Psystar to countersue Apple for antitrust violations

[macsmurf]

I find that part funny too, matticus008's profile says he's a lawyer, he's got more legal knowledge than I could ever have (without going to law school) and what does macsmurf bring to the fight? Wikipedia? Come on, macsmurf, at least find some better sources. I know Harvard Law has a lot of info online, try looking there instead of wikipedia. Anyone can change wikipedia, and I don't think many lawyers spend their time making sure the info there is accurate.

It's not a fight. At least, I don't look at it that way. I'm just trying to understand why Psystar does not have a case, and the only way to do that is to examine the arguments. I don't claim to have any knowledge of the law, in fact, quite the opposite, but for me to just accept the argument at face value would defeat my purpose.

When it comes to using wikipedia as an authoritative source, that won't win you any court cases, but to state that Wikipedia is simply wrong, because it's wikipedia would again defeat my purpose. I'm not in the business of winning Psystar's case for them. That would clearly be absurd.

 

[macsmurf]

Read the article in its entirety. You will see that tying is illegal only when it can be shown that the tying is an exercise of market power and when the products are not naturally related. The four-part test is explained. Note also that the selling of a patented or copyrighted product is not evidence of market power.

Could you be a bit more specific? As I read the article, there is no mentioning of tying being illegal only when the products are not naturally related. Also, as I quoted before, the article specifically states how the supreme court defines economic power with regards to tying.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Could you be a bit more specific? As I read the article, there is no mentioning of tying being illegal only when the products are not naturally related. Also, as I quoted before, the article specifially states how the supreme court defines economic power with regards to tying.

I don't know how much more specific I can be, except to illustrate by example. If tying was illegal by definition, then for instance, a car maker could not sell a car including tires. OTOH, if the car maker had sufficient market power to disadvantage one maker of tires over another, and uses that power, then they might be subject to the laws prohibiting unfair competition through tying.

 

[macsmurf]

I don't know how much more specific I can be, except to illustrate by example. If tying was illegal by definition, then for instance, a car maker could not sell a car including tires. OTOH, if the car maker had sufficient market power to disadvantage one maker of tires over another, and uses that power, then they might be subject to the laws prohibiting unfair competition through tying.

But I have never said that tying is illegal by definition. I think that there is no doubt that Apple is using OS X as a way to compete with other hardware manufacturers, and I also think that they do that by artificially tying one product to another.

That being said, the question is whether that tying practice is illegal, and we may get an answer from this court case, although I think it more likely that Psystar will run out of money before that. The issue is not, whether Apple can sell Apple hardware with OS X included. I think that there's no reason why they shouldn't be able to do that legally, and Psystar aren't arguing that point. What Psystar is saying is that when Apple sell the standalone version of OS X, they require you to agree to not install it on anything other than Apple hardware, and that restriction is clearly artificial.

So, in order to prove their case the two major issues are whether OS X and Apple hardware are distinct products and whether Apple have sufficient market power to be liable.

With regards to the latter, the article states that the supreme court have traditionally chosen a very broad definition, including just about any departure from perfect competition, so unless that is wrong, this point should be a no-brainer. That leaves the former, which I also think can be proven fairly easily.

Nevertheless, all experts interviewed say that Psystar are in big trouble here, so clearly I'm missing something.

Of course, even if Psystar were to win, Apple have numerous outs here, so it would be a hollow victory.

 

[IJ Reilly]

If you look at it that way, then everything is "artificial." If you wrote a book and elected to retain and protect your copyright, then that's "artificial" -- after all, you could just allow anyone to print it. It's in the very nature of intellectual property that the owner gets to decide how they want to use their property. Apple has elected to sell Macintosh computers, which they define as the hardware they manufacture plus the operating system they authored. Nobody has the right to insist that Apple exercise their intellectual property rights in an arbitrarily different way unless it can be demonstrated that Apple has violated antitrust laws -- which they have not done de facto by defining the Macintosh as the combination of hardware plus operating system.

Psystar's argument is fundamentally flawed.

 

[macsmurf]

If you look at it that way, then everything is "artificial." If you wrote a book and elected to retain and protect your copyright, then that's "artificial" -- after all, you could just allow anyone to print it.

That is not tying, though. Nobody is saying that Apple should not have copyright over the parts of OS X they own.

It's in the very nature of intellectual property that the owner gets to decide how they want to use their property. Apple has elected to sell Macintosh computers, which they define as the hardware they manufacture plus the operating system they authored. Nobody has the right to insist that Apple exercise their intellectual property rights in an arbitrarily different way unless it can be demonstrated that Apple has violated antitrust laws -- which they have not done de facto by defining the Macintosh as the combination of hardware plus operating system.

Of course not. Look, I'm a computer science student, which means that hopefully I should know a bit about operating systems and computers in general and in reality, the line between hardware and software is rather blurry, but if you look at the EULA for OS X, there is a clear definition of what constitutes OS X and what does not, and if Apple can be made responsible for that definition, then Psystar should be able to prove that OS X and Apple hardware are separate. The reason they should be able to prove this is that Apple themselves defines the difference. You can sell your Apple hardware without transfering your license to OS X. You can run another OS on your Apple hardware without owning an OS X license. You can transfer your OS X license without having to sell your Apple hardware (when it comes to the standalone version). In short, they seem to be separate products.

Of course, Psystar aren't accepting the OS X EULA in its entirety. Specifically, they have a problem with the clause stating that OS X must be run on Apple-labeled hardware. If it is not legally possible to invalidate part of the EULA and using other parts of it as the basis for your argument, then Psystar have a big problem.

 

[Wondercow]

But I have never said that tying is illegal by definition. I think that there is no doubt that Apple is using OS X as a way to compete with other hardware manufacturers, and I also think that they do that by artificially tying one product to another.

How is it artificially tied? Apple's business model from the day the Mac came out was not to allow others to use the OS. They had a brief stint of licensing, but even that wasn't open to all. They were very selective of whom was approved as a licensee and the OS was still not allowed to run on generic hardware: the hardware requirements for licensees were strict. Licensing lasted a few years and Apple went back to their tried-and-true method of Mac OS on Apple hardware.

OT, did my explanation on "Apple do" or "Apple does" help? Clear as mud, right

 

[gnasher729]

Er, what? I'm using strange arguments? Look, I'm saying that if promotional tying work the way matticus008 says it does, then there is no such thing as unlawful tying, because any unlawful tying case you can show me can become promotional tying by tweaking the pricing scheme; It's still tying and the consumer hasn't really gained anything by the pricing scheme being changed, but somehow it is now legal. Therefore, I question matticus008's assertion that OS X + Apple labeled hardware is, at most, promotional tying.

Consider this: A company sell product A, which is desirable and product Z, which is not. In order to buy a measure of product A, you must buy five times that measure of product Z. Furthermore, let's say that all the other conditions are in place to make this unlawful tying.

Now, let's say the company lowers the price of product A but raises the price of product Z accordingly. Nothing have changed for the customer (they still pay the same overall price), but suddenly it is said to be promotional tying, which is said to be legal.

It seems extremly unlikely that there would be such an enormous loophole in the US antitrust law.

Here we go again: You say "It's still tying and the consumer hasn't really gained anything ". This is about anti-trust and the consumer doesn't come into it at all. Apple is accused of anti-competitive behaviour, this has nothing to do with consumers, it has to do with other companies that might try to compete with Apple. You say you are studying computer sciences; you should know then to stay on topic and concentrate on the matter at hand. And court cases are not solved by looking at theoretical possibilities; you look at the actual case.

In this case: If people only want to buy MacOS X, and they don't want to buy any Macintosh computers at all, how do you suggest that Apple is selling any computers other than their cheapest model? The fact that they sell MacPros for $3000 when customers could get MacOS X together with a MacMini destroys the whole illegal tying argument.

But the main problem that you miss completely is this: Apple doesn't have any monopoly, Psystar's absurd arguments notwithstanding. And the fact is that the same thing can be illegal when you have a monopoly, and perfectly legal when you don't. The "illegal tying" isn't illegal because the customer would be forced to by Z if they want A, it is illegal because competitors for product Z cannot sell their products.

So if Microsoft started making Microsoft computers, and refused to license Windows to Dell, HP and everyone else, then Dell couldn't sell computers to people wanting Windows anymore. That would be an enormous problem for Dell, since 95 percent of customers want Windows. Apple refusing to license MacOS X is not a problem, because MacOS X only has 5 percent of the market. Psystar can easily sell its computers to those >95% of the market that want Windows or Linux.

You absolutely have to take this into account, or you are going off in the completely wrong direction. The whole situation counts: If Microsoft and Apple do the same thing (not licensing their OS to other computer manufacturers), then one is allowed to do it and one is not. The reason for the difference is that Microsoft would destroy their competitors by doing this, and Apple wouldn't (Ok, Apple will destroy Psystar, but only because Psystar makes rubbish computers that they cannot sell without an unlicensed copy of MacOS X).

 

[macsmurf]

How is it artificially tied?

There is no technical reason for it. OS X can clearly run on non Apple-labeled hardware without modification (for some definition of modification). To make it fun, the definition of an operating system is also blurry. For example, in order to make it run properly, you need to either remove or disable a driver (or kernel extension in Apple terms), so depending on your POV, that may or may not constitute a modification.

OT, did my explanation on "Apple do" or "Apple does" help? Clear as mud, right

Heh, I read it and understood it, It didn't help much, but I do appreciate the effort. One trick for us foreigners is to substitute the noun in question with he, she, it, or they. An example: "Apple has elected to sell Macintosh computers, which they define as the hardware they manufacture plus the operating system they authored." Clearly, the author substitutes Apple with "they" later on in the sentence, but in the first part he "substitutes" with "it", which I'm sure is correct, but it doesn't make a lot of sense.

So in short, I'm confused, but since I'm probably making too many grammatical errors to count anyway, I elected to make my peace with it for the time being.

 

[gnasher729]

Nevertheless, all experts interviewed say that Psystar are in big trouble here, so clearly I'm missing something.

A hint: Read their 54 page response, go to the bit where they "proof" that "computers capable of running MacOS X" is a separate market in which Apple has a monopoly, and the hard part, find exactly which part of their argument it is where they are conning the audience.

 

[gnasher729]

There is no technical reason for it.

Again, completely irrelevant. You have to keep the irrelevant bits out. Anti-trust and anti-competitive behaviour is about preventing competitors from competing. Whether Apple has a technical reason to do something or not does not matter one bit.

 

[TiggsPanther]

I think that there is no doubt that Apple is using OS X as a way to compete with other hardware manufacturers, and I also think that they do that by artificially tying one product to another.

Does this automatically make it a bad thing? Especially if that control is why their systems actually work so well?

Yes, it's 'by design'. Yes it is taking what is technically a PC and only allowing a certain subset of PC to run the Mac OS. But when you're a company designing a complete system and being able to test new revisions on every possible viable hardware combination makes a certain amount of sense to me. They can narrow down certain hardware problems by avoiding some combinations in their products. They can reproduce bugs by knowing full well that they can test every permutation in which it's likely to occur.

My main problems I used to have with Windows were the wide variety of hardware permutations being that some things simply clashed. So I can't help but worry when people seem to be vocally advocating exactly that for the OS X platform.

That and I see Psystar being nothing more than a group that want to make computers, but want to be able to also do their take on the "in" computer of the moment, to set themselves apart from the competition. And then they accuse Apple of being the ones not wanting to fight on a level playing field.

 

[macsmurf]

Here we go again: You say "It's still tying and the consumer hasn't really gained anything ". This is about anti-trust and the consumer doesn't come into it at all. Apple is accused of anti-competitive behaviour, this has nothing to do with consumers, it has to do with other companies that might try to compete with Apple. You say you are studying computer sciences; you should know then to stay on topic and concentrate on the matter at hand. And court cases are not solved by looking at theoretical possibilities; you look at the actual case.

Well, law is obviously not my field, which makes it difficult to stay on topic. In fact, in computer science you would almost always want to generalize the actual case in order to say something about a set of related problems, for some definition of relation.

In this case: If people only want to buy MacOS X, and they don't want to buy any Macintosh computers at all, how do you suggest that Apple is selling any computers other than their cheapest model? The fact that they sell MacPros for $3000 when customers could get MacOS X together with a MacMini destroys the whole illegal tying argument.

You can even get OS X without buying a Mac, so I see your point. Well, in order to compete, Apple would have to compete on equal terms with other manufacturers. I actually think that the Mac Pro is a very good computer and not too expensive for what is does, and if I was in the market for an 8-core Xeon based computer, I would definitely consider it. Most people don't need that much computer power, though.

But the main problem that you miss completely is this: Apple doesn't have any monopoly, Psystar's absurd arguments notwithstanding. And the fact is that the same thing can be illegal when you have a monopoly, and perfectly legal when you don't.

True, but a monopoly is not needed for tying to be illegal. I've adressed this point numerous times.

The "illegal tying" isn't illegal because the customer would be forced to by Z if they want A, it is illegal because competitors for product Z cannot sell their products.

True, but again that's not because the tying company has a monopoly.

 

[IJ Reilly]

That is not tying, though. Nobody is saying that Apple should not have copyright over the parts of OS X they own.

You're missing the point. Apple's position is that they sell Macintosh computers, which by their definition, is the hardware plus the OS. This is this how they choose to do business, and they have every right to do so, because they own the applicable patents, copyrights and trademarks.

Of course not. Look, I'm a computer science student, which means that hopefully I should know a bit about operating systems and computers in general and in reality, the line between hardware and software is rather blurry, but if you look at the EULA for OS X, there is a clear definition of what constitutes OS X and what does not, and if Apple can be made responsible for that definition, then Psystar should be able to prove that OS X and Apple hardware are separate. The reason they should be able to prove this is that Apple themselves defines the difference. You can sell your Apple hardware without transfering your license to OS X. You can run another OS on your Apple hardware without owning an OS X license. You can transfer your OS X license without having to sell your Apple hardware (when it comes to the standalone version). In short, they seem to be separate products.

Of course, Psystar aren't accepting the OS X EULA in its entirety. Specifically, they have a problem with the clause stating that OS X must be run on Apple-labeled hardware. If it is not legally possible to invalidate part of the EULA and using other parts of it as the basis for your argument, then Psystar have a big problem.

All you are really saying here is that if it's technically feasible for Psystar to build hardware to run OSX, and commercially possible for them to buy a copy of OSX which will install on their hardware, then Apple's terms and conditions of use are of no force and effect. Why in the world would this be true? The "problem" Psystar has with the EULA is that it doesn't allow them to trade on Apple's intellectual property and become a competitor selling Apple's product. The only way the EULA can be invalidated is if Psystar can prove its claim that OSX and Apple hardware are illegally tied, which requires a finding that Apple has market power over a specific market. The market they've created for this exercise is a whole cloth invention. They're arguing in effect that Apple has monopoly control over a product they have every right to manufacture exclusively if they so choose.

 

[macsmurf]

A hint: Read their 54 page response, go to the bit where they "proof" that "computers capable of running MacOS X" is a separate market in which Apple has a monopoly, and the hard part, find exactly which part of their argument it is where they are conning the audience.

I agree completely that their monopoly argument seems far-fetched, but I see the tying argument and the monopoly argument as separate.

 

[IJ Reilly]

I agree completely that their monopoly argument seems far-fetched, but I see the tying argument and the monopoly argument as separate.

No, as I have said several times already, they are inextricably linked. Tying is an extremely common practice, and perfectly legal, outside of a situation where an abuse of market power is found to exist.

 

[macsmurf]

You're missing the point. Apple's position is that they sell Macintosh computers, which by their definition, is the hardware plus the OS. This is this how they choose to do business, and they have every right to do so, because they own the applicable patents, copyrights and trademarks.

That is not the definition used in the OS X EULA.

All you are really saying here is that if it's technically feasible for Psystar to build hardware to run OSX, and commercially possible for them to buy a copy of OSX which will install on their hardware, then Apple's terms and conditions of use are of no force and effect. Why in the world would this be true? The "problem" Psystar has with the EULA is that it doesn't allow them to trade on Apple's intellectual property and become a competitor selling Apple's product. The only way the EULA can be invalidated is if Psystar can prove its claim that OSX and Apple hardware are illegally tied, which requires a finding that Apple has market power over a specific market. The market they've created for this exercise is a whole cloth invention. They're arguing in effect that Apple has monopoly control over a product they have every right to manufacture exclusively if they so choose.

What you're saying is that for Psystar to prove unlawful tying they need to prove:

1) That their definition of the market in question is sound.

2) That Apple has a monopoly in this market.

I don't believe that to be the case.

 

[macsmurf]

No, as I have said several times already, they are inextricably linked. Tying is an extremely common practice, and perfectly legal, outside of a situation where an abuse of market power is found to exist.

Again, according to wikipedia market power is extremely easy to prove and does not require you to prove that a monopoly situation exist. If wikipedia is wrong, then by all means feel free to provide me with a better reference. I have been unable to find one.

 

[CWallace]

There is no technical reason for it. OS X can clearly run on non Apple-labeled hardware without modification (for some definition of modification).

But that has been true of every Apple operating system going back to the original Apple I software, which was cloned in 2003 for $200 in hardware.

The move to Intel hardware is not what made cloning the Macintosh and its operating system possible.

What it did was make it cost-effective.

Building a Motorola 68000-series or PowerPC-based PC cost darn near about as much as buying the actual Apple product and not many hobbyists had the technical knowledge and skills to do it compared to those who cut their teeth on nearly three decades of easily-available Wintel hardware.

But it was possible. The Apple II was cloned by a slew of companies around the world, both with and without Apple's blessing. Nutek created a kludged-clone of the Mac IIvx using the 68030 CPU and a proprietary OS that emulated enough code to run most applications some of the time. And there were hardware-based emulators (using actual or copied Mac ROMs) to run System and applications on Atari ST's and Amigas faster then the actual Macs available at the time thanks to the more robust hardware.

 

[IJ Reilly]

That is not the definition used in the OS X EULA.

This does not matter. If you read Apple's complaint, you will see how much effort they go to in order to demonstrate that the Macintosh is and always has been a combination of hardware and software. Which, of course, is something every Mac owner already knows. Or so I thought.

What you're saying is that for Psystar to prove unlawful tying they need to prove:

1) That their definition of the market in question is sound.

2) That Apple has a monopoly in this market.

I don't believe that to be the case.

Then this is why you are on the wrong track and seem to be determined to stay there. I have already mentioned examples of legal tying, so you should be getting this point already.

And (3) they also need to demonstrate that Apple has abused their market power, because it's not illegal to have market power, only to abuse it.

 

[macsmurf]

But that has been true of every Apple operating system going back to the original Apple I software, which was cloned in 2003 for $200 in hardware.

The move to Intel hardware is not what made cloning the Macintosh and its operating system possible.

What it did was make it cost-effective.

I agree.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Again, according to wikipedia market power is extremely easy to prove and does not require you to prove that a monopoly situation exist. If wikipedia is wrong, then by all means feel free to provide me with a better reference. I have been unable to find one.

No, it is extremely difficult to prove illegal tying, and that information can be found in the article too.

And again I implore you to consider some of the other examples of perfectly legal tying that surround you every day, some of which have already been mentioned, and consider why none of them are challenged as antitrust violations.

 

[macsmurf]

This does not matter. If you read Apple's complaint, you will see how much effort they go to in order to demonstrate that the Macintosh is and always has been a combination of hardware and software. Which, of course, is something every Mac owner already knows. Or so I thought.

Well, if the EULA is irrelevant, then obviously Psystar can't use it to make any points. In that case, I would think it would be extremely difficult to prove that the hardware and software is separate, because no such iron-clad definition exist, technical or otherwise. On the other hand, Microsoft was unable to prove that Internet Explorer was part of the OS, but that may not be relevant in this case.

 

[macsmurf]

No, it is extremely difficult to prove illegal tying, and that information can be found in the article too.

And again I implore to consider some of the other examples of perfectly legal tying that surround you every day, some of which have already been mentioned, and consider why none of them are challenged as antitrust violations.

Well, I would argue that in many cases there is no compelling economic reason to do so, and most companies fear going up against companies with deep pockets, and for good reason. To be honest, I don't understand Psystar's rationale here. There seem to be no way of winning, regardless of the soundness of their case.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

All Mobile OS's are limited to the manufacturer in question with the exception right now of Android and Windows CE.

RIM's OS can only go on RIM devices, Nokia's Symbian on Nok only phones and so on and so forth.

What's your point? OS X is NOT a mobile or an embedded OS. It's available in full retail form at large retail stores like Best Buy. Contrary to "upgrade" claims, the OS is not at all limited nor does it check for OS X to have been installed previously. It can in fact install just fine on a used PowerMac that has or had either OS 9 or Linux installed on it and OS X long since missing. It will in fact run fine on such a machine that has had its CPU replaced by non-Apple brand CPUs, such as those by Newer Technology.

For example, my PowerMac has a non-Apple graphics card, non-Apple CPU, non-Apple ram, non-Apple USB 2.0 hardware, non-Apple hard drives, non-Apple DVD-RW drive, non-Apple keyboard, non-Apple mouse, non-Apple speakers, non-Apple printer, non-Apple web-cam, non-Apple wireless networking and non-Apple firewire and USB hubs. The question is at WHAT POINT does Apple think its Operating System is so special that it cannot run on non-Apple hardware? My computers is a PPC Mac. Intel Macs need not have ANY Apple hardware and yet can and will run OS X 100% reliably if compatible hardware is chosen. This proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that in 2008, there is absolutely NOTHING "special" about Apple hardware in regards to running OS X. Thus, all arguments that Apple's hardware is special or somehow better than hardware put together by someone like Dell or even Psystar are rendered moot and void. The ONLY thing keeping OS X from running on such hardware is a 'kill switch' put in the OS by Apple that keeps it from running on competing hardware. Thus, Apple is fully admitting that they are being non-competitive in the hardware arena by using their OS as leverage to force you to buy THEIR generic Intel hardware IF you want to run OS X. Personally, I don't care who makes my hardware, be it Apple or someone else so long as it's quality, meets my needs and is offered at a competitive price.

The problem for me and others like me, let alone the potential BILLIONS of switchers out there is that Apple fails at least one, if not two of the above conditions on any given Mac they sell. Namely, their hardware either does not meet my needs (this includes ALL Macs except the Mac Pro) or it is not offered at a competitive price for my needs (in this case, the Mac Pro costs a bare minimum of $2300 and that's without the GPU I need, so figure a bare minimum of $2500). And that's where Apple gets into trouble.

One CAN successfully offer an argument that Apple's EXACT hardware IS competitive IF you compare every last feature of that hardware and assume you NEED that hardware. The problem is you do NOT *NEED* workstation class XEON processors to run most applications or games on the Mac. But you *DO* **NEED** a certain level GPU in order to run games and certain 3D apps on the Mac and thus all iMacs and the Mac Mini and ALL laptops FAIL to meet the NEEDS of a consumer that might happen to want to play a current Mac game or expect it to be able to run a game released later this year or some time next year as ALL those Macs are obsolete before you even buy them. You simply cannot expect any Mac short of a $2200 custom configured iMac or a MacPro with 8800GT GPU to run modern games, be it in OS X or via Boot Camp with Windows.

And THAT is the problem some of us have with Apple. I'm not a gamer, mind you. I bought a PC last November for $800 that can run virtually any current game and will run most just fine for the next year, maybe even two at lower level settings. What I wanted to buy was a Mac that I could use for running secure Mac applications and as a reliable iTunes server for my whole house audio system AND be able to play the occasional current game (e.g. I play a lot of Test Drive Unlimited with my G28 racing wheel). The problem in November was even the Mac Pro was out-of-date so I ended up buying upgrade hardware for my aging PowerMac (you don't NEED 3.0GHz Xeons to run 95% of Mac applications or anything near that level) and a PC running Windows XP to run what amounts to mostly games and my Pinball gaming development platform which I license games from to an arcade manufacturer. Apple didn't get a new computer sale because they didn't offer me hardware that I needed.

So, once again, the problem with comparing current Macs to say hardware from Dell (ignoring the operating system argument for just a moment) is that Apple has large gaping holes in its platform relative to those systems and its NOT propriety equipment we're talking about. The only low-end Mac is the Mac-Mini which has no usable 3D GPUs in it (neither does the MacBook, which is Apple's #1 hardware seller) so any potential gaming companies looking to start producing games for the Mac platform has to think twice because the only viable sales for its products are the tiny percentage of Mac users that own MacPros or the new top-of-the-line iMac. The rest of the Mac hardware platform is simply not suitable to gaming. The other iMacs and MBP can run yesterday's games and SOME of today's games with the settings turned way down, but are cannot be said to be even 'adequate' hardware for gaming. In point of fact, even the MacPro (at nearly $3000 with default CPU settings and an 8800GT installed) pales to the hardware out there (using SLI and similar technologies) that you can get for both Windows and Linux operating systems at half the price. Apple chooses not to support any of it in its own OS, so you have to get the top available single GPU cards to even hope to run a game (even under Boot Camp using a competing OS).

The point is the MacPro is NOT a gaming platform. It's a professional level workstation class computer that just happens to be the only real hardware (well that and that custom $2200+ iMac) that CAN run most modern games in the entire Apple hardware lineup! I would imagine even a fanboy would have to admit at least that much. He/she would much rather avoid that subject and point you to an XBox 360 instead, declaring PC gaming 'dead' or something of that sort despite the fact certain gaming genres are not suitable for such platforms and are alive and well in the Windows arena. The same Mac users will hail the 'return' of someone like Electronic Arts, but they don't seem to care a whit that almost no Mac hardware will run those games at acceptable frame rates and all the while Apple seems to not care one whit whether they do or not as Steve Jobs does not care about gaming.

So while it cannot be argued that Apple's current hardware lineup is anywhere near sufficient to cover all uses of Apple's operating system and thus there is a dire need for at least one if not two or three more computers in their arsenal to complete their lineup (i.e. a mid-range expandable and perhaps even a low-range expandable or at least a better equipped mini-machine and/or low-end laptops of which there are NO Apple equivalents to what is common and even prevalent Windows hardware). If Apple is not interested in manufacturing such equipment to fill those gaping holes in their lineup, the question becomes why don't they license someone else like Dell to fill those gaps? They do not have to relinquish all control of OS X to make one to three new models available to a new market that Apple does not cater to, but licensing such a market would inevitably gain substantial NEW market share for Apple. You cannot compare Apple of today with all its iPod/iPhone cachet to the Apple in the mid-90's that was already on a downward spiral and gave away too much control of what type of 'clones' could be offered.

I'm afraid it is BECAUSE Apple stubbornly refuses to cater to the gaping holes in its lineup that a company like Pystar can exist in the first place. Pystar has had no substantial advertising and it has no substantial name-sake in the Mac arena. Thus, by all accounts the fact it was even able to survive at all selling Mac clones to a market with such small market awareness and little to no Windows market notice (who probably do not read Mac forums to know they even exist except through word-of-mouth from Mac fans telling their Windows friends about them) indicates to me that Psystar is just the tip of the iceberg for potential sales to such markets. I argue if Apple were smart it would take the hint from all this and simply make limited licensing available to cover those models it does not apparently 'like' for which probably amounts to 'aesthetic' reasons but which has no bearing on a typical Windows user who couldn't care less if their PC is 'stylish' or not. It should also open up more of OS X to GPU manufacturers and the markets they largely serve (i.e. PC gaming) so that OS X is a more capable operating system capable of effectively dealing with Windows on a one-to-one feature basis. Part of OS X is open-source (its BSD underpinnings). It could in fact get more open-source development on the graphics end for such things as improved OpenGL and the like instead of keeping everything so secretive. A USB based graphics company had to reverse engineer their product to even get it to work with the Mac operating system at all, whereas it has far greater speed and capability to run under Windows.

In short, by being overly secretive and not filling all the gaps in the general computing market for its operating system, Apple has created the "Perfect Storm" to bring about this Psystar business in the first place. By not listening to users that have long been begging Apple for a mid-range expandable mini-tower or at least a Mac-Mini or Macbook with a DECENT GPU and with the MacPro being out of the reach of most such users who simply want ACCEPTABLE levels of performance from their market segment price range (again, you can get an $800-1200 PC that can run almost all current 3D games while Apple requires $2200+ for what amounts to a level or two LESS gaming capability with outdated GPUs), they have quite simply brought this situation on themselves. Whether or not you WANT to see 'clones' is beside the point in that regard. Some of us simply want to see those holes plugged by SOMEONE, be it Apple or someone else. We do not WANT to have to use Windows to fill those gaps. Some of us wish we never had to use Windows ever again, but by pushing us away, that is exactly the message Apple is trying to send us, it seems. Fill the gaps, Apple and companies like Psystar wouldn't exist in the first place.

Given Apple's refusal to listen to its customers, but instead persistence to Steve's 'vision' alone, I find myself rooting for Pystar regardless of what chances they might have or not. I do not root for them because I *LIKE* Psystar or that I think them anything but opportunists looking to make a fast buck, but rather I'm tired of waiting for Apple to offer hardware to meet my needs and I'm REALLY tired of Apple fanboys telling me to go buy a Windows PC when I'd rather run OS X. The two are simply NOT the same thing no matter how much they'd like to pretend they are. OS X is an operating system, not a platform. It does not matter what hardware its running on. It's STILL the SAME operating system. Whether created for a specific hardware platform or not, the fact is today it's independent of that platform except through artificial means. It CANNOT be compared to embedded or mobile operating systems. Whether Apple can or should have the right to limit who can use it and for what purpose is beside the point to a customer like myself, who simply wants MODERN hardware with modern GPUs for REASONABLE prices to run it on.

If Apple refuses to fill that market segment, it should consider it only inevitable that someone would try to fill it for them. But seeing the same tired fanboy type arguments again and again instead of solutions to a market gap or even admitting one exists is the reason I feel a counter-voice needs to continue to be heard even if I'm sick of the subject. We users who want mid-range expandables *DO* exist, despite what fanboys would want people to believe and we are the tip of the iceberg because we already came to the Mac. The literally BILLIONS of potential switchers out there aren't speaking up because they have no reason to switch when comparable hardware to buy isn't being offered. Again, many fanboy types are happy that the Mac is a smaller market share because it lets them feel 'elitist' and that makes them happy. Others point to Apple profits and they're happy because they're making money. Neither group has any reason to WANT either a larger market share or the computers needed to fill that share. They're happy with their iMacs or elitist but expensive MacPros and thus don't WANT Apple to change a thing. They assume because Apple is profitable right now that Apple does not NEED to change a thing to remain profitable long into the future (despite lessons from the past where Apple once ruled with the Apple II and had a good share with the original Mac but almost went bankrupt when Windows95 came out). But I for one would like to see as many shelves in places like Best Buy dedicated to Mac software as PC software some day. Given the iPod's dominance in the market place, it is still not Apple's #1 revenue generator by a LONG SHOT. It is the Mac itself that makes most of their revenue. The iPhone and iPod are somewhat 'halo' products in that regard. While they control a significant share of their market, they are not the big revenue generators for the company. Thus, it is in Apple's best interests to increase its personal computer market share while it still holds that cachet in those markets. If Apple were to become overshadowed in those markets in the next few years, what would happen to Mac sales? Would they continue to be just as strong without the boost of PR from iPods and iPhones? That's a question Apple should definitely consider. There was a time when Swatches were all the rage. They are no longer all the rage. Apple cannot count on iPods to be popular forever or for the blunder of Microsoft's Vista operating system to just sit on its laurels forever either. They should move NOW while the market is ripe for the picking or else risk taking a back seat again in the future.