Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Mac OS X 10.6.2 Confirmed to Drop Support for Intel Atom Processors
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
you don't have anything either do you to suggest otherwise. Software licensing has been under scrutiny for many years, EULA's such as the one Apple ships with MacOSX clearly breach EU competition law.
Look, her's how arguments and debates work. When you make a claim you either back it up or retract it. I made no claim of anything. Do not put the onus on me.
What compaq did was legal since they used none of IBM's code - they used their own code to accomplish the same task - to load MS-DOS which they did indeed legally license from Microsoft.
And before you ask. My Cite:
Psystar has done none of this since they have not licenced any part of OSX legally.
I don't think you know what that means...I am not accusing you of anything. I am asking for citation. Either you put up or shut up. I make no claim of the Legality of Apple's ULA other than asserting that unless it has been struck down as invalid in a court of law, contacts are presumed valid. I can't do it right at this moment but if you really want to try my patience and call me I can cite you many instances where EULA's have been held as valid by high courts.
But I did not claim that Apple's EULA is valid - I do believe it is, but thats for a court to decide. You make a claim that should be easy to prove, yet you prove nothing. I am calling you on it.
By the way, here is dome information on contract law. Specifically:
and
Emphasis mine
And just for laughs:
Apple's business practices in Tying its hardware and software were already ruled to be legal last year by Judge Allsup. That means Apples EULA has to be voided in court in order for it to be an illegal contact. It hasn't. Until this is, its considered legal. Unless you can provide any evidence to back up your claim that you made earlier.
Guess what. You bluff and you were wrong.
ETA: Here is another link on contracts with another cite!.. So there you go. Several cites which back up a claim that I never made in the first place. Do me a favor digest all that (I can wait) and then provide me with your cite. If you cannot than we must assume that you have none. No more redirecting your claims. Put up or shut up.
Well if you cannot or do not agree to the licencing terms, you have to copy the software to make a hackintosh. That's infringement.
If you so not agree to the license, you have no rights to the media outside of owning a box and a disc. Interoperability doesn;t even apply here.
According to Wiki:
You loose right from the first part, you decline the license so you cannot de-compile it. Second fails because we are talking about compatibility with hardware and not software. Third also kinda fails since the process is to circumvent booting restrictions via hardware. There is a lot of burden of proof that Psystar or any hackintosher has to prove for this to be true. Of course you cannot disseminate any of this decompiling anyway.
Remember the intent of hackintoshing in the end is to defy a legal business practice - bundling of hardware and software. I doubt fair use applies here.
Reverse engineering allows for programs like XpostFacto to be completely legal since its intention is just to expand the system requirements - It doesn’t violate the OSX license in any way, its software on software, and it is limited to one task - interoperability of legal software. Apple’s SLA specicially forbids reverse engineering too. Hackintoshing is very different. The key is that Apple’s SLA was violated - the SLA prerequisites a Mac.
Additionally Apple deals specifically with this claim in its briefs which I quote:
All Bolds mine
Here is Section 1201 that they reference in the previous quote. Thats the specific legal exemption you cite. I see nothing there that permits you to violate Apples SLA which you have to do.
Yes, you are. I haven't tried the 17" but I presently have 2 MBA's, 13" MBP and a unibody 15" MBP in use. The only one getting battery time close to specs is the 15" MBP. I haven't heard of too many complaints of 17" batteries.
The 13" is running a SSD too so it should in theory get better battery life.
Oh ..... and I'm sure that you bought the $169 full version and not the $29 upgrade version. LMAO
Ask yourself this; is any of the netbook makers making any money? Why do you think they ALL use the Atom processor have 1 GB RAM and 160 GB HDD? Because there is ZERO profit margin in these things! If netbooks were to really take off they would probably put a lot of OEM PC makers and maybe Microsoft itself out of business. Apple is smart to stay out of this market. TI once sold the TI 99/4A that used a huge 16-bit processor until the CEO asked "Why are we selling a computer that loses money for every one we sell?" He was told they would make up the loss in software sales, like Gillette giving away the razor and selling the blades. TI quickly found out they couldn't produce software cheap enough or fast enough to stop the red ink and dumped the whole inventory at Fed Mart for $79. I actually bought one at that price. The processor itself cost nearly $1,000.
TI-99/4A rocked. I had two (one I bought for $79 for spare parts). Expansion box, speech synthesizer, disk drive, etc. Even had Microsoft multiplan and word.
Apple doesn't have to enter that market, but that doesn't mean it has to treat its users with complete disrespect for their own personal needs either. If you NEED one of these computers, you need one. It's that simple. Apple could still make money selling or licensing OSX to be used on such hardware. They would take none of the risk/low profit margins and yet still increase OSX sales and the OSX user base, thus increasing the market for more Apple products (particularly software ones) in the future.
But NO, Apple doesn't like that idea anymore than they like people buying cheaper, more reliable, higher powered hardware and then hacking it to run OSX. Why? Because they WANT TO FORCE YOU to buy overpriced hardware so they can make more money off you. They would rather lose you as a customer forever than only make a small profit from you by selling you the operating system, etc. This is because Apple is purely a hardware company that uses its software to simply shall we say "encourage" you to buy THEIR hardware instead of something more reasonably priced. They couldn't care less about the software they sell other than to use it to push hardware. There's only one problem with that concept. It's called "tying" and it's illegal under the Clayton Anti-Trust Act. It destroys ALL competition for their hardware segments (i.e. if you want to run OSX, you are FORCED to buy Apple's hardware whether you like it or not and whether the hardware suits your needs or not because they won't let anyone other hardware use their software). Apple took this one step further with the iPhone and iPod Touch by not only being the ONLY supplier of software for that hardware, but raking 30% of the sales off the top for all developers who have ZERO CHOICE but to take it or leave it. Yet people INSIST this is NOT a "monopoly" because they can go buy a Texas Instrument calculator instead if they don't like it. That is a total load of horse manure. Imagine if you could only buy Mac software from Apple who then took 30% of the sales off the top. NO ONE would stand for that. But it's okay if it's on a smaller mobile computer that runs OSX? Give me a freaking break. Only Apple zealots find that acceptable PERIOD.
Frankly, it's high time the regulators in this country did something about Apple. They've ignored them in the past because they've been considered too small to matter. But Apple is now a MAJOR player in the smart phone market, by FAR the largest player in the portable digital music player market (used to be almost the only player there) and they have more cash reserves than Saudi Arabia and China combined on-hand (ok slight exaggeration). They're one of the few companies to actually prosper in a recession and this is 100% due to them having ZERO competition (unless you count Psystar whom they immediately sued) for any hardware for OSX and ZERO competition for any software sourcing for the iPhone and iPod Touch runnign OSX. It's utterly RIDICULOUS that they are allowed to get away with it too. The consumer LOSES BIG TIME. Again, only an Apple "fan boy" fanatical zealot would argue that it's OK that they don't have to compete.
Hardware and Software are too different markets. You cannot link them exclusively just to avoid having to compete with other hardware. Imagine if Sony bought both DirectTV and Dish Network and then made it so only Sony televisions were the only ones "licensed" to be used with DirectTV and Dish Network satellite TV and the new boxes refused to work with anyone else's televisions due to digital passcodes designed to make sure you cannot use them with any other brand television. If Apple zealots were then Sony zealots, they would argue that's perfectly FINE to do that because those people could always get cable or one of those old-style GIGANTIC analog dishes or watch over-the-air television on their non-Sony sets if they didn't like the fact that they had to buy Sony televisions in order to get digital satellite tv. But it's BESIDE THE POINT. A company is allowed to own products for both markets, but making one depend on the other and barring all others for no technical reason, but only to maximize sales and profits is 100% ILLEGAL. It's TYING. It's Anti-Competition. If Sony televisions (i.e. Macintosh Hardware in this comparison) are so good they should sell on their own merits in regards to other televisions (i.e. other PCs), not get 100% of the sales of people who WANT satellite television (i.e. People who want to use OSX operating system). I don't know how I can possibly make this anymore clear. Zealots always come up with some STUPID comparison like Ford radios should legally be allowed to only be available in Ford cars when it's the idea that you aren't ALLOWED to put a 3rd party radio in your car that's the CORRECT comparison because it's Apple saying you cannot put OSX in just any hardware, but only THEIR hardware (so they can make the sale and no one else). It would be like Ford having a license with their cars that state that only Ford branded parts can be used in the car in the future, thus eliminating the entire after-market for Ford cars in the process because they don't want to compete for air filters, spark plugs, batteries, air filters, etc. but WANT 100% of those sales in the future. That's Apple with OSX. If you buy it, they want 100% of your hardware business in the future.
Apple has even gone so far as to eliminate expansion hardware slots from all their computers save the Mac Pro so that in order to get a new video card, you have to buy a whole new computer! They could have made it removable on iMacs, but no it's better to force future hardware sales so they get the largest cut of the pie when you need better 3D graphics. They made sure you cannot easily remove the batteries from the iPhone and iPod Touch so they either get big money just to change a battery or force you into buying a new model. They've even moved that same strategy to notebook computers so it's a PITA to change the battery, hoping you will take it to an Apple store and let them change it for a ridiculous fee. Apple fanatics have NO PROBLEM with any of these money-grubbing tactics. They LOVE Apple. Love doesn't care if gets ripped off again and again. It's entirely self-less! And Apple eats that up because they are entirely SELFISH so it's a good pairing, I suppose.
Personally, I like Apple software. I don't like most of their current hardware. Being forced to have a glossy screen or non-standard video connectors that currently only work with overpriced monitors without an (expensive) adapter, having no choice about things like Firewire and expansion ports disappearing in favor of stupid SD slots or not being able to get the latest video cards (or having to pay Apple 2-3x as much as they cost for the same model for the PC; ditto for RAM and Hard Drive upgrades); it all SUCKS. And NONE of that stuff has ONE THING to do with running OSX except that prohibitive license that says 'Apple brand hardware ONLY'. It might as well say GREED. Yes, it sucks to have to switch to an entirely different operating system platform just to get the kind of hardware I actually WANT. I'd lose all my purchased Mac software (since Apple won't let OSX be virtualized so I can take it with me back to Windows or Linux; they'll gladly let you bring those TO the Mac, though, of course since it benefits them to do it one-way only). But that's the ONLY choice Apple wants to give you. Keep buying their overpriced, underpowered hardware at regular intervals (they ensure this by making new versions of the OS which come out constantly to not work with hardware that is sometimes only as little 4 years old or new features not working with older hardware for no technical reason other than to encourage more sales like with the early generation iPhones or MP4 hardware decoding with anything but the very latest GPU).
Put simply, Apple as an ethical company SUCKS. They make some good products (like the iPhone/Touch and OSX itself), but then utilize them like weapons to try and force you to buy other more dubious items due to a lack of choice created by their licenses which tie different markets together like a shield around the company. I'm sure stock holders and fanatics love it, but consumers should really hate it since they are overpaying for a total lack of choice in hardware (in the Mac's case) or software (in the iPhone and iPod Touch cases). Capitalism dictates they should be competing for your money in those markets, not holding a knife to your throat (or rather an iPhone as it were).
but by licensing the software to be used on a netbook they are entering 'that market'.
so you are in fact saying that they have to enter that market. despite starting off saying they don't.
If you need a netbook that bad, get a Windows Netbook. If you need a Mac, get what Mac offers. Or go illegal and quietly make a HackMac. But do so knowing that you are breaking the law, violating Apple's rights and expecting no support of any kind from Apple, including continued support or compatibility with their software in the future as further updates might have key items removed that will, with their loss, F*** you up royally.
Please hand in your license at the door cause you are so wrong and should not be practicing law.
Tying itself is not illegal nor a violation of Anti-trust. It is abusing market power to tie that is illegal. Example - Micosoft had some 85% of the personal computer market and used that overwhelming market power to shove rules on the OEMs that would force them to load and only load Internet Explorer on machines. And further Microsoft tried to block development of other browsers by withholding key details about Windows from them that they need to ensure compatibility.
Apple lacks market power in the appropriate market (which is Personal Computers) and thus, as validated by the courts, the tying of their hardware and their software is not abusive nor anti-competitive since the competition is computers running Windows or Linux NOT other Mac manufacturers
they hardly have Zero competition. in the computer, media player or phone markets. In fact, they have tons of competition in all 3. Which is why there haven't been massive charges and investigations brought against them.
they have succeeded because folks find value in their products and even, I dare say, in their control of their products
what law school did you go to again. Cause I think they need to be shut down for graduating idiots. And where did you get your license cause they need to be charged with negligence for giving you a license.
do you even know what that fee is. I do. $129+tax, same as you pay for a new battery now. For a battery that was created for 1000 charge cycles, not the 300 of the old battery tech. So essentially 1/3 of the cost.
but don't let a few facts (or an understanding of the law) get in your way of a good hyperbolic rant.
Please explain how a Macintosh should be treated any different from a PS3 or XBox 360?
MagnusVonMagnum
If Apple were guilty of "tying", don't you think that some enterprising lawyer would have taken them to court over it by now? If you think you're so right on this issue, why don't you ante up and file the lawsuit?
Just because Apple sells software OS upgrades doesn't mean that they are in the software OS business like Microsoft. They have every right to sell an OS that only works only on their hardware. Newsflash Magnus - Microsoft, Sony, Garmin, TomTom, TiVo and many other companies all sell Operating Systems and upgrades to those operating systems that will only work on their hardware.
Do you think Microsoft is going to sanction running the XBox 360 OS on cheaper OEM hardware? Not likely. Do you think TomTom is legally bound to allow you to run their GPS software on a different piece of GPS hardware? No.
Get real and get a Mac if you like the Mac OS so much. If you don't (or can't because your parents won't shell out the money), I hear Windows 7 looks pretty good these days.
If Apple were guilty of "tying", don't you think that some enterprising lawyer would have taken them to court over it by now? If you think you're so right on this issue, why don't you ante up and file the lawsuit?
Just because Apple sells software OS upgrades doesn't mean that they are in the software OS business like Microsoft. They have every right to sell an OS that only works only on their hardware. Newsflash Magnus - Microsoft, Sony, Garmin, TomTom, TiVo and many other companies all sell Operating Systems and upgrades to those operating systems that will only work on their hardware.
Do you think Microsoft is going to sanction running the XBox 360 OS on cheaper OEM hardware? Not likely. Do you think TomTom is legally bound to allow you to run their GPS software on a different piece of GPS hardware? No.
Get real and get a Mac if you like the Mac OS so much. If you don't (or can't because your parents won't shell out the money), I hear Windows 7 looks pretty good these days.
Selling an operating system (software) is not entering a hardware market or else Microsoft would be a hardware company....
Your comments about breaking the law are laughable. It is Apple that is in violation of the Clayton Anti-Trust "tying" provision which makes that PART of their license agreement NULL AND VOID. The Psystar case has no bearing since it only dealt with Psystar modifying OSX code in order to get it installed early on. That is not necessary with an EFI emulator which will install a stock OSX DVD without modifying it. Your logic makes no sense at all.
Maybe you should try reading books instead of burning them. --Indiana Jones.
You clearly have NOT read the Clayton Anti-Trust Act or you wouldn't make such a statement. Tying two different markets together in such a way as to avoid competition is what is illegal under that part of the Clayton Act (monopoly power is not required, only significant economic effect and I'd call 23+ Billion in petty cash pretty significant) and that is exactly how Apple uses OSX to avoid having to compete directly with companies like Dell and HP. Or are you going to tell me that Windows and Mac markets are the SAME platform? They are not. Someone who owns Mac software cannot use it under Windows or Linux. OSX, however, will happily run on any generic Intel architecture hardware with the insignificant exchange of Bios for EFI (or an EFI emulator). Other operating systems including Windows7 will run from EFI so it's hardly exclusive to Apple. Apple has more than significant market share for the smart phone and digital music player markets (the current leader in both for new sales) and gets 100% of the hardware sales for the Macintosh hardware market.
Again, this represents TENS OF BILLIONS in petty cash alone and the doubling of its stock price in the past year. Apple is no longer the distant 3% market share cousin to Microsoft on the verge of bankruptcy. It has made record profits in the worst recession since the Great Depression and it has done so because it doesn't have to directly compete for any of its hardware sales. Imagine if Dell got 100% of all hardware sales for Windows and could charge profit margins akin to Apple. It would quite possibly be the most powerful company on Earth. When you make all your money by avoiding direct competition in the hardware market (no one is arguing that OSX itself is in violation, only the license that ties it to hardware to avoid competition for *hardware*), you are in little danger of losing money except if the product it is tied to fails. In other words, people who like OSX *must* buy very expensive Apple brand hardware, which itself is no different than anyone else's hardware in functionality. In fact, the basic problem and the reason for wanting someone else's hardware is the fact that Apple does not serve several parts of that hardware market (e.g. game oriented hardware, non-workstation expandable mini-towers, etc.) and this VOID is what creates the market for clones in the first place (along with profit margins that would never fly if they had to compete with someone like Dell directly for Mac hardware sales). They could charge more for OSX, but they cannot tie it to unremarkable hardware and since the change to Intel, Apple's hardware is TRULY UNREMARKABLE. That part is sad too since Apple used to be the king of graphics world. Now they're pretty much a joke, running outdated GPUs all the time. There's nothing cutting edge about a single Apple GPU offered. They don't even support SLI on any model and it's been around for years.
If you cannot post without personal flames, you should be banned from the forums. It's that simple.
Since when is the Macintosh a console gaming system??? It's a personal computer platform. Please learn the difference. Now if you want to argue that a PS3 or XBOX 360 is really just a computer set up to mostly just play games, I will agree with you. But gaming consoles have always been treated differently than open computing platforms.
It is the job of the Federal Government to prosecute anti-trust cases. If they had been doing their job correctly over the past so many years, certain corporations that were "too big to fail" wouldn't have just ruined the economy this past year. Removing regluations and allowing companies to merge that then corner the market place in such a way that there is a vast power vacuum when they do fail is what got us into that mess. And if you don't think certain parts of the government aren't open to what are essentially "bribes" (e.g. campaign contributions, lobbying, etc.) then you don't the first thing about our government. The case against Microsoft couldn't have been much more blatant and they gave them a slap on the wrist on the appeal. Europe hasn't been quite so kind to them.
As for the idea of someone like me to ante-up to force the issue with some kind of lawsuit, you must imagine me to be Bill Gates. The way large corporations win lawsuits against small companies and individuals is to simply ruin them financially so they cannot continue their lawsuit. This is Modern Economics 101. Apple has 23+ Billion in cash to burn. Let's just say I don't have a fraction of that to spend on a lawsuit so it'd never even make it to trial so the big corporation crushes the little guy without ever having to do a thing. I know a company that broke contract agreements and eventually had to pay $1 million in damages. But they saved $3 million in the mean time by not hiring the people they were supposed to hire. So they had a net savings of $2 million by breaking their legal contract. Do you seriously think for one second they are not STILL breaking that contract and many others? It's like trying to get companies to stop polluting rivers and the ocean by fining them relatively paltry amounts. It's cheaper to pay the fine and keep destroying the environment. If you think that's not how the world works, you are completely naive.
The Democrats haven't been able to pass any legislation to even fix the causes of the current financial mess the Republicans made. Quite frankly, lobbying (i.e. bribing) ensures that the system does not change and both parties are guilty there. So just because Apple is guilty of tying violations, that does not mean the government will do anything useful about it. The Psystar court loss didn't even address that issue. It only dealt with Psystar modifying OSX code early-on. If they had not modified code, that charge wouldn't have stuck. But now you have people saying Apple was "right" when the issue of anti-trust violations was never ruled on in court PERIOD, only Psystar modifying code to get it to install (which is not needed these days). So until the government is serious about cracking down on large corporations (hard to imagine how when MOST of the politicians are in bed with those same corporations), nothing will change. And don't think the judicial system is any different from the other branches or you wouldn't keep getting Supreme Court cases where the outcome comes out 4 to 5 and what not. If they are that divided on rulings in the SUPREME COURT of the land on what a law says (never mind the judges lately that CHANGE THE LAW instead of ruling on it), how much less should credence should I give to some lower court judge?
What it comes down to is whether a company in the United States should have to compete in the open market or whether they should be allowed to completely control (i.e. not compete directly with anyone) their part of the market. Apple operates in several markets. Just because their market share of the Operating System market is not in violation of the law, that does not mean they can utilize it like a weapon to prevent competition in the HARDWARE market. A Mac and and Dell are the SAME THING, but you cannot USE them for the same thing because of a TIE in the license that simply forbids all hardware competition for that operating system.* Apple hardware should stand on its own merits, not using OSX as a shield to rip people off in terms of the hardware being offered (i.e. slow, unremarkable stuff jammed into monitor cases instead of high-powered consumer towers or cheaper priced desktops is the reason a company like Psystar could even exist in the first place). But what's more amazing to me is how a CONSUMER could ever side with Apple on this issue when it hurts their choices and their wallet to agree with them. I guess some people like getting ripped-off. Including a CD-R drive up until this year on the cheaper Mac-Minis (instead of a DVD burner) is an excellent example. When you have no other choice on the lower-price end and it's not so simple to change the drive out, you can do whatever you want, I guess.
If tying as you say was illegal, then Apple would be a very small player in the world of guilty companies. Many big-Iron Unix vendors tied or still tie their OS to their boxes. HP, IBM, Digital, SGI.
Like you've been told, it's not the tying that is illegal, it is abuse of market power in order to shut out competition.
Apple is just following the same model that was used by hobbyist computer vendors of the 70s, namely, Altair, Atari, Amiga. They are selling a box with the hardware and software.
They have plenty of competition, and as such, they have no market power. Without market power, they can't abuse any kind of dominant position in some market in order to force themselves to the top in another. They are thus not breaking any anti-trust rules.
Rest of your post is just a lengthy rant that does nothing to even help the debate. It just drowns it in ridiculous off-topic claims that have quite nothing to do with your initial argument. You're just hoping we don't realise what a fool you are by sounding off.
Like you've been told, it's not the tying that is illegal, it is abuse of market power in order to shut out competition.
Apple is just following the same model that was used by hobbyist computer vendors of the 70s, namely, Altair, Atari, Amiga. They are selling a box with the hardware and software.
They have plenty of competition, and as such, they have no market power. Without market power, they can't abuse any kind of dominant position in some market in order to force themselves to the top in another. They are thus not breaking any anti-trust rules.
Rest of your post is just a lengthy rant that does nothing to even help the debate. It just drowns it in ridiculous off-topic claims that have quite nothing to do with your initial argument. You're just hoping we don't realise what a fool you are by sounding off.
"Apple asks its customers to purchase Mac OS knowing that it is to be used only with Apple computers. It is certainly entitled to do so." From Judge Alsup's dismissal of Psystar's initial antitrust counterclaims and repeated in the latest summary judgment.
You are uninformed. An EFI emulator will not allow an install of a stock OS X DVD without modifying it. It would still require the replacement of Apple's bootloader and modification of the SMC kext. Both of which would result in the creation of a derivative work according to the summary judgment in the Psystar case.
A company with less than 10% market share has not, will not, and was never meant to be prosecuted under antitrust regulations. Anti-competition laws require harm to competition, not simply competitive advantages. In response to Psystar's claims of copyright misuse (which has no lower market threshold like antitrust law), Alsup wrote:
Apple is not selling an "open computing platform". The Macintosh has never been anything more than a computing appliance. It is sold as a mesh of hardware and software, no different then a game console. Apple has every right to sell it that way.
There is no legal or technical difference. Your overly broad version of tying unsupported by courts.
Except you don't buy os updates for game consoles. So yeah it is a bit different...
The only reason they don't is that game systems are not very expandable systems and until recently there never was a distribution vector to expanding consoles via software - video game consoles are much more sophisticated than back then - the other reason nobody charges for these updates is that game manufactures are probably investing all of the costs of software development into hardware costs or other services. Not that there is any benefit to charging for updates - the most you are ever going to get are what amount to bug fixes plus a few add-ons. In other words, its stuff that most other companies give for free anyway.
The cost of software has no bearing on anything legally speaking or weather or not it is licensed or not. Updates that you get for the X-box may not cost you anything, but there are expenses that go into it. Apple gives away minor point releases too - but they are equally licensed and protected by licensing just as it's main OS. Cost to the end consumer is meaningless.
EDIT
Video game manufactures are a hardware company first and foremost - their only marketing strategy comes from mostly third party software platforms instead of their own. Its still a bundled solution of hardware and software - the only difference is that the first party software is not the competitive advantage they choose to market. All the console makers could sell their software, but the life-cycle is so low (only a few years) and their business is so hardware based (essentially selling cheap hardware), that there is no reason to sell the hardware direct to consumers - even if they did it would still be tied to their consoles anyway. The only reason they don't charge is that consumers expect the system software to be free and changing from a free to paid model is rarely successful. End of the line - they are still the same as what Apple does except that Apple's software that they sell is much more sophisticated.
I do agree with what you wrote, but I would like to point out that so far at least the 360 has had a major update that changed the interface and added features. One could even say it was the same as Apple going from 10.x to 10.y. I know Sony and Nintendo have been adding stuff and upgrading the front end, but I don't think they have made any radical changes yet. Of course one could argue that those paying the Live fee are paying for (subsidizing) the OS updates that come out.
In fact I argue just that in my prior post. Of course it should be pointed out that MS can actually afford to write off development costs in the 360 division - after all it has lost quite a lot of money and only recently has been barely profitable. Console gamers in general though aren't used to paying for system software updates in general though so nobody is going to start changing for them anytime soon - most of the gamers are only used to buying accessories and the games themselves. I am still willing to bet that MS has software agreements for all of their software that you download anyway - it's still licensed in much of the same way. I guarantee that nobody is going to be selling an "Open X-Box" anytime soon. Redmond is not one to cross paths with.
Overall the two markets (console games and Apple) share much more similarities than differences and those differences can be chalked up to the fact that they are not 100% equatable. We expect differences becasue they are different products with different market strategies. Console makers give away the system software (if they physically can) to get people to buy the hardware and the games. Desirable software sells hardware. The Halo franchise, Mario franchise, you name it - all are there to get people to spend hundreds on the hardware.
Actually you did, it is bundled in the cost of the console and the live service. As pointed out, the XBox 360 and PS3 have both had major OS upgrades and (given the lifespan that Sony is thinking of) will have many more. The switch to Intel processors allowed the hackintosh but did not change Apple's basic model.
Heck, these days, Blu-Ray players have OS updates.
Not paid though... Doesn't matter though.
Indeed.
Heck, these days, Blu-Ray players have OS updates.
Most of these updates are now more possible due to distribution of updates via the internet and a network connection. I remember back when updating firmware on DVD players required you to download and burn a disc from your computer and run it from the player.
I think the other thing is that most consoles are being pitched with home theater components in mind (the PS3 with Blu-Ray, X-Box media player, etc) and as such, the makers are trying to increase their lifespans since consumers seldom replace their home theater components. In this case the console makers are fighting for relevance and the only way thtey can do that these days is by software - its getting harder and harder to justify dropping nearly half a grand on a console system that inevitably will get outclassed. Thing is - hardware companies cannot afford to just have customers buy something once. So again software is positioned to keep things relevant and in the customers mind. Pretty soon they may have to adopt paid upgrades like computer makers or do expensive add-on's.
you might want to brush up on your history. the very first case Psystar filed was anti-trust. and was thrown out because, as the federal judge stated, tying is not illegal in and of itself. it is abuse of tying via a strong market position to promote an unrelated product that is illegal. Something Apple was not guilty of due to a lack of market power and the inherent relationship between computer hardware and the software that makes it operational.
not the same platform, but the federal court system determined they are the same market.
and to that point, even Psystar understood the logic and legalities of the decision and didn't appeal it.
and cash assets are not a consideration in market power. no matter how high the figures go.
I will repeat the question you failed to answer the first time. Where did you go to law school and what the area of law you are licensed to practice. These details would carry a lot of weight in your claims to know that you are right and I"m a moron. So either give up the details or simply give up. Unlike you, I have actually read the case reports so I know what was said by the appropriate authorities and I"m not spouting off personal rants as facts.
as for the rest of your rant, i will only say if Apple's actions were so criminal they would have been properly charged well before Psystar's stunts, having a popular product is not a crime and Apple is not legally bound to cater to the whims and wants of every person out there. they have the legal right to make what they want, when they want and just because they don't make it doesn't give anyone else the right to fill in the gaps simply because "Apple isn't doing it"
ditto back at you my dear.
You paid for it. The manufacturer figured out how much upgrades would cost and included it in the price of the box or part of the subscription for online services. No company puts out upgrades for free. They cost the company and they pass the cost (sometimes with a plus) to you.
Making you directly pay for the upgrade leaves the decision in your court, bundling the cost makes it cheaper on average but costs everyone.
Sure - I never argued otherwise. I was pointing out visual cost to the end user. My point was paid or not - the end result is the same and that doesn't clash