Slashdot Mirror

Problem with Windows Mobile: the software market is dysfunctional: no central app store like Apple for at least another year, sites like Handango take 40-70% of your revenues, and WiMo market share is dying. Dropped from 24% in 2004 to 12% this year. Look at apps that are available: ugly, expensive, and lame-o. Consumers aren't attracted to that, and the installed base is falling apart. Microsoft sold 18 million in the last year, not even twice as many as the iPhone, except that the iPhone is one platform; all the WiMo devices are slightly different, with different features and capabilities, from non-touch tiny Smartphone screens to larger Palm-style Pocket PC form factors.

Look at RIM: Apple just passed them in sales this quarter. RIM sells replacement phones to a relatively slow growing base (19 million subscribers total, again less than double Apple's sales this year). Its installed base is also spread across a variety of different models.

Palm is dead.

Symbian is big but struggling. Difficult to develop for, has the same problems with marketing apps as WiMo. Nokia sells a lot of phones, but most don't run Symbian but only the feature phone Nokia OS. It's Symbian products are split between different hardware types, and the overall Symbian market is currently split between three platforms.

Flash Lite and Java struggle to run on hundreds of slightly different phones, which all have the same software marketing problems. Android is basically just a semi-consistent version of Java ME, the hardware will still be all over the place. Installed base is currently very small, and the G1 isn't going to help in that regard.

Apple's iPhone has a single installed base of over ten million units, and growing dramatically. It has a wildly profitable marketing system for software, good development tools that share a lot in common with Mac development, and a customer base that spends money. There is no real variation in hardware to deal with, nor problems between the software/hardware vendor.

So if you want to do mobile software to make a political statement, or because you like a certain technology, or just want to keep yourself busy, you have several options. If you want to make money, you write iPhone software and sell it to the ten million iPhone users and several million other iPod touch users.

Five More iPhone Myths
Myth 6: iPhone Developers will Flock to Android
Myth 7: iPhone Buyers will Flock to Android
Myth 8: iPhone will lose out to Steve Ballmer's Windows Mobile 7 in 2010
Myth 9: iPhone Unable to Penetrate Europe Due to Symbian Dominance
Myth 10: RIM's BlackBerry Will Contain iPhone Expansion

Problem with Windows Mobile: the software market is dysfunctional: no central app store like Apple for at least another year, sites like Handango take 40-70% of your revenues, and WiMo market share is dying. Dropped from 24% in 2004 to 12% this year. Look at apps that are available: ugly, expensive, and lame-o. Consumers aren't attracted to that, and the installed base is falling apart. Microsoft sold 18 million in the last year, not even twice as many as the iPhone, except that the iPhone is one platform; all the WiMo devices are slightly different, with different features and capabilities, from non-touch tiny Smartphone screens to larger Palm-style Pocket PC form factors.

Look at RIM: Apple just passed them in sales this quarter. RIM sells replacement phones to a relatively slow growing base (19 million subscribers total, again less than double Apple's sales this year). Its installed base is also spread across a variety of different models.

Palm is dead.

Symbian is big but struggling. Difficult to develop for, has the same problems with marketing apps as WiMo. Nokia sells a lot of phones, but most don't run Symbian but only the feature phone Nokia OS. It's Symbian products are split between different hardware types, and the overall Symbian market is currently split between three platforms.

Flash Lite and Java struggle to run on hundreds of slightly different phones, which all have the same software marketing problems. Android is basically just a semi-consistent version of Java ME, the hardware will still be all over the place. Installed base is currently very small, and the G1 isn't going to help in that regard.

Apple's iPhone has a single installed base of over ten million units, and growing dramatically. It has a wildly profitable marketing system for software, good development tools that share a lot in common with Mac development, and a customer base that spends money. There is no real variation in hardware to deal with, nor problems between the software/hardware vendor.

So if you want to do mobile software to make a political statement, or because you like a certain technology, or just want to keep yourself busy, you have several options. If you want to make money, you write iPhone software and sell it to the ten million iPhone users and several million other iPod touch users.

Five More iPhone Myths
Myth 6: iPhone Developers will Flock to Android
Myth 7: iPhone Buyers will Flock to Android
Myth 8: iPhone will lose out to Steve Ballmer's Windows Mobile 7 in 2010
Myth 9: iPhone Unable to Penetrate Europe Due to Symbian Dominance
Myth 10: RIM's BlackBerry Will Contain iPhone Expansion

The Sherman Act "does not restrict the long recognized right of a trader or manufacturer engaged in an entirely private business, freely to exercise his own independent discretion as to parties with whom he will deal. And, of course, he may announce in advance the circumstances under which he will refuse to sell."

Myth 10: RIMâ(TM)s BlackBerry Will Contain iPhone Expansion

Psystar isn't trying to force Apple to do anything. Apple is trying to force Psystar to NOT do something. It's completely different.
A) Apple can not be force to sell OSX to Psystar.
Agreed.

B) Apple can contractually create (sign paper before cash trades hands) a limit by which MegaCompuShop will not sell OSX boxes to drunks.
Agreed.

C) Apple can sue MegaCompuShop if they do (B), but that does NOT give them the right to harass the drunk who bought the boxed retail copy of OSX. That's the first sale doctrine.
You want to claim they do, I disagree. Most rational people will.

D) Psystar buys a box of something from a reseler called MegaCompuShop. Psystar can do whatever they want with it as long as they don't violate a government law - they have no contract with Apple so Apple can't tell them what to do. If Apple doesn't want Psystar to be able to do that, they should go back to having a Mac Rom chip like they used to.

Apple wants a legal solution to be imposed at my (US taxpayer) cost to what is a technical problem that concerns them and not me. Fuck Apple.

I'd say the same thing about MS if they tried this and the same thing about RIAA/MPAA who do.

Antitrust

Yes, Apple's argument is that the "market for Mac OS PCs" does not really exist, just as nobody else has the right to market Pepsi's soft drink, or sell BMWs, or force DuPont to license cellophane to them. The DuPont case went to the supreme Court in 1956:

"In a civil action under  4 of the Sherman Act, the Government charged that appellee had monopolized interstate commerce in cellophane in violation of  2 of the Act. During the relevant period, appellee produced almost 75% of the cellophane sold in the United States; but cellophane constituted less than 20% of all flexible packaging materials sold in the United States. The trial court found that the relevant market for determining the extent of appellee's market control was the market for flexible packaging materials, and that competition from other materials in that market prevented appellee from possessing monopoly powers in its sales of cellophane. Accordingly, it dismissed the complaint."

Apple's brief notes: "Psystarâ(TM)s effort to define a single-brand relevant market contravenes well-known principles of antitrust law. Relevant markets generally cannot be limited to a single manufacturerâ(TM)s products. As the Supreme Court recognized in the United States v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 351 U.S. 377, 76 S.Ct. 994 (1956), the âpower that, let us say, automobile or soft-drink manufacturers have over their trademarked products is not the power that makes an illegal monopoly. Illegal power must be appraised in terms of the competitive market for the product.'"

"Most recently, in Spahr, supra, the court rejected almost identical allegations as those made here. Plaintiff claimed that Leeginâ(TM)s brand of womenâ(TM)s accessories, called the 'Brighton' brand, was a separate market because the products are unique, they are marketed as 'one of a kind,' customers would not consider other accessories as 'suitable substitutes,' and there was an 'inelasticity of demand' for these products. 2008 WL 3914461, at pp. 3, 8. Applying the Supreme Courtâ(TM)s decision in Twombly, the District Court dismissed the complaint without leave to amend because its definition of the relevant market was implausible 'from the face of the complaintâ¦.' Id., at 8."

forced licensing

Another thing to consider: if you think Apple should be forced to license the Mac OS in the way Psystar is claiming, it follows that you also must agree with Pystar's claim that Linux and Windows are so far inferior to the Mac to the point where they can't complete, therefore creating a distinct market. I believe these claims are ridiculous. Anyone who doesn't should go on record admitting that everything else in the industry is a joke compared to the Mac. That is a line of reasoning which I will be happy to use in future arguments where the opposite is claimed. One can't have it both ways.

"The right of a manufacturer to exercise independent discretion with whom he will deal."

"Ultimately," Apple's filing states, "Psystar seeks to force Apple to license its software to competitors, like Psystar, so they can use Mac OS to create Mac 'clones.' Psystar undeniably can sell, and is selling, its Open Computers running Windows or Linux in direct competition with Appleâ(TM)s Mac. Nevertheless, it also wants to sell computers running Appleâ(TM)s Mac OS in direct competition with Appleâ(TM)s Mac. However, one of the bedrock principles of antitrust law is that a manufacturerâ(TM)s unilateral decision concerning how to distribute its product and with whom it will deal cannot violate the Sherman Act:"

The Sherman Act "does not restrict the long recognized right of a trader or manufacturer engaged in an entirely private business, freely to exercise his own independent discretion as to parties with whom he will deal. And, of course, he may announce in advance the circumstances under which he will refuse to sell."

Myth 10: RIMâ(TM)s BlackBerry Will Contain iPhone Expansion

The Brick rumors are all bs. Why pundits feel the need to connect brick to anything is beyond silly.

Rebrickulous: Cutting Through The MacBook Rumors

Apple has made a vast success of evil! The slickness of total control. Freedom from the burden of choice.

Never mind. I'm sure there'll be an article on RoughlyDrafted explaining precisely how this was all part of the plan and is absolutely the best possible move anyone could ever have made and we'd all have to be foolish not to have realised this was precisely how it was going to play out, and also Microsoft sucks. It'll probably have that really funny graphic of a Zune-headed Ballmer running screaming from the Zune Hindenburg.

(I like RoughlyDrafted, and his facts are generally accurate, it just gets a bit monotonous at times ...)

It's Windows Vaporware. It's a dessert wax and a floor topping. It's any marketing spin at all that they think might put people off competitors' products.

Anyone can talk up a hand of five aces. Producing it when called is a bit harder.

Perhaps it will have $DATABASE_FILESYSTEM!

iTunes songs are 99 cents. That is 200% more than what "market competitor selling downloads of the same content?

iTunes movies are 2.99 to 4.99. That is 200% more than what "market competitor selling downloads of the same content?

iTunes mobile software is mostly $1-10. Most mobile software for other platforms is $15-$50.

Apple's DRM isn't designed to reform thieves. It's designed to create a market. You can't stop thieves, but you can create a functional market that leaves the thieves to steal elsewhere. Or are you suggesting that because there is shoplifting, we can't have retail stores?

The iPhone Store Impending Disaster Myth

"Remo recommends against a trend of overreaction to minor gripes"

That, in a nutshell, is why the industry isn't taking all the bleating about DRM seriously. DRM is a business decision. It's not there because they hate your freedom, it's there because they think it will help stop or at least slow piracy. If the world wasn't full of thieves, there would be no DRM.

Acting like DRM will go away if you cry about it is childish. It will only go away by becoming invisible. Nobody seems to know that iPhone apps are protected with DRM, nor that it helps bring prices down (although it certainly doesn't have to; PSP DRM hasn't had any effect on software prices).

The real issue is that DRM doesn't work well in the hands of software producers (audio/video/apps), because their monetary conflict of interest pushes them to wield the power of DRM to extort hight prices.

The only successful DRM comes from hardware makers (read: Apple) who balance the power to govern sales without extortion prices and without runaway piracy, because their interests are aligned with both consumers and intellectual property content producers.

That's why Microsoft's DRM didn't work; the company only cared about producers because it wasn't selling its DRM products directly to consumers, and subsequently stacked the deck against end users.

Apple carries DRM like the Ring.

The Japanese iPhone Failure Myth

There are a lot of things that are "not inherently illegal" that become the basis of a civil suit after one enters an agreement not to do it. That's what this case is about, so you can stop shaking the strawman of your populist idealism.

Additionally, there are plenty of workalike compatibility tools and or independent implementations of a proprietary standard that exist, but could easily be assailed, probably successfully, by patent attacks.

Microsoft could probably easily shut down Samba if it decided it wanted to (and determined the cost was worth the bad press). Apple created its own lossless codec after determining that supporting FLAC would expose it to liability due the patent attacks. Just because something exists doesn't mean it can be defended successfully under patent assault.

The Japanese iPhone Failure Myth

What about if you possess Linux? Do you have the right to use it outside of the GPL, without contributing back changes?

Is your attitude about free software consistent with your view of commercial software? Does the license on intellectual property mean nothing to you ever, or only when that license is created by a commercial entity and violating the license is convenient to your needs?

Because unless you hate GPL freedom too, you're a hypocrite to advocate ignoring the limitations of a software license.

The iPhone Store Impending Disaster Myth

How has installing a Windows skin on Linux worked out?

The iPhone Store Impending Disaster Myth

The first "Microsoft's server market share" link is Gartner's numbers on servers shipping with an OS.

The second "Linux's server markiet share" relates to commercial licensing for servers, and addresses the Unix market buying Linux licenses.

Neither captures the Linux server market, as you don't have to buy Linux to use it. Most people using a Linux server didn't buy a server with Linux on it, apart from segment of commercial Unix users who migrated to commercially supplied Linux.

If Linux in servers had really fallen as your numbers try to suggest, Microsoft wouldn't be spending money trying to pretend Linux costs more and other white paper propaganda.

Trying to compare Windows with Linux as new sales is like comparing iTunes with torrents and finding that hardly anyone is buying non-iTunes music, so therefore torrents are going away.

I do agree with the "it's peak" part.

Imagine Steve Jobs for President

You've fallen for the market share myth.

Linux, Apple and Microsoft aren't companies selling competing widgets. Apple sells PCs that don't have Microsoft's OEM software on them, while Linux is used as an alternative to Microsoft's software. Rather than directly competing for "sales," Apple and Linux both serve to compete with Microsoft for attention (development) and air supply.

Comparing "market share," particularly when talking about Linux, which isn't even sold, is absurd. You might as well be describing a man in a sealed room with a fire burning in one corner as safe because the fire only consumes a very small portion of the the room's "cubic inch share." The real problem is that it is eating up the room's oxygen and putting out toxins.

Microsoft has worked well with a monopoly over the PC OS and software markets. But with competition from non-Windows PCs (both Macs and Acer/Dells running Linux) and from alternative server software (open source servers, which power more web servers than Windows Server), Microsoft is now finding its air supply getting cut off while its proprietary business model is poisoned by the insidiously opportunistic spread of open source. That's why Microsoft calls it a "cancer."

Microsoft is still making craploads of money, but Windows has hit a brick wall with Vista, its consumer products have all tanked and are losing crap loads of money, and competition is just barely getting started.

Apple is growing 10x faster than the PC market in general, and the top PC makers (HP, Dell, Acer) are all actively working to find new ways to use Linux or develop their own OS in imitation of Apple. Even if Windows 7 turned out to be a good product in 2010, it wouldn't matter, because nobody wants to pay for a PC OS anymore.

Microsoft is fundamentally screwed. The worst part is that it is not taking any effective stabs at building a new model or innovating itself out of crisis. Shifts happen all the time. If big companies can't adapt, they die, and Microsoft isn't proving it can adapt. It's merely reacting with stock buybacks and imitative advertising (including its $300 million ads that primarily draw attention to Apple's brand.)

Microsoft's "I'm a PC" Millions Actually Promoting the Mac

No, spending your capital to buy back stock indicates that you have no ideas for using that capital to build your business, and are instead converting it into value for shareholders (the opposite of diluting your stock by creating new shares).

Essentially, Microsoft is doing what Dell thought Apple should have done ten years ago: shut things down and give the money back to shareholders.

If Microsoft had any implementable ideas, it would be using that $40 billion to make more money, just like Apple has used its capital to rapidly expand its business while earning more cash on hand. Apple isn't buying back its stock because it thinks it can make more for investors building new business than it can by simply giving the money back.

Google's Android Platform Faces Five Tough Obstacles

And yet Palin hasn't really stated anything about her real views or policy decisions on any of those issues.

She's obviously against abortion, and clearly wants to overturn RvW by installing additional conservative judges on the SCotUS. But when asked about her views, she gives mealy-mouthed replies about how she 'respects the opinion of others.' She is fundamentally a bullshitter.

With 'religion in schools,' the real issue is that she supports radical fundamentalist Dominionism, the far right goal of establishing the US as a Christian Theocracy (minus any real elements of Christianity) that will spread Jesus over the earth (minus the teaching of Jesus). This isn't about 'can we pray in school' or 'can we respect the 10 Commandments,' but a radical effort to install CBN-style televangelist religion as the primary purpose of government.

This is a BIG FUCKING ISSUE that has been ignored and Palin has done her best to keep quiet, but her tape in June praising her "witch hunter" pastor that she credited with bringing her to the goverership of Alaska, and her efforts to get people to pray for her "will of God" pipeline and "will of God" war while telling Charlie Gibson that she would "never presume to know the will of God" should shock the shit out of anyone with an IQ above 60. She would be one cancer/heart attack episode away from turning the US into something that even GW Bush didn't really support.

Firearm rights? That's a significant issue in the presidential election? There is no threat of guns being taken away. There is threat of the Federal government becoming something you might want to take up arms against. This might be an issue if Obama was crusading for gun control, but he isn't.

"Domestic issues" - Right, which of those were raised? Which have Palin talked about? She steered Alaska through vast oil wealth while demanding massive Federal dollars to build unnecessary projects while supporting secessionists. What qualifications does she have to talk about domestic issues like the size of government, fiscal conservatism, and state's rights when she has demonstrated no principles and nothing but self serving hypocrisy ever? She's a big government, big spending Republican who taxes others so she doesn't have to pay them. She has no rational stance on domestic issues.

"Foreign affairs" - All Palin knows is that she "can see Russia from her house." She lives on a dead lake killed by poor city planning (building big box retail that runs its road waste into the lake) and refused make any efforts to help rehabilitate it. She doesn't know anything about diplomacy. She suggested going to war with Russia despite not even having met the people involved. She wants to stay in Iraq until "Al Queda is defeated" according the the McCain website. How is that possibly going to happen, and how would we ever prove it was? And remember how Al Queda wasn't in Iraq before the war started?

Palin has no legitimate stance on any real issues. She revealed not even knowing what Freddie Mae does. We don't need a bullshitter figurehead, we need someone who can present a stance on issues they can back up with reason and effectively put in place as a workable solution, regardless of whether they are more conservative or more liberal.

Palin isn't that, she's just a bullshitter who want to force her religion on America and make wildly bad spending decisions with the nation's resources and people.

The Big Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac Attack

According to the TIFF metadata, the new ads were made on a Mac! After this was revealed, Microsoft has attempted to scrub the metadata from the files.

This just keeps getting better and better. Note to Microsoft: when you're in a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging.

The real story is that Google is introducing a new consumer-oriented platform with no software distribution security in place, particularly a problem on a mobile platform. It had a great opportunity to develop something that was both secure and open, and blew it. By taking the easy route, it also blew any chance of competing with Apple.

The iPhone has a strict, secured Apps Store and a DIY-at your own risk jailbreak community. Google only has an official DIY-AYOR model for distribution based on YouTube. The problem is, YouTube doesn't distribute executable code, only media. You can't broadly infect a million users with a malicious YouTube clip, or automatically send out paid SMS or spy on them. Mobile apps need more than a freaking YouTube. What the hell was Google thinking?

And even worse, why is the media so complacently ignorant in not calling out Google on this criminally negligent cop out? It's Windows XP all over again, except that Google should have the benefit of hindsight working for it.

Google's Android Market Guarantees Problems for Users

Tevanian and the rest of NeXT's engineers did fantastic technical work, but NeXT didn't go anywhere until it was grafted on top of Apple in 1997.

Apple desperately needed a technology infusion, but NeXT's technology wasn't ready for deployment at Apple in a way the market could embrace until 2002.

It was Jobs who turned Apple and the Mac around in the interim, from 1997 to 2002, by taking Apple's System 7 and turning it into a product people would buy: the iMac, new Powerbooks, flashy new Macs with a strong brand rather than a confusing array of white boxes with Sony-like model numbers.

It's a disappointing reality that technology, like art, can't sustain itself. It needs marketing and merchandizing. Without Jobs, Apple would have quickly become another dead technology portfolio just like Amiga, OS/2, Taligent, etc. If technology itself sold products, Linux on the desktop would be whipping Windows and the Newton would have taken off. Technology needs to be made accessible, and Jobs has has a spectacular career at doing just that, despite lacking, as Hertzfeld notes in the interview, the technical expertise of his engineers.

If Apple had instead bought Be or teamed up with Sun, it would have been as successful as Be was at Palm or as OpenStep had been in Sun. That is: zero. A phenomenal amount of technical work performed for nothing because nobody there knew how to productize it.

The Inside Deets on iPhone 2.0.2 and Dropped Calls

This is really non-news. Consumer watchdogs are doing their job to stop ads that two users (perhaps Nokia and Microsoft? : P ) complained about. So Apple will run its shit-ton of iPhone ads without that one in the UK. No lawsuits involved, absolutely no impact on anything.

What will happen however, and is already underway, is that the iPhone is cracking open the prospect for real mobile websites that don't require Flash or Java. Previously, everything on the web was moving toward WAP-type mobile junksites, where you could barely do anything on the site, or alternatively Flash-heavy rubbish sites designed for users on a 10-megabit cable Internet feed.

Apple has upgraded "mobile web" to mean modern web standards-compliant sites that load fast. It has shared its own advances with Nokia (in both directions, as Nokia contributed to WebKit before the iPhone was even released), and has pushed hardware that is having a real effect on the market. That in turn will help FOSS devices, including Google's WebKit-using Android platform. It has also allowed Firefox to get a foot in the door with a mobile version based on the same standards but a unique implementation.

Apple redefined mobile web and the consumer web itself. It has already forced Adobe to support H.264 rather than its proprietary Flash video codec, opening the market for, among others, Linux users who can write their own H.264 based on the standards but can't as easily implement the undocumented, moving target of the Flash specification. Of course, Apple is doing it for the Mac; Linux just benefits from it.

Mobile web now means "fast loading pages," and that fact that Apple has absorbed nearly instant dominance over the mobile web means Apple is choosing to lead in an open market where competition and interoperability work to create better products. Apple could have developed a proprietary "Cocoa Web" that forced all of the iPhone's market power into a monopolized model that only benefitted Apple (in the model of IE), but did not.

Incidentally, Engadget recently reported that 95% of its mobile traffic was from the iPhone. Engadget is frequently critical of the iPhone and its readers and comments are not predominantly Apple-lovers by any means. That's market power, and Apple is using it "righteously."

This also benefits desktop users, particularly those with less than a fat pipes. It also puts a bullet phone in the forehead of Flash, Silverlight and other attempts to convert the web from open HTML to some closed, proprietary binary that requires a license from Adobe/Microsoft to use. Apple is using its market power with the iPod/iPhone to open standards; Microsoft used its PC market power to shut down competition and take over markets that it then either threw away as not profitable enough or sat on without adding any further innovation (such as the web browser, which flatlined for years from IE 5 to IE 7 because there was no competition).

That's why I laugh in the face of morons who try to say Apple = Microsoft.

This is really non-news. Consumer watchdogs are doing their job to stop ads that two users (perhaps Nokia and Microsoft? : P ) complained about. So Apple will run its shit-ton of iPhone ads without that one in the UK. No lawsuits involved, absolutely no impact on anything.

What will happen however, and is already underway, is that the iPhone is cracking open the prospect for real mobile websites that don't require Flash or Java. Previously, everything on the web was moving toward WAP-type mobile junksites, where you could barely do anything on the site, or alternatively Flash-heavy rubbish sites designed for users on a 10-megabit cable Internet feed.

Apple has upgraded "mobile web" to mean modern web standards-compliant sites that load fast. It has shared its own advances with Nokia (in both directions, as Nokia contributed to WebKit before the iPhone was even released), and has pushed hardware that is having a real effect on the market. That in turn will help FOSS devices, including Google's WebKit-using Android platform. It has also allowed Firefox to get a foot in the door with a mobile version based on the same standards but a unique implementation.

Apple redefined mobile web and the consumer web itself. It has already forced Adobe to support H.264 rather than its proprietary Flash video codec, opening the market for, among others, Linux users who can write their own H.264 based on the standards but can't as easily implement the undocumented, moving target of the Flash specification. Of course, Apple is doing it for the Mac; Linux just benefits from it.

Mobile web now means "fast loading pages," and that fact that Apple has absorbed nearly instant dominance over the mobile web means Apple is choosing to lead in an open market where competition and interoperability work to create better products. Apple could have developed a proprietary "Cocoa Web" that forced all of the iPhone's market power into a monopolized model that only benefitted Apple (in the model of IE), but did not.

Incidentally, Engadget recently reported that 95% of its mobile traffic was from the iPhone. Engadget is frequently critical of the iPhone and its readers and comments are not predominantly Apple-lovers by any means. That's market power, and Apple is using it "righteously."

This also benefits desktop users, particularly those with less than a fat pipes. It also puts a bullet phone in the forehead of Flash, Silverlight and other attempts to convert the web from open HTML to some closed, proprietary binary that requires a license from Adobe/Microsoft to use. Apple is using its market power with the iPod/iPhone to open standards; Microsoft used its PC market power to shut down competition and take over markets that it then either threw away as not profitable enough or sat on without adding any further innovation (such as the web browser, which flatlined for years from IE 5 to IE 7 because there was no competition).

That's why I laugh in the face of morons who try to say Apple = Microsoft.

This is really non-news. Consumer watchdogs are doing their job to stop ads that two users (perhaps Nokia and Microsoft? : P ) complained about. So Apple will run its shit-ton of iPhone ads without that one in the UK. No lawsuits involved, absolutely no impact on anything.

What will happen however, and is already underway, is that the iPhone is cracking open the prospect for real mobile websites that don't require Flash or Java. Previously, everything on the web was moving toward WAP-type mobile junksites, where you could barely do anything on the site, or alternatively Flash-heavy rubbish sites designed for users on a 10-megabit cable Internet feed.

Apple has upgraded "mobile web" to mean modern web standards-compliant sites that load fast. It has shared its own advances with Nokia (in both directions, as Nokia contributed to WebKit before the iPhone was even released), and has pushed hardware that is having a real effect on the market. That in turn will help FOSS devices, including Google's WebKit-using Android platform. It has also allowed Firefox to get a foot in the door with a mobile version based on the same standards but a unique implementation.

Apple redefined mobile web and the consumer web itself. It has already forced Adobe to support H.264 rather than its proprietary Flash video codec, opening the market for, among others, Linux users who can write their own H.264 based on the standards but can't as easily implement the undocumented, moving target of the Flash specification. Of course, Apple is doing it for the Mac; Linux just benefits from it.

Mobile web now means "fast loading pages," and that fact that Apple has absorbed nearly instant dominance over the mobile web means Apple is choosing to lead in an open market where competition and interoperability work to create better products. Apple could have developed a proprietary "Cocoa Web" that forced all of the iPhone's market power into a monopolized model that only benefitted Apple (in the model of IE), but did not.

Incidentally, Engadget recently reported that 95% of its mobile traffic was from the iPhone. Engadget is frequently critical of the iPhone and its readers and comments are not predominantly Apple-lovers by any means. That's market power, and Apple is using it "righteously."

This also benefits desktop users, particularly those with less than a fat pipes. It also puts a bullet phone in the forehead of Flash, Silverlight and other attempts to convert the web from open HTML to some closed, proprietary binary that requires a license from Adobe/Microsoft to use. Apple is using its market power with the iPod/iPhone to open standards; Microsoft used its PC market power to shut down competition and take over markets that it then either threw away as not profitable enough or sat on without adding any further innovation (such as the web browser, which flatlined for years from IE 5 to IE 7 because there was no competition).

That's why I laugh in the face of morons who try to say Apple = Microsoft.

iLife is five significant apps for $79 = ~ $15 each.

That's SHAREWARE prices. Who else makes a similar package? Oh right, nobody, because there is no way to make 5 good consumer apps, sell them for $79, and MAKE MONEY.

Microsoft Office for Mac cost $150 or $399 if you want to use it with Exchange. Or $500 if you want the top end edition.

Yes, but Apple will grow when it stops being Mac only and stops with the absurd pricing of hardware

You are aware that Apple is outpacing the PC industry growth by roughly a factor of ten, 40% to 4%, right? Do you think Apple wants your business if you only want a $400 PC? Because they don't.

Road to Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard: 64-Bits

- it could spell the end of Apple. Without Apple, no more OS X development. Parasites are never beneficial to anything but themselves.

Riiiight, like you know how MS managed to go bankrupt after IBM PC compatible clones came on the market.

Microsoft was the parasite. It licensed DOS, cloned from CP/M and largely updated by IBM, not Microsoft, to other vendors, killing its host IBM before eating through a series of PC makers that all went out of business or merged together while Microsoft grew fatter.

As for the viability of Apple selling Mac OS X at retail: who supports it? Microsoft sells its software on roughly 95% of the world's PC, yet Apple makes nearly half the revenue of Microsoft ($24 vs 60 billion) and a 1/6 the profits.

Are you recommending that Apple give up its revenues and stellar 40% year over year growth to attempt to sell retail software boxes to PC users? How much of Microsoft's software pie could Apple take at $100 a box? Now, how many of those sales would buy a Mac (hardware profit), AppleCare (service profit) MobileMe (subscription software profit) and return to the Apple retail store to buy accessories (retail profit)? You'd trade that for a $100 retail box that would likely incur lots of phone support? Also, 50% of the retail box goes to retailers.

Even Microsoft makes very little from retail box sales of Windows. With the PC market shut out by Microsoft's OEM deals, there is simply no market for a competition (hence the term "monopoly"). Have you noticed how well retail boxes of Linux are selling? How about OEM Linux deals?

Why would you recommend Apple sell its OS and wipe away the main attraction for selling its hardware so it could become a support-taxed software vendor trying to support all the hardware in the PC world, something this has proven difficult for even Microsoft?

It's infantile to say "Apple would still make money." Every heard of opportunity cost? How about diminishing return? Support costs? Brand marketing? Selling OS X at retail would only benefit Dell and HP, who could both wipe Apple out were they given Apple's assets to battle it.

Road to Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard: 64-Bits

Jobs rectified the problems, but he also explained that the licensing deals were "killing Apple" and that cloners refused to renegotiate reasonable rates (whatever those might be). Jobs killed cloning because it wasn't working.

All cloners did for Apple was eat up the valuable end of the market and dump an extraordinary support load on the company. They didn't innovate anything apart from the use of cheaper boxes and additional component variety for Apple to test and support.

Road to Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard: 64-Bits

And yet you lack the right to authorize Pystar to violate the terms of the licensing agreement on retail boxes of Mac OS X, to crack Leopard to run on the PC they're selling, so Pystar has no legal authorization to a) duplicate b) crack or c) sell the software as a value add for their hardware.

And of course, Pystar isn't manually installing your copy for you, its duplicating a drive image of Leopard and throwing in a retail box.

Road to Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard: 64-Bits

Leopard is not equivalent to "Vista Home Premium."

Start with Vista Ultimate ($183 on Amazon), and then look up the Enterprise or 64-bit edition so you can address more than 4GB of RAM.

Apple has released over 70 free updates to Mac OS X during which Microsoft has released 7. Windows Mobile gets an update a year if you're lucky, while the iPhone has received eleven.

Apple has a right to sue anyone, even "bloggers" who it thinks it should reveal its industrial spies. Apple lost its case, bringing a legitimate legal case to the courts is a right, not an affront to society.

And "silencing criticism" - shit, Apple is not a country jackass. It's a free market, you can leave if you don't like their products. Your attempts to turn being a customer in being a political prisoner suffering human rights abuses is ridiculous.

Also, I can post whatever the "fuck" I want. Why are you "silencing my criticism"? Waa.

Grow up and learn how to handle facts rather than throw tantrums.

Microsoft's Mojave Attempts to Wet Vista's Desert
Microsoft's Mojave Experiment Exposes Serious Vista Problems

Leopard is not equivalent to "Vista Home Premium."

Start with Vista Ultimate ($183 on Amazon), and then look up the Enterprise or 64-bit edition so you can address more than 4GB of RAM.

Apple has released over 70 free updates to Mac OS X during which Microsoft has released 7. Windows Mobile gets an update a year if you're lucky, while the iPhone has received eleven.

Apple has a right to sue anyone, even "bloggers" who it thinks it should reveal its industrial spies. Apple lost its case, bringing a legitimate legal case to the courts is a right, not an affront to society.

And "silencing criticism" - shit, Apple is not a country jackass. It's a free market, you can leave if you don't like their products. Your attempts to turn being a customer in being a political prisoner suffering human rights abuses is ridiculous.

Also, I can post whatever the "fuck" I want. Why are you "silencing my criticism"? Waa.

Grow up and learn how to handle facts rather than throw tantrums.

Microsoft's Mojave Attempts to Wet Vista's Desert
Microsoft's Mojave Experiment Exposes Serious Vista Problems

You give me too much credit. I actually only never bothered to look at the correct spelling, and Paystar sounds both familiar and easier to spell. I'm not trying to impress anyone with my ability to spell things correctly.

Apple's secret "Back to My Mac" push behind IPv6

When you say "my point" I think you mean "my irrelevant, semantic quibble." Copyright violation is theft.

When you say "selling as an upgrade is a dubious claim since it works on its own," I think you mean "I don't believe in intellectual property because it would result in me having to pay for shit I can otherwise just righteously assume ownership of as a right of being alive." When you come out and say it, I can dismiss your opinion right off much easier.

The copy of Mac OS X Paystar is distributing on their PC is not a retail box version, its a remix. Exactly the same thing, apart from that fact that Paystar also includes a (presumably resellable) untampered retail box, which makes it even worse.

When you "buy" a CD, you are only buying a plastic circle in a box. You are licensing the music on it. This is not a "meme," it is established in law.

When you say "Actually, yes you can, if you pay the fee" I think you mean "yes you can if you also pay to license it for rebroadcast," which should not be prefixed with "Yes you can if," but rather "oh right, I guess I am wrong because."

Also, statutory licensing relates to playing back music, not licensing technology for resale, just in case you were trying to imply that.

When you say "The fact that it's largely not licensing means that they can't dictate the terms as much as you seem to think," I have no idea what you think you mean. Licensing is a binary event, not something that involves a gradient of being. Licensing most certainly does "involve dictating terms," as that's the entire point of contract law.

When you say "Who the hell knows if that is OK" I think you mean "facts are controversial," and I have to disagree.

Since I already presented a pretty obvious example of why you can't "mangle and resell" a copyright work for profit (outside of parody or educational or artistic value, none of which Paystar is doing), my work is finished here.

Apple's secret "Back to My Mac" push behind IPv6

If you think pointing out the potential for Apple being sued is "hyperbole," then, well, wow.

Microsoft is happy for vendors to install hardware drivers, yes, after they pay for certification and prove their drivers will not make Windows look like a faulty product. Additionally, OEMs bring in 80% of Microsoft's revenue. OEMs and Paystar in particular bring in near zero revenue for Apple, while tarnishing its brand, exposing it to liability, and violating its copyright.

Apple's secret "Back to My Mac" push behind IPv6

Yes Apple's lawyers do represent the company. I'm saying personifying Apple as an entity and using every instance of behavior from every individual that has ever worked at Apple in order to carry out your interpreted dance of persecution is ridiculous. Hence, the ridicule.

And yes, I spelled the company's name wrong, because I don't really give a shit. So you win there, because you were able to spell it correctly. Good job, hope you didn't spend too much time on researching for that pat on the back.

The point is, however, that Paystar's (see, I really can't give a shit) lawsuit is frivolous bullshit because the company has no right to Apple's software, goodwill, etc. Apple is defending its brand, copyright, etc. That's why I think I'm right based on facts and you are being emotionally entangled with your own inner greed.

Our other difference in perspective is based on the fact that I see Apple, Paystar and the RIAA as entities all trying to cover their ass and/or seek legal advantages in their own interest. So I look at every lawsuit that occurs as a question of law. Sometimes Apple is correct, and sometimes the company is ridiculous. Sometimes the RIAA acts appropriately in defending its rights, but much of the time it appears to be out of touch with reality. The same goes for Microsoft and the OSDL and the FSF and the EFF and every other entity.

Based on your comment, it appears you have an emotional attachment to certain entities that prejudices your view, so that Apple and the RIAA are evil, and anyone violating copyright is presumably righteous. This makes it difficult to take your position seriously. Perhaps if I were 16 I'd agree with you for fear of not being cool otherwise, but I don't even give a shit about spelling Paystar right, remember?

Apple's secret "Back to My Mac" push behind IPv6

More ridiculousness.

Apple didn't "brick" iPhones, it warned users who had modified their phone firmware that installing updated software could result in a phone set that no longer worked because the tampered firmware was not compatible with higher level software on the phone. If you're not aware, tampering with firmware on devices may result in their failure to operate as expected. Blaming Apple in such a circumstance is the same absurdist garbage of irresponsible neanderthals.

You stuffed the phrase "hateful propaganda" into my mouth. I said it was "a wildly problematic rant/ad for his book" and that "Kahney has a loose grasp of reality and contradicts himself repeatedly."

Stick with facts; don't get all emotional and use over the top language as a substitute for having a point. Kahney does write gushy love letter bullshit, but it's also laced with absurdist insinuations of "evil." It's certainly not worth reading, and does not deserve being the basis of your worldview.

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but when you equate Microsoft's behaviors with Apple's you are comparing being emotionally offended with a being the victim of a crime. My comments are only intended to separate fantasy from reality for you.

Apple's secret "Back to My Mac" push behind IPv6

If you buy a Potter book (and please don't just on my account), and then rewrite the ending to please a given audience, and then sell it as the work of the Potter author, you are not operating a book store, but rather violating copyright.

Paystar is not just bundling Mac OS X retail boxes with PCs. That would be somewhat grey area because the user would be violating their license with Apple to install it on Paystar's PC, but it would not be illegal because Apple can't restrict resale of its retail box.

Paystar is violating the license it acquired when the bought the box by installing it on their PC, and is further modifying it (because installing Leopard on a PC requires modification), a direct and obvious violation of copyright.

Apple is not taking action against users who buy and install Leopard on their own PC, just as you describe that Microsoft doesn't care about petty one-off license things (although Microsoft will kill your PC in a heartbeat if it suspects you have not paid for a valid license).

However, allowing Paystar to represent that it is selling a functional equivalent to an Apple Mac would be more than lost money for Apple, it would be a brand smear and potentially expose Apple to liability. Hackers at home don't expect Mac OS X to run flawlessly on whatever random hardware they decide to use, but some small business or litigious retired couple that buys a Paystar PC being marketed as a cheap Mac will at some point demand that Apple solve their problems because they think they have a legal license. Also, all of Paystar's customers will have the impression that any problems they have are the fault of Apple, which is why companies choose no to do business with other companies they do not want to be associated with.

Road to Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard: 64-Bits

Except that when you represent another's work as your own after making a derivation of it, nor can you present a modified work as being the work of another party. In neither case are you simply "reselling it." You are modifying it for resale as a new work. This is particularly problematic if the changes you make have the likely outcome of making the other party's work look faulty.

Apple does not even sell Mac OS X "at a full retail price," it licenses it as an upgrade for running on (and only on) Mac hardware. It's find if you don't like that, but that doesn't give you commercial rights to pirate it.

You can't buy a Madonna CD, remix it, burn it to CD-R and resell it as a Madonna album, even if you buy a copy for every copy you sell. That is still copyright violation, because Madonna had the right to decide what is sold as her work.

You also can't buy a CD (which is licensed for individual use, as CDs are), and broadcast it on your radio station. You also can't buy a DVD and play it in your own theater. Those are licensing violations.

The fact that you aren't aware of how licensing works doesn't make you a suitable arbitrator of how one company can reuse the work of another.

"Breach of contract" implies the presence of a contract. Again, you seem to be assuming that Apple has an implied contract to sell Mac OS X to anyone who wants to sell derivations of it to enhance the value of their hardware. That is not the case.

Road to Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard: 64-Bits

So you're saying Apple should grant cloners the right to inject code into the Mac OS X kernel and then pass it off as being a low cost Mac OS X?

Do you think pissed off customers would sue Paystar, or Apple? Here's a hint: Apple has money.

Incidentally, does Microsoft allow OEMs to willy nilly modify the Vista kernel and represent a derivative product as being Vista?

Does Linux allow people to modify the kernel and represent the resulting product as being the work of Linus?

Road to Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard: 64-Bits

Except that Sony's junkware doesn't remove copy protection from and recompile the kernel of Windows in order to bypass not being granted an OEM license.

Additionally, Sony has an OEM license from Microsoft.

If Apple granted PC makers the right to license its software, and then punished specific licensees (and charged them extra licensing fees) for advertising that they also sold their own PCs with Linux or OS/2 or some other competitors' software, then you might have some correlation with how Microsoft does its business. That could be argued to be anti-competitive and a restraint of free trade

However, Apple has no moral obligation to enrich Paystar, nor any moral obligation that forces it to license its technology to third parties.

Apple does have a software copyright that protects it from having third parties represent that Apple's software is running as intended on their PCs, particularly when Paystar's PCs make Mac OS X look slow, problematic, unstable, and expose users to data loss or other problems that could easily expose Apple to liability.

If Apple can get sued for the iPhone 3G not working where 3G service is unavailable, do you think Apple could be sued for allowing Paystar to offer an Implied Warranty of Fitness for a Particular Purpose, obligating Apple to maintain responsibility for developing custom drivers and support for whatever hardware Paystar can cobble together?

Apple gets sued now and then, remember?

Road to Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard: 64-Bits

First off, it wasn't an explicit analogy, was it?

Paystar is claiming it has rights to modify and distribute Apple's software. It clams Apple owes it a free ride to add value to its PC hardware using Apple's work. Paystar's ridiculous claim infers that it has a right to profit from Apple's work, but has no responsibility to follow Apple's license or respect Apple's copyright.

Copyright gives Apple, not Paystar, the right to decide how to use, sell or distribute its own work.

SCO demanded that it owned the copyright for work done by others, simply because it wanted to charge money for work it had not done. It sued IBM for "interfering with a legitimate business practice" of shaking down Linux users.

Both SCO and Paystar are demanding to profit from work done by others that they have no right to demand.

An analogy would be if I said Paystar is like a car that wants to park on your lawn, and sues to for being upset about it.

Road to Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard: 64-Bits

Running Mac OS X on generic PCs requires making changes to the software, including defeating kexts and installing support for your own hardware.

That changes how it works. If it were a matter of buying a Leopard retail box and turning it on and performign an install, why would Paystar even be in the news? Why not just buy a Dell or whatever and then grab a Leopard retail box?

Do you ever stop to think about things?

Is Apple's MobileMe Secure?

Don't confuse Apple with its lawyers. Apple gets sued regularly over frivolous bullshit like Paystar's, so the the company's legal team is a ravenous bunch of sharks.

The Wired sensationalism about lawyers' overstated legalese asking not to get unsolicited idea submissions outside of the "sign away your rights" web form for feedback is to prevent a case where somebody sends in an idea Apple is already working on, sort of like sending the violated IP to a clean room team. Of course they don't want to get sued, and lawyers overreact to protect their assets.

Microsoft isn't "evil" for bundling software, it violated its consent decree (its agreement with the judge in a legal case) in order to destroy competition. Apple has no consent decree to violate, and has not been charged by the US with anti-competitive behaviors. So you're grasping at straws.

Jobs does not own the RIAA's music, so he can only do what they allow him to do. He replaced strong Windows Media DRM from Microsoft with FairPlay DRM that end users can strip off themselves using iTunes burn function. So again, you are being ridiculous.

Apple does not have a moral obligation to hand its IP over to Microsoft just because it did once already in the mid 80s. The "little guy" you are rooting for here is a convicted monopolist. It's like you're complaining about Bernhard Goetz being criminal.

Apple never "forced the installation of Safari," it presented it as a software update. Microsoft presents new versions of its own browser as a software update, on both the Mac (when it did) and Windows. Again, you are being wildly disingenuous.

Linking to Leander Kahney's wildly problematic rant/ad for his book doesn't help your case, because Kahney has a loose grasp of reality and contradicts himself repeatedly.

As John Gruber noted (and thank God, as it spared me from explaining exactly why Kahney is so full of himself):

"Kahney's central premise, insofar as there is a premise, is that Apple has succeeded either despite or because it operates in ways that are contrary to conventional wisdom. [... Kahney says Apple is] "Irredeemably evilâ. Because they're secretive and develop closed platforms. Think about that."
[...]
"One can argue (as I would) that Apple's product secrecy is worth tens of millions of dollars in publicity every year. Or, one can argue that Apple spitefully pissed away even more valuable publicity by shutting down Think Secret. (You'd be wrong, but you can reasonably argue that.) But Kahney, in the course of seven paragraphs in a single article, argues both."
[...]
"So this is the sort of logic, research, and insight that passes for a Wired cover story today. Does anyone at Wired even read this shit before publishing it?"

Perhaps you should base your world view on facts rather than emotional tirades from Apple's critics to somehow defend why it is that Apple owes you its technology in a subsidized PC in addition to the subsidized iPhone you can already get.

How Leander Kahney Got Everything Wrong by Being an Irredeemable Jackass

Is Apple's MobileMe Secure?

Of course if you bought MM dolls and were selling them with S&M outfits, Disney might sue you. Simple reselling and derived works are different circumstances.

Also, software is sold under a license. If you took photographs of Disney characters and printed it on Tshirts, you'd get sued for copyright violation. If you bought disney merch and resold it in your own store with your brand name on it, you could be sued.

There's a big difference between what consumers can do under the right of first sale and what companies can do. You can't buy scanners bundled with Adobe NFR software and then resell each separately for example. A consumer might get away with it, but if you opened a store and did that, you'd be sued by Adobe for violating their software license.

Is Apple's MobileMe Secure?

The problem isn't that Paystar doesn't have a license to use software it is purchasing.

The problem is that Paystar is modifying and reselling software it has neither a license nor any copyright to modify and resell. It also lacks any right to even to distribute Apple's software against the terms of its license.

It's no different than selling software that is licensed as NFR, or selling Windows OEM without hardware, or any number of other uncontested legal mechanisms.

Is Apple's MobileMe Secure?

So if Linksys modifies Linux and links in software that it does not publish as the GPL demands, the only problem is that Linksys has violated GNU's (or whoever hold its) copyright?

Even if that is your argument, how could it possibly be that Paystar has no copyright issue involved with taking Mac OS X, making changes, and reselling it as a derivation? Even if you don't believe in EULA restrictions, Paystar is volating Apple's copyright by selling Apple's software as its own.

If I were to start selling PCs running Windows using OEM licenses I acquired, made changes to how Windows works, and began selling them as Mojave PCs, Microsoft would have both an IP licensing case and a copyright infringement case against me.

Just because you want a white box Mac doesn't mean the legal system doesn't exist.

Is Apple's MobileMe Secure?

Look at the facts again:

SCO claimed IBM owed it money for performing work on Linux that SCO claimed should somehow enrich SCO, despite SCO having not done anything to deserve it.

Paystar claimed Apple owed it money for performing work on Mac OS X that Paystar claimed should somehow enrich Paystar, despite Paystar having not done anything to deserve it.

Now ask yourself, why are you rooting for Paystar?

What's Next from Apple: New iPods Sept 22, iPhone OS 2.1, iTunes 8.0

Your argument would have more weight if you stated one.

What are these "horrid tactics," licensing software for less than Microsoft does? Trying to get iTunes users to try Safari on Windows? Releasing software updates faster than most rivals? Processing hundreds of vulnerability reports within a couple months? Lay it on the line if you have a grief, don't just suggest evil lurking were none does.

What's Next from Apple: New iPods Sept 22, iPhone OS 2.1, iTunes 8.0

Bad example, as the Xserve costs pretty much what a comparable server from Dell costs, it just includes a Server OS. Your Dell server needs a separate license for Windows Server. When you add in CALs, an Exchange/file server can easily cost more in software than it does in hardware.

I did a comparison last year and found that a Dell PowerEdge with similar specs to the Xserve cost less than 10% more:

Dell $6506 vs Apple $5495

but when you add in Windows Server, Exchange Standard, and the required CALs to support 100 users, the Dell ends up well over $10,000 more. The Xserve comes with an unlimited license to Mac OS X Server.

Dell $17,206 vs Apple $5495.

I'm sure you can spec out a DIY PC box that saves you a few hundred in hardware, but you can't make Windows server licensing cost less.

Of course, you can also use Linux or other free software, but if that was your intent, you don't need to steal Apple's software in the first place. Even so, Apple's Xserve hardware is attractive enough that buyers do get it and install YDL.

Apple's Open Calendar Server vs Microsoft Exchange

Will Google's Android Play DOS to Apple's iPhone?

Bad example, as the Xserve costs pretty much what a comparable server from Dell costs, it just includes a Server OS. Your Dell server needs a separate license for Windows Server. When you add in CALs, an Exchange/file server can easily cost more in software than it does in hardware.

I did a comparison last year and found that a Dell PowerEdge with similar specs to the Xserve cost less than 10% more:

Dell $6506 vs Apple $5495

but when you add in Windows Server, Exchange Standard, and the required CALs to support 100 users, the Dell ends up well over $10,000 more. The Xserve comes with an unlimited license to Mac OS X Server.

Dell $17,206 vs Apple $5495.

I'm sure you can spec out a DIY PC box that saves you a few hundred in hardware, but you can't make Windows server licensing cost less.

Of course, you can also use Linux or other free software, but if that was your intent, you don't need to steal Apple's software in the first place. Even so, Apple's Xserve hardware is attractive enough that buyers do get it and install YDL.

Apple's Open Calendar Server vs Microsoft Exchange

Will Google's Android Play DOS to Apple's iPhone?

Also keep in mind that if Paystar could legally dismiss Apple's license terms simply on the basis of demanding that it has some sort of moral right to make unfettered profits from another's work without respecting the owner's license, it also means the GLP can be dismissed by any corporation who doesn't want to follow it because they think they can make more profits ignoring it.

So Tivo, Linksys, Motorola, etc similarly could continue to ignore the GPL and use Linux code without opening it up.

Careful what you wish for in your moment of greed, you might get it.

Will Google's Android Play DOS to Apple's iPhone?

Yes, and next sue Disney for having an immoral and illegal monopoly over licensing Mickey Mouse merchandise.

Surely the "moral thing" to do is just let the Chinese clone everything in America so you can bask in the glow of buying a 99 cent version of everything at Walmart thanks to slave labor.

The fact that five people found you insightful makes me sad.

Will Google's Android Play DOS to Apple's iPhone?

I am compelled to point out that the premise of Google's Android being the "DOS of smartphones" was examined in:

Will Google's Android Play DOS to Appleâ(TM)s iPhone?

... a followup to

Will Windows Mobile Play DOS to Apple's iPhone?