OSNews

That would be blatantly illegal. That would be called monopolistic abuse, thus rendering Apple an illegal monopoly ( not to be confused with a simple monopoly as they are already - through a form of trickery ).

--The loon

Apple should be able to charge whatever it wants for its products. Consumers will decide what they are willing or not willing to pay. Current ideas on what constitutes illegal monopolistic behavior could use a dose of common sense and some remedial lessons in Friedmanistic economics. It's disheartening to see the people and organizations who epitomize failure claiming the right to write the rules by which businesses must operate.

Par for the course.

That would be blatantly illegal. That would be called monopolistic abuse, thus rendering Apple an illegal monopoly ( not to be confused with a simple monopoly as they are already - through a form of trickery ).

--The loon "

What constitutes a monopoly is an interesting and debatable (and in some cases it's a mass-debate ) topic. Many people claim that Apple has a monopoly with the iPod and iTunes simply because of market share, and relate it to Microsoft's position with Windows. But what's the difference in these cases.

Very simply put, content. Most of the content that is or can be used on an iPod can easily be transferred to competing devices of the same ilk. Music I purchase from ITMS even can be easily burned to a CD and then taken to whatever other device I please, be it a Zune, my car's CD player or my home entertainment system. I can even re-rip it into MP3 and put it on any el cheapo MP3 player I please. Yes it requires an intermediate step, but it can be done very easily by a layperson. Sure there are DRM movies but there are also numerous readily available and extremely easy to use tools out there to convert them.

Now lets think about the content for Windows - software. Can a layperson with little to no computer knowledge take that to another operating system and use it? At this point people will start screaming "what about WINE?" Well, what about WINE. What percentage of Windows software can be run under wine without modification, and be set up by a layperson who has little to no knowledge of operating systems?

So the difference is that once a person is using Windows software they are locked into that unless they change their whole shooting match. And yes the same applies for other operating systems, but Windows just happens to have a massive market share - the majority of the world in fact - and are therefore in the monopolistic position of having all those users by the balls. On the contrary if I wanted to change from an iPod to a Zune it might take me a few hours but just about all my content would still be usable.

So while Apple certainly have a monopolistic market share with the iPod, there is absolutely nothing stopping anyone from moving to another media player while retaining access to the content they've additionally purchased. If you're on Windows though and want to change you will also lose access to your software, and possibly even some peripherals, which is a much larger investment than Windows itself.

Let me get this straight. You mean transcoding from original to lossy AAC to lossy burned CD to lossy MP3 is acceptable? Sorry, but I'll stick with well-supported non-DRMed audio file formats, or better yet, the original copy ripped in FLAC or WavPack (ie. lossless formats which *can* safely be compressed by a lossy encoder such as MP3).

AAC already tosses out unthinkable amounts of audio data, which you will NEVER get back from an iTunes Store AAC audio; converting back to CD audio/wav and then back to MP3 (or any other format) is something that should NEVER be done if you value the quality of your music. More data (data=QUALITY) is lost for every generation of "converted" audio files. And you're using this poor practice to *defend* Apple and their DRM-infested store?

Wow... seriously, you've got a few things to learn. HydrogenAudio is a good place to start. ALWAYS use an audio encoder on the original, full-quality source material (read: the actual CD). Restrain from converting already-lossy (ie. MP3 and AAC) files to another format. The ONLY way to listen to the music you bought in 100% quality is on the devices that Apple says you can. Why? The DRM says so. Simple as that.

Edited 2009-11-06 23:15 UTC

Let me get this straight. You mean transcoding from original to lossy AAC to lossy burned CD to lossy MP3 is acceptable? Sorry, but I'll stick with well-supported non-DRMed audio file formats, or better yet, the original copy ripped in FLAC or WavPack (ie. lossless formats which *can* safely be compressed by a lossy encoder such as MP3).

AAC already tosses out unthinkable amounts of audio data, which you will NEVER get back from an iTunes "

Can you define "unthinkable amounts of audio data"?



In regards to the music on the Apple store, what DRM are you refering to?



Again, what DRM are you talking about, you are welcome to take whatever music you buy on the apple store and play it back on anything that supports aac. That has nothing to do with DRM and more todo with what devices support aac as a format.

Loon, have you gone off your meds or been smoking too much pot?

Carefully consider what the OP stated: dropping margins to minimum. In no way, shape, or form, is that illegal: even if Microsoft did it, being the OS monopoly for PC hardware (which Apple sells a computer that works very well running Windows, too) wouldn't run afoul of any laws whatsoever. Companies that sell stuff at break-even are.... ultra-competitive. Companies that sell their stuff at a loss to be made up by other products they sell? Why, we all use them: grocery stores! Granted, no grocery store I'm aware of has a true monopoly, but the point still stands: you can't have capitalism and say "It isn't fair for anyone to cut their margins to minimum!" regardless of which entity cuts them to the minimum: if they don't sell something for less than it costs, quite simply, it isn't dumping, and therefore, is not at all illegal anywhere in the world (can you seriously post links to laws that prohibit companies from selling something at low profit, but not at a loss? I'm rather confident you cannot, because it defies all logic.... then again, there's your username ) and is how companies tend to grab market share.

Furthermore, for PC hardware and operating systems, Apple isn't remotely a monopoly: while they are the only ones that are authorized to sell OSX, not only is the OS (the kernel and a lot of it) OSS that anyone can grab for free (minus things like Aqua, a lot of the differentiating product that's uniquely Apple's) but the hardware can be used to run any other OS that runs on PCs, and Apple isn't at all stopping users from doing exactly that: in fact, perhaps you're unaware of "Boot Camp" provided with OSX, which includes Windows drivers to make installing Windows (at least Vista, soon, if not already, Windows 7) easy, and makes it much easier to boot anything else, even if it doesn't natively support EFI booting.

Apple could cut their margins on their PC hardware and software combination to return $1 above the cost to make, advertise, and support what they sell, and they'd still make a small amount of money per year: they've sold many millions of Macs this year as it is. However, that's not exactly something shareholders would want to see Sure, they'd gain market share, but at what price? After they've lowered their prices that much, they'd never be able to recover average selling prices, and that'd more likely doom them than not in the computer field. Of course, there's always the portable computing device/phone business

It is, and has been for many many years, illegal for a company with a monopoly to price products aggressively with the sole intent to price another competitor into oblivion.

Generally speaking, the monopoly-holding company would need to drop prices below costs for absolute violation of anti-trust law. However, any flexing of monopolistic powers aimed at absolutely destroying the competition is generally illegal.

Be that aggressive contract terms, hiding of certain interoperability information, or what have you.

The rules change once a monopoly is established. They change once again once a court rules that an illegal monopoly exists.

Apple [[c][w]]ould be considered a monopoly based merely on the fact that they have a full monopoly on MacOS X and have been very aggressive in thwarting competition. Thusly, we fall back to sales at retail and Apple's responsibilities in that arena, which is another topic.

Take the case of Microsoft, for years they used simple trickery and targeted price cuts ( bulk-deals, contracts, OEMs ) to build and maintain market superiority. All well and good, except that on more than one occasion those actions were ramped up to target competitors, thereby placing Microsoft into the position of an illegal monopolist.

Apple is doing exactly the same, on a different scale. Sure, they can drop their prices to even make a loss, but if they do so specifically to destroy a competitor, they are violating anti-trust law.

More often than not these cases are handled in the back room under negotiated mediation sessions ( of which I have been a party - albeit not in regards to anti-trust ), so very little case law even exists.

Indeed, Microsoft is almost the only modern example of this nature. And Bush's terrible Attorneys General destroyed millions of dollars in efforts to produce results, leaving even more questions officially unanswered.

In the end, however, blatantly illegal or not, it all depends on one person wearing a black robe to agree that Apple's market position constitutes a monopoly before much of anything can be done in terms of judicial action. Until then, it would merely be fodder in the hands of the enemy and their lawyers.

--The loon

The unique portion of OSX is.... Aqua, and some of the Core Frameworks: otherwise, it's another certified Unix OS variant with a pretty face, and the underlying OS itself is completely open source and available for free, just not Aqua and all those Core Frameworks.

As such, your argument is senseless for the OS as a whole, and all Aqua is, is a very pretty (depending on the eye/mousing/keyboard habits of the beholder) window manager on top of a solid certified Unix, of which Apple absolutely has zero monopoly over window managers (you could put just X over the OSX kernel, or any other window managers and frameworks, no problem) for any OS, including OSX. Next, you'll be telling me the people of KDE have a monopoly over KDE, because they're the only ones with the rights to claim they have the power: well, that's not an exact comparison, true, because KDE is fully OSS, and downloadable and installable on... yes, OSX in addition to other systems, including Linux, which is not *quite* a Unix, but also other true certifiable Unix OSes.

There's absolutely nothing stopping Psystar (not even Apple!) from taking Darwin and creating their own competitor to Aqua and the associated frameworks, and nobody would get upset, except for anyone insisting Apple must give their hardware/software combination unfair labels and restrictions as to what they can do with it, on the specious argument that Apple is the only one that can sell OSX and run it on their hardware. Well, if they were to try to do that to run Mac OSX software, sure, they could legally do it: but it'd likely take them at least as long as Haiku has taken thus far to get to where the user space of OSX is now, and by then, who knows what might have changed? Would you still whine that Apple had a monopoly? (Rhetorical question )

None of that matters one lick.

The ability to recreate or inter-operate is not at issue. The issue is to utilize copies purchased, legally, at retail, in ways already protected by law.

MacOS X is a product existing in the retail market space and is governed by the laws of the jurisdictions in which it is sold. In law, it is NOT the sum of its constituent parts. It is a singularity.

Apple's assertion of exclusive access to MacOS X is without merit should it choose to sell copies on the open market as it has done.

Sure, they can limit MacOS X to only Apple-made machines. But they have to do so correctly. The U.S. does not permit automatic, non-elective, non-signatory restrictive terms of use contracts. Period. And that is a good thing. Seriously.

They have made a move in the right direction by calling the latest iteration of MacOS X an 'upgrade,' but have failed to provide additional value, which will ( well, should, anyway ) lead to some problems for them as they attempt to force restrictions on consumers' rights. The law is often written by the emerging consensus of a market or community, the general definition of 'upgrade' as pertaining to an iteration of a line of computer software will be utilized.

Considering the historical presence of full-fledged versions of MacOS X, pricing and value trends will be determined in order to calculate the value of the 'upgrade' version. In this test new versions of MacOS X will fail - unless Apple were to show an improved value over existing prices.

Which means, Apple, in the end, should create a "full version" at the $289 price point, and keep the upgrade version at the price of the previous version. The upgrade has a ( legal ) caveat: "Part of the price of this copy of MacOS X is included in your Apple-branded computer, usage restrictions apply."

The full version will have no limits of any kind, save for one: "Apple product support is included in the price of a Macintosh computer system, support is not included in the price of MacOS X."

Done.


Honestly, though, in the end, the problem is not what Apple wants to do, but the very fact that they did not start out that way.

If, all along, MacOS X was properly distinguished as a Macintosh software upgrade, then this problem would be a bit easier to sort out. EULA restrictions can, often, be enforced when price subsidies are involved.

Who knows, the courts may even find that Apple was forthcoming enough in the retail marketplace to not misrepresent MacOS X as a full-version operating system, but instead a Macintosh System Software Update.

In which case Psystar is using subsidized software, illegally.

Of course, if you look at the MacOS X retail box, you will find that the courts are not too likely to see things that way. Prominence is of primary importance. If they simply had the words "Macintosh System Software Upgrade" on the front, we would be laughing at Psystar rather than debating the merits of EULAs and how a rather small company can still be a monopoly.

--The loon

OSX (Snow Leopard) is already 30 dollars. Priced well below Windows and some boxed Linux distros...

Apple can charge whatever the want for the hardware. Your logic is flawed. By your reasoning Dell and HP couldnt keep dropping prices to compete with each other. They can lower there prices to whatever because they sell on volume.

Loon, are you an idiot? Seriously. Why the hell would a monopoly use price dumping? It's a contradiction in terms. If it's a monopoly it has no competition. Price dumping is a tactic designed to undermine competition.

That's if Apple even was a monopoly. Which it isn't, not as long as it has under 10% marketshare both in hardware and software. It's simply stupid to suggest that they are.

Secondly, price dumping is most definitely not considered illegal, not out of hand. Most countries will allow price dumping to occur as long as the company doing it is local ie. not owned by foreign parties. In other words, if the local companies decide to play this game, it's their problem.

The reasons are simple:
1) Artificial business regulation by the state is in most cases a bad idea.
2) Price dumping benefits customers.
3) Price dumping is not sustainable in the long term, so it dies down eventually anyway. It's only in the short term is can achieve anything.

Monopolies can exist in many different forms.

At least in law.

At least as it pertains to anti-trust legislation.

Price dumping is NOT permitted in the national market place. Local companies don't matter and are generally unregulated.

We are talking about U.S. law, where the bulk of my knowledge resides, in absolute exclusivity.

Apple has a (horizontal) monopoly on MacOS X. This is because the product was and is available for purchase on the open market, yet they have taken extraordinary efforts to restrict those who may use the product with competing products.

It is like Ford selling their V8 engines in bulk, without any contracts, to a competing car maker, then preventing that company from using those engines in production cars because Ford designed the engine to say "For use in Ford cars only," once it was started.

It is EXACTLY the same.

And it is anti-trust, which, in legal vernacular, is referred to as being monopolistic behavior.

Monopolies are not illegal, it all depends on what a company does to become one and what they do once they are one.

If Apple never sold MacOS X at retail, there would be no problem. A Macintosh would be considered a whole, including its software. MacOS X, sold separately, without contract, at retail, is governed by the laws of the jurisdictions in which it is sold. The U.S. banned restrictive terms of use long ago, so the EULA restrictions are useless.

The only way the restrictions can hold merit is if MacOS X can be proven to not be a normal product on the market. This cannot be shown. You can go and buy a copy of MacOS X without precondition. There is nothing on the packaging to indicate that a part of the price is included with the product.

Snow Leopard uses a revised strategy from Apple to help address this exact problem. Hence the $29 upgrade price from Leopard.

This does mean, however, that Psystar should be buying Leopard, then buying Snow Leopard, in order to ship computers with Snow Leopard. If they are not, they are breaking the law, now.

You see, things have changed. Apple is well within their rights to limit Snow Leopard to being merely an upgrade from Leopard. That is fine - and is not what I am talking about.

The problem is historical, and likely will exist in the future unless Apple follows my advice.

They can keep the upgrade at $29, make a bigger version more expensive, and a full version even more expensive.

All except for the most expensive package should be limited to Apple hardware by current means. The cheapest limited to upgrade one version to the next, only ( such Leopard to Snow Leopard ). The most expensive version ( which should be hella expensive, BTW ) would have no requirements, but no support ( unless you own a Mac, of course, which includes the service fee, so long as you keep your system software relatively up to date ;-) ).

Trust me, I know more than you would ever imagine.

--The loon

I dont want to be rude, but isnt price dumping a way to reach monopoly. not to maintain it?

You have absolutely no idea of what you're talking about.

You can't make up your own definitions.

It's already been established that Apple's OS does NOT constitute its own market.

Please stick to facts and law.

I suppose that means actually understanding the law, something which you don't.

I do, I'm not, it has not, I am, and I do better than you know.

The simple definition of monopoly: "A situation in which a single company owns all or nearly all of the market for a given type of product or service."

As you should know, MacOS X has spawned its very own market as soon as it was sold at retail. Just like Windows 7, inflatable diapers, or purple Pez dispensers. No court has said otherwise as a generality, as that is one of the primary arguments posed by Psystar and a denial made by Apple.

Apple is dead wrong. If the item can be purchased legally, by even one person, then that item has spawned its own market. Furthermore, if the item is sold without pre-condition at retail, it is then subject to the laws governing the retail market-place in the corresponding jurisdiction.

Once a market moves to the national stage, it is governed by the laws of the federal government and is then subject to anti-trust legislation.

One violation of anti-trust and copyright laws is post-conditions (after sale) governing usage of a copy of a copyrighted work ( such as a book ).

If Microsoft sold Windows 7 at retail, but only allowed Hewlett Packard to install it legally, suing every other company that deployed Windows 7, that would be illegal as well.

And don't be like all the other idiots who somehow think that Microsoft's OEM licensing program is designed to grant the right to distribute Windows, it is not. It is designed to provide, with restriction, low-cost Windows licenses for bulk sale.

While these contracts are legal, it has been contended that many clauses within them may be illegal due to anti-competitive measures which leverage the Microsoft monopoly on the OEM Operating System market. Microsoft, technically, doesn't have a monopoly on the Windows market.

Apple contends that only they can use their OS, or owners of Macintosh computers. Microsoft makes no such claim, because it would be illegal for a product in the retail market-place. Neither are required to sale at retail, but Microsoft chose to do so, and Apple accidentally did so. Accidents count the same.

They both sell at retail and are governed by the same laws. Microsoft and Apple both have a monopoly on a given market. Microsoft on the PC Operating System market ( but not the Windows market, mind you ), and Apple on the MacOS X market ( a market which Apple is now working to destroy as indicated by the Snow Leopard release method (upgrade from Leopard only) ).

Definitions:

Monopoly: ( see if this rings a bell )

A monopoly is not automatically illegal.

It required Apple to sell MacOS X without pre-condition, on the open market, THEN claiming that MacOS X was exclusively a Macintosh System Software Upgrade. But you can't say that when you sell your product as a full-fledged operating system.

You can't. That is false marketing. And it is illegal. Intentions or not.

--The loon

Edited 2009-11-07 18:20 UTC

I couldn't agree more. My position has been that the hackintosh community has been largely ignored by Apple because they do it for fun. They aren't hurting Apple's margins all that much, and they aren't trying to make a buck from their efforts.

However, I don't consider Psystar to be a part of the hackintosh community at all. They take what the community has done, try to make a profit off of it, and that only hurts all of us in the end. Sure, it would be nice if their actions had the side effect of rendering the Apple SLAs unenforceable, but that's a pipe dream really. They are eventually going to lose their case or settle out of court. After that, Apple may start paying more attention to the hackintosh community--and not in a nice way--so they can prevent another Psystar from popping up.

Honestly, I wish they had never started their silly lawsuits but if not them, someone else would have done the same. Greed is a powerful motivator after all.

Given what they're doing though, wouldn't you be just a bit hesitant to send your machine to these guys, especially when developing a tool to send your *exact* specs to them would've been a snap? It would certainly raise a big red flag to me.

Why even have them develop some special tool; lshw must be easy to get a hold of and compile against darwin if it's not already in there. The Debian hardware checker works this way already. You run lshw with the command switch they list on the site then past the results into a large text box and out comes the results; supported, supported with driverXYZ or unsupported.

Well, they'd at least need to develop a nicer interface than the CLI for most of their customers, I'd imagine. I don't know if lshw is available, but there are several other ways to get a system's entire specification in OS X. Build this into Rebel EFI with an option to send to Psystar or save the output, and that's all they'd need. Sometimes I wonder if Psystar is deliberately trying to look shady, or if they've just got more financial backing than common sense.

Challenging Apple's EULA I can support but "send us your hardware so we can confirm" wouldn't work for me. As you point out, they could stuff lshw or any other similar code behind RebelEFI.

(It's made for entertaining news to read though)

Given what they're doing, Is the Reason why people are buying the product. They want MAC OSX on non MAC products. Sending the PC is one thing, But I believe that they have enough resources for me to send the PC minus the Hard Drive if you're worried about ID theft and non ethical actions. WHat's fishy to me is:

An ordinary Joe of a consumer, purchases the Psystar EFI gadget, has a problem with it, and all of a sudden brings it to a top gadget news site and make a story of it also admonishing people not to buy the product. (Sounds like he was planted)