[derekc]

Hilarious! Hilarious!
Folks, this is a lawyer's dream: Much ado about nothing. Either some total fool is pushing this case at Psystar, or this is a cooked up and utterly lame attempt at distracting Apple from better things to do. The last time I saw such a case was the cooked up SCO suit against Linux that was funded by Microsoft. Psystar have not-a-leg to stand on and will be pummeled into oblivion as they should be.
Oh, someone still doubts this? What exactly is Mac OS X? It's foundation OS is OPEN SOURCE, freely available to anyone on the planet to use on any computer hardware they choose. Its called Darwin. Psystar can put Darwin on any old POS PC they like. What is in contention here is the GUI in Mac OS X and the processes Apple run on top of Darwin, which Apple own as per copyright and patent law, period. Any decent judge will throw Psystar's countersuit out of court as groundless. Meanwhile, Psystar has broken the Apple Mac OS X EULA on a multitude of points which will drive them into bankruptcy if the lawyer fees haven't done it already. Then again: Who really is funding this joke?

[derekc]

Hilarious! Hilarious!
Folks, this is a lawyer's dream: Much ado about nothing. Either some total fool is pushing this case at Psystar, or this is a cooked up and utterly lame attempt at distracting Apple from better things to do. The last time I saw such a case was the cooked up SCO suit against Linux that was funded by Microsoft. Psystar have not-a-leg to stand on and will be pummeled into oblivion as they should be.
Oh, someone still doubts this? What exactly is Mac OS X? It's foundation OS is OPEN SOURCE, freely available to anyone on the planet to use on any computer hardware they choose. Its called Darwin. Psystar can put Darwin on any old POS PC they like. What is in contention here is the GUI in Mac OS X and the processes Apple run on top of Darwin, which Apple own as per copyright and patent law, period. Any decent judge will throw Psystar's countersuit out of court as groundless. Meanwhile, Psystar has broken the Apple Mac OS X EULA on a multitude of points which will drive them into bankruptcy if the lawyer fees haven't done it already. Then again: Who really is funding this joke?

[derekc]

Apologies for the dimwit double-post]

Minor points:

1) Are Macs actually more expensive than Windows PCs? Not one professional report as ever come to that conclusion. Instead, every professional report has found the results to be in the OTHER direction: Macs cost less than Windows PCs when the full price is taken into account. Specifically that means considering not simply the shelf price of the hardware, but the Return On Investment (ROI) and Total Cost of Ownership (TCO). Google will verify and provide details.

2) Here are a couple fine points about economic monopolies that puncture the Psystar lunatic assertions, quoted from [Wikipedia:

a) No close substitutes: A monopoly is not merely the state of having control over a product; it also means that there is no real alternative to the monopolised product.

b) A price maker: Because a single firm controls the total supply in a pure monopoly, it is able to exert a significant degree of control over the price by changing the quantity supplied.

Conclusions: There are substitutes galore for Mac OS X on PC hardware. Macs compete directly with Windows PCs. Strangling the supply of Macs has zero effect on the price of any PC hardware whatsoever. If the Mac died today the increased demand for non-Mac PCs would immediately rise, supply would immediately respond, PC prices would if anything drop in response to the larger market.

3) Nearly all arguments for Apple allowing Mac OS X to work on any-old-PC make zero business sense to Apple (as proven by the failed experiment circa 1996 from which Apple lost money) and would be in the worst interest of Apple users. The benefits of marrying Mac OS X with specific Mac hardware are too critical. They are some of the reasons Macs have consistently won in price/value/user-friendliness. The only strong argument against the OS/hardware marriage is for geeks, myself included, who like to do DIY hardware work and play. So run your Franken-PC on some other OS!

[mdawson]

Quote

mrbach wrote:

>

Quote

Most people are missing the point that Apple invented its own monopoly and now that there is enough interest, the effect of the monopoly can be measured.

And clearly like the people behind this frivolous lawsuit you neither understand the concept of a monopoly or a market. Apple does not control a market; they control their products. Apple constitutes <10% of PC sales, so how in frell are they a monopoly?

Apple is only a monopoly in the strictest dictionary sense of the word, but the dictionary definition is not the legal definition, as having a monopoly over one?s products cannot result in anti-trust. If the law used the dictionary definition of a monopoly, the every company would be a monopoly because every company is the sole producer of their brand(s). No one would be able to set themselves apart from the competition because anything they did to distinguish their product would have to be handed over to their competition to avoid anti-trust lawsuits. Such a broad definition of a monopoly would greatly diminish anti-trust law and is the reason laws clearly define such terminology upfront.

Quote

mrbach wrote:

>

Quote

The Ford analogy would be correct if Ford controlled the gas to make the cars run, but this is more like the old Bell monopoly.

Actually neither analogy applies. Ford did not invent gas. Gasoline is a natural resource and no car manufacturer can legally prevent other companies in the auto industry from using gasoline as a fuel source. Even if Ford had been an oil company and then started manufacturing cars, they would not be able to engage in such a practice, because again they did not invent gasoline.

AT&T was a monopoly in the legal sense of the term, as AT&T was the only telecommunications market in the United States. AT&T is a service provider and did not create the service. Therefore AT&T has no more a right to bar other service providers from entering into the telecom market than Ford has to prevent other car manufactures from producing their own brand(s) of automobiles, Microsoft has to prevent other software developers from creating operating systems to run on x86 systems, or IBM had to prevent others from manufacturing x86 computers. But, that is what AT&T tried to do when MCI attempted to enter the telecom market as a competing long distance service provider. Before the courts correctly ruled in favor of MCI, you had to deal with your local AT&T subsidiary in order to get any phone service, so there was no choice: you dealt with AT&T or you had no phone.

That is not true of Apple because Apple creates a unique product in the PC market. If you do not want to buy a Mac there are plenty of other PCs on the market. There is nothing that can be done on a Mac with OS X that cannot be done on another PC with Windows, so the whole ?there is no alternative? argument is complete BS. What you do not get is Apple?s operating system, nor should you.

The GPS analogy others have cited is correct because regardless of how much market share a company gains for its product, they are never required to forfeit control of their proprietary components. What a company that grabs the lion?s share of a market cannot do is actively impede other companies from competing. Such a company is by no means obliged to facilitate another company?s ability to compete, let alone at their own expense. So unless you can cite a statute that dictates otherwise, you, jman3001, Psystar, their lawyers, et al., are full of it.

Quote

mrbach wrote:

>
Sure, in this case, we have a couple of Bells (HP,Dell, etc.), but they all have to use Linux or Windows and may not use OS X.

So. First of all they do not have to use Windows or Linux. They could have gotten off their collective lazy arses long ago and developed their own operating system like Apple did, but they chose and continue to choose not to do so. They could have stood up to Microsoft so that more operating systems would not be available today (e.g., BeOS, OS/2, etc.), but they did not. But then what can one expect from companies that do not even bother to design their own hardware. If the PC OEMs feel that they have limited options, they can only blame themselves for being in that situation.

Apple is under no circumstances legally required to offer OS X to anyone the other PC OEMs do not have the right to force Apple to hand over half of its platform because they continually fail to invest in setting themselves apart from the rest of the PC industry. Apple?s legal options are to either keep it to themselves, which they do, or offer OS X to everyone, which they do not. It is the middle ground, offering OS X exclusively to some PC OEMs while barring others, which is illegal.

mrbach wrote:
>
Just because Apple doesn't want to harm their slightly inflated hardware sales by opening up OS sales, is no reason to be sheltered. They will just have to compete with everyone else.

And here we go with the same old FUD about Macs being overpriced that has long since been disproved. Statements such as this indicate that you do not know jack about Apple?s business model, if you know what a business model is at all. Apple does compete with everyone else, but Apple has bothered to invest millions of dollars in maintaining their own platform that they built from the ground up in order to stand out from the crowd.

mrbach wrote:
>
After all, some fanboys would have you believe that Apple uses extra special "Made in China" parts in its computers, but it's the same stuff that everyone else uses.

And as usual, the free the OS supporters know that their arguments are baseless so they resort to tossing insults at anyone that refuses to support this nonsense. Well guess what, most of the people that see this countersuit are regular posters on these boards an have been for years and they have all done their share of posting complaints about Apple, the Mac and other Apple products just as they have defended stated same, myself included. The fact that you feel the need to be dismissive and refer to anyone that understands that Apple is not a monopoly and has the right to control their product as a ?fanboy? clearly shows that you have no real point of argument.

mrbach wrote:
>
I for one would like to buy the OS and put it on any machine I want.

And there it is. You want something, Apple does not oblige you so let?s all run to court and force them to do so. This is not about Apple committing a breach of anti-trust, which they are in no position to do, but about selfishness and self-serving agendas, period.

-----

This entire argument against Apple is effectively an extension of sad pattern in contemporary America of rewarding people for participating in a completion instead of actually winning.

[tony_d]

Wow! gotta call my lawyer. I want to sue Chrysler because they tie the Hemi engine only in Chrysler cars and trucks. The Hemi is a superior engine to the Chevy 350 and they have a monopoly on it. (Dodge even ran a campaign stating they were "different".)
Where is it written that an operating system must be sold separately from the hardware? That was Microsoft's strategy and it worked for them. Doesn't mean everyone has to follow that business plan.
“Apple is free to control and charge customers supra-competitive prices,” said Psystar.
This would be funny if they weren't serious. I feel like I'm reading a page out of The Onion! Of course they can charge high prices, its their product. Its called a free market. If no one wants to pay for it then they'll go out of business. Don't need an MBA to figure that out.
Apple has engaged in a series of anticompetitive activities,” the suit said. “Apple has, at the least, substantially lessened competition in the Mac OS Capable Computer Hardware Systems marketplace if not eliminated it in its entirety [and] as a result, maintains its monopoly position with respect to the Mac OS and the artificially created Apple-Labeled Computer Hardware System.”
Isn't that what companies do, create a brand labeled product? How can that be a monopoly? Again what law says they can't tie both the operating system and the hardware together. Its called a Macintosh for a reason. A PC running Mac OS (any version for that matter) isn't a Mac.
Apple has not responded to requests for comment on the Psystar countersuit.
Probably because they're rolling on the floor laughing.

[zensunni]

Best of luck, Psystar! Apple was once the underdog, but they've just become another M$.

[mdawson]

> derekc wrote:
>
> The only strong argument against the OS/hardware marriage is for geeks, myself included, who like to do DIY hardware work and play.
Well I would not go as far as to say that the above is a strong argument as do-it-yourselfers are not of benefit to any PC OEM, least of all Apple and constitute an extreme minority of the total population of computer users around the world.
On the other hand, notice that even in light of Psystar’s activities Apple is not perusing individuals that install OS X on Hackintoshes nor have they had their legal department file cease and desist orders to the OSx86 Project. The reason for this is that Apple probably recognizes the fact that doing so is not only a lost cause, but also a public relations nightmare in waiting. Apple has nothing to gain by prosecuting a group of people that is unlikely to buy a computer from any PC OEM, least of all Apple. Apple would be hard pressed to claim losses from a group that would never buy their hardware in the first place.
Now if do-it-yourselfers resort to building Hackintoshes for other people, and more importantly make a profit however miniscule for doing so, then Apple has every legal right to defend their platform. The Wintel PC OEMs could never do this, because they barely own the hardware beyond the branding let alone the platform. The Wintel OEMs business model mirrors what the do-it-yourselfers are doing, so they can no more sue do-it-yourselfers that are effectively personal OEMs, then they can sue any competing Wintel OEM.
It is in fact the platform ownership that sets the Mac apart from any Wintel PC.

[Wondercow]

zensunni said:

Best of luck, Psystar! Apple was once the underdog, but they've just become another M$.

How so? It's not like Apple used to sell the MacOS to anyone and then locked everyone out when Apple got popular. They're operating as they always have. Their Mac/MacOS business model hasn't changed since 1984. Not to mention MS has a history of stealing code, Apple doesn't; MS abused monopoly power by forcing PC makers to sell only Windows as a pre-installed os as well as through tying I.E. into the core system in such a way that other browsers absolutely could not compete.

So how is Apple another MS?

[mdawson]

Quote

Wondercow wrote:

>

Quote

It's not like Apple used to sell the MacOS to anyone and then locked everyone out when Apple got popular.

Well, that is not completely true. During the middle of the PowerPC era Apple did permit APS Technologies, Daystar Digital, Motorola, Power Computing, Radius and UMAX to market Mac clones with the Mac OS pre-installed in an attempt to expand the market for the Mac platform. The idea was that the other OEMs would follow the guidelines set by Apple for designing Mac hardware and produce less expensive Macs that would attract new users that were wary of the cost of entry to be a Mac user. The underlying principle was that Apple would continue to be the developer for the Mac OS and thus sell top-of-the-line systems at a premium to continue the R&D needed for the continued development of the Mac OS.

Well the plan worked, but not as Apple hoped. What Apple did not realize, or failed to take seriously, was that the average person was more than willing to blindly accept the crap that the anti-Mac FUD machine was shoveling because the average person was, and still is, technologically ignorant and not about to research the matter on their own beyond accepting what the (mostly Wintel-centric) ?experts? told them. So in the end, all the clone program succeeded in doing was getting loyal Mac users?loyal in the sense that they refused to buy Wintel boxes?to purchase less expensive clones built to Apple?s high standards. People that were not buying Macs, continued to not buy Macs or Mac clones.

The clone OEMs were bleeding off Apple?s hardware sales during a time when Apple was already rapidly losing market share to the ever-encroaching Wintel juggernaut. As Apple was not, is not and has never been a software company, Mac OS licensing and over-the-counter sales could never compensate for the loss of hardware sales. Apple would have to truly start trying to be like Microsoft and charge $300+ for every copy of Mac OS sold and raise the licensing fees for other OEMs to ridiculous levels in order to remain viable. The basic economic principles that govern prices based on supply, demand and market share would in fact deem that the Mac OS (<5% of the market) should cost significantly more than Microsoft Windows (>90% of the market) if Apple were to adopt such a business model. How many individual users are prepared to pay upwards of $500 or more for an operating system that used to cost around $90 (c. late-1990s)?

All that Apple gained from that period was a hard lesson learned: a company that freely offers that which sets them apart from the competition to the competition will be cannibalized by the competition. It is for that reason that one of Jobs first acts in his second time around was to kill the clone program and return Apple to the original business model.

As you recognize, nothing has changed to make licensing out the Mac OS any more beneficial to Apple now than in the mid-1990s.

[KGBguy]

I would love them to win in this law suit. Even though I am a mac user, prices are too high. I buy new mac every time it comes out, and I can feel it. Now I am not like you Americans, we Russians the pure blood kind like our stuff to be always up to date.

[glennk]

I too would like to see Mac OS available to install on non-Apple hardware. Folks in the marketplace wanting an authentic Apple will still buy one. By making clone Apples, a new market would be created and attract new customers.

[vulpine]

mdawson said:

Well, that is not completely true. During the middle of the PowerPC era Apple did permit APS Technologies, Daystar Digital, Motorola, Power Computing, Radius and UMAX to market Mac clones with the Mac OS pre-installed in an attempt to expand the market for the Mac platform. The idea was that the other OEMs would follow the guidelines set by Apple for designing Mac hardware and produce less expensive Macs that would attract new users that were wary of the cost of entry to be a Mac user. The underlying principle was that Apple would continue to be the developer for the Mac OS and thus sell top-of-the-line systems at a premium to continue the R&D needed for the continued development of the Mac OS.

Actually, you're not completely right, either. Yes, Apple did license other companies to build to the OS; but they also demanded very high specifications on the hardware built. So high, in fact, that the 'clones' tended to only be from $50 to $100 less expensive than Apple itself.

Quote

Well the plan worked, but not as Apple hoped. What Apple did not realize, or failed to take seriously, was that the average person was more than willing to blindly accept the crap that the anti-Mac FUD machine was shoveling because the average person was, and still is, technologically ignorant and not about to research the matter on their own beyond accepting what the (mostly Wintel-centric) ?experts? told them. So in the end, all the clone program succeeded in doing was getting loyal Mac users?loyal in the sense that they refused to buy Wintel boxes?to purchase less expensive clones built to Apple?s high standards. People that were not buying Macs, continued to not buy Macs or Mac clones.

You missed a point here. The plan didn't work. Not in the least! Apple was hoping that by permitting the clones, more people would buy into the Mac OS and help build market share from the 2% average to something better.

Quote

The clone OEMs were bleeding off Apple?s hardware sales during a time when Apple was already rapidly losing market share to the ever-encroaching Wintel juggernaut. As Apple was not, is not and has never been a software company, Mac OS licensing and over-the-counter sales could never compensate for the loss of hardware sales. Apple would have to truly start trying to be like Microsoft and charge $300+ for every copy of Mac OS sold and raise the licensing fees for other OEMs to ridiculous levels in order to remain viable. The basic economic principles that govern prices based on supply, demand and market share would in fact deem that the Mac OS (<5% of the market) should cost significantly more than Microsoft Windows (>90% of the market) if Apple were to adopt such a business model. How many individual users are prepared to pay upwards of $500 or more for an operating system that used to cost around $90 (c. late-1990s)?

Here you're basically right, but again overlook the main point. The clone OEMs weren't just bleeding off Apple's hardware sales; the market just flat refused to grow because even then it was considered a 'niche' OS and the overall OS share for the Mac never rose above that 2%. The management of Apple at the time was trying to compete in a market that had already been taken over by Windows with a machine that had no effective difference outside of the OS itself! In all actuality, you couldn't tell a clone Mac from any of the Windows boxes then selling for almost half the price. Why would anyone want to pay twice as much for something that really was too different from what they were used to and would have to learn from scratch? It was the corporate mindset of Apple Computer, Inc. that drove Steve Jobs out of the company for 10 years and almost sank the company entirely.

Quote

All that Apple gained from that period was a hard lesson learned: a company that freely offers that which sets them apart from the competition to the competition will be cannibalized by the competition. It is for that reason that one of Jobs first acts in his second time around was to kill the clone program and return Apple to the original business model.

As you recognize, nothing has changed to make licensing out the Mac OS any more beneficial to Apple now than in the mid-1990s.

I agree here whole-heartedly. By allowing the Mac OS to be installed freely on generic hardware would almost completely destroy Apple as a company. Yes, they would keep the die-hard fanatics who refuse to buy non-Apple hardware, but to compensate for the loss in hardware sales, the OS itself would have to be raised in price comparable to Windows and almost completely eliminate the level of reliability that Apple has managed to maintain for all this time. If Windows didn't have to try to allow for an infinite number of hardware configurations, some components of which are, at best, only marginally functional, then Windows, too, could have the kind of reliability that Apple enjoys. As it is, Apple maintains the highest customer satisfaction of any computer manufacturer in the world today. To let Psystar continue its processes and allow others to follow would do nothing but destroy that reputation.

[mdawson]

vulpine, you are (somewhat) disagreeing with me on three points then basically reiterate them. :)

Quote

Actually, you're not completely right, either. Yes, Apple did license other companies to build to the OS; but they also demanded very high specifications on the hardware built. So high, in fact, that the 'clones' tended to only be from $50 to $100 less expensive than Apple itself.

$50 to $100 less expensive is still less expensive and given the result that small difference was enough for people to bite, just not the people that Apple hoped would bite. I never stated that the clones were dramatically less expensive as I cannot remember the price differences from a decade ago on systems I was not purchasing myself. The fact of the matter is that the price difference was enough to attract loyal Mac users and that was a big part of the problem.

Quote

You missed a point here. The plan didn't work. Not in the least! Apple was hoping that by permitting the clones, more people would buy into the Mac OS and help build market share from the 2% average to something better.

No, I did not miss the point, reread the text to quote. I explicitly stated that the clone program worked for the clone makers, who profited, but against Apple whose profits were being gutted on two fronts. It provided Mac users a means to get Macs for less, if only slightly less, and they did so in large numbers. It did not attract new customers, which I explicitly stated, and so it worked “not as Apple hoped”, which I also explicitly stated. Just because something does not work successfully, or to your benefit, does not mean it is not working at all; look at Windows. ;)

Quote

Here you're basically right, but again overlook the main point. The clone OEMs weren't just bleeding off Apple's hardware sales; the market just flat refused to grow because even then it was considered a 'niche' OS and the overall OS share for the Mac never rose above that 2%. The management of Apple at the time was trying to compete in a market that had already been taken over by Windows with a machine that had no effective difference outside of the OS itself! In all actuality, you couldn't tell a clone Mac from any of the Windows boxes then selling for almost half the price. Why would anyone want to pay twice as much for something that really was too different from what they were used to and would have to learn from scratch? It was the corporate mindset of Apple Computer, Inc. that drove Steve Jobs out of the company for 10 years and almost sank the company entirely.

No one doubts that part of Apple’s long-term problem during the 1990s was a long string of bad management, but the point of my post was the focus of the impact of the clone program on Apple not the management’s bungling although it is somewhat implied in their underestimation of what they faced from the x86 camp. Secondly, I already addressed the “niche” matter previously, although I did not explicitly use that term, and part of that market perception of Macs being a strictly niche product was the FUD machine’s insistence that Macs were completely incompatible with Wintel systems, which was far from true.

All PowerPC Macs could read/write FAT volumes and at least read NTFS. Documents from cross-platform applications were just that, cross-platform, with Microsoft typically being the big offender with issues between the Mac and Windows versions of their software. Lastly, PC compatibility cards (PC on a card) were readily available for Macs and clones for the first few years of the PowerPC era; Apple actually sold DOS-compatible versions of the first PowerPC Macs. Ironically, while the PC cards did not constitute a large market by any means, by the late-1990s it was the fact that Intel’s processors ran too hot that eventually killed the PC on a card market.

Now, despite the fact that the clones looked no different from white box PCs, they, like the Mac, were indeed very different machines. You in fact contradict yourself when you state, that Macs (and clones) were “machine(s) that had no effective difference outside of the OS itself,” then follow with, “why would anyone want to pay twice as much for something that really was too different from what they were used to.”

First, everything on the Mac platform not only had a different operating system, but it was also operating on a completely different hardware base with different processors that incorporated radically different microarchitectures: remember RISC vs. CISC. The hardware was so different in fact that an x86 PC running at the same clock speed as a Mac was easily outpaced by the PowerPC. That trend continued for nearly half of the PowerPC era until speed gains stalled then slowly increased at a snail’s pace with the G4; thanks Motorola. Even with G4 stalling in speed gains, Intel’s contemporary Pentiums had to approach clock speeds nearly twice that of the PowerPC G4 to begin to outperform them. Apple marketed that point, but it was lost on a technologically ignorant public that bought Intel’s megahertz myth; how do you convince a layman of the fact that a 500 MHz Mac is on par with a 750 MHz PC? (Even now there is a troll in another thread stating that the difference between the 2.6 GHz Core 2 Quad, which is the fastest processor available for Psystar OpenPro, and the 2.8 GHz Quad-Core Xeon, in the low-end Mac Pro,is negligible, the Mac Pro’s server-class processor, larger L2 caches, faster system bus and faster, fully-buffered RAM be damned.)

Second, Windows at that time of the clone program was new to most computer users and such an aping of the Mac OS that PC users would have had little to learn from scratch. Windows (poorly) mirrored the Mac OS so going between the two operating systems was really not a big deal. Anyone still using MS-DOS, which was still a significant number of PC users by the mid-1990s, would need to learn to use a new user interface whether they chose to get a Mac or simply migrated to Windows 95. Even those moving from Windows 3.11 faced a dramatic change, as Windows 95 and the Mac OS were far more similar to one another on the surface than Windows 3 and Windows 95. So PC users pretty much had the same learning curve either way, but the price of Macs kept most out of that market.

-----
In the end, you have paraphrased my original points and brought a few other issues with the clone era to the table. I really had no intention of addressing everything that was wrong with Amelio’s Apple at 1:00 am. :) The bottom line is that, as we both agree, the clone program of the 1990s is proof positive that allowing OS X to run on anyone’s hardware is an extremely bad idea. As the old saying goes, I do not have to place my hand on a working stove to know its hot, and Apple has already been burned once.

[mdawson]

Well, for the billionth time, Apple has already played that game. The only outcome is Apple losing big after which the best you can hope for is paying substantially more for a copy of OS X than for a copy of Windows ($300 to $500 or more) if OS X develpment continues at all.