Judge Dismisses Psystar's Anti-Trust Counterclaim Against Apple

[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?). 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?). 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.

-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.