[mdawson]

Thanks, Grapho , tony_d , vulpine , et al. I quickly began to notice a trend this weekend of a string of unknown posters coming out of the woodwork and spreading the same anti-Mac FUD that was being pushed by the tech?and particularly Wintel PC-centric?press, Wall Street, corporate IT, Microsoft and your local pimple-faced, 17 year-old dateless geek taking PC OEM kickbacks at {insert brick and mortar national electronics chain here} in the 1990s. ; ;)

[pcharles]

Does this mean that Canon or Nikon must allow their lenses to work on each others cameras, or that I should be able to use my iPod Touch OS on a Zune (if I were stupid enough to buy one)?

[robgb]

"Does this mean that
Canon or Nikon must allow their lenses to work on each others cameras,
or that I should be able to use my iPod Touch OS on a Zune (if I were
stupid enough to buy one)?"



Canon and Nikon lenses CAN be used on other cameras. Companies create adaptors specifically for that reason and neither Canon nor Nikonis suing anyone over it. Why? Because it means people are buying their lenses.

And if the iPod touch OS were sold separately, then, yes, you should be able to load it to a Zune, if you were stupid enough to buy one.

I find it interesting that using simple logic here strikes so many as if I'm somehow bashing Apple. I love OSX. Which is why I'd like to be able to put it on the computer of my choosing, rather than be forced to spend nearly four times as much money just for that privilege.

[tony_d]

There you again. The example was Canon and Nikon must allow their lenses work on each other's cameras. You're response is that they can and third party companies make adaptors for it. Not The Same Thing. Nikon and Canon sell their lenses separately. Apple doesn't sell its OS separately, you need to buy a Mac (the hardware) to get the license. When you buy a copy of Leopard you're buying an upgrade. As in I'm upgrading from Tiger to Leopard. Know anyone who bought a Mac from Apple sans OS?? I agree with most people that Apple should place the word upgrade on the package but I'm sure after this fiasco their lawyers will see to it. Getting back to the lens example neither Canon nor Nikon is required to make the lens work 100% on other cameras. A better example would be Canon needs to sell its software for its cameras to run on a Nikon or some other DSLR. Not going to happen.

I just needed to add this. Maybe Apple should make a mid size tower. Call it whatever they want. Give it all the things everyone's clamoring for (several USB and FW ports, removable graphics card, PCI card slots etc.) Then sell it for $200. Let the "clone market" try and compete with that.
Message was edited by: tony_d

[vulpine]

robgb said:

Canon and Nikon lenses CAN be used on other cameras. Companies create adaptors specifically for that reason and neither Canon nor Nikonis suing anyone over it. Why? Because it means people are buying their lenses.

Interesting that you would use this particular simile, since I am in photography now. You actually described what Psystar is doing wrong on two counts. First, Nikon does not specifically permit Canon lenses on their bodies; nor do they provide any adaptor to make it happen. Canon, the same thing: they each want you to use only their lenses (or lenses from authorized manufacturers) on their camera bodies. And in most cases, a user of one brand of camera will not want to use a lens from the other brand. Yes, I accept that there are adaptors to allow cross-connections, but these normally do not allow any of either brand's lens-mounted automatic functions to operate.

On the other hand, Psystar is trying to take generic PC hardware and adapt a major manufacturer's "lens" to operate natively. They, too, are using a third-party adaptor, whose copyright and EULA specifically forbids commercial resale!

Quote

I find it interesting that using simple logic here strikes so many as if I'm somehow bashing Apple. I love OSX. Which is why I'd like to be able to put it on the computer of my choosing, rather than be forced to spend nearly four times as much money just for that privilege.

>
This is also where you fail. The simple basis of logic is: Cause and Effect. So far, the events you describe, the actions you wish to promote, are likely to have exactly the opposite effect of your deductions. It is far more likely that if Apple is forced to permit anyone to build a computer to Apple's operating system, the same thing will happen there that happened to IBM; they will lose all control of it and will end up being wiped out of existence. IBM, the creator of the x86 desktop computer, is now one of the smallest PC manufacturers on the market and has focussed again on their original business plan of building enterprise-level and above mainframe computers and other business equipment. Cause and effect.

Cause and effect. IBM builds a desktop computer. Rather than pushing their own operating system, they license a ready-made system being offered by a college student by the name of Bill Gates; who himself purchased it from the original designer for a lowly $500. That OS was DOS. What they didn't do at the time was to demand an Exclusive license, believing that their patents and designs would protect them from copycats and patent infringements. It didn't work. Through a combination of reverse engineering (creating IBM clones) and unlimited access to the OS (creating IBM "compatibles") IBM lost all control of the hardware, subsequently sparking the first "clone wars" and demonstrating even then that the "compatibles" ruined the reputation of the IBM PC. Only due to the massive marketing and literal flooding of the desktop market by the clone/compatible makers did Microsoft's OS become the most-used OS in the enterprise and at home; despite also being one of the most difficult OSes to use at the time. This also meant that the price of desktop computers was driven down so low (the law of Supply and Demand) that there was almost no real profit in trying to build a better machine.

Apple Computer, Inc. lost the market simply because they couldn't produce as many machines as any one of the other brands, much less try to compete with all of them. When Franklin Computer reverse-engineered the Apple II, the copy was so blatantly obvious that Apple's lawsuit was upheld in court, preserving the individuality that was Apple's hardware at the time. Years later, the then-president of Apple Computer, Inc. saw that Microsoft had taken over the market with its OS, but overlooked what happend to the original hardware designer, only seeing that they were still selling machines but not that it had very little of the market for itself. His logic told him that if more machines carried the MacOS, more people would buy them. What happened was that the same people that were buying Apple computers at the time instead chose to buy from the clone makers and not from Apple. They became parasites sucking away at Apple's lifeblood rather than developing the symbiotic relationship Apple intended. To try again today would present the exact same results.

If you really want to discuss things logically, then try to look at history as well as looking forward. Cause and Effect is the heart of logic, and history is absolutely full of examples.

Message was edited by: vulpine for clarity

[ercormier]

If Psystar truly wants to sell a PC with the MacOS they can take the source code and develop it for their hardware. Apple chose to make it's core Unix based, an Open Source package. Apple by using Unix has to have it's OS open source too. Apple has provided another license for their code, this is how Apple allows others to run the MacOS on non-Apple hardware. Once another company modifies Apple's code they assume the responsibility of supporting the "new" OS.

http://www.opensourc...m/darwinsource/

Look at how much of the OS is Open Source.

[mdawson]

> tony_d wrote:
>
> I agree with most people that Apple should place the word upgrade on the package but I'm sure after this fiasco their lawyers will see to it.
Actually Apple avoids putting the word upgrade on the packaging for good reason. When you install a boxed copy of OS X or even boot from the included installation disc what are the install options? Two of the three options involve a clean install. A clean install would not be possible if the store bought copy of OS X was not a full version of the OS. Where you are 100% correct is that all Macs do come with OS X, so when you buy that copy of a new version of OS X one of your installation options is to just perform an upgrade, although that method is typically not recommended.
Upgrade or not, your base argument still stands, because selling the full version gives the user more flexibility in terms of how they upgrade to the next version of OS X, hence the install options. Say for instance you decide to upgrade your primary drive to one with larger capacity or, god forbid, the OS is somehow corrupted to the point where you need to do a reinstall. If the store bought copy were only an upgrade you would be forced to perform a dual installation first installing the OEM copy of the older version then installing the upgrade atop that. Yes it is primarily a one time operation, but I think you would agree that there is little point to making it more tedious than necessary.
> tony_d wrote:
>
> Maybe Apple should make a mid size tower. Call it whatever they want. Give it all the things everyone's clamoring for (several USB and FW ports, removable graphics card, PCI card slots etc.) Then sell it for $200. Let the "clone market" try and compete with that.
As a proponent of the missing Mac, I would love to see Apple introduce such a system, but I can also get past my own selfish need. As you well know, Apple actually designs each model from the ground up for its intended market, so there are no prefabricated motherboards or cases to be found anywhere in Apple’s product lines. In order to sell that mid-size tower at $200, Apple would need to do so at a great loss. The result would ultimately be as bad as allowing other OEMs to license the OS. The clone makers would be hard pressed to compete with Apple doing such a thing, but Apple would not be able to maintain such a product line. Once they introduce such a system they will set a bad precedent and market expectation that they will be hard-pressed to reverse.

[robgb]

tony_d said:

A better example would be Canon needs to sell its software for its cameras to run on a Nikon or some other DSLR. Not going to happen.

No one is asking Apple to accomodate 100% of all computers. Just like no one is asking Canon to make their lenses work with 100% of all cameras. That's why the adaptors are built and sell. And Canon doesn't sue the builders and the sellers.


Psystar has found an "adaptor" of sorts to make the software work with their computers. That's all. I'm fairly certain they didn't even create it themselves, since such "adaptors" are readily available on the web.


When you buy a copy of Leopard, you're given the full OS, not an upgrade. I could walk into an apple store today and buy a copy. There's no mention of it being an upgrade on the packaging, no mention on their website.

Also, I'd point out, for example, that if you look at the Apple EULA for Safari for Windows, it specifically says, "This license allows you to install one copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time."


Yet, oddly enough, this software is created specifically for a Windows computer. So does this mean that whenver I'm on my PC and I get an annoying Apple notification to install a new version of iTunes and a copy of Safari for Windows, that Apple is trying to get me to break their license?


I won't get into the whole "Apple-Labeled" vs. "Apple-Built" argument.


What it boils down to is this: Apple is happy to have you violate their EULA as long as it benefits them.

[robgb]

vulpine said:

First, Nikon does not specifically permit Canon lenses on their bodies; nor do they provide any adaptor to make it happen. Canon, the same thing: they each want you to use only their lenses (or lenses from authorized manufacturers) on their camera bodies. And in most cases, a user of one brand of camera will not want to use a lens from the other brand. Yes, I accept that there are adaptors to allow cross-connections, but these normally do not allow any of either brand's lens-mounted automatic functions to operate.

First, you're wrong about Nikon or Canon not wanting you to use their lenses on other camera bodies. They sell their lenses separately and will gladly sell them to anyone to use in any way they see fit. That's their bottom line. But, let's say for argument sake that you're right. The point is that neither Nikon or Canon are suing anyone over it. That's where your entire argument falls apart. When you can point me to a Canon lawsuit against an adapter manufacturer, then you might have something.
{quote:title=vulpine wrote:}{quote}
> On the other hand, Psystar is trying to take generic PC hardware and adapt a major manufacturer's "lens" to operate natively. They, too, are using a third-party adaptor, whose copyright and EULA specifically forbids commercial resale!
[/quote]
Actually, you're wrong here, too. You can walk into a Fry's electronics store and buy a copy of OSX. That's the very definition of commercial resale. All Psystar is doing is selling copies of the operating system along with their hardware and offering you a way to install it with an "adapter."

As for the rest of your post, IBM was a victim of a free market. They created more expensive, arguably less powerful computers and got their ass handed to them. That's the way things work in this country.

[Barneski]

Love the way some of you tried to take Robgb apart for the crime of holding dissenting opinions. Keep the flame alive!

[mdawson]

Quote

robgb wrote:

>

Quote

Actually, you're wrong here, too. You can walk into a Fry's electronics store and buy a copy of OSX. That's the very definition of commercial resale. All Psystar is doing is selling copies of the operating system along with their hardware and offering you a way to install it with an "adapter."

Yes, you can walk into Fry?s and buy a standalone copy of OS X, because that is the way companies typically make their products available to the buying public. Psystar is by no means selling copies of OS X along with their hardware and offering the user a way to install it with an adapter. As James Galbraith?s article clearly states:

Quote

Originally, I placed an order for an Open Computer without OS X installed?Psystar charges $155 to install the operating system, and I figured we could save a few bucks on our order with a little do-it-yourself know-how. ? (a) Psystar employee came on the line and strongly suggested that I pay to have OS X pre-installed. He explained that, unlike the Windows and Linux, installing OS X is a very difficult and complicated process and that the company does not provide installation instructions for OSX.

Quote

robgb wrote:

>

Quote

As for the rest of your post, IBM was a victim of a free market.

Yes, IBM did fall victim to the free market because the only thing IBM owned was their brand name. Anyone could build an x86 motherboard, just as IBM was doing, because IBM does not own the x86 platform. Once the hardware was built any PC clone maker could license MS-DOS, DR-DOS or any of the other disk operating systems that were developed for the x86 platform, because IBM did not own any of the DOSes. The clone makers typically steered clear of IBM?s PC-DOS, but even that was really just a sanctioned re-branding of Microsoft?s MS-DOS pre-installed on IBM PCs.

IBM did not own the platform and that lack of ownership transitioned the IBM PC platform into simply the PC platform quickly transforming into the Wintel platform as Microsoft became the preeminent OS licensor.

On the other hand, the Mac platform is and has always been wholly owned by Apple and that is where Apple and IBM have always differed. IBM created hardware based on the x86 platform then acquired partnered with Microsoft to make the driver software to make that hardware usable with the understanding that there would be a proprietary IBM branded OEM license for IBM?s PCs and the generic license for the open market. IBM set themselves up to lose control; there was no real difference between PC-DOS and MS-DOS and like most software of that era MS-DOS was very hardware specific, so what did IBM expect the ?open market? to be other than a clone of their PC.

Apple created a closed platform by creating the operating system for their hardware. There is no OEM licensing involved because hardware and its driver are all in-house and therefore fall under the Apple brand. So Apple cannot lose control of the platform they created, because unlike IBM they 1) own both the hardware and software components of that platdform and 2) adopted a business model from the outset that retains the proprietary nature of the platform making it unlawful for other OEMs to encroach in Apple?s brand space.

[mdawson]

No one is taking robgb to task for simply having an opinion. If the topic were abstract and neither side could be substantiated, then this would simply be a debate. robgb and others of his mindset are continually posting points that are inaccurate if not outright patently false and consistently fail to provide any legitimate citations to support their position. Those of us with an opposing view cite historical facts, known business and economics principles and legitimate sources to support our argument.
Some analogies on both sides have been less than ideal, but that can be attributed to the fact that few other markets directly parallel the personal computer industry.

[tony_d]

Actually I was being sarcastic about a $200 mid size Mac. The point is most people seem to think they are entitled to something that Apple doesn't want to build. I too would like a mid size Mac but for whatever reason Apple decides not to build one and its a decision I can't do anything about. Sure I can go build a tower and hack the OS to run on it, but that seems to be too much of a pain in the ass (for me anyway.) With that said it doesn't give someone the right to build this tower and sell then them.
Maybe if Psystar changed their idea and built a machine that runs some flavor Linux that can also boot into Windows, now they'd have something. Correct me if I'm wrong, but none of the PC makers do that, do they?
Message was edited by: tony_d for clarity

[mdawson]

Quote

tony_d wrote:

>

Quote

Actually I was being sarcastic about a $200 mid size Mac.

I figured that, but forgot to add the comment that you were probably being facetious and the wink emoticon.

Quote

tony_d wrote:

>

Quote

The point is most people seem to think they are entitled to something that Apple doesn't want to build.

Yup. Point 11 in my last post from last night/early this morning.

Quote

tony_d wrote:

>
Sure I can go build a tower and hack the OS to run on it, but that seems to be too much of a pain in the ass (for me anyway.)

It is fine for those that want to go through the trouble of doing it (for themselves) and Apple apparently does not feel the need to conduct themselves as the RIAA and pursue individuals that have no (real) impact on their bottom line even though they are violating the EULA. Such persons are highly unlikely to buy a Mac, or even a Wintel PC, in the first place so there is no loss.


tony_d wrote:
>
With that said it doesn't give someone the right to build this tower and sell then them.

And it is that mass production, profiteering and marketing on the part of Psystar that sets them apart from the hobbyist spending a weekend making something for his or herself in their basement.

tony_d wrote:
>
Maybe if they changed their idea and built a machine that runs some flavor Linux that can also boot into Windows, now they'd have something. Correct me if I'm wrong, but none of the PC makers do that, do they?

None that I can think of.