Whenever we talk about Mac clone makers such as Psystar, we all more or less accept as a fact that Apple is selling copies of its Mac OS X operating system at a price lower than it would have been if Apple did not have a hardware business. Even though we treat this statement as fact - recently, I've been wondering: where is the proof?
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-06
[1]: By "hardware" I'm referring to computers only. Devices such as the iPod & iPhone are a different class of device.
But to maintain a high quality it would involve a massive amount of control when it comes to licensing and many OEM's would simply refuse. How many OEM's right now have flat out refused to move to UEFI? On the issue of UEFI alone it epitomises the PC industries refusal to move beyond 30 years ago - why would Apple want to put up with that crap?
I can see it now, Apple would say, "ok, you need to do this, this, and this" and we would have whiners on here complaining that Apple's demands are too stringent. Its a no win situation with some idiots on this website - what it is all about is envy and jealousy. I can't have that product so I'd sooner see the company get destroyed instead.
Edited 2009-07-03 13:46 UTC
Member since:2005-07-06
Dell and other OEMs are happily shipping Ubuntu on their hardware, which requires a similar amount of "control" in respect of the hardware they select. Why would it suddenly be different for Apple? I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that Dell would fall over themselves if Apple offered them to option to ship OS X on their machines.
I have no idea if that was aimed at me or just a general comment, but it's bizarre reasoning on your part either way.
Member since:2005-10-12
kawai, you say "what it is all about is envy and jealousy. I can't have that product so I'd sooner see the company get destroyed instead."
Not for me. I don't want the product. What its about for me is whether a company, any company, can sell a software package and then have you, during the installation or use process, agree to a further contract which restrains how you may use it.
I don't see any difference between Apple telling you what kind of hardware you may install on, and Apple telling you what books you may read with it, or what other software you may install with it. In the end this issue is about our intellectual freedom, its about whether we or the supplier own what we may access through the software. It touches on stuff like open file formats and similar forms of lockin. It touches on ability to migrate from one platform to another.
Here, let me give you a real concrete example. There is a software package in the UK which I deal with, which has no export facility, and which keeps the data a customer keys in, in binary and proprietary formats. Now, the files are hackable so I have helped a customer extract their own data. If Apple's method of operating is upheld, so would a clause in a EULA be that said that you agree not to access the file C:\etc\etc, that you agree not to decompress it, that you agree not to use awk perl or sed or similar products in conjunction with it - in short, that you agree to pay 100 Euro for the service every time you want to get your data out, and you agree not to then put your data in to any competitive product.
This is why this case is so important. And this is why the case is not even mainly about Apple and its business model or its fortunes. This is about us, this is about people being able to do what they want with the software they have bought, versus a point of view that says, I will sell it to you, and then I will dictate what you may or may not do with it, in any respect I care to name, and no, nothing you create with this software is yours, even if it is entirely your own intellectual property. It is mine, because you did it with my software package.
And if I take steps that are in my interests as a company and not in yours as a user, well that's tough.
You don't think it can happen? It can. It does. If Apple wins it will be everywhere. A very skilled professional, not very computer savvy, was told by this company, when she asked tech support how to get the data, her own data, out, that it was all industry standard stuff, all she had to do was learn to write XSLT transforms. They suggested she learn Saxon and wished her good luck with it. She asked me where to start. I said, don't bother, they are laughing at you.
This is what is at stake. It has nothing to do with envy and jealousy, it has to do with intellectual freedom. It has to do whether, in order to give Apple the powers that it wants, but should not want, and does not need to maintain its business model, we abridge the intellectual freedom of the whole computer using public. That is, all of us.
Hell no, is what we should all be saying.
Member since:
2005-07-06
Why do you think that? Surely if Apple were not a hardware company[1] they would license OS X to OEMs. They could stand to make much more money selling software this way, and there would be a corresponding saving in not have to design their own computers.
[1]: By "hardware" I'm referring to computers only. Devices such as the iPod & iPhone are a different class of device.
Edited 2009-07-03 12:33 UTC