Earlier this week we reported on the court case between Apple and PsyStar, stating they went into settlement negotiations. Details, however, were sparse. The law firm representing PsyStar has now replied to the matter, and there’s good news for those of us who hope to see crazy EULA clauses tested in court.
It’s a “non-story”, a lawyer for PsyStar said. The fact that both parties are entering negotiations doesn’t really say anything. “The Northern District [of California] requires you to go through ADR. It’s standard practice, not for all courts, but the practice is growing. Quite frankly, all the talk about entering negotiations is really a non-story.” He reiterates that the case is still “very much alive”.
The lawyer explains that according to him, the real story is PsyStar’s reply to Apple’s motion to dismiss. Apple claims that “Neither the federal nor the state antitrust laws require competitors to stop competing with, and instead to start helping, each other.”
“Apple is nothing if not tenacious,” PsyStar argues, “Having previously asserted this very same argument in attempts to dismiss antitrust claims related to Apple’s iPod, iTunes Music Store, and iPhone ending in the Northern District of California.” PsyStar claims all those attempts to dismiss antitrust claims were denied too, and cited several rulings to support this claim.
I was quite happy with the idea being settled out of court.
If apple win this in a judgment there will then be precident to enforce all EULAs! I fear that will turn into a free for all..
The only people that will be happy are the lawyers…
That’s some messed up logic. Besides, it’s already a free for all and will be until EULA’s are tested.
You realize that one EULA being deemed valid does not mean all of them are since they are separate contracts with different clauses.
“If apple win this in a judgment there will then be precident to enforce all EULAs! I fear that will turn into a free for all..”
Actually no. Some EULA’s have already been tested in court and proved valid. Each EULA is it’s own entity, and will need to be tested separately. The most this will do is test Apple’s EULA, nothing more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ProCD_v._Zeidenberg
Note that “clicking through” has been legally enforced as valid.
Some of you really need to read this link. Precedents have already been set. Granted this is only in the US, however that is where this case will be tried.
ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir., 1996), is a United States contract case involving a “shrink wrap license”. The issue presented to the court was whether a shrink wrap license was valid and enforceable. Judge Easterbrook wrote the opinion for the court and found such a license was valid and enforceable. The Seventh Circuit’s decision overturned a lower court decision.
Can you please clarify for me if the Seventh court (appeals court) decision was in favour or against the validity of the licence?
“Can you please clarify for me if the Seventh court (appeals court) decision was in favour or against the validity of the licence?”
The courts decision was in favour of the license.
It has never been in doubt that Eulas and shrink wrap and click through are valid means of obtaining a contract. There are lots of other means – a simple verbal acceptance is also sufficient in many jurisdictions.
The issue is, and always has been, whether the particular clauses Apple will have to rely on are lawful under US or EU competition and consumer protection law. If they are not, they will not be enforceable, and it will not matter a bit how you signed up to them.
The case cited turns on the question of shrink wrap and click through for only one reason: the lawfulness of the terms were not disputed.
As an example, suppose Apple or anyone else were to include in its shrink wrapped click through Eula a clause saying that UK customers by opening or clicking through or by signing a contract waived their rights under the various sale of goods acts. This would not be enforceable, not because of how they agreed to the contractual terms, but because the contractual terms are not lawful in the UK. In fact, it might even be unlawful under the sale of goods act to state that you had waived your rights by proceeding: it would be misrepresentation.
This is why, in the UK, all vendor warranties will be found to be followed by the explicit statement that your statutory rights are not affected by sending in this warranty. They cannot be affected, and it will be unlawful to represent that they have been.
What the case may test, if it comes to court, is a very narrow and rather simple question: can a vendor sell goods at retail, and prohibit a customer from using those goods in certain ways, by contractual conditions on sale?
A similar issue would be posed, for instance, if a vendor of power tools were to introduce a ‘professional’ and ‘DIY’ range. He would then have a Eula inside the shrink wrapped box, and it would prohibit a buyer from using the ‘DIY’ range in way of trade. The issue would not be shrink wrapping, the issue would be a vendor’s power to restrict use post-sale. A similar issue would occur if a DVD vendor would seek to prohibit, by contract, playing of the DVD on players made by other manufacturers than one, or more than 20 times, or after the year 2020….and so on.
I believe the answer is no. But whether you agree with this or not, this is the issue.
“What the case may test, if it comes to court, is a very narrow and rather simple question: can a vendor sell goods at retail, and prohibit a customer from using those goods in certain ways, by contractual conditions on sale?”
I agree with most of your post. Whether or not you can do with the product as you wish has nothing to do with the Apple/Psystar case. You can buy a copy of OS X and use the DVD to install it on your VCR if you wanted to and could make it work, or just use the DVD as a coaster. That is not in question, and certainly not what this case is about. What this case is about is if a company can use another brand in order to boost it’s sales, without permission from the owner of the brand to do so. In this case Psystar used OS X without permission from Apple to do so. Either way, I will be happy to see the outcome and put all of our speculations to rest
Apple can’t really afford to settle out-of-court because if they want to make it clear to people that they can’t make Mac clones then court action is the only option. An out-of-court settlement for some undisclosed sum would only tell people that there is money to be made from this either way. From Psystar’s perspective, there’s an awful lot to be gained if they think they have a case because they have a competitive advantage right now – cheaper PCs and hardware running OS X.
It’s hilarious that Apple never got clones though. Allowing clones would mean that Apple’s hardware business would take a bit of a hit initially (they’d still be the lowest common denominator however) but they would sell so many more copies of OS X and make so much more profit from those, it would be ridiculous. Also, a bigger installed base means more applications, and more applications means more people buying OS X and Apple hardware, even with competition…………..
It was always going to take someone else to save Apple’s long-term future. I wouldn’t be surprised if Microsoft got involved to make sure Apple wins ;-).
Edited 2008-10-22 08:51 UTC
Apple’s previous clone options didn’t grow the user base, but cannibalized sales from Apple of pre-existing users. It was a failure all around.
It was a failure because the clone makers made better, faster, and cheaper hardware than Apple did at the time. These days, Apple and its fans are convinced Apple makes the best hardware evar, and that the sometimes premium prices are more than justified.
If Apple’s hardware is as good as everyone says it is, what’s the fear for clones all about?
Oh come on, you know the answer to that Thom.
Competition is only good for the market when you are the underdog.
Competition is always good for the market because that is what a market is, by definition. However, we’ll look at this from the point-of-view of Apple. Competition is apparently less desirable for a company when it has cash cow status or when it has a monopoly because they want to protect what they have. This is why Microsoft is looking around nervously at what the next big thing is in their market, because they just don’t know and won’t be able to react to it when it comes along if it is something fundamental. In the long-run you want some competition whether you like it or not because you can go very quickly.
However, the problem with Apple’s cash cow/monopoly that they have with hardware for OS X is actually bad for them because the market they have now is far smaller than the possible market with some competition. They could make huge amounts of profit from selling OS X licenses, let OS X run on a wide range of hardware platforms and still be the benchmark for quality and style with regards to hardware that they want to be. This is what Microsoft wanted to be when they started up some style guidelines for Vista PCs some time back.
However, that face-value analysis doesn’t take into account the wider benefits to Apple of a far larger development community and pool of applications which drives demand for OS X and their own hardware further, and makes their market far larger. Apple would find that Apple hardware could be installed in companies by virtue of the fact that companies would be more likely to have servers with OS X Server running, without Apple having to do anything other than shift licenses of OS X for pure profit!
If I was Microsoft, that kind of proposition would scare the crap out of me if Apple ‘got it’. Windows OEMs would actually have a choice and Microsoft’s oft used retort of “You are free to use another OS if you want to” would carry a serious bit of weight because a lot of OEMs would make the OS X choice. OEMs would say “Convince us to use Windows”.
If there is a ruling in favour of Psystar, everyone wins – even Apple. Psystar creates a new business and get competitive advantage for the time being, Apple starts to get a far bigger market to sell OS X and their hardware into, Microsoft would be forced to make Windows 7 as good as they can possibly make it, Apple would then have to respond and blunders like Vista would be punished. Cross-platform development tools would balloon and open source platforms would see some side-benefits.
The more I think about it the more important I think this is, but a lot depends on Apple ‘getting it’. Sadly, I don’t think they will.
Thanks for clarifying what a market is…
Dude, I was being sarcastic. It would be nice if people could pick up on that even when you don’t throw in a stupid smiley.
Don’t think you quite get it, or where I was following on from.
1. It isn’t that obvious to an awful lot of people – including Apple – and it isn’t even obvious to most what the market in question is here, or how big it could be.
2. Being even an underdog in a bigger market is preferable to having a monopoly in a small niche that has mean weaknesses and threats on the old SWOT analysis.
3. It doesn’t mean you can’t clarify what you wrote further down the thread more ;-).
Segedunum…..you should work at Apple Marketing. Logic like yours could usher Apple into a new level of profitability. You’re right. They will not get it. They are stubborn, pig-headed, and tyrannical in their attitudes. Maybe when Steve Jobs finally leaves or dies, maybe then, someone with some vision will come to the helm and take charge. Yeah they have done well: They could could 10 times as well with some vision. Plus the world’s productivity will go up substantially with more people using a better OS.
The better and faster part is arguable – some did, some didn’t. The important point is that they were cheaper, often through significantly lower profit margins, and it has been proven time and again that in general people would chose cheaper before better. (e.g. “I can live with slightly thicker and heavier plastic laptop if I can save $800.”)
Very small part of Apple’s current customer base are “Apple fans”. Most people buying Macs today are doing so for a myriad of reasons – some think Macs are best bang for their buck, some are trying to get away form Windows, some think Macs are cool and trendy, some need a Mac (for example aspiring iPhone developers), some are just curious. Many of those people have no allegiance to Apple and will not hesitate to ditch them for someone else’s cheaper offering.
Once again, it’s not a question of the quality of the hardware, it’s a question of price-points. Clones don’t need to completely steal Apple’s sales or run the company into the ground to have a detrimental effect on Apple’s business model or on their stock.
I don’t think I’ve ever met anyone who thinks they are getting the best bang for their buck with an Apple. I’ve met people who are getting the only bang for their “must have MacOS” buck, and I’ve met people who are so sick of MS that they are getting a new bang for more bucks, though. That’s not to say that I don’t know a lot of satisfied Apple customers, but most of them I know do wish that Apple didn’t think that 50% margins were reasonable. The remainder try to spin things to prove that Apple computers are only a little more expensive than the competition, or say things like “yeah, but style trumps all, and who wants to lug around *that* horrible looking laptop?” Even those folks have never tried to convince me that Apple is actually less expensive then the competition.
The clones admitted to not expanding the base. You’re not getting it, but keep dreaming.
If I sell 2 million units, per year, then open up the clone option and total yearly sales for installed OS X is still 2 million/year what the hell went wrong.
What went wrong is that Apple not being a strictly software based company who strong arms OEMs with a toll isn’t making a ROI greater than if they did it alone. In fact, they see their gross sales declining.
In what way? Mac OS usage rose, and Apple did nothing to feed off that at all.
Why do you think Apple are using Intel platforms ;-).
Then why the hell aren’t you licensing the hell out of OS X to those people, growing the OS X market, growing the number of installed applications, dramatically growing the demand for OS X through those applications and using that to increase the economy of scale and markets where you can sell your own hardware? Potentially, that’s a multi-billion dollar market – per quarter.
They can make ROI out of this, and what disproves it is the fact that they had to give in to this very same model and buy Intel. Intel have lots of motherboard and other hardware manufacturers making their own boards with Intel chipsets and plugging their hardware in alongside Intel chipsets and processors. Can you argue that those hardware manufacturers are taking money off Intel? What is Intel’s revenue compared to Apple’s?
Psystar isn’t exactly being strong-armed into a deal to license OS X. The reason why they’re going through this is because they want to do it and they feel there is a big enough market for it. If there is a market for it, Apple can make money off the back of it and their own hardware division are not capturing those sales and never will, why the hell aren’t Apple making money off it regardless? That’s what I would like to know if I was head of Apple.
Edited 2008-10-22 19:37 UTC
Order 66?
Yes, this is the basic marketing question here! It is a case of what Michael Porter calls difference without differentiation. That is, being different in a way which your customers do not value. An example might be, for instance, hand polishing the case of every power supply. Its different all right, but it delivers no extra value to buyers.
The clone episode suggests there are two forces at work in the Apple buying decision. One is a desire to get Mac OS. That is a respect in which Apple is different in a way that does deliver customer value. The second is a desire to get the best value hardware available to run it on. This is a respect in which Apple is different in a way that subtracts value.
For the last 20 years, the desire to get Mac OS has mostly outweighed the desire for best value hardware. There has been a period in the late nineties when it did not, so the attractions of Mac OS have limits.
It was clear when the clones were available that the attractions of having hardware and software from the same source were very limited in their appeal. This too was a difference without differentiation. Apple customers say, after the fact, that its uniquely valuable. Its probably best understood as the result of cognitive dissonance. When offered the choice of whether to pay a premium for it or not, with their own real money, they choose in large numbers not to. Large enough numbers to threaten the viability of the company. This is a fundamental and very important fact about the Apple market.
If you add all this together, the Apple marketing strategy can be characterized as follows: to force the customer to buy something very many of them do not much want (the hardware) to get something he does very much want (the software). And to keep the undesirability of the hardware within acceptable limits for the strategy to work without leading to a customer revolt.
The very interesting marketing question is whether this is the best way to extract value from the software. I doubt it. You could probably sell the same numbers of OSX copies if you bundled it with dog collars. You would make a profit on the dog collars. But you would almost certainly make more money by marking up the software a little, and not incurring all the costs of making, packing and distributing those silly dog collars.
If it were clear that customers really valued getting their hardware from Apple, there would be no question, the existing strategy would be correct. But given the evidence is that many of them would run elsewhere if they could, it must be very doubtful that forcing them so as to extract hardware margins can be economically rational, compared to a strategy of marking up and extracting the OSX value directly.
No sorry, the Apple Clones did indeed grow Apple’s user base. The Apple Market share jumped from 3% to something like 8%.
What the cloners did that Apple couldn’t stomach and didn’t try to compete with, was eat Apple’s lunch by introducing better units on a faster time table.
All Apple had to do was license those designs back and release them under the Apple Brand. Instead, Apple put them out of business and shot itself in the foot.
I was there and saw the damn numbers. I was there listening to the Clone vendors acknowledging it. These were all internal meetings. If you think differently then you must have been living in a fantasy world.
Then again, it’s rare to actually have someone in these forums who has actually worked for any of these Operating Systems companies.
Acknowledge what, exactly? That Apple were useless? If others, even competitors, are using your hardware and software and you can’t find a way to make money off the back of what they’re making then you have no clue.
Let us come to a right understanding. Apple tried to run the company and compete in the same market as they had always done, they whinged when it wasn’t working and their market share declined even more over a period of years even after the demise of the clones. Their market share has barely risen since, despite the ‘iPod’ effect of people buying Macs that can be gone quicker than it came. There’s not an awful lot propping OS X development and the Mac market up other than iPod revenue.
It’s an absolute no-brainer. You license copies of OS X to OEMs and manufacturers, grow the market for OS X substantially, make a good profit off the back of it and related software and use that market share to grow the market for your own hardware, which where Apple is concerned, should always be the benchmark for what Apple hardware should be. The reasons why Apple feel they can’t do that are twofold:
1. They don’t get the fact that they won’t be able to have iPod sales support OS X development and the Mac market forever. The OS X market and usage must grow not just for profit, but for long-term survival. Steve Jobs and Jonathan Ives won’t always be around, and you can’t keep inventing blueberry iMacs by yourself to try and save the company.
2. Apple’s hardware is based on a lie – that it isn’t even worse than the crap turned out by everyone else. That has also limited their market somewhat as well.
Dude, apple is selling more computers then it ever has in the history of the company. They have one of the strong brand images in the world. They are making more and more money every quarter. They went into decline by losing focus and trying to push into new markets. They have been on a steady upward turn ever since jobs came back, killed the clones and put out the iMac.
You are talking a lot about something you obviously did not follow.
Apple hardware is average quality and horribly overpriced. They make their money off of their insane markups, solid industrial design, and phenomenal marketing. It would take a total and complete restructuring of the company to move to being software oriented. Currently, there is no reason to change a model that is working spectacularly for them.
An analogy to what you are suggesting is that Rolls Royce stops what they have been doing since they started, throw away decades of brand building, and instead focus on selling large amounts of economy cars cheaply.
I thought you said several times in the past that you were a programmer? If so, then you sure weren’t privy to seeing any “numbers” at the company. I’ve never, nor have any of my friends that are programmers, been marched into accounting, and had the books opened up for us to see what revenue is coming into the company, etc… So, I’m calling BS on your statement on you seeing “the damn numbers”.
It’s great that you USED TO work for them (you get fired or quit?), and that you’re a fan of Apple. But, claiming to know every thing about a company, and especially things that programmers are kept in the dark about (accounting), just shows your bias as a fan in the works and hurts your credibility.
Edited 2008-10-22 20:48 UTC
And what is this about “US marketshare” – they sure don’t mention “world marketshare” when they talk about Linux market share. It is obvious that someone is not going to buy a Mac who lives in a slum in a third world country. What are you trying to prove – Apple doesn’t sell crap? As far as Apple going into other markets, people said they would never be able to get the iPods or iPhones to sell. They are sure doing better than Windows is. Microsoft hasn’t made money off any market they have moved in other than Office suites and Operating Systems and that was because Apple gave Microsoft rights to most their technology and destroyed its competitors with lawsuits.
Europe > US. Asia > Europe & US.
Ignoring those markets in your sales figures just means you aren’t doing as well you want to there.
Thinking not-US means third world slums, like you’re doing, is, uhm, kind of ignorant and silly. Especially seeing where the international financial crisis started.
Well I think it makes a difference when you make a lot less money than we do in the US that you cannot afford to pay the same for software and for hardware. I think it is arrogant of Microsoft to try to push their software there. Apple is popular in other countries that have comparable incomes to the US. Switzerland has the highest percentage of Mac computers of any country, for instance.
And I do not think less of someone who lives in a slum and that is not what I said, or think the rest of the world does – I just think they will be using different computers because their circumstances are different. That is where open source software can take off better as it is translated in so many languages and it gives other nations control of their own data.
And as far as the economic crisis starting here, Europe, especially the UK did many of the same things the US did that caused the problems and if the people elected were the ones I voted for, we wouldn’t be in this mess. So implying that I am responsible for this is situation is sure lunacy if you knew anything about me. And since you like to read in things I never said or implied I do *not* think I am speaking for anyone but myself.
Edited 2008-10-22 21:28 UTC
Of course it was a failure. Who in their right mind opens the doors to resellers – and then keeps their prices so high that their own resellers can easily undercut them? “Ill-conceived” would be the polite way of putting it.
How did you figure that out?
Making clones and enabling MAC OS X on any PC is a different matter. A big part of Mac OS X quality comes from a small variety of hardware: Apple can update Mac OS X much faster than MS, with much fewer resources, and I have no doubt that not having to support all the crappy hardware out there is a big reason for it. Hey, I own a macbook to run linux on it, because apple hardware, while not extraordinary, is relatively standard and does not change much between revision.
I am pretty sure Linux (the kernel) has more resources than Apple today, and it still does not support as much hardware as windows (in the desktop PC ecosystem, of course). If a clone crashes Mac OS X, who is to blame ? Apple cost for QA would grow significantly.
And also, Apple products are seen as a kind of luxury product: being more expensive and limited than a PC is a feature.
Apple also has a long history of abandoning old users and destroying reverse compatibility with upgrades – something MS simply doesn’t do (which is one of the reasons that MS remains the producer of the most vulnerable OS on the market, but also one of the reasons many people stick with them). Sure, Apple are an agile company, but it’s entirely at the consumer’s expense in many cases.
Apple retain backwards compatibility long enough…
And they retain it by providing emulation, rather than encumbering new software with old bugs and design flaws…
I have an Intel based Mac, and it can run ppc osx apps through emulation despite the different hardware. I can also emulate PPC or M68k macs running OS9 or earlier and run older apps, which in some cases are faster than the real hardware was. That said, i have very little use for such old apps, mostly proprietary games.
On the other hand, old open source apps can generally just be recompiled – i run xv on my mac, which was written for unix systems in the early 90s and hasn’t really changed since then.
agreed, mostly. apple, after all, has dropped ‘classic’ support from leopard. this is remedied, fairly easily, by running sheepshaver, or basilisk for very old applications. albeit, without the integration that apple provided via ‘classic’. point being, apple isn’t providing the compatibility there. Mac OS 9 is a very old OS, though. i don’t consider it absolutely critical that apple maintain that particular support.
what would be absolutely perfect (for me, at least) would be if somebody would put effort back into the Mac-On-Linux project (or something similar), to support an intel build of OS X. i realize that there are people who have gotten ‘hackintosh distros’ of OS X running in vmware; but, it would be very nice to be able to use a vanilla install in a virtual machine on a *nix box. or, for that matter, even on an actual mac already running mac os x. as far as i know, we’re still not allowed to virtualize mac os x on mac os x. hmmmph.
it’s really because of these limitations that people have resorted to ‘ducking into back-alleys’ to run mac os x in a less-than-approved manner. well, that, and people really like bittorrent.
There is a difference between keeping a legacy api around, and keeping binary compatibility between major revisions. If an app is targeting cocoa, it will break with every major revision.
Most of the windows hardware support is actually contributed by the hardware manufacturers writing drivers…
OSX is similar, in that the hardware vendor is also the OS vendor so they are both developed together. It’s not hard for an OEM who is selling complete products based on a set of components to get the specs for those components.
Linux on the other hand relies primarily on third parties to write the drivers, a lot of manufacturers don’t produce linux drivers for their hardware and some don’t release specs at all.
I see that argument frequently – yet I haven’t encountered a single person who would actually suggest that Apple should be required to actively support OS X on non-Apple hardware. And that’s a rarity, IME – if the Internet has taught me nothing else: no matter how inane an idea is, someone will genuinely advocate it.
That argument also presents a false-dichotomy: there is lots of middle ground between actively supporting something, and actively going out of your way to prevent something.
I think most people would be happy with an OEM-only version of OS X, with 30pt bold, right red text on the front saying “DOES NOT COME WITH SUPPORT” (that is generally the way one-off OEM software purchases work anyway).
And who would buy something that like that? Two main types of people: geeks/enthusiasts and OEMs. In other words, people who wouldn’t have any need for support from Apple.
Good post, and you’ve said something that I’ve been thinking:
Apple is under no obligation to assist Psystar, or other computer users, from enabling Mac to run on non-Apple hardware.
But they have no legal basis for stopping someone from doing it independently either. IMO, of course.
Apple makes its money on the insane markup on hardware, and reduces support costs by only supporting a very limited array of devices. Their brand image is also “luxury computers”, with a mac you are paying more, but you are getting Something Special. This is also why traditionally they have had their biggest success with people who don’t know much about computers.
All that together and you get a user base where people are willing to pay 30-40% more then market value for hardware. OSX profits are only really there to pay for R&D, the real money comes from the hardware.
I agree somewhat. Apple’s decision to focus support only a select number of hardware components is a viable business decision that works well for their development team and product stability.
The “something special” you mention is primarily image, a computer case with better-than-average styling and an Apple logo. I don’t have a problem with that; computers with ‘better’ or more original styling ~should~ demand a higher price.
But I disagree with your assessment of OSX profits; their retail price is similar to Microsoft’s. Microsoft makes very good profits, even on $85 OEM copies, and they do it without padding their profits with hardware sales. My relevant point, Apple makes good money from each sale of OSX, and they make money every time that PsyStar sells an Open Computer.
I don’t have a problem with that either in a general sense. I love Apple products in a general way, and have for most of my life (that machine in my avatar delivered to this day the best computing experience I have had from anything since).
In a specific way, a 17 MBP is 3000 CAD. For a similarly specced HP centrino 2 machine (better vid card, second hard drive, slightly bigger/louder/uglier) I paid 1700$ CAD. I will pay a markup to buy an apple machine, but I will not pay almost twice as much for the privilege of running osx and having a glowing apple on the lid rather then a glowing HP.
And this is right after a hardware refresh too. What they were charging for the old line a few weeks ago was downright criminal.
MS has a brand image as well. Business friendly and ubiquitous, and they will lower profit margins to support that. 300$ in stores compared to 85$ OEM shows just how much. Apple has just as much riding on keeping people thinking that they aren’t paying twice as much for the same thing as everyone else as MS has that everyone buying a new computer is also running windows. Luxury computers is a wining strategy for them, if someone starts selling macs and undercutting the mothership, that image goes away and everything has to change for them.
but I will not pay almost twice as much for the privilege of running osx and having a glowing apple on the lid rather then a glowing HP.
I was also going to point out that your earlier estimate of a 30%-40% Apple markup was probably underestimated. You seem to have corrected yourself though, so I won’t bother.
MS has a brand image as well. Business friendly and ubiquitous, and they will lower profit margins to support that. 300$ in stores compared to 85$ OEM shows just how much.
Nah. Current price research: in USD Windows Vista costs $90 for the OEM disk, and $100 for the full retail box. OSX is $110.
Of course there are more expensive versions of Vista available, but there are no less expensive versions of OSX. Neither company is losing money by selling 50cent CDs/DVDs for $100…
“Neither company is losing money by selling 50cent CDs/DVDs for $100…”
True, but how many copies do they need to sell to break even and profit? Only way to know that is to take the number of engineers x salary for each. Now toss in the hardware engineers x salary. Don’t forget the marketing/sales people and what they make either. What is the general cost of the overhead for all employees? Then, and only then, can it be determined if they are making or losing money. It is not just a matter of “50cent CDs/DVDs for $100…”.
about the clones… That was also at a time when they were PPC machines. Apple was more vunerable.
Things are different now. I also think the clones were ditched too soon. Some of my tech friends and I were seriously thinking about getting them, then suddenly they’re gone. When cheaper machines come out, there is an quality evaluation time where everyone waits to see if things pan out. Then the rush.
I think Apple has thought through this scenario and there are other ways to prevent people from using OS X on non-Apple hardware, like only selling OS X with a new Mac, or they could start selling OS X without Apple hardware at $600-1,000 a piece. Or maybe they will just stop selling Macs and just sell iPhones and iPods.
Edited 2008-10-22 18:55 UTC
Here’s a rather lengthy clarification of the arbitration process in this particular case. http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20081019133549359
Apple has 21% of consumer market
http://apple20.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2008/04/01/analyst-apples-us-c…
here is so more details about Mac market share
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/Home/D579148C-8563-4FFB-8E97-C2613…
Apple market share growing fast
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/07/10/17/apples_u_s_mac_market…
Apple makes 35% of the money that is made off personal computers in the US and has a greater share in the higher education market than Dell.
Quote the proper statistic. That 21% is not only a US-only figure, but also an estimate by IDC. The actual market share figure given in that article is a measly 2.9% in 2008 – worldwide.
No one takes RoughlyDrafted seriously. You might as well get your election news from The Daily Show.
…in the US. You will notice that Apple ALWAYS gives out US figures only. If a company goes for a less meaningful figure, it usually means that the more important figure (in this case, worldwide market share) isn’t as rosy.
Look, nobody is denying Apple is doing relatively well these days – we are all just worried what will happen when the iPod/iPhone fad wears off. And trust me – it will. What then? What if Apple doesn’t appear in all those rap videos anymore?
Edited 2008-10-22 20:29 UTC
What do you disagree with Roughly Drafted over – that he doesn’t agree with your opinions. If you read his articles, they are filled with facts and common sense. But since he doesn’t get big money from Microsoft for ads, you believe he can’t be reasoned in his opinions?
Because RD is the worst piece of biased fanboyism in the history of evar. That site distorts, manipulates, and comes up with nonsense, all in the defense of Apple, like there’s some sort of concentrated effort going on in the media to discredit the company.
RD is the Fox News of the tech world – no, in fact, they’re worse. Everybody more or less agrees Fox News is moronic, whereas there are apparantly still people out there who trust RD.
Well I feel the same when I read most mainstream websites that have ads constantly showing for Microsoft products berating Apple and if you say anything negative about Windows, you are called a troll. I am as much a fan of Linux as I am of Apple, but the reason why I get defensive is that most things published in the media about Apple are not true.
What do you disagree with The Daily Show over – that it doesn’t agree with your opinions. If you watch it, it is filled with facts and common sense. But since it doesn’t get big money from Microsoft for ads, you believe it can’t be reasoned in its opinions?
Actually, seriously, being someone who is following this US election with a lot of interest and dread, I can’t say anything negative about TDS’s coverage.
You’ve found my opinions? Awesome! Can I please have them back?
I happen to kind of like The Daily Show, and if I were an American, I’d vote Democrat (they’re just a little less idiotic than the other side). It’s just that TDS is a comedy show, which uses clever montaging for maximum comedic effect, almost always at the expense of (currently) McCain. Which is great fun, don’t get me wrong, but to trust TDS to give a fair and balanced (Ha. Ha.) coverage of the election is just silly.
Lets all stay away from the political garbage. I quit visiting Digg because of that. Not everyone is a flaming liberal.
Lets all stay away from the political garbage. I quit visiting Digg because of that. Not everyone is a flaming liberal. [/q]
No. There are many conservative blowhards too.
Definately we are all waiting for the outcome of the case. Here in India Apple leaopard costs only 6000/- RS. While Vista Home Basic costs 7000/- Rs If we get the option of installing Leopard over Vista we will dive on the opportunity. Yes apple will loose a lot on their hardware revenue but will earn lot more with OS [software]
If I read it correctly, the Judge essentially prescribed marriage counseling, and neither party is particularly interested in it. Good luck to that marriage counselor!