Analogies merely are a tool that helps some people see the point in a new light; they're never perfect.
Agreed. I hate hearing the whole "analogies about this and that are not comparable" nonsense. Yes there are bad analogies, but your rarely, if ever, going to find one that has a 1:1 correlation exactly. You can only get very close.
I think the best analogy in this case is the business model of Pro Tools. The company ties and requires that you use their hardware with their software. Not only is this perfectly legal, its a great example of a company linking their hardware and software together, yet being able to distribute their software separately (as an update only of course - you still have to prove you bought the hardware.).
And the 'black and white' of the world here is that 'Magnus' isn't really complaining about how Capitalism and IP rules works. IMO, Magnus's complaint is simple: he's not happy that Macs are "Expensive".
The hackintosh fans breaks down into three parties.
1) People who believe/think of/hate that the Mac hardware as overpriced. Very common and in some case understandable.
2) People who dislike the hardware and want it in a different case or form factor for upgradability. This would also include people that want a mid range tower or more hardware choices from Apple. Again partially true, but at the end of the day just not a viable model to duplicate the Microsoft business model. For the record, yes the hardware line is a bit thin, but thats Apple's decision and not ours.
3) People who have a lack of understanding about contract law, monopolies, anti-trust, tying, legality of licencisng, copyrights, IP law, patents, trademarks, history of Apple and the computer industry, history of relevant case law, and so on. The worst. These guys don't want to play by the rules because they think that the rules do not apply to them or that Apple is guilty of some fictitious crime. they tend to use examples 1 and 2 to justify their actions. Remember Clive at 5? He was notorious along with Magnus on insisting that Apple was guilty of some kind of monopoly and tying and refused to listen to logic. They tend to make outright incorrect claims and use bad analogies to explain them.
The problem is that the only thing that will ever make him happy is a sufficiently cheap Mac. When he was told that he can't have what he wants, he rejected it childishly with a temper tantrum that has irrationally not listened to reasoning's.
I think that, like many Mac people, they tend to get emotional about a good product. I think that Magnus (and the other people who make similar arguments) really likes the Mac operating system. I really do. They just want the kit at a lower price and think that it (like the rest or the PC industry) should be cheap. They do not understand that its just not the way things work. They, as Adam Savage famously said, want to "reject your reality and substitute my own"
Hey, I don't like the fact that Macs aren't super-cheap either.
But I find out why, decide, and then move on with my life.
Exactly. I don't very much like the price of Macs either just as I don't really like the high prices of most cars. However, just like BMW not being the only car company around, or McDonalds not being the only hamburger joint in town, Apple is not the sole supplier of computers by a long shot. I made an informed decision about buying my Mac and I don't regret it. Sure it wasn't cheap, but I don't regret not buying a $500 Dell like my parents wanted me to get.
