Your left with only 25% consumer desktops. Take out Apple's share. Take out the high end (Mac Pro killers). Take out the low end (Mac Mini killers) and take out the AIOs (iMac killers). My guess is that you are left with <20% of the market. I would also guess that the bulk of that <20% are not geeks. They are just ordinary folk (who don't read sites like this!) who spend around 700 bucks for a computer. They never upgrade anything. They just pass the computer down to someone else in the family ... and go buy a brand new 700 buck system.
Apple doesn't make a mid range, mid priced, expandable consumer tower. You want one, all your friends probably want one... hell even I might buy one! That doesn't mean that there is a vast horde of people clamouring for such a product.
Your 50-70% figure might have been right a few years ago. But if 20% is closer ..... then that market is heading for niche-dom.
Nevermind that 60% of all Windows computers are STILL towers or mini-towers. I mean that's just a statistical fact. Don't let those get in the way of thinking that PCs in general just MIGHT be a good indicator of what a Mac user might want also. But given we don't have a mid-range tower for sale by Apple, it's hard to PROVE it definitively. But if your logic is true, then Apple shouldn't bother fighting Psystar since they won't sell more than a few machines anyway since less than 20% would even want one anyway according to you.
Difference being apple did not take the credit and said they created Free BSD.
I guess I missed the part where Psystar claimed to have created OS X. Maybe you can point it out for me.
Oh please. This has nothing to do with either. Consumers absolutely have rights. Not among them, however, is the right to take for themselves what was not offered for sale.
It IS for sale at my local Best Buy in full retail form. You simply choose to ignore the facts as usual.
They do not. Such generalizations are what is patently absurd. Consumers have exactly what they buy, and as regards IP ownership, consumers have exactly the same rights.
No, they do not. When you buy something, a company has NO RIGHT to tell you how and what for you can use it. But with IP, it's different. These so-called Eulas bind the consumer into not being allowed to make their own decisions in how they use the software. In this case, it goes one step further. The Eula in question has NOTHING to do with "USE" but rather with what hardware you buy. You cannot argue that it's any of Apple's business what hardware I buy because their software has NOTHING TO DO with the hardware it runs on. If their hardware were special, it would not run on generic hardware, which it does quite easily.
You're not talking about backups at all throughout any of this, and it's not a lesser crime. It has substantially lesser economic consequences, however.
If literally used as a backup, it has NO economic consequences except possibly to those who would profit by you NOT having a backup of whatever software product. For example, a movie company will make money if your child breaks your copy of Willy Wonka. If you had a backup, you could still watch it. You paid for the right to watch it, of course. But that company will not give you an "at cost" copy to replace your broken media when it fails. They expect you to buy another copy at full retail price. That's the duplicity of these Eulas. They only sell you a "license" to watch something, yet that license only applies to that particular physical copy. That way the consumer loses both ways. And if he tries to back it up, he's guilty of breaking the DMCA, so clearly the consumer just plain LOSES these days all the way around. He has no more rights. He's at the mercy of greedy corporations. The days of 'fair use' for software (such as with VCRs) are long gone thanks to people like you that have ruined this country and the world for that matter.
Stop making this about the "rich" and the "citizens". It's moronic. The "rights of the citizens"
The only thing moronic around here is how you can dismiss any argument ever thrown your way as 'moronic' because you didn't write it. If you have to start calling names, you've lost the argument.
include the right to determine what you're willing to sell, and at what price you're willing to sell it. If you sell a car part at a garage sale, I imagine you'd be pretty upset if the buyer showed up the next day and took your whole car.
Your comparison makes no sense what-so-ever (should I be shocked?). Psystar didn't take OS X and it didn't take your car either. It purchased a copy of OS X. It didn't take any Macbooks or iMacs to go with the operating system it purchased. They provided their own hardware.
It doesn't have anything to do with the rich, or corporations, or anything else that might be rattling around in your head.
Yeah right. It has EVERYTHING to do with GREED and that pretty much is the definition of corporations these days, not that I would expect you capable of comprehending that. Apple simply does not want to compete whether it be with Opera on the iPhone or Dell clone hardware. They want the whole market for all OS X related products to themselves. Even the Apple store will carry 3rd party products only until such time that Apple releases their own competing product at which point they dump or ban such products for sale for their systems. They don't like competition. But in a free society, that's too darn bad, which is why Apple is the guilty party here whether you believe it or not. Apple is actively trying to impede my choice of hardware. Buying software from them doesn't give them the right to tell me what hardware to buy. It would be like Ford telling me what brand of gasoline I have to put in their car after I purchase. It's NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS.
A person, of any degree of wealth or incorporation, has a right to sell however much or little of what he owns. What's despicable is listening to repeated boneheaded arguments that it's a consumer rights issue to seize more than was sold.
There you go with the name calling again. It belittles your entire so-called 'argument'. Apple chose to sell OS X in its entirety at Best Buy in full retail form. There are no checks for Apple hardware. There is no indication it's an upgrade even. Apple can choose to SELL what it wants. Where they break the law is when they pretend they are allowed to CONTROL what hardware you are allowed to buy. Apparently installing their OS on a Fujitsu drive is OK if Apple sells you the drive inside a computer they made, but if you install it on a Fujitsu drive in a computer you legally purchased, that's 'not allowed' because Apple missed out on selling it to you. How ANYONE can be so blind as to not see how that is anti-competitive behavior is simply beyond me. You must go around with blinders on.
Apparently not to you. The market rules in this country are that the owner may choose to sell what he pleases to whom he pleases. The buyer may accept the terms or may elect not to buy.
He sold me the package containing the operating system. He has no right to tell me what I can do with it after I bought it. You clearly disagree, but then as I said, you support Dicator/Communist behavior too so be what you are, but don't tell me how to think, thank you very much.
The product is offered at a price, cognizant of its limitations. That price is lower than it would be without those restrictions. Ignoring the restrictions while enjoying the benefit of the lower price is not fair competition economically, it's not legal contractually, and it's not authorized by copyright.
Copyright has NOTHING to do with it since I'm not "copying" it! Get your facts straight. Installing something is not considered copying by law. The ONLY 'violation' is the Eula which is null and void by higher law which says I have a right to privacy in my own home. Want to prove I'm wrong? Get a court to rule on it because so far it has not been ruled on except by YOU and given your illogical arguments and name calling, I'd say your judgment is suspect at best.
Their ownership of their computer operating system.
They're not dictating what you can do with what you purchase. They're dictating what you can do with what you don't own and they're allowing you to use.
And they have NO RIGHT to do that in a free society protected by the right to privacy as provided by the Constitution of the United States. Maybe you live in Cuba, but I do not. Like I said, let a court (preferably the Supreme one) rule on the case if you don't like it. Your word is meaningless.
No. They make money by encouraging and materially contributing to copyright infringement.
Nope. You made that up. There's no copying involved.
They make money solely by piggybacking off Apple's expenditures and investments in the
So do mechanics providing service to cars. That doesn't make it unethical or illegal! Psystar is selling computer hardware made by someone other than Apple. They are purchasing a legal copy of OS X and reselling it with the computer. There is nothing illegal going on except in your head and the head of the Apple lawyer who thinks he has the right to tell consumers what hardware they can purchase.
development and marketing of OS X--without contributing anything back.
They're contributing new OS X users that can buy other Apple software. Apparently, you cannot see that either. Don't tell me that's not significant when Microsoft makes all their money that way and is the largest most profitable software company on the planet.
They take advantage of a price offered to specific customers on a conditional basis in order to keep their costs down.
Bologna. They try to protect a virtual monopoly on hardware for their software product by artificially "forbidding" you to buy hardware from another company in order to use their software. Not only are the markets unrelated, but that is blatant anti-competitive behavior and is in itself illegal in a free market system. Apple is knowingly behaving in anti-competitive behavior in order to monopolize all the hardware profits for their software operating system. That is easily proven. They just did it again by forbidding a competing browser to be installed on the iPhone and iPod Touch system. They have no rights to tell you what software you can put on their hardware! This is going to bite them in the butt sooner or later.
All of that is stealing in its myriad forms, from unjust enrichment to copyright infringement. Commission of larceny is not the definition of stealing.
You have a VERY strange definition of "stealing". Maybe you should try looking the word up in the dictionary before you type it because there is no "stealing" happening here, only the breach of an illegal Eula agreement.
You haven't bought anything legally if you ignore its terms. If I sell you a piece of land only if you agree not to build higher than two stories, and you ignore that, you will be liable.
But that has nothing do with the land owner. That is a local ordinance. The free market economy is the ordinance here and Apple has no right to dictate to ANYONE what hardware they can and cannot buy. It would be like Ford telling me I can't park their car in a house made by Company X because they have a money making deal with company Y. Ford has no right to tell me how fast I can drive their car either. It's NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS. It might be the government's business, but it's not the government here telling me I have to buy Apple hardware if I buy OS X.
If I offer a product for teachers only, and you buy but aren't a teacher, you will be liable. This is no different.
The problem here is that what you are actually suggesting is only selling a product to CERTAIN teachers, not others. That is quite illegal.
Then please, for the love of Aisha, talk like an adult.
There you go with the insults again. Apparently, you should take your own advice. I mean it's quite obvious what you represent. I understand you are for big corporations and corporate greed and greed in general. But stop pretending that somehow validates your arguments or decides a court case that hasn't gone to court.
Who said anything about theft?
You did above.
Buying the software isn't the issue. The issue is people acting like they've bought more than they have.
Yes, I bought a limited version of OS X that only installs on Apple hardware. That's why it installs on anyone's hardware. It has a Eula? The fact I cannot read the Eula without opening the box invalidates it since they will not take back open software where I bought it. My loss? No. It was Apple's loss when they decided to offer hardware I have no interest in for prices I will not consider.
If OS X is undervalued, then let them sell it for a higher price. But that gives them NO RIGHT to tell me what hardware I'm allowed to purchase. Maybe that would fly in Russia, but not here.
