Psystar to countersue Apple for antitrust violations

[Sun Baked]

I don't get your DR-DOS reference. DR-DOS was always fully capable of running on IBM-PC systems. What Microsoft did was create error messages in early versions of Windows 3.0 which implied that it could not run properly on top of DR-DOS, even though it could. This situation was vastly different, in that Microsoft was attempting to keep a competitor, Digital Research, off of PC hardware. That's not all they did. In Europe at least, where DR-DOS was still quite popular during the '80s, they told the largest manufacturer of PC hardware that in effect they needed to choose between DR-DOS and MS-DOS, that they could not sell both. Now there's an antitrust law violation.

Anyhow, the argument that Apple must allow OSX to run on generic PC hardware because it's technically feasible is extremely dangerous if accepted. A lot of copyrights and patents require only trivial effort to violate. Difficulty is not a relevant test.

Trying to figure out the direction Psystar is going... sounds a bit like DR-DOS lurking in there as they sabotage the non-Macs.

Page 39, Paragraph 54

"PSYSTAR is informed and believes, and theron alleges, that the kernel panic is self-induced by APPLE's embedding of code to prevent operability on computer hardware systems that are not Apple-Labeled Computer Hardware Systems"

All part and parcel of Apple's illicit behavior since they stopped licensing the OS.

 

[matticus008]

The Psystar lawyers are tying it back there, as a pattern of behavior revolving around not licensing the OS ... and how Apple currently embeds code in the OS to recognize Apple-labeled system and Kernal Panic when run on another System.

Yes, I understand the allegation, but what I'm asking is where you feel that could be an indicator of wrongdoing. Psystar has not pled anything based on the clone program as of yet and has established no link between the narrative and their claims, so I'm wondering how you feel this potentially helps them--what is your theory of relevance, in other words.

What Psystar fails to recognize is that the licensing program was voluntary, the participating companies paid large sums in order to invest in Apple R&D, and most importantly that prior decisions do not force future decisions. Even if Psystar were willing to pay a large sum for access, they've demonstrated that they have no regard for Apple and are a terrible potential business partner willing to ignore terms it does not like. If the statement is a business method alternative, Psystar's conduct shows it's not a viable one between these parties, and it does not retroactively cure their multiple violations up until this point.

If Psystar were actually interested in a "clone" program, they would have formally entered into negotiations before market. They further would have sought declaratory judgment when those negotiations failed, again, before going to market. It is, in other words, a dirty lie. They certainly would not have put a computer online, flaunting Apple trademarks and explicitly daring a lawsuit (and then lying about their use of the OpenMac name in a court document). They have no intention of paying for R&D and support costs.

The suit even alleges that OS X is not eligible for copyright protection. Now, there's covering your bases and there's absurdity--the answer is a textbook listing of every available defense, whether it has any potential applicability or not. This seriously degrades a claim--you get broad deference in the early stages, but you must show discretion such that you look like you actually understand your case.

Guess it is the Dr-DOS defense and how the Mac is limiting itself to Apple-labeled HW when it is fully capable of running on other systems.

Pretty much. What's still missing, though, is that can does not mean must. Their unwieldy document structure muddles what goes where--Apple did not allege that their systems were fundamentally different physically than systems built from the same components.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Trying to figure out the direction Psystar is going... sounds a bit like DR-DOS lurking in there as they sabotage the non-Macs.

Page 39, Paragraph 54

"PSYSTAR is informed and believes, and theron alleges, that the kernel panic is self-induced by APPLE's embedding of code to prevent operability on computer hardware systems that are not Apple-Labeled Computer Hardware Systems"

All part and parcel of Apple's illicit behavior since they stopped licensing the OS.

I see. If this is the line of reasoning they are pursing then the logic is circular. It assumes that they have some right under law to bundle and resell Apple's products. They can't very well complain that Apple's technical barriers are created deliberately when they have no right to bundle OSX with their hardware to start. It's somewhat like calling a software copy protection scheme illegal because it prevents you from making copies you have no right to make in the first place.

Good luck figuring out where Psystar is going, except down. These guys are trying to thread a needle with a chain.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

No, clearly you don't understand. Apple doesn't compete in the sub-market you're asking for and won't!

Sub-market??? Mainstream computer designs are now a sub-market? LOL... yeah right. I see there is zero point in continuing this so-called conversation with you. You aren't considering anything being said and instead only appear to dig in further with angry retorts and emotional arguments that make little sense. Have a nice day.

Actually, I'd say the choice of hardware can also be pretty significant.

I'm not only talking about the CPU or the graphics, either. I'm talking about the motherboard. And, in the case of machines wanting the extra ports, the additional ethernet and USB cards.

I agree there is shoddy hardware out there and bad designs, but the fact of the matter is it's pretty simple to get hold of brand name motherboards of good quality and put together (or have a company put one together for you) a reasonably powerful computer with GPU capability that equals or betters a the best a MacPro can possibly do for under $1200 in the PC World. You can get a machine that can play virtually any current PC game for $800. The problem with Apple in that regard is it has literally NOTHING to compete with such standard configuration machines until you get to the $2200+ range with either the customized iMac 24" where you still have to expand externally for more hard drive storage and are stuck with a so-so quality 24" monitor that you may or may not actually want to use. I can get a 27" monitor now for under $600. Combined with that $1200 PC, you have a fairly powerful computer for $1800 total with a 27" monitor and SLI graphics. For $2200, you get a 24" built-in monitor (too bad if the monitor dies before you move on to another computer), still mostly laptop components save the GPU and almost zero internal expandability (maybe ram).

The point is that Apple seems to want to capture Windows users with the move to Intel and its own Boot Camp capability. The Mac/PC ads alone scream that they want people from the Windows world to move to the Mac. But notice how you've never seen any kind of Mac/PC gaming ads because the PC would "PWN" the Mac there something fierce. Instead of some geeky looking guy in a suit that seems to lack any sense (admittedly he's way more amusing than the "Mac" actor they chose), it'd be the other way around. You see for all the Mac's claims to be the "cool" or "fun" computer, they seem to overlook the biggest area of computing that is "fun" and that is PC gaming. The sad part is it doesn't have to be that way. There is no fundamental reason the Mac couldn't offer competitive GPU hardware. With all this talk about more CPUs and better support for them with Snow Leopard, why doesn't Apple first do something about their abysmal gaming support in their hardware lineup and also to some extent in their OS support? That's not some sub-culture area of computing. It's been around since the Apple II and in fact, the Apple II was a reasonably good gaming machine (along with the C64 and Atari 800) of the day.

Is Apple too small of a company to encompass a gaming department? They aren't from the profit figures and stock prices I've been seeing over the past few years. Their PHONE has better gaming support these days. Macs in the past (I'm talking 2001-2004 here) had better capability on average than the hardware they're offering today (save the MacPro and custom iMac).

So some of you don't like PC gaming? OK. That's fine. No one is making you buy or want to buy games. So you don't care about the GPU, even if it means Google Earth runs poorly compared to a cheap PC in 3D building mode, etc. That's still a valid viewpoint, BUT it in no way represents a valid argument FOR Apple to make those choices to ignore those market segments. Gaming in general is bigger than ever and Apple doesn't even make a 2nd rate effort to compete. With Windows compatibility through Boot Camp, they've got a gold mine on their hands and ignoring any large segment of the PC market in general is a detriment to getting those "PC" people to move to a Mac, funny commercials aside.

Now you'd THINK that even the fanboys would appreciate the idea of gaining more Mac converts, but no no no; they actually argue against good ideas because:

1> Steve Jobs didn't think of it first or doesn't LIKE those areas
2> They like the Mac community having small numbers as it lets them feel elite.

It truly boggles my mind how so many people on here will say the dumbest things (no I'm not talking about your comments TiggsPanther) and act like rock star groupies when it comes to the topic of Apple business decisions. Apple can do no wrong. Steve can do no wrong. And they'll argue until they're blue in the face about it no matter how ridiculous it comes across to the rest of us. "Don't you think Apple knows better than you considering they're a multi-million dollar company?" is a typical example of their logic. Apple makes money so Apple does everything right. Did they talk like that in 1997?

You see I don't want to have to buy TWO computers the next time around. I want to buy ONE computer that can do everything I need or want it to do. I've basically got a PC sitting to my right on this L shaped desk that's primary function is gaming and game design. I wanted a Mac that could do both and with Boot Camp, I thought this was now possible, but between the obscenely MacPro prices and the out-of-date graphics card it was pushing all of last year, I felt I had no choice but to run two. The sad part to me is it shouldn't have been necessary. Apple has the capability to eliminate the need to buy a Windows only PC ever again, but if they don't support that ability through the hardware they offer at the various pricing tiers, they miss that boat entirely. And the fanboys think that's GREAT. They're making profits and that's all that matters. Steve is great! Apple is great! Yay Apple!

Given the popularity of both Boot Camp and virtualization programs like Fusion and Parallels, I'd say the market for better GPU hardware is a lot bigger than some people on here will ever admit. The thing that gets me is how you can't simply make that statement without getting all these people attacking your opinion that the Mac needs better all-around GPUs in its lineup. No no no. It's good enough for you. If not, get a MBP. If the iMac is not good enough, get a MacPro. Nevermind the price is out of this world compared to similar graphics hardware in the PC world beacause it's not a consumer level machine. But its' the ONLY shoe that fits, so they throw it at you and simultaneously decree that gaming sucks anyway so go buy a PC and leave us alone. Well, guess what? I don't want a PC. I want a Mac with a REASONABLE hardware setup (say equivalent to a $1200 PC) with a reasonable price (say $1500-1600 and that's a LOT of markup for NO hardware advantage...attribute it all to the OS if you want, but it's still $800 less than the only thing they do offer you). If $300-400 more than a PC world computer in pure profit isn't good enough for Apple, then Apple is ripping you off.

People want to say compare models directly, but my point is there is NO equivalent Apple model to the mainstream computer I've been describing. $1200 is probably an average for a decent computer right now and if you compare what you CAN get for $1200 in the PC world with what you DO get in the Mac world, there's a HUGE disparity. So no, you don't compare a MacPro to a Pro PC workstation because that's not the consumer market I'm talking about. If you compare $1200 iMac to a $1200 PC, you'll find a HUGE disparity and it's NOT in Apple's favor. Throw in a 15" monitor for the PC. Even at $1650, the PC is still going to blow that iMac out of the water in hardware performance terms. Nevermind comparing an $800 PC you can get to an $800 Mac-Mini. That's a real joke.

So when you see fanboys making those kind of comparison claims, they aren't being honest. They're just looking for any way to make Apple look competitive or fair or better than a PC. I agree the Mac OS is way better in most areas than Windows and even Linux. It's just too bad it's attached to such crappy hardware choices. So if we're going to talk about the actual thread topic, which is PSYSTAR, then you have to look at the reason Pystar exists in the first place and that is because Apple doesn't want to offer competitive hardware for its operating system. It wants to force you to pay $2200+ to get something usable and that's just history for Apple in general (over paying for hardware). The move to Intel should have leveled the playing field, but clearly is has not.

 

[Stratus Fear]

Sub-market??? Mainstream computer designs are now a sub-market? LOL... yeah right.

Sub-market. As in a market segment. As in the part of the market defined by one type of product or need. You know, where you want to talk about one type of product or need as opposed to everything in the general market. You know, one part of the greater concept of market segmentation that most businesses exemplify by selling to distinctly different parts of a larger market (or by NOT selling to a certain, distinct part of a market -- like Apple and those fun old tower PCs). Oh, no, apparently you don't know that. Or you're simply looking for opportunities to slam me because you have no other argument.

I see there is zero point in continuing this so-called conversation with you. You aren't considering anything being said and instead only appear to dig in further with angry retorts and emotional arguments that make little sense. Have a nice day.

Ah, more ad homs -- sign of a lost debate.

Yes, I will certainly have a nice day; because you have no return argument (and, ironically, just "emotional arguments" and "angry retorts"), I don't need to spend significant time replying to anything. I mean, I at least expected the spec rant again or "Psystar is filling something needed that Apple won't and they [Psystar] should be able to regardless of if it's illegal" that was a big part of this thread earlier, but not even that did you choose to use. Spectacular. Thanks!

 

[TiggsPanther]

I agree there is shoddy hardware out there and bad designs, but the fact of the matter is it's pretty simple to get hold of brand name motherboards of good quality and put together (or have a company put one together for you) a reasonably powerful computer with GPU capability that equals or betters a the best a MacPro can possibly do for under $1200 in the PC World.

Now I know this, but Joe Sixpack computer-buyer doesn't necessarily know the same. And this is where the real problem lies.

A non-techie in the market for a new computer, unless they bring a techie friend or relative along with, will usually go for one of two things:
1) Highest apparent specs.
2) Lowest price.

Now somebody in category 1 will possibly get lucky, as they'll end up buying the computer with the best components without realising it. It's the second group that are rather common, though.

I know (and know of) people who if they were after an OSX machine and saw a Mac Mini next to a desktop Mac clone with better on-paper specs and a lower or similar price they'd buy the clone. Problem is, the average high-street computer at this price tends to cut corners on things like the motherboard. I, as a techie, know this and avoid them. But many people would just go straight for the cheaper machine, even were they told about quality of components. I've seen it happen in the Windows/PC world, and highly suspect it would happen given Mac clones.
They'd just care that the clone looked like a better machine than the Mini, even if it had dodgy chipsets and low-rate drivers.

Thing is, to bring it back to Psystar, this is exactly what I fear this whole situation could snowball into. People like you or I could easily build or order a pseudo-Mac using components fit for the task. Cut-price OEMs, however, would build budget clones with shoddy hardware (or merely rebadge to such a level that it's hard to identify the true component manufacturer) that the bargain hunters simply wouldn't know to avoid. The idea of a Packard Bell running OSX really worries me.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Now I know this, but Joe Sixpack computer-buyer doesn't necessarily know the same. And this is where the real problem lies.

A non-techie in the market for a new computer, unless they bring a techie friend or relative along with, will usually go for one of two things:
1) Highest apparent specs.
2) Lowest price.

I've got some relatives that would fit into your profile. They buy their computers at places like Best Buy and Circuit City and they go for whatever "wows" them. While I could point to deficiencies in those computers compared to what they COULD have gotten for a similar price, they have generally been happy with those computers and gotten several years use out of them. So I'm not sure if I can agree to a general criticism of clone hardware in 2008. Perhaps in 1998, but a lot of things have changed. There are very few manufacturers left and virtually all of them now manufacture in China, which has largely leveled the playing field for better or worse. IBM is now Lenovo. Apple used to make high quality towers in the USA. Now they're made in China too and be perfectly frank, Apple's hardware isn't exactly what it used to be. They've been riddled with quality control problems in the past few years from keyboards on laptops that miss characters (which took around 2 years to fix, which is just unacceptable for something as important as the primary input device on a laptop) to seemingly endless problems with WiFi networking that continues to see attempted fixes even today. These problems are virtually NON-EXISTENT in the rest of the hardware world (Notice how I cannot say "Windows World" because EVERYONE ELSE makes generic hardware that can use Windows or it can use Linux or OS2 or whatever. Only Apple pretends their OS doesn't run on the same types of hardware).

We've seen severe issues of inconsistent color (yellowing and the like) of Apple's newer LED based monitors (so both the input and output has been screwed up royally). We've seen Time Machine promises of working across Airport Extreme devices which then didn't work until LONG after they released their own "Time Capsule" solution, causing (some might say forcing) them to buy yet another WiFi router to get what they were promised early on and then only later (without announcement) apparently making the originals work. Both work so slow as to be almost unusable for an initial backup. Most Windows or Linux computers can backup to a 2nd internal hard drive at the highest possible speeds. Only the MacPro can make such claims in the Mac World today. It's funny how my 2001 era PowerMac with addition of a Sata card (you know, when Apple actually seemed to believe in expandable Macs) can do what iMacs, Macbooks and Mac-Minis cannot do and that's backup the primary drive at screaming speeds to a 2nd internal drive. There's nothing stopping the OS from using such things. In fact, Leopard has its own solutions. The only thing stopping Macs is the lack of quality mainstream consumer priced hardware to ALLOW software like Time Machine to do its job quickly and efficiently. They COULD have made the iMac a little deeper or larger to accommodate a 2nd hard drive and a full desktop GPU, perhaps even one slot to expand it, but they chose INSTEAD to make it even THINNER, thereby making it less likely than ever to get full speed desktop parts for them.

Then you can take the MacPro which is supposed to be the somewhat future-proof expandable Mac and find that they updated the hardware on its motherboard BEFORE they offered a new GPU offering for the existing MacPro and suddenly the new 8800GT didn't WORK in the MacPros for sale just the week before. They had to have a special 8800GT made to work in the older models which delayed it even longer. Obsoleting hardware before offering one upgrade for it is unheard of in the rest of the computing world. There's nothing quite the feeling like having spent $3000 on MacPro to ensure compatibility for a few years only to find its out of date the very next week.

So if you're going to argue that you're afraid hardware is going to nose-dive if clone makers are allowed to install OS X, first make sure they're hardware is actually worse than the bug-ridden crap Apple has been turning out lately. It's hard to imagine how someone like Dell that's had over a decade of experience in making large varieties of expandable towers could screw up WORSE than Apple themselves making only a few computers so you HAVE to pick the KNOWN defective models or nothing at all.

Thing is, to bring it back to Psystar, this is exactly what I fear this whole situation could snowball into. People like you or I could easily build or order a pseudo-Mac using components fit for the task. Cut-price OEMs, however, would build budget clones with shoddy hardware (or merely rebadge to such a level that it's hard to identify the true component manufacturer) that the bargain hunters simply wouldn't know to avoid. The idea of a Packard Bell running OSX really worries me.

Packard Bell? They withdrew from the U.S. market in 2000. I doubt they'd be much of a threat to Apple in their home country. Or wait, Apples are made in China... is Apple a Chinese manufacturer of computers now? It sure looks like it. Tell me why I should care anymore about the Apple name on the hardware compared to any other Chinese made computer. If they were still made in the USA (my PowerMac is, BTW), maybe I'd be rooting for Apple to win right now. But they've chosen profit over loyalty to their home country like everyone else so I couldn't care less whom I buy my hardware from now as long as it's good quality, meets my needs and has a fair price on it. Apple's offerings always fail at least one of those three, usually two or more on most of their computers). But this speaks NOTHING about the OS Macs run, only their hardware. So why should I have to pick an inferior operating system in order to get fair priced hardware that meets MY needs? I shouldn't and that's the whole point of this Psystar business to me. Psystar may be money-grubbing little maggots for all I know about the people that founded it, but they brought the ISSUE of the anti-competitive nature of Apple's hardware for OS X to the forefront and for that, some of us owe them a debt of gratitude, more so if they win.

So some of you can keep rooting for Apple for whatever reasons YOU believe in, but spare us all the BS about Apple being allowed to do whatever they want because all market places have rules of conduct that must be observed. This isn't an anarchy Apple is living in. Their rights only extend so far and believe it or not consumers have rights in this country too. At BEST or WORST, there's a legal grey area surrounding tying of hardware to operating system software and at least one precedent against Apple for them to overcome in court. Likewise, there are licensing agreements targeted against Psystar. But whomever wins will be decided by the outcome of the former grey area because Apple's licenses assume they are right in that area. So while YOU can scream at the top of the mountain that Apple is right, it is in the end, I'm afraid, just your OPINION until the day it's decided in COURT. Because it's not YOU who determines the laws and limits of consumer rights in this country, but the Justice system. Most of the fanboy types on here can't even recognize that simple FACT but instead just shout their opinions as if they were facts and that's why I take issue with the whole lot of them. Ignorance is nothing to brag about.

 

[TiggsPanther]

Packard Bell? They withdrew from the U.S. market in 2000. I doubt they'd be much of a threat to Apple in their home country.

They're still alive and "well" here in the UK. People still buy them. And they're still a major headache for the friends, families and colleagues of those who choose that brand.

Maybe it's different over there in the US, but here in the UK there are still some OEMs whose build quality is really quite dire at times. And if they started building Mac-compatible machines, I'm reasonably certain that people woulod buy them, and end up with a great deal of problem with them.

Now I don't doubt that some manufacturers would make some really decent quality Mac clones, but I also get the feeling that I'd still have to go for the upper end of the scale to find the brands that actually had quality and value-for-money.
But the low-end brands will be the ones that will sell to those that don't know computers. As I can't imagine the sort of person that I know will go for an inferiors Windows machine suddenly being able to avoid the equally inferior bottom-end OSX ones.

 

[matticus008]

These problems are virtually NON-EXISTENT in the rest of the hardware world

No, they're not, and you know it, Consumer Reports knows it, and consumers know it.

Only Apple pretends their OS doesn't run on the same types of hardware.

No, they don't. Hell, they release Darwin public builds all the time.

Tell me why I should care anymore about the Apple name on the hardware compared to any other Chinese made computer.

It's what makes you eligible for licensing. It doesn't matter what's inside.

So why should I have to pick an inferior operating system in order to get fair priced hardware that meets MY needs?

Because life is hard and you're not talented enough to do the work yourself, so you get to sit down and make a choice.

Their rights only extend so far and believe it or not consumers have rights in this country too.

Of course they do, but that doesn't have anything to do with this. You don't have a right to any company's products, nor do you have a right to get what you want. Sellers have rights, too. How they choose to make their money, and whether that satisfies your wishes, is not a court decision when you have other choices.

For someone who talks about "fanboys", you're awfully worked up and rabid all the time. It's not rational. You seem to be far more personally and emotionally invested than really makes sense. It's a computer. If you don't like the offerings, buy something else.

At BEST or WORST, there's a legal grey area surrounding tying of hardware to operating system software

Nope. It's 99.9999% free and clear. Almost every manufacturer of electronics gets to tie their own operating system to their own hardware, regardless of whether that hardware is identical to someone else's. Car information systems, GPS units, cell phones, video game consoles, printers, scanners, digital cameras, DVRs, you name it. They all release updates, for money and for free, but only to their customers.

The only exception occurred where a court determined as a matter of law that the hardware was effectively useless without the operating system, and as long as compatible hardware existed, it must be possible to use it. Here, compatible hardware is not useless by a long shot, since it has been utilized for over two decades by dozens of other substantially similar and functionally equivalent operating systems. That exception also relied heavily on a number of factors that are either not good law or not present in the current case.

and at least one precedent against Apple for them to overcome in court.

Not really. The operative parts of that decision are lacking, and it has never been followed in subsequent cases. It has always been distinguished, and its copyright presumption is no longer good law. In other words, it's not legal precedent but simply an oddity on the books.

Even to get as far as applying the dubious case to the current situation, one must demonstrate market power, and Apple simply doesn't have it in the desktop OS market. As of today, there is nothing to overcome.

it is in the end, I'm afraid, just your OPINION until the day it's decided in COURT.

It's a little more than that. It's fact until proven otherwise--Apple or any other company can do it until proven otherwise, and the only authority indicating a different outcome has might as well be a sieve, for all its holes in factual application.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

No, they're not, and you know it, Consumer Reports knows it, and consumers know it.

Odd how I've never had any problems.

No, they don't. Hell, they release Darwin public builds all the time.

Wow, that's helpful when you want to run OS X.

It's what makes you eligible for licensing. It doesn't matter what's inside.

It doesn't? Want to trade me a Mac Pro for a Mac-Mini then, eh?

Of course they do, but that doesn't have anything to do with this. You don't have a right to any company's products, nor do you have a right to get what you want.

Sorry, but once they decide to sell the full retail version at public retail outlets like Best Buy, they've forfeited any rights to control, IMO. Because the only thing NOT allowing that OS to work on a Dell is artificial tying. Just because you believe some silly 99.99% type figure that doesn't mean you're right or even close to the mark with reality. Why don't you actually try reading about tying issues? They're not hard to find online. Here's one article:

http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6538

Sellers have rights, too. How they choose to make their money, and whether that satisfies your wishes, is not a court decision when you have other choices.

But that's just it, I do NOT have another HARDWARE CHOICE for the SOFTWARE operating system known as OS X. Why is this a difficult concept for you to understand? Why do you believe HARDWARE and SOFTWARE are the same market when they have different companies that they compete against for both? You cannot say they are the same or "one and the same" when it's not embedded, the hardware is NOT in ANY WAY "unique" and the company involved is CLEARLY doing what they're doing to use the software to leverage the hardware sales (the opposite can be true as well as in the above case where they tried to force their software on you with their hardware).

Can you buy a Mac with OSX *not* installed, but instead have a choice of something like Linux or Windows only? No. Apple is guilty of leveraging it both ways. That's tying and it's illegal and has been ruled by precedent already. You cannot get around that fact not matter how much you'd like or want it not to be true.

For someone who talks about "fanboys", you're awfully worked up and rabid all the time. It's not rational.

Are you using my web camera to determine if I'm rabid or what? No, it's more like people like yourself aren't being rational. You just say Apple is right over and over again with nothing substantial to back it up. It's their property doesn't fly in the consumer market where there are anti-competitive laws to protect consumer choice in a free market society. If you don't know what those laws are, I suggest you read about them because Apple's license is invalid and easily proven so.

You seem to be far more personally and emotionally invested than really makes sense. It's a computer. If you don't like the offerings, buy something else.

No, I'm dealing with people on here, not computers and they like to shove irrational and emotional statements in my face like "buy something else" when they know full well what I want is OS X. I do not want something else in terms of an OS. But I do not want an iMac or a Mac-Mini or a Macbook because they have no GPU power to speak of. They are woefully underpowered hardware incapable of meeting all my needs. It's not the Operating System that is inadequate, but the hardware made available for it by Apple that is inadequate. You CAN buy an MBP or a MacPro, but they are 2-3x the cost of a consumer model with similar GPU capability. Offering a pro-level workstation as the only model with a reasonable GPU is not meeting consumer needs. Having Boot Camp available only drives the point home because unlike most Mac software, Windows has massive amounts of 3D using software for it.

Nope. It's 99.9999% free and clear.

If I ever get emotional, this is why because people like you just sit there and make things up. Where's your proof of that statement? Where did you get your statistical 'fact' there from? I'll tell you where. You just made it up off the top of your head. And you wonder why I bring up the topic of fanboys, also known as fanatic behavior regarding a company or person (in this case Apple and/or Steve Jobs). Wanting something isn't the same as having something.

Almost every manufacturer of electronics gets to tie their own operating system to their own hardware, regardless of whether that hardware is identical to someone else's. Car information systems, GPS units, cell phones, video game consoles, printers, scanners, digital cameras, DVRs, you name it. They all release updates, for money and for free, but only to their customers.

You're talking about embedded systems in every example there, most of which have never been challenged in court before, so how you can make any prediction what-so-ever of the outcome of a court case should another company sue to put their OS on a given cell phone model in the after-market? Just because it hasn't been challenged yet, that doesn't mean what you are suggesting is legal. If I choose to put a different radio in my Subaru, can Subaru tell me NO, I'm not allowed because it's their hardware? NO, they CANNOT do that. So if I want to load Google Android onto my Nokia cell phone, can Nokia stop me??? NO, they CANNOT. It's my hardware to put whatever I want onto it after I buy it. Just because there has never been such a market before for items such as you listed, that doesn't mean those companies can dictate (as in a dictatorship instead of a free market) what you CAN and CANNOT put on the hardware you buy from that company because if they don't ALLOW you to do it, they're guilty of illegal tying. That's not a question, BTW. It's a legal precedent that's already been set. It's not even illegal for me to unlock an iPhone so I can use another carrier and I highly doubt it could be ruled in court that I cannot also load whatever software I want onto it as even the DMCA is subject to prior privacy laws (but striking down that therefore Unconstitutional Law is another matter and needs to be taken to court as well).

Here, you have a company (Apple) that sells you what is classified as a computer (a Mac), not gaming console or a cell phone. Are they legally allowed to tell you what software or personal data you can put on it? No. That's privacy guaranteed by the Constitution in the U.S. Are they allowed to tell you what operating system you can put on it after you buy it? Again, NO. That would be illegal tying such as illustrated in the case link I posted above. It doesn't necessarily mean Apple has to do the work FOR the customer, though. Apple doesn't have to put Linux on my Mac for me or create a way for it to happen, but they cannot tell me I'm not allowed to put Linux or Windows on it. If Apple made a purchase license agreement that said otherwise (like they do for software), it would be null and void because it's in violation of tying.

So here we have a case where someone buys an operating system that is available in full retail form at places like Best Buy. It's not an upgrade version; it's not sold as an upgrade version so those will not be admissible in court. You buy it and they tell you that you can only put it on their generic hardware. They've just created a license agreement that is null and void because they're tying it to their hardware even though it's available and sold separately from their hardware. That is the primary difference between OS X and say Verizon's cell phone OS. I can buy OS X by itself. I CANNOT buy Verizon's software by itself. So while a company be legally allowed to tie embedded software, they cannot tie an OS that is separately sold to the public like OS X is. If they didn't want that to happen, they should not have sold it separately, but only allowed upgrades via direct downloads or special upgrade-only versions of the OS that will only install on a computer with a prior version of OS X. Yet I can install OS X Tiger on a Mac that never had OS X on it (e.g. a pre-OS X G3 and OS 9 and OS X are entirely different operating systems).

I don't care if you buy an IBM PPC machine and want to put OS X Panther on it. They don't have to help you, but they cannot legally stop you IF you can find a way to do it without modifying their code and that's because they're not allowed to tie their hardware to their software in such a fashion where they say you are not allowed to install something you bought in full retail form on a computer of your choice. Unless a judge wants to break legal precedent, Apple is guaranteed to lose the case UNLESS they can prove Psystar modified their operating system. If Psystar can prove they used paid for retail copies of OS X to install on their machines, they are in the clear from those charges and their counter-suit against tying will nullify the rest.

Even to get as far as applying the dubious case to the current situation, one must demonstrate market power, and Apple simply doesn't have it in the desktop OS market. As of today, there is nothing to overcome.

That is simply not true. Tying is tying. It doesn't matter what your market share is. You don't have to be a monopoly to exhibit anti-competitive behavior and that is what is illegal. If you look at hardware sales by Apple right now, they are in the #3 position and #1 in educational sales. That's HARDWARE by any given company. You are telling me that they Apple are in competition with Dell, Lenovo, etc. right? You can't have it both ways. OS X is in competition with Microsoft and Linux, NOT Dell, Lenovo, HP, etc. Are you still going to tell me their OS and Hardware are the SAME market? Apple is highly profitable in hardware, but has a small operating system market share. How can they be? They have completely different competition in terms of hardware and software. So it's EASILY PROVEN that Apple's hardware and OS are two different markets and that they are using tying of their OS to leverage sales of their hardware versus companies like Dell. Dell is not allowed to use Windows to leverage their hardware sales so they are at a competitive disadvantage compared to Apple because Apple is using tying of software to leverage hardware sales. Apple doesn't have a prayer in court in that regard, IMO.

Go ahead, proceed to tell me how Apple can do anything it wants with its property with no consequences in regards to existing laws, etc. Apple has rights, but they are not above the law just because their operating system is a small share of that particular market (while their hardware is a big share of that different market). Anti-Competitive is anti-competitive and in terms of hardware leveraged by software that is also sold separately; that is exactly how they're being anti-competitive. It's called "tying" and it's illegal.

IF Apple didn't sell a retail OS X and/or IF Apple has a licensing program for OS X to use on other hardware, then Apple would be innocent. But as it stands, they are in clear violation of anti-competitive tying laws.

An example in the smart cell phone market would be if Google where to buy Nokia and then releases Android with Nokia hardware AND sells that OS separately at Best Buy but says it can only be installed on Nokia phones, then Motorola could sue them for tying if it had compatible hardware because Google sold Android to consumers as a phone OS, but told the consumers they could not install it on Motorola hardware for what amounts to profit reasons (i.e. anti-competitive behavior) in that they stand to profit more if you can only put what you bought on a Nokia brand phone. That would be tying and that would be illegal. Even if they did not buy Nokia, but put that stipulation there (because Nokia is a Google friendly company for whatever reason), it's still anti-competitive. It doesn't let the consumer choose what to do with the product they bought and purposely tries to cut Motorola out of the equation with the purpose of driving them from the market.

Apple may have a small share of the operating systems market, but it gets nearly 100% of all hardware sales FOR that market and that has made it a highly profitable company ranking consistently in the top 5 hardware retailers, yet it does not offer any other operating systems for its hardware. So you cannot argue the OS X market is 'small' when it makes them one of the top hardware players despite not offering other operating system choices. Commodore sold the Amiga computer, but it also sold PC clones under the Commodore brand name. It competed directly with other computer makers. Had someone wanted to sell their OS on another hardware platform, it would have been legal so long as they were able to circumvent the propriety hardware used with something reverse engineered. There was never a large enough market for someone to WANT to do that, but it could have been done. It WAS done for the Macs at the time. If you owned a legal Mac rom and a legal copy of the MacOS, you could legally run the Mac OS on Amiga or other similar Motorola hardware of the day. I didn't see Apple suing the makers of Shape Shifter and the like. The only difference between then and now is that Psystar bought and resold the Mac OS instead of making you assemble it yourself. But even the latter violates the Mac OS Eula. But that doesn't make that Eula enforceable in court because it's not a valid Eula in that regard. Thus, Psystar paid full retail for the OS and other than that invalid Eula, did nothing else different. The only question in court is whether that Eula is enforceable given tying laws and it looks pretty clear to me that it is not.

 

[Lord Blackadder]

Reading this thread gave me a headache.

So if we're going to talk about the actual thread topic, which is PSYSTAR, then you have to look at the reason Pystar exists in the first place and that is because Apple doesn't want to offer competitive hardware for its operating system. It wants to force you to pay $2200+ to get something usable and that's just history for Apple in general (over paying for hardware). The move to Intel should have leveled the playing field, but clearly is has not.

Apple isn't forcing any consumer to do anything. Apple is offering a product. You can choose to buy it...or not. There's no coercion of the consumer going on here.

 

[netnothing]

Given the popularity of both Boot Camp and virtualization programs like Fusion and Parallels, I'd say the market for better GPU hardware is a lot bigger than some people on here will ever admit. The thing that gets me is how you can't simply make that statement without getting all these people attacking your opinion that the Mac needs better all-around GPUs in its lineup. No no no. It's good enough for you. If not, get a MBP. If the iMac is not good enough, get a MacPro. Nevermind the price is out of this world compared to similar graphics hardware in the PC world beacause it's not a consumer level machine. But its' the ONLY shoe that fits, so they throw it at you and simultaneously decree that gaming sucks anyway so go buy a PC and leave us alone. Well, guess what? I don't want a PC. I want a Mac with a REASONABLE hardware setup (say equivalent to a $1200 PC) with a reasonable price (say $1500-1600 and that's a LOT of markup for NO hardware advantage...attribute it all to the OS if you want, but it's still $800 less than the only thing they do offer you). If $300-400 more than a PC world computer in pure profit isn't good enough for Apple, then Apple is ripping you off.

People want to say compare models directly, but my point is there is NO equivalent Apple model to the mainstream computer I've been describing. $1200 is probably an average for a decent computer right now and if you compare what you CAN get for $1200 in the PC world with what you DO get in the Mac world, there's a HUGE disparity. So no, you don't compare a MacPro to a Pro PC workstation because that's not the consumer market I'm talking about. If you compare $1200 iMac to a $1200 PC, you'll find a HUGE disparity and it's NOT in Apple's favor. Throw in a 15" monitor for the PC. Even at $1650, the PC is still going to blow that iMac out of the water in hardware performance terms. Nevermind comparing an $800 PC you can get to an $800 Mac-Mini. That's a real joke.

So when you see fanboys making those kind of comparison claims, they aren't being honest. They're just looking for any way to make Apple look competitive or fair or better than a PC. I agree the Mac OS is way better in most areas than Windows and even Linux. It's just too bad it's attached to such crappy hardware choices. So if we're going to talk about the actual thread topic, which is PSYSTAR, then you have to look at the reason Pystar exists in the first place and that is because Apple doesn't want to offer competitive hardware for its operating system. It wants to force you to pay $2200+ to get something usable and that's just history for Apple in general (over paying for hardware). The move to Intel should have leveled the playing field, but clearly is has not.

There is nothing that says Apple HAS to offer a model to meet EVERY consumers needs. If Apple determines that the iMac meets most of it's target users needs, then why does Apple have to make something else?

Sorry that you can't find an Apple machine that is what you want, but that's not Apple's problem, it's yours.

If Apple thought they could offer just 1 system and make money, don't you think they would. Wouldn't anyone? They offer exactly what they feel meets the needs of their users. And you know what, the sales drive Apple's decision making. If people buy it, and there is demand for it, then the business model is working.

Yes, it's frustrating that Apple hardware isn't up to the same specs as PC hardware, but that's because Apple has a closed system. They chose to do it this way, and it is working for them. You as the consumer have the ultimate choice in whether to say "yes I want OS X, so I'm going to get Apple's hardware".

-Kevin

 

[CWallace]

Yes, it's frustrating that Apple hardware isn't up to the same specs as PC hardware, but that's because Apple has a closed system.

Even when Apple wasn't a "closed system" (during the PowerPC clone days), Apple did not offer an all-inclusive variety of models and performance options.

So those people who seem to believe that if Apple offers a mid-tower using desktop parts at a desktop price, it will have every single CPU, HDD, optical drive and video card option the Wintel world does are going to be disappointed. As such, those same people would just bitch about "no Blu-ray" or "no nVidia GeForce GTX 280" or "no ATI Radeon HD 4870 X2" option instead.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Even when Apple wasn't a "closed system" (during the PowerPC clone days), Apple did not offer an all-inclusive variety of models and performance options.

I suppose what he means by "closed system" is that Apple doesn't license OSX to any and all takers. Of course the fact that Microsoft does so with Windows hardly makes it an "open system," but there you go -- these terms are used so loosely, they hardly mean anything at all.

 

[matticus008]

Odd how I've never had any problems.

Not really.

But that's just it, I do NOT have another HARDWARE CHOICE for the SOFTWARE operating system known as OS X. Why is this a difficult concept for you to understand?

It's not a difficult concept to understand. What you're not getting is this: it doesn't matter. You have other options for hardware and for software. Whether the exact combination of components and software you want exists or not is your problem. No one owes it to you.

what you CAN and CANNOT put on the hardware you buy from that company because if they don't ALLOW you to do it, they're guilty of illegal tying.

No. That has nothing to do with tying, not even remotely.

Why do you believe HARDWARE and SOFTWARE are the same market

I don't. Since it's clear you can't even read the issues spelled out, I'm not going to bother untangling your mess of a post.

I'll just say this. This is just tedious now. Knock yourself out, but you are absolutely, positively wrong. Tying is not automatically illegal. Tying with market power is not automatically illegal. In fact, it rarely is. How many successful antitrust cases are there on this matter? Not many. You're proceeding from a false premise and zero working knowledge, and it's quite clear to everyone who managed to choke down that post of yours.

There is no deferential precedent on this issue under the current market power laws. Period. The one case you keep ignorantly referring to is based on a premise that has since been rejected by the Supreme Court and has never been followed in subsequent cases.

Further, this sentence speaks for itself: "I'm dealing with people on here, not computers and they like to shove irrational and emotional statements in my face like "buy something else" when they know full well what I want is OS X." 'Buy something else if a Mac does not suit your needs' is neither emotional nor irrational.

 

[TiggsPanther]

'Buy something else if a Mac does not suit your needs' is neither emotional nor irrational.

More than that, it's the most logical solution.

Even if they have a superior product (OSX), if they don't offer what you want then take your money elsewhere. "Vote with your wallet" is still a powerful statement. Just one that very few people seem willing to do these days.

Right now, they don't offer what people want but are still making money from people buying OSX for Hackintoshes or via Psystar. Maybe only a small amount of money compared to if people were buying complete Mac systems, but they're still getting income from people whose desires they don't satisfy. How does that encourage them to change their business processes?

It's similar to all the people (here in the UK) who complain about the high cost of DVDs and video games, and still pay full price in the shops. Their convictions about what they want break down right about the point of "Go without, and buy an alternative". But all this does is send the wrong message to companies.
"Give us what we want, or we'll still buy from you anyway," is not incentive for them to change.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Let's see all the replies I just read boil down to "Apple can do whatever it wants and if you don't like it, too bad. Go somewhere else." I will go somewhere else. I'll go to Psystar or even Dell in the future when Apples loses in court. I don't care how many times fanboys keep repeating themselves that I'm 'absolutely wrong' or whatever, it's still wishful thinking from illogical people that have zero concept of U.S. anti-trust law and that will become painfully clear when Apple loses in court. You will now reply again how wrong and stupid I am because you are predictable as a stop watch.

Instead of trying to get you to understand why Apple has broken the law, I'll just leave it to unfold for itself. When Apple loses, you will complain how stupid the judge was or some other excuse because I still hold that despite your claims to NOT be fanboys, most of the arguments I keep seeing over and over again boil down to Apple has the right to do whatever it wants and if you don't like it, go buy a PC. And THAT is pinnacle of ALL fanboy replies to EVERYTHING. Apple is like a god and they can do no wrong so don't complain about ANYTHING EVER.

 

[TiggsPanther]

Let's see all the replies I just read boil down to "Apple can do whatever it wants and if you don't like it, too bad. Go somewhere else." I will go somewhere else. I'll go to Psystar or even Dell in the future when Apples loses in court. I don't care how many times fanboys keep repeating themselves that I'm 'absolutely wrong' or whatever, it's still wishful thinking from illogical people that have zero concept of U.S. anti-trust law and that will become painfully clear when Apple loses in court. You will now reply again how wrong and stupid I am because you are predictable as a stop watch.

OK, being as Matticus008 list in his profile "Law" as both an interest and occupation, I'm reasonably certain that he at least knows what he's talking about.

As for wishful thinking, you seem to have it in spades.
Me, I sort of hope I'm wrong. As if I'm right and Apple lose, it all fall apart. So lets just hope that I'm overly cynical.

Instead of trying to get you to understand why Apple has broken the law, I'll just leave it to unfold for itself. When Apple loses, you will complain how stupid the judge was or some other excuse because I still hold that despite your claims to NOT be fanboys, most of the arguments I keep seeing over and over again boil down to Apple has the right to do whatever it wants and if you don't like it, go buy a PC. And THAT is pinnacle of ALL fanboy replies to EVERYTHING. Apple is like a god and they can do no wrong so don't complain about ANYTHING EVER.

Oh, Apple can do wrong. They sure as heck don't get everything right. Forgetting the Mac and obsessing over their latest iToy has been majorly annoying me all year.

However, what they get right is their Mac.
The OS works with the hardware far better than I've ever had with the not-designed-together Linux and Windows systems that I've been using over the years.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Yes, Apple is entitled to manufacture, market and sell their products any way they wish provided they don't violate any laws. The same is true with any other company. Apple isn't going to lose in court because Psystar hasn't got any antitrust case. They have failed to define the market in any, even remotely, believable way. Since this is step one in determining if Apple has violated any antitrust laws, Psytar has failed to make a case right out of the box.

 

[matticus008]

it's still wishful thinking from illogical people that have zero concept of U.S. anti-trust law and that will become painfully clear when Apple loses in court.

You've demonstrated a total lack of knowledge as to what tying even means and when and how it is illegal. Concepts of antitrust law, indeed.

most of the arguments I keep seeing over and over again boil down to Apple has the right to do whatever it wants and if you don't like it, go buy a PC.

There's a reason you see that trend: because it's true. If you don't like what Logitech is doing, buy a Microsoft mouse. Deal with it. Welcome to a market economy. If you create something, it's yours to control, as long as there is competition in the market. If you can't get exactly what you want as a consumer, you have to decide what's more important. Nothing can be more fundamental to competition than that.

And THAT is pinnacle of ALL fanboy replies to EVERYTHING.

As a general rule, anyone who talks about "fanboy replies" has a bone to pick and argues by distortion and ignorance. In case you hadn't noticed, this situation isn't specific to Apple. You can substitute just about any other company name and any other product and arrive at the same conclusion.

You've ignored the wealth of information here in favor of misstating the law, its requirements, and its functions. You've made no case for unfair competition except that you can't have exactly what you want. Well, that's not the standard.

Yes, Apple is entitled to manufacture, market and sell their products any way they wish provided they don't violate any laws. The same is true with any other company. Apple isn't going to lose in court because Psystar hasn't got any antitrust case.

Absolutely correct.

They have failed to define the market in any, even remotely, believable way. Since this is step one in determining if Apple has violated any antitrust laws, Psytar has failed to make a case right out of the box.

They've sufficiently hedged their complaint to survive, actually, but fail because their competing theories of abuse of market power are mutually exclusive of the possible market constructions.

 

[iMacmatician]

I don't care how many times fanboys keep repeating themselves that I'm 'absolutely wrong' or whatever, it's still wishful thinking from illogical people that have zero concept of U.S. anti-trust law and that will become painfully clear when Apple loses in court. You will now reply again how wrong and stupid I am because you are predictable as a stop watch.

Instead of trying to get you to understand why Apple has broken the law, I'll just leave it to unfold for itself. When Apple loses, you will complain how stupid the judge was or some other excuse because I still hold that despite your claims to NOT be fanboys, most of the arguments I keep seeing over and over again boil down to Apple has the right to do whatever it wants and if you don't like it, go buy a PC.

If.

Anti-Apple fanboy?

 

[gnasher729]

Regardless, I've used Windows and Linux at least twice as long as I've been using OS X, if not longer, and have built plenty of my own PCs, so I understand the want for a cheap, expandable box. At the same time, I don't pretend that's the majority of the greater computer market out there. It's not. Joe six wants cheap. Not expandability, not $600-fast video cards to play games, not extra hard drive bays to run backups onto. For those that can cross out the cheap, Apple has a great lineup. For those that can't, there's always the competition.

I don't think it is actually the case that "Joe six" wants "cheap". What actually happens is that many consumers know that a company can build computers that are better or less good, but these consumers have no idea how to decide whether a computer is good or not. So they have a choice:

If they pay a lot for a computer, they either get a good computer and a fair deal, or they get a rubbish computer and get ripped off. If they pay as little as possible for a computer, they either get a good computer and an absolute bargain, or they get a rubbish computer for a fair price. If they have no idea whether that expensive computer is good or rubbish, buying cheap looks like the better alternative; at least they have some money left in their pocket. It is a very unfortunate state of affairs in the PC market. It is a downward spiral, because manufacturers who build good systems for good money don't get rewarded.

 

[CWallace]

We also need to remember that many of your average retail computer buyers - the folks Apple caters strongest to - not only do not want to modify their own computers, they don't want to support them, either. So the belief that Macs are more stable then Wintel boxes has a strong appeal, as well.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

You've demonstrated a total lack of knowledge as to what tying even means and when and how it is illegal. Concepts of antitrust law, indeed.

You forgot the last part about where you've just demonstrated a total lack of knowledge period. You clearly have no clue what anti-trust laws are. You pretend you cannot see how Apple has 100% of all hardware sales for computers running OS X and thus is as anti-competitive as it gets. They sell the OS separate in full retail form, but then they decide they can tell you where you can install it. They want 100% of the hardware sales and they're using their operating system to leverage it. If you want a Mac, you have to buy it from Apple. They're the number 3 computer hardware retailer, yet you tell me they're too insignificant a market share to be a monopoly. But that's because operating systems and computer hardware are TWO DIFFERENT MARKETS, yet Apple pretends they are one and the same. They're making record breaking profits because they don't have to compete against Dell or HP or Lenovo. If you want the Mac Operating System, you have to buy the computer itself from Apple. Dell, HP, Lenovo, etc. are all not allowed to compete in the market for OS X hardware and they only reason is because Apple says so. That is 100% anti-competitive, 100% anti-trust and 100% illegal. They've got two separate markets that they're using to leverage all the computer hardware sales from those that prefer the OS X operating system to Windows or Linux, regardless of whether the hardware meets your needs or is affordable. I can pick a different supplier of natural gas, but I cannot pick a different supplier of hardware for OS X.

Now you can call me names all day long (at least until a moderator notices), but you apparently cannot give a non-emotional logical argument, let alone a legal one why Apple is NOT behaving in an anti-competitive manner regarding their hardware sales by leveraging an operating system to force you to buy overpriced hardware from them and no one else. Your entire argument boils down to because Apple says so, which is a pretty weak argument. Sorry, there are anti-trust laws out there and Apple is not above the law as they will find out in court.

 

[matticus008]

You clearly have no clue what anti-trust laws are.

Uh-huh.

You pretend you cannot see how Apple has 100% of all hardware sales for computers running OS X

In an action for tying, the issue is abuse of market power in the tying market--the desktop operating system market, not the tied (hardware) market. This is really elementary stuff.

They're the number 3 computer hardware retailer, yet you tell me they're too insignificant a market share to be a monopoly.

Yes, that's fairly straightforward. Being the third-largest means a maximum market share of ~31%, far below any articulated monopoly threshold. However, being a monopoly has nothing to do with anything.

That is 100% anti-competitive, 100% anti-trust and 100% illegal.

No, no, and...no.

Moreover, 100% antitrust would be perfectly legal, because trusts are what the early laws sought to shut down.

Now you can call me names all day long (at least until a moderator notices), but you apparently cannot give a non-emotional logical argument

I have yet to call you a name or give an emotional argument.

let alone a legal one why Apple is NOT behaving in an anti-competitive manner regarding their hardware sales

That's not the suit. The suit is about unfair competition with their software product, and I have provided several such posts in this thread alone. A selection:

https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=6141011#post6141011
https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=6143677#post6143677
https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=6145161#post6145161
https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=6145634#post6145634
https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=6148617#post6148617
https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=6160309#post6160309
https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=6166950#post6166950

Your entire argument boils down to because Apple says so, which is a pretty weak argument.

Ridiculous. It boils down to: Apple does not have monopoly power. Apple does not have market power. Tying here is not illegal per se. Apple has not abused its economic power it has simply because it has elected to provides its products to its own customers. Any manufacturer is free to do so. If Olympus develops photo software and ships it with their cameras, offering future versions only to existing customers, they are free to do so, as long as competing photo software is available to customers who choose other camera brands. If the Olympus software is subjectively better according to a particular customer, then that's incentive to buy an Olympus camera. Competitors then have an incentive to improve their product's appeal.

This is the essence of competition.

The creator of a product controls that product so long as it is not prohibiting competitors from selling theirs. That's not a weak argument; that's a fundamental precept of the American economy. Windows and Linux are free to improve, to set whatever prices they want, and to sell to whomever they want. Apple is not interfering with the competition.

The market decides the value and success of business strategies. Last time I checked, most people buy a computer that is not a Mac, and most people use an OS that is not OS X, proving that they not only have a choice, but are exercising that choice. Apple neither controls nor is attempting to control either market; on the contrary, their model quite obviously prevents them from doing so.