In Moral Defense of Apple

[Rearden_Steel]

Here is a story about a company called Psystar that is infringing on Apple’s software agreement by selling cheap generic PC’s with Apple software. Apple' has a very specific end-user licensing agreement specifically forbids installing its OS on Non-Apple hardware.

"Apple versus Psystar is a high stakes case--and not just for the parties involved. If Psystar prevails, it could open the door for other PC makers, including major vendors like Dell (Dell) and HP (NYSE: HPQ), to offer Mac clones. Such a development could undermine Apple's main business model--which relies on Apple's perceived right to dictate which software products can run on its hardware."

Last July filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against Psystar. Psystar is now claiming that the license terms violate U.S. antitrust laws and claims that Apple has "anticompetitive practices".

Apple spends a lot of money on their R&D and takes a lot more risk in the industry and looks to make their profits by making a large margin on their hardware. However if companies like Psystar are able to thumb their noses at Apple user agreement their ramifications could be wide spread. Let’s hold our breath and see if the courts will up hold Apples right to sell their software were, how and to whom they please.

[Tenure]

This is disgusting. This is like 'Miracle Metal'. Apple takes a big risk in producing this product, it defies popular opinion on what a PC should be, it offers no compromise, and it wins in the end -- and then its struggle is claimed to be 'anti-competitive'?! Mac was born out the very nature of competition, that there was a stagnant competitor in the market, offering up the chance for someone to provide something else to get in on its profits.

[KendallJ]

I think "win" is putting it a bit strongly, since Apples share is miniscule. I suspect this will get tossed out on its rear since the FTC are empiricists. If Apple isn't actually in danger of "becoming a monopoly" they usually don't take claims of monopolistic practices seriously.

[Tenure]

Well, by win, I didn't mean they dominate the market, but I mean that it didn't fail, as it 'should' have done, by everyone's previous standards.

[D'kian]

Isn't the mere "attempt to monopolize" a big violation of the anti-trust codes?

It would still be irrational, of course, as Apple would appear to be attempting to "monopolize" its own software.

[Chops]

I think "win" is putting it a bit strongly, since Apples share is miniscule. I suspect this will get tossed out on its rear since the FTC are empiricists. If Apple isn't actually in danger of "becoming a monopoly" they usually don't take claims of monopolistic practices seriously.

You know how it goes, though, define a market specifically enough, and eventually everyone's a monopolist. The FTC may not act on it, but I ca nsee many people viewing this practice as "monopolistic."

Edited August 28, 2008 by Chops

[Mammon]

It's difficult for me to defend a company that's based it's marketing of it's mediocre products as "Ours are better then anyone else, and if you have one you are better then everyone else"

[avgleandt]

It's difficult for me to defend a company that's based it's marketing of it's mediocre products as "Ours are better then anyone else, and if you have one you are better then everyone else"

Yeah I agree. Offcourse apple should still be able to do whatever it wants with its propertity. Also considering that the only reason it survived is because of similar anti-trust law suits against microsoft. I don't understand while apple is still trying to be a hardware company. Now that they switched to intel, there is nothing different between them or traditional pc's, except that they charge about 50% more and they are white. Why don't they just sell their software to everyone?

[Zip]

It's difficult for me to defend a company that's based it's marketing of it's mediocre products as "Ours are better then anyone else, and if you have one you are better then everyone else"

Are you kidding? Ferrari, Rolex, Armani, Gucci, and those are just the high end status products I can name off the top of my head. People pay for status, and marketing status as a purchase choice sells.

The worst thing about this is that as Mac becomes more popular you will see looters clamouring to have their "fair" share of this company's hard earned, privately developed products.

[Tenure]

It's difficult for me to defend a company that's based it's marketing of it's mediocre products as "Ours are better then anyone else, and if you have one you are better then everyone else"

I don't.

[Rearden_Steel]

It's difficult for me to defend a company that's based it's marketing of it's mediocre products as "Ours are better then anyone else, and if you have one you are better then everyone else"

It seems to me your irrationally hostile to Apple. From my experience I find that their products are usually superior to their competitors. Every Apple product I’ve bought I’ve been extremely satisfied with.

I disagree with your primise of its martketing as well. I have never seen them claim this or even sugest it that if you buy their products you are better then everyone else.

[DavidV]

Now that they switched to intel, there is nothing different between them or traditional pc's, except that they charge about 50% more and they are white.

Have you used any Apple products for any period of time made in approximately the last eight years?

[Zip]

mediocre? After using my daughters Mac Book Pro for less than 2 hours I decided that when this PC I'm on finally gives up the ghost, I'm buying a Mac, no ifs, ands or buts

[avgleandt]

Have you used any Apple products for any period of time made in approximately the last eight years?

Yes i have, ipod, itunes, but not a computer at least not for extended period of time. I am saying that their guts are now the same. I don't know about the difference in performace. My experience with ipod and itunes is negative.

[D'kian]

Is there any way to post about Apple without launching a Mac vs PC debate?

In any case, whatever one thinks of Apple's products, they have a right to market them and sell them as they wish. If their marketing is bad and their prices too high, they'll suffer low(er) income. So long as they don't engage in fraud, we should defend their right to do as they want with their business.

[themadkat]

Yes i have, ipod, itunes, but not a computer at least not for extended period of time. I am saying that their guts are now the same. I don't know about the difference in performace. My experience with ipod and itunes is negative.

No, they are not the same. Most PCs are random cobbled-together crap (obviously one can customize a great PC, but I am talking about a Dell, HP, or eMachines that comes off the average shelf) and bottom-of-the-barrel parts. Apple's hardware is not only high-quality hardware in its own right, but it is tailored to the needs of the OS and so creates a synergy that makes the system run even more smoothly. I never owned an Apple and always used PCs up until I got my MacBook Pro a couple years ago. I now use both kinds of computers on a regular basis but generally prefer the user experience of my Mac, and it is certainly a more stable system with less junk running on it. I also have never had any hardware issues with my Mac. I went through 3 motherboards on my old Dell laptop.

Not only are you lying through your teeth, you also find it "difficult" to take a moral stance against theft.

Maybe you should find another forum more in line with your views.

Whoa. Although I don't agree with Mammon on this one, I think you are being excessively harsh in your assessment of what he was saying. You're basically accusing him of being immoral. Just because his opinion may be wrong does not mean you have license to condemn him this way.

[John McVey]

... Apples share is miniscule. I suspect this will get tossed out on its rear since the FTC are empiricists. If Apple isn't actually in danger of "becoming a monopoly" they usually don't take claims of monopolistic practices seriously.

I wouldn't be so quick to judge just on that basis. I recall a case from just a few years or so ago about ice-cream. The judges arbitrarily defined a market down so tightly - "super-premium ice-cream" - that there were only two or three producers at that level. On that basis they then decided to hammer one of those ice-cream companies for violations of anti-trust laws even though there are many producers in the total ice-cream market and the victim in question was a relative pipsqueak. It would be a good idea to investigate things further by those capable of it on the grounds that the judges involved in the Apple case may decide to pull a similar stunt, precisely because Apple is known to have a high mark-up on its hardware and could be argued to be having a monopoly on the usability of that hardware.

JJM