OSNews

"



I'm talking about history. The '90s. Remember Netscape? Apparently not. My point is that if you think what Apple's doing is anticompetitive, you don't know the meaning of the word, which is apparently because you're not aware of any real anticompetitive behavior that has actually occurred in the real world. And in case the game we're playing here is splitting hairs, then yeah, it was never explicit in the contracts. Microsoft isn't stupid. They simply threatened to increase the price or pull the contract entirely. An OEM without Windows has nothing, and one that has to charge more for the same product is doomed. They were using their monopoly power over the industry as a whole to preempt consumer choice. Apple is doing no such thing. They're competing with hardware and software as a package, and they're doing very well.



Copyright allows an author to control the distribution and use of its works. It's what allows software licenses to exist at all, the GPL being an especially important example. It's copyright law that allows the authors to enforce that the source stay open. Apparently that's a perfectly legal maneuver because we find it convenient.

Psystar is selling an unauthorized derivative work. That's flat illegal.



More BS. The only hardware Microsoft sells is the Xbox (at a loss I might add), and a MP3 player, Zune, which is a dud seller. Microsofts money is made in the OS, Office, and service/support. Get your facts right. "

I didn't say Microsoft is selling the hardware. They know better than anyone that selling PCs with Windows is a sucker's game. The fact I stated is that Microsoft makes its money off the hardware sale. Their income comes from the licensing deal attached to the sale of a new PC, the "hardware." This is known as the "Microsoft tax." It's the source of their income. The practical difference between mean jerk Apple and generous, open Microsoft is that hardware and software come from two different companies on the PC side. There's no reason why that model should be enforced across the industry, and if it were, it would only deepen Microsoft's entrenchment as the sole software provider.



How is it special? One can argue that Vista offers something special that people want, or Linux, or BSD and so on, and so forth. Weak argument. "

It's special because it's the rare computer that doesn't come with Windows. I didn't say that the thing it does come with is magically superior. That was your inference.



Premium hardware? WTF? Nearly all of the parts that go into a Mac are easily available off the shelf... "

Premium hardware just means not junk. Not what's in a $400 Dell. It also means hardware that actually brings in a profit, again unlike a $400 Dell.



Tell you what then - *every* single piece of hardware in a Mac should be designed from the ground up by Apple, not sourced from 3rd party providers (who also provide identical parts to the PC industry I might add). Then you would be correct. As it stands now, you are wrong. "

The fact that their hardware isn't unique to their systems has nothing to do with their right to sell a closed platform. Like every other computer you can buy, including embedded devices, Macs are designed in America and built in China out of parts anyone can order, and like every other computer you can buy, including embedded devices, there's an insubstantial amount of custom silicon that is not essential to most of its functions and that the software can safely ignore. You can't redistribute pilfered firmware because license and copyright forbid it. Same with OS X, even if Psystar did buy a retail upgrade DVD.



Copyright, IP, it all means you don't actually own anything. We at home have fair use on our side should we decide to make a hackintosh, but commercial redistribution doesn't have such protections. It's a violation of copyright to redistribute a work inconsistent with its licensing. Ask a school's choir or band director how stringent copyright requirements can be, and you'll be amazed.



Apple wasn't exactly an innocent either. It stole from Xerox, Microsoft stole from Apple. What comes around, goes around, it's called Karma. Apple's hardware was way overpriced, and the cheaper and more efficient PC clone prevailed. That's market sense for you. Pre OS X, the Apple system was HORRID. OS 9 and below blow, badly. Having worked as a Tier 1 tech for Apple Australia for nearly 18 months, I can honestly say that OS 9 and its ilk were clearly disliked by the vast majority of the support staff, in favour of OS X, which is clearly superior in every way. "

The PC clone was very low-tech when it took hold, and there was nothing efficient about it. It was an overall inferior system. Apple was offering the cheapest desktop GUI (the Xerox machines that actually sold were tens of thousands), and much of their technology was way ahead of Microsoft well into their financial and technological decline in the '90s, namely Quicktime and Quickdraw. (Microsoft had an inefficient drawing system and poor quality multimedia then, and they have an inefficient drawing system and poor quality multimedia now.)

I'm sorry, what was this even about? Were you suggesting that Microsoft's position as absolute monopoly over PC operating systems somehow grew out of merit? Or a real price advantage? [/q]

Get this straight for the last time. Apple bartered Apple Stock for a license to Xerox PARC IP that wasn't even in a released product.

The estimated value of that stock was well over $100 Million when Xerox sold their shares.

Do your own research on Xerox 10-Q forms through their archives or file a request from Xerox for this information, but it's indeed a fact.