Psystar Files for Bankruptcy

[MikeTheC]

There might be some truth to this. I also noticed that Quo is not using anything "Apple" branded in their OSX products. Apple could get Psystar on trademark violations since they called their systems "OpenMac." Quo won't have any risk with this and the case will be more focused on the install of the OS itself.

It would be very interesting to learn the full extent of what appears to basically be some kind of shell game, or corporate fronting, or whatever, that has been going on. I almost wonder if this isn't part of a larger strategy by someone intent on probing for weaknesses and trying to find out how Apple will respond.

 

[Ansuz]

It would be very interesting to learn the full extent of what appears to basically be some kind of shell game, or corporate fronting, or whatever, that has been going on. I almost wonder if this isn't part of a larger strategy by someone intent on probing for weaknesses and trying to find out how Apple will respond.

I agree with you there. It was put forward earlier in the thread that the "secret backer," if there is one, is likely to be a hardware manufacturer like Dell or Sony; no one in the software realm has anything to gain by testing the validity of EULAs or decoupling OSX from Apple hardware while pure hardware manufacturers have a great deal to gain with the invalidation of certian EULA restrictions. I'd put my money on this theory, as I can see a company like Dell being highly motivated to find a way to offer OSX on their machines.

The whole thing is starting to have a feel of a beta seed: Seed a build, find the bugs, rebuild, reseed.

 

[MikeTheC]

Might be Dell or a company like Dell, but on the other hand, could it also possibly be of more foreign or out-of-industry origin?

See, stuff like this really gets my mind going, and makes me start to think of who out there would most benefit from trying this kind of stunt.

Now might be a good time to keep an ear to the ground on this one and start looking for any "unfortunate accidents," like a death-via-robbery, or a fatal accident via brake failure, or certain individuals committing suicide, or just going missing, or whatever.

I dunno, maybe I've watched too much "Agency" or Bourne or whatever, but in my experience, if you smell smoke, it's best to look for the fire.

 

[gregorsamsa]

I really don't know if there are any backers. The whole thing just doesn't make sense.

Apple has money to run these lawsuits forever. These lawsuits take a long long time from start to finish, but Apple's lawyers don't actually have that much work to do. And in the next lawsuit, they have already done most of the work. So if anyone thinks they can do this as a business and make money, they need their heads examined.

But if there is a backer, like some "real" PC manufacturer, who wants to test the water if they can install MacOS X on their computers, they would have to back that kind of business until such a court case actually finishes. If Psystar had backers, they got nothing for their money. And for someone who _has_ money, this would be a very dangerous strategy, because when the company they back is done for copyright infringement, Apple will go after the backers.

PS. It is now publicly documented knowledge that the CEO of this new company believes that Apple will sue them. Legal consequence is that they have to carefully collect any documents, emails etc. that might help Apple in a lawsuit, and any destruction of such evidence would be spoliation and used against them.

I suspect backers may exist because surely these companies can barely afford legal fights with the likes of Apple on top of the running-costs of their business, yet they seem to be brazenly complacent about it. Also seems quite a coincidence that just as Psystar is about to fade into the background, these guys announce themselves.

It appears that every such outfit in the US is encouraging more outside the US to take up the challenge. There's PearC in Germany, some new outfit in Argentina & now these guys:

Russian clone maker the latest to take on Apple

Problem for Apple could be that laws outside the US are different & the EULA not as easily enforceable in countries like Germany. If there's a viable demand out there, I see this whole Mac clone thing only increasing.

 

[BaldiMac]

We're not talking about copyright law. In fact, we're not even talking about contract law. So please quit trying to cloud and confuse the issues here.

You said, "Violating the EULA (which I'm not even discussing here) is NOT "illegal". It's not a criminal act. It's a civil matter."

That is false. You brought it up.

They are NOT upgrades! You only need have Apple hardware to be able to use them in compliance with the EULA. Again, why are you getting into this? This isn't a part of this sub-discussion. I understand that it's a part of the overall thread simply because of the nature of PsyStar's actions. You'll also kindly take note I'm not saying -- and haven't maintained -- that PsyStar should consider themselves at liberty to violate Apple's EULA. But never the less, this is NOT a part of my discussion here. At all.

And by requiring Apple hardware, Apple is requiring a previous license to OS X in order to install a retail box version. You can't have Apple hardware without a license to OS X. The license for the software that shipped with the hardware is not transferable to other hardware.

It is licensed as an upgrade. There is no software enforcement of that provision on Apple hardware. But since the license is the majority of what you are paying for (and the box and dvd), the value of the license is what we should be discussing. Apple values the license that limits you to installation on Apple hardware to $129. We do not know what they would value a license on non-Apple hardware at.

Notice I haven't mentioned Psystar at all. I am discussing whether or not a new install of OS X on non-Apple hardware is only worth $129 to Apple.

Apple has said the value of Mac OS X is $129. They have said this because that is what they SELL THE FREAKING THING FOR in the context within which they SELL Mac OS X. Therefore, an individual copy of Mac OS X is worth $129. Period. If they decided to sell it starting tomorrow for $99, or $199, or $10,000, then that's what it would be worth. Period.

Again, OS X is valued in the billions of dollars. We are discussing the value of a license to use OS X. Different license terms, different value.

What I'm getting at -- and this is only in response to someone else trying to say you can't make comparisons -- is that if Apple says Leopard is worth $129, but the difference between what it costs to build a system with certain specs and buying the nearest-neighbor model from Apple, even when you take into consideration such things as aesthetics, case design, etc., is well above $129. And yet, you have people who are perfectly willing to live with the fact that, in effect, Apple is grossly overcharging them to allow them to run Leopard. Again, I'm only using these things for a basis for financial comparison. I'm not trying to argue PsyStar's case, nor anything else. I'm just trying to expose a particular fallacy.

Apple isn't grossly overcharging anyone. Without getting into the price comparisons between two models that never quite seem to match argument, Apple's profit margins are about 11% higher than the industry average.

http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/invsub/results/compare.asp?Page=ProfitMargins&Symbol=AAPL

Considering they don't compete in the lowest margin portion of the industry, that is saying alot. Maybe the difference in price between similar models is that Apple spends more to build them.

"Upgrade installs" can only be installed in the presence of prior versions.

Says who? Microsoft? I've purchased plenty of shareware at upgrade prices that doesn't require any sort of software check for a previous version.

The "retail box" copies of Mac OS X that Apple sells can be installed on any supportable Apple-shipped Mac system. They can be used to set up a system with a completely blank hard drive, or they can be used to do an in-place upgrade. But in no event is the ability to use the retail box copy tied to the existing presence of Mac OS X on the computer in question.

"Any supportable Apple-shipped Mac system" includes a license to OS X. Why do a software check?

 

[stevielee]

Well, the fact that the ability to install Windows is touted as a feature of Leopard (boot camp) would seem to imply both:

1) The primary OS is still OSX, and
2) OSX and the Mac hardware are meant to be one and the same.

After all, one can not install Windows on Apple hardware without first running the Boot Camp utility.



Exept that OSX isn't a product in and of itself. It is included, without excpetion or option, on every Mac sold by every retailer who sells Macs. The retail OSX boxes are all upgrades for the Mac software included on your Apple hardware. There isn't a need to call it an upgrade because there is no full retail version sold- the only full retail versions are shipped with the Mac.

That assertion is not exactly true. I have pretty easily installed a 64 bit version of XP Pro without officially having to use the Bootcamp patch (program?) in Leopard.
I first found a spare HD that I wanted to use as my PC HD. I then installed that HD into one of the empty bays on my Mac Pro (PC Pro). Using Disk Utilities in Leopard - I formatted the drive for Master Boot partition (Fat 32). Restarting the Mac Pro (PC Pro), I then booted from the XP disc holding down the C key - and formatted the designated PC Fat 32 HD to NTFS and proceeded to successfully install XP Pro without a hitch. When the XP Pro build booted for the first time into it's desktop - I then inserted my Mac Pro OEM OSX Install Disc I DVD (which has all of the necessary Windows drivers needed to run on the Mac Pro's hardware ) and installed the the XP drivers. I was quickly up and running without once having to use the OSX bootcamp patch.
I eventually moved the XP Pro HD that I built inside the Mac Pro (PC Pro), and put it into an External USB/SATA docking station. Using the USB interface - I started up the Mac Pro normally - while holding down the options key. When the Windows build appeared as one of the options, I just clicked on it and it then booted as if it were a native PC.

My primarily use of this external XP Pro build is to play Blu-Ray Videos on - something that my 3K+ Mac Pro should be capable of doing - but for the maddening fact that the ubber control freak Stevo and Co. - as with everything Apple does - is very intentionally restricting any kind of HD content that I may want to view on my Mac - so that it's ONLY an available option via their Apple/iTunes media gauntlet - or I will get no HD content at all....

It's a good thing that my hugely overpriced, highly restrictive Mac Pro is also basically a full blooded PC Pro as well - that is capable of doing everything the Mac can't, or won't do - and visa versa...


https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/488193/

http://derekhat.com/index.php/2008/06/12/install-vista-on-a-macbook-without-bootcamp/

 

[Hugh]

Wrong

It almost did until the iPod saved them.

It wasn't the iPod, it was the new iMac they came out right after the clone market was stopped.

Hugh

 

[gnasher729]

Problem for Apple could be that laws outside the US are different & the EULA not as easily enforceable in countries like Germany. If there's a viable demand out there, I see this whole Mac clone thing only increasing.

I posted this before, but "EULA is not enforceable in Germany" is a red herring. Germany has strong consumer protection laws, which protect consumers when they enter contracts that they don't understand and that they can't negotiate (obviously a company like Apple will not negotiate their SLA with an end user, therefore consumer protection laws will now apply). But for business between companies - even if one is a one-man-outfit operating from his parents' garage - these consumer protection laws don't apply, and that means a contract is contract. The SLA is in Germany absolutely binding for any company.

 

[gnasher729]

How is it ignorance? In what way is it ignorant? How about instead of just attacking the messenger you actually defend your own view?

Definition: Ignorance is the state of not knowing. Ignorance occurs when those who can benefit from knowledge are unwilling or unable to find or assimilate the knowledge. The flip side of ignorance is having knowledge and not having any way of sharing that knowledge.

I am not "attacking the messenger", and there is no need to defend my view. By refusing to accept knowledge, you only hurt yourself.

 

[-hh]

Oh, give me a break already. I'm not asking for the Earth, Moon and stars. i'm just asking for more modern hardware.

With deep enough pockets, you can do it today. However, when I say "deep pockets", you probably won't like how much money I'm talking about. I'm sure that if you were to put $100M on the table, you could get Apple's attention.

The real question you should be asking is why they don't bother supporting better hardware.

Isn't it obvious? In two words: "Business Case"

Moreover, as desktop hardware components are invariably cheaper than laptop components, even if Apple were not to pass the cost savings on to their customers (actually, *especially* if they didn't) their own profit margins would only go up. As I see it, it is fundamentally in Apple's own best financial interests to offer the type of hardware I'm talking about.

Poor business case. Broadly & simplistically, the business case problem is that Desktops are dying. Pretty much the only place that they aren't falling off a cliff is the Enterprise market...which isn't an Apple strength.

The fact that they don't is a disgrace, and the fact that well-intentioned people such as yourself are willing to just unquestioningly go along with this is... I dunno what to say at this point. I mean... how to say this in a ostensibly family-friendly forum... are you that in the dark about the hardware side of things? Or about technology in general?

Sometimes, its not about the technology at all, but if it can be a viable and profitable business enterprise. For example, from a survey some months ago, 70% of Mac sales were laptops...this means that the remaining 30% was split between the mini, the 20" iMac, the 24" iMac and the Mac Pro. If we assume for sake of simplicity that its they each get an even split, this means that each Apple desktop model only gets roughly 7% of the pie.

Now if we assume (for sake of discussion) that the proverbial 'xMac' (which is really what this is a about) will be twice as popular as any existing Mac desktop ... but part of the reason why is because it has only 50% cannibalization of Mac sales, what this means is that total desktop sales go up by 7% (to 37%) ... but at the same time, the fixed costs for Desktop manufacturing go up by 20%. Are we financially winning or losing?

Ironically, and I can't believe how I actually have to point this out to people, but if Apple offered a few more (not tons, just a few more) options in their line-up and (as I said above) offered them with desktop and not laptop hardware, it is entirely possible that companies such as PsyStar would never have come along in the first place because the niche they're trying to fill would likely then not even exist.

While I'd like to see an 'xMac' too, I'm not necessarily confident that there's really a positive business case to be made for Apple to improve their profits.

As such, its not technology...its business.


-hh

 

[pdjudd]

While I can't speak for him, I personally don't think the request itself is unreasonable. However, he is right in that we can't expect each product to be perfect for every person. We have to look at whats out there and make the choice that best suits us based on what is most important. You're personal requests can't all be fulfilled by any one company so you have to choose the order of importance. For me, its easy: 1)OSX, 2) Power, 3) Price. Since this is my order, I bought the Pro. If your order is different, you might not end up with an Apple product at all.

I see a big difference between feeling that the hardware lineup from Apple is unnecessarily limited and expensive and feeling that the buisness practice is illegal, which is what many are claiming.

You made my point. If one company does not meet your requirements, you should go elsewhere for an equivalent service with someone who does offer what you want. Weather or not you want to do business or not personally is irrelevant to the point. Choice exists. You have the right to ask for something, but you don't have the right to take something to get it (in this case Apple's right via licensing to OSX.)

For the record, I would love to see an xMac midrange tower and I do agree that Apple's products are both expensive and not cutting edge or diverse enough. However that doesn't mean I support Apple's rights to their own intellectual property and still choose to buy Apple. Their options are limited, but I chose Apple despite those limitations and knowing that I could have gotten better with Windows. It was a compromise that I chose.

 

[MikeTheC]

I'm surprised, shocked and dismayed by what I have encountered here, and frankly I don't know what to say.

Clearly, even the Second Coming couldn't get through to you people.

 

[pdjudd]

Clearly, even the Second Coming couldn't get through to you people.

Huh?? Care to elaborate?

 

[iMacmatician]

Actually Apple's Gainestown is out of date (There is 3.2GHz versions now). Apple was (of course) 6 months late to the Nehalem party, and are still late to offering a decent GPU selection.

They got Gainestown earlier than its actual release date.

 

[macerroneous]

shell game

Someone in this thread hit on what is really going on, in my opinion. I think these mom and pop operations are designed to draw fire and divert Apple legal's attention from boxmakers like Dell. Dell is, afterall doing exactly what quo claims to do. The Dell mini 9 pretty much runs osx out of the box. Can apple sue?

 

[Tallest Skil]

The Dell mini 9 pretty much runs osx out of the box. Can apple sue?

"Pretty much" does not a lawsuit make.

Capability has absolutely no legal worth whatsoever.

"Oh, I can use this Taurus to commit a crime! Looks like I can sue Ford!"

NO. That IS NOT how it works.

If Dell sold them with OS X installed, that is suable.

I'll repeat it:

Capability has absolutely no legal worth whatsoever.

 

[macerroneous]

my,how forceful!

"Pretty much" does not a lawsuit make.

Capability has absolutely no legal worth whatsoever.

"Oh, I can use this Taurus to commit a crime! Looks like I can sue Ford!"

NO. That IS NOT how it works.

If Dell sold them with OS X installed, that is suable.

I'll repeat it:

Capability has absolutely no legal worth whatsoever.

Actually, not being a lawyer, your reply makes perfect sense to me. My point, however, is that now Dell has learned that they can't put osx on their mini 9. Next, quo will teach them whether they can advertise "as close to apple as hardware can get, so you'll be able to run their operating system instead of micros**t's"

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

As I said, I do not reject that notion. Of course, like Psystar, you are acknowledging that OS X competes with Windows and Linux in the OS market. Since they compete against companies with significantly higher market share in the OS market, there can be no legal finding of monopoly.

Why does these threads seem like the same circular arguments over and over? I've concluded that neither side is LISTENING to the other side period. I've already said a dozen times over that I'm not talking about the SOFTWARE market, but the HARDWARE market that Apple operates in. OS X's market share versus Windows has NOTHING to do with that market. We're talking about the market of selling PC hardware, not the operating system. Apple competes in more than one market, in case you hadn't noticed. So then that makes Apple's competitors for computer hardware companies like HP, Lenovo, Dell, etc.

The PROBLEM with saying they "compete" with those companies is that they are completely INCOMPATIBLE products! This is to say that if I have a library of Macintosh software, it will NOT RUN on a Dell, HP or Lenovo machine! Therefore, they are NOT the same market AT ALL because the "competitors" aren't allowed to "compete" with Apple on an "Apple to Apple" basis. What good does a Dell machine running Linux or Windows or Solaris do me if I have a Macintosh software library? I'm not going to forgo potentially THOUSANDS of dollars of software and possibly have to learn a different operating system just to a better graphics card option and Apple knows this! You have NO OPTION to get that better graphics card because your Mac doesn't support any other graphics cards because it's some board inside a monitor, not a "real" desktop. Apple USED to sell real desktops (there was a G5 Powermac that cost $1500 and it was expandable and in a tower; there are NO SUCH OPTIONS now. The cheapest tower from Apple costs $2499, which is out of the stratosphere compared to offerings from other computer manufacturers. If Apple doesn't have any kind of a "monopoly" (in the definition sense at least), how can they get away with such ridiculous overpriced choices? They know if you want to run Mac software, you MUST buy THEIR hardware, even if internally it's virtually the SAME EXACT CLONE parts as Dell, etc.

Apple can ONLY do this because of the artificial *TIE* in their EULA that says you will NOT install this on anyone else's computer hardware. You will pay us through the nose with no other choices or you will abandon your software library and start all over again.

Now anyone with any REASON or LOGIC within them can see that "Hardware for OS X" is a market unto-itself. The mere fact Apple is one of the richest IT companies out there PROVES how valuable having 100% control of a market can be. If it was not a "market" then those kind of money levels would not be involved. The entire argument given to me from the opposing side is that "it is NOT a market" and "Apple is not a monopoly" so too bad, they can rip you off all they want and NO ONE is allowed to sell hardware but them for the Mac operating system even though hardware and software are two entirely different markets.

Frankly, I'm SICK TO DEATH of hearing the same BS (and it IS just that) excuses from those that seem to think corporations should be allowed to do anything they want, especially if they're run by a "super star" (oooh!) like Steve Jobs! (screams abound by the worshiping crowds on here). Give me a break. Capitalism is about competition. Apple doesn't WANT to compete. They make MOST of their money from HARDWARE and they're able to do this because they can charge pretty much anything they want because NO ONE is allowed to offer an alternative to Mac users. I say Mac users because once again, running a different operating system means forfeiting ALL the software you own. It doesn't matter that you own Photoshop CS4. You will have to buy it all over again if you switch to Windows. Apple is COUNTING ON THAT to make sure you pay $2500 for a Mac Pro instead of $1000 from Dell for similarly powered hardware. Because after you add up a few professional quality applications, you realize you can't afford to switch entire platforms just to get reasonable hardware. No it's stupid to even get a Mac beacause it's a one-way ticket. You can run Windows on an Apple computer, but you are not allowed to run OS X on anyone else's hardware. How convenient for Apple. And once again, this is due SOLEY to an artificial TIE in the EULA for OS X and NOTHING ELSE.

If you were told when you bought a Toyota that you HAD to get your service done at Toyota and NOWHERE ELSE under penalty of law, what would you think? Do you think that would be a legal thing to put into the purchase contract? Toyota isn't a monopoly, after all! You could always buy a bicycle instead! That is another form of transportation, after all....What? That isn't right that they can dictate what you can do with the hardware you purchased and service afterward has NOTHING to do with buying the car? But if it's in the contract, it must be OK! *THAT* is **EXACTLY** what you guys are telling me. You bought OS X, so you will now forfeit all choices for everything else over to them. They will now tell you what hardware you can buy and maybe even what cereal you're allowed to eat in the morning or else you cannot use OS X. Too bad for consumer protection laws. Too bad for Capitalism. Too bad for you because you sold your soul to run OS X and it's LEGAL according to you. I say Bullcrap! The EULA is invalid. They have NO RIGHT to tell you what you can do with products not in that market. The operating system is SOFTWARE, not hardware. Beyond what hardware they will support in the operating system itself (i.e. drivers), they have no right to control anything else outside that operating system. They have no right to tell me what toothbrush I can buy, what restaurants I can eat at or what freaking computer I can buy to use with that operating system. Writing an operating system does not give you the right to control people's lives.

Imagine if buying a Columbia MOVIE on Blu-Ray had a EULA with it that said that the movie is ONLY ALLOWED TO BE PLAYED on a Sony brand BD player! You're telling me that's perfectly legal. I say that's an artificial TIE from the BD movie disc to a particular brand player that just happens to be owned by the SAME COMPANY that makes the software. Gee, how convenient. You really want to own that movie, so I guess you'll HAVE to buy a Sony player to watch it! Imagine that. What if you wanted to smoke Marlboro cigarettes because it's your favorite but they come with a license that says then you have to buy Kraft brand cheese else no smokes for you buddy! THAT is what you're telling me...a tie from one product to another product is OK because you agreed to it in the license...the license you had no other option BUT to agree to or else no smokes/soup/whatever for you!

Sorry, but Xerox didn't lose because they were a monopoly. They lost because companies have NO RIGHT to control one aspect of your life with another aspect of it. "You will buy this product in order to be able to buy this product" is akin to extortion. In fact, it pretty much IS extortion, IMO. For goodness sake, it's not even legal for a company to say "you must buy this box of cereal (or magazine subscription) in order to be entered into this sweepstakes contest" so what in the WORLD makes anyone think it's legal for them to say you must buy one of these COMPUTERS in order to use the operating system you just purchased at Best Buy!?!? Give me a break.

 

[Ansuz]

Magnus,

You claim that neither side is listening to each other and then you bring up points that we have already addressed. I'm not going to address them again.

I accept that you don't like what Apple is doing but the fact of the matter is that the practices they are engaging in are, at least for now, 100% legal. The courts of the US have determined their practices to not be illegal tying and their company not to be a monopoly. You can keep rehashing this issue over and over again because you believe the courts to be wrong and while you are more than entitled to your opinion it does not change the fact that when the law and your opinion disagree, the law wins.

Until a court rules that Apple's practices break the law then they are not going to change. You have the choice of whether or not you want to support the company until that time.

 

[-hh]

I've already said a dozen times over that I'm not talking about the SOFTWARE market, but the HARDWARE market that Apple operates in. OS X's market share versus Windows has NOTHING to do with that market. We're talking about the market of selling PC hardware, not the operating system.

The problem is that when you have hardware without software, the only thing it can do is to be a space-heater.

The PROBLEM with saying they "compete" with those companies is that they are completely INCOMPATIBLE products! (snip)

And the oil filter for my Mercedes doesn't also fit my Porsche. Ditto the airbag's control system, the pollution control system, the ABS system. Yet both products compete in the same market of "personal transportation".

Its not about part numbers - - its about what capability the product provides. It if you can check email, surf the web, write a letter... etc.

Apple can ONLY do this because of the artificial *TIE* in their EULA that says you will NOT install this on anyone else's computer hardware. You will pay us through the nose with no other choices or you will abandon your software library and start all over again.

And how is this different than MS-Windows? Its not. This is going to be the situation for any OS that you want to use whose IP is being retained. As such, your only alternative is Open Source ... and if you get tired of it, you had better hope that someone writes Open Source "exit" translators for your software library.

Give me a break. Capitalism is about competition.

And IP protection laws are about providing a period of time that is immune from Capitalism so as to provide a financial incentive for the risk-taking of bringing something different & new to market. If you have a better idea as to how this all should work, then make your proposal ... and note that this is generic: Apple & Microsoft & etc ... are only playing by the existing rules.

It doesn't matter that you own Photoshop CS4. You will have to buy it all over again if you switch to Windows.

A poor example, since it is factually incorrect. Adobe's policy is that they allow "Platform Swtiching" when you buy an upgrade.

And for software vendors that don't offer such a service, you should be able to recover some of your investment cost by reselling the license on eBay.

If you were told when you bought a Toyota that you HAD to get your service done at Toyota and NOWHERE ELSE under penalty of law, what would you think?

Wasn't this already done for the GM EV1? And the Lamborghini Murciélago?

And I've not owned an automobile yet that didn't state that the Warranty was invalid if the service wasn't performed by a factory-qualified mechanic. Guess who that mechanic has to pay to get his training? Yup.

But if it's in the contract, it must be OK! *THAT* is **EXACTLY** what you guys are telling me.

Yes, absolutely. Why? Because Capitalism requires enforcable contracts.

If you don't like this, then make your proposal as to how the rules should work ... and note that this is generic: Apple & Microsoft & etc ... are only playing by the existing rules.

Give me a break.

OK: consider yourself broken.


FWIW, in broad terms, I understand your frustration ... and there are frustrating elements to it all ... but one of the problems with Capitalism is that there's boundaries on what is "Fair" from different perspectives (manufacturer, consumer, etc). It can be visuallized as a large playing field (football, etc) and while we hear the catchprase of "Level Playing Field", the reality is that there's a billion footnotes on that field: in time, what you realize is that there's no rule that says the competitive playing field must be green, smooth and level: there can be (and are) sand traps, water traps and hills...all that's required is that the various hazards be appropriately identified & marked...which proverbially makes the game's terrain a lot more like golf (although its 'FULL CONTACT' golf!).

A good contemporary example of this are Credit Cards: if the theory of pure Capitalism is true, then because there is arguably consumer demand for a CC that isn't chock-full of hidden "Gotcha!" fees, then this demand should (in theory) prompt the market to deliver that product. Unforunately, I'm not aware of any such 'simple' CC's...are you?

An older example is the Arsenal Act of 1920. Look it up.

Even older examples get us tied around the axle regarding IP. The general problem with IP is how to facilitate a system process where only some of the rights are sold,which allows the owner to sell for a lower price. Thus, one is able to buy a copy of a book for $10 instead of the manuscript for $10M.

Two millennia ago, the rule was "Caveat Emptor" and things aren't necessarily a whole lot better today. However, one thing has remained the same, which is that you're not obligated to buy anyone's product: you always have the choice to vote with your wallet by keeping your wallet closed.



-hh

 

[BaldiMac]

Why does these threads seem like the same circular arguments over and over? I've concluded that neither side is LISTENING to the other side period. I've already said a dozen times over that I'm not talking about the SOFTWARE market, but the HARDWARE market that Apple operates in. OS X's market share versus Windows has NOTHING to do with that market. We're talking about the market of selling PC hardware, not the operating system. Apple competes in more than one market, in case you hadn't noticed. So then that makes Apple's competitors for computer hardware companies like HP, Lenovo, Dell, etc.

The PROBLEM with saying they "compete" with those companies is that they are completely INCOMPATIBLE products! This is to say that if I have a library of Macintosh software, it will NOT RUN on a Dell, HP or Lenovo machine! Therefore, they are NOT the same market AT ALL because the "competitors" aren't allowed to "compete" with Apple on an "Apple to Apple" basis. What good does a Dell machine running Linux or Windows or Solaris do me if I have a Macintosh software library? I'm not going to forgo potentially THOUSANDS of dollars of software and possibly have to learn a different operating system just to a better graphics card option and Apple knows this! You have NO OPTION to get that better graphics card because your Mac doesn't support any other graphics cards because it's some board inside a monitor, not a "real" desktop. Apple USED to sell real desktops (there was a G5 Powermac that cost $1500 and it was expandable and in a tower; there are NO SUCH OPTIONS now. The cheapest tower from Apple costs $2499, which is out of the stratosphere compared to offerings from other computer manufacturers. If Apple doesn't have any kind of a "monopoly" (in the definition sense at least), how can they get away with such ridiculous overpriced choices? They know if you want to run Mac software, you MUST buy THEIR hardware, even if internally it's virtually the SAME EXACT CLONE parts as Dell, etc.

Apple can ONLY do this because of the artificial *TIE* in their EULA that says you will NOT install this on anyone else's computer hardware. You will pay us through the nose with no other choices or you will abandon your software library and start all over again.

Now anyone with any REASON or LOGIC within them can see that "Hardware for OS X" is a market unto-itself. The mere fact Apple is one of the richest IT companies out there PROVES how valuable having 100% control of a market can be. If it was not a "market" then those kind of money levels would not be involved. The entire argument given to me from the opposing side is that "it is NOT a market" and "Apple is not a monopoly" so too bad, they can rip you off all they want and NO ONE is allowed to sell hardware but them for the Mac operating system even though hardware and software are two entirely different markets.

Frankly, I'm SICK TO DEATH of hearing the same BS (and it IS just that) excuses from those that seem to think corporations should be allowed to do anything they want, especially if they're run by a "super star" (oooh!) like Steve Jobs! (screams abound by the worshiping crowds on here). Give me a break. Capitalism is about competition. Apple doesn't WANT to compete. They make MOST of their money from HARDWARE and they're able to do this because they can charge pretty much anything they want because NO ONE is allowed to offer an alternative to Mac users. I say Mac users because once again, running a different operating system means forfeiting ALL the software you own. It doesn't matter that you own Photoshop CS4. You will have to buy it all over again if you switch to Windows. Apple is COUNTING ON THAT to make sure you pay $2500 for a Mac Pro instead of $1000 from Dell for similarly powered hardware. Because after you add up a few professional quality applications, you realize you can't afford to switch entire platforms just to get reasonable hardware. No it's stupid to even get a Mac beacause it's a one-way ticket. You can run Windows on an Apple computer, but you are not allowed to run OS X on anyone else's hardware. How convenient for Apple. And once again, this is due SOLEY to an artificial TIE in the EULA for OS X and NOTHING ELSE.

The problem with this argument is that you are arguing what you think the law should be. On the other side, we are arguing what the law currently is.

If you were told when you bought a Toyota that you HAD to get your service done at Toyota and NOWHERE ELSE under penalty of law, what would you think? Do you think that would be a legal thing to put into the purchase contract? Toyota isn't a monopoly, after all! You could always buy a bicycle instead! That is another form of transportation, after all....What? That isn't right that they can dictate what you can do with the hardware you purchased and service afterward has NOTHING to do with buying the car? But if it's in the contract, it must be OK! *THAT* is **EXACTLY** what you guys are telling me. You bought OS X, so you will now forfeit all choices for everything else over to them. They will now tell you what hardware you can buy and maybe even what cereal you're allowed to eat in the morning or else you cannot use OS X. Too bad for consumer protection laws. Too bad for Capitalism. Too bad for you because you sold your soul to run OS X and it's LEGAL according to you. I say Bullcrap! The EULA is invalid. They have NO RIGHT to tell you what you can do with products not in that market. The operating system is SOFTWARE, not hardware. Beyond what hardware they will support in the operating system itself (i.e. drivers), they have no right to control anything else outside that operating system.

If Toyota offered to sell you a car for cheaper if you agreed to sign a contract that limited you to seeking service from only Toyota, I don't see a problem with that. If they only offered the car with the same sort of contract, I would buy a car from someone else. That option is the remedy to the problems that you list.

They have no right to tell me what toothbrush I can buy, what restaurants I can eat at or what freaking computer I can buy to use with that operating system. Writing an operating system does not give you the right to control people's lives.

The OS X SLA does not mention toothbrushes or restaurants.

Imagine if buying a Columbia MOVIE on Blu-Ray had a EULA with it that said that the movie is ONLY ALLOWED TO BE PLAYED on a Sony brand BD player! You're telling me that's perfectly legal. I say that's an artificial TIE from the BD movie disc to a particular brand player that just happens to be owned by the SAME COMPANY that makes the software. Gee, how convenient. You really want to own that movie, so I guess you'll HAVE to buy a Sony player to watch it! Imagine that. What if you wanted to smoke Marlboro cigarettes because it's your favorite but they come with a license that says then you have to buy Kraft brand cheese else no smokes for you buddy! THAT is what you're telling me...a tie from one product to another product is OK because you agreed to it in the license...the license you had no other option BUT to agree to or else no smokes/soup/whatever for you!

That is how it currently is! You can only play Blu-Ray discs on players licensed from Sony (and others).

Sorry, but Xerox didn't lose because they were a monopoly. They lost because companies have NO RIGHT to control one aspect of your life with another aspect of it. "You will buy this product in order to be able to buy this product" is akin to extortion. In fact, it pretty much IS extortion, IMO. For goodness sake, it's not even legal for a company to say "you must buy this box of cereal (or magazine subscription) in order to be entered into this sweepstakes contest" so what in the WORLD makes anyone think it's legal for them to say you must buy one of these COMPUTERS in order to use the operating system you just purchased at Best Buy!?!? Give me a break.

XEROX would not have been brought to court in the case you referenced if they were not a monopoly.

Tying happens all the time and is completely legal except under certain circumstances. For one example, if you buy an HP s3700z series, you must buy a copy of windows.

 

[CWallace]

I've already said a dozen times over that I'm not talking about the SOFTWARE market, but the HARDWARE market that Apple operates in.

The PROBLEM with saying they "compete" with those companies is that they are completely INCOMPATIBLE products! This is to say that if I have a library of Macintosh software, it will NOT RUN on a Dell, HP or Lenovo machine!

If your argument is not about software, why are you using software to make that argument?

Therefore, they are NOT the same market AT ALL because the "competitors" aren't allowed to "compete" with Apple on an "Apple to Apple" basis.

Before Boot Camp, you could not (at least easily) directly boot (I am not referring to virtual machines, here) Windows on an Apple Macintosh. Why was Apple not allowed to "compete" with Dell, HP, Gateway, IBM/Lenovo, and all the other PC competitors on a "Windows to Windows" basis? Remember that Microsoft developed versions of Windows NT that ran on PowerPC computers.

What good does a Dell machine running Linux or Windows or Solaris do me if I have a Macintosh software library? I'm not going to forgo potentially THOUSANDS of dollars of software and possibly have to learn a different operating system...

The same applied to Windows users who were considering moving to the Macintosh prior to Boot Camp. How many of them were willing to replace their entire Windows software library with Macintosh versions? How many wanted to take the time to learn "the Macintosh way" after years (or more) doing things "the Windows way"?

If Apple doesn't have any kind of a "monopoly" (in the definition sense at least), how can they get away with such ridiculous overpriced choices? They know if you want to run Mac software, you MUST buy THEIR hardware, even if internally it's virtually the SAME EXACT CLONE parts as Dell, etc.

Why does an HP/Dell/Lenovo cost more then a DIY machine using the same components bought from Fry's or NewEgg? It's called "value added". Those companies "add value" by doing the assembly and testing for you and by providing a single point of contact for product support and warranty services.

Now anyone with any REASON or LOGIC within them can see that "Hardware for OS X" is a market unto-itself. The mere fact Apple is one of the richest IT companies out there PROVES how valuable having 100% control of a market can be. If it was not a "market" then those kind of money levels would not be involved.

Apple has vigorously protected their intellectual property since Steve and Woz first assembled an Apple I in their garage. Even during the "clone years", they kept a firm grasp on their IP. And yet Apple has consistently been a company said to be "on the ropes" with a minuscule market share and rumored to be "snowed under" any day by the Microsoft Juggernaut.

And when did Apple really start pulling in the cash? When they released the iPod and iTunes. Apple has plenty of competition in MP3 players and they have plenty of competition in media organization applications and media delivery services. It just so happens to be that they execute in both categories better than anyone else and even though the players and the content are expensive, they still sell like ice on a hot day.

If you were told when you bought a Toyota that you HAD to get your service done at Toyota and NOWHERE ELSE under penalty of law, what would you think? Do you think that would be a legal thing to put into the purchase contract?

And yet we have that right now in the computer and cell-phone industry.

Verizon's cell-phone media is specific only to their phones and they have gone as far as to specifically cripple the functionality of their phones so that only their content could be used on it.

And Sony and Microsoft, amongst others, sold media content to individuals that could only be played on their equipment under penalty of law (the DMCA). And when they got tired of supporting it, they just pulled the plug and denied users the ability to use that content on another platform, effectively making it useless.

To use your analogy, it would be like Toyota selling you a car that could only be serviced at a Toyota dealership and then when Toyota didn't want to service you car anymore, they send a signal that prevented it from ever starting again, under penalty of law.

And yet, those decisions have been found to be perfectly legal by the courts.



The simple fact is, Apple is not pulling people off the mall concourses, taking them into an Apple Store, putting a gun to their head, and telling them they must buy a Mac or they will be killed.

People are making the choice to spend the amount of money Apple charges because they see the value Apple has added to the product. And that value is not one thing, but many, each appealing to different people. Some buy Apple because it "looks good". Some buy Apple for the "cachet" of the brand. Some by Apple because they like the foundation OS X offers. Some buy it because they feel the applications software is elegant or effective.

Why does a Bentley Arnage cost 30 times more then a Toyota Yaris? Yes the Bentley has a finer grade of materials and takes 10 times as many labor hours to build as a Toyota, but the cost of those materials and labor hours still doesn't come to anywhere near 30 times the production cost of the Yaris. Bentley charges more because they can. They have developed a brand that the entire market finds to be better then Toyota. Even if you can't afford a Bentley or can't justify affording a Bentley, you still agree a Bentley is "better" then a Toyota.

It's the same with a Rolex and a Timex. They both tell time, but a Rolex is a "premium brand" that allows them to charge many multiples more then the actual difference in production cost.

And don't think Apple's success at attracting the "premium" customer hasn't been lost on the likes of HP and Dell. They bought Alienware and VoodooPC because they want a piece of that market. And Alienware and VoodooPC themselves were created to tap into that "premium" market where people will spend $10,000 for a computer system to play a 3D-shooter that little bit faster and brag to their friends about how cool they are because they own such a machine, even if those companies didn't spend anywhere near $10,000 to source the components and build it. They charged a premium because the market was willing to bear it.

It's no different with Apple. Apple is seeing sales start to fall as the economy falls, but so is everyone else in the industry.

 

[czachorski]

You will never explain the free market in terms of logic anyways. People often buy based on emotion.

 

[gnasher729]

Someone in this thread hit on what is really going on, in my opinion. I think these mom and pop operations are designed to draw fire and divert Apple legal's attention from boxmakers like Dell. Dell is, afterall doing exactly what quo claims to do. The Dell mini 9 pretty much runs osx out of the box. Can apple sue?

You can get a copy of Apple's complaint against Psystar, and then you can check these complaints one by one to see how they apply. Psystar's worst legal problems come from shipping a computer with MacOS X installed. Other complaints are about inducing its customers to breach their contracts with Apple (so shipping with a boxed copy of MacOS X that the customer installs himself would be a problem), using Apple's name and so on.

I don't think it is possible for Dell to create a computer where MacOS X can be installed fresh out of the box without _any_ additional software, without being in breach of the DMCA. I think it is possible to create a computer where running some software that you can find on the internet is enough, and as long as this compatibility can be explained as coincidence and Dell doesn't advertise the fact in any way, I think there is not much that Apple can do.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Well, as I said, no one is listening to each other. I see more of the same nonsensical replies about things like Mercedes oil filters versus Porsche, when no one is stopping Mercedes from selling Porsche oil filters just like a company like Fram makes filters for any hardware they want to. No one was trying to stop Apple from offering Windows support in the past on their hardware, so that argument is absurd, etc. etc. Arguments put forth like the idea of Toyota possibly requiring service by Toyota only for their cars in the buyers contract go ignored (because it points to the absurdity of Apple simply being able to write in their OS X Eula that you aren't allowed to buy anyone else's hardware if you want to use OS X) or similar situations that have already been ruled illegal (like trying to force people to buy cereal in order to enter into a sweepstakes or other contest). Tying is not allowed there regardless of status (those cereal companies are NOT Monopolies).

Frankly, I realize I'm dealing with fanatics here who believe Apple is always right no matter what the issue or what the laws are. Steve Jobs and company can do no wrong and they're always right and everyone should worship them. That's pretty much the basis for most arguments on these forums regarding Apple Vs. Anyone Else and most of you know that is a true statement. All non-Apple products SUCK (especially ones from Microsoft) before you ever even see them and when someone sues Apple on patent infringement, they're the BAD GUY and called things like patent squatters, but when Apple does the SAME THING, they're righteous to DEFEND THEIR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY!!! The sheer double-standard HYPOCRISY of it all makes me want to throw up. I think it's high time I unsubscribed from this pointless thread.