What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Killer Gift For A Movie Buff view!
bestbuy.com - Insignia Blu-ray player instantly streams Netflix movies right to your TV & comes with a free disc.
311 Comments
- shutaro, on 08/31/2009, -4/+153Suing Apple? There's an app for that.
- varmit, on 08/31/2009, -15/+123You can't force someone to program openly. If they want to program for a specific device, they can do that, its their loss for not trying to corner more of the market with their software. Otherwise, damn it, Blackberry, I'm suing you because I can't put your OS on Treo. You should be forced to program and open your OS up to my device too.
- GreatDrok, on 09/01/2009, -20/+64Apple tried licensing their OS to clone makers prior to Steve Jobs coming back in 1997. It nearly killed the company. They develop the OS and the hardware to work together unlike Microsoft who have a monopoly on operating systems which allows them to make money despite being slow to innovate if ever. Apple owns the operating system and they have the right to sell it bundled with their hardware. No copies of Mac OS X are available to buy outright. They are all upgrades to the copy that came bundled with the Mac. Psystar will have their arses handed to them and rightly so. A PC may be made from many of the same components as a Mac but it isn't a Mac unless it is branded as such.
Would I like to be able to build a Mac myself and put OS X on? Sure. I could build a machine more suited to my needs than any Apple produces but without the Mac+OS X combination, Apple would find it hard to justify producing the machines at all so opening up OS X to other platforms would kill Apple's revenues and thus kill the OS. I don't want to see Apple die so I will just have to keep buying real Macs that come as close to what I want as I can. I just wish Apple would do a mid-range tower but I'm by no means alone on that and I'm sure they have a good reason for not doing so since it would have to be cheaper than the iMac and just as powerful. Space between the iMac and the Mac mini is tight. - XcentryK, on 09/02/2009, -5/+48This is pretty much the same as you being a musician, creating a track and then having someone who is in no way related to you demand rights to use it.
Apple owns OSX and they also own the Macintosh so they can do whatever they want.
I wouldn't mind getting an officially supported MacOSX release for my PC (although I do own a Mac as well), but I understand and respect the right Apple has over it's own property. - Palaceguard, on 09/02/2009, -2/+37Here we go again. For one, the judge in this case ruled in the beginning that Apple is not a monopoly. 2) Apple can have a computer that it's software is customized to run on it. There is no law in the books that says a person who develops software had to have it run on all computers. 3). Microsoft makes software for all computers from the very beginning. It's their roadmap. Apple makes Macs. Stop comparing Microsoft to Apple.
and the last thing. Apple once did allow clones and licensed their OS, but it did not work - Gee1004, on 09/02/2009, -1/+33The endless money for Psystar has, why don't they write their own OS.
- macmcraeart, on 09/01/2009, -33/+60"and monopolizes the market for 'premium computers,'"
What a ***** joke. The only thing premium about apple hardware is its price. - BlueConcept, on 09/01/2009, -2/+26So it must be illegal for Microsoft or Sony or Nintendo to have games released that only play on their consoles. Because otherwise, buying Wii Sports is worthless unless I own a Wii. Quick Psystar, let's try to leech some money from Nintendo too! And everyone else for that matter...
- inactive, on 09/02/2009, -12/+33But Microsoft doesn't make hardware.
Also, how can a company have a "monopoly" on THEIR OWN PRODUCTS? Methinks you know not what the ***** 'monopoly' means. - seltaeb4, on 09/01/2009, -5/+26Who is Psystar, or more importantly, who is *funding* Psystar? This is obviously not just some garage outfit... all of this legal action requires DEEP pockets.
Has anyone out there taken shipment of one of their Mac knockoffs, or does the company simply exist on paper? - hazard99, on 09/02/2009, -0/+20I like Macs and PCs equally. So please don't think I'm being a fanboy by asking this question:
How is this any different than Nintendo releasing the Wii and having Wii games only playable on it? You don't expect to purchase a Wii and be able to play PS3 games on it. Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft all release video game consoles (hardware) and games exclusive for each consoles(software), just like Apple does with their computers (hardware) and their OS (software).
Bury me, I really don't care. Just please tell me why this idea is flawed so I can understand the situation better. - digitalpencil, on 09/02/2009, -4/+22I don't want Palm to tie WebOS to their hardware, or MS to tie the Zune firmware to theirs.. but guess what, they have!
this is retarded, they make the hardware, they make the software. It's their prerogative if they choose to tie the two together.. - Gee1004, on 09/02/2009, -1/+17Because you are allowed to do it for yourself in your own home NOT SELL IT! That's what happened to the XBOX hacker to modifying xboxes. JAIL TIME
- JohnnySoftware, on 09/01/2009, -10/+25This is very true. The excursion into cloning - licensing the Apple OS software to hardware competitors - was a disaster. That is what happens when you blindly take advice from competitors who are not so blindly giving it.
What happened is instructive:
1) Apple started spewing forth new hardware systems, new computers - almost every month. Only minor changes/variations existed in each new design.
2) Software progress slowed to a halt, practically. Development of existing applications slowed, new applications were not coming out, and some existing applications were dropped with no replacements offered.
3) Profit margins for the computer maker dropped, engineering funds were strangulated, and customers had little to look forward to but revisions of some old products and some extraordinarily expensive $20K niche products for businesses.
4) Apple ventured disastrously into DRM to try to control distribution of software it sold online with the result hard drives with DRMed applications on them could eventually stop booting after OS upgrades. Not a big win for either consumers, PR, or product support staff.
When you look at it that way cloning in the mid-1990s made Apple back then what the MS-Windows/PC industry is today:
1) PC platform has not greatly changed from a system software standpoint in years. The peripheral & I/O changes that have taken place - like SATA, Intel mutli-core processors, etc., are adopted at same time by Macs - these are really just Intel/etc. innovations that are picked up by all Intel's computer-making customers.
2) PC hardware makers laying off US staff and selling their US factories.
3) Little, if any, system software innovation by computer hardware makers. Not much of a contribution from them to the PC platform.
4) DRM stifling MS-Windows customers, even preventing legitimate use like Apple DRM did back in the mid-1990s before it was dropped to the relief of Apple and its customers. The DRM seemed innocuous at first but within a couple of years it pretty much wrecked the system it was on - parts of the system that had nothing to do with the DRM'ed applications themselves.
Microsoft only has competition on the modern, superannuated, legacy IBM PC clone platform from Linux. Core development of Linux is not even done by a company but a few guys overseeing the work of professionals and hobbyists. So from a strictly business-to-business standpoint it does not have any head-to-head competition. So, Apple is not worse than Microsoft in this sense and such complaints ring hollow.
As much as Apple's competitors are accused of blindly copying Apple products, this cloning thing is one lesson Apple made very public which the MS-Windows/PC industry has clearly not digested, even a decade later.
Clones spur a race for the bottom on prices. Clones do not spur innovation for very long. In fact, they hobble it.
Granted, that computer market segment cannot just end cloning of the IBM PC. That's all they have been doing since a year after the IBM PC came out when the clones appeared.
Microsoft wrote a lot of new software for the IBM PC/clones platform in the 1980's and 1990's but looking at software products coming out of the company, there are far fewer new applications being introduced in the 2000's. Most new "releases" are just new versions, or just security/bug fixes accompanied with license changes.
Apple steadily introduced dramatically new products during the 2000s, at the same time Microsoft cut way back on them. If you think about it, both companies switched the places they held in the 1990's and 2000's.
The driver for this in both cases, seems to have been hardware cloning leading to a lack of system software and stagnation of the application/utility software. The rise of innovative new products that started at the end of the 1990s matches up with only 2 related events: Apple ended its contracts with the Mac-clone makers and Apple hired Steve Jobs, adopting Mac OS X and some new programmer blood in the process.
There is a lot of positive synergy from having the engineering department in a company provide both the system hardware and the system software. They can work together without lawyers and vested interests of competing firms & industries keeping them apart.
Isn't that divisiveness and fruitless competition exactly what has taken place in the MS-Windows ecosystem this decade?
And the way things are now - both with Microsoft and with the computer hardware makers, neither one can copy Apple. Apple is in a different position. These companies are not set up like Apple. It is a different paradigm. A completely different ecosystem. One that fosters innovation not stagnation. - Mateo2, on 09/02/2009, -8/+22It's not about "programming openly", it's about not specifically making it impossible for anyone else to run your OS. Apple has to do extra work to PREVENT other hardware from running their OS.
This is clearly a monopoly strategy. It's no different than big steel companies of yesterday buying the railroads, thus controlling the supply chain fully. - Qumahlin, on 09/02/2009, -8/+21I love how you along with 90% of Digg don't understand what a "monopoly" is.
If you think that by tying OSX to only Apple hardware is a monopoly your an idiot, its simple as that. I debated going into detail, but quite frankly a simple google search of what the legal term for a monopoly is should set you on your way to learning what qualifies as a monopoly. - c3rb85, on 09/02/2009, -2/+15"Hollywood has to use Macs now so they can use both FCP and Adobe products. An OS should never be limited to certain hardware."
Well then I guess in that case you could sue Apple and Adobe for limiting their software to an OS? - pak314, on 09/01/2009, -18/+31Psystar is not asking Apple be forced to support other devices. They just don't want Apple to tie the OS to their own hardware.
- rolf, on 09/02/2009, -2/+15If nothing else, I have to say the unibody aluminum construction on the MacBook Pros are quite nice and you'd really have to hate Apple to deny that.
There are other features but probably not groundbreaking... but if what's offered isn't worth it to you, simply don't buy it. - thedavidwells, on 09/02/2009, -1/+13This is wrong. Why should anyone be able to FORCE Apple to do anything? If they want to have the OS that they created and they own tied to their hardware that's their deal. If you want to use that OS, then you need to purchase the hardware. It's always been like that, so deal with it. The fact that everyone's solution to everything these days is to get a lawyer and sue is pathetic.
- Rantipole, on 09/02/2009, -2/+14No, it got banned from the app store.
- dogstylee, on 09/02/2009, -5/+17Ah man, my iPod OS won't install on my dick, I'd better sue Apple for this.
- Qumahlin, on 09/02/2009, -2/+14For the people that don't understand how stupid this case is.
"monopolizes the market for 'premium computers,'" said Psystar's lawsuit, filed last Wednesday. "Apple's share of revenue in the market for premium computers -- computers priced at over $1,000 -- is currently 91%."
Currently Rolex has the market cornered on high price watches over 10K...some of you seem to think that would make Rolex a monopoly. - digitalpencil, on 09/02/2009, -1/+12@elister: yes, but each copy of OS X is sold as an 'upgrade' and used under the condition that it is only installed on their hardware. yes, you can install it on regular X86 hardware like you can install it multiple times without having purchased a multi-user license either.
What Psystar have done however is the equivalent of taking the ZuneHD, breaking it down to it's base components. Re-assembling it from cheaper off-the-shelf alternatives and packaging the ZuneHD firmware with it, despite having invested nothing into its research & development.
not everything is open and we're being naive here if we don't believe that other companies would fight to protect their IP in the same manner. - BullBearMS, on 09/01/2009, -2/+13They already do. The problem is that most PC's use a BIOS instead of Intel's more modern replacement, EFI. Macs do use EFI.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extensible_Firmware_I ...
Chameleon is an open source program that allows regular PC's to support EFI so they can boot from a retail MacOS CD.
http://chameleon.osx86.hu/
Now the question becomes, "Can I find drivers that support my hardware in Mac OSs X?" However, that would be a valid question no matter which OS you want to install.
Here is a walkthrough using Chameleon and the 29 dollar Snow Leopard installer.
http://www.ihackintosh.com/2009/08/how-to-install- ... - Gee1004, on 09/02/2009, -2/+13I would like to put a Porche engine in my Honda and pay $20,000, but that won't happen
- digitalpencil, on 09/02/2009, -3/+14Excepting the Zune and the 360, Microsoft doesn't sell hardware.. Should we sue MS because they won't let me sell cheaper *'open'* Zunes that magically run their firmware?
Psystar are dead in the water, the only way they've managed to stay afloat is by declaring bankruptcy to get out of lawsuits and then redraw the application once they were in the clear. They've failed to issue financial information under the guise of having 'lost it' and simply not bothering to record other profit and most interestingly, funding reports in the first place. - barthrh, on 09/02/2009, -1/+12Please, share with the class where you can get a machine equivalent to a Mac Pro at the same or better price. This has been discussed ad nauseam with consistently the same conclusion: Apple's prices are not premium when compared to an equal system.
- zephc, on 09/02/2009, -1/+12Correctly pointed out. BullBearMS was sort of correct in his definition of tying, but not mentioning that the "basic idea is that consumers are harmed by being forced to buy an undesired good (the tied good) in order to purchase a good they actually want (the tying good), and so would prefer that the goods be sold separately."[1]
Consider the following:
1. Apple sells computers with OS X bundled for free - they are not separate purchases - there is no monetary penalty for buying an Apple computer and wanting to run OS X.
2. Apple computers can have OS X uninstalled and another OS (e.g. Windows or Linux) installed in its place - there is no monetary penalty for buying an Apple computer and NOT wanting to run OS X, as it was pointed out in point 1 that there is no financial penalty for this (this is not exactly related to tying, but is the converse point to point 1)
3. Apple also sells OS X separately but does not require that you buy a new computer every time you do - there is no monetary penalty for buying OS X without a Mac.
It would seem to follow that there is no penalty for *buying* OS X (being able to use it or not is not a commerce issue).
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tying_(commerce) - zephc, on 09/01/2009, -2/+12It's like SCO all over again (even though apparently SCO is still kicking despite being zombified)
- enantiodromia, on 09/02/2009, -4/+14Now this is confusing: Is Apple a monopoly, or do they only have a few percent market share?
The haters need to make up their minds already. - MScrip, on 09/02/2009, -2/+12Psystar isn't in the clone business...
They are in the litigation business... - leamanc, on 09/02/2009, -2/+12People, PLEASE read the definition of monopoly. Apple, OS X and Macs do not constitute a monopoly. Of any sort. Not even metaphorically.
If this was the case, then Nintendo would have a monopoly on the Wii. Amazon would have a monopoly on the Kindle. Samsung would have a monopoly on the firmware for my HDTV. And on and on and on and on...
Psystar simply wants to profit from selling computers with an OS they haven't properly licensed. - Qumahlin, on 09/02/2009, -1/+11Yes, but thier point is moot because their argument is that by doing so they are monopolizing the "premium computer market" which is immediately rendered useless due to the fact that Psystar has already been informed that Apple is not a monopoly.
You can't tell another company what their software can run on. Plain and simple. - designerutah, on 09/02/2009, -0/+10Mateo2: Do you OWN your copy of Windows? Read the ULA carefully... you don't. You're also just licensing it from Microsoft. This is standard practice (and a double standard) for software makers.
My question to you: What OTHER hardware/software markets work like the PC/Windows market, where hardware isn't tied into the manufacturer's software? - MacParrot, on 09/02/2009, -2/+11Apple hasn't made a big deal out of the OSX86 folks because they don't sell their solution to installing OS X on non-Apple machines. Psystar turns around and by standing on the shoulders of the OSX86 group are selling Mac clones. Apple for reasons of their own don't sell their OS in retail for any reason other than to install it on an Apple Mac. They don't HAVE to if they don't want to and while I would love to have a less expensive Mac (and I'll probably build one once the dust over SL settles), it isn't up to me or Psystar to force Apple to do whatever they don't want to do with their software.
- macluke170, on 09/02/2009, -0/+9I think that if Apple does not want to make Mac OS 10 open than they don't have to. Its Apples product and they can do what they wish with it. I think it would be kind of nice if Mac OS 10 was open but I didn't make it so I shouldn't be the one who decided that. If you make something than you can decide what to do with it.
- stanski1, on 09/02/2009, -3/+12What a ***** idiot. Where the hell did you get your law degree?
- el_jefe, on 09/02/2009, -0/+9"Hell, If I buy a ***** CD, I own it and I can install it on whatever the ***** I like."
You sir have no idea what you are talking about.
I would love for you to try and convince a judge that you own an operating system, or music, or a movie just because you dropped a few dollars on it and now have a copy and then come back and tell us how that went.
While I agree copyright law probably needs to be modified, under the current law you own as much of that OS as you do the air you breathe. That money you just dropped on that OS just gives you the right to "use" the software and you can only use it the way the owner (not you) intended. For anything else, you need permission from the owner.
Also, Apple is not forcing you to install their software on overprice machines. You have the freedom of choice. You can choose to build your own OS, purchase one from another vendor, or download one of the many free Operating systems that adorn the web.
What I do not understand is why people complain about Apple's prices, how the OS sucks, and then turn around and scream when you can't purchase the OS X to install on your PC. - designerutah, on 09/02/2009, -1/+10You don't OWN the OS, you license it. And the "stand-alone" OS X you can buy? It's an upgrade... legally. Windows is the same way, you don't own it, you license it. You do OWN the hardware though, so do what you want with it.
- regeya, on 09/02/2009, -9/+18If you'll RTFA closer, you'll note that the definition of "premium computers" here is "$1000 and up."
- diggmaddy, on 09/02/2009, -0/+9Microsoft Office requires purchase of a compatible version of Microsoft Windows as well.
- Qumahlin, on 09/02/2009, -2/+11"all of this legal action requires DEEP pockets."
Actually it doesn't. 90% of legal costs are to the lawyers. If you are a lawyer or if you have a lawyer who thinks the case is a definite win/settle than they will gladly fight the case for nothing and bank on their ability to win.
Depending on the type of case you can even get some law schools to give you services for free and you'll have a team of people working on your case for next to nothing with a "senior" lawyer overseeing it all. - hljboss, on 09/02/2009, -0/+9"High market share" and "anti-competitive practices" are very different. Microsoft didn't get sued for just having a high market share. They were sued for pressuring people into business practices useful to Microsoft with threats, etc.
Apple's dominance in music and media player markets is simply due to offering an attractive product. You don't get sued for that. Nor are they a monopoly by any means; there are hundreds of other MP3 players on the market, and other ways to get music, too. Now if they start telling retailers they won't sell them iPods if they handle Sony players, too, then we have a problem. But that's not how they've succeeded. - Qumahlin, on 09/02/2009, -0/+9Your right. Similar to your lack of knowledge of US monopoly laws.
- judicar, on 09/02/2009, -7/+15Cocaine is a hell of a drug huh?
- LostSoul83, on 09/01/2009, -8/+16DOWN WITH EULAS!
- Qumahlin, on 09/02/2009, -3/+11Clearly the author of the article doesn't know the meaning of the word monopoly.
- inactive, on 09/02/2009, -0/+8Now im gonna complain that ricer wing i bought for a Mazda wont fir on my civic.
- el_jefe, on 09/02/2009, -0/+8"I think many people are missing the point. The new version of Apple's browser does a hardware check... this is really a game changer."
Not its not. This is nothing like what MS did with IE. MS is in the buisness of selling software. They do not sell PCs, just the software to run them. They were using their software and forcing people to use their other software by integrating it into the OS. They were using their OS to keep a monopoly across all the PC makers.
Apple is not in the buisness of selling software. They are selling computers. They have built and OS thats runs on their computers. They have designed their computer for a specific purpose. You are not buying an Apple computer with someone else's OS on it. You are buying an Apple computer with an Apple OS.
Just like any other computer maker has the right to do. If HP or Acer decided that all of their PCs run ubuntu, and will not run any other OS, they can do that.
Are you trying to say because Toyota only sells Toyotas and will not allow you to order a Toyota body with Ford and Chevy parts under them that somehow puts them in the same arena as MS and IE? Becasue thats what it sounds like you are saying.
"Apple's model is we use top of the line hardware and produce a superior product. A cheap clone should have no effect if this is true."
Yes, Apple model is exactly that, but if you believe its because they are afraid someone might find out its the same crap PC vendors use then you have missed the point. Apple sells a complete package, and they want their package to have a specific experience. When you start letting people just modify parts your experience changes. You have to agree with that. After all, why are their so many PC video cards on the market? People buy a particular brand because they are looking for a specific outcome. Apple's desire is to control that. They want a consistent experience. Have you ever used linux? For the optimum setup, you need to compile your OS for your specific hardware. MS has chosen to go with model that allows their OS to be generic so it work with any hardware. Anyone who has gotten a blue screen because of a piece of hardware they just added has experienced what MS gave up to allow their system to work with a wide range of products. They accepted on some level some instability to their OS could be introduced by someone else. And when you buy Windows you too are agreeing to that same concept. Sure some people never have an issue, but some of us do. Its the way it is.
Apple has decided they did not want that kind of experience. So they dictate what hardware will be used with their OS. This allows them to compile their OS for specific hardware, and stream lines the code. They do not have to worry that some driver down the road is going to cause their OS to halt. They control the entire system. And yes, Apple owners pay a premium for it.
But my guess is most of them do not see the issue. They traded a little more money up front to not have to worry about the system crashing because they added a modem. -
Show 51 - 100 of 313 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is