Someone should sue apple

[username931]

The more you think about it, you realize that Apple's unrealistic and unbusiness friendly goal of making people switch to their hardware to use OSX would be an illegal monopoly were it to succeed.

 

OSX and Macintosh Hardware are two clearly separate developments, so its not like video games where running a hacked OS could pus MS or Sony in the red. Apple has no basis for its hardware protection skemes except that it wants to build an apple hardware monopoly. It is not copryright protection, so the Digital Millenium Copyright act should not protect them.

 

Imagine if Microsoft went up and purchased Dell and built in hardware protection so only dell computers could use Vista? The only difference with Apple is that there are no losers and they aren't threatening anyone.

 

Not that I ever gave a {censored} whether my installation was legal, but assuming everyone purchased a copy of OSX this whole thing would be legal.

 

 

So here is a fantasy plan to make OSX legal. Just a hypothetical situation.

 

1) You will prob. need some money

2) Build all the custom OSX software together into an install DVD patch or CD patch or installer

3) Advertise the software as against Apple's licence but not against Copyright laws

4) Sell your patch

 

Reaction:

-Apple makes money off PC sales (there are 38,000 members just on this forum - That is $4 million of pure profit that apple isn't making)

-Apple investors get interested in quick cash by OSX sales - next ipod

-Apple sues or you sue apple

-Probabally an injunction

-Apple looses lawsuit if you have enough money to fight

-OR Steve Jobs is fired replaced by Harvard edu CEO and apple becomes a business and sells to PCs

 

What are your thoughts on this?

 

Prob #3 is illegal. But say Dell, Compaq,Sony,etc wanted to sue..

[supermus]

Apple doesn't want a hardware monopoly. They want hardware sales. Accusing someone with a 2% market share of trying to get a monopoly is absurd, and you would be laughed out of court, perhaps literally. Furthermore, Apple is trying to provide the best experience for their users by limiting software to run on the hardware for which it is designed. This monopoly is what allows them to develop fantastic technologies like Quartz Extreme. Stop trying to force Apple to become Microsoft.

[gwprod12]

Where'd you go to law school? Marketshare has more to do with the number of litigants and the attention a case gets than it does in determining the merits of an anti-trust or breach of contract case.

 

Could Apple be conducting anti-competitive business practices? All of their business practices are anti-competitive.

 

A note. Anti-competitive practices and trying to be competitive are not mutually exclusive.

Apple uses Anti-competitive business practices in a way that makes it harder for other software and hardware manufacturers to compete with it, as opposed to producing more competitive products itself.

 

Another note. Apple will never be successfully sued because even though they use anti-competetive means in their quest to compete, these means dont actually work. Yet.

[username931]

Apple doesn't want a hardware monopoly. They want hardware sales. Accusing someone with a 2% market share of trying to get a monopoly is absurd, and you would be laughed out of court, perhaps literally. Furthermore, Apple is trying to provide the best experience for their users by limiting software to run on the hardware for which it is designed. This monopoly is what allows them to develop fantastic technologies like Quartz Extreme. Stop trying to force Apple to become Microsoft.

 

 

The concept of trust-busting and anti-monoploly laws was to promote competition and free trade. They are not laws about "fantastic technologies." QE works on many OSx86 PCs by the way (including mine). If companies were permitted to develop drivers for their products OSX could run on 95% of new PCs.

 

In this perfect world you speak of, Apple sets the prices for ALL hardware. If someone wants Mac OSX, then they must buy from them. I fail to see how that is not a monopoly. Apple goes out of its way with Hardware and Software protection to block PC users. Clearly TPL is not a "fantastic technology." If its goal was tech development, why the Anti-trust and Anti-competition measures? Because without them, 3rd party companies would make OSX run 100% on Intel PCs, and Apple would be forced to lower prices.

[Joe The Dragon]

When 10.5 goes on sale and people start buying that using patch to make that work on there pc and apple shuts down that patch then you may have a case.

 

If apple lets in run on some non apple systems but not all AMD and others may be able to get an injunction to stop that.

[bofors]

When 10.5 goes on sale and people start buying that using patch to make that work on there pc and apple shuts down that patch then you may have a case.

 

That's right, at best this would be a question of whether the EULA is a valid contract or not. In the USA, I would certainly expect the courts to ultimately uphold the EULA in such a case. However, more liberal jurisdictions may "think different".

 

But this is no longer just a questions EULA. With laws like the DMCA on the books, OS X patches are illegal per se in some jurisdictions.

[gwprod12]

The End User License Agreement is BS.

 

Here's why: It offers no remedy for those who refuse to agree to it.

 

Scenario: Tiger 10.5 comes out, and I buy it. So, I am installing it on my computer, and I see in the EULA that by agreeing to it, I authorize Apple to collect personal information and online activity at their sole discretion. Well, I'm against that, so I decide to take 10.5 back. Will the store refund my money? Not hardly.

 

Scenario: I buy a Dell, and I notice when I first start it up that Windows has an end user license agreement that explicitely states that windows will do something I dont want done to me (I cant think of another example). What is my remedy? Will Dell refund my money, because I decide I do not want to enter into a legal contract with Microsoft? Will Dell refund the cost of installing Windows on my Dell?

 

I'm sure I'll get flamed for this, but there's serious issues with buying something, but it legally being their property to dispose of as they will. Microsoft had many provisions in it's End User License Agreements which indicated that it had the sole discretion over whether or not you could use or even possess it's software. Software you had paid for.

[username931]

I would not expect the courts to strike down apple's right to a EULA, though I am against them. I would expect a court to deny Apple's right to be ati-competive and descriminate against PC users with the intention of selling more MACs.

 

Apple could play the "fantastic technologies" card as supermus pointed out, but things like the OSx86 project prove otherwise.

[Tiburon]

There are a few things that I see keeping any serious case against Apple from going anywhere.

 

#1) Apple owns both the hardware and software side

 

Because of that they can do what they want with their software.

 

If i remember correctly there is a sticker on the iMac wrapping stating not to break the seal if you do not accept the license.

 

#2) It would be completely different if Apple went out to specific companies and tried to make deals with them and if they didn't bite they would not "support" their hardware.

 

The point is it's Apple's hardware, Apple's software, Apple's choice.

[gwprod12]

well... Apple doesnt manufacturer their own hardware, and they dont manufacture any of the components... (except maybe the case, but probably not).

 

So, ultimately, Apple did go to a company that produced hardware components and said "we want to use these, and nothing else". Whether they pressured those companies, or the companies were pressured by profit motive is up for debate.

They tied their operating system to a specific set of hardware. Not hardware they developed or manufactured, but third-party hardware. Their intent can be inferred from their actions. And that intent was that only components that somehow fulfilled their needs would be allowed to run their software.

 

But, you can make the same argument for Dell or HP too.

[username931]

There are a few things that I see keeping any serious case against Apple from going anywhere.

 

#1) Apple owns both the hardware and software side

 

Because of that they can do what they want with their software.

 

If i remember correctly there is a sticker on the iMac wrapping stating not to break the seal if you do not accept the license.

 

#2) It would be completely different if Apple went out to specific companies and tried to make deals with them and if they didn't bite they would not "support" their hardware.

 

The point is it's Apple's hardware, Apple's software, Apple's choice.

 

You are wrong. The question is whether apple is being anti-compettitive. The order of laws in this country:

 

Constitution -> State and Federal Laws -> Stickers

 

The reason nobody is suing apple is as gwprod12 pointed out - they have had no success and so no one cares.

[gwprod12]

Something else, though. Dell and HP and whoever dont tie their manufacturing process to super-specific components. Obviously, they go to the cheapest source of components that meet their general specifications. Another obvious thing is that they dont put Sparc chips in their computers, because the operating system that they bundle doesnt support Sparc chips. Why doesnt Microsoft support Sparc chips? Well, if there were a demand for Windows on Sparc processors, I'm sure Microsoft would abide. It could only increase their profit. Why doesnt Apple do the same thing? It would increase their profit. But Apple (again) isnt about making profit, they're about catering to Apple People. Recently, some Apple people have questioned their faith, especially with the Intel Transition.

 

I know many an Apple person, who point to Jobs 13:5 "And Jobs said unto the world, that the PowerPC was superior to the x86 Processor, and the followers of the x86 trembled and tore their hair in misery" and then to Jobs III 8:19 which states "And a time came to pass, when the people of the Golden Core threw off their IBM/Motorolla oppressors, and embraced the true way of Intel. and Jobs was pleased.". Unsurprisingly, they find a contradiction, and that wounds their spirituality deeply. But what is more of an issue is when scholars of the Gs Testament read the Core Duo Testament, they find no contradictions. They explain it as such: "The Mantra of the Golden Core Must be Literally True. Jobs would have stopped it from being written if it wasnt"

 

The problem with Apple is that Apple is a religion, not a business.

 

This is how I explain the contradiction of Liking and Using OS X while Hating Apple and Jobs and everything they stand for: Studying the Bible doesnt make someone a Christian.

[mac sussed]

gwprod12, you want to be careful because an aPPLE devotee may accuse you of thoughtcrime and inform on you to the Ministry of Love. They are well versed in the techniques of doublethink. Before you know it, you will be in OSX room 10.1 watching the beach ball of death for ever and ever. sTEVE jOBS is watching you! Ahhhhhhhhhhh..................................

[A Nonny Moose]

Apple is not a monopoly. Period end of discussion. There are viable alternatives to using a Mac (using a Windows based PC or a Linux box). There are viable alternatives to using iLife (Windows Movie Maker and Picassa for example). There are alternatives to using Final Cut (Avid and Adobe crapware). There's even an alternative to Aperture (Lightroom).

 

Just because someone focuses all their attention on one thing doesn't make them a monopoly. All Apple has to do is show there are other choices and Apple isn't doing anything to destroy any chance of using those alternatives and the monopoly case destroys itself.

[gwprod12]

There were alternatives to Standard Oil (walking) and AT&T (the mail).

[mac sussed]

A Nonny Moose,

Why do you call premiere crapware?

 

I use video editing software almost everyday, mainly premiere. I have used final cut pro extensively, and it is always short of premiere. I can give many examples. I just think you attack anything that isn't in the mac camp.

[John the Geek]

Apple does design and manufacture their own Logic Boards. The use of commodity parts (RAM, Drives, etc.) ensures more choices for upgrades/replacements, and less R&D costs for Apple. Apple once did design their own RAM, drives, etc... the choice to use readily available parts was a good one.

 

Apple's hardware is not stock PC. Not by a long shot. Try holding the T key at startup on your Hackintosh. What happens? Nothing. Try holding the Option/Atl key? What happens? Nothing. Can you NetBoot your Hackintosh? Apply a Fireware password? No, because you don't have a Mac. And Apple's customers expect that level of support for the products they use. Apple can do it. Microsoft cannot. Dell cannot... because they care more about their own little slice of the pie than the whole customer experience.

 

Expecting Apple to separate their hardware from their software is like requiring Volkswagen to have Ford design and manufacture their motors. Just because that's the way Microsoft chose to do it does not mean Apple is a monopoly for building their own.

 

Yes, Volkswagen has a monopoly on Volkswagen motors... but no one cares because to expect anything else would be stupid.

 

It's not a monopoly, it's a quality product.

 

=)

[INFNITE]

Apple has the right to keep OS X on their own computer systems. If you want OS X legally, buy a Mac.

[cyberwolf]

While we're at it lets sue every console maker for not allowing their games to run on every other console. For instance, we should sue Microsoft to force them to make a PS2 version of Halo.

 

And my cellphone only works with one carrier. Let's make cellphone companies only sell phones that work with every carrier.

 

Gillette razors only use Gillette razor blades! THOSE CAPITALIST BASTARDS!! No wonder they are so expensive! SUE! SUEEEEEEEEE! SUUUEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!

 

Edit: It just occured to me... those bastards at Sony are using the PSP to sell memory sticks! Let's make them support compact flash and SD! SUUUUUUUUUUEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!

 

Edit2: OMG! Quick! Somebody start an online petition!!! We'll show corporate america who's really in charge!!!!!!!!!!

[gwprod12]

Speaking of Gillete razors... They ARE really expensive. Why dont we see generics?

[cyberwolf]

Because Gillette is better at screwing consumers than ANYONE.

 

Nowadays, Gillette’s strategy has been—excuse me again—honed to a new level of sophistication. Each new model of razor has a unique design such that only blade refills made to those exact specifications will fit. When possible, the designs are patented so that third parties are prevented from selling their own refills; Gillette, meanwhile, charges a small fortune for their blades, and customers dutifully buy them. Predictably, when a patent expires, opening the market for generic competitors, Gillette releases a new design, along with a new marketing campaign geared toward making people with last year’s model feel like they’re no longer—sorry—on the cutting edge.

 

http://itotd.com/articles/295/giving-away-...ing-the-blades/

 

The other problem is that there ARE generic razors on the market and they suck. I can't help but think that generic cartridges would also suck. I love my Fusion but the prices make me cry. The only solution I've come up with so far is growing a beard in protest (which is going quite well at the moment, actually.)

[bliss]

I think apple could make more money with osx selling to pc hardware then do it like the way they do at the moment.

 

because osx is in many ways better than windows and for the most people better then linux.

 

1. OSX is unix based. too bad that they closed the darwin source. a commerial os with an open kernel is great i think. osx could maybe win many linux useres or those who are normally willing to use linux, but dont because it's too comlex for them (like me)

2. OSX is faster then Windows. On my PC even a fresh installed Windows XP is slower then this hacked version of osx...

3. OSX got major apps (for example photoshop) like windows. for linux theres no OSX (exept wine and xover stuff)

4. OSX hast "just enough" eye candy. Vista is a mess. i deleted vista after 5 minutes...

 

so thats my opinion.

[supermus]

Comparing Apple to Standard Oil is baseless. Standard Oil used a horizontal monopoly, where a company attempts to completely control an entire market, buying all competitors at the core service they provide, while focusing on one step of a process. Standard Oil bought all the oil refineries in the country to achieve a horizontal monopoly on refining oil. Apple is attempting a vertical monopoly, which consists of controlling all the steps to making a product: they design and assemble the hardware, and write the software. This is similar to what Andrew Carnegie did with steel production. Vertical monopolies are far less insidious, and often provide benefits because of how they eliminate inefficiencies.

 

While Quartz Extreme works on many computers, there are many computers on which it does not work. It requires an advanced, modern video card. Apple was able to push this technology because they could ensure that every computer OS X ran on had such a card, which is harder to do when you are licensing software to other companies, especially companies that focus on commodity sales. Apple makes software for high-end computers, which would be a turn-off to manufacturers such as HP and Dell. Retail sales would be tricky because most people are not as comfortable with installing a radically different operating system on their computers. Most people, I would imagine, would get scared off when the installation needed to repartition their hard drive and install a different file system.

[gwprod12]

I wasnt "comparing" Apple to standard oil. I'm just pointing out that there are always alternatives.

 

No one forces anyone to buy a Mac. That's true, unless you want to legitimately run Mac OS.

No one forces anyone to buy a car. That's true, unless there's no public transportation where you live.

No one forces anyone to use electricity. That's true, but it's particularly difficult to live, as an American, without hot water, oven, refrigeration, computers and whatnot.

 

No one ever forced anyone to own a telephone. But the courts decided, and rightly, that by stifling competition within their industry, AT&T had violated anti-trust laws.

 

Only time will tell whether or not Apple has violated anti-trust laws. Most likely, they'll continue to lose marketshare, and no one will care what bad business practices they use.

 

I just read an article from 2001, having something to do with the Anti-trust case against Microsoft (I believe), and as part of the settlement, Microsoft donated $1 billion dollars worth of computers and software to the poorest schools in the nation. When I was in Middle School, every computer in the school was a Mac. When I started Highschool, all but 3 computers in the school were Macs. When I finished Highschool, about half of the computers were PCs. Now, the only place I see macs are on TV and in the Apple store.

[supermus]

Once again, your analogies are faulty. With regards to electricity, phones, and oil, what makes a monopoly is a lack of competition. There is no other place to get electricity, phone service, and (in the late 19th century) oil than from the local monopoly. There are plenty of places to get computers. Saying that making it so that only Macs can run Mac OS is monopolistic is like saying that McDonald's is a monopoly because that's the only place you can get a big mac (pun, seriously, not intended), or that Starbucks is a monopoly because that's the only place you can get starbucks.

 

The courts decided that AT&T had a natural technological monopoly, and that this lack of competition hurt consumers. Thus, they artificially created competition by splitting up the company. Microsoft, in a similar case, exploited a natural monopoly, which was deemed illegal. Apple has no monopoly of any kind, and thus shouldn't be compared to these cases.

 

I will grant that Apple is behaving anti-competitively. However, any company that exercises intellectual property is behaving anti-competitively. That is the entire point of intellectual property law. It allows companies to stifle competition so that they can secure profits for themselves, thus giving them the funds to invest in creating new products, theoretically benefitting society.

 

For the record, I despise intellectual property law. I consider it an abomination. I would much prefer it if Macs ran a free (as in speech) operating system unencumbered by End User License Agreement and intellectual property. We may be right, but the law is not on our side. Until copyright and patent laws are abolished, we will have to live with the fact that Apple has the right to put whatever restrictions they want on their software.