What is Digg?221 Comments
- threepio, on 08/26/2008, -15/+55Is it anti-competitive that I can only play Xbox 360 titles on a 360? PS3 titles on a PS3? Blu-ray titles on an authorized blu-ray player?
No, it's not. These are forms of software that are locked to hardware. Don't like it? Lump it. - inactive, on 08/27/2008, -24/+524 reasons Apple is not a Monopoly.
Every time I go on the internet, I see line of idiots rushing in to say that Apple is a monopoly because they are the only one who can make Macs and because they "tie" their operating system to their hardware. Let me explain why this isn't true.
1) MONOPOLY: That word doesn't mean what you think it means.
First of all, let me define "monopoly." Most dictionaries define monopolies as: the exclusive possession or control of the supply or trade in a commodity or service. A commodity is a raw material or primary agricultural product that can be bought or sold, such as coffee or copper. A service, on the other hand, would be something like eletricity or cable. Utilities are services.
In the eyes of the government, monopolies in themselves are not illegal. Antitrust law prohibits anti-competititive BEHAVIOR. People love to compare Microsoft to Apple, but it must be said that Microsoft didn't get sued simply because of Internet Explorer. Microsoft was sued for threatening PC manufacturers with revoking their licenses to distribute Windows if they removed the Internet Explorer icon from the desktop. Due to this restriction, Microsoft was able to kill Netscape, a competitor in the PC space where Windows has de facto monopoly status. It also must be said that Microsoft made it impossible to uninstall Internet Explorer from Windows itself, a practice that continues to this day. Apple, on the other hand, allows you to easily delete its native internet browser, Safari.
2) You CAN NOT have a monopoly on your own product, if there are substitutes available.
Read that line above again, slowly. Okay, now that that is clear, let me point out that Macs compete in the PC market. While many people compare Macs to Windows, they should really be comparing Macs to the PCs made by such companies such as HP, Dell, and Sony. So just so we have a clear understanding of this, Apple would only have a monopoly if they were the only company making computers or if Macs had a majority of the computer market. And no, Macs do not have a market all to themselves. Yes, OS X certainly separates Macs significantly from PCs, but it is this very distinction in which Apple competes with other PC companies.
3) Apple is NOT vertically integrated.
People confuse Apple's tying of OS X to their hardware as vertical integration. Vertical Integration occurs when a company controls the entire supply chain. The best example of this is John D Rockefeller's Standard Oil, which owned the oil fields, the railroads that transported the oil, the refineries that refined the oil and the gas stations that sold the converted oil at the very end of the chain.
To be vertically integrated Apple would have to own the companies that make their Logic Boards (Asus), hard drives (Seagate, Maxtor), chips (Intel) and every components that goes into a Mac. Yes, it is true, Apple designs their operating system, and sells the computers containing that operating system in Apple retail stores, but this doesn't fit the definition of vertical integation. As Apple haters are quick to point out, Macs seem to be nothing more than glorified PCs under the hood. Of course, this isn't entirely true since Apple designs the case and Logic Boards (motherboards for PC people), but the fact remains that it is companies like Asus that actually build the boards and other components for Apple. Because of this, Apple doesn't own the entire supply chain and as a result, do not fit into the classification.
4) There are no laws restricting the integration of software and hardware.
It must also be noted, that the integration of software and hardware was standard operating procedure for computer companies such as IBM prior to the dominance of Windows. The fact that Microsoft introduced a new business model that separated software from hardware, does not automatically make this old practice illegal.
See also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer,_Inc._ ... - SpeedSteamBoat, on 08/27/2008, -9/+35So if tomorrow Microsoft said you could not legally sell or install Windows on AMD based PCs because they just bought Intel it would be okay?
- solistus, on 08/27/2008, -1/+23Perhaps to you, but it says right around 0 words with no context.
- Qumahlin, on 08/27/2008, -3/+21One of Apple's primary issues with Psystar is what happens when people who buy computers from them start calling Apple for tech support and start getting pissed off when Apple refuses to help them and acts as if Apple is the bad guy.
Not to mention the Psystar computers are misleading as they have no way of guaranteeing that an OS update won't break the OS completely. - Enceladus, on 08/27/2008, -0/+16This image is not in the least bit enlightening. Safari's share of the browser market is not relevant to whether or not Apple's EULA involves "anti competitive tactics."
- bjenidles, on 08/27/2008, -1/+16Isn't the allure of apple the fact that the OS and the hardware are all made specifically for each other? Wouldn't something be lost if OSX was put on a PC?
- inactive, on 08/27/2008, -7/+21Well thats different, its microsoft, and we hate microsoft because... Um.. without resorting to lying I cant remember why I hate microsoft anymore, but Im sure I had a good reason at one time!!!!
- dankoleary, on 08/26/2008, -3/+16Considering the ease and popularity of the OSX86 project, who needs to file legal complaints? http://www.insanelymac.com/
- hexydes, on 08/27/2008, -6/+17I can honestly say, with the straightest face possible, I would trust a hacker ANY DAY OF THE WEEK before I would trust Bill Gates or Steve Jobs. Hackers do it for the love; Bill and Steve do it for the love of money, fame, and power (not that there's anything wrong with that, but those three goals certainly don't put my interests in the driver's seat).
- solistus, on 08/27/2008, -1/+11You can emulate OSX legally, too. You just can't sell non-licensed hardware with unauthorised Apple software for a profit, which is what Psystar did. That would be like selling your own home-built console with a PS3 emulator pre-loaded for under the cost of the PS3. You can bet your ass THAT is not legal.
No, Macs are not the same as other Intel PCs. For starters, they use an entirely different boot technology (EFI instead of BIOS). Macs also use a variety of Apple-patented technologies internally, ranging from small details to major differences. Did you even read the story? If you don't need "the right hardware" to run OSX, what exactly is it that Psystar sells again? Why would you need to buy a Mac clone if there were nothing special or different about Mac hardware? And this doesn't even speak to the fact that Psystar was selling computers loaded with OSX on it without authorisation from Apple. That's pretty blatantly illegal. They claim that Apple shouldn't be able to restrict OSX to Apple hardware is nonsensical. US law does not ban tying sales of one product to another. If it did, all device-specific accessories markets would be illegal. Apple software is sold as upgrades and enhancements for Apple hardware, just like any other closed software environment. If some second-rate router company started selling routers that stole Linksys firmware and code, Linksys would have the right to sue.
Modern consoles differ more from a standard PC than Macs do, but where do you arbitrarily draw the line? They still use most of the same components. They use custom variants of existing market CPUs and GPUs, which Apple often does as well. - dankoleary, on 08/27/2008, -0/+10It's just modifying a bootloader, nothing worse than playing a homebrew game on Wii of the 360
- solistus, on 08/27/2008, -4/+14Yes. It would be monumentally stupid, but that's their right. If they were not satisfied with their business relationship with AMD, they could refuse to license Windows to AMD machines. It makes sense in Apple's case because the companies' profit models are entirely different. Apple writes software to sell hardware. Microsoft licenses and sells software to run on other companies' hardware. Psystar steals to sell Apple's software.
This isn't about Apple hunting down passionate users with Hackintoshes. It's about a company whose business model was to knock off Apple products with unauthorised copies of Apple software to make a profit off Apple's IP. - aussieNickuss, on 08/27/2008, -1/+11This is stupid. A tech company doesn't have to be a software OR hardware company....they can be both if they so wish, and it's up to them what they want THEIR product to be used for.
This would be like Nokia saying Motorola is being anti-competitive because Motorola refuses to licence their phone OS to Nokia. - jasmus, on 08/27/2008, -1/+10I've seen this mentioned in many places, but I believe the price of OS X is subsidized by the (some may call premium) price of the apple branded hardware. That's why OS X is about $130 instead of $600 or whatever a retail windows is. By installing it on non-Apple hardware, you are essentially install an upgrade version of an OS onto a new system without meeting the upgrade pre-requisites.
I don't know what that means legally, but that's the best description of the licensing issue I've come across so far. - Willravel, on 08/27/2008, -2/+11Did Psystar Ltd. make any attempt to get permission before breaching Apple's licensing terms? No, of course not. That fact means that they do not have the ethical high ground on the issue.
- grumpyrain, on 08/27/2008, -5/+13You realise that under your definition in point 2, Windows, Office, Internet Explorer, Photoshop, etc have never been monopolies. There have always been (and continues to be) substitutes or alternatives to all of these products, (some are in fact better).
In any case, I am quite interested to see the outcome of this case. - bencanfield, on 08/27/2008, -2/+10I think he might be referring to how IE was considered a monopoly since Windows came installed with it and indirectly forced/forces people to use it. I remember hearing about it in my Business Law class (aka this is old news -- way before FF and other browsers became popular).
- MScrip, on 08/27/2008, -1/+9Except, OSX would turn into a big pile of *****.
No longer would OSX "just work." Hardware makers would have to make drivers to work with every possible configuration. Your shiny new video card has some incompatibility with the onboard NIC driver. The SATA controller now ***** up your sound card.
Oops, you installed version 3.962 of the Intel chipset driver... NVidia says that only version 2.847 works with that video card. - louiebaur, on 08/27/2008, -3/+10This is going to be a very interesting lawsuit. Can't wait to see who comes out on top.
- Wilddigi, on 08/27/2008, -3/+10It's Apple's own software on their hardware, how in the ***** can it be anticompetitive. There is window and Linix flavors
- LeviTheSmith, on 08/27/2008, -2/+8Well if you don't agree to the terms of use.. don't buy the software. Pretty simple.
- MScrip, on 08/27/2008, -2/+8I'd love to have a BMW M3 engine in my car... but I have to buy an over-priced M3.
- abbathdoom, on 08/27/2008, -3/+9All that png tells me is how far ahead Keynote is over ***** Powerpoint. Look how gorgeous the charts are.
- 0g1dnew, on 08/27/2008, -0/+6But if you try to make a bunch of boxes and sell them as XBox 360 or PS3 clones you can bet Microsoft or Sony will come down on you pretty fast.
- Qumahlin, on 08/27/2008, -3/+8Yes, then Apple would have to support all of the ***** hardware and wait for manufacturers and developers to provide working drivers that don't crash the OS.
over 90% of the crashes most user would experience in windows are due to driver issues. - irfanmp, on 08/27/2008, -11/+16I'm probably going to get buried by all the Apple fanboys, but no, I hope Apple loses. I'm tired of the little guy getting pushed around. If I want a cheap alternative to Apple, let me have it.
- solistus, on 08/27/2008, -0/+5The IE thing wasn't the fact that they included IE; it was that they threatened to revoke licensing agreements for OEMs who pre-installed Netscape and set it as the default browser. They had to stop doing that, but were allowed to keep IE bundled with Windows and un-removable due to its system level importance. I'm not familiar with the Vista kernel suit, but EU regulations are different from American law. Comparing a lawsuit in the US to a lawsuit in the EU tells you more about the relative degree of regulation in each country than how unfair everyone is to poor Microsoft.
- solistus, on 08/27/2008, -0/+5Drivers are everything here. The primary reason OSX is so successful is because it is designed with a specific hardware platform in mind. Currently, the only parts that have OSX drivers are parts used directly by Apple in a recent product or sold as licensed 3rd party upgrades. This is a tiny fraction of the hardware on the market today. Virtually all non-Apple systems would be incapable of running OSX at a tolerable speed because of this.
Also, Apple's profit model is to make money off hardware and use software to add value to it. OSX updates only cost $129. Compare that to Vista Ultimate (OSX does not have an 'Ultimate' edition; for $129 you get everything, period.). Or compare Apple's iLife and other basic productivity software to comparable MS products. Apple makes a little money off software, but not enough to stay afloat. Their profits come from hardware sales. OSX on any hardware wouldn't be so cool if Apple went out of business and stopped updating OSX, would it? - Gee1004, on 08/27/2008, -0/+5It's Apple's own brand. You have other choices. The sun is a necessity for life. If Apple was holding back something that is a survival for human existence, it would be available for the masses. And if someone invented a magic candle, they could sell it any price, as long as there are other candles. There is, wax candles
- MScrip, on 08/27/2008, -2/+7Who's the little guy? Psystar?
They are violating Apple's rules by selling Apple software on unauthorized machines!
Contracts are written for a reason. Apple has a good EULA. If it pisses you off so much, why do you want to run an Apple OS?
You can have a cheap alternative to Apple... Windows or Linux. Or roll your own Apple box... it's not that hard. - Wilddigi, on 08/27/2008, -1/+6Becuase Microsoft is a ***** operating software company. Bill Gates riches are from selling OS to fortune 500 companies, Military, Wall street and banks to run on their server and make the OS for PC's. They do not make Microsoft branded PC's. They do not give a ***** what computer it's run on. Even refrigerators run MS OS now from Samsung. Apple makes computer and makes the OS to run on their computers. Don't ***** steal it
- MacHarborGuy, on 08/27/2008, -0/+5no, because someone had to BUY that copy of XP or Vista, and in the end Microsoft doesn't care what hardware you run it on. Apple, however, does care what hardware you run OSX on. Go ahead and hack-install it on some generic PC. I don't care, but Apple does and because of that you don't get ANY support if something screws up.
Some people don't realize that if Apple was to open their OS back up (like back in the clone era of Macs), that Apple's tech support costs would increase and their customer service quality would really suffer. Their CS isn't the best out there, but it is better than Microsoft's atm. - solistus, on 08/27/2008, -1/+6Read a few more comments to this story and you'll see several people level the accusation.
- MacParrot, on 08/27/2008, -0/+5This will probably not be a popular viewpoint considering the responses above, but Psystar is not pirating the OS. They are including a legal retail copy purchased from God knows where with each computer. The only thing they are in violation of is Apple's EULA and whether that is legal and binding will be a matter for the courts to decide.
I would rather have an Apple Mac since they don't have fans that sound like a 747 in reverse thrust but that's just me - solistus, on 08/27/2008, -0/+4jabberwolf: an anticompetitive practice is only monopolistic if you have a large enough market share to crowd out competitors. Apple does not.
At any rate, there is nothing anticompetitive about having a licensing agreement for software that bars reselling for profit. Psystar doesn't have a leg to stand on here.
Please cite the specific law you think Apple has broken. There is no law requiring that software be made available for other platforms, let alone that other companies be allowed to SELL that software for a profit. Just think: how exactly is it monopolistic for Apple to voluntarily curb its potential market share in the OS arena? They literally *can't* become a monopoly. It's not monopolistic for them to be the only provider of their product. That's just stupid. It would be monopolistic if they took measures with both the intent and the effect of making it more difficult for consumers to use non-Apple OSes with an attempt to force everyone to adopt OSX. That is not even vaguely close to what they are doing. Don't throw around terms like monopoly if the closest you have come to understanding their meaning is playing a ***** board game. - SpeedSteamBoat, on 08/27/2008, -1/+5Except that you can emulate any of those systems legally (assuming you've purchased the real-deal and own a computer with enough muscle to manage it).
It's also true that those are all very unique pieces of hardware. Off course you need the right hardware to run the software. The same is not true of Apple. At the heart of every Mac is an Intel-PC essentially just like any other. - arjie, on 08/27/2008, -2/+6I don't get it.
- solistus, on 08/27/2008, -0/+4Even if Apple had a much higher market share, they are not obligated to let other companies sell their product for a profit. For example, in the Microsoft case, there was nothing inherently illegal about Microsoft's behaviour revoking licensing from some OEMs. The problem was that they did it in a systematic way based on whether OEMs would follow their rules about not installing competing browsers or removing the IE shortcut from the desktop. If Apple used its monopoly over the OS market (ya know, the one it doesn't have?) to force other companies to carry other products of theirs / not carry competitors, that would be illegal. Simply choosing not to provide their software for OEM resale is their right. Before Windows, pretty much all computer OSes worked that way. In many other areas, such as Solaris servers, it still does. Just because Windows introduced a new business model of cross-compatibility with 'commodity' hardware doesn't mean it's illegal for Apple not to follow suit.
- solistus, on 08/27/2008, -0/+4The MS IE lawsuit was about how MS threatened OEMs into *not* installing Netscape. Note that they still bundle IE with Windows; that ought to be a good sign that that was NOT the practice the DOJ nailed them on.
- Diggnabbit, on 08/27/2008, -1/+5They could try, by, you know, asking Apple.
- Gee1004, on 08/27/2008, -0/+4Makes no sense. Microsoft is making money selling windows to Mac Users. Microsoft doesn't sell Microsoft Branded PC's
- hypercrypt, on 08/27/2008, -2/+6It is different, but only slightly. If Microsoft let their OEM agreements expire, and became the exclusive OEM of their OS, sure. Why shouldn't they be allowed to do that?
Is it anti-competitive that Motorola isn't allowed to license and use Nokia's OS? It isn't that Apple is being selective about who is allowed to use the OS, no-one is. They are not giving it to Dell, but excluding Psystar.
What is unfair about Apple being the exclusive provider of OS X? - Diggnabbit, on 08/27/2008, -1/+5Monopoly (or market power) status has everything to do with this lawsuit because anticompetitive behavior is only illegal if you have market power.
- MacHarborGuy, on 08/27/2008, -1/+5I do get a kick out of what the owner of Psystar has been quoted as saying...
"What if Honda said that, after you buy their car, you could only drive it on the roads they said you could?"
TO which I say...
"What if a company called Frystar started building cars, slapped a number of Honda parts in it (including Honda owner's manuals) and sold them as 'The Smart Alternative to Honda'?" You think Honda would get pissed and take them to court. Damn right they would.
He also said that they aren't breaking any laws when it comes to the EULA for OSX. However, with the way tech-law has been going and recent court cases involving EULAs (one that comes to mind is Blizzard VS MMOGlider), Psystar really needs to tread carefully (too late) because the law could turn around and bite them in the ass when they least expect it. - Diggnabbit, on 08/27/2008, -0/+3Windows was (is) not technically a monopoly, but they were darn close because of their market share. When you've got over 90% of the market, you have enough market power to trigger antitrust laws because you can engage in anticompetitive behavior.
- inactive, on 08/27/2008, -1/+4You would be right except that they don't...
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8 ... - cadmiumpaint, on 08/27/2008, -2/+5thief vs property owner.
- MacParrot, on 08/27/2008, -0/+3How could they get permission from Apple to so something against Apple's EULA?
- Branchex, on 08/27/2008, -2/+5If Apple were to lose this then no one could develop software exclusively for their own machines which seem is not capitalist. Why shouldn't one have the right to not to share of their own creation.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 225 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is