*Shock* Psystar loses to Apple

I would say that it not about sales volume. It is about sales margin...keeping to a niche market that has a higher return per unit than most Wintel companies so that Apple has a better profit than similar computer companies at the same number of units. It's the only way to compete with a market with heavy concentration, and few markets are as concentrated as the computer OS market, where Microsoft is in constant danger becoming regulated as a monopoly. In fact, Microsoft would probably find themselves in a very bad situation if Apple failed...they need to point to another viable desktop OS with significant market share in order to keep from becoming the next Bell.

 

...and my point is, in the end, who gives a s**t? My response is not to demean or disrespect your opinion (it may well be informed and accurate), or to disrespect the counterpoints brought up by other members, but this topic has been debated a million times before ever since Apple came into the market. I think the Apple forum deserves to be treated the same as other forums. I simply do not see this type of discussion occurring on a regular basis on other forums. And oh yeah, people tend to be supportive as well.

 

i think when k9hydr4 said "apple is not about sales" that he meant exactly what you are saying, kimoT.

i would also love to put this topic to rest, in a permanent way.

day uuber ermanent.

 

I believe Apple isn't trying to be on top, but just be there. The way they are doing stuff now is working for them fine, there is no need to change anything.

 

I'm with you on this. +1 rep

 

Obviously people "give a s**t" or the topic would not be discussed so frequently. This happens to overlap with research I am doing that involves market partitioning, so I have commented. I have also commented on Microsoft's business model in their forums, and I have tried to give technical help in multiple forums on this board, including both Apple and Windows related. So I don't treat it as different: I add where I find a thread interesting or where I think I can help someone.

 

Because when I "BUY" a copy of something, it is mine to do with as I please. Otherwise it is not BUYING. It is RENTING with a high price tag. But if Apple and Microsoft and Warner and everyone else called it what it is, Their sales would plummet and they'd be out of business. So they SAY it is Buying, but it's really renting if they have their way. Well, as long as they call it BUYING, I'm treating it as a bought, paid for, and owned product. Which means it's mine to do with as I please. When they start putting ads out saying "Rent a copy of Windows 7" or "Rent a copy of OS X". Then we'll talk.

As to why this conversation occurs so much on the apple forums? It's because so many apple users are completely die-hard and agree with anything apple does that they will defend it to the death. This Doesn't happen in the HP forums, or Microsoft Forums (usually, though there are a few that will defend Microsoft as well) because people don't have the blind loyalty that Apple fans do. If I said this in another forum, 90% of people would say "Yeah, no %$%" and that'd be the end of it. Not the case here. They want to believe apple is true and just and right and perfect in all things it does. They want to believe with all their heart that their Mac with OS X is impervious to being hacked, getting a virus, malware, or the cause of their recent identity theft issues. They want to believe very badly. So that's why it happens so much in the apple forums and nowhere else.

 

If you buy a license to use the toilet roll, you have to abide by the license.
First sale doctrine applies to something you bought. You did NOT ever buy the software, you bought a license to use the software.... the License is the only thing you bought.. other than packaging, which you can tear up and use as a toilet roll if you wanted to.

because you are buying it... you just haven't looked at what your buying. You did NOT buy the software, you only purchased a license. You also did not rent the software.. or anything else.. the provide you with a copy of the software, per the license you purchased.

Its not the case here, because you don't have a clue what your talking about. If you say that to a bunch of other people that also don't have a clue, of course they'd agree with you. Apple users complain to and about Apple more than non-Apple users. The only people living in a reality distortion field are the ones that look at Apple users and claim stuff about them, when they haven't an actual clue. Its really laughable... so many Anti-Apple or Anti-Apple-Users that think they have all the answers and that everyone wants to hear their opinions... err.. wait "facts"

 

Guess what?
A company tried to use what you claimed to prevent someone from reselling used software and ended up getting smacked in the court.

I am glad that there are still brave & reasonable people around, otherwise people like you would continue to tolerate nonsense from companies.

 

Wow, so that means I can install windows on as many computers that I want, and if MS stops me I can sue them, it would also mean DRM is un-enforceable. Interesting.

 

I'm not contradicting you or anyone else. The debate will go on for as long as there are Apple and MS. Even if they aren't, forums will still be alive with "what they should have done."

This was just wishful thinking on my part-

 

he still never bought the software, and the judge never said that to be the case. This issue here was terms in the EULA that were illegal. If the license is purchased, it can be re-sold.... even if the license says it cannot... is the only thing that case decided. It did not decide you actually bought the software or could do anything you wanted with it. If you bought a license to use that software, you may re-sale that license to anyone, per the first sale doctrine.

you should read the actual case papers, and not just some article of someone who skimmed through it and posted up their interpretations.

basically what I'm saying.. is the case had nothing to do with the use of software, only about the re-selling of software copies.

 

What you were saying is that whatever software bought is licensed not sold which is what AutoCad tried to argue but was flatly thrown out of court because it IS sold although the EULA tried to declare it as a license.
You cannot sell a license but you can sell software.

In the first place the party involved bought it from someone else, he tried to sell on ebay and was sued by AutoCad claiming a breach of license saying it was in the EULA etc silly excuse that you can happily accept.
The plantiff counter sued on the pretext that the software copy was not licensed but sold and the judge agreed because in fact it was obviously sold. You can't simply say it is licensed just because you included in the EULA.

You cannot simply declare any terms you want with any products you are selling because there are rules in the market you have to follow and the way Apple is writing out its EULA on OS X contradicts the rules. Licensing cannot be held as an excuse for creating your own terms to protect your own interest.
If a software medium exist and nothing is signed it is obviously sold software not licensed downloads.
Everything purchase over the sales counter is sold copy Period.
If it was licensed it wouldn't be sold over the sales counter.

 

you clearly do not understand the case. The case has nothing to do with use, it has to do with the actual copies of the software sold with the license. The judge declared (rightly so) that AutoDesk had sold these copies of copyrighted work, not just a license to use. Therefor, under the first sale doctrine of copyrights, these legal copies can be resold. This in no way shape or form invalidates the EULA in the actual use of the software. This is only about purchase and resale. Just like a copyrighted book, you can take that copy you bought and do whatever you want with it within the law. Sit them on a shelf, put them in the microwave, play frisbee... whatever... Using the copyrighted work on the disks to install software on the computer... was NOT covered in any way shape or form in the judgement.

Apple does not counter this at all. If you buy a box retail copy of Snow Leopard, you can legally resale that boxed set to anyone you want, as long as, per copyright, you completely transfer it and do not keep a copy for yourself.

 

First off, your first line that I highlighted is WRONG, plain WRONG. Look man, just understand this, the software in general is FREE, you're paying for a license to use it. Same as when you pay for your licensing at the DMV, you're paying for a privilege to drive, not a right.

Secondly, ya know why the HP forums and other PC forums don't play the blind loyalty game (as you so humbly put it) as on the Apple forum? It's because the HP and other PC forums don't have Mac users constantly driving over there and creating flame posts to annoy the Windows users and telling them that W7 sux and PC's are cheap crap which is why the prices are so low.
The Windows lovers constantly prowl the Mac forum, looking for any chance to do damage control for any PC user that might be looking to switch to a Mac, as if they are threatened. Windows lovers always feel the need to straighten that poster out and make him understand that Macs are overpriced junk.

You're the one that's blind if you think the Mac community is so much in love with everything Apple does. Not true. I have my own issues with OS X and Apple's computers but I prefer this platform. Check out my avatar and sig, I have had a lot of horror with Windows, but do I drive over to the Windows forum and decide to create flame threads? NO, never have, never will. You should do the same.

 

Wow. Just wow. It explains it all really. I can't think that way, and I probably own more Apple gear for home and business use than most of you hanging out in this thread put together.

 

Which way can't you think?

Does the rando-fighting between page 2 and page 7 catch you off guard, or is it the fact that Psystar lost to Apple in court?