This is the kind of thing that might actually get me to use OSX. I don't mind the operating system. As far as commercial OSes go, it's pretty nice. Paying the Apple tax on the hardware has ALWAYS been what kept me from using their OS. My advice to Apple (not that they care)? License other vendors to sell hardware with OSX installed. Maintain strict specifications on what hardware can be used to make a non Apple OSX certified computer, but really, this can only help with your market share.
I would consider doing this for the same reason that I still use iTunes to sync with my Palm Pre. (Which, BTW works with iTunes 9 now thanks to the 1.2.1 WebOS update) The more people who use these "hacks" the more mainstream they will become. It's like the old saying from Thomas Jefferson. "It is our patriotic duty to break unjust laws so that one day they shall be abolished." Eventually if this keeps happening to Apple, they won't be able to fight anymore, and they'll be forced to license iTunes for portable devices and license OSX for OEM suppliers.
I apply the same principle to my weed habit. I smoke weed and encourage others who enjoy it to do the same, and the more mainstream it becomes the closer we get to legalization.
That's great, I go around raping and killing for those same reasons. While I have no personal qualms about legalizing marijuana your logic is horribly flawed.
This is the kind of thing that might actually get me to use OSX. I don't mind the operating system. As far as commercial OSes go, it's pretty nice. Paying the Apple tax on the hardware has ALWAYS been what kept me from using their OS. My advice to Apple (not that they care)? License other vendors to sell hardware with OSX installed. Maintain strict specifications on what hardware can be used to make a non Apple OSX certified computer, but really, this can only help with your market share.
I don't think Apple cares much about market share. Their audience is completely different than Dell, HP, Gateway, etc. They know that when a consumer goes out to compare with others they loose most of the time. Apple customer goes to Apple directly. If you don't see the difference or the difference does not worth the price, you are not an Apple customer and that is totally fine with them.
That's great, I go around raping and killing for those same reasons. While I have no personal qualms about legalizing marijuana your logic is horribly flawed.
Your logic is flawed unless you think rape and murder laws are unjust. There is a clear difference as smoking marijuana is a victimless crime, where rape and murder are not. Also, in the case of Apple I'm not really talking about the law per say, but more about how they use the law to secure a monopoly on their hardware with their software. Steve Jobs has been known to say that he knows what's good for us more than we do, and I believe he's wrong. I think that iTunes and Mac OSX would be more beneficial to us if they were made available for licensing to OEMs. You can agree with me, or you can disagree with me, but the bottom line is that the more people who are using "hacked" devices to sync with iTunes and run OSX, the harder time Apple is going to have regulating the software, and eventually they'll be forced by the market (the people who Jobs thinks he knows what's best for) to change their licensing practices. It's about what's good for the consumer, and protecting the consumer from an unjust monopoly.
I don't think Apple cares much about market share. Their audience is completely different than Dell, HP, Gateway, etc. They know that when a consumer goes out to compare with others they loose most of the time. Apple customer goes to Apple directly. If you don't see the difference or the difference does not worth the price, you are not an Apple customer and that is totally fine with them.
AAPL stock price $187, market cap $168B
Dell stock price $15, market cap $29.9B
They should be crazy to even think about changing their business model.
You're comparing Apples to Oranges as Dell is not in the operating system, digital media or smartphone business. In fact, given what we know about the scope of Apple's product line, their market cap should be in the realm of Microsoft, Dell and Blackberry combined. And of course they would be foolish to change their business model, it's very profitable for them, and stifles competition among would-be competitors in the OEMs. That would be like saying that Comcast should not have been deregulated because the monopoly they had on cable television and internet service was a good business model.
Your logic is flawed unless you think rape and murder laws are unjust. There is a clear difference as smoking marijuana is a victimless crime, where rape and murder are not.
It's actually irrelevant what I think is unjust or not. Your argument is if enough people think it's unjust it should become just. There are plenty of people that think marijuana should be illegal, simple as that. You are arguing on volume and basing it on what you believe is unjust. I could vehemently believe rape and murder should be legal. There was a time, where it was actually perfectly acceptable, spoils to the victor.
There are plenty of reasons to legalize marijuana, volume of people saying so isn't one of them. If volume of supporters was all that was needed you could just as easily legalize anything.
Also, in the case of Apple I'm not really talking about the law per say, but more about how they use the law to secure a monopoly on their hardware with their software.
OS X runs on Mac's, PS3's software only works on PS3's, 360 on 360's etc... Amiga (forget the name) OS only ran on Amiga's etc...etc...etc... there's nothing illegal or even questionable about how Apple is licensing their OS. Regardless of the fact that you can hack it to run on other software and regardless of how many people start doing it, it in now way changes that. It also in no way creates a requirement for Apple to start supporting other hardware.
You can agree with me, or you can disagree with me, but the bottom line is that the more people who are using "hacked" devices to sync with iTunes and run OSX, the harder time Apple is going to have regulating the software, and eventually they'll be forced by the market (the people who Jobs thinks he knows what's best for) to change their licensing practices.
Ummm no, not the case at all. Apple has no impetus at all to allow hacked hardware to become allowed hardware in any future software releases. It never becomes more difficult for apple to regulate their software. They make software that runs on specific devices and they have very strict control over how those devices are made. Their job never gets harder regardless of how many hacked OS X installs get made or how many times the Palm Pre puts out a new iTunes connector.
It's about what's good for the consumer, and protecting the consumer from an unjust monopoly.
Again it's not an unjust monopoly. Apple makes OS X for Mac's. They are under no impetus to change it.
It's actually irrelevant what I think is unjust or not. Your argument is if enough people think it's unjust it should become just. There are plenty of people that think marijuana should be illegal, simple as that.
You are mischaracterizing his argument. I don't agree with either of you however you're setting up a straw man whereas he is at least making a cogent argument. The act of smoking pot doesn't hurt anyone else any more than drinking does yet drinking isn't illegal. In fact, prohibition is considered to be one of the biggest mistakes this country ever made as it empowered the business of organized crime. By your argument, kryyst, the underground railroad during the era of slavery was a bad thing because it violated the laws. So, would you be have sided with the slave owners back when owning other people was legal? I would hope not and if so I have to seriously reevaluate my opinion of you.
As for Apple, oh well, if they want to quash anyone else from selling hardware that runs their OS that's fine. I'll just continue to not buy anything from them at all. Ever. And I'll continue to advise everyone I know to do the same.
It's actually irrelevant what I think is unjust or not. Your argument is if enough people think it's unjust it should become just. There are plenty of people that think marijuana should be illegal, simple as that. You are arguing on volume and basing it on what you believe is unjust. I could vehemently believe rape and murder should be legal. There was a time, where it was actually perfectly acceptable, spoils to the victor.
There are plenty of reasons to legalize marijuana, volume of people saying so isn't one of them. If volume of supporters was all that was needed you could just as easily legalize anything.
Actually, aside from the rights that are delegated to us in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, an unjust law can be overturned by a majority of the population. It's called Democracy. Rape and murder are both examples of crimes where a victim is involved and that victim's basic rights are being violated. There is nothing in the bill of rights that gives us or denies us the right to smoke marijuana, therefore it is a decision that, while it should be left up to the states, has been historically decided upon by the federal government, which we vote for. Tyrannical decisions made for us on the behalf of the government is exactly the reason for Thomas Jefferson's quote.
A good example of this is the Montgomery Bus Boycott. Rosa Parks put Thomas Jefferson's words to work for her when she sat in the front of the bus. The law was unjust so she broke it, purposely, and it led to a massive boycott and eventually a supreme court decision in favor of human rights, which in turn gave birth to a massive human rights campaign.
In the case of marijuana, it's not our constitutional rights that are being violated, but more of an example of a law that is not supported by populist belief. If we were to have a referendum on marijuana like they do in other countries, the law would be overturned. Therefore it is unjust for the government to disrespect both the Democratic process and the rights of individual states by criminalizing marijuana. The only reason why I used this as a comparison is because I believe that as more and more people "break the law" by smoking weed, it will become more difficult and more expensive for the government to control. Eventually they will be forced to relax the laws, or go into debt trying to save us from a substance that is in very high demand. I believe in the same way that Apple will be put under pressure to start licensing their software to OEMs. You may not agree with me, but that is a matter of opinion.
OS X runs on Mac's, PS3's software only works on PS3's, 360 on 360's etc... Amiga (forget the name) OS only ran on Amiga's etc...etc...etc... there's nothing illegal or even questionable about how Apple is licensing their OS. Regardless of the fact that you can hack it to run on other software and regardless of how many people start doing it, it in now way changes that. It also in no way creates a requirement for Apple to start supporting other hardware.
PS3, XBOX 360 and Amiga all run on proprietary RISC platforms. Apple was also a proprietary RISC platform up until 2005. Since then they have not only moved to an open architecture, they also used an open source kernel as the basis for their operating system. The comparison between these RISC platforms and Apple's move to Intel/BSD's open architecture makes this argument completely moot. If they wanted to keep their operating system proprietary, they should have stuck with a proprietary architecture.
But I welcomed Apple's transition to x86 architecture, just as I welcomed their adoption of the BSD kernel. I would also be thrilled to see Apple give Microsoft a bigger run for their money by licensing their operating system to OEMs. It will give Mac users more options, and they will benefit from the competition.
Ummm no, not the case at all. Apple has no impetus at all to allow hacked hardware to become allowed hardware in any future software releases. It never becomes more difficult for apple to regulate their software. They make software that runs on specific devices and they have very strict control over how those devices are made. Their job never gets harder regardless of how many hacked OS X installs get made or how many times the Palm Pre puts out a new iTunes connector.
Again it's not an unjust monopoly. Apple makes OS X for Mac's. They are under no impetus to change it.
It is an unjust monopoly, you may not see it that way, but there are many that do. I don't understand why there aren't more Mac fanboys out there that are encouraging Apple to license their OS to OEMs, due to the benefits that are available to Mac users because of.
Think about the evolution of Windows and the x86 architecture. Microsoft essentially created a hardware war that has been going on since the early eighties that has benefited all of us in many ways. It has led to faster hardware, that has more features and costs less to the consumer. The same architecture that improved so much under that competitive system, that Apple ultimately decided to adopt it. To this day, Microsoft's influence on the hardware industry is continuing to benefit consumers, even those that are using Linux or Macintosh.
It's also not fair that Apple has such a huge stronghold on the digital media market. They control the hardware, they control the software and people have spent millions and millions of dollars on music that they can't legally transfer to non-Apple devices.
You may not agree with me, but you would be naive to believe that these "hacked" devices won't eventually put more and more pressure on Apple. What Psystar is doing here is creating a medium for OEMs to compete with Apple on a level playing field. What happens when one of these OEMs manufactures a device that outperforms a Mac and costs less? Or what if some of these OEMs develop a solution for a niche group of end users that Apple ignored in the past? Once that ball gets rolling, it's going to be very difficult for Apple to stop it. If there sales decline because they failed to meet the demands of the market, they would be stupid not to start licensing to OEMs.
Same with the iPhone/iPod. With more and more handheld devices that have or are getting support for iTunes syncing, combined with Apple's completely illogical marriage to AT&T, and their decision to leave certain iPhone features out of the iPod touch, they may start seeing some real competition in the digital media market. When the iPod and the iPhone are no longer the standard for digital media, they would be foolish not to license their software to the other portable device manufacturers.
You are mischaracterizing his argument. I don't agree with either of you however you're setting up a straw man whereas he is at least making a cogent argument. The act of smoking pot doesn't hurt anyone else any more than drinking does yet drinking isn't illegal. In fact, prohibition is considered to be one of the biggest mistakes this country ever made as it empowered the business of organized crime. By your argument, kryyst, the underground railroad during the era of slavery was a bad thing because it violated the laws. So, would you be have sided with the slave owners back when owning other people was legal? I would hope not and if so I have to seriously reevaluate my opinion of you.
As for Apple, oh well, if they want to quash anyone else from selling hardware that runs their OS that's fine. I'll just continue to not buy anything from them at all. Ever. And I'll continue to advise everyone I know to do the same.
My point wasn't even to compare marijuana prohibition to Apple's monopolistic practices. I was simply using it as an example to show how public dissent against something we know and believe to be unjust can influence the people making the decisions. Kryyst obviously does not fall in the category of people like me who believe that Apple's business practices are unfair and detrimental to the consumer. That's neither here nor there. The point is, if there's enough people like me, Apple will eventually be forced to change the way they do business. It's a simple as that.
Thrax
🐌Austin, TX Icrontian
Comments
I apply the same principle to my weed habit. I smoke weed and encourage others who enjoy it to do the same, and the more mainstream it becomes the closer we get to legalization.
I don't think Apple cares much about market share. Their audience is completely different than Dell, HP, Gateway, etc. They know that when a consumer goes out to compare with others they loose most of the time. Apple customer goes to Apple directly. If you don't see the difference or the difference does not worth the price, you are not an Apple customer and that is totally fine with them.
Look at the following link
http://www.google.com/finance?q=AAPL
AAPL stock price $187, market cap $168B
Dell stock price $15, market cap $29.9B
They should be crazy to even think about changing their business model.
Your logic is flawed unless you think rape and murder laws are unjust. There is a clear difference as smoking marijuana is a victimless crime, where rape and murder are not. Also, in the case of Apple I'm not really talking about the law per say, but more about how they use the law to secure a monopoly on their hardware with their software. Steve Jobs has been known to say that he knows what's good for us more than we do, and I believe he's wrong. I think that iTunes and Mac OSX would be more beneficial to us if they were made available for licensing to OEMs. You can agree with me, or you can disagree with me, but the bottom line is that the more people who are using "hacked" devices to sync with iTunes and run OSX, the harder time Apple is going to have regulating the software, and eventually they'll be forced by the market (the people who Jobs thinks he knows what's best for) to change their licensing practices. It's about what's good for the consumer, and protecting the consumer from an unjust monopoly.
You're comparing Apples to Oranges as Dell is not in the operating system, digital media or smartphone business. In fact, given what we know about the scope of Apple's product line, their market cap should be in the realm of Microsoft, Dell and Blackberry combined. And of course they would be foolish to change their business model, it's very profitable for them, and stifles competition among would-be competitors in the OEMs. That would be like saying that Comcast should not have been deregulated because the monopoly they had on cable television and internet service was a good business model.
There are plenty of reasons to legalize marijuana, volume of people saying so isn't one of them. If volume of supporters was all that was needed you could just as easily legalize anything.
OS X runs on Mac's, PS3's software only works on PS3's, 360 on 360's etc... Amiga (forget the name) OS only ran on Amiga's etc...etc...etc... there's nothing illegal or even questionable about how Apple is licensing their OS. Regardless of the fact that you can hack it to run on other software and regardless of how many people start doing it, it in now way changes that. It also in no way creates a requirement for Apple to start supporting other hardware.
Ummm no, not the case at all. Apple has no impetus at all to allow hacked hardware to become allowed hardware in any future software releases. It never becomes more difficult for apple to regulate their software. They make software that runs on specific devices and they have very strict control over how those devices are made. Their job never gets harder regardless of how many hacked OS X installs get made or how many times the Palm Pre puts out a new iTunes connector.
Again it's not an unjust monopoly. Apple makes OS X for Mac's. They are under no impetus to change it.
You are mischaracterizing his argument. I don't agree with either of you however you're setting up a straw man whereas he is at least making a cogent argument. The act of smoking pot doesn't hurt anyone else any more than drinking does yet drinking isn't illegal. In fact, prohibition is considered to be one of the biggest mistakes this country ever made as it empowered the business of organized crime. By your argument, kryyst, the underground railroad during the era of slavery was a bad thing because it violated the laws. So, would you be have sided with the slave owners back when owning other people was legal? I would hope not and if so I have to seriously reevaluate my opinion of you.
As for Apple, oh well, if they want to quash anyone else from selling hardware that runs their OS that's fine. I'll just continue to not buy anything from them at all. Ever. And I'll continue to advise everyone I know to do the same.
Actually, aside from the rights that are delegated to us in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, an unjust law can be overturned by a majority of the population. It's called Democracy. Rape and murder are both examples of crimes where a victim is involved and that victim's basic rights are being violated. There is nothing in the bill of rights that gives us or denies us the right to smoke marijuana, therefore it is a decision that, while it should be left up to the states, has been historically decided upon by the federal government, which we vote for. Tyrannical decisions made for us on the behalf of the government is exactly the reason for Thomas Jefferson's quote.
A good example of this is the Montgomery Bus Boycott. Rosa Parks put Thomas Jefferson's words to work for her when she sat in the front of the bus. The law was unjust so she broke it, purposely, and it led to a massive boycott and eventually a supreme court decision in favor of human rights, which in turn gave birth to a massive human rights campaign.
In the case of marijuana, it's not our constitutional rights that are being violated, but more of an example of a law that is not supported by populist belief. If we were to have a referendum on marijuana like they do in other countries, the law would be overturned. Therefore it is unjust for the government to disrespect both the Democratic process and the rights of individual states by criminalizing marijuana. The only reason why I used this as a comparison is because I believe that as more and more people "break the law" by smoking weed, it will become more difficult and more expensive for the government to control. Eventually they will be forced to relax the laws, or go into debt trying to save us from a substance that is in very high demand. I believe in the same way that Apple will be put under pressure to start licensing their software to OEMs. You may not agree with me, but that is a matter of opinion.
PS3, XBOX 360 and Amiga all run on proprietary RISC platforms. Apple was also a proprietary RISC platform up until 2005. Since then they have not only moved to an open architecture, they also used an open source kernel as the basis for their operating system. The comparison between these RISC platforms and Apple's move to Intel/BSD's open architecture makes this argument completely moot. If they wanted to keep their operating system proprietary, they should have stuck with a proprietary architecture.
But I welcomed Apple's transition to x86 architecture, just as I welcomed their adoption of the BSD kernel. I would also be thrilled to see Apple give Microsoft a bigger run for their money by licensing their operating system to OEMs. It will give Mac users more options, and they will benefit from the competition.
It is an unjust monopoly, you may not see it that way, but there are many that do. I don't understand why there aren't more Mac fanboys out there that are encouraging Apple to license their OS to OEMs, due to the benefits that are available to Mac users because of.
Think about the evolution of Windows and the x86 architecture. Microsoft essentially created a hardware war that has been going on since the early eighties that has benefited all of us in many ways. It has led to faster hardware, that has more features and costs less to the consumer. The same architecture that improved so much under that competitive system, that Apple ultimately decided to adopt it. To this day, Microsoft's influence on the hardware industry is continuing to benefit consumers, even those that are using Linux or Macintosh.
It's also not fair that Apple has such a huge stronghold on the digital media market. They control the hardware, they control the software and people have spent millions and millions of dollars on music that they can't legally transfer to non-Apple devices.
You may not agree with me, but you would be naive to believe that these "hacked" devices won't eventually put more and more pressure on Apple. What Psystar is doing here is creating a medium for OEMs to compete with Apple on a level playing field. What happens when one of these OEMs manufactures a device that outperforms a Mac and costs less? Or what if some of these OEMs develop a solution for a niche group of end users that Apple ignored in the past? Once that ball gets rolling, it's going to be very difficult for Apple to stop it. If there sales decline because they failed to meet the demands of the market, they would be stupid not to start licensing to OEMs.
Same with the iPhone/iPod. With more and more handheld devices that have or are getting support for iTunes syncing, combined with Apple's completely illogical marriage to AT&T, and their decision to leave certain iPhone features out of the iPod touch, they may start seeing some real competition in the digital media market. When the iPod and the iPhone are no longer the standard for digital media, they would be foolish not to license their software to the other portable device manufacturers.
My point wasn't even to compare marijuana prohibition to Apple's monopolistic practices. I was simply using it as an example to show how public dissent against something we know and believe to be unjust can influence the people making the decisions. Kryyst obviously does not fall in the category of people like me who believe that Apple's business practices are unfair and detrimental to the consumer. That's neither here nor there. The point is, if there's enough people like me, Apple will eventually be forced to change the way they do business. It's a simple as that.