The Cache: Technology Expert's Forum
 
*
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register. October 16, 2019, 03:01:39 PM

Login with username, password and session length


Pages: 1 [2]
  Print  
Author Topic: Beyond the pale: Psystar and Apple Case  (Read 6330 times)
deregular
Expert
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 172


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: October 11, 2009, 08:23:19 PM »

Not sure if this has been mentioned on this thread, but has anyone stopped to think that perhaps Apple has an airtight contract with the hardware manufacturers, which if broken has the potential to cripple EVERYTHING.? Even Apple can get things wrong.

Its a company's right to do what the hell they want to do with their product.

Example:

I built a company up in australia, and hooked up with a couple of americans to build my brand there.
Because it was somewhat of a startup, (established here but was needing a massive kick in the butt to get it going in the USA)
An exclusive deal was setup whereby the sister company (the australian one) was restricted to selling individual goods OUTSIDE the USA,
where the USA was also under the same restriction to offer a package deal only INSIDE the USA.

Made sense at the time and without doing so, would have hindered the progress of the company.

Said Australian business was still a success, apart from a few customers complaining about the restriction, and said USA business boomed and made us bank.

If we were allowed to sell individual items in the USA, their product and marketing would have suffered and we would not have the brand name that we have today.

Take what you want from what I have written above, but I believe apple are well within their rights to do what they do. Sure Id like to throw leopard onto a pc too, and I have a hackintosh here in my office, but it is their right to protect their branding in order to ensure that that brand remains intact.
Logged
kurdt
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1153


paha arkkitehti


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: October 11, 2009, 10:51:47 PM »

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 
Yeah I agree when it comes to individual and maybe very, very small businesses. But when it comes to companies that clearly buy the product only to sell their shit that directly competes with Apple's products, that's just no no. It's about refusing to sell because of the intent of use and what that use does to their profits. I'm sure you don't agree that Apple should sell even it clearly is used in a way that decreases their profits? Every company has right to choose their customers. Some explosive manufacturers don't sell to people who don't have certifications no matter how just-press-button-to-boom product it is that even n00b can use. I think what I mean is that companies are not just some things that exist to make everybody happy. They have their own agendas, missions and operating policies. If you don't like company's policies, start your own and go to competitor. If there's no competitors, you have to start your own. I think Apple has been quite patient with Psystar. I would have rammed them into so small hole if I was Apple that there's no coming back but that's just me.
Logged

I met god and he had nothing to say to me.
perkiset
Olde World Hacker
Administrator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 10096



View Profile
« Reply #17 on: October 12, 2009, 07:36:55 AM »

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.
This is problematic. So you're OK with ticket scalpers? Or re. your brand point, then it's not OK for Micky and Minnie to get sold locked in a sexual position, but it would be OK for someone to put OS-X on an inferior machine and still call it OS-X? I don't see how you can define the lines here.

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.
And I agree - so where's that discrimination? They're not selling OS-X to one person and not to another... they are only selling OS-X through their channels for their purposes. They're not inconsistent at all, in fact they're quite rigid about their policies. I don't see the connection.

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 #18 on: October 12, 2009, 10:19:37 AM »

Quote
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.

 ROFLMAO Ditto
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 #19 on: October 12, 2009, 01:06:37 PM »

Quote
but it would be OK for someone to put OS-X on an inferior machine and still call it OS-X?

inferior  Huh?  Could be, but could also be far superior.  But I can't think of any software that's ever been produced that can't be called by it's name when it's installed on a differently configured PC.  Any examples come to mind?  The Apple world is a strange one.  It's full of creativity, great ideas, quality software/hardware, and the most powerful ability to influence the opinions of those who pay its bills.  I felt a lot differently about them many years ago and it's probably part of the reason I get so frustrated when they behave like M$ and others who seem to care about nothing but their bottom line. 

Ticket scalpers?  It's a shame we label them as "scalpers" IMO.  Buy a ticket (piper is paid), resell it to someone who wants to see the show; fan is happy, band is happy, mom is happy, where's the problem?  What would Jesus do?  He'd be stoned to death by Ticketmaster with the blessing of mainstream logic.  But your views on this are far more popular than mine so I expect disagreement since I'm in the minority on this one.

Again, I'm not arguing that the current laws will prevent Apple from behaving like they do.  I'm saying the laws should change and Apple with its warped sense of entitlement should become a new example in our case law system that no longer rewards selfishness.  Monoposoft is just as greedy and terrible along the same lines.  The world knows it and our legal system has been completely impotent in its attempts to bring M$ into line. 

BTW - happy munday Cache Smiley
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 #20 on: October 12, 2009, 03:52:16 PM »

Bill Gates on Piracy: "They'll get addicted, and then we'll collect"
Bill Gates may not be entirely dismayed by software thieves. They seed the world market and make Microsoft a standard.

Pystar piracy if u want to term it that increases the value of an apple machine.
Logged
isthisthingon
Global Moderator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2879



View Profile
« Reply #21 on: October 12, 2009, 05:17:10 PM »

Quote
"They'll get addicted, and then we'll collect"

Ding!  The essence of what really bothers me about lock-in of any kind.  Nobody wants to admit they're locked in to anything.  The ego won't permit such thoughts, especially when a career IT person feels that their choices reflect their perceived tech competence. 

Quote
Pystar piracy if u want to term it that increases the value of an apple machine.

 D'oh! Of course it would!  Imitation is the highest form of flattery, with a reach-around coming in at a close second Wink  However, even though a premium Apple product would gain in perceived value, having competition will keep the natural, normal and healthy product prices in reasonable check.  Apple will always enjoy sick ass phat farm margins but having an option to build or buy a wintel box to run OS X will keep things in this solar system.  This is another thing I just don't get.  How in the world can anyone honestly side with an anti-competitive approach to business (shareholders don't count)?  There's no way around this fact.  Attempting to squash potential competition in court is the opposite of encouraging competition.  I understand supporting Apple's right to sell things as they wish.  But who's kidding who about encouraging/discouraging competition?  And tell me it doesn't look bad for Apple.  They used to have more pride and confidence when they were 1/100th as powerful.  Seriously unbecoming.

"I'm an American who strongly supports a free-market but not when it comes to Apple" Roll Eyes What's the real problem?  Perhaps part of it is the "king has no clothes" syndrome.  What in the world would Apple fans do if, god forbid, people began building a better Mac?  How about a way better Mac for 1/2 the price??  Funny how the argument went from "best user experience" to "jesus christ stop them!!! that's illegal! immoral! unfair! somebody save Apple!" Roll Eyes

Contrary to what my comments may suggest, I have a tremendous amount of respect for Apple.  I used to seriously love the company and was a fanboi in every sense of the word.  But with time and growth they've become much like the companies they claimed to be so different from.  It's been a disheartening, decades long letdown IMO.
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 #22 on: October 12, 2009, 05:59:28 PM »

@isthisthingon
Basically the problem is most american companies are stuck in 19th centuary thinking.
As it has been discovered in asia contrary to popular belief piracy does not affect sales (providing product is good).

Prime example is various companies like cartier,rolex etc. Most any where you can buy here a rip off that is almost indistingishable from origional.
So logic would tell you that people would not buy the origional.
My sister in law recently bought a $1K purse. (not an easy feat when u only make $1K a month). Why did she buy the real thing when u can buy a imitation ?
Partially status, also partially quality.

For starters the guys who get the pretend apple will not buy a real apple. Either they can not afford it or they are cheap skates.
Possibly the guy who gets the pretend apple when he finds out the OSX does not work as good as it should may buy a real apple.

I slam apple, bitched about thier fucked up boot system.
But in fairness when my MacBook Pro broke (mother board fried). My wife took it to the apple shop in manila.
They said it would cost like $1K to get a new mother board. I was not willing to pay that much.
The lady in shop said, well why not leave the laptop there, we will see what we can do.
3 days later she called back, MacBook is still under warranty, mother board was defective and they will replace for free.

When i buy a new laptop, i probably will get an apple again. Not because of some stupid court case, but because of thier service is good.
Sales staff in apple stores are friendly,helpful and knowledgable.

I bought a chinese ripoff laptop like 4 years ago. paid like 1/4 the price of a MacBook.
When the fuker died, well i was up shit creek, unable to get parts. Fuking repair manual was in fuking chinese etc.
Biggest headache i ever had Smiley

Probably most of this court BS for apple is because of some stupid lawyer / accountant / MBA.
All I am waiting for is for them to fire all the techie guys.
Probably the MBA is saying. Hmmm problem is 90% of the stuff that apple R&D guys put out is a failure.
We could save lots of money if we fired 90% of the techie guys, and then made sure the 10% of the techie guys remaining only make winners.


Logged
perkiset
Olde World Hacker
Administrator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 10096



View Profile
« Reply #23 on: October 12, 2009, 06:46:21 PM »

"I'm an American who strongly supports a free-market but not when it comes to Apple" Roll Eyes What's the real problem?  Perhaps part of it is the "king has no clothes" syndrome.  What in the world would Apple fans do if, god forbid, people began building a better Mac?  How about a way better Mac for 1/2 the price??  Funny how the argument went from "best user experience" to "jesus christ stop them!!! that's illegal! immoral! unfair! somebody save Apple!" Roll Eyes
LOL I'm no where near that last bit. I think it's completely fair for Apple to try to halt a screaching race to the bottom. Apple has never been a commodity product - just as high end cars are not. Bear in mind that what you're talking about is simply lower price. There's no real way that an outside company can build a *better* Mac - maybe better specs, maybe better price, maybe higher video, maybe smaller box. But all in all, the entire package would be hard to make holistically "better." But that's really immaterial: Apple wants to present (x) experience, top to bottom, of their products. That's really their prerogative.


Contrary to what my comments may suggest, I have a tremendous amount of respect for Apple.  I used to seriously love the company and was a fanboi in every sense of the word.  But with time and growth they've become much like the companies they claimed to be so different from.  It's been a disheartening, decades long letdown IMO.
It's unfortunate both that they (as an entity) were that high in your esteem (for certainly it is a long way to fall), and that they have in fact fallen. I do not find that I have much allegiance to Apple per se, but more so enjoyment of the Mac as a machine and a means to an end. I like what Apple does and their product line excites me ... but I kind of hold their corporate practice in the same boat as I hold any corporation. I have no illusions about what they are ... I just like some of their products. I think that may be where we are not connecting perfectly: my fanboiness is much more towards the Mac as a machine, and really for the rest of the world only of the last 5 years since they went Unix. Apple, as a company, has disappointed me many many times over the years.
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 #24 on: October 12, 2009, 10:43:09 PM »

What's the real problem?
The problem is the principle. It's their shit and their decision. Our opinion doesn't matter. It's their shit and they decide if they want to sell it or not. In a way this whole thing of forcing Apple to sell their shit to resellers is like advocating a rape. Yeah, you look very fucking hot but you are not giving it to me so I'm taking it by force. Or in this case you are trying to open her legs by arguing that it's not fair that she's so good looking and not giving to me but she's giving to some people she met at the bar. I just don't see anything else relevant to this conversation. It's pointless to discuss if the computers would be better or if fanboys are unwilling to accept any other Macs, it's about owner's rights, period.
Logged

I met god and he had nothing to say to me.
nop_90
Global Moderator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2203


View Profile
« Reply #25 on: October 13, 2009, 02:33:37 AM »

@kurdt
I feel the same way.
That is why i do not serve blacks inside my restro.
It ruins my buisness  ROFLMAO
Logged
kurdt
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1153


paha arkkitehti


View Profile
« Reply #26 on: October 13, 2009, 03:15:09 AM »

@kurdt
I feel the same way.
That is why i do not serve blacks inside my restro.
It ruins my buisness  ROFLMAO
Hehe.. so what you are saying is that discriminating customers based on their skin color is equal to not selling to people who intent to use your product in a way you don't want them to ... right on nop! Applause
Logged

I met god and he had nothing to say to me.
nop_90
Global Moderator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2203


View Profile
« Reply #27 on: October 13, 2009, 05:48:11 PM »

Sometimes the blacks don't sit in the back of my restro where they belong.
So I am not discriminating against blacks, they are just not using my restro the way I intended.
This cost me money, many of my white customers do not want to eat in a restro where blacks sit in the front  ROFLMAO

Every large company has a team of lawyers.
Being lawyers they are nothing besides parasites.
But they want to show that they are contributing to apple's bottom line.

So they find pystar for example. Claim that it is "costing" apple XX million a year.
Then because of their legal action claim it saves apple YY million.
The falicy is that people who use pystar OSX would have bought a Mac in the first place.

Morality for most people seems to enter the equation.
Lets say I was an investment advisor. There are probably various legal loopholes where I could just take peoples money.
But even if i was a totally immoral person it would be pretty stupid for me to do it.

Again so called "morality" differs from location to location.
In Eastern Europe in McD if u want extra ketchup u have to pay for it.
While in America it is "free".
Again the Eastern European method is more "fair" theoretically.
If someone uses 20 ketchup, and I use only 1, I am paying indirectly for his 19.
But in American it is "fair" that I subsidize the ketchup pig  ROFLMAO
Logged
kurdt
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1153


paha arkkitehti


View Profile
« Reply #28 on: October 13, 2009, 10:25:55 PM »

Sometimes the blacks don't sit in the back of my restro where they belong.
So I am not discriminating against blacks, they are just not using my restro the way I intended.
This cost me money, many of my white customers do not want to eat in a restro where blacks sit in the front  ROFLMAO
No matter how hard you try, racial discrimination and not selling to resellers are not comparable. It just makes you look like a racist asshole.
Logged

I met god and he had nothing to say to me.
nop_90
Global Moderator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2203


View Profile
« Reply #29 on: October 14, 2009, 01:43:21 AM »

No matter how hard you try, racial discrimination and not selling to resellers are not comparable. It just makes you look like a racist asshole.
Sigh, I am a victim of changing morals  ROFLMAO
Again 30 years ago it would be justifyable by various religous groups, and be even endorsed by some blacks.
100 years ago even most anti-slavery americans supported segregation.
Muhamad Ali gave a speech to the KKK about how blacks should only marry blacks, whites should marry only whites, tigers should marry tigers etc.

Again every time when some saids that it is morally wrong to do a certain activity based on some criteria like skin color,
while it is ok to do the same activity based on whether or not the person is a reseller, or does not use the product as u intended etc shows the falicy of your point Smiley

Legally it is an interesting case.
Software is not "sold" per say.
I am very interested to how it will turn out.

Side track, but kind of on the same lines the abolishion of slavery could have only been achieved in modern times.
Slavery is only economical in primitive society.
It is much cheaper to have a machine to do the job, vs the cost of training a slave, medical care etc.
Also in a modern economy the big problem is you can not lay off a slave. So during times of recession you still have to protect your investment.
Again except for the last 100 years, for 6000-7000 years of history slavery was perfectly socially acceptable.
So "right" and "wrong" is not constant but changes Smiley
Again a lot of oppositon towards slavery was from free workers in the north.
Again it was wrapped in a "moral" guise, but the motivation was economic Smiley

From a little research on the net, i think apple will win the case.
It also brings out other questions of licensing for software.

I think like slavery, the concepts of software/music copyrights will change drastically.
Probably going towards a more asian type economic model.

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!