backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 92 comment(s) - last by HighWing.. on Dec 1 at 1:13 PM

Apple is looking to use Psystar, makers of $399 Mac clones, as an example to other would-be clone-makers, as it looks to crush the company in court. Psystar's antitrust suit against Apple, which some critics say was its best chance of survive was just rejected.  (Source: Psystar)
Legal analysts say Apple has killed Psystar's best hope of staying in business

Apple has always kept tight reins on its products, developing most of its software and only licensing select hardware and third-party software.  While there are some benefits to this, Apple has frequently exercised its dark side as well, from killing iPhone apps which might compete with its own offerings to crushing Mac clone makers.

When it comes to personal computers, Apple has long exercised a complete dictatorship over its kingdom, refusing to allow any clones to be produced once Steve Jobs regained the helm.  Jobs and other Apple executives perceive clone makers as a threat to Apple's business.  For this reason to date it retains only a small market share, despite strong sales.

Clone maker Psystar launched with the intention of making OS X computers for several hundred dollars cheaper than Apple's own offerings.  It seemed a win-win for both companies -- Psystar would be selling machines, and Apple would see increased software sales.  Furthermore, Psystar's $399 machines targeted different market sectors than Apple's as they were aimed at the bargain market, while Apple's Mini line of desktops were aimed at those seeking a small form factor.

However, Apple quickly showed that just because it's a new century doesn't mean it's turned over a new leaf when it comes to clones.  Apple filed suit against Psystar over a host of supposed minor violations of the OS X license, making one thing clear -- it intended to put the company out of business.

Just as Psystar began to ship units in April, the legal battle began.  After Apple filed suit against it, a desperate Psystar filed an antitrust countersuit against Apple.  Psystar alleged that Apple engaged in anticompetitive processes to prevent other companies from selling computers that ran OS X.  Legal analysts said the suit was likely Psystar's last hope of staying in business.

Now, in new documents it has been revealed that Judge William Alsup of the U.S. Federal Court for the Northern District of California has rejected Psystar's argument.  Psystar can try to amend its argument to convince the Judge that it has come to a valid argument, but it only has 20 days left before the case is dismissed.

Judge Alsup ruled that the antitrust argument was invalid because OS X had competitors on the market.  He states, "The pleadings...fail to allege facts plausibly supporting the counterintuitive claim that Apple's operating system is so unique that it suffers no actual or potential competitors."

If the suit is dismissed, as now seems likely, Psystar will be headed to court with Apple.  Legal analysts say that against the power of Apple, Psystar will likely be put out of business -- permanently -- like many clone makers before it.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
No real competitor?
By MrX8503 on 11/19/2008 11:30:47 AM , Rating: 2
"The pleadings...fail to allege facts plausibly supporting the counterintuitive claim that Apple's operating system is so unique that it suffers no actual or potential competitors."

I think the judge is referring to windows as being the competitor, but I think that idea is flawed because you can buy/build any computer to run windows. If you want to run OSX you have to buy a Mac.

Apple controls both hardware and software, Microsoft just controls software, I think that's where the anti competitiveness lies.




RE: No real competitor?
By JasonMick (blog) on 11/19/2008 11:34:09 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
If you want to run OSX you have to buy a Mac.


Yes, but whether that's anticompetitive depends on whether OS X provides anything unique that Windows doesn't other than a graphical skin (which you can add to Windows) and a perception that your machine is somehow superior... ;)

*ducks*


RE: No real competitor?
By Pirks on 11/19/08, Rating: 0
RE: No real competitor?
By Motoman on 11/19/2008 12:59:22 PM , Rating: 5
...which exists not by any virtue of the OS or it's hardware, but ironically by it's lack of virtue (in this case interpreted as it's lack of marketshare).

Say you're a script kiddie, or maybe a hardcore ha><or. Either way. You have X amount of time to dedicate to making a new virus/trojan/whatever. Are you going to spend that time crafting an attack that affects 95% of the world's PCs, or on one that attacks only 5% of the world's computers (i.e. Macs).

Hmmm...let me think.

Macs are not less virus-prone than Windows. They are a target not worth bothering with.


RE: No real competitor?
By Pirks on 11/19/08, Rating: 0
RE: No real competitor?
By Motoman on 11/19/2008 4:11:50 PM , Rating: 2
...what? Your post above uses neither the word "which" nor the word "exists." So which words of yours am I repeating, and how, precisely, is this a totally different issue? Are you high?


RE: No real competitor?
By Pirks on 11/19/08, Rating: 0
RE: No real competitor?
By Motoman on 11/19/2008 4:42:32 PM , Rating: 2
Nope. No clue.

Your statement is that Macs provide state of being with a "lack of viruses."

My statement is that state of being exists because of...all the things I said.

Not the slightest clue what you're trying to get at.


RE: No real competitor?
By Pirks on 11/19/08, Rating: 0
RE: No real competitor?
By someguy123 on 11/19/2008 7:14:15 PM , Rating: 2
thats funny. you're presented with the true reason behind the lack of malware, which shows that OSX is not "offering" this, but this is due to lack of interest, and instead of accepting the facts you say they're uninteresting.

must be having a good time on that 4000$ web browser you bought.


RE: No real competitor?
By Pirks on 11/19/08, Rating: 0
RE: No real competitor?
By Screwballl on 11/20/2008 10:20:48 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
there are no Mac viruses


WRONG

A simple google search for "Mac virus" will show millions of websites with information about viruses coded specifically for Macs, here is a few links for you:

http://antivirus.about.com/od/macintoshresource/Ma...

http://www.yesbutnobutyes.com/archives/2008/10/mac...

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/computer-virus/macintosh-...

http://www.scmagazineus.com/Second-Mac-virus-in-th...

and so on and so on... there are viruses, they are in the wild and they are becoming more popular every day... too bad the Apple security plan does not include free service packs (maybe they call them upgrades, like 10.4 to 10.5? Windows gives them away free and calls them Service Packs).


RE: No real competitor?
By Pirks on 11/20/2008 6:46:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Microsoft calls them Service Packs
No, it calls them Windows 7 :)))
quote:
millions of websites with information about viruses
I wanted to spot a mac virus in the wild, not another spooky story about something that exists only in those stories, not in the wild.


RE: No real competitor?
By rollakid on 11/19/2008 7:18:24 PM , Rating: 2
Ah.. Maybe you mean "less viruses"? "Lack of viruses" sounds like, well...

"Yo dude, how's your ride? Done restoring it?"
"Nah, engine still lacks valve seals and two of the pistons need replacing."

Well, that would mean I don't have the valve seals yet right?


RE: No real competitor?
By Pirks on 11/19/08, Rating: -1
RE: No real competitor?
By kelmon on 11/20/2008 3:33:30 AM , Rating: 1
I think the problem is that your statement was ambiguous. The dictionary definition of "lack" can mean "none" or "not enough". Technically, you are both correct in your interpretations of the original phrase but it's definitely best to state your position clearly since being able to interpret it in another way is not good.

I don't suppose that settles things but you never know.


RE: No real competitor?
By Murloc on 11/19/2008 5:10:24 PM , Rating: 1
The conclusion may be "macs are for noobs who can't install an antivirus and not click pop-ups claiming free pussy"


RE: No real competitor?
By Pirks on 11/19/08, Rating: -1
RE: No real competitor?
By headbox on 11/19/2008 4:55:30 PM , Rating: 2
That's poor logic. Most universities, film studios, music studios, etc. are well saturated with Macs. There are millions of Mac users. You would think ONE virus would spread and wreak havoc since Mac users don't even install anti-virus software.

If Macs are rapidly gaining marketshare, but are not even .000001% infected with malware, spyware, or system crippling virus- that's not because of a lack of hackers trying to disable them. We all know how many millions of Apple haters there are too.


RE: No real competitor?
By Denigrate on 11/19/2008 1:29:20 PM , Rating: 1
Since when? There are plenty of all three for Mac's.


RE: No real competitor?
By Pirks on 11/19/08, Rating: 0
RE: No real competitor?
By Motoman on 11/19/2008 3:09:45 PM , Rating: 3
http://antivirus.about.com/od/macintoshresource/Ma...

...hmmm, type "mac virus" into Google and see what happens...


RE: No real competitor?
By Pirks on 11/19/08, Rating: -1
RE: No real competitor?
By Motoman on 11/19/2008 4:43:02 PM , Rating: 3
...here's your sign.


RE: No real competitor?
By Pirks on 11/19/2008 5:29:03 PM , Rating: 1
Can't see any URLs on that sign. Stop using invisible ink, will ya?


RE: No real competitor?
By HrilL on 11/19/2008 10:21:36 PM , Rating: 2
How would you know you got a virus like a Trojan or some kind of spyware. I doubt you anti-virus software so how you would you know if you got anything? Do they have free mac scanners? do you use them? If not then I don't think you would even know if you got something in the first place like most mac users probably think.


RE: No real competitor?
By michael2k on 11/20/2008 12:13:34 PM , Rating: 2
Because:
1) You would have been asked to download it
2) You would have been asked to install it
3) You would have been asked for your password to allow it to write to secure directories

It's kind of like UAC, but nicer.


RE: No real competitor?
By HrilL on 11/28/2008 5:06:09 PM , Rating: 2
I see. But clearly that would only block the stuff users would get on their own. Ever heard of port scanning? Last hacking conference they hacked a Mac in less then 24 hours with only a connection to Ethernet. This tells me that Macs can get hacked fairly easily and you wouldn't know. All this was done without any user input. So you can keep living in a dream like every other Mac DFU.


RE: No real competitor?
By kelmon on 11/20/2008 3:36:12 AM , Rating: 2
http://www.macuser.com/security/dont_get_plugged_b...

In order to be infected by this trojan you will need to surf adult websites (it's a hard job but someone has to do it...) and be dumb enough to install the software, but it is a valid trojan horse attack. Needless to say, however, that I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.


RE: No real competitor?
By HighWing on 11/19/2008 12:47:40 PM , Rating: 5
*laughs* well according to all the mac fanboys. it's the mac experience that is Unique and different from windows.

IMHO that means a lack of software, games, and hardware that limits you to what Mr jobs says you are allowed to do.


RE: No real competitor?
By headbox on 11/19/08, Rating: 0
RE: No real competitor?
By Pirks on 11/19/2008 5:24:27 PM , Rating: 2
Well, Mac is so close to PeeCee since 2005 that you can safely say that all this stuff is done on PeeCee too. There's no real big difference between them anymore.


RE: No real competitor?
By HighWing on 11/20/2008 3:36:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Most of the music you listen to, the TV shows you watch, and the magazines you read were mad on a Mac.


That is only because the people who have those jobs are Mac Fanboys. There are a lot of people using Windows PC's to do that as well. Plus a big difference is on the PC side you have quite a lot more choices than Final Cut Pro for your video editing.
And your statement still does not change the fact that are you limited to what Mr Jobs says your allowed to do on a Mac. You can do anything you want on a PC. Which is the main reason why I an not a fan of Apple.


RE: No real competitor?
By michael2k on 11/20/2008 4:30:20 PM , Rating: 2
It's called inertia as well. It's like saying the only reason business runs PCs instead of Macs is because they are Dell fanboys. For many of these Macs, it is because 5 years ago PCs didn't do many of the same things.

Macs have been doing video and graphics for 20 years. PCs have only been doing it for 13.


RE: No real competitor?
By HighWing on 12/1/2008 1:13:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Macs have been doing video and graphics for 20 years. PCs have only been doing it for 13.


Yeah and I find it kinda funny that on Macs you have a choice of Final Cut Pro and ..... how many other titles for video editing?

Yet on a PC you have shelves upon shelves of titles to choose from at all different levels of editing.

Now I'm not saying they are all better, but having that level of competition and choice means if you don't like the way one does something, there is always another program out there that will do it differently or better. And thus drives the quality up faster each year.


RE: No real competitor?
By rcc on 11/19/2008 11:54:41 AM , Rating: 2
That would be the counterintuitive part.

It would be like suing GE because they won't let you use the firmware from their microwave ovens to run on someone else's brand.

Apple sells the software specifically to run on their hardware, and you agree to that when you open the package. If this offends you, you can always buy Windows, or Linux, etc. It's restrictive, yes, that's their business model. But it's not an anti-trust case.


RE: No real competitor?
By noirsoft on 11/19/2008 12:14:04 PM , Rating: 2
Except that with the Microsoft suit of several years ago, it was ruled that MacOS (then 9) Linux, BSD and a host of other operating stystems were not competitors to Windows because they did not offer application compatibility. In fact, the "market" over which Microsoft was found to have a monopoly was defined solely as Windows and OS/2

One ruling or the other is in error. While I think the MS ruling was bunk, if that is the definition of a monopoly in the computer world, then Apple fits the bill even more so than MS.


RE: No real competitor?
By michael2k on 11/19/2008 2:46:12 PM , Rating: 1
In the intervening 8 years since that ruling both Linux and Mac OS have gained application compatibility; witness Wine, BootCamp, Parallels, and VMWare... Also, Apple grew from 3% to 9.5% in the US, which means they are a credible competitor now.

So the ruling today is in a different world than the world of 8 years ago.


RE: No real competitor?
By Motoman on 11/19/2008 12:17:35 PM , Rating: 2
Mmmm...I can see both sides on this one. And it's not like the firmware for an oven (which realistically could only be expected to work on that exact hardware). The Mac OS has, by Apple's own actions, been shown to be thoroughly compatible with standard x86 hardware. So, from a technicaly standpoint, there's no reason not to install it on any old PC that you want to.

Ironically, if Apple sold their OS seperately, they'd probably make a bundle, and massively expand their marketshare. But, this is Apple we're talking about, so...

Anyway, The judge's position is that Windows, Linux, et al provide the same thing as OS X. Which they most certainly do. They all have swank GUIs and hip built-in features and so on and so forth. And if you're not a blithering idiot, all are perfectly stable (the problem there being that 99% of the world's consumers are blithering idiots...and because Apple failed as a mainstream product, they all use Windows...and because no one ever believes anything is their own fault, when their PCs become unstable, it must be because of Windows). So, by a market defnition, OS X is most definitely not involved in any kind of monopoly. It is, in fact, the exact opposite of a monopoly...Windows is effectively still a monopoly, with Linux and Macs being effectively negligible in the market.

The problem really comes into focus, I think, when people *want* to use OS X, but when said people are not idiots, they realize that Apple is fleecing it's buyers with ridiculously high prices for the hardware required to use the OS. So you have a situation where there is a market for people who want the OS without the artificially-tied hardware attached...this further agitates them because they know for a fact that the tie is artificial (the OS will, in fact, run on standard x86 hardware). The fact of the matter is, though, that the judge is right IMHO. Apple has no responsibility to sell it's OS seperately from it's hardware if it doesn't want to.

As noted, that seems like a blindingly stupid business decision...I have got to believe that Apple is giving up massive amounts of revenue by not simply packaging the OS seperately for people to buy - I think the take-up would be staggering.

But...well, it's Apple.


RE: No real competitor?
By Pirks on 11/19/08, Rating: -1
RE: No real competitor?
By Motoman on 11/19/2008 2:08:04 PM , Rating: 3
...they can make immense amounts of *free* profit from selling the OS by itself. Let me walk you through this since you apparently haven't gotten to Buisnes 101 yet...

Apple invests X amount of dollars in developing their OS. When they sell it attached only to Y number of Macs, they can make only Z amount of money from that investment of X. Get that? They are artificially limiting the return they make on their OS development investment.

On the other hand, if they just simply pressed some CDs and sold the OS on it's own on the market, they are now making vastly more revenue on the original investment of X. And granted that there are ridiculously more PCs on the market than Macs, their return on the investment of X is likely to be absolutely immense.

So no, that's not a smart business decision. And if you are going to look at that single instance as the indicator of whether I or Steve Jobs is smarter, then I guess I am.

...and by the way, the "market" does not "think so" as you stated in your final sentence. If they did, Macs would be over-running the market the way that Windows PCs are. Clearly, they are not.


RE: No real competitor?
By Motoman on 11/19/2008 2:09:46 PM , Rating: 5
...and for the record, I'm not sure it's much of a compliment even if someone told you that you were smarter than Steve Jobs. This is a guy who apparently can't wrap his head around a mouse with 2 buttons, or the concept of copy & paste on a "smart" phone.


RE: No real competitor?
By rcc on 11/19/2008 3:06:52 PM , Rating: 1
Do you successfully run a multibillion dollar company? Do you have as much money as he does?

If the answer is no, he's probably brighter than you. It's not a given though, perhaps he's just more ambitious and has more business and financial acumen.

Bottom line is that he doesn't want Apple to be Microsoft, and Apple's business model is written to reflect that.


RE: No real competitor?
By Motoman on 11/19/2008 3:14:30 PM , Rating: 2
...Jerry Yang ran a multibillion dollar company. For as many true "geniuses" as you want to point out running big companies, I'm sure you can find as many idiots.

There is no correlation between being "smart" and having lots of money. Luck, greed, and opportunism have a lot more to do with it (although being smart certainly helps).

I have more money than my dad...does that make me smarter than him? I'm in the 2nd-to-highest tax bracket there is...does that mean I'm smarter than everyone in the lower tax brackets, but dumber than those in the highest tax bracket? What about Paris Hilton? I would wager to be that there are countless numbers of people "brighter" than Paris Hilton, but whom are worth somewhat less from a $ standpoint.

...and to say he doesn't want Apple to be Microsoft is rather daft. There's not a single businessperson in the world who wouldn't want their company to be the next Microsoft.


RE: No real competitor?
By rcc on 11/19/2008 3:23:21 PM , Rating: 2
Next time read the whole response before cherry picking.

and....

quote:
There's not a single businessperson in the world who wouldn't want their company to be the next Microsoft.


You are incorrect. There are many that have no desire to be the next Microsoft.

I didn't say that Apple/Jobs wouldn't want to be as successful, or large, as Microsoft. Merely that that isn't the type of business they want to be. It's not a positive, or negative, it's just a decision on how company wants to operate, and what their goals are.


RE: No real competitor?
By Motoman on 11/19/2008 3:30:48 PM , Rating: 2
...the very intent of being in business is to dominate your market and make as much money as possible. In fact, if you are publicly held, your shareholders are going to punish you severly if you don't act in such a way as to maximize revenue, profit, and marketshare. See Yahoo.

Now, sure, the nice old couple who owns the bed & breakfast by the lake are not in business with a plan to take over all the world's hotels. But you know that as well as I do, and you know that's not who I was talking about just as well as I do. You. Got. My. Point.

...and cherry picking what from your "whole response?"


RE: No real competitor?
By Pirks on 11/19/2008 4:25:35 PM , Rating: 2
Are you seriously comparing constantly growing and expanding business of Apple Inc with static and non-expanding bed & breakfast thing? How pathetic :-)


RE: No real competitor?
By rcc on 11/19/2008 4:39:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
...the very intent of being in business is to dominate your market and make as much money as possible


That may be your model, and I agree that it fits most large public companies. But it is by no means universal. I have worked for, and are aware of many more, successful businesses in the 100k -500 million range who's basic philosophy is:

Create an environment where we and our employees can earn a good living

Provide a good quality and good value service/product to our customers.

I'm sorry you haven't found one yet, but if you look around and find a company where most of the employees have been there for 15 years or more, you'll probably find one.

These are not stagnant companies, they just aren't run by someone with the faster, faster, more, more mentaility.

As far as cherry picking goes, my post had already addressed the factor of intelligence vs. success. You just chose to repost without the balancing arguments.

As I said, to each his/her own.


RE: No real competitor?
By Motoman on 11/19/2008 3:30:49 PM , Rating: 2
...the very intent of being in business is to dominate your market and make as much money as possible. In fact, if you are publicly held, your shareholders are going to punish you severly if you don't act in such a way as to maximize revenue, profit, and marketshare. See Yahoo.

Now, sure, the nice old couple who owns the bed & breakfast by the lake are not in business with a plan to take over all the world's hotels. But you know that as well as I do, and you know that's not who I was talking about just as well as I do. You. Got. My. Point.

...and cherry picking what from your "whole response?"


RE: No real competitor?
By Motoman on 11/19/2008 3:31:20 PM , Rating: 2
Crap, sorry...not sure how I double-posted. Apparently I can't manage a 2-button mouse either.


RE: No real competitor?
By wordsworm on 11/20/2008 10:01:51 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Crap, sorry...not sure how I double-posted. Apparently I can't manage a 2-button mouse either.


I personally can't stand 2 button mice. I've got to have a clickable scroll wheel on the mouse as well. Heck, I only barely tolerate the optical mouse I've got at work since getting used to the laser at home.

I wonder if this four-button-laser-mouse would work on my machine at work: http://www.apple.com/mightymouse/


RE: No real competitor?
By Pirks on 11/19/2008 3:47:19 PM , Rating: 2
If you were in Jobs's shoes Apple would be non existant today, so stop pretending being smarter than him. It's just ridiculous. I was thinking exactly like you several years ago. Recent Apple's history has taught me a lesson which you still haven't got. Your time will come later.


RE: No real competitor?
By Motoman on 11/19/2008 3:57:26 PM , Rating: 2
...can I borrow your crystal ball sometime? Or are you just naturally prescient?

...and if you were "thinking exactly like me several years ago" does that make you a temporally-displaced clone of me?

Anyway, stop it. Your points are lost and so are you.


RE: No real competitor?
By Pirks on 11/19/08, Rating: 0
RE: No real competitor?
By michael2k on 11/19/2008 2:51:43 PM , Rating: 2
Your proof only works if Apple increases their marketshare.

If they maintain 10% of the market but only make $100 per box of OS X as opposed to $400 for the average Mac, they actually shrink their revenues. The only way to counter that would be to increase the price of OS X to $399 (hypothetical numbers). If Apple only gets $300 per Mac, then they can sell OS X for $300 if all sales are replaced by OS sales. Something like that.

If they keep OS X at the $129 mark, however, they would otherwise need to triple their marketshare, from 10% to 30% to remain solvent.

You tell me, how likely is it that Apple would triple to 30% if they made their OS freely installable?

And as an aside, tell me how that works out for Google, who is offering Android for free!


RE: No real competitor?
By Motoman on 11/19/2008 3:05:53 PM , Rating: 2
Google and other free bits of kit generally get revenue either from advertising and/or developer kits.

I find your Apple example to be deceptively architected to try to derail the idea that selling OS X as an individual item would be bad for Apple.

It is reasonable only to assume that they will continue to sell the same number of Macs as they always did. There is no reason to assume any appreciable attrition of Mac sales by releasing the OS as an idividual item. OS sales would be nearly 100% additive. A win across the board for Apple.


RE: No real competitor?
By michael2k on 11/19/2008 3:58:51 PM , Rating: 2
Hey, be fair. Why is it reasonable to assume they will sell the same number of Macs as they always did? They will certainly see SOME people buy Sony, Dell, or HP because they offer form factors Apple does not sell, and buy OS X instead.

That counts as a revenue drop and reasonable justification that there will be some attrition of Mac sales. OS sales would be additive, but there is no way to say it would be nearly 100% additive. It could very well be 50% additive, and 50% cannnibalization.


RE: No real competitor?
By michael2k on 11/19/2008 2:41:34 PM , Rating: 2
There are plenty of faqs and testimonials of people installing OS X on non Mac hardware.

PsyStar being an example! The issue is that PsyStar is not legally allowed to do so since they don't have a license.


*** Cough *** Price Gouging *** Cough ***
By Mitch101 on 11/19/2008 10:24:54 AM , Rating: 4
If Apple doesn't price gouge on the hardware then how can a competing company produce a $399.00 knockoff that would give this company a profit? ;) Enough that Apple would send in the lawyers to wipe them out.




RE: *** Cough *** Price Gouging *** Cough ***
By nosfe on 11/19/2008 10:29:50 AM , Rating: 5
its not price gouging, quality white glossy plastic and logo don't come cheap


By Pirks on 11/19/2008 12:12:22 PM , Rating: 1
[replacing "white glossy plastic" with "aluminum and glass"]

here, fixed it for ya


RE: *** Cough *** Price Gouging *** Cough ***
By rcc on 11/19/2008 11:49:21 AM , Rating: 2
That's a bit of a goofy question.

The answer, whether or not it applies here, is that it is often possible to build a cheaper mousetrap. Very often it doesn't work as well, or last as long, but you can do it.

You don't really think that the $99 dollar Panasonic microwave at Walwart is really the same as the $159 version from Sears, do you?


RE: *** Cough *** Price Gouging *** Cough ***
By Motoman on 11/19/2008 12:07:52 PM , Rating: 2
...yes, in all likelihood those microwaves are exactly the same.

The point, I think, trying to be made here was that Apple charges credulous consumers enormous markups on what is really pretty inexpensive kit. There's no reason in the world that a Mac with the same specs as, say, a Dell, should cost any more.

But then again, Apple buyers are an odd sort. Form over function and "reassuringly high prices" are the norm for their collective.


RE: *** Cough *** Price Gouging *** Cough ***
By Pirks on 11/19/08, Rating: -1
RE: *** Cough *** Price Gouging *** Cough ***
By HighWing on 11/19/2008 12:44:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Hey, how about that famous $400 Vista Ultimate? Feel DA REAL MARKUP now, punks? ;-)


Not sure where you do your shopping but any person who builds computers knows where to get things cheaper. IE Vista Ultimate for only $179. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8...

Same applies for everything else you just said. The only difference with Apple is that they control all sales of their product. IE there is no other place to get them cheaper.


RE: *** Cough *** Price Gouging *** Cough ***
By Pirks on 11/19/08, Rating: -1
RE: *** Cough *** Price Gouging *** Cough ***
By 9ballrun on 11/19/2008 1:42:19 PM , Rating: 5
Did you just link to a 2 year old article that lists full retail prices to show how much Vista costs? And why?

I can show you when ATI 9800 Pro card were $300 also, but it's not very relevant now.


By Pirks on 11/19/2008 4:06:53 PM , Rating: 1
Why? Because I wanted to show that Microsoft can make even more insane markups than Apple, $400 Vista was a perfect example


RE: *** Cough *** Price Gouging *** Cough ***
By rcc on 11/19/2008 1:16:48 PM , Rating: 2
No, in fact, they aren't.

The Walmart business model is such that they go to the microwave (or product xyz) manufacturer and say we want a microwave we can sell for $99, we will pay $xy for it. Do you want to make it. At which point the manufacturer does a design analysis and figures out what corners they need to cut to make it, and whether or not they should.

As far as your stereotyping of Apple customers, keep on believing, you will in any event.

For the record, I haven't owned an Apple product in 10 years, simply because they don't do what I need them to do. That doesn't make them worse, or better, just different.


RE: *** Cough *** Price Gouging *** Cough ***
By Motoman on 11/19/2008 3:01:49 PM , Rating: 2
While there certainly are cases as you have noted in your example, there are also very large amounts of the case such as I stated - the same exact item being sold for wildly different prices in different stores, probably with different brand names even. You can find as many examples as you want.

Very broadly speaking (in terms of examples), Waterloo makes Craftsman toolboxes. You can buy a Waterloo-branded toolbox at Farm & Fleet for, say, $100. You can buy the same toolbox at Sears with a Craftsman logo on it for, say, $125. When Ford bought Jaguar, they started producing "Jaguars" built on the Taurus platform. And you'd pay a buttload of money for that tarted-up Taurus. Far and above the "normal" value of the extra niceties they put on it. The consumer electronics market is rife with such stuff. All kinds of items made by the same manufacturer and sold under different brand names at different prices.

As for my stereotyping of Apple customers...tell them to start behaving differently. As it is, they behave exactly as I describe. If they refused to buy an Apple product because it doesn't do what they want it to do, then I would have a vastly different opinion of them. If they refused to buy an Apple product because it's grossly overpriced, then I would have a vastly different opinion of them. As it is, people buy Apple products even when they have glaring deficiencies and are wildly overpriced to boot. That's a fairly nonsensical way of going about your life.


RE: *** Cough *** Price Gouging *** Cough ***
By rcc on 11/19/2008 3:14:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If they refused to buy an Apple product because it doesn't do what they want it to do, then I would have a vastly different opinion of them


lol, Aye, there's the rub. But if they refuse to buy a Microsoft product because it doesn't do what they want in the way that they want, it's not at all the same thing, eh?

Here's the thing, while you may disagree with them, every Apple owner has found that their product does something for them that makes it worth the price. It really doesn't matter a bit what you or I think of that.

Now, in the case of some iPod users what it does is make them look cool to their friends. Even as some Windows users bought a Windows PC because someone told them they'd be an idiot if they bought a Mac; not because they actually knew what the differences were.

To each his own.


RE: *** Cough *** Price Gouging *** Cough ***
By Motoman on 11/19/2008 3:26:36 PM , Rating: 1
I don'te believe that is the case, and I firmly disagree with your standpoint.

I don't think there's any likelihood at all that the typical Apple buyer does so because of any specific experience/knowledge of competing products that they therefore declined to purchase. People buy Apple products because they buy the propaganda. The TV says Macs are easier to use than PCs. Therefore the credulous buy Macs. The TV says the iPod is teh hip, and their commercials are artful and smug...I want to be artful and feel smug too. I need an iPod.

So on and so forth. Apple is the world's best example of the power of marketing. Pure and simple.

And to be fair, Microsoft's marketing is pretty effing awful if you ask me. They dominate the market by sheer force of momentum and monopoly status...their marketing is shite.


By Pirks on 11/19/2008 4:13:40 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
That's a fairly nonsensical way of going about your life
Yeah, it's a fair nonsensical way to buy Lexus or MB instead of Toyota or Chevy, buy diamonds instead of glass or crystal "jewelry", buy Sony instead of costco or canadian superstore brand tv, buy old French Cogniac instead of a battle of Boll's or some industrial ethanol. You have a lot of learning to do, learning why and how people choose goods to buy, understanding why people pay premium prices for premium goods.


RE: *** Cough *** Price Gouging *** Cough ***
By michael2k on 11/19/2008 3:19:30 PM , Rating: 2
If you include in the specs between the Mac and Dell the size, the weight (smaller and lighter, usually), the materials (likely aluminum, glass, or polycarbonate), the OS (Dell's OS cost is something between $40 and $60 per license as opposed to Apple's unquantified but likely to be $200 per license since there is no volume discount), packaging costs (since Macs actually ship in nicer boxes)...

So taking all that into consideration, you've got the extra $100 or so for the license, probably an extra $60 (up to $100 for larger Macs) or so for materials, $10 for packaging (up to $30 for larger boxes), additional costs for the engineering for lighter weight and size (maybe $10 to $20 amortized over the Macs)...

So $200 trivially for a MacBook, $260 for a Mac, or more for a Mac Pro.

Add on top of that additional costs for running brick and mortar (which none of their competitors have), and that explains the "additional" price over a functionally identical Dell.


RE: *** Cough *** Price Gouging *** Cough ***
By Motoman on 11/19/2008 3:22:21 PM , Rating: 2
First of all, there is *no* license cost for the OS in a Mac. It's part and parcel of their own R&D efforts, not something they are paying another vendor (and assuring big profits to another vendor) for.

Also, you know as well as I do that Dell et al make many different models with many different form factors to compete with like-for-like products at virtually every point along the computing continuum. I find your argument disingenuous.


By michael2k on 11/19/2008 3:29:19 PM , Rating: 2
The license cost I speak of IS the internal R&D cost. For Apple to develop OS X would mean they would spend (on the same order of magnitude) about the same as Microsoft, while distributing the actual cost of development on 1/10th the machines.

In other words, Apple spends $2b to develop OS X but only gets 10m Macs to distribute the cost. Microsoft might spend $5.5b (including QA and other esoteria) but get to distribute the cost over 110m PCs. With those rough numbers, OS X costs $200 per Mac while Windows costs $55 per PC (which is in line with Windows licensing costs, making the Mac pricing not outrageous).


Where is the Ambassador?
By bribud on 11/19/2008 9:29:36 AM , Rating: 2
Darth Vader: [addressing the Tantive IV's captain, whom he is interrogating] Where are those transmissions you intercepted? WHAT have you DONE with those plans?
[holding Captain Antilles off the floor, the Captain's feet are dangling at Vader's knees]
Captain Antilles: We intercepted no transmissions...
[gasps]
Captain Antilles: ... This is a consular ship... We're on a -
[chokes]
Captain Antilles: diplomatic mission...
Darth Vader: [shouting] If this is a consular ship, WHERE is the ambassador?
[Antilles dies before he can answer, and Vader throws the man's body against the wall, narrowly missing 2 stormtroopers]
Darth Vader: Commander, tear this ship apart until you find those plans! And bring me all passengers, I want them ALIVE!!




RE: Where is the Ambassador?
By monitorjbl on 11/19/2008 9:38:34 AM , Rating: 2
That wasn't Wedge in that scene.....


RE: Where is the Ambassador?
By bribud on 11/19/2008 9:39:35 AM , Rating: 2
Of course not! No one could kill Wedge!! He's the man!


RE: Where is the Ambassador?
By monitorjbl on 11/19/2008 9:49:25 AM , Rating: 3
Well I'll be damned, his name was Antilles.

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Raymus_Antilles

Huh, you learn something every day. I tip my hat to you, good sir.


RE: Where is the Ambassador?
By bribud on 11/19/2008 10:24:04 AM , Rating: 2
Yep, they aren't related either.


By kelmon on 11/20/2008 3:49:43 AM , Rating: 2
Oh, please. Let's not kid ourselves here, Pystar never stood any chance of remaining in the Mac business. Their potential outcomes are summarised as follows:

* Apple wins the case and Psystar are banned from selling Mac clones

* Psystar wins and better companies release Mac clones that compete Psystar out of the Mac clone business

Psystar's fundamental problem is that they are a tinpot operation that makes computers of dubious quality (I remember the investigations to find out if they even had a business address). Dell has gone on record in the past that they'd like to sell computers with the Mac OS installed on them, and companies like that would crush Psystar. All Psystar will have achieved is Andy Warhol's 15-minutes of fame and saving other companies the legal costs of challenging Apple's End User License Agreement.

Regardless of the result, Psystar are probably toast.




By NubWobble on 11/20/2008 4:34:01 AM , Rating: 2
Very true and I hope they lose too because then Apple and their god Jabba de Fail will lose a source of income. As far as I care Apple can rot in hell, all they have is hype. They sell PC's with Mac Nonsense on them, something the brainwashed Mac users don't understand.

I find it pretty funny that hardware review sites recommend the Mac Air because of the CPU and then go on to explain how Windows is installed because Mac OS performs horribly.

By the way guys, arguing with the Mac crowd is pointless. Jabba has told them what to say and how to think, you're just wasting your time. I do find it funny though that all the Mac nubs have to go on about is how superiour the Mac is to the PC because they don't get infected with virussesm, nothing more as it's been proven that everything the Mac does, the PC does far better.


By rcc on 11/20/2008 11:21:35 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Very true and I hope they lose too because then Apple and their god Jabba de Fail will lose a source of income. As far as I care Apple can rot in hell, all they have is hype. They sell PC's with Mac Nonsense on them, something the brainwashed Mac users don't understand.


Why Do You Care???

It it's all such a useless piece of trivia, why do you care. Just ignore it.

As far as arguing with the Mac crowd, that holds true for most of the Windows/Linux/Unix/Posix/OS9 crowd as well. Objective evaluation never really took hold in the computer world. It's a shame, but there it is.


By michael2k on 11/20/2008 12:09:31 PM , Rating: 2
1) What source of income are you talking about? $100 per box of OS X pales in comparison to the revenue they get from iPods, iPhones, Macs, and AV software.
2) Hype only works the first time (witness Vista). Without substance there will be no repeat buyers. All you have demonstrated is your ignorance of the substance behind the hype.
3) The average IQ is only 100; which means about half the population is pretty stupid, yet only 10% of the US population uses Macs. If you're right, Apple should actually have something closer to 40%... which is what HP has actually.
4) PCs don't come in aluminum cases; Macs do. PCs get viruses, trojans, worms, and 0 day exploits. Macs rarely do (much less than it's 10% marketshare would indicate). PCs have lower battery life in Vista; Macs perform better for notebooks then (as witnessed by Anand during their tests). So not everything a PC does better: Macs have better builds, less exploits, and longer battery life.


By kelmon on 11/20/2008 12:35:01 PM , Rating: 2
Personally, I prefer the Mac for the software. It tends to be well thought-out and focuses on the experience of the end-user to keep them happy. Windows software just tends to be ho-hum, and I'm not sure if that is due to the features of the platform itself or whether the developers just don't really care. It's hard to fully quantify, but not getting annoyed at the computer is quite important to me and a Mac doesn't annoy me as much as various Windows PCs have done through the years.

Your mileage may vary.

Still, I do just want to say that it is very arrogant of you to suggest that people who choose another platform are misguided without knowing why they made the choice. I do not chastise you for choosing Windows despite the fact that I personally do not like it since I like to think that you have made a rational decision.

With respect to your comment "that everything the Mac does, the PC does far better", would you like to talk about color management and ICC profiles? Only that's one of the reasons why I select a Mac along with anyone else who needs color accuracy in their workflow since Windows still can't do that right even in Vista (better but it still messes up). Or perhaps you can provide a link to the proof that you mentioned.

Basically, you do not know everything so it would be best if you didn't act like you did as it only makes you look foolish.