessing might well be justified. But with Apple substantially outperforming their competitors by a wide margin, I think it takes more than anecdotes or beliefs to support an argument that they could do even better, if only they'd do it your way instead of theirs.

But it's not just "anecdotes or beliefs" behind this viewpoint. Just Google for all those threads that tell of how difficult it is for some people to work on the new aluminium laptops. Or those Mac business in countries like Germany where by law they're not supposed to use glossy screens in the workplace for health & safety reasons. Fact is, things aren't as black & white as to simply say that Apple do as well as they possibly could, accept it, end of. I think the bigger picture is more complex than that.

[IJ Reilly]

But it's not just "anecdotes or beliefs" behind this viewpoint. Just Google for all those threads that tell of how difficult it is for some people to work on the new aluminium laptops. Or those Mac business in countries like Germany where by law they're not supposed to use glossy screens in the workplace for health & safety reasons. Fact is, things aren't as black & white as to simply say that Apple do as well as they possibly could, accept it, end of. I think the bigger picture is more complex than that.

Googling is little more than a technological way of collecting anecdotal information. I accept that some people may not like glossy screens. All I am saying is that I strongly suspect that Apple has considered this and has calculated the cost vs. the benefit of serving that particular preference, and has decided not to, for the time being at least. I am also not saying that Apple is doing as well as they possibly could, only that they are doing far better than their competition, so it may not be wise to point to their competition and suggest their method of doing business a model for what Apple ought to be doing.

[gregorsamsa]

Googling is little more than a technological way of collecting anecdotal information. I accept that some people may not like glossy screens. All I am saying is that I strongly suspect that Apple has considered this and has calculated the cost vs. the benefit of serving that particular preference, and has decided not to, for the time being at least. I am also not saying that Apple is doing as well as they possibly could, only that they are doing far better than their competition, so it may not be wise to point to their competition and suggest their method of doing business a model for what Apple ought to be doing.


Most of that's fair enough & much of what you've said elsewhere in this thread I don't disagree with. But I guess it might be best to agree to disagree on one or two other issues. It's still early days to know the real impact on Mac sales of Apple's recent decisions; only time will tell. :)

[IJ Reilly]

Most of that's fair enough & much of what you've said elsewhere in this thread I don't disagree with. But I guess it might be best to agree to disagree on one or two other issues. It's still early days to know the real impact on Mac sales of Apple's recent decisions; only time will tell. :)

I keep asking time to tell, but it sure knows how to keep a secret.

[gregorsamsa]

I keep asking time to tell, but it sure knows how to keep a secret.

Indeed, but I guess much depends on what it is people want to know. I think time certainly reveals most of the fundamentals, eventually (for eg., does God exist? Is death the final end or just another beginning? When will the economy make a full recovery? :) etc.). But we're probably better off not knowing some things before (one's) time, so to speak.

[IJ Reilly]

Indeed, but I guess much depends on what it is people want to know. I think time certainly reveals most of the fundamentals, eventually (for eg., does God exist? Is death the final end or just another beginning? When will the economy make a full recovery? :) etc.). But we're probably better off not knowing some things before (one's) time, so to speak.

Exactly the response I'd expect from a giant cockroach. ;)

[gnasher729]

I still do not understand why everyone is siding with Apple on this issue. The bottom line is Psystar did break the current laws; however, Apple does have a monopoly on their OS and while they might not be legally bound to allow their prosperity software to run on other hardware, it would certainly be a good move for competition and might bring the price of Apple hard ware down. I don't think cheaper Macs would mean less profit for Apple, as they would simply sell more.

There has just been a court decision throwing out Psystar's case because Psystar and their lawyers did not even manage to make a "plausible argument" for Apple having any monopoly. In other words, your claim that Apple has a monopoly is so far off the mark that a court cannot even bothered looking at that claim.

And you don't quite understand the meaning of competition. "Competition" doesn't mean any company would have any obligation to help their competitors. And with Microsoft claiming that they outsell MacOS X in the operating system market 33 to 1, and with Apple being massively outsold by HP and Dell, why do you think Apple should help any competitor?

[matticus008]

Psystar never requested a legitimate license to use OSX so its irrelevant if was was refused or not.
According to their own pleadings, Psystar did recognize the existence of an official licensing program in the past and specifically failed to inquire as to obtaining a license themselves. They then proceeded, without authorization, to do the very thing for which they had previously shown awareness of the need for permission.

Had they requested a license, however, they would have been denied, which would have gotten them in deeper trouble, just like when you do something your parents specifically told you not to do. Not only are you on the line for the act itself, but also for the separate act of defiance.
They could have waited as long as they wanted to since this is a civil suit.
No, only up to three years.
Apple does have a monopoly on their OS
No. A single brand almost never constitutes a market. Everyone has a "monopoly" on their own products, but it is not in fact a monopoly.
might bring the price of Apple hard ware down.
No. Apple would still have to defray the actual costs of the OS, while other vendors would be free to ignore them. Apple could never match the ultra-cheap end of the market, and they have already achieved parity with the mid- to upper end.
I don't think cheaper Macs would mean less profit for Apple, as they would simply sell more.
Why? A modest reduction in price is not going to capture a greater portion of the market. There is no evidence to suggest that there are people who would have purchased a Mac but for a $50 price difference. There are sales and refurbs for that.

Regardless of the hue and cry, it's their choice what to sell, just like it's your choice whether or not to buy. They don't have the right to take your money when you say "no deal", just like you don't have the right to take their products when they say "no deal", whether you offer to pay or not. It's not complicated, and it doesn't have anything to do with taking "sides".

[GaryPDX]

...Yes, it would be nice if Apple provided a non-workstation, non-laptop-parts non-glossy option. But they are not obliged or provide it. Nor, as far as I know, are they obliged to allow others to do so.

The Mac platform (as a package) is the option. There are alternatives to it. The alternatives may not be ideal, but they are there. But some people, for whastever reason, refuse to accept that as a valid option.

Actually, I want Apple to release something headless and at least partly user-upgradeable. I want them to release the option that so many are clamouring for. (Or maybe even allow cheaper but licensed clones)
Because I'm sure that for every person who only goes Hackintosh in the lack of a viable alternative, there are probably several people who would still probably go Hackintosh because it's either cheaper or that it still doesn't scratch their particular itch....

Mac Mini?

[gregorsamsa]

Exactly the response I'd expect from a giant cockroach. ;)

Whether you've merely heard of Kafka, or read him extensively, you'll probably know that the cockroach comes to a bad end anyway - so no self-preening cocks needed to seal my fate, thank you. I blame an accursed existence & the family of course :rolleyes: (but best not go there).

I look forward to seeing sales figures for Macs sold during the next quarter & any comparisons with the same quarter of last year.

[IJ Reilly]

Whether you've merely heard of Kafka, or read him extensively, you'll probably know that the cockroach comes to a bad end anyway - so no self-preening cocks needed to seal my fate, thank you. I blame an accursed existence & the family of course :rolleyes: (but best not go there).

Where cockroaches are concerned, I try to avoid going there entirely.

I look forward to seeing sales figures for Macs sold during the next quarter & any comparisons with the same quarter of last year.

A bold prediction: Mac sales growth rates will be much lower in the current quarter compared to last year, perhaps half -- but the industry as a whole will be flat to down.

[gregorsamsa]

Where cockroaches are concerned, I try to avoid going there entirely.

I meant go there metaphysically, so my apologies for expecting a cock to grasp that. ;)

A bold prediction: Mac sales growth rates will be much lower in the current quarter compared to last year, perhaps half -- but the industry as a whole will be flat to down.

One way to deal with a recession is, of course, to lower prices, but I guess you might also find a way to justify Apple actually increasing theirs & then blame any significantly falling sales on the recession. I'm beginning to wonder if Apple can do no wrong whatsoever according to some opinion here? :rolleyes:

EDIT: FWIW, to anyone passing through, my reference to "cock" (here & previous post) no longer makes sense because Reilly's "cock" avatar has reverted to old.

[IJ Reilly]

I meant go there metaphysically, so my apologies for expecting a cock to grasp that. ;)

So did I. This discussion is entirely metaphysical as far as I'm concerned.

One way to deal with a recession is, of course, to lower prices, but I guess you might also find a way to justify Apple actually increasing theirs & then blame any significantly falling sales on the recession. I'm beginning to wonder if Apple can do no wrong whatsoever according to some opinion here? :rolleyes:

I don't see a lot of lowering of prices in the face of a recession, but I can see where Apple kept the white MacBook in the lineup at a (gasp) lower price, when they'd surely rather have dispensed with the old models entirely, so there's some economic pragmatism for you. Keep in mind also that the new laptop had to be in the design and manufacturing pipeline for many months prior to the onset of the worldwide recession, so they were essentially stuck with it.

[gregorsamsa]

So did I. This discussion is entirely metaphysical as far as I'm concerned.

Good, but then why avoid going anywhere in a purely metaphysical way? I mean, how many other metaphysical boundaries have you placed around your existence? :rolleyes:

I don't see a lot of lowering of prices in the face of a recession, but I can see where Apple kept the white MacBook in the lineup at a (gasp) lower price, when they'd surely rather have dispensed with the old models entirely, so there's some economic pragmatism for you. Keep in mind also that the new laptop had to be in the design and manufacturing pipeline for many months prior to the onset of the worldwide recession, so they were essentially stuck with it.

But seriously now, I struggle to imagine that you sincerely think maintaining white MacBooks has much to do with "economic pragmatism" & not more so with simply selling off old inventory at higher than refurb prices. :) Frankly, I'll be extremely surprised if Apple are still selling white MacBooks, other than refurbs, this time next year.

[TiggsPanther]

Mac Mini?

For one, it's so overdue an update it's harder to justify getting one in many circumstances. It's still a good piece of kit but no longer as good value-for-money, other Mac lines have been updated twice, and the price is not any lower.

For another, although I'd personally be OK if they merely refreshed the Mini, I did mention in my post that people are after a user-upgradable non-laptop-parts Mac. As good a piece of kit as the Mac Mini can be, even when up to date it's still effectively a sealed-box headless MacBook. So it doesn't meet the need that many people (on this sort of site) would want.

[rickag]

What's the philosophy? Do you really think that Apple wouldn't release such a product .... if it made them more money?

It's ironic that many people on this forum (and others!) accuse Apple of being greedy... yet simultaneously accuse them of turning down the cash because of some alleged control freakery mission.

Apple, Steve Jobs and the bean counters watched on as sales of the original iMac overtook their other desktop systems. The G4 iMac easily outsold the G4 towers (that people here, including Clive@5 longingly hark back to). Then, the Apple team can't have failed to notice that notebooks increasingly became the flavour of the month. Now, many of the major PC companies are selling AOIs and Dell is even selling bamboo coated mini-desktops.

Yes. Some people want a mid range, mid priced, upgradable tower. However that slice of the pie is getting smaller as we speak. You don't need to be a philosopher to see that.I don't have the time to recover the quotes Jobs has made concerning computer design. But there is a history for Apple's design of computers. It stretchs back to the days the Woz was involved and butted heads with Jobs. Yes, Apple does design computers based on their philosophy of what a consumer computer should be. Sometimes it works, iPod/ iPhone. Sometimes it doesn't, the Cube.


....
At the same time, their philosophy has always been "anti-beige," if you will. Mid-towers are very beige.
... I don't foresee them ever launching anything similar to a mid-tower. I could fathom another mockery of the tower (G4 Cube) or something else that totally fails to address the actual demands of those begging for something else (MacMini) but I could never see Apple launching an xMac tower.If Jonathan Ive put his mind to it, I'm confidant an Apple mid to upper end consumer tower wouldn't be "the beige"

I also don't "foresee them ever launching anything similar to a mid-tower", ever:(. Apple seems to believe a consumer computer should be as close to an appliance as possible. Buy it, use it, replace it when necessary.

Companies can't afford philosophies, at least not in the way you describe it.That may be true, but many of Steve Jobs quotes show that when designing computers, Apple does indeed have philosophical beliefs in what a consumer needs or wants.

To be clear, what I am challenging is the basis of the certainty that you (and others) know more about selling computers than Apple does. And again, if Apple was performing poorly in this market, as they have at other times, then the second-guessing might well be justified. But with Apple substantially outperforming their competitors by a wide margin, I think it takes more than anecdotes or beliefs to support an argument that they could do even better, if only they'd do it your way instead of theirs.Of course it isn't a certainty that Apple could increase their rate of market share growth. But the cost and risk to Apple in introducing a mid to upper end consumer tower is negliable. It would be low risk with potential high pay out, who knows, but I doubt we will every find out.

I find it perplexing that so many people dismiss the effect a mid to upper end consumer tower would have on Apple's growth, yet this debate has gone on for years, goning on decades, in virtually every mac centric website. Petitions have sprouted up, even Mac magazines have brought it up. And until computers become so powerful that Mac minis and iMacs can run all software efficiently and effectively, without worrying about rapidly changing technology, this debate will continue.

[Sun Baked]

I meant go there metaphysically, so my apologies for expecting a cock to grasp that. ;)

Are you grasping at something besides straws. :eek:

aka, http://att.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=6629 (nothing better than a public ego stroking on the webcam)

[gregorsamsa]

Are you grasping at something besides straws. :eek:

aka, http://att.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=6629 (nothing better than a public ego stroking on the webcam)

Well if all the smilies & winks passing between Reilly & I still doesn't make it obvious enough for you, try reading the posts between both posters & then you might realize the intended exchange of humour. Or, you can continue shooting blanks, in which case you might as well be talking to yourself.

Besides, who asked you to butt in when the non-Mac oriented nature of our banter finished long ago? ;) However, if you simply don't like people criticizing Apple (which I certainly do in said posts), then just say so. Let's hear your side of the argument, if you have one.

[piot]

I don't have the time to recover the quotes Jobs has made concerning computer design. But there is a history for Apple's design of computers.

Yes, of course Apple has a design philosophy. But is that what you meant with your original quote?

.... but I fear Apple's decision to forgo the mid to upper end tower is a philosophical decision and not an economic one.

The design philosophy was definitely not "beige" when Apple introduced the blue and white G3 towers. That carried over to the silver G4s. The G5 towers (later Mac Pros) introduced a whole new design ethic. Sadly, for many people on this forum it announced the demise of the now elusive mid-range mac tower.

My contention is simple. It iS an economic philosophy. It has nothing to do with design or technical reasons. It has nothing to do with "let's just piss off the geeks".

When Apple's quarterly results used to give more detail on Mac sales it's plain to see that most Mac desktop buyers... were buying iMacs ... and only 25-30% of Mac buyers were buying notebooks. Today consumers are buying notebooks in increasing numbers. Tomorrow that will be most consumers. PC makers are now selling iMac clones, Mac mini clones and the latest flavour of the month the Netbook(!)

If you want to look for Steve Jobs' quotes... look for the "where the puck is going" one. Steve and Apple may be a little hasty in leaving behind certain technologies that are on their way out.... but that's as it ever was.

[rickag]

Yes, of course Apple has a design philosophy. But is that what you meant with your original quote?



The design philosophy was definitely not "beige" when Apple introduced the blue and white G3 towers. That carried over to the silver G4s. The G5 towers (later Mac Pros) introduced a whole new design ethic. Sadly, for many people on this forum it announced the demise of the now elusive mid-range mac tower.

My contention is simple. It iS an economic philosophy. It has nothing to do with design or technical reasons. It has nothing to do with "let's just piss off the geeks". It never was and never will be to piss off geeks.

When Apple's quarterly results used to give more detail on Mac sales it's plain to see that most Mac desktop buyers... were buying iMacs ... and only 25-30% of Mac buyers were buying notebooks. Today consumers are buying notebooks in increasing numbers. Tomorrow that will be most consumers. PC makers are now selling iMac clones, Mac mini clones and the latest flavour of the month the Netbook(!)

If you want to look for Steve Jobs' quotes... look for the "where the puck is going" one. Steve and Apple may be a little hasty in leaving behind certain technologies that are on their way out.... but that's as it ever was.Sorry if I was misunderstood to mean Apple's design philosophy was ever to "let's just piss off the geeks".

As to why the last few mid range towers Apple offered failed to capture any traction, we need to look at the price comparisons with the iMac. For the exact same price one could buy an iMac with a built in LCD screen worth up to $200 at the time, or an tower with the screen replaced with slots and drive bays. This made the comparison very very unfavorable for the towers. Apple didn't price them favorably for what many people believed was fear of losing sales of iMacs. The last such instance I believe was the 1.8GHz tower priced at $1499, the exact same price as the 1.8GHz iMac.

If the public is so enamored with the desktop AIO design, explain how come the rest of the industry hasn't changed to this design exclusively, as Apple has, and why they are not selling for Dell and HP? It has been years and the public is still virtually ignoring this desktop AIO design for Apple's competitors.

The flip side of that puck you mention is that the presence of PCI slots allows even the less technologically inclined to keep up with the puck in the rapidly changing world of technology. Just ask all the people who bought iMacs within months(re: hundreds of thousands of them) of Apple dropping firewire from iPods. They had USB 1 and firewire. USB 1 was woefully inadequate for syncing and there was no tech to replace it, effectively limiting from buying new iPods. This is only one glaring example where a $10 card solved any problems Windows users with only USB 1 could solve, yet iMac owners couldn't. So the moving puck argument cuts both ways doesn't it?

[Sun Baked]

As to why the last few mid range towers Apple offered failed to capture any traction, we need to look at the price comparisons with the iMac. For the exact same price one could buy an iMac with a built in LCD screen worth up to $200 at the time, or an tower with the screen replaced with slots and drive bays. This made the comparison very very unfavorable for the towers. Apple didn't price them favorably for what many people believed was fear of losing sales of iMacs. The last such instance I believe was the 1.8GHz tower priced at $1499, the exact same price as the 1.8GHz iMac.

At that time it was exactly the same machine as the iMac, repackaged in a new case. They used the consumer iMac chipset in that short lived machine.

So with Apple's expensive LCDs in the store, it cost about twice as an iMac for the headless iMac.

---

If Apple switches the iMac to the desktop CPU at least, and moves stuff around to make the HD as easy to change as the MacBook, it'll decrease the performance gap a bit between the iMac and Pro.

[IJ Reilly]

Of course it isn't a certainty that Apple could increase their rate of market share growth. But the cost and risk to Apple in introducing a mid to upper end consumer tower is negliable. It would be low risk with potential high pay out, who knows, but I doubt we will every find out.

You are only guessing about this. Apple is not. All others things being equal, I will go with Apple on this one.

[Joe The Dragon]

Sorry if I was misunderstood to mean Apple's design philosophy was ever to "let's just piss off the geeks".

As to why the last few mid range towers Apple offered failed to capture any traction, we need to look at the price comparisons with the iMac. For the exact same price one could buy an iMac with a built in LCD screen worth up to $200 at the time, or an tower with the screen replaced with slots and drive bays. This made the comparison very very unfavorable for the towers. Apple didn't price them favorably for what many people believed was fear of losing sales of iMacs. The last such instance I believe was the 1.8GHz tower priced at $1499, the exact same price as the 1.8GHz iMac.

If the public is so enamored with the desktop AIO design, explain how come the rest of the industry hasn't changed to this design exclusively, as Apple has, and why they are not selling for Dell and HP? It has been years and the public is still virtually ignoring this desktop AIO design for Apple's competitors.

The flip side of that puck you mention is that the presence of PCI slots allows even the less technologically inclined to keep up with the puck in the rapidly changing world of technology. Just ask all the people who bought iMacs within months(re: hundreds of thousands of them) of Apple dropping firewire from iPods. They had USB 1 and firewire. USB 1 was woefully inadequate for syncing and there was no tech to replace it, effectively limiting from buying new iPods. This is only one glaring example where a $10 card solved any problems Windows users with only USB 1 could solve, yet iMac owners couldn't. So the moving puck argument cuts both ways doesn't it?
The imac had mate screens back then and the desktop where priced $1200 and up also the mini had good video for a low end system at the time now the $800 mini should have a video card with it's own ram and the $600 needs to much better then gma 950 and 1gb of ram.

Need to have at the mini 2 - 4gb ram + dvdrw in all systems.

[rickag]

You are only guessing about this. Apple is not. All others things being equal, I will go with Apple on this one.No, I'm not. Apple has in the past had mid to upper end consumer desktops, they already know how to do it, and do it well. It's just in the last few designs that they were not priced competitive when compared to the dual processor pro towers and the iMacs.

Introducing a consumer mid to upper end desktop tower represents little to no risk, first because it can be discontinued very quickly.

I would say the risk of introducing the iPods, iPhone, iTunes, the Cube, iLamp, Newton, Pippin, Mac mini, AppleTV, etc. represent exponentially greater risks. These required large investments in design, both in the exotic motherboards and enclosures for the computers, placing a high premium on size and quiet operation. And even larger investments in introducing completely different products in different markets traditionally not entered into by computer companies as in the iPod, iPhone, AppleTV. The risk of moving the operating system to Intel represented a greater risk, both in investment and resulting anxiety by users and developers.

So yes, introducing a mid to upper end consumer desktop represents little or no risk, especially for a company continually taking much large risks economically and with their business plans.

[IJ Reilly]

No, I'm not. Apple has in the past had mid to upper end consumer desktops, they already know how to do it, and do it well. It's just in the last few designs that they were not priced competitive when compared to the dual processor pro towers and the iMacs.

Introducing a consumer mid to upper end desktop tower represents little to no risk, first because it can be discontinued very quickly.

If Apple invested in the design, manufacture and marketing of a product they discontinued quickly, this would be seen (correctly) as a failure. See, G4 Cube.

But again, you are assuming that this product pencils out for Apple, but that they aren't selling it for reasons that have nothing to do with profitability. Fundamentally, this makes no sense at all from a business point of view. To hold this view you'd have to assume that Apple isn't very good at making a profit. At one time, when Apple was rudderless and bleeding cash, this might have been a opinion with some reasoning behind it. These days, it's a reach. A huge reach.

[rickag]

If Apple invested in the design, manufacture and marketing of a product they discontinued quickly, this would be seen (correctly) as a failure. See, G4 Cube. They were a failure because of the unrealistic price points. The Cube introduced at $200 more than an equivalent iMac and required half height cards, that is a bad deal and consumer knew it, unless they placed a very high premium on size and a separate monitor. You can include the single cpu 1.8GHz G5 tower in the list also by the way. Both it and the iMac were identically priced @ $1499, making the tower a very bad comparison to the iMac, because the iMac came with the equivalent of a $200 screen, which was swapped out for a couple of bucks worth of slots and bays.

But again, you are assuming that this product pencils out for Apple, but that they aren't selling it for reasons that have nothing to do with profitability. Fundamentally, this makes no sense at all from a business point of view. To hold this view you'd have to assume that Apple isn't very good at making a profit. At one time, when Apple was rudderless and bleeding cash, this might have been a opinion with some reasoning behind it. These days, it's a reach. A huge reach.Where did I say that Apple isn't good at making a profit? In fact I'm an AAPL stock holder. Please quit changing the subject. I said it is a low risk option for Apple to introduce a mid to upper end consumer tower and explained why. You go off on a tangent about the bad old days, which is unrelated to today, different products, different operating system different hardware.

And yes, it does seem to be more a philosophical decision on Apple's part to maintain the AIO consumer desktop model and not introduce a mid to upper end consumer desktop tower. Why do you have such a problem with this idea?

http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&story=Diagnostic_Port.txt&characters=Steve%20Jobs&sortOrder=Sort%20by%20Date&detail=medium&showcomments=1

[IJ Reilly]

The reason for any given product's failure is immaterial. You were basing your argument on the "lack of risk" of developing a product which was discontinued quickly. I am pointing out that this is a real risk. Costs have to be sunk, and a failure in the marketplace is bad for the company's image as a whole -- as the Cube experience so amply illustrated.

I am not changing the subject at all. It's easy for arm-chair CEOs to declare that Apple should develop a given product, but they are not in possession of the information Apple has, on which actual decisions are based. The reason I bring up Apple's recent success is that they have proven themselves to be very adept at bringing profitable products to market. Don't kid yourself, maximizing profit their only "philosophy" when it comes to new products. I don't understand why anyone would have a problem with that concept.

[gnasher729]

I am not changing the subject at all. It's easy for arm-chair CEOs to declare that Apple should develop a given product, but they are not in possession of the information Apple has, on which actual decisions are based. The reason I bring up Apple's recent success is that they have proven themselves to be very adept at bringing profitable products to market. Don't kid yourself, maximizing profit their only "philosophy" when it comes to new products. I don't understand why anyone would have a problem with that concept.

I think it is not so much the lack of information that is the problem, but the bias. I can very much understand that people would want for example a mid-range tower Macintosh, or a MacOS X version sold for generic PCs. The problem is that they think first of what is good for themselves, and then find arguments why it must be good for Apple as well. These arguments are biased.

Any product decision would take into consideration: What is the cost of introducing a new product (including the effect of thinning out your development resources). What are project sales, production cost, gross margin. How will it affect the brand - if a product cheapens the brand, that is a big, big, big negative. How will it affect sales of other products.

Take the MacBook Air: I don't think Apple sells too many (I am sure it holds its own, but is likely not the big money maker), but it has an immense positive effect on the brand. There are thousands who love the MacBook Air, go to an Apple Store, and leave with a MacBook Pro or MacBook. A mid-range tower, on the other hand, could have an effect on sales that is negative if all is added up.

Fact is that Apple beats all the PC companies by not playing by their rules and not competing where they are strongest. Dell can't _afford_ to compete with Apple because if they did, they would lose three sales to HP and two to Acer for each sale they take away from Apple. A mid-range tower on the other hand would force Apple to compete by Dell's rules.

[IJ Reilly]

I think it is not so much the lack of information that is the problem, but the bias. I can very much understand that people would want for example a mid-range tower Macintosh, or a MacOS X version sold for generic PCs. The problem is that they think first of what is good for themselves, and then find arguments why it must be good for Apple as well. These arguments are biased.

I agree. There's a real tendency on the part of some to assume that what's good for me is good for Apple. Also underlying this argument is the apparent assumption that Apple either (1) doesn't really know how to maximize their profits, or (2) has some sort of illogical, nefarious plot to deny certain people the Mac of their fondest desires.

When you look at the PC market as a whole, I think it becomes readily apparent that this is one extremely tough business, which Apple has recently navigated with amazing success, both in terms of their market share growth and margins. You can bet your eye teeth that every one of the Windows OEMs would like to emulate Apple's model, but they simply can't, because they are engaged in a race to the bottom with the other OEMs (a race in which not incidentally Microsoft is the only real winner). I can see why Apple has no interest in climbing down into that particular mud wrestling pit.

[rickag]

The reason for any given product's failure is immaterial.How convenient for your argument, I say baloney, the reasons are very relevant.

You were basing your argument on the "lack of risk" of developing a product which was discontinued quickly. I am pointing out that this is a real risk. Costs have to be sunk, and a failure in the marketplace is bad for the company's image as a whole -- as the Cube experience so amply illustrated.You fail to grasp the point made, which was that Apple is not risk averse, as the Cube, iLamp, etc prove.

I am not changing the subject at all. It's easy for arm-chair CEOs to declare that Apple should develop a given product, but they are not in possession of the information Apple has, on which actual decisions are based. The reason I bring up Apple's recent success is that they have proven themselves to be very adept at bringing profitable products to market.In one post you want it both ways. Apple has failures, and in your mind the reasons are not relevant, then you say "proven themselves to be very adept at bringing profitable products to market.". Which is it? Well, of course it is both but you only use one argument at a time to prove your points. Truth is that Apple is not risk averse and has proven it over and over again, both with success and with failure. Now, ask yourself honestly, how risky would the introduction of a mid to upper end consumer desktop tower be. Truth is, almost none, especially when compared to other risky products I point to previously.

So, what is the real reason Apple isn't offering a mid to upper end consumer desktop tower. It isn't risk aversion. It isn't cost to develop. It must be something else. I suggest to read the article I posted a link to, it may not be completely accurate in all aspects, but it does provide insight into the Apple culture.

Don't kid yourself, maximizing profit their only "philosophy" when it comes to new products. I don't understand why anyone would have a problem with that concept.No, maximizing profits is not Apple's only philosophy when it comes to new products.

[IJ Reilly]

No, maximizing profits is not Apple's only philosophy when it comes to new products.

Yes, of course it is, just as it is for all successful corporations. If you can't accept that simple truth, then it really is pointless to continue this discussion.

[TiggsPanther]

How convenient for your argument, I say baloney, the reasons are very relevant.

You fail to grasp the point made, which was that Apple is not risk averse, as the Cube, iLamp, etc prove.

Those aren't exactly up to date examples, though.

The Cube was around 2000/2001, right? And lasted little over a year?

And the iLamp (iMac G4, I believe) was discontinued in 2004 in favour to the iMac G5 whose design carried on to the Intel transition and was still the rough basis of the current incarnation.

Yes, Apple have been known to take risks in the past, but they certainly seem somewhat more conservative these days. At least, they're still innovating but mainly by looking at what's already out big there and trying to do something better. (Granted, not always succeeding)
I can see them eventually doing a NetBook (AirMini?), as they seem to be highly popular and I can imagine Apple managing to put an iSpin on one and making a killing.

I can't , however, see them coming up with a standard desktop variant that's both different form the competition and not a competitor to their own line. This doesn't mean it'll never happen, but there are things which (going form recent track record) can be prodicted to be somewhat mroe likely.
A new mini-desktop (or Mac Mini successor), however, is probably very likely. Only, it'll probably come at Apple's own schedule, not that of those of us needing something along those lines at the moment.

[gnasher729]

Now, ask yourself honestly, how risky would the introduction of a mid to upper end consumer desktop tower be. Truth is, almost none, especially when compared to other risky products I point to previously.

That's not truth, that is your biased assumption with no data to back it up.

Many people try to model three different outcomes before they make a decision: Worst case, best case, and expected case. Something is a "risk" if the worst case is negative. If the "expected" case is negative, it is not a risk, it is just plain stupid to do it. Your claim is that the "worst" case is not or very slightly negative. Maybe Apple has actually modelled the outcome and came to a result where the "expected" case is not very good. And, as I said before, Apple wouldn't look at the cost and revenue of such a model in isolation, it would consider all effects, like the effect of cheapening the Apple brand, risk of cannibalising its own sales in other models, lost opportunity cost (those developers creating a mid range tower can't work on improving the MacMini), and so on.

Compared to this, the Cube had the positive effect of improving Apple's image, even though it was a commercial failure. There are many people who would have loved to own one, but who believed that it was too expensive to them, especially since it was released just at the start at a recession that was worse than the current one. The positive thing is the "would have loved to own one". Apple sold lots of Macs _because of_ the Cube.

PS and more on topic: MacObserver reports that Apple added claims under the DMCA act against Psystar, which means we might be going from a civil case to criminal charges. A quote from theregister: If the Apple/Psystar brawl were a prizefight, however, the referee would now step in and stop the mayhem before Psystar suffers terminal brain damage.

[Joe The Dragon]

That's not truth, that is your biased assumption with no data to back it up.

Many people try to model three different outcomes before they make a decision: Worst case, best case, and expected case. Something is a "risk" if the worst case is negative. If the "expected" case is negative, it is not a risk, it is just plain stupid to do it. Your claim is that the "worst" case is not or very slightly negative. Maybe Apple has actually modelled the outcome and came to a result where the "expected" case is not very good. And, as I said before, Apple wouldn't look at the cost and revenue of such a model in isolation, it would consider all effects, like the effect of cheapening the Apple brand, risk of cannibalising its own sales in other models, lost opportunity cost (those developers creating a mid range tower can't work on improving the MacMini), and so on.

Compared to this, the Cube had the positive effect of improving Apple's image, even though it was a commercial failure. There are many people who would have loved to own one, but who believed that it was too expensive to them, especially since it was released just at the start at a recession that was worse than the current one. The positive thing is the "would have loved to own one". Apple sold lots of Macs _because of_ the Cube.

PS and more on topic: MacObserver reports that Apple added claims under the DMCA act against Psystar, which means we might be going from a civil case to criminal charges. A quote from theregister: If the Apple/Psystar brawl were a prizefight, however, the referee would now step in and stop the mayhem before Psystar suffers terminal brain damage.
Lexmark try to pull the same DMCA BS over 3rd party ink and they lost the case so this is far from a KO.

[r.j.s]

Lexmark try to pull the same DMCA BS over 3rd party ink and they lost the case so this is far from a KO.

Yes, but making third-party inks has little to do with circumventing copyright protections.

[Joe The Dragon]

Yes, but making third-party inks has little to do with circumventing copyright protections.
They tryed to came the control chip was copyright protected.

[gnasher729]

Lexmark try to pull the same DMCA BS over 3rd party ink and they lost the case so this is far from a KO.

Actually, I think I know where this DMCA claim comes from suddenly, and I have some idea that Psystar's lawyers managed an incredible own goal.

Most people are not aware that there are any effective measures to prevent copyright infringement in MacOS X. However, when Psystar tried its cunning plan to accuse Apple of being an evil monopoly, one of the many claims they made was that evil Apple had on purpose added code to Leopard that would make it crash when running on a non-Apple computer. That was to show how evil Apple was, but it would obviously be an effective means to prevent unauthorised copying. Exactly what the DMCA act doesn't allow you to circumvent.

Now comes the funny bit: Apple doesn't actually need any copy prevention in Leopard to accuse Psystar of DMCA violation. Psystar made that claim itself! The rules in a civil court case are that if one side makes a claim, and the other side agrees, then the court will assume it is true. So if Psystar accuses Apple of preventing the use of MacOS X on non-Apple computers, all Apple has to do is to agree and bingo! instant DMCA violation.

This is similar to the situation where Apple didn't even have to show that it has competitors when accused of being a monopoly, because Psystar's lawyers were nice enough to mention that Apple has competitors about a dozen time in their counterclaims. So Apple could turn this around and say "see, we are not a monopoly, we have competitors, _because Psystar itself says so_.

PS I think you are confusing the Lexmark case quite a bit. Lexmark claimed that the printer was using a "program" stored in the ink cartridge, and that its would-be competitor had illegally copied that program to use it in its own ink cartridges. In reality, the "program" was 16 byte in length, the printer performed a checksum operation on it, and the "programming language" was so limited that it was basically impossible to write this program in any other way. In that case, you can't have copyright on the program: Copyright is for the artistic expression, and if there is no freedom to write the code, then there is no artistic expression and no copyright. So Lexmark did lose its case quite rightfully. Like Apple would lose if they tried to prevent third parties from producing RAM or hard drives that can be used in a Mac. A completely different situation.

[matticus008]

They tryed to came the control chip was copyright protected.
It is. But in that case, that copyright was not infringed, because the third party cartridge manufacturers did not reproduce the chips or the circuit diagrams.
Lexmark try to pull the same DMCA BS over 3rd party ink and they lost the case so this is far from a KO.
They lost for effectively (though not technically) the reason that gnasher729 described. Their "program" copyright, not the chip itself, was not eligible for copyright protection in the same way that a sentence is not independently copyrightable.

There is no question that OS X is eligible for copyright protection.

[TiggsPanther]

Maybe Apple has actually modelled the outcome and came to a result where the "expected" case is not very good. And, as I said before, Apple wouldn't look at the cost and revenue of such a model in isolation, it would consider all effects, like the effect of cheapening the Apple brand, risk of cannibalising its own sales in other models, lost opportunity cost (those developers creating a mid range tower can't work on improving the MacMini), and so on.

As someone said previously, many people are so convinced by their need for a standard tower (and the "clamour" for such on these types of forums) that they then look for reasons why it would obviously work well for Apple. They don't seem to think that the reasons you listed would be valid.

Maybe it's just because I'm a cynic, and somebody who is used to being outside of the mainstream, but I geniuinely believe that Apple have looked into and dismissed things like the headless upgradeable Mac and a regularly updated Mini. They interest me. Apple would obviously cash in on such a market if they thought they could. So obviously what I want isn't good (or good enough) for Apple.

I'm no Apple apologist. I just think that if they thought they could seriously profit from Mini-waiters and xMac-hopers then they would have done by now. They're in it for profit, and if they thought they could get an Apple spin on something and make it ultra-profitable then they probably would.
That and many people who have an interest in Apple going a certain way aren't going to look at the arguments against such products as they personally don't see it as being a concern. So they'll pull out reasons why it's in Apple's best interest and ignore the reasons why it may not be.

Don't get me wrong. I think the Mini is overdue a refresh and that some sort of headless upgradable desktop/tower would be a great addition to the Apple lineup. I just accept that I see this from the perspective of a potential customer who may well be in the minority. Anything else would just be wishful thinking on my part.

[rickag]

Those aren't exactly up to date examples, though.

The Cube was around 2000/2001, right? And lasted little over a year?

And the iLamp (iMac G4, I believe) was discontinued in 2004 in favour to the iMac G5 whose design carried on to the Intel transition and was still the rough basis of the current incarnation.True, but the iPhone, Apple TV and Macbook Air are new and all had a very high up front expense to develop and high risk factor.

Yes, Apple have been known to [b]take risks in the past, but they certainly seem somewhat more conservative these days. At least, they're still innovating but mainly by looking at what's already out big there and trying to do something better. (Granted, not always succeeding)See above response.
I can see them eventually doing a NetBook (AirMini?), as they seem to be highly popular and I can imagine Apple managing to put an iSpin on one and making a killing.Who knows?

I can't , however, see them coming up with a standard desktop variant that's both different form the competition and not a competitor to their own line. This doesn't mean it'll never happen, but there are things which (going form recent track record) can be prodicted to be somewhat mroe likely.
A new mini-desktop (or Mac Mini successor), however, is probably very likely. Only, it'll probably come at Apple's own schedule, not that of those of us needing something along those lines at the moment.I don't ever expect Apple to offer a flexible, expandable mid to upper end consumer desktop in any incarnation or form factor, it doesn't not meet Apple's philosophy for what they define as a consumer desktop.
http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&story=Diagnostic_Port.txt&characters=Steve%20Jobs&sortOrder=Sort%20by%20Date&detail=medium&showcomments=1
But Jef Raskin had a very different point of view. He thought that slots were inherently complex, and were one of the obstacles holding back personal computers from reaching a wider audience. He thought that hardware expandability made it more difficult for third party software writers since they couldn't rely on the consistency of the underlying hardware. His Macintosh vision had Apple cranking out millions of identical, easy to use, low cost appliance computers and since hardware expandability would add significant cost and complexity it was therefore avoided.

Apple's other co-founder, Steve Jobs, didn't agree with Jef about many things, but they both felt the same way about hardware expandability: it was a bug instead of a feature. Steve was reportedly against having slots in the Apple II back in the days of yore, and felt even stronger about slots for the Mac. He decreed that the Macintosh would remain perpetually bereft of slots, enclosed in a tightly sealed case, with only the limited expandability of the two serial ports.

That's not truth, that is your biased assumption with no data to back it up. No, I have common sense. But you seem to believe introducing the Cube, iPhone, iPod, AppleTV, etc. don't have any more financial risk than a mid to upper end consumer desktop tower, is that what your saying? Balderdash. The iPhone, iPod and AppleTV were ground up development into different markets. The Cube used motherboards which required complete redesign to fit into the enclosure which in and of itself required extensive design and manufacturing development.

Many people try to model three different outcomes before they make a decision: Worst case, best case, and expected case. Something is a "risk" if the worst case is negative. If the "expected" case is negative, it is not a risk, it is just plain stupid to do it. Your claim is that the "worst" case is not or very slightly negative. Maybe Apple has actually modelled the outcome and came to a result where the "expected" case is not very good. And, as I said before, Apple wouldn't look at the cost and revenue of such a model in isolation, it would consider all effects, like the effect of cheapening the Apple brand, risk of cannibalising its own sales in other models, lost opportunity cost (those developers creating a mid range tower can't work on improving the MacMini), and so on.If any of this happens, they can simply discontinue it. Just like they did in the past.

Compared to this, the Cube had the positive effect of improving Apple's image, even though it was a commercial failure. There are many people who would have loved to own one, but who believed that it was too expensive to them, especially since it was released just at the start at a recession that was worse than the current one. The positive thing is the "would have loved to own one". Apple sold lots of Macs _because of_ the Cube.No they didn't, their market share was minisucle at the time. The Cube was introduced in July 2000 and discontinued a year later.
Apple sales by quarter
Quarter......Sales.............Market share
q1 00.......1043.478........3.44
q2 00.......1021.739........3.38
q3 00.......1130.435........3.35
q4 00.......652.174..........1.79
q1 01.......760.87............2.15
q2 01.......826.087..........2.78
q3 01.......847.829..........2.92
q4 01.......739.130..........2.18

After the introduction of the Cube both sales and market share declined.

[IJ Reilly]

After the introduction of the Cube both sales and market share declined.

Which is one of the reasons why your argument cancels itself out. The Cube was a marketing failure, and consequently a huge public relations failure as well. Apple has been extremely careful about not repeating this experience, investing only in products with a high probability of success. Revenues and market share have increased at a remarkable pace ever since.

[VoR]

I think most people's idea of an expandable system (that apple doesn't have) is being able to change the gfx card - and I think it's a false economy for an upgrade. Games in windows is pretty much the only use, and with the way the (two...) manufacturers release products you pay a massive premium for small increases.

Apple releasing an expandable 'tower' should just allow them to use cheap off the shelf parts, offer everything that the 1000s of pc manufacturers offer, literally mac pro performance for 99% of uses, and the retail price of a dell. I don't really see any disadvantages, too much choice for the average clueless mac buyer? Let the retail staff do their job and sell them whatever machine they need - Talking about confusing choices, how do they justify the differences between 3 different cpus in a model anyway? I could understand a ulv, c2d and quad option in every model, but that's hardly the current situation.

A headless system with reasonable parts and most importantly a sensible price is what apple need to unleesh my buying power. The mini is fine for what I want (and would recommend to people), and I quite like the form factor. I can see companies like intel selling tiny motherboards the same size with more current hardware, so my frustrations and suspicions of incompetence/strange motives continue.

[Mal]

Apple releasing an expandable 'tower' should just allow them to use cheap off the shelf parts, offer everything that the 1000s of pc manufacturers offer, literally mac pro performance for 99% of uses, and the retail price of a dell.

And that's exactly what we don't want to happen. Cheap off the shelf parts generally means poor quality, and Apple users demand high quality (to an absurd level sometimes). It also wouldn't be Mac Pro performance for almost anything, and you'll never see a Mac starting at the same retail price of a Dell (which is a misnomer anyways, do a proper price comparison and it almost always works out in Apple's favor or a very small difference).

jW

[VoR]

Who's we and why does cheap off the shelf parts mean poor quality?
I can't think of many apps or uses that can efficiently use multiple cores, and you're not space/heat limited to using slower laptop parts like in the rest of apples line up.
I agree, I'm not sure we'll ever see an equivalent specced pc from apple that retails at a dell price.
I'm not sure what you mean by a 'proper' price comparison, but I think your last comment is completely and utterly insane :)

[rickag]

Which is one of the reasons why your argument cancels itself out. The Cube was a marketing failure, and consequently a huge public relations failure as well. Apple has been extremely careful about not repeating this experience, investing only in products with a high probability of success. Revenues and market share have increased at a remarkable pace ever since.No it doesn't.

It proves the point that Apple is more than willing to take financial and marketing risks, and the Cube is only one example, there are more recent examples as previously pointed out.

And that's exactly what we don't want to happen. Cheap off the shelf parts generally means poor quality, and Apple users demand high quality (to an absurd level sometimes). It also wouldn't be Mac Pro performance for almost anything, and you'll never see a Mac starting at the same retail price of a Dell (which is a misnomer anyways, do a proper price comparison and it almost always works out in Apple's favor or a very small difference).

jWHow did Dell get into this discussion?

Apple wouldn't have to support third party cards, they didn't for me. Yet I kept up with technology for a couple of years anyway. What did in my 7500 eventually was Motorola's abysmal front side bus :( which the Sonnet card couldn't correct.

I bought a 7500 and added in order, a G4 Sonnet upgrade card, a used ATI Rage Pro card(not for games, but for being able to use Apple's OS without bog slow speeds), and a Firewire/USB card(for iPods and hard drives) I did this because I had a perfectly good monitor and didn't want an AIO computer and couldn't afford Apple's tower prices.

And yes the Intel Core processors, which are indeed used in Towers for Professionals, will keep up with the Intel Xeon processors for many uses.

[IJ Reilly]

No it doesn't.

It proves the point that Apple is more than willing to take financial and marketing risks, and the Cube is only one example, there are more recent examples as previously pointed out.

Risks that will pay off. You missed the most important part.

[rickag]

Risks that will pay off. You missed the most important part.
Horse hockey, Apple could not know they would pay off and you know it. They are/were(re: iPhone, iPod, AppleTV, MacBookAir) exponentially higher risk both financially and marketing. The jury is still out on AppleTV and MacBookAir.

[gnasher729]

The story goes on... Psystar has just amended its counterclaims. A story with link to the amended counterclaims at

http://news.worldofapple.com/archives/2008/12/09/pystar-moves-to-allow-filing-of-its-first-amended-counterclaim/

I had a quick look, and it looks even more desperate than before. Instead of claiming that Apple is an evil monopoly and therefore shouldn't be allowed to restrict the use of MacOS X to Apple-labeled computers (which was thrown out by the court) they now just claim that Apple shouldn't be allowed to restrict the use of MacOS X to Apple-labeled computers (with no particular reason really).

And because Apple can restrict copying of MacOS X as the copyright holder, and Psystar decided they can't, obviously Apple must be misusing its copyright and therefore lose it. Even more so because Apple added DMCA violations to its case, which is even more evil, and illegal because Apple should lose its copyright because Psystar says so.

Now Psystar needs to seek permission to file these counterclaims, which will be granted with no doubt, but Apple is at least allowed to argue against that. I would suggest to Apple's lawyers that they should argue these amended counterclaims should not be allowed because they are insulting everyone's intelligence.

[Hugh]

The story goes on... Psystar has just amended its counterclaims. A story with link to the amended counterclaims at

http://news.worldofapple.com/archives/2008/12/09/pystar-moves-to-allow-filing-of-its-first-amended-counterclaim/

I had a quick look, and it looks even more desperate than before. Instead of claiming that Apple is an evil monopoly and therefore shouldn't be allowed to restrict the use of MacOS X to Apple-labeled computers (which was thrown out by the court) they now just claim that Apple shouldn't be allowed to restrict the use of MacOS X to Apple-labeled computers (with no particular reason really).

And because Apple can restrict copying of MacOS X as the copyright holder, and Psystar decided they can't, obviously Apple must be misusing its copyright and therefore lose it. Even more so because Apple added DMCA violations to its case, which is even more evil, and illegal because Apple should lose its copyright because Psystar says so.

Now Psystar needs to seek permission to file these counterclaims, which will be granted with no doubt, but Apple is at least allowed to argue against that. I would suggest to Apple's lawyers that they should argue these amended counterclaims should not be allowed because they are insulting everyone's intelligence.


gnasher, what would happen if Apple is found a monopoly on their software?? Would this mean they would have to pass the code of Mac OS X to any body who asked for it?

I don't think will happen, I just don't see why it woud. Apple has the right to make the software for their machines. :/

Hugh

[pdjudd]

gnasher, what would happen if Apple is found a monopoly on their software?? Would this mean they would have to pass the code of Mac OS X to any body who asked for it?

It won't happen. A judge has already ruled that Apple was not a monopoly. Even it it were, it does not necessarily mean that Apple would have to sell OSX to anybody. Don't forget, monopolies are not necessarily illegal - anti competitive ones are

[IJ Reilly]

Again, monopolies are not illegal, so this term is not a useful one. In fact everyone who owns a patent or a copyright owns a monopoly in that product -- a government sanctioned and government protected monopoly. In order for Apple to be found in violation of antitrust laws, they'd have to be found to have market power in a properly defined market, and found to be abusing that power to restrain trade. What Psystar attempted to claim in their filings is that Apple's product, as defined by its trademarks, copyrights and patents on the Mac and OSX, constitute a market. This was an absurd claim. So in what market could Apple be said to have market power (let alone, abused it)? Surely not in the market for personal computers, where their share of the market is in single digits.

EDIT: I've been reading over Psystar's counterclaim. It seems to continue to rely entirely on the ludicrous concept that the Mac is market, which leads to mind-bending logic, such as:

PSYSTAR, on information and belief, alleges that APPLE is content with the knowledge that it has exclusive rights to the Mac OS and that nearly insurmountable barriers exist with respect to any other entity introducing a Mac OS-like operating system. PSYSTAR is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the most significant competitive threat to APPLE is not from a new operating system but from computer hardware system manufacturers that may offer a competing hardware platform upon which to run the Mac OS—Mac OS Capable Computer Hardware Systems. Any such hardware platform would compete directly with Apple-Labeled Computer Hardware Systems, which are manufactured by APPLE and available for purchase only from APPLE and/or its authorized resellers.

[albusseverus]

In legal matters, which often defy logic to 'those of us not in the club', it is important to look at legal opinion. There's a brief excerpt below so you can see how it shapes up.

The worldofapple article references a UCLA Law Review document (http://www.idrankthekoolaid.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/lawreviewarticle.pdf), which clearly explains why Psystar has gone the 'misuse' route - in short, since Apple recently introduced the DMCA, Psystar asserts Apple's EULA is 'against the spirit of the law' and misuse of DMCA. (emphasis added by me)

UCLA Law Review
June, 2003

*1095 ANTICIRCUMVENTION MISUSE


The anticircumvention provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act
penalize both the circumvention of technical protection measures, and supplying
the means for such circumvention. These prohibitions are entirely separate
from the exclusive rights under copyright, causing some commentators to dub the
anticircumvention right as “paracopyright.” Such paracopyright effectively
grants copyright holders sweeping new ability to impose terms of access on
content users: Consumers who access content without accepting the content
owner's terms would violate the owner's paracopyright even if the material
accessed is not itself copyrighted or copyrightable.
Additionally, where a particular use would be permissible under copyright
law, content owners may be able to exclude the use as a condition of access. For
example, the content owner might require that users contractually agree not to
engage in reverse engineering or fair uses as a condition for access to the
material. Content owners may use “paracopyright” to require purchase or use of
related products; for example, DVD access controls require that the disc be played
on approved hardware, effectively dictating the consumer's purchase of playback
equipment.

At some point, such leveraging of access control seems certain to overstep
the bounds militated by sound policy or intended by Congress. In the past, abuse
of intellectual property rights has been curtailed under the doctrine of
misuse. This Article argues that because DMCA “paracopyright” is ripe for abuse,
limits on overreaching may be imposed by applying the misuse doctrine in this new
area. Just as improper leveraging of patent and copyright may be curtailed by
application of the misuse doctrine, so improper leveraging of paracopyright should
be curtailed by application of misuse.

Desperate? No. Just following the law.

[gnasher729]

In legal matters, which often defy logic to 'those of us not in the club', it is important to look at legal opinion. There's a brief excerpt below so you can see how it shapes up.

The article you quote is not "legal opinion" in any legal meaning, it is just some blokes opinion. But applied to the case at hand it is utterly unconvincing anyway.

"DMCA abuse" as the article puts it, would happen if the DMCA takes copyright-related rights away from you. For example, you bought a DVD and "fair use" would allow you to quote a short scene. But to do that you would have to circumvent the DRM, which DMCA makes illegal, so you can't make use of your rights.

That is not the case here. Psystar has no right to copy MacOS X at all, so the DMCA act doesn't take any of their rights away. No "DMCA abuse" at all.

In reality, Psystar's arguments are entirely ludicrous, even more so than in their original counterclaims. They still claim that "MacOS X" and "MacOS X compatible computers" are separate markets, a theory which the court has already rejected (that is why Apple can't have monopolies in these markets, because they are not markets). That alone makes their arguments nonsensical. Then they just confuse "competitive" and "anti-competitive". Since Apple has no monopolies, they have the right to use anything to their competitive advantage. The fact that this is not in the best interest of their competitors lies in the nature of competition.

And in between they trot out all the old argument, like "why does Apple allow Windows to run on a Macintosh"? Answer: To get a competitive advantage.

It won't happen. A judge has already ruled that Apple was not a monopoly. Even it it were, it does not necessarily mean that Apple would have to sell OSX to anybody. Don't forget, monopolies are not necessarily illegal - anti competitive ones are

One of the cases quoted by Apple was exactly about that: Xerox had for a long time an absolute monopoly in the market of plain paper photocopiers, thanks to their patents on the process. They were sued by a competitor, and a court ruled that even though Xerox had a monopoly, they were under no obligation at all to license their patents to others, which would have helped competitors. So it is legal to acquire and to hold a monopoly, as long as you don't use that monopoly to destroy competition in another market.

[albusseverus]

The article you quote is not "legal opinion" in any legal meaning, it is just some blokes opinion. But applied to the case at hand it is utterly unconvincing anyway.

"DMCA abuse" as the article puts it, would happen if the DMCA takes copyright-related rights away from you. For example, you bought a DVD and "fair use" would allow you to quote a short scene. But to do that you would have to circumvent the DRM, which DMCA makes illegal, so you can't make use of your rights.

That is not the case here. Psystar has no right to copy MacOS X at all, so the DMCA act doesn't take any of their rights away. No "DMCA abuse" at all.

In reality, Psystar's arguments are entirely ludicrous, even more so than in their original counterclaims. They still claim that "MacOS X" and "MacOS X compatible computers" are separate markets, a theory which the court has already rejected (that is why Apple can't have monopolies in these markets, because they are not markets). That alone makes their arguments nonsensical. Then they just confuse "competitive" and "anti-competitive". Since Apple has no monopolies, they have the right to use anything to their competitive advantage. The fact that this is not in the best interest of their competitors lies in the nature of competition.

And in between they trot out all the old argument, like "why does Apple allow Windows to run on a Macintosh"? Answer: To get a competitive advantage.



One of the cases quoted by Apple was exactly about that: Xerox had for a long time an absolute monopoly in the market of plain paper photocopiers, thanks to their patents on the process. They were sued by a competitor, and a court ruled that even though Xerox had a monopoly, they were under no obligation at all to license their patents to others, which would have helped competitors. So it is legal to acquire and to hold a monopoly, as long as you don't use that monopoly to destroy competition in another market.

I can't leave this incoherent ramble among the issues unanswered in case someone tries to quote it.


That is not how the document applies DMCA abuse to patent rights masquerading as copy-rights when applied to technology, at all! Read the document!
Psystar does not copy OS X, it sells legit OS X that Apple sold to them. Did Apple cut off sales of OS X to Psystar when they announced they would sell their own hardware with OS X? Not at all!
Psystar does not circumvent DMCA, it runs OS X on PC clones, similar to the PC clones Apple manufactures.
Apple enforces its "rights" by EULA only, this DMCA nonsense is a late addition and a desperation move by Apple to muddy the waters, knowing it can't win the EULA case.
The fact that Apple let Psystar go on so long selling OS X for them will stand heavily against Apple in any test of the legality of the EULA and any other asserted rights.
Psystar merely wishes to take advantage of the same 'competitive advantage' Apple uses with Windows.


And if anyone wants a real laugh, read Steve Job pleading to the recording industry (http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughtsonmusic/) to let people run purchased software on the hardware of their choice.

"Imagine a world where every online store sells DRM-free music encoded in open licensable formats. In such a world, any player can play music purchased from any store, and any store can sell music which is playable on all players. This is clearly the best alternative for consumers, and Apple would embrace it in a heartbeat."

[TuffLuffJimmy]

I can't leave this incoherent ramble among the issues unanswered in case someone tries to quote it.


That is not how the document applies DMCA abuse to patent rights masquerading as copy-rights when applied to technology, at all! Read the document!
Psystar does not copy OS X, it sells legit OS X that Apple sold to them. Did Apple cut off sales of OS X to Psystar when they announced they would sell their own hardware with OS X? Not at all!
Psystar does not circumvent DMCA, it runs OS X on PC clones, similar to the PC clones Apple manufactures.
Apple enforces its "rights" by EULA only, this DMCA nonsense is a late addition and a desperation move by Apple to muddy the waters, knowing it can't win the EULA case.
The fact that Apple let Psystar go on so long selling OS X for them will stand heavily against Apple in any test of the legality of the EULA and any other asserted rights.
Psystar merely wishes to take advantage of the same 'competitive advantage' Apple uses with Windows.


And if anyone wants a real laugh, read Steve Job pleading to the recording industry (http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughtsonmusic/) to let people run purchased software on the hardware of their choice.

"Imagine a world where every online store sells DRM-free music encoded in open licensable formats. In such a world, any player can play music purchased from any store, and any store can sell music which is playable on all players. This is clearly the best alternative for consumers, and Apple would embrace it in a heartbeat."

I do agree that is it hypocritical of Apple to want to only have OS X run on their machines, yet have DRM free music from the record industries. However, Apple is the owner of OS X. They made it, so they should be allowed to dictate what can be done with their OS, especially when it comes to resale.

[pdjudd]

Psystar does not copy OS X, it sells legit OS X that Apple sold to them. Did Apple cut off sales of OS X to Psystar when they announced they would sell their own hardware with OS X? Not at all!

Fact: Psystar is not an authorized reseller of OSX, and you cannot sell it if you intend to violate the SLA. Aple only sells upgrade copies - the court has already asserted Apple's right to sell OSX in any way that it wishes.

Psystar does not circumvent DMCA, it runs OS X on PC clones, similar to the PC clones Apple manufactures.
Wrong. Psysar actually asserted that Apple protects its operating system from running on generic hardware. A court already asserted that Apple can do that. Second, Psystar hacks OSX - that is not allowed by law.

Apple enforces its "rights" by EULA only, this DMCA nonsense is a late addition and a desperation move by Apple to muddy the waters, knowing it can't win the EULA case.


Nothing wrong about that. There is no law that says an update requires draconian anti-piracy regulations. Furthermore a Judge has already ruled that the public is well informed that OSX is only for Apple branded systems and has allready asserted that Apple can dictate terms of sales however it wants to.

The fact that Apple let Psystar go on so long selling OS X for them will stand heavily against Apple in any test of the legality of the EULA and any other asserted rights.
No it doesn't. Cite please.

Psystar merely wishes to take advantage of the same 'competitive advantage' Apple uses with Windows.

Except that they cannot. Microsoft has different licensing terms than Apple does. Simply because Microsoft has loose regulations on how you can install their OS (so that they can maximize their market presence) does not imply nor suggest or require that Apple must follow the same guidelines simply because they both operating systems. Apple is under no obligation to give away or license its copyrights to people that do not own them. OS is intellectual property and owned by Apple and nobody else and they can dictate its usage however it wishes to. You seem to be under the belief that Apple must assist competitors. Please cite relevant legislation that dictates this.


And if anyone wants a real laugh, read Steve Job pleading to the recording industry (http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughtsonmusic/) to let people run purchased software on the hardware of their choice.
That has nothing to do with this case whatsoever. Apple's OSX is encoded for specific system builds. The open letter you cite is about music sales and its DRM which in the case of Fairplay, is mostly platform agnostic. We are talking about a different type of DRM here simply due to the type of content we are talking about. Operating systems are in no way comparable to encrypted wrapped music files. Every operating system (even open sourced ones) has limits on what you can and cannot do with them.

[IJ Reilly]

Except that they cannot. Microsoft has different licensing terms than Apple does. Simply because Microsoft has loose regulations on how you can install their OS (so that they can maximize their market presence) does not imply nor suggest or require that Apple must follow the same guidelines simply because they both operating systems. Apple is under no obligation to give away or license its copyrights to people that do not own them. OS is intellectual property and owned by Apple and nobody else and they can dictate its usage however it wishes to. You seem to be under the belief that Apple must assist competitors. Please cite relevant legislation that dictates this.

Psystar, and those who back their preposterous arguments, are not just saying that Apple is under an obligation to assist competitors, but in fact they must create competitors. And not just competitors, but competitors who can resell Apple's product, and not just resell Apple's product, but resell it in any manner they see fit. Would anyone with a straight face advance a similar argument for any other product on the entire planet Earth, real or even theoretical? Of course not. So why do they think this idea should be taken even remotely seriously in Apple's case?

I already know the answer -- let's see who else comes up with it.

[matticus008]

That is not how the document applies DMCA abuse to patent rights masquerading as copy-rights when applied to technology, at all! Read the document!
What is it, exactly, that this tortured statement is meant to say?
Psystar does not copy OS X, it sells legit OS X that Apple sold to them.
Apple did not sell anything to them, nor is Psystar merely reselling boxes (which they would be permitted to do), so what they are doing is plainly illegitimate.
Did Apple cut off sales of OS X to Psystar when they announced they would sell their own hardware with OS X? Not at all!
How would you suggest they do this? Perhaps by filing a lawsuit and asking for injunctive relief? It seems they've done so.
Psystar does not circumvent DMCA
You don't "circumvent DMCA". Someone who can't even get basic terminology right should not be making sweeping proclamations, much less ill-informed ones.
Apple enforces its "rights" by EULA only
That is not the case. Apple enforces its rights in the manner it is legally entitled to do so for the right in question. That neither begins nor ends with a licensing agreement, but merely includes it.
The fact that Apple let Psystar go on so long selling OS X for them will stand heavily against Apple
The suit was filed in a matter of months. Laches, if indeed you're actually making a reference to anything of legal relevance, requires years.
Psystar merely wishes to take advantage of the same 'competitive advantage' Apple uses with Windows.
What Psystar wishes is wholly irrelevant. Windows is freely licensed to any platform and any user who wishes to purchase it. The situations are not analogous. Wishing will not make it so.
Steve Job pleading to the recording industry[/URL] to let people run purchased software on the hardware of their choice.
Music isn't software, and songs are commodities meant to be moved and traded and enjoyed in a wide variety of formats, unlike software and specifically unlike machine operating systems. Only by isolating one tangentially related element can you make such an unbalanced comparison. You will note, however, that despite Apple's wishes it--gasp--respects the terms of others and uses the proper channels to effect change. Psystar could easily have done the same.

[gnasher729]

I can't leave this incoherent ramble among the issues unanswered in case someone tries to quote it.


That is not how the document applies DMCA abuse to patent rights masquerading as copy-rights when applied to technology, at all! Read the document!
Psystar does not copy OS X, it sells legit OS X that Apple sold to them. Did Apple cut off sales of OS X to Psystar when they announced they would sell their own hardware with OS X? Not at all!
Psystar does not circumvent DMCA, it runs OS X on PC clones, similar to the PC clones Apple manufactures.
Apple enforces its "rights" by EULA only, this DMCA nonsense is a late addition and a desperation move by Apple to muddy the waters, knowing it can't win the EULA case.
The fact that Apple let Psystar go on so long selling OS X for them will stand heavily against Apple in any test of the legality of the EULA and any other asserted rights.
Psystar merely wishes to take advantage of the same 'competitive advantage' Apple uses with Windows.


And you call my post an "incoherent ramble"? I start to suspect that you are one of the lawyers working for Psystar, judging by the quality of your arguments.

[Sun Baked]

Rambling...18 ... To appreciate this, the Court need only note that in Section 106 of the Copyright Act, Congress set forth the six exclusive rights that a copyright owner enjoys:
(1) reproduction;
(2) creation of derivative works;
(3) distribution;
(4) public performance;
(5) public display; and
(6) digital public performance.
17 U.S.C. § 106 . As a result, by attempting to secure rights in hardware (Apple-Labeled Computer Hardware Systems), which are outside the scope of copyright, Apple’s EULA unquestionably “seek[s] to control areas outside of their grant of monopoly” under the Copyright Act.

Wait, isn't the restricting of the OS to Apple labeled systems part of (3) and attempting to maintain control of their copyrighted products distribution?

Psystar claims it has no copyright now because Apple is abusing their monopoly rights now because they are limiting distribution, not because they simply have an open source-OS and simply don't hold copyrights because of that.

[Vulpinemac]

I can't leave this incoherent ramble among the issues unanswered in case someone tries to quote it.


1) That is not how the document applies DMCA abuse to patent rights masquerading as copy-rights when applied to technology, at all! Read the document!
2) Psystar does not copy OS X, it sells legit OS X that Apple sold to them. Did Apple cut off sales of OS X to Psystar when they announced they would sell their own hardware with OS X? Not at all!
3) Psystar does not circumvent DMCA, it runs OS X on PC clones, similar to the PC clones Apple manufactures.
4) Apple enforces its "rights" by EULA only, this DMCA nonsense is a late addition and a desperation move by Apple to muddy the waters, knowing it can't win the EULA case.
5) The fact that Apple let Psystar go on so long selling OS X for them will stand heavily against Apple in any test of the legality of the EULA and any other asserted rights.
6) Psystar merely wishes to take advantage of the same 'competitive advantage' Apple uses with Windows.




1) I read the document and it reads as foolish as the whole countersuit process has from the beginning. I believe they're still hoping Apple will simply buy them out to shut them up. The problem with that outcome is that would lay Apple and anyone else open to con artists playing the same game ad infinitum.

2) Actually, they do. The copy of OS X you receive with your PC is an unopened box, which clearly means that the version on the hard drive is an illegally-copied-and-modified one that even Psystar admits is modified to run on their hardware--requiring any updating to be done through Psystar's servers because Apple's Software Update could easily 'brick' your machine.

3) Again, they do. By building their machines and installing OS X on those machines for resale, they eliminate themselves as the 'End User' and, as in 2) above, clearly breach copyright law.

4) No. The EULA is the license by which the End User is permitted to use the software--of which Psystar is neither an End User nor a Licensed Reseller and as such breaking copyright law as well as the EULA. In essence, the Psystar computers are equivalent to the street-corner Rolex vendor selling counterfeits to anyone who will buy. The only thing keeping them from being true counterfeits is the fact that they look nothing like a genuine Apple computer.

5) Not really. First, Apple had to be able to prove that Psystar was operating counter to existant laws and secondly that they intended to continue despite the controversy surrounding the initial announcements. Had Psystar folded due to costs and poor management, Apple would have needed do nothing beyond monitoring the situation. As it was, bringing out their lawsuit in only four months was very fast action in our current legal system.

6) "Competitive Advantage?" Psystar was clearly trying to build their business off of Apple's good reputation and name, regardless of what effect their relatively poor product would have on that same name and reputation. This is not competitive, but rather parasitic; leeching Apple's relatively slim market while hopefully growing fat on Apple's name and the OS's ease of use. As for their 'generic hardware,' it's been proven that even Windows doesn't run natively on their hardware any better than OS X does. This hardly make a claim for being 'generic.'

[mcnallym]

I doubt very much that Apple is selling to Psystar. I would imagine they are getting from an Apple Reseller, who hopefully for them doesn't know that it is Psystar buying it.

Apple can't be abusing there monoply as even Psystar themselves have said that it competes with Linux and Windows, which is why they are offered as alternatives to OSX on there machines.

If Apple competing with Linux and Windows, how can Apple have a monopoly.

If only looking at the OSX market then it is the same as saying that Coca-Cola has a monopoly on Coke and must allow other people to sell Coke as well. The fact that Coke competes with Pepsi and various other carbonated drinks means that Coca-Cola do not have a monopoly in there market area.

Apple competes in the PC area which also covers Linux/Unix and Windows, also Solaris etc. Therefore no monopoly exists.

[gnasher729]

2) Actually, they do. The copy of OS X you receive with your PC is an unopened box, which clearly means that the version on the hard drive is an illegally-copied-and-modified one that even Psystar admits is modified to run on their hardware--requiring any updating to be done through Psystar's servers because Apple's Software Update could easily 'brick' your machine.

Is that true? If Psystar sells a computer with MacOS X installed _plus_ an unopened, original MacOS X retail box, and they haven't paid for two boxes, then what they are doing is clear copyright infringement.

Both Apple's EULA and copyright law allow you to install the software from _one_ box in _one_ place (the EULA is a bit more specific about which place). Copyright law doesn't allow you to install the same software in _two_ places unless you have specific permission from the copyright holder (like when you buy a MacOS X family pack). If you do that then all discussions about validity of EULAs are pointless because you are committing copyright infringement, whether the EULA is valid or not.

In the end, Psystar's new counterclaims are just a laugh. Since Apple accused them of DMCA violation, they have to be very, very careful not to make any claims that Apple has any "effective copy protection" in MacOS X. So they argue how evil Apple prevents MacOS X from running on processors that Apple doesn't use (lying through their teeth that there is no good reason to do so), and that this prevents them from copying MacOS X, but at the same time it is no copy protection!

(Why did I say "lying through their teeth"? It is common sense that Apple doesn't test MacOS X on machines that it isn't supposed to run on. And it is common sense that you don't allow an OS to run on a machine that it is not tested on, because there could be all kinds of obscure bugs and possible product liability).

[Joe The Dragon]

Is that true? If Psystar sells a computer with MacOS X installed _plus_ an unopened, original MacOS X retail box, and they haven't paid for two boxes, then what they are doing is clear copyright infringement.



It not 2 copy's the box just is the install disk. Dell and others drop images on there systems they don't install windows by hand and some times need to add drivers / updates to install disk for to even install. It's same as some useing a custom XP disk with SP3 + the driver pack and keep the OEM / boxed disk unopened. You are still useing 1 copy on that system not 2 and anyway it has been payed for as you have the box.

[pdjudd]

It not 2 copy's the box just is the install disk. Dell and others drop images on there systems they don't install windows by hand and some times need to add drivers / updates to install disk for to even install. It's same as some useing a custom XP disk with SP3 + the driver pack and keep the OEM / boxed disk unopened. You are still useing 1 copy on that system not 2 and anyway it has been payed for as you have the box.

Again, you cannot compare how Dell resells OSX because they have an explicit OEM agreement with Microsoft that allows that. Apple does not license it's operating system to anybody as an install option on any system.

They two situations are completely different.

[matticus008]

3) Again, they do. By building their machines and installing OS X on those machines for resale, they eliminate themselves as the 'End User'
It does not matter. Apple's license is not an end user license, nor does "end user" have any specific meaning other than that given to it by a particular license agreement. It is an utterly pointless thing to quibble over.

Violation of a license agreement is copyright infringement in every case where access to the copyrighted work is granted solely by license, because termination of a license right means that you are no longer authorized to exercise it, unless you have an independent source of authority. This includes all rights to use, other than sensory, any copyrighted work fixed in a copy.

People seem to struggle with the idea of a copy being distinct from the copyrighted work. Nothing about the purchase of a disc gives you any right to reproduce its contents onto your hard drive. 17 USC 202 is fairly straightforward as the Copyright Act goes. An SLA is not merely a contract; the license grant and restrictions portion does not curtail any preexisting right--you have no right by purchase alone to make unauthorized use of the copyrighted work embodied in that purchase. You must both be authorized to have possession and be authorized to reproduce the software onto your hard drive.

The only way to obtain those rights is by license or, more commonly, license agreement, either open source or proprietary.
4) No. The EULA is the license by which the End User is permitted to use the software--of which Psystar is neither an End User nor a Licensed Reseller
Apple's license refers to users. Any and all users. There is no EULA.
It's same as some useing a custom XP disk with SP3 + the driver pack and keep the OEM / boxed disk unopened. You are still useing 1 copy on that system not 2 and anyway it has been payed for as you have the box.
Well, no, it's not the same at all, because the images used by OEMs are licensed. A company using unlicensed and/or modified software without permission is engaging in copyright infringement, regardless of whether or not they also paid for a set of retail packaged discs and tossed them into the box.

[gnasher729]

It not 2 copy's the box just is the install disk. Dell and others drop images on there systems they don't install windows by hand and some times need to add drivers / updates to install disk for to even install. It's same as some useing a custom XP disk with SP3 + the driver pack and keep the OEM / boxed disk unopened. You are still useing 1 copy on that system not 2 and anyway it has been payed for as you have the box.

Now which one is it? One poster claimed that Psystar customers receive a computer with MacOS X installed and an unopened Leopard retail box, you claim that Psystar customers receive a computer with MacOS X installed, plus an install DVD, presumably taken from a Leopard retail box.

I hope you can see the difference: If a customer receives an unopened retail box, then the copy on the computer is _not_ coming from that unopened box, so it comes from somewhere else, so to have any chance of being legal, Psystar would have to pay for two copies.

Now if you had say 10 Macs at your company, and you buy 10 retail boxes with Leopard to upgrade them, and instead of opening each box and installing each DVD on one Mac someone opens one box and installs the same DVD on ten Macs and puts one opened and nine unopened boxes on the shelf then no harm is done (however, it is technically illegal and companies have been forced to pay lots of money for fines because their computers had software with identical serial numbers, even though they had unopened boxes). But in this case, every Psystar customer who received an unopened retail box could then easily go and sell it on eBay to reduce their total cost (which is after all the point in buying a Psystar computer).

It does not matter. Apple's license is not an end user license, nor does "end user" have any specific meaning other than that given to it by a particular license agreement. It is an utterly pointless thing to quibble over.

I would compare it to being stopped by the police for driving too fast, and then you say "You see, officer, I don't have a driving license, so the speed limit doesn't apply to me. It only applies to people with driving licenses". If Psystar were to claim that Apple's license, whatever it is called, doesn't apply to them, then they would have no permission to make any copies of the software at all.

[stanton]

I was reading through ZDNet, and someone actually posted a relevant arguement for Psystar. Here's the wikipedia article on the subject: DR-DOS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DR-DOS#The_Microsoft_lawsuit)

This case never actually went to court, so you can't really argue that it will help them out any, but Microsoft did settle out of court so MS could have thought they had a point.

Basically, it's relevant in that Apple uses EFI developed by Intel to copyprotect OSX from third party hardware. Psystar uses EFIv8 to bypass this protection method, which is actually developed from Apple's own OpenSource website. Apple's EFI was once listed as OpenSource code on their own website and licensed as such. So in the same way, Caldera used DR-DOS to replace the MS-DOS in Windows 95, Psystar uses OpenSource EFIv8 to replace Apple's newest implementation of EFI on the OSX system. I wouldn't call this a DMCA violation, but it still does break the EULA.

[gnasher729]

I was reading through ZDNet, and someone actually posted a relevant arguement for Psystar. Here's the wikipedia article on the subject: DR-DOS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DR-DOS#The_Microsoft_lawsuit)

This case never actually went to court, so you can't really argue that it will help them out any, but Microsoft did settle out of court so MS could have thought they had a point.

Basically, it's relevant in that Apple uses EFI developed by Intel to copyprotect OSX from third party hardware. Psystar uses EFIv8 to bypass this protection method, which is actually developed from Apple's own OpenSource website. Apple's EFI was once listed as OpenSource code on their own website and licensed as such. So in the same way, Caldera used DR-DOS to replace the MS-DOS in Windows 95, Psystar uses OpenSource EFIv8 to replace Apple's newest implementation of EFI on the OSX system. I wouldn't call this a DMCA violation, but it still does break the EULA.

You are mistaken. Apple doesn't use EFI as a copy protection mechanism. There is one chip in every Macintosh that contains a 64 bit number that is needed to decode important parts of the operating system at runtime. Not too hard to crack, very unlikely to cause any trouble for customers, but effective in the sense of the DMCA.

[stanton]

Apple doesn't use EFI as a copy protection mechanism.
Strange something most have changed then, since a Vanilla installation of OSX means using an unmodified kernel and Apple's disk. Here's the Wiki link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSx86#EFI_emulation)
They do say in the article that parts are non-OpenSource, but the Darwin EFI was OpenSource at one time, so perhaps they are suggesting reverse engineering the newer versions of Apple's EFI is the sticky point since it isn't OpenSource any longer.

[IJ Reilly]

The Caldera case really doesn't apply here. DR DOS was competing on the IBM-PC hardware platform with MS-DOS. In this lawsuit, Caldera was complaining that Microsoft designed Windows (3.1 and then 95) in such a way as to artificially squeeze DR DOS out of competition. The relevant market was PC hardware. Microsoft was creating barriers to competition on the PC platform by making it appear (at first, with Windows 3.1) as though a person could not run Windows on top of DR DOS, then with Windows 95, combining MS-DOS with Windows so that the market for DR DOS would be eliminated.

[gnasher729]

Strange something most have changed then, since a Vanilla installation of OSX means using an unmodified kernel and Apple's disk. Here's the Wiki link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSx86#EFI_emulation)
They do say in the article that parts are non-OpenSource, but the Darwin EFI was OpenSource at one time, so perhaps they are suggesting reverse engineering the newer versions of Apple's EFI is the sticky point since it isn't OpenSource any longer.

I don't understand a word of what you are saying. Please explain to us how Apple uses EFI as a copy protection mechanism, if that is what you think they are doing.

Or you can have a look at this article http://www.osxbook.com/book/bonus/chapter7/tpmdrmmyth/ which explains in very simple terms exactly what DRM mechanism Apple is actually using.

[stanton]

The Caldera case really doesn't apply here. DR DOS was competing on the IBM-PC hardware platform with MS-DOS. In this lawsuit, Caldera was complaining that Microsoft designed Windows (3.1 and then 95) in such a way as to artificially squeeze DR DOS out of competition. The relevant market was PC hardware. Microsoft was creating barriers to competition on the PC platform by making it appear (at first, with Windows 3.1) as though a person could not run Windows on top of DR DOS, then with Windows 95, combining MS-DOS with Windows so that the market for DR DOS would be eliminated.

Apple is forcing people to use Apple's EFI instead of the open source EFI Netkas developed thus squeezing people out of the market of running OSX on Apple branded computers only, because of the EULA. (Not arguing that point actually.) My point was the DMCA argument that Apple is pursuing now might not have a basis. The thing is that the Caldera case never went to trial, so there still isn't a precedent that they could use in court.;)

[Sun Baked]

I was reading through ZDNet, and someone actually posted a relevant arguement for Psystar. Here's the wikipedia article on the subject: DR-DOS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DR-DOS#The_Microsoft_lawsuit)

Psystar actually used the DR-DOS defense in their monopoly claim and answer to Apple's complaint, being that Apple was inserting error messages on machines fully capable of running their OS.

Psystar just neglected to say that the error messages were simply due to the lack of drivers for those machines, so Apple is inserting those error messages due to their neglect to fully spend millions writing drivers for EULA violators.

[gnasher729]

Apple is forcing people to use Apple's EFI instead of the open source EFI Netkas developed thus squeezing people out of the market of running OSX on Apple branded computers only, because of the EULA. (Not arguing that point actually.) My point was the DMCA argument that Apple is pursuing now might not have a basis. The thing is that the Caldera case never went to trial, so there still isn't a precedent that they could use in court.;)

The DMCA argument has an excellent basis, because you are just following a red herring. No, EFI is not a copyright protection mechanism. Apple's DRM has been well documented by Amit Singh (author of "MacOS X Internals: A System Approach"). And it has nothing to do with EFI whatsoever. It also has nothing to do with the mythical TMP chip that Macs are supposed to have. It is a 64 bit key in the SCM chip that is used to decode essential parts of MacOS X.

[stanton]

The DMCA argument has an excellent basis, because you are just following a red herring. No, EFI is not a copyright protection mechanism. Apple's DRM has been well documented by Amit Singh (author of "MacOS X Internals: A System Approach"). And it has nothing to do with EFI whatsoever.

I PM'd you to not embarrass you. From the article you cited:
Nevertheless, it is important to note that Apple does not use the TPM.
After all, Apple was somehow tying Mac OS X to their own hardware; and the early x86 Macs did have onboard TPMs. Some people concluded—incorrectly so—that the TPM must be involved.
If you actually read how to install OSx86 on non Apple hardware, you would realize the (Darwin Bootloader) Apple's EFI code is responsible for copyright protection. Like I said in the PM most people don't do this manually, though being an engineer interested in the differences between OSX and FreeBSD, I did follow a step by step tutorial on how this was done back in the Tiger days when I upgraded an older Mac G5, and purchased a legit copy of OSX for it. Please read the articles that you forward to the list before posting.
_______________________________________________________________
If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can solve them.
Isaac Asimov (1920 - 1992)

[IJ Reilly]

Apple is forcing people to use Apple's EFI instead of the open source EFI Netkas developed thus squeezing people out of the market of running OSX on Apple branded computers only, because of the EULA. (Not arguing that point actually.) My point was the DMCA argument that Apple is pursuing now might not have a basis. The thing is that the Caldera case never went to trial, so there still isn't a precedent that they could use in court.;)

Not sure if you're joking here but the fact that the Caldera case was settled out of court doesn't really have much of a bearing on this. Caldera brought a pretty straight-forward complaint to court on the basis of antitrust laws which Microsoft had quite obviously violated.

[stanton]

Not sure if you're joking here but the fact that the Caldera case was settled out of court doesn't really have much of a bearing on this. Caldera brought a pretty straight-forward complaint to court on the basis of antitrust laws which Microsoft had quite obviously violated.
So tying two programs together now is strictly anti-trust. Microsoft developed MS-DOS and Microsoft developed Windows, but by putting in a code that the Windows GUI would only run on MS-DOS is now anti-trust. DR-DOS could have developed their own GUI to overlap the OS that they created, much like Apple did with the Classic OS? I guess Microsoft wanted to control the environment (MS-DOS) that Windows ran on thus improving system performance, as you guys have stated that Apple is doing with their Hardware. You guys are contradicting yourselves if tying in your own market isn't anti-trust. I'm not however saying that violating the EULA isn't against the rights of Apple to get people to voluntarily use the OSX strictly on Apple's hardware.

[IJ Reilly]

So tying two programs together now is strictly anti-trust. Microsoft developed MS-DOS and Microsoft developed Windows, but by putting in a code that the Windows GUI would only run on MS-DOS is now anti-trust. DR-DOS could have developed their own GUI to overlap the OS that they created, much like Apple did with the Classic OS? I guess Microsoft wanted to control the environment (MS-DOS) that Windows ran on thus improving system performance, as you guys have stated that Apple is doing with their Hardware. You guys are contradicting yourselves if tying in your own market isn't anti-trust. I'm not however saying that violating the EULA isn't against the rights of Apple to get people to voluntarily use the OSX strictly on Apple's hardware.

No, not in the least. Making findings of antitrust law violations requires properly defining the market, finding that one player exerts market power in that market, and finally a demonstration that they are abusing that market power to restrain trade. The defined market in Microsoft's case was for PC hardware, not DOS, not Windows. This is the market over which Microsoft exerted market power, and abused that power. Using tying and leverage under those predefined circumstances can be a violation of antitrust laws, but not otherwise.

In Caldera's case it was fairly easy to show that Microsoft was using its dominant market share in the PC market to prevent competitors from gaining or maintaining a foothold in that market. Bill Gates even said in e-mails (which were part the public court record) that they needed to eliminate DR DOS as a competitor so they could charge more for MS-DOS. They set about doing just that by a variety of means which would have been unavailable to a company lacking market power. It was a classic case of abuse of market power, of the type which the laws were written to prevent -- which is why Microsoft settled out of court.

[gnasher729]

I PM'd you to not embarrass you. From the article you cited:
Nevertheless, it is important to note that Apple does not use the TPM.
After all, Apple was somehow tying Mac OS X to their own hardware; and the early x86 Macs did have onboard TPMs. Some people concluded—incorrectly so—that the TPM must be involved.
If you actually read how to install OSx86 on non Apple hardware, you would realize the (Darwin Bootloader) Apple's EFI code is responsible for copyright protection. Like I said in the PM most people don't do this manually, though being an engineer interested in the differences between OSX and FreeBSD, I did follow a step by step tutorial on how this was done back in the Tiger days when I upgraded an older Mac G5, and purchased a legit copy of OSX for it. Please read the articles that you forward to the list before posting.

You don't make much sense, as usual. You quoted the part of Amit Singh's article where he says what Apple does _not_ use for copy protection, then you leave out the part where he says _what_ Apple uses (the SCM module containing a key to decode several encrypted libraries).

But, if you are right, and to quote you "Apple's EFI code is responsible for copyright protection", then replacing that EFI with one that doesn't include the copyright protection would be a way to circumvent an effective copy protection and therefore a DMCA violation.

In its amended counterclaims, Psystar claims that Apple prevents MacOS X from working on non-Apple computers, as if that was something evil. They have to be very, very careful not to make this sound like an effective copy protection method because of Apple's DMCA accusations. That makes a very difficult argument. If there is an innocent incompatibility, that is Psystar's problem. If it is intentional and prevents copying, how can they argue it is not an effective copy protection method?

[IJ Reilly]

Yup, Psystar is trying to perform a high-wire act without a net. And without a wire.

[Sun Baked]

Yup, Psystar is trying to perform a high-wire act without a net. And without a wire.

Well they are doing the act, just blaming Apple preventing them from using the net and the wire.

At least they cannot lose the house, unless they mortgaged it for the lawyers, unless Apple files a criminal complaint.

I almost think they should, just so they can take the house.

[FRG House]

Windows systems are cheaper, and are terrible.

Apple systems are better and more expensive.

Do you really not see the correlation? You get what you pay for!

Im not sure if that is true or not.
We have several macs. Our latest is the Intel iMac.
I have always been told all the problems on a PC was only the operating system.
I thought about maybe trying out one of the Psystar computers to give it a go during use on Final Cut Studio.
They all have the same graphics cards and ram from what I can see. They all have the same processors as well. After all I am needing a blu-ray burner for Final Cut Studio and my macs. Apple just wont give us what we want.
Im thinking why not. Its only going to cost me $2580 for everything I want.
Im sitting on the fence for this one.
Big deal that there not as pretty as a real mac. Just think about it. Its all in the operating system. If it would not fly, then why is Apple spending money on court cases?
Hmm!

[Sehnsucht]

............MS is releasing windows 7 that will most likely bring those masses back (not a MS fan).............

In my very, very, very humble opinion, saying Windows 7 will bring switchers back to Micro$oft is sorta like saying USB 3.0 will make FireWire obsolete. ;) :D I myself am a "switcher" and the only way I'd quit the Mac platform is if an angry mob of Apple employees came to my house, took me prisoner, and tortured and killed my family. ;) lol

[Sehnsucht]

Just think about it. Its all in the operating system. If it would not fly, then why is Apple spending money on court cases?
Hmm!

:D The reason Apple maintains tight control over its hardware/software is simple. Other users have already pointed out that Apple probably doesn't feel like writing and updating 5,000,000,000,000 drivers for a myriad of different pieces of hardware that would be used if the OS was licensed to everyone and their uncle. Not to mention putting up with the thousands of whiny phone calls from people trying to install Leopard on an incompatible system. They want to make sure everything always works correctly, and writing their OS to run only on their own hardware is definitely the way to do it. The premium they charge for their systems is really to keep out the riffraff. :D ;)

[Joe The Dragon]

:D The reason Apple maintains tight control over its hardware/software is simple. Other users have already pointed out that Apple probably doesn't feel like writing and updating 5,000,000,000,000 drivers for a myriad of different pieces of hardware that would be used if the OS was licensed to everyone and their uncle. Not to mention putting up with the thousands of whiny phone calls from people trying to install Leopard on an incompatible system. They want to make sure everything always works correctly, and writing their OS to run only on their own hardware is definitely the way to do it. The premium they charge for their systems is really to keep out the riffraff. :D ;)

ATI and NVIDAI can write there own video drivers as well as chipset ones.

[Quad_Pro]

I personally can't stand Pyster. I think their name speaks a million words for there so called wannabie computer company. Pysters day in court is soon to come and I have that sixth sense that the verdict the judge finally reads out won't be what Pyster is praying for.

My two cents. :apple: