Jump to content
Welcome to InsanelyMac Forum

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

supermus

Members
  • Content count

    15
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About supermus

  • Rank
    InsanelyMac Protégé
  1. OSx86

    Price gouging is only illegal for essential products. Apple can charge whatever they want for their computers. It's called a free market. I myself have been using OSx86 since November, and have enjoyed it so much that I am going to buy a real Mac very soon. Though not everyone is like me, I think that OSx86 can serve as a useful way for people to see if they like Mac OS enough to spend $1,000 on a Mac.
  2. The Ultimate Web Browser

    On Windows, I use Firefox, for the obvious reasons. On Mac OS, I prefer Camino. Safari's interface puts me off, especially the metal buttons, which I find rather unfriendly and uninviting. Opera has the best features, like the tab recycle bin, but the interface is too Windows. Furthermore, its torrent downloading is too intrusive. Some torrents I need to open in Azureus, because I couldn't figure out how to download only certain files from a torrent using Opera. However, I found no way to turn off the Opera torrent downloading, and saving the torrent file directly to my hard disk wouldn't work on one of my sites. I know this is fairly small, but it bugged me enough to get me to give up Opera. Also, Camino has been (for me) the most reliable at loading pages. I can't stand Shiira or Safari's tabs. Tabs should connect to the tab view at the bottom, not the top of the bar. Haven't these people ever looked at a real physical folder with a tab on it?
  3. I want Carbon and Cocoa to have troll-free bridging. I'm tired of trying to convert a CFStringRef to an NSString and having to answer a riddle to the troll who guards conversions.
  4. Someone should sue apple

    I do not believe that what is good for the goose is necessarily good for the gander. Milking, for instance, would not be good for a gander. If Microsoft tried to limit Windows to being able to run on only their computers, they would be hauled into court indeed, but probably for violating their contracts with Dell, HP, etc. I don't see how Apple refusing to let people install Mac OS on other machines is any different than DVD makers refusing to let people play DVDs in other regions. These are both [bold]unethical[/bold] practices, but I do not believe they are within the bailiwick of anti-competition law. Anti-trust law in the United States is notoriously vague, and generally means whatever the courts (or the President - lousy Teddy Roosevelt) want it to mean. I can see parallels between Apple's hardware/software bundling and Microsoft's bundling of Windows and IE, but I just don't see a court taking action against Apple for it. Even if they brought Apple to court, no court could escape Steve's portable Reality Distortion Field.
  5. Someone should sue apple

    Monopoly is a far better way of describing the laws to which you refer than anti-trust. The phrase "anti-trust" comes from the Sherman Anti-trust Act, which did not focus entirely on trusts (a very narrow kind of monopoly which does not apply to Apple at all). The term originated with Standard Oil, which was actually a trust of several oil companies operating under one umbrella. Laws against vendor lock-in are designed to combat monopolies, not trusts. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Anti-trust_Act. Interestingly enough, the wikipedia article to which you linked mentions Apple as being accused of vendor lock-in, primarily with regards to iTunes and the iPod, and adds this: "With a small market share in computer hardware and software, there had not been any regulatory actions taken against Apple for lock-in for much of the company's history". Not that much legal action is ever taken against vendor lock-in in the U.S., except in extreme cases (Microsoft). However, European courts see things differently. I was focused primarily on the United States, since that is where I live and that is the system with which I am most familiar. Based on what I read in that article, I would say that locking Mac OS to Macs is more an example of vendor lock-out. It also says that "monopolies tend to result when lock-in costs create a market barrier to entry, which may result in antitrust actions from the relevant authorities (the FTC in the US)." Clearly, there is little need for a linguistic distinction between monopolies and violations of anti-trust law. I felt that by putting comments about Apple right next to comments about electricity and telecom monopolies, you were drawing a comparison between the two. Was I incorrect?
  6. Someone should sue apple

    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.
  7. Someone should sue apple

    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.
  8. Someone should sue apple

    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.
  9. This is what Apple should do

    Licensing out OS X is a terrible plan from a money and market share perspective. The entire point of Boot Camp is that Apple no longer has to compete against Microsoft, but against weaker companies like HP and Dell. Why would they jump head first into a fight they can not possibly win? Why would they convert a hardware manufacturing company with a software division into a company that focuses on software first, competing during the transition with a company that has been dedicated to software for 30 years? To make up for the lower profit per unit made on software, they would have to dominate the market fast, which wouldn't be possible. Average consumers don't want to muck about with installing a new operating system with their computer. They are afraid to. Most people prefer to stick with the software that comes in the box. Thus, the only way to capture the market is to get Dell, HP, Lenovo, and others to ship boxes with Mac OS. Those companies would not sell computers exclusively with Mac OS, because that would utterly destroy their business, as they lose all of the people who don't want Mac OS, and at the moment there are many. The only way the hardware manufacturers would remain viable is to offer people a choice between Mac OS and Windows. If people had a choice regarding what OS shipped with their new computer, I'd wager that most of them would choose Windows, because they are afraid to make the switch. Apple can only take over the market slowly, which isn't an option if they rededicate their business to software.
  10. This is what Apple should do

    I'm not sure the IT department is to blame. I would place the blame more on higher level management. No matter how much IT guys wanted to switch operating systems, the CEO, CFO, and so on, would still wet themselves at the thought of using anything other than Windows.
  11. This is what Apple should do

    The hardware is not what keeps "corporate clowns" away from Apple. The software does. No matter how easy Mac OS is to use, no matter how quickly people can learn it, for a large corporation, switching to a new operating system is a huge and costly affair. If Dell started shipping computers with only Mac OS, large businesses would not buy them. If they shipped computers with Mac OS and Windows, large businesses would only use Windows. Apple can make headway into the corporate world with new businesses and small businesses, but those groups, if they wanted to use Mac OS in the first place, would be unlikely to be turned off by the hardware. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that licensing Mac OS would not make sense. Besides, Microsoft's troubles don't stem entirely from incompetence. The arrangement of building on OS for other manufacturer's hardware is part of what keeps them locked in the death trap of backwards compatability that holds back real progress for the OS. You think Apple could have made the kind of evolutionary leap they took with OS X if they had Dell and HP to deal with? I don't.
  12. New MacBookPro series?

    A valid point, but "Surgeon General" is also a proper noun, a title just like "Macbook Pro", and it forms the plural "Surgeons General". The same standard should be applied to "Macbook Pro".
  13. New MacBookPro series?

    The plural of "Macbook Pro" is "Macbooks Pro", not "Macbook Pros". "Pro" is an adjective, and thus should not be changed to form a plural. The same rule holds true for "Attorneys General" and "Surgeons General". In this case, "Macbooks Pro" also sounds better to me, because "Macbook Pros" sounds suspiciously similar to "Macbook Prose".
  14. Mac Pro

    The plural of "Mac Pro" is not "Mac Pros", but rather "Macs Pro". Since the "Pro" is short for Professional, and thus an adjective, it does not get changed to form a plural. The same rule is used for "Attorneys General", "Surgeons General", and (properly) "Macbooks Pro". I realize that, given the aural similarity to "Max Pro", the name "Macs Pro" is awkward, but I feel that linguistic decorum must be observed.
  15. Darwin is dead.

    There are many reasons that software has been so profitable for Microsoft. One is that they sell licenses in bulk, so they can make very little profit on an individual unit, at least when they sell to Dell and HP. Needless to say, this would be difficult for Apple to manage, as they would have to convince Dell and HP to ship with Mac OS installed, and that would be a large risk for Dell and HP, at least until retail Mac OS became popular enough to justify it. As for profiting from retail software sales, it would require the profit gouging that Microsoft uses with its retail Windows sales. Software retail can be a high-margin business, but considering the insane profits Apple makes on its hardware sales, I would wager that selling Mac OS would not draw higher margins than selling computers. Now, as many have stated in that past, Apple is rather fond of profit gouging (though I suppose it could just as well be called supply and demand, the basis of our economic system). Thus, it seems on the surface that retail software could be a good fit for Apple. However, I have found that part of the reason my experience using Apple's software has been so enjoyable is that they are not a software company. Even though I am using a stolen version of Mac OS, they hassle me less than Microsoft does when I am using a genuine version of Windows. There is no forced registration, or activation, to ensure that I am using a genuine verison of Mac OS. If Apple borrowed Microsoft's model, they might also have to borrow Microsoft's emphasis on backward compatibility, which prevents Windows from undergoing either the evolution or the revolution it needs right now. Furthermore, tailoring software to fit hardware allows Apple to create a holistic experience, which is one of the things that makes Mac users as devoted as they tend to be. I know that we all have been having a jolly good time with our hacked PCs, but it does (from my experience) pale in comparison to using an actual Mac. The people sneering at Apple's business model of packaging generic parts in shiny cases remind me of an article I read once explaining why the iPod became such a phenomenon: they made pressing a button feel good. They made scrolling feel like a natural and wonderful experience. Similarly, Apple has made a computer as easy to use as a toaster, from a hardware standpoint. They have made computers *silent* (neglecting all the whining about whining, which I suspect is just a reaction to how quiet the MacBook Pro is to begin with). They fit a fairly impressive desktop computer into a flatscreen monitor. To overclocking enthusiasts like us, that might not mean much, but it is a selling point for normal people. That is Apple's business model, and us yelling at them and beating the floor crying about how we want to run Mac OS on our Dells is not going to change the business model that saved Apple from destruction when Steve returned to Apple.
×