Apple Suggests Possible Conspiracy Behind Psystar

BaldiMac said:
What inaccurate statement did I make?
Click to expand...
I did not mean to imply that you made an inaccurate statement. I apologize if I implied that, but I was intending to imply a general usage of inaccurate statements and not one that you would have made (and I am not saying that you were making any).

Again, apologies for any miscommunication.
 
pdjudd said:
I did not mean to imply that you made an inaccurate statement. I apologize if I implied that, but I was intending to imply a general usage of inaccurate statements and not one that you would have made (and I am not saying that you were making any).

Again, apologies for any miscommunication.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the clarification. When you respond to a question in my comment and use the word "you", I assumed you were talking directly to me, rather than in generalities. :)
 
BaldiMac said:
Thanks for the clarification. When you respond to a question in my comment and use the word "you", I assumed you were talking directly to me, rather than in generalities. :)
Click to expand...

Its a usual habit for me when I mean "general you" to use (g)you. I obviously have been loosing that habit. :D
 
greenmeanie said:
If people can play the Monopoly card on Microsoft why not Apple?
Click to expand...

Seriously!?!?

It says your a regular so I would think you have been around for at least one of the times this has been gone over. I am just a noob and could probably recite the reasons verbatim.
 
this was probably already mentioned somewhere in the previous 400 comments, but i would suspect Dell before Microsoft... in fact, i wouldn't even suspect Microsoft...
 
Darkroom said:
this was probably already mentioned somewhere in the previous 400 comments, but i would suspect Dell before Microsoft... in fact, i wouldn't even suspect Microsoft...
Click to expand...

You're right. Microsoft will lose big time of Psystar wins. If Psystar wins, people will be installing OS X on their Dells and not opting for Windows. Therefore, Microsoft will lose sales.
 
greenmeanie said:
If people can play the Monopoly card on Microsoft why not Apple?
Click to expand...
Because Apple does not presently have a monopoly. A monopoly is defined as existing when there is "no viable alternative" to a company's products. With Apple, there is a viable alternative. You could use OSx86, or you could use Microsoft Windows, or Linux. Microsoft was judged a monopoly because of the way it tried to shut down competition from Netscape. For a time, there was little real alternative to Internet Explorer.
 
kas23 said:
You're right. Microsoft will lose big time of Psystar wins. If Psystar wins, people will be installing OS X on their Dells and not opting for Windows. Therefore, Microsoft will lose sales.
Click to expand...
The amount of sales Microsoft would lose form this would be so small, it wouldn't make a difference at all to Microsoft. Do you really think the average computer user is going to take the time to learn about OSx86, install it and then fiddle with all the drivers to get it working properly? It's probably harder to install than a Linux distro like Slackware.
 
kas23 said:
You're right. Microsoft will lose big time of Psystar wins. If Psystar wins, people will be installing OS X on their Dells and not opting for Windows. Therefore, Microsoft will lose sales.
Click to expand...

Correct. Microsoft makes tons of money on its OEM relationships with Dell, HP, etc. These companies go with Microsoft since they are they only real mainstream operating system that they can use to drive sales of their hardware. Many companies have pined for the days of an alternative (linux doesn't count - most of the OEM's have accepted long ago that people will not move to linux in droves) so that at the bare minimum, they can better negociate with Microsoft on their pricing. As it stands right now, its either Microsoft or nothing and having nothing doesn't sell much hardware. Microsoft knows this and isn't going to change that pattern willingly.
 
Quillz said:
The amount of sales Microsoft would lose form this would be so small, it wouldn't make a difference at all to Microsoft. Do you really think the average computer user is going to take the time to learn about OSx86, install it and then fiddle with all the drivers to get it working properly? It's probably harder to install than a Linux distro like Slackware.
Click to expand...

Not if the OEM does all the work and can do it legally. Not saying that will happen of course.
 
pdjudd said:
Not if the OEM does all the work and can do it legally. Not saying that will happen of course.
Click to expand...
The majority of the world uses windows, that's all they know, if other manufacturers start to offer OSX, they wouldn't just start switching in droves, because it's something new to them. This is why I don't think it would be good for Apple and it probably wouldn't hurt Microsoft too much.
 
PVguy said:
You can too resell the software you purchased, even by apple's license terms.
Click to expand...

Except those terms specifically state (and I quote from your post) "(c) the party receiving the Apple Software reads and agrees to accept the terms and conditions of this License."

Note that one of the conditions of the Apple license is that the software be installed only on Apple-branded machines.
 
ogbuke said:
The majority of the world uses windows, that's all they know, if other manufacturers start to offer OSX, they wouldn't just start switching in droves, because it's something new to them. This is why I don't think it would be good for Apple and it probably wouldn't hurt Microsoft too much.
Click to expand...

Except for the fact that several major OEM's like Dell and HP have shown their desire in the past to resell OSX (through showing disdain for Microsoft) if it was allowed to. I am not saying that they will dump Windows entirely and I don't think that anybody is seriously suggesting that. However, it would be bad for Microsoft if its once guarenteed revinue stream is reduced. I honestly don't know how much it would be, but I would argue that Microsoft doesn't want that to happen at all. They don't care that Apple sells it's own computers - if users want to run Windows, they have to pay full price on them. A more diverse hardware range for Macs means less opportunies for a sale.

Remember, most people gets Windows by default - Microsoft wants it to remain that way as much as possible. I also do not think they would support a company that distributes Linux on their hardware either. Also we can't forget that Apple and Microsoft have a heathth partnership thats bennefial to the both of them - the last time Apple went downhill, MS was in deep anti-trust issues. Why would Microsoft repeat that history?
 
pdjudd said:
Correct. Many companies have pined for the days of an alternative (linux doesn't count - most of the OEM's have accepted long ago that people will not move to linux in droves) so that at the bare minimum, they can better negotiate with Microsoft on their pricing.
Click to expand...

Hmmm...I didn't give much credence to this rumor before, but you've got me thinking that one of the OEMs might have been ballsy enough to contract with some tech geeks to open up OSX so they could reduce their licensing overhead. Dell/HP have a lot to lose if this backfires so I'd bet money on a 2nd tier PC maker or foreign rival trying to break into the big boys' market. Successfully being the first to offer OSX on their machines would give them a competitive advantage for a short while and allow them to put pressure on M$.

I wonder who the mystery OEM will be...
 
PDXoPDX said:
Hmmm...I didn't give much credence to this rumor before, but you've got me thinking that one of the OEMs might have been ballsy enough to contract with some tech geeks to open up OSX so they could reduce their licensing overhead. Dell/HP have a lot to lose if this backfires so I'd bet money on a 2nd tier PC maker or foreign rival trying to break into the big boys' market. Successfully being the first to offer OSX on their machines would give them a competitive advantage for a short while and allow them to put pressure on M$.

I wonder who the mystery OEM will be...
Click to expand...

Correct, those who think that Dell and HP are behind this, so they can sell unauthorized OSX machines using Psystar's hack really don't have a clue how things work. Neither corporations nor retail customers are going to buy a machine without support, especially if the operating system install is based on a hack to trick the OS into thinking its running EFI instead of windows. Business and education contracts in particular require full support. They would have nothing to gain unless the judge ordered Apple that they would have to license the OS to others.

If they want to know who's paying the legal fees, I'd advise they look at the law firm representing Psystar. In high profile cases, laws firms occasionally make arrangements to be paid part of the settlement if their client wins or just take the case pro bono as to build up their notoriety in order to attract high profile clients to their firm.
 
Who cares.....

Who cares. Apple are just another corprate ratty business.

Tell you what though. If psystar, or whatever their called win. it'll open the market for osx and i say good. What i find annoying is that the mac support (due to the intel cpu) xp yet pc are unable to run osx natively. This si because of a little chip on apples motherboard (read documents if you don't believe me)

I find it annoying that i gotta pay extra just to run a bloody os that i like.

I'm no true fan of apple, infact, put it this way....
I'm not a fan of any company. The way i see it, if it works, buy it if it's too expensive and not worth it then don't bother with it.

IF apple were forced to release OS X on to pc i'd go back to pc,purely because i'd be able to use hardware i WANt to use not what apple want me to use and don't go on about hardware problems. Windows users are already use to this.

Get the **** over yourselfs. So what if apple loose market share, i don't think they will. I assume the market share would gorw due to the fact os xwould be on more computers this way. Apple are selfish pricks, allowing xp on mac yet not alolowing osx on a pc. **** this and **** apple.
 
IronRoses said:
Who cares. Apple are just another corprate ratty business.

Tell you what though. If psystar, or whatever their called win. it'll open the market for osx and i say good. What i find annoying is that the mac support (due to the intel cpu) xp yet pc are unable to run osx natively. This si because of a little chip on apples motherboard (read documents if you don't believe me)

I find it annoying that i gotta pay extra just to run a bloody os that i like.
Click to expand...

Well, ignoring the crap that is the rest of your post.

I thought it was that pc's use bios, while macs use EFI.
 
Quillz said:
Because Apple does not presently have a monopoly. A monopoly is defined as existing when there is "no viable alternative" to a company's products. With Apple, there is a viable alternative. You could use OSx86, or you could use Microsoft Windows, or Linux. Microsoft was judged a monopoly because of the way it tried to shut down competition from Netscape. For a time, there was little real alternative to Internet Explorer.
Click to expand...

Apparently the XM/Sirius merger would have created a monopoly as well, yet there are thousands of free radio stations all around the country that you do not need to pay for. So if you can potentially have a monopoly in subscriber radio which has a small share of all radio market share then you can potentially have a monopoly with Apple in the OSX market.

Just saying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Back
Top