[mdawson]

Exactly. I, like many here, have issues with Microsoft when it comes to their illegal and predatory business practices, as well as there utter lack of innovation, despite their penchant for throwing that term around, and their apparent lack of interest in making the best software that they can make. If someone pirates copies of Microsoft?s software, then I stand behind Microsoft?s right to persecute those thieves to the full extent of the law. If someone breeches the licensing agreement for software developed by Microsoft, then I have no qualms with Microsoft exercising their rights as the copyright holder.

I despise the fact that Microsoft denies Mac users the many applications that we were led to believe we would be getting when the MBU was formed save a stripped down Office Suite. My feeling on the matter aside, Microsoft has the right to not offer Project, Access, Publisher, et al., to Mac users. Of course, the difference is that Microsoft?s profits come from software sales so offering those products to Mac users will not hurt Microsoft?s bottom line. Most of Microsoft?s non-operating system software is generally not offered through OEM licensing and Mac users would generally have to pay full price regardless because they are not using Wintel PCs. Even Gates acknowledged that fact when the first five-year deal was made with Apple.

[Wondercow]

daveM said:

If you apply Apples reasoning to other things we buy or use it begins to look foolish.

Not at all; what you others mistake for foolishness is actually your own slip in logical comparisons:

Why can one put a GM engine in a Ford? Because one buys both products and, as soon as money changes hands so does 100% ownership of the items. One may do as he pleases with what he owns (within the bounds of that law). One licences the software under the terms offered by the IP owner--there is no transfer of property, just rights of use. Were you to lease a car from Ford and put in a GM engine Ford would certainly have something to say about it! Were you to lease a car from Budget they would tell you what gas to put in it, where to drive it, who may drive it, and more.
>Macs are just computers, damn good computers but still just computers.
I don't see your point.
>Again, understand I don't want the mac clones but I don't see how to stop them.
Put custom ROM on the motherboard--just like they used to (but this time encrypt it).

[phuney]

OK I've had enough fun. Actually I own a macbook pro and 3 ipods and I quite like Apple gear, although Steve Jobs isn't the Messiah or even a naughty boy, but I still have a ball psing you all off. It is all so easy.

Just remember that;

"Life's a piece of sht,
When you look at it.
Life's a laugh and death's a joke it's true.
You'll see it's all a show.
Keep 'em laughing as you go.
Just remember that the last laugh is on you."
(

© Kay-Gee-Bee Music Ltd - just if case you thought I was stealing the lyrics and not giving credit)

Have a good day.

[MacPro2007]

This may turn out (in fact I think it's likely) that Apple has once again "decided to undecide"... until further notice. I mean: they originally put the Mac line in permanent stasis by refusing to license any other computer makers.
Argued all the time, but the fact is that, by this policy, Apple will always be "upper tier" and never for the mass market. If that's their wish: no one can deny them that right. But Apple, Inc is also schizoid on this same issue: they make forays into the lower tier market with the iMac and MacMini. While at the same time, they try to maintain their "chic" aura. They also "daringly" pursue Windows users by making Macs "dual platform" -but again, that's smells like pursuing the lower tier market.
In the end, it's about Apple's quixotic sales and distribution "policy" - established, not surprisingly, by the somewhat mystic-leaning, self-involved Mr. S. Jobs.
From a strictly analytical standpoint: it's disingenuous of Apple to be playing both sides of what is fundamentally a simple sales strategy. Either go all the way and start a true multi-tiered product ensemble or let go of those unseemly grabs for the money of Mr. & Mrs. Email & Browse (type) users. That is, they could simply remain the stylish purveyor of computer products for more advanced users. (Crazy thought: they might also end up buying Psystar and selling THAT brand to get into the lower tier.)
Unfortunately, by launching their suit against Psystar, they show they're not ready to cross that particular Rubicon (and arrive at last in the real world).

[Wondercow]

phuney said:

I still have a ball psing you all off. It is all so easy.

Who are you "psing off"? No one here has shown any anger in their words nor any passion nor emotion. We've all been through this many, many times before--with people more annoying than you--without getting "psed off."

But hey, if putting others down make you feel big....

Quote

Just remember that;
Phuney doesn't know how to copy/paste properly

Thanks, I'll do my best to remember that you can't accomplish what a two-year-old can do with ease.

Edit (oops!):

I can't help but notice that when you're backed into a corner you simply put on a tough facade and try to convince us that we're the ones with the problem. There's a reason you'd rather cut and run than answer the questions and points raised.

As I already said, though, if lying to yourself using false bravado makes you feel like a man (or woman) then go nuts.
Message was edited by: Wondercow

[dizzle]

Yet more inaccurate Psystar reporting.
1. Apple and Psystar agreed to this MONTHS ago in their Proposed Case Management Report. This merely hashed out the details.
2. Apple and Psystar already told the Court MONTHS ago that discovery had begun.
@spiderbat spoken like a true socialist

[dizzle]

@mdawson

Your problem is that you are expecting rationality from someone who either:

1. Hasn't read the law or the pleadings (I have. All thousand pages of them and have the writings to prove it.)
2. Is a Psystar shill, perhaps even one of the principals.

This is a legal issue, not an Apple issue. In examining the legal issues (I am a staff writer at World of Apple), I have come to the conclusion that Microsoft has been mistreated on many of the same issues, and one thing no one will accuse me of is being an Apple fangirl.

So "phuney" - want to go toe to toe with me on this case? See you at World of Apple in the next few days. No, I didn't think you would. I doubt you would have the attention span to get through an analysis of the legal facts rather than spewing emotion.

[mdawson]

Quote

MacPro2007 wrote:

>

Quote

Argued all the time, but the fact is that, by this policy, Apple will always be "upper tier" and never for the mass market. If that's their wish: no one can deny them that right. But Apple, Inc is also schizoid on this same issue: they make forays into the lower tier market with the iMac and MacMini.

Perhaps you need to distinguish between the consumer market space and the bottom of barrel. The iMac and Mac mini are targeted consumer-grade systems. They are not stripped down pro systems like most Wintel PCs sold to non-pros nor are they bargain basement pieces of s?. Both the iMac and Mac mini are far more eloquent solutions than their Wintel consumer-level counterparts, so both systems fit quite well into Apple?s upper tier business model.

Quote

MacPro2007 wrote:

>

Quote

They also "daringly" pursue Windows users by making Macs "dual platform" -but again, that's smells like pursuing the lower tier market.

How is incorporating compatibility with 90+ of the PC world pursuing the lower tier market when the average Mac goes for about $1200? Apple does not market or sell bargain basement PCs.

Quote

MacPro2007 wrote:

>
In the end, it's about Apple's quixotic sales and distribution "policy" - established, not surprisingly, by the somewhat mystic-leaning, self-involved Mr. S. Jobs.

So because you have a disdain for Jobs, Apple is disingenuous in their business practices. In the words of Bill Maher, ?Get over yourself.?

MacPro2007 wrote:
>
From a strictly analytical standpoint: it's disingenuous of Apple to be playing both sides of what is fundamentally a simple sales strategy.

No from a strictly analytical standpoint, you are engaging in poor inference based on supposition, no data and self-serving reasoning with a total disregard for a copyright holder?s right to protect that copyright.

MacPro2007 wrote:
>
Either go all the way and start a true multi-tiered product ensemble or let go of those unseemly grabs for the money of Mr. & Mrs. Email & Browse (type) users. That is, they could simply remain the stylish purveyor of computer products for more advanced users.

These statements demonstrate that you have absolutely no idea about anything associated with the Mac.

MacPro2007 wrote:
>
Unfortunately, by launching their suit against Psystar, they show they're not ready to cross that particular Rubicon (and arrive at last in the real world).

Right. The only PC OEM to turn a profit quarter after quarter for the past 5+ years and the highest rated PC OEM in customer satisfaction in PC history by a wide margin does not exist in the real world.

I could state that I am amazed at how every Psystar supporter has spent the past several months coming onto these boards proving that they, like Psystar, do not have a single salient point of argument on this matter, but I am not. Everyone siding with the Psystar position has unequivocally demonstrated that place their selfishness ahead of all else.

[dizzle]

mdawson you HAVE to stop making sense and peeing all over the emotional "me, me, wah, wah" party that is going on. I mean come on, doesn't it seem rational to you:

I hate Jobs; therefore Apple should lose.

I think Apple should cater to me and screw what Apple wants to do with its own business; its all about ME

Seriously, have you lost your mind that such ranting doesn't make perfect sense to you?

It is nice to find another sane person in this discussion.

[johndrake]

MacPro2007 said:

Quote

Unfortunately, by launching their suit against Psystar, they show they're not ready to cross that particular Rubicon (and arrive at last in the real world).

No, it only shows that Apple will do so when it is ready and under it's own terms (some of us wish they'd at least enter into the mid-price/small format mini tower, but I digress) and not allow anyone to undermine their products, their reputation or compromise their designs.
And if filing suit to protect your business interest is living in a fantasy world then I must ask; "what ARE you smoking?"
It is in fact, unfortunately the very real world of today.
Message was edited by: johndrake

[dizzle]

You too! Stop making sense and raining on the entitlement parade!

[johndrake]

I'm sorry, I've been a baaad boooy! ;-)
You mean the iWants?..............................

[mdawson]

Sorry. I guess the background in engineering and operations research causes me to use reason, logic and deductive reasoning when I should be resorting to to self interest. ;)

[Don_Quixote]

mdawson said:

1iTunes and Safari are offered with OS X, they are not embedded in the operating system, and Apple is not a monopoly. Therefore, the type of illegal tying that Microsoft has been found guilty of the world over does not apply to Apple.

Your entire post clearly indicates that you have absolutely no idea as to what this case is about, nor do you care as long as you can berate Apple for simply existing.

Just one fact checking: I believe the court ruling in the US that Microsoft was guilty of violating the anti-trust law was not been sustained in the appeal court, and the current prosecution does not focus on the web browser any more. EU's legal case against Microsoft for including web browser in Windows is still underway, and Google has recently joined EU's case.