Well, Apple is absolutely restraining the trade with computers. Dell hasn't sold a computer in years because Apple doesn't allow them to ship with MacOS X, and neither has HP. Acer and Toshiba have stopped producing computers, all because of Apple.

In your dreams, Psystar. If you want to sell computers, you can get a license from Microsoft (> 90% of OS market), you can install Linux, you could probably get a license for BeOS or AmigaOS if you wanted. No restraint of trade here.

Quote

Guest wrote:

In your dreams, Psystar. If you want to sell computers, you can get a license from Microsoft (> 90% of OS market), you can install Linux, you could probably get a license for BeOS or AmigaOS if you wanted. No restraint of trade here.

Or they could develop their own OS, one that would be a Windows and OSX killer.

Isn't this like saying BMW only sells their engines with their cars? Or Gap store only sells their Gap clothes?

Pretty much.

It's a money grab.

They're hoping they're enough of a nuisence, or enough bad PR, or that Apple's lawyers might blink, and they'll get a pay off.

I hope the Psystar crew gets slapped with malicious or frivolous suit and get punished for wasting the court's time and resources.

What a bunch of dim-bulbs these people are. I bet George W. is their intellectual role model.

That big 7% marketshare that Apple has is really going to bolster Psystar's position. To be a monopoly that the courts won't allow, you have to be dominant in the marketplace and misusing your position. Heck, my cable company is dominant and it often misuses its position. But they're allowed to get away with it.

I think they're going to have a really hard time arguing their claims simply because Apple's tie between their hardware and software has been in existence since the end of the Mac Clones (which was still heavily controlled through patents and agreements). Going after them 10 years later seems like throwing down a pair of deuces against three Kings.

As much as I love them, Apple uses monopolizing tactics, like using OS X to sell their computers. It doesn't matter that OS X is not sold, just like it doesn't matter that IE was not sold. What is unclear is whether or not their position and tactics are strong enough to warrant punishment. What is clear is that once OS X is available, many Apple-wanna-be-switchers won't pay for the inflated prices on generic hardware that Apple offers. For 90% of the world, that's still not enough and they'll continue to use whatever the Micro$ofts of the world are pumping out.

I'm curious about a part of the original article that John didn't mention. "Psystar's ability to prevail on the issue of having the latitude to load Apple's OS on its own hardware, given it has a licensing agreement with the company, may prove an easier road to hoe, legal experts note." I'd like to hear more about what this licensing agreement entails and what kind of trouble this might pose to Apple's success in this case.

Quote

Guest wrote:
As much as I love them, Apple uses monopolizing tactics, like using OS X to sell their computers.

That's not monopolization. You can buy OS X separate from the computer, and Apple is very good about supporting older hardware for several years out; which is good enough to allow for folks who don't stay w/ relatively current machines. That's the same damn deal that you're going to run into, regardless of the OS you're using.

Quote

Guest wrote:
What is unclear is whether or not their position and tactics are strong enough to warrant punishment.

It's not. A business should be punished for building devices that "just work", in an industry that is notorious for producing faulty equipment and software glitches?

Quote

Guest wrote:
What is clear is that once OS X is available, many Apple-wanna-be-switchers won't pay for the inflated prices on generic hardware that Apple offers.

Apple hardware is essentially the same price as comparably equipped PC's, minus the crapperware and other headaches associated. You're complaining about a decade+ old myth: that's what's clear. Get with the times!

Quote

Guest wrote:
For 90% of the world, that's still not enough and they'll continue to use whatever the Micro$ofts of the world are pumping out.

Apple has a monopoly because you don't want to use Windows?!? What freakin' planet are you living on? You can also choose Linux, by the way.

"That's not monopolization. You can buy OS X separate from the computer," but not use it on any other manufacturer's computer. That IS monopolization.

I'm not going to bother with the "just work" comment. We all know that Mac's crash and iPhones drop calls. We all know about the audio driver issues, etc. We are not immune from computing issues just because we use Apple's products.

Ignore the myth comment too, not really important in this discussion and I'll concede your point just so we can move on.

I live on Earth, where are you from? Apple's monopolizing WHICH computers you can run OS X on. Whether or not they are about to get slammed for it is to unclear.

Quote

Guest wrote:
I bet George W. is their intellectual role model.

More like Johnny Cochran or F.U. Bailey.

Actually Apple isn't a monopoly regardless if you can run or cannot run the OS on other manufactures' hardware. Apple is considered to be a hardware vendor and a relatively small one at that.

They built a vertical market with the OS and that is a competitive advantage/disadvantage and most courts will recognize that.

Maybe if they had a bigger market share in the hardware market they could be considered a monopoly and breaking the law by using tactics that are unfair, but they don't.

Side note: Apple computers are competitively priced for what you get. Go buy one if you want to run Mac OS X. If you feel that you don't need to pay for the "extra" stuff you won't use, then don't. But you won't be running Mac OS X. But you will still be able to check email, surf the web and play games and run other software.

"Apple's monopolizing WHICH computers you can run OS X on." Check the definition of monopolize. They SPECIFY which machines THEIR OS will run on. Guess what - so do ALL OS manufacturers. Try to run Windows XP on ARM, or SPARC. Try to run Solaris on PPC. Specifying which hardware (including their own) is their right. Don't like it? Don't buy it.

OMG I only just realised the name is not pys (as in piss) but psy (as in psycho).

Doesn't change anything as the former is still a better pronunciation for this pys-weak company.

The story appeared on SlashDot this morning

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?no_d2=1&sid=08/08/26/2148250

I scanned the comments and it was fascinating. The general opinion seems to be that Apple is a horrible monopoly that is out to destroy the little guy. The comments I looked through seemed to want the court to rule in Psystars favor and force Apple to sell OS-X to anyone for anything. The only counter position seems to be that Apple would then stop selling boxed copies of OS-X and only sell it through iTunes (how in the h@ll is that going to work?). The net result would be Apple going broke.

The MS reality distortion field is amazing sometimes.

IANAL but personally I think Apple has the right to control the use of their product.

Quote

tbone1 wrote:

Quote

Guest wrote:
I bet George W. is their intellectual role model.

More like Johnny Cochran or F.U. Bailey.

F. Lee Bailey

Quote

geoduck wrote:
The story appeared on SlashDot this morning

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?no_d2=1&sid=08/08/26/2148250

I scanned the comments and it was fascinating. The general opinion seems to be that Apple is a horrible monopoly that is out to destroy the little guy...
IANAL but personally I think Apple has the right to control the use of their product.

Yes Apple has a lot haters and bashers.

Apple seems to support the "little guy." The iPhone Apps store is selling a lot of stuff small shop and individual programmers. For that matter is Apple itself is a little guy when compared to MicroSoft's market share.

I build hardware that uses custom designed chips. I write software for it. It competes with the other computers, and ekes out a 2-4% market share. I include my software for free with the hardware (its built into the purchase price), and since it only runs on my hardware, there's no worry about people stealing it.

Later on, in order to get value for my software R&D (and comply with accounting rules), start selling copies of the software separate from the hardware.

I then, in order to make more $ for my shareholders and increase market share, I choose not to use custom chips, but to use a hardware design similar to the other 95% of the market. My hardware and software is better designed than my competitors, and I increase my market share. In fact, the combination of my unique hardware with my unique software is what gives me the competitive advantage to allow me to increase my market share.

Now someone comes along, and, seeing that my hardware is only slightly different than the generic hardware, builds hardware that can sort of run my software. However, I have not licensed my software to be used by others. It is proprietary and I put a lot of R&D into it. And just because they CAN buy the software, doesn't mean I have to let them use it without paying for my R&D costs.

Apple is NOT a monopoly. I don't see Sony called a monopoly because you can't run Playstation games on a Wii.!

Quote

Guest wrote:
I hope the Psystar crew gets slapped with malicious or frivolous suit and get punished for wasting the court's time and resources.

What a bunch of dim-bulbs these people are. I bet George W. is their intellectual role model.

Who's your intellectual role model? Al Gore? Psystar can't get slapped with "malicious or frivolous suit and get punnished for wasting the cour's time and resources" because Apple sued them! I think even Dubya could have gotten this one right just by reading the title of this post.