Favorite Files

No favorite files added yet

Recent Posts

1. Comment - Nearly half the money spent at US retail on desktop PCs goes to Apple

   (Nov 26, 2009 - 8:33 AM)

   "The flaw in your argument is that most people don't need to spend over a $1,000 for their computer. "
   
   True. Of course, most people don't NEED to spend over $15,000 for a car, either.
   
   Neither fact is relevant in any way to the discussion.

2. Comment - Nearly half the money spent at US retail on desktop PCs goes to Apple

   (Nov 25, 2009 - 6:17 PM)

   Something looks suspicious in those numbers.
   
   As I recall, Apple's market share was much higher for laptops than for desktop machines. Now, given that there's not much difference in either the Mac or PC prices for laptops or desktops (that is, the PC desktop is close in price to the PC laptop, and so on), wouldn't one expect Apple's dollar share to be much higher in laptops than in desktops? Instead, the opposite is true.
   
   Still, that's a minor issue. It was always clear that Apple's dollar share had to be much higher than its unit market share.

3. Comment - After the Psystar verdict: Send in the clones

   (Nov 18, 2009 - 6:53 AM)

   "Psystar did it wrong from the get-go.
   
   Sell the system with an OS-X disk and a boot-loader along with a simply glossy-sheet of instructions.
   
   Make the bootloader do all the manual tweaking/labor (They control the hardware build, so standardizing it shouldn't be an issue), have the bootloader prompt for the Mac OS X disc.
   
   Psystar isn't loading the OS, so Psystar wouldn't be liable."
   
   That is incorrect. Please refrain from posting about legal issues when you don't have any idea what you're talking about.
   
   What you're describing is called 'contributory infringement' and that was one of the things the judge cited against Psystar. If they advertised their computer as being able to run OS X, they would clearly be guilty of that.

4. Comment - After the Psystar verdict: Send in the clones

   (Nov 18, 2009 - 6:51 AM)

   "This is ridiculous. The only Apple created hardware being used today is the case. "
   
   So? An artist uses oil paints that are purchased off the shelf. A writer uses a word processor and printer ink that can be bought at Wal-mart. Why in the world would that affect their intellectual property rights?
   
   Oh, and btw, you're wrong. The motherboard is also proprietary to apple. Not to mention Mac OS X. Apple couldn't care less if you build a system with the non-proprietary parts. They DO care if you try to use their proprietary Mac OS X to sell systems - as they should.

5. Comment - After the Psystar verdict: Send in the clones

   (Nov 18, 2009 - 6:49 AM)

   "What I really find ridiculous about this case is that the judge said Apple has a right to exclusivity with their software. This is BS."
   
   So you find it ridiculous that a company is allowed to benefit from something it created? When the company creates something, it should be required to provide it to anyone who wants it?
   
   Sorry, but our intellectual property laws are based on the premise that when you create something, you own it and have the right to do with it what you will. You can sell it, keep it, or bury it in a box in your back yard and no one has the right to tell you what to do with it. This case merely affirmed that basic premise of IP law.
   
   Hint: Communism didn't work.