Linked by Nescio on Mon 9th Mar 2009 08:05 UTC
Apple Numerous irrelevant issues and feelings about them are ventilated in comments on the case. However, there are only two important issues. One is what the law is, the other is what we think the law should be.
Thread beginning with comment 352445
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Helping consumers
by hembreeder on Tue 10th Mar 2009 12:37 UTC
hembreeder
Member since:
2009-03-09

You argue that the courts should do what's best for consumers.

I agree.

I do not agree that forcing Apple to allow OS X to run on any machine is best for consumers. Apple built OS X to make its computers more desirable in the marketplace. The company spent many millions of dollars, far more than it makes on sales of the OS, on development and continuing improvement.

If the law were what you say it should be, Apple would never have built OS X at all. Then where would consumers be? They'd be stuck with Microsoft or Linux or some flavor of Unix. Or perhaps Be OS. Not a very good outcome for consumers.

In addition, there would be no iPod, not iPhone, USB may still not be available on computers, writable disc drives may not have ever happened, we still could be using DOS.

If the court rules as you suggest there two possible outcomes: Apple will stop selling its OS and ship it installed only, meaning intermediate upgrades will cease.

Apple will sell its OS to all comers but raise the price and stop development. Eventually, Apple could fail, meaning no more great new consumer electronics devices from that company. Sony will be the ruling power in that arena.

Protecting intellectual property DOES help consumers.

But Apple's attempts to use their own intellectual property to promote their own sales is not comparable to the music or film industry's attempts to use DRM squeeze the last possible buck out of consumers with daffy protective management that reduces the value of their wares to everyone.

Reply Score: 1