[context]

"Monopoly" is often simply a synonym for "private property." As the "father of the constitution," noted, protecting property rights is a primary duty of government.
Madison's famous statement about property and property rights begins thusly:
"This term [property] in its particular application means "that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual."
By definition, for something to be property it requires monopoly possession. Rather than protecting the right of every person to property, the government now -- through antitrust laws -- attacks "that dominion which one man claims and exercises" over property; and by extension the individuals who collaborate to own and run companies.
What belongs to Apple is Apple's to control. What belongs to Microsoft is Microsoft's to control. By the same token, because my conscience and body are my property, I am not forced to buy products by Apple, Microsoft, or any other company. My rights are eroded if those of others are abrogated.
James Madison. Property.
Volume 1, Chapter 16, Document 23
http://press-pubs.uc.../v1ch16s23.html
The University of Chicago Press
The Papers of James Madison. Edited by William T. Hutchinson et al. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1962--77 (vols. 1--10); Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1977--(vols. 11--).

[Wondercow]

ebonfyre said:

Everybody is dismissing that the "Mac OS Market" is a separate entity from the personal computing field overall, but how many of you seriously consider anything else? For me, OSX is THE only operating system I want to use, and therefore Apple HAS a monopoly on the hardware I can choose from.

Sigh. Coca-Cola has a monopoly of the Coke market, Ford a monopoly of the Ford market, Microsoft a monopoloy of the MS market, etc.

For many Coke is THE ONLY soft drink they'll drink, Fords are THE ONLY cars they'll buy, ...

[ronincali3002]

I have to agree with ebonfyre here. Back when the Apple clone machines were out and legal, we bought a clone that (at the time) was worlds better than what hardware Apple at the time was offering. Today, I wouldn't say that a clone manufacturer could not make great hardware offerings the likes of what Apple is making, but it would certainly be interesting, if nothing else to see what a subjectively speaking, GOOD (read: NOT Psystar) cloner, might come up with to match or better Apple's hardware.
That said, does Apple want to become a software-only manufacturer and drop the hardware once their hardware business starts to falter in the event they license the OS out to cloners? They'd really have to become even more Microsoftian in their practices in order to survive. Not to mention having to WORRY with ensure maximum compatibility with all the various hardware, etc. ala Microsoft.
Sure, I'd love to see a cheaper Macbook, and a cheaper, but still expandable, scaled-down Mac tower of some sort; but at what TRUE cost to quality?
This is a tough and tenuous position for Apple. I as a long-time Apple user would honestly prefer Apple NOT open the OS to licensing. I want my Mac to keep working properly, and if Microsoft's problems are any indication (see how long it takes them to push out a new OS update?), Apple could end up on the same road to mediocrity and me-tooism, rather than the relatively innovative and responsive path they now follow.

[wardoggie]

ebonfyre said:

...what I admire is that they are fighting for me to have a choice. Competition and innovation are good things and I hope that the judge sees that in the coming trial.

I hope you see that they are not fighting for you to have a choice. They are fighting to make money. While fair competition is good, and innovation is good, Psystar is not innovating and, IMO, is not competing fairly. As far as I can tell, the only good that could come of this is that Apple would see that there is enough demand for a mini-tower mac with more expansion options than a Mac Mini and that costs a lot less than a Mac Pro. While I would love such a machine, I don't think Apple is going to build it any time soon, regardless of the outcome of this suit.

[goresc]

>> Sigh. Coca-Cola has a monopoly of the Coke market, Ford a monopoly of the Ford market, Microsoft a monopoloy of the MS market, etc.


That's not their point.... Psystar was arguing if you BUY OSX as separate product, you should be able to install it on any hardware you want, and as a company they should be able to provide that service or package.

Apple's stance would be like Coke stipulating that if you buy Coke, you must drink it in a Coke-provided glass or you're breaking the law. Or Ford requiring that you only use Ford-produced gasoline in your Ford hardware (which I think actually was determined to be illegal way back when). It's the same as today's argument that if you buy music media,you should be able to play it on any device you own if you can get it there.


But if you all want to fight for EULA's that eventually will require you to turnover your first-born child to company X just on their say-so, go ahead.;)

[jpmhughes]

ronincali3002 said:

This is a tough and tenuous position for Apple. I as a long-time Apple user would honestly prefer Apple NOT open the OS to licensing. I want my Mac to keep working properly, and if Microsoft's problems are any indication (see how long it takes them to push out a new OS update?), Apple could end up on the same road to mediocrity and me-tooism, rather than the relatively innovative and responsive path they now follow.

So you don't agree with ebonyfyre then?

I bought a clone when they were licensed too, a Power computer 180.
It was OK, they came out with faster processors than Apple and a few innovative things but over all it hurt Apple. It was people like us, already loyal Apple users, buying clones.

I definitely do not think they should do it again.

Thinking Apple has a monopoly on Apple computers because they are tied to the OS is ludicrous.

Just because you prefer to use what you consider to be a superior product does not mean that there is not any competition for that product.
Not to mention considering OS X to be superior is an obviously arguable opinion.

OK, not to me :-), but just do a search on the internet.
Jim

[tony_d]

quote:
That's not their point.... Psystar was arguing if you BUY OSX as separate product, you should be able to install it on any hardware you want, and as a company they should be able to provide that service or package.

You don't, and can't buy OS X as a separate product. You buy an upgrade (like going from Panther to Tiger.) Those packages are for people who already own Macs. The license to use OS X comes with the Mac, not the upgrade. I won't be shocked if Snow Leopard's package has in big letters that its an upgrade. In fact, I bet Apple is moving toward a method of distributing it online through Software Update. Good buy to the package.

[warlock7]

But Apple doesn't have the Secretary of Defense turning a blind eye as Gates and company did back then. So, it's not at all the same and a horrible analogy.

[warlock7]

It wasn't so much the loss of customers as much as what Apple said, the clones were generally poorly made and had compatibility issues which came back to bite Apple. The perception was no longer that Apple produced a superior product even though they didn't make the clones. It hurt the public perception of the company.

[ebonfyre]

So all Apple has to do is neither support nor prohibit the use of the operating system on other machines. If someone else makes a bad machine that is their problem to resolve, any support calls to Apple should go along the lines of "While our operating system may work on third party hardware it is not supported. If you are having problems with CloneX we can sell you hardware guaranteed to provide the true Apple experience". It gives Apple the out they never had during the original clone era and would open the market for an entire new userbase to try OSX on whatever they wanted. If performance were poor but the potential was impressive enough, Apple would get a hardware sale as a result.

[jpmhughes]

The Power Computers were actually well made, I had a couple of them.
I knew of a few other people who had Umax's and those were well made too.

This was a while back but I do recall the issue being that the clones were not bringing in new business but instead cannibalizing the current base of Mac users.

In either case, cannibalization or potential shoddy workmanship, I don't see what benefit there would be for Apple.
Especially considering the success they are now having.
Jim

[WayneJ]

Because you are so enamored of a particular product, does not make it a monopoly. When you are in love with your girlfriend, does she have a 'monopoly' on your affection? Sure she does. Are there acceptable substitutes? You bet.

[WayneJ]

I am very curious to know how this is different than not too long ago when there were two types of PCs; IBMs and IBM clones. Originally MS-DOS was designed to work on IBM hardware only. Then the 'clones' began appearing that would also run MS-DOS.

[Angry_Drunk]

What's different in this case is that MS-DOS wasn't "designed to work on IBM hardware only". Microsoft didn't care who used DOS as long as they got their cut. What was proprietary to IBM was the BIOS; and IBM fought like rabid weasels to keep it propriety (something that the "Apple needs to license Mac OS like Microsoft" dorks constantly forget). It wasn't until Phoenix clean-room developed an "IBM compatible" BIOS that the attack of the clones began. So, if Psystar wants to reverse engineer the whole of OS X in a clean room....