"Let's face it: Apple isn't happy that it needs to deal with Psystar. And why should it be? The company is a costly nuisance that needs to be dealt with swiftly. But if the court battle lasts too long--or worse, if Psystar finds a way to win, Apple will be forced to deal with a slew of similar Mac clones that will only make maintaining its stranglehold on Mac OS X that much harder. That's why Apple should license Mac OS X to Hewlett-Packard and Dell, the world's top PC manufacturers. By doing so, it will be able to eliminate the threat Psystar and its clones create, since no one will trust an Open Computer from a no-name compared to Dell and HP. More importantly, it will expand its presence in the PC business and finally get to a place where it can compete on the same level as Microsoft."
In the year 2009, it's a miracle to me that people are still making this ridiculous argument. Folks, here's the deal. It isn't going to happen, and the reason is very simple. Ready?
Apple is a hardware manufacturer, not a software company!
I really figured people would get over this idiotic licensing idea, but it keeps coming back again and again and again by people who are supposedly known and respected in the industry. Reisinger's argument amounts to "this is the best way to get rid of Psystar." As one commenter notes:
"Apple IS a hardware company. Microsoft is a software company. Apple only has OS X to sell their hardware, along with software like Final Cut Pro and Aperture. Please understand that it is all TO SELL THE HARDWARE. There is a reason it is a bit more expensive. Does apple sell software? Yes. Does Microsoft sell hardware? Yes (zune and xbox). Does staples sell food? Yes but it is an office supply store, not a grocery store.Apple is a hardware company."
Apparently it is obvious, at least to some people.
__________________
Current Apple Stuff: 24" iMac, iPhone 4, AppleTV (original), 4gb Shuffle, 64gb iPad 2.
I think that it is about controlling the experience and the best way for apple to do that is control the Hardware and software.
There is also the whole value chain... they control the whole chain... from the design right through to retail. Sure they outsource the manufacturing, but they have to to compete. They also allow others to sell their products but Apple still controls the price.
What Microsoft gets sued for as monopolistic practices, Apple calls "controlling the experience" and "whole value chain". While I appreciate Apple as a profit-generating company, I definitely do not agree with their philosophies.
Maybe if Apple licenses out the Mac OS and has to support all types of untested hardware configurations people will then understand what "controlling the experience" really is vs. monopolistic practices. Then again, maybe not as people put up with Windows and it's many inconsistencies and inefficiencies decade after decade after decade.
So many third party developers where "killed off" by Microsoft who forced companies like Dell and HP to not put competing software in their PC's. These "knowledgeable" people would have you believe it was because of capitalism and producing inferior products which just wasn't true.
__________________
Making use of mobile tech like no other.
Last edited by WyattEarp; 01-20-2009 at 08:21 AM..
What Microsoft gets sued for as monopolistic practices, Apple calls "controlling the experience" and "whole value chain".
If Microsoft made the systems, you'd be right, but they don't. Instead, they collude with manufacturers to push their products only on their systems. At least they've lightened that up a bit with companies like Dell who can safely offer Ubuntu, but for years, MS basically told manufacturers it's either all us or nothing.
Apple, on the other hand, makes their own hardware and OS, so it's nowhere near the same thing. If Apple licensed OSX to Dell or HP, then told them they couldn't use it if they licensed Windows, then you'd have a similar point of comparison.
__________________
Current Apple Stuff: 24" iMac, iPhone 4, AppleTV (original), 4gb Shuffle, 64gb iPad 2.
I didn't say these were not monopolistic practices. I am no expert but I think that because Apple does not dominate the PC market share they cannot be charged with being monopolistic.
Now if they only allowed iPods to sync with Mac and not Windows maybe they could be charged. They dominate mp3s so they need to be more careful. Again feel free to correct me as I am not an expert in these matters. This is my perspective/opinion.
This is probably the one they're most guilty of, and what Spooof alluded too in his hypothetical iPod scenario. It is what Microsoft was sued for in 1998, and what Microsoft is being fined billions for over in the EU, for bundling such things as a media player and web browser with the Windows operating system.
Homework: Discuss how Apple's "controlling the experience" does or does not violate this, in the same way that Microsoft did and, in most ways, still does.
Homework: Discuss how Apple's "controlling the experience" does or does not violate this, in the same way that Microsoft did and, in most ways, still does.
Well, Microsoft was sued mostly because they were under an existing consent decree (consent = entered into willingly) to not tie new applications to Windows, and they were alleged to have done so with IE and with WMP. And found guilty.
While Apple sells music download files, they do not require an iPod to use them. You can use them (even protected ones) on any computer on which iTunes is installed. As nearly 100% of personal computers can run iTunes, and roughly 70% to 85% of them are not Apple hardware, I tend to think that a tying suit would not succeed.
I am not an attorney, however, so I am sure that my opinion on this means diddly-squat.
Old Argument Redux: Apple Should License OSX
Linear Mode
