Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 7th Sep 2009 23:27 UTC
Late last week, we discussed the Apple vs. Psystar case (again), and in that article several points were raised which would be handled during a hearing Friday morning. Right after publishing said article, the law firm working for Psystar sent a general email to members of the press (including Groklaw and OSNews, among others) which contained the court order which resulted from this hearing. So to finalise these issues, let's walk through them so we can put the lid on this case for a while.
Thread beginning with comment 382924
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Comment by JayDee
by kittynipples on Wed 9th Sep 2009 13:05
in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by JayDee"
Member since:2006-08-02
The problem is that the Apple brand must remain stronger than hell in the face of competition as Apple is not a competitive company ( which is un-American and possibly illegal ).
lol, seriously? Apple doesn't have any competition in the personal computer market? Why the hell are they spending all this money on advertising and high-priced retail space then?
RE[4]: Comment by JayDee
by looncraz on Thu 10th Sep 2009 02:18
in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by JayDee"
Member since:2005-07-24
lol, seriously? Apple doesn't have any competition in the personal computer market? Why the hell are they spending all this money on advertising and high-priced retail space then?
Apple, by their own claims, is not in the personal computing market. They ARE their own market. This is their legal rationale for being able to violate anti-trust laws.
Apple considers themselves to be in the elite computing market, which has only one lord: Apple. iPhones are, then, the elite cell-phone market.
If you don't agree with 'elite' then just replace it with 'Apple.'
These claims were made by Apple in the Apple v. Psystar case in the original case complaint and again in subsequent documentation.
Almost every company needs to advertise, and almost every company wants the best locations. Apple does so because they can afford to do so in a profitable fashion ( increased sales ).
The only REAL competition is between operating systems. Even Apple's marketing acknowledges this. A Mac *IS* a P.C., after-all. Same parts, different BIOS and software.
--The loon
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2005-07-24
I don't believe it would be beneficial for Mac users or Mac software developers... and certainly not Apple. Developers appreciate the consistent platform, users benefit from a profitable Apple under the current single platform governership and of course Apple benefits from a platform they built by reaping the rewards of that ecosystem. If that changes all that goes away.
A somewhat larger market is what would be created, with part of that market simply not receiving Apple's direct support.
This in no-way can be harmful! Larger markets are exactly what developers want!! More apps, more bug fixes.
The reality, however, is that Apple will simply try to stay ahead of the cloners with increasingly complex hoops. That is not wise, Apple really should gently, yet "offishly," enable MacOS X to run with a minimal number of hacks - regardless of the machine's maker.
Then, they should sell access to an Apple-Approved badge, with a reduced OS X OEM price and greater freedoms than Microsoft allows with Windows. THEN, Apple should release a FULL retail version which has a Windows Pro price tag ( $400 ), then release Upgrade versions for the normal price $169. The upgrade will only install on a system that currently has MacOS X installed - any version. Upgrade routes are available as normal.
That would appease most everyone - except Microsoft ( who probably has a limited no-compete clause with Apple ).
To achieve the same profit, Apple would need to receive a comparable profit relative to the hardware they would have otherwise sold. The price of the average Mac sold is approximately $1,300. Granted not all that is profit but much of it is. Let's assume $500 of it is. I think it would only be beneficial (to Apple... mind you this excludes developers and users in the scenario I just suggested) if Apple could sell OS X for roughly $630.
If they did that, they could receive the same profit margin.
Not exactly. Apple has only, maybe, $15-45 into each retail box made, if they are selling copies at $169, they are making money. Then, the more copies they sell, the lower the cost per unit sold ( as the CD and box itself is CHEAP ).
The only costs that would go up would be support costs, but it would be rather easy to ensure that only those who purchased Apple brand computers could utilize the support as free-loaders. Those purchasing full retail copies should be given access to best-effort support - and it should say, ON THE BOX, that installation is only supported on Apple Brand computers, others should get support from their respective OEMs.
This is to say, Apple would be in two businesses with one product with minimal additional cost. The problem is that the Apple brand must remain stronger than hell in the face of competition as Apple is not a competitive company ( which is un-American and possibly illegal ).
Apple's stock-holders won't care if the many comes from selling OS X or from the machines, only Jobs cares. And perhaps Apple's lawyers even care ( if there is a Microsoft no-compete clause ).
It seems obvious something behind the scenes is driving decisions at Apple. Something is preventing Apple from taking a near freebie revenue stream readily!
--The loon