The Cache: Technology Expert's Forum
 
*
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register. September 23, 2019, 05:59:52 AM

Login with username, password and session length


Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
Author Topic: Beyond the pale: Psystar and Apple Case  (Read 6198 times)
perkiset
Olde World Hacker
Administrator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 10096



View Profile
« on: October 09, 2009, 01:22:00 PM »

In an astonishingly bold move, Psystar has decided to license it's technology for running OS-X on other machines to other companies.

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/09/10/05/psystar_sells_snow_leopard_virtualization_to_third_parties.html

I'm just amazed. Please, someone tell me how Psystar can take Apple's OS, put it on their boxes and sell it - without even a license mechanism or even the blessing of Apple to do so ... and then SELL that very same technology to others to do the same?!?!

It's amazing to me how selfishness and a sense of entitlement has moved from our youngest generations into the corporate culture. "Why should I pay Apple, or even be concerned with Apple at all if I want to take their hard work and sell it for myself?"

I'm simply baffled.
Logged

It is now believed, that after having lived in one compound with 3 wives and never leaving the house for 5 years, Bin Laden called the U.S. Navy Seals himself.
nutballs
Administrator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5627


Back in my day we had 9 planets


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: October 09, 2009, 01:26:39 PM »

ok, i want 1 fucking thing RIGHT NOW.
I want a VWare machine that will allow me to install OSx on it.
Iritating as hell that i cant do that.
Logged

I could eat a bowl of Alphabet Soup and shit a better argument than that.
perkiset
Olde World Hacker
Administrator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 10096



View Profile
« Reply #2 on: October 09, 2009, 01:48:35 PM »

Twould be awesome, but I don't think it's coming anytime soon.
Logged

It is now believed, that after having lived in one compound with 3 wives and never leaving the house for 5 years, Bin Laden called the U.S. Navy Seals himself.
isthisthingon
Global Moderator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2879



View Profile
« Reply #3 on: October 09, 2009, 02:08:40 PM »

Quote
I'm just amazed. Please, someone tell me how Psystar can take Apple's OS, put it on their boxes and sell it

"But after the discovery period in the trial ended, Psystar sued Apple in a separate case, requesting that the clone Mac maker be granted the ability to buy copies of the new operating system to install on non-sanctioned computers."

Quote
It's amazing to me how selfishness and a sense of entitlement has moved from our youngest generations into the corporate culture. "Why should I pay Apple, or even be concerned with Apple at all if I want to take their hard work and sell it for myself?"

I'm simply baffled.

"Psystar requested an injunction in a Florida U.S. District Court, along with damages, due to Apple's "anticompetitive attempts to tie Mac OS X Snow Leopard to its Macintosh line of computers."

 Applause

Perhaps I'd feel differently if this was about theft.  But for the love of god they have to fight this out in court to be allowed to pay for Snow Leopard to run on their clones??  Talk about selfish Roll Eyes 

You know where I sit on this one.  Calling out a potentially dead-company-walking for being part of the selfish entitlement generation is pretty whacked IMO Shocked 

You may not like Mac clones but Apple is the one who should be split into two companies (hardware/software) OR allow others to write software for Apple hardware, and jesus christ allow companies to build hardware that can purchase the Mac OS to sell with them.  Microsoft faced having Windows and Office split if you recall.  That's just software, not a hw/sw combo.  I hope Apple begins playing better with others or gets knifed down the middle for their stubborn insistence in this area.  Great tag line at Psystar: "It's not a Mac, it's for Everyone."   

Only Exxon gas for this fine vehicle Police  Anything else would punish drivers with a sub-par experience and would deeply upset the "artist" Violin

It's been a while but it's time for a Friday Fanboi Smackdown Don't make me...
Logged

I would love to change the world, but they won't give me the source code.
perkiset
Olde World Hacker
Administrator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 10096



View Profile
« Reply #4 on: October 09, 2009, 02:16:16 PM »

Wait... are you saying that anyone has the right to purchase anything? That's exactly the attitude I'm talking about ITTO. If Apple does not want to sell it that way, who is *anyone else* to define how they must behave? I mean really ... if it's a stupid move (may well be, unknowable ATM) then the market will take care of it.

I have no opinion on Mac clones. I could give a shit. What I'm saying is that if I choose to write a piece of software, what gives YOU the right to define how I sell it? What gives anyone the right to define how I should behave here? It's not anticompetitive AT ALL for Apple to tie their OS to their computers ... why? because
it's THEIR OS AND THEIR COMPUTERS! If Apple chooses not to license their 'warez for other usages, it's THEIR BUSINESS.

And no, the OS is not something you've purchased: it's effectively leased to you under the EULA. Now, this argument is not about whether that's a great business model, or if there should be free (as in speech) software or whatever ... it's about a company's intellectual property.

This is not fanboi stuff. I'd feel identically if this was Oracle or M$ or whomever ... I may not like how they've done things, and I can vote with my wallet and sneakers. But I do not in any way feel it is my right to define how they must sell their stuff.
Logged

It is now believed, that after having lived in one compound with 3 wives and never leaving the house for 5 years, Bin Laden called the U.S. Navy Seals himself.
isthisthingon
Global Moderator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2879



View Profile
« Reply #5 on: October 09, 2009, 03:21:16 PM »

Quote
Wait... are you saying that anyone has the right to purchase anything?

No certainly not anything.  Just anything that's for sale in any store in America.  Best Buy denies the sale of new LG Plasma screens to customers who intend on connecting anything other than approved Blu-ray devices and AT&T cable TV services to these fine works of art, film at eleven.

Quote
I mean really ... if it's a stupid move (may well be, unknowable ATM) then the market will take care of it.

It's smart and shitty.  Wouldn't hold my breath for the market but perhaps our fine Nobel Peace Prize winner can give a nudge to the regulators who could.  I think the "stupid move" argument is on its last leg and has been way overused to justify anti-competitive practices.  Racketeering is also a stupid move  Sarcasm

Quote
I have no opinion on Mac clones. I could give a shit. What I'm saying is that if I choose to write a piece of software, what gives YOU the right to define how I sell it? What gives anyone the right to define how I should behave here? It's not anticompetitive AT ALL for Apple to tie their OS to their computers ... why? because
it's THEIR OS AND THEIR COMPUTERS! If Apple chooses not to license their 'warez for other usages, it's THEIR BUSINESS.

Is it beer-thirty yet in AZ?  Wow man, I'd like to see you in a room with your mirror image yet discussing the exact same thing about Microsoft.  How does anything about your assertions apply any differently to Microsoft?  Their software... and also their... um, software.  I know, it's because Microsoft IS a complete monopoly and Apple is NOT a monopoly in ANY way.  Hard to imagine how all this lives comfortably in your worldview.  I know it emphatically exists and asserts itself forcefully, but how can it possibly be a harmonious co-existence between these extreme opposites in your picture of the way things should be?  That's a hard one for me to get my arms around.

Quote
I'd feel identically if this was Oracle or M$ or whomever ...

I think you danced around and sang "put em in jail, put em in jail" when M$ was facing the potential split between OS and Office ROFLMAO

A black guy walks into Ralphs.  Actually anyone walks into Ralphs.  They try to purchase something, anything, and are denied for any reason other than they held the place up at gunpoint.  The only thing you cannot purchase is something that is not already for sale.  Buy a BBQ and have a damn parade after reselling it on eBay, legally.  Resell anything you want as long as you bought it in the first place.  I realize that's not how our warped "licensing" system always works but it doesn't make it any less warped.  FSF has it right: morally, competitively and equitably.  We haven't been exposed to enough fair business practices to fully appreciate just how unfair things really are.  Those on the incarcerated end of this idle contemplation we take for granted know better.  Why do you think they can't vote when they're released?

Red pill people... time for a big red pill.  Blue pill?  No prob I'll back off.  Blue pill with fierce intent to assert its truth, attempting to sway opinions?  I can't help myself  Need Help

Anti-competitive practices - barriers to entry:

  • Customer loyalty - Large incumbent firms may have existing customers loyal to established products. The presence of established strong brands within a market can be a barrier to entry in this case.
  • Distributor agreements - Exclusive agreements with key distributors or retailers can make it difficult for other manufacturers to enter the industry.
  • Intellectual property - Potential entrant requires access to equally efficient production technology as the combatant monopolist in order to freely enter a market. Patents give a firm the legal right to stop other firms producing a product for a given period of time, and so restrict entry into a market. Patents are intended to encourage invention and technological progress by offering this financial incentive. Similarly, trademarks and servicemarks may represent a kind of entry barrier for a particular product or service if the market is dominated by one or a few well-known names.
  • Supplier agreements - Exclusive agreements with key links in the supply chain can make it difficult for other manufacturers to enter an industry.
  • Vertical integration - A firm's coverage of more than one level of production, while pursuing practices which favor its own operations at each level, is often cited as an entry barrier

Arguing the complete absence of anything close to anti-competitive regarding Apple's business dealings is an uber-dubious position to maintain  Smooch
Logged

I would love to change the world, but they won't give me the source code.
perkiset
Olde World Hacker
Administrator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 10096



View Profile
« Reply #6 on: October 09, 2009, 03:54:59 PM »

No certainly not anything.  Just anything that's for sale in any store in America.  Best Buy denies the sale of new LG Plasma screens to customers who intend on connecting anything other than approved Blu-ray devices and AT&T cable TV services to these fine works of art, film at eleven.
Biggest problem with your statement: nothing that Best Buy sells is their own. They are a retailer of goods that other people have already said, "Please sell our items in your store." Now, as a retailer who's been in that situation, I can tell you unequivocally that wholesalers (or more specifically, root vendors) have a lot of rules about how you can and can't sell their items. And if you don't agree or violate the terms, they take the shit back and even have the option to sue. F'reals. And I'm only talking about pink-ribbon water bottles here, not intellectual property or something as significant as an OS.

It's smart and shitty.  Wouldn't hold my breath for the market but perhaps our fine Nobel Peace Prize winner can give a nudge to the regulators who could.  I think the "stupid move" argument is on its last leg and has been way overused to justify anti-competitive practices.  Racketeering is also a stupid move  Sarcasm
You're going to need to define how a single vendor, selling their own stuff that they developed is racketeering. That's just mind numbing to me. How is it anti-competitive for me to price and sell MY OWN STUFF the way that I WANT TO? Because someone else *wants* it someway else? So let me get this straight: Mercedes should be OK if I want to go get a Yugo from the boneyard, put a mercedes engine in it and hood decal and sell it as mercedes? That's OK? Because that's what's happening here: Psystar is creating their own machines, putting Apple's OS-X on it and selling it as OS-X. They're using the brand and software without the permission of Apple, and certainly not the same experience that Apple wants associated with their brand. Jeebers meng.

Is it beer-thirty yet in AZ?  Wow man, I'd like to see you in a room with your mirror image yet discussing the exact same thing about Microsoft.  How does anything about your assertions apply any differently to Microsoft?  Their software... and also their... um, software.  I know, it's because Microsoft IS a complete monopoly and Apple is NOT a monopoly in ANY way.  Hard to imagine how all this lives comfortably in your worldview.  I know it emphatically exists and asserts itself forcefully, but how can it possibly be a harmonious co-existence between these extreme opposites in your picture of the way things should be?  That's a hard one for me to get my arms around.
You lost me here. I'm saying that it's exactly the same with MS. Why should I be able to define how they sell/implement their products? It's silliness. Perhaps I was unclear of my position.

I think you danced around and sang "put em in jail, put em in jail" when M$ was facing the potential split between OS and Office ROFLMAO
You have the wrong guy. I don't see any problems with M$ selling office. Do whatever. I was pissed off that they marketed that we (the users) could have it any way we wanted and then forced us into IE rather than FireFox. And yes, this particular piece is a monopoly issue rather than intellectual rights issue.


A black guy walks into Ralphs.  Actually anyone walks into Ralphs.  They try to purchase something, anything, and are denied for any reason other than they held the place up at gunpoint.  The only thing you cannot purchase is something that is not already for sale.  Buy a BBQ and have a damn parade after reselling it on eBay, legally.  Resell anything you want as long as you bought it in the first place.  I realize that's not how our warped "licensing" system always works but it doesn't make it any less warped.  FSF has it right: morally, competitively and equitably.  We haven't been exposed to enough fair business practices to fully appreciate just how unfair things really are.  Those on the incarcerated end of this idle contemplation we take for granted know better.  Why do you think they can't vote when they're released?
Like above, Ralphs sells things for other people that they have specifically put up for sale. And like above, they'll have rules that say you must sell (this) (that way) or you can't sell it. Period. This is not unusual stuff meng, it's the way of retailing. But that's immaterial anyway, because again, like above, your logic is flawed.

And this isn't even about "I can do whatever I want to with my software" - I agree that the notion of me hacking OS-X and putting it on a PC for personal use is well within what I should be able to do, but given the way intellectual property law is written, that's not what's up today. Today, by law, they have the right to say no. But I digress. We're talking about a company RESELLING Apple's OS-X with their own software. It's like saying "If I purchase 12 dozen Mickey & Minnie Mouse dolls, I should be able to restructure them into a juicy 69 and market them as Disney Does Disney. Do you think that the disney company would not come down violently and ferociously on my activities? And why? Because it's not my brand/image etc to be able to do such things with.


Red pill people... time for a big red pill.  Blue pill?  No prob I'll back off.  Blue pill with fierce intent to assert its truth, attempting to sway opinions?  I can't help myself  Need Help
Cmon now. This is not about you understand what's behind the curtain and I don't.


Anti-competitive practices - barriers to entry
Dood, this is just so twisted. The "market" is computers and software and Apple does not stop anyone from getting into it or marketing WTF they want to. As you've admitted above, there is no possibility of claiming that Apple has a monopoly position, so the intellectual property barriers don't apply either. The only "barrier" I see is that people just simply don't want to purchase a machine with the Apple logo, but they want the OS. That's not monopolistic or anti-competitive, it's just business. I cannot go to McDonalds and demand that they put a Wendy's patty in my burger.

To be a monopoly I have to have no choice. Well, if you don't like Apple, don't buy Apple. Use any number of other OS distros or machines... there's no shortage. In fact, how often is it said that Apple should give it up because they are such a bit player? For there to be an anti-competitive thing here, Apple would have to allow sales of OS-X for (some) purposes to someone outside their organization but not others. For example: if they sold their OS to me and allowed me to modify and resell it but not someone else, they could claim anti-competitive practices. But since NO ONE is allowed to modify and sell Apple's stuff, they are consistent and therefore, again, there is no breach.

Logged

It is now believed, that after having lived in one compound with 3 wives and never leaving the house for 5 years, Bin Laden called the U.S. Navy Seals himself.
isthisthingon
Global Moderator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2879



View Profile
« Reply #7 on: October 09, 2009, 05:01:35 PM »

Quote
Now, as a retailer who's been in that situation, I can tell you unequivocally that wholesalers (or more specifically, root vendors) have a lot of rules about how you can and can't sell their items. And if you don't agree or violate the terms, they take the shit back and even have the option to sue. F'reals. And I'm only talking about pink-ribbon water bottles here, not intellectual property or something as significant as an OS.

As I mentioned, our current licensing laws are warped.  I'm talking about what should be, not what the fickle laws of the day declare.  That said, this is not like someone is saying that they ARE Apple (like they ARE DisneyXXX).  This is a hardware manufacturer, as Apple is, attempting to be in the game of selling their hardware with a very broad range of software (operating systems) for the benefit of the consumer.  The only stick in this mud is Apple.  If they tried to sell a "Mac" and it wasn't a "Mac" then almost ALL of your arguments would be totally correct.  But they're NOT selling a Mac perks.  They're selling a "Clone" with Apple's OS (all rights reserved sheeesh).  There's absolutely NOTHING about what they're trying to sell that claims ANY credit for the work that is COMPLETELY given to Apple, in every way.  Why do you imagine Psystar is claiming credit for producing Apple's OS?  Psystar would and should claim credit for building hardware that runs a broad range of software (Snow Leopard is, hate to say it but, it's actually software - in every way).

Quote
You're going to need to define how a single vendor, selling their own stuff that they developed is racketeering. That's just mind numbing to me.

Point was missed.  I should have said murder.  No connection between the two except that referring to murder as a "stupid move" that the market will handle is missing the deeper implications of murder.  Stupid move is irrelevant and the market is often unpredictable.  Wrong move and in need of correction is my view on it, though I know we disagree on it.

Quote
Like above, Ralphs sells things for other people that they have specifically put up for sale. And like above, they'll have rules that say you must sell (this) (that way) or you can't sell it. Period. This is not unusual stuff meng, it's the way of retailing. But that's immaterial anyway, because again, like above, your logic is flawed.

Again it's about our warped licensing system with no actual ownership of the products we "purchase."  I'm not saying Apple can't legally pull off what they are trying to do.  I think somehow that got lost in this.  I'm saying that it's: "smart and shitty."  Smart for them and their shareholders and shitty for the rest of the world. 

Quote
As you've admitted above, there is no possibility of claiming that Apple has a monopoly position, so the intellectual property barriers don't apply either.

I missed adding the  Roll Eyes to my comment: "I know, it's because Microsoft IS a complete monopoly and Apple is NOT a monopoly in ANY way."  My sarcasm was missed - sry Smiley  Microsoft definitely has monopoly elements and so does Apple.  They both are completely guilty of anti-competitive practices as well.  That's my truth and I know you don't share that view.  Some legal experts believe that Apple definitely engages in anti-competitive practices.  Some would disagree.  But if hypothetically Apple was slapped with a fine for engaging in anti-competitive practices say with the App Store or anything else, is that then the time that Apple could be openly acknowledged as exhibiting these traits and prior to that moment Apple absolutely has none of them??

It's a grey area that I'd hate to stand on a completely black or white position on the matter. 

Quote
To be a monopoly I have to have no choice.

Maybe in a thesaurus, but not as legally defined: (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Monopoly)

Monopoly: "An economic advantage held by one or more persons or companies deriving from the exclusive power to carry on a particular business or trade or to manufacture and sell a particular item, thereby suppressing competition and allowing such persons or companies to raise the price of a product or service substantially above the price that would be established by a free market."

Oversimplification, just as your expressed understandings of what constitutes anti-competitive behavior.  My most highlighted point that you skipped:

Vertical integration - A firm's coverage of more than one level of production, while pursuing practices which favor its own operations at each level, is often cited as an entry barrier

You wanna tell me that preventing the sale of a company's software UNLESS it's bundled with their proprietary hardware - and sold only by them - doesn't reflect a "potential" barrier to entry into the profits gained from software sales (Snow Leopard)?  Apple should be split into two companies or change their ways  Don't make me...  Perhaps it's not currently legally enforceable, but definitely deserved  Police
Logged

I would love to change the world, but they won't give me the source code.
perkiset
Olde World Hacker
Administrator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 10096



View Profile
« Reply #8 on: October 09, 2009, 05:21:42 PM »

So, @ the way it should be as opposed to is: well, we can simply disagree here because I understand your point but don't feel the same way.

@ for the benefit of the consumer: Ah no, it's for the financial gain of Psystar. That's what makes this so shitty. This is again, not about you doing what you want to do with your software (benefit of the consumer) this is for the financial gain of another company. That makes this a completely different issue.

@ competitive: it is arguable that unless you are utterly transparent and completely without rules and restrictions about how you want (your product) dealt with, then you are anti-competitive. Anything other than that is simply a negotiation or rationalization. If you feel that this is the way business should be, fine - we're definitely on different planets on this one, but I get you.

@ monopoly: the problem here is in the definition of the market. I do not believe that it is fair to make Apple compete with others with Apple's own products. The inherent problem here is that Psystar had to do nothing to create OS-X - they simply want to pimp off the work that Apple did to create it. So to allow Psystar to commoditize the marketplace simply to drive price down is just wrong. If Apple had the only GUI or the only mouse platform or the only whatever, it would be different. There'd be no way to break into the market place because they had it locked down. Specifically, what marketplace do you see Apple inhibiting? Here's the point: if I want Chevron gasoline, I pay Chevron's price. Oh, and it's because I want Techroline. Why should I be able to demand that I want Techroline (a Chevron product) in KMart gas? Is this anti competitive, or a competitive differentiator? See, that's the difference to me. OS-X is a competitive differentiator, not "The Marketplace." Ergo I reject the notion that Apple is monopolistic. Brutal in their protectionist policies, but not monopolistic.

So to your last point: should Techroline be separated from Chevron because people want it that way? Where does the notion of "I just want THAT product but cheaper" get trumped by, "Yeah, but this is my product to sell and you ain't getting it that way" ? Given your logic, where does any company have the right to their own products?
Logged

It is now believed, that after having lived in one compound with 3 wives and never leaving the house for 5 years, Bin Laden called the U.S. Navy Seals himself.
isthisthingon
Global Moderator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2879



View Profile
« Reply #9 on: October 09, 2009, 06:46:39 PM »

Quote
So to your last point: should Techroline be separated from Chevron because people want it that way? Where does the notion of "I just want THAT product but cheaper" get trumped by, "Yeah, but this is my product to sell and you ain't getting it that way" ? Given your logic, where does any company have the right to their own products?

Software is not hardware, period.  If you want to say: "this is MY product experience which includes MY Internet and MY software and MY hardware and MY electricity" then so be it.  I just vote for sensible regulations to call BS on that flimsy brand of protectionist logic.  It's a thinly veiled maximum profit center.  This is nothing more than Apple wanting maximum profit on one side and someone else wanting to acquire profit on the other.

In any case, and regardless of Psystar, Apple forbidding anyone else from selling hardware that uses their software - after paying the friggen piper - is totally uncool at best and worthy of major sanctions in reality IMO.

But Apple is way behind the times with regards to what is really happening in terms of licensing, ownership and consumer value.  Struggling to maintain this outdated modality of essentially price gouging consumers to attain unnatural wealth will bite them in the end IMO.  Great products from Apple.  But seriously horrible business practices as well.  I hope they lose this fight and the world realizes that Snow Leopard runs fantastically on another quality Wintel box to pop their ridiculous "must be Apple hw/sw for the best user experience" bubble.  It's stupid2 and needs to be outed for what it is: a baseless money grab.

 Devilish
Logged

I would love to change the world, but they won't give me the source code.
perkiset
Olde World Hacker
Administrator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 10096



View Profile
« Reply #10 on: October 09, 2009, 06:59:44 PM »

Software is not hardware, period.  If you want to say: "this is MY product experience which includes MY Internet and MY software and MY hardware and MY electricity" then so be it.  I just vote for sensible regulations to call BS on that flimsy brand of protectionist logic.  It's a thinly veiled maximum profit center.  This is nothing more than Apple wanting maximum profit on one side and someone else wanting to acquire profit on the other.
So you're saying that if it's got metal on it, it's inherently more valuable or the notion of licensing or protection policies are applicable, but if it's software it's not? How does this apply to books? And @ profit center: fair enough, but that's business. Now, to my question: Why does Psystar deserve to profit from Apple's hard work? This is the part that I don't understand.

In any case, and regardless of Psystar, Apple forbidding anyone else from selling hardware that uses their software - after paying the friggen piper - is totally uncool at best and worthy of major sanctions in reality IMO.
Ah... the "paid the piper" part. So, if someone throws money at me, are they entitled to have my wife? They paid, and it's what they want. I have a monopolistic hold on her privates. Am I not allowed to claim what is for sale and what's not? Are you saying that Apple has no ability to define what is for sale, for how, what and why? The whole point of the OS is that it makes the hardware have value. Hardware is simply a commodity in the case of Psystar. OS-X is ENTIRELY what gives it value. I believe you have it upside down: if they put *nix on it, would they have the same sales capability? I think not. They are marketing based on Apple's product. They are literally trying to make money on the Apple brand, off something that Apple has said is not for sale by anyone other than them. And that is fair, it's their product.

But Apple is way behind the times with regards to what is really happening in terms of licensing, ownership and consumer value.  Struggling to maintain this outdated modality of essentially price gouging consumers to attain unnatural wealth will bite them in the end IMO.  Great products from Apple.  But seriously horrible business practices as well.  I hope they lose this fight and the world realizes that Snow Leopard runs fantastically on another quality Wintel box to pop their ridiculous "must be Apple hw/sw for the best user experience" bubble.  It's stupid2 and needs to be outed for what it is: a baseless money grab.
LOL Just look at the fantastically disparate and varying degrees of Windows experiences there are because of this form of deregulation and that should answer itself for you. "Outdated [sic]and ridiculous?" You really devalue the OS and the time it takes to develop one that much that you see this as nothing more than a money grab? Personally I have nothing but admiration for the tenacity, talent and time it takes to develop such a thing. It's worth a lot. I make a lot because of it. My paying back into the kitty for them to keep doing what THEY do so that I can better do what I do has great value.

It is fair that I pay them for the time they've invested. Just as it's fair that people pay me for the time, talent and tenacity I put into my work. I don't see where I would deserve to simply make money off the work of Apple, unless they simply chose to give it away. Which they haven't.

Logged

It is now believed, that after having lived in one compound with 3 wives and never leaving the house for 5 years, Bin Laden called the U.S. Navy Seals himself.
kurdt
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1153


paha arkkitehti


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: October 09, 2009, 11:33:10 PM »

Without participating any further, I just have to say that I'm with perk on this one. If somebody doesn't want to sell their shit, it's their decision. Whether the decision is right or wrong, it's their shit and their decision.
Logged

I met god and he had nothing to say to me.
isthisthingon
Global Moderator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2879



View Profile
« Reply #12 on: October 11, 2009, 04:12:48 PM »

Quote
It is fair that I pay them for the time they've invested. Just as it's fair that people pay me for the time, talent and tenacity I put into my work. I don't see where I would deserve to simply make money off the work of Apple, unless they simply chose to give it away. Which they haven't.

This is ridiculous  Tongue

Charge what you want.  Sell what you want.  After someone buys something that is sold don't tell them they can't resell it on eBay - giving you full credit for having created the damn thing.  I realize it's a new concept.  But it's something the world is moving closer to (open source, free software, etc.) and a damn good thing.  How in the world could anyone really rip you off if they bought something you sold them (and should then own it, but not under current laws) and then resold it at a garage sale?  If they tried to get more $ for it their business model bites and if they sold it for less they would sell themselves out of business.

Apple convinced the world that their hardware is REQUIRED in order to have the full Apple experience.  They even convinced some of the smartest people I know Wink  But when someone is willing to provide different hardware Apple runs to daddy and tries to stop them from STEALING.  I know a few things about hardware but I'm no hardware expert.  I do know, however, that claiming any software (OS, you name it) will not run well unless it lives on a Mac wintel box is hooey beyond hooey. 

Trying to stop the world from having a Mac-like experience with Leopard on a clone just totally sucks.  Think about it - I'm a PC builder and would LOVE to have a Mac OS running natively on a box I build.  Wanna throw me in jail for this capital offense?  Apple shoots itself in the foot and that pisses me off.  It's also leading the fight against the evolving principles that although not widely accepted yet, they need all the help they can get - especially from those who should know better
Logged

I would love to change the world, but they won't give me the source code.
isthisthingon
Global Moderator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2879



View Profile
« Reply #13 on: October 11, 2009, 04:18:52 PM »

Quote
If somebody doesn't want to sell their shit, it's their decision. Whether the decision is right or wrong, it's their shit and their decision.

I think this issue requires a conversation to be fully understood.  I completely agree with your statement.  But I think that once something is sold, at whatever price, it should then be actually owned by the purchaser.  Not the brand, credit for building it, IP, etc. etc.  But refusing to sell to one person and not to another because you don't like what someone looks like, intends to do with what you sell them, etc. etc. is something I just can't get behind.

Sell something and don't discriminate - or don't sell it at all 
Logged

I would love to change the world, but they won't give me the source code.
nop_90
Global Moderator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2203


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: October 11, 2009, 06:20:06 PM »

So, @ the way it should be as opposed to is: well, we can simply disagree here because I understand your point but don't feel the same way.

@ for the benefit of the consumer: Ah no, it's for the financial gain of Psystar. That's what makes this so shitty. This is again, not about you doing what you want to do with your software (benefit of the consumer) this is for the financial gain of another company. That makes this a completely different issue.

@ competitive: it is arguable that unless you are utterly transparent and completely without rules and restrictions about how you want (your product) dealt with, then you are anti-competitive. Anything other than that is simply a negotiation or rationalization. If you feel that this is the way business should be, fine - we're definitely on different planets on this one, but I get you.

@ monopoly: the problem here is in the definition of the market. I do not believe that it is fair to make Apple compete with others with Apple's own products. The inherent problem here is that Psystar had to do nothing to create OS-X - they simply want to pimp off the work that Apple did to create it. So to allow Psystar to commoditize the marketplace simply to drive price down is just wrong. If Apple had the only GUI or the only mouse platform or the only whatever, it would be different. There'd be no way to break into the market place because they had it locked down. Specifically, what marketplace do you see Apple inhibiting? Here's the point: if I want Chevron gasoline, I pay Chevron's price. Oh, and it's because I want Techroline. Why should I be able to demand that I want Techroline (a Chevron product) in KMart gas? Is this anti competitive, or a competitive differentiator? See, that's the difference to me. OS-X is a competitive differentiator, not "The Marketplace." Ergo I reject the notion that Apple is monopolistic. Brutal in their protectionist policies, but not monopolistic.

So to your last point: should Techroline be separated from Chevron because people want it that way? Where does the notion of "I just want THAT product but cheaper" get trumped by, "Yeah, but this is my product to sell and you ain't getting it that way" ? Given your logic, where does any company have the right to their own products?

Sounds like commiapplism.
So basically it should be illegal for anyone to make a profit unless it is apple.
And apple just makes stuff for the joy and benifit of all peoples.

Nokia has an official stores.
I can buy a nokia from the official stores.
Or I can go and a lot of the time buy my nokia from another store for 10% cheaper.
WTF do i ussually buy my nokia from the official store ?
Well when I buy it from the unofficial store when the thing breaks hell of a lot harder to get it fixed.

Basically same stupid shit apple did back in the 1980s. At the time they had a majority market share (15% granted, but they probably where the biggest).
They had the opportunity to license clones like IBM did etc. They turned it down.
As Bill Gates unofficially said, he is cool with people pirating software, as long as they pirate M$ software.
Because when it comes to buying it, well guess what they will buy M$ software.
This is shown in china where piracy is rapant but M$ is actually starting to sell software.

Same BS with IPhone. Not just google is having problems getting apps licensed.
Lots of smaller developers are bitching.

Fuking apple should be happy people run thier software even if it is not on an offical apple machine, that way they gain market share / exposure.
Can see a rerun of 1980s era where apple has a good thing going but they fuk it up because they are stupid and greedy.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Perkiset's Place Home   Best of The Cache   phpMyIDE: MySQL Stored Procedures, Functions & Triggers
Politics @ Perkiset's   Pinkhat's Perspective   
cache
mart
coder
programmers
ajax
php
javascript
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.2 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC
Seo4Smf v0.2 © Webmaster's Talks


Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!