You said that PDF is universally available, though, which is the whole point we've been working at. Flash and Java are every bit as much de facto standards, and widely available, as PDF is... so because PDF is included on your list, Flash and Java should be included as well.
In a realistic scenario, any of those is fine. Most people have all those things. In an edge case, HTML, because that's all they're guaranteed to have. Failing that, the other three are equally acceptable backup options.
Yet "it's not the whole internet" people don't bitch about FTP.
That's bullshit. Many people in this discussion have said that every protocol must be supported if they claim to deliver the whole internet. Furthermore, it's fucking pointless to go and single out every single thing that the iPhone doesn't support. We have a few on hand, and that's good enough at the moment. You're going to ridiculous lengths to be an Apple apologist.
They delivered what the W3C says the Web should be coded to. They delivered email following the POP3 and IMAP standards for email.
Exactly. This is not the entire internet, nor should it be allowed to be advertised as such.
If the W3C/RFP documents that outline HTML, HTTP, HTTPS don't outline what "web and email" are, then nothing does.
Quite true. Nothing does. Like it or not, Flash and Java content is an important part of the Web, and were you to promise to deliver the whole Web (to say nothing of the internet itself, a far loftier claim!), you must deliver them. Period. If a Web site has it as content, you must be able to display it before you can say you deliver the whole Web.
I'm not saying it's unreasonable of Apple to not want to dick around with that, I'm saying they can't claim they're delivering more than they actually are.
Agreed. I've never understood when companies try to play stupid morale games with their employees, rather than doing the obvious things. Pay them more, make their job more interesting to them, make sure their boss isn't a jerk. If my company started trying to play morale games with me, I'd just feel insulted, not uplifted.
Because I wanted to know if you had put any intellectual thought into your opinions or you were just repeating cookie-cutter Liberal talking points. It seems that you are repeating talking points.
Your false dichotomy leads to an unfair characterization. I have put some thought into it, and most certainly am not repeating cookie-cutter talking points. "Put any intellectual thought into your opinions" doesn't mean I've put more than a few minutes' thought into them, just that they are my own opinions, and the product of some amount of rational thought. In fact, the fact that I'm willing to admit my lack of knowledge (or desire to gain knowledge) should be an indicator to you that I am thinking for myself, and not just spouting what others tell me to think. If I were spouting what others told me to think, I'd try to defend my opinions with bluster and BS, instead of simply admitting the limits of my knowledge.
The world is not divided into well-thought-out plans and mindless drivel, and there is such a thing as half-formed ideas. Please don't try to force false dichotomies.
"The entire internet" does not mean "the entire internet, except for the parts that aren't standardized". What don't you get about this? They promised the whole thing, the fact that they can't deliver is their own problem.
It could be argued, by this logic, that no device can access 'the entire internet' with the possible exception of Windows based PC's because only a Windows PC will run ActiveX controls (wine hackage not withstanding).
Indeed. Which is why companies shouldn't make stupid, pie-in-the-sky claims like Apple did. That easy.
I don't have a hard time believing that some members of Congress are in the pockets of the oil industry. I have a very hard time believing that all of them are.
No, not all. Just most. Given the sheer amount of abuse of liberties and general dumbassery our government enacts, what on earth would cause you to think the bad ones are in the minority? The recent telecom immunity bill should be proof enough that a significant percentage of our congress is corrupt, because only corruption and bribery could have passed that bill.
So you don't know and all of your ideas are based on gut feelings with no real facts to back them up. Why should anybody take you seriously?
Kind of like the rest of slashdot. This isn't a serious forum, with highly-researched experts on everything. And no, no one should really take anything said here seriously. What's your point here? I'm posting to slashdot, I don't expect to be taken seriously. If I wanted to be taken seriously, I'd develop a detailed, bulletproof plan and deliver it to the people who can implement it.
I'll ask again: Where is the "competition" that you are going to magically create going to procure it's oil from? Do you think that the Saudis/Canadians/Russians/etc will sell it cheaper to some upstart than they will sell it to Exxon? If so then why hasn't some entrepreneur started a new oil company?
And what do you want to regulate to bring prices down? I'm really curious. As previously stated I'm not opposed to all regulation. Regulation has it's place -- particularly in the arenas of safety (consumers have the right to expect that their cars won't blow up) and environmental protection. I just question the notion that more regulation will bring down prices. Most all regulation increases the cost of doing business. That's an acceptable trade-off when talking about protecting the environment or consumer safety -- but don't delude yourself into thinking that more regulation will result in lower prices.
What the fuck? Didn't I already say I honestly don't know? Why the hell are you asking me again? I don't know. I haven't painstakingly developed a plan, nor do I care to. This is not going to change just because you want a better answer out of me.
So why is it a problem if it can't use an annoying plugin that is a big hassle for many disabled people
Because Flash is useful for many sites.
but not a problem if it can't do a simple file retrieval over gopher or ftp?
When did I say this wouldn't be a problem? This is also obviously a problem. If Apple claims "the entire internet", they must deliver the entire internet.
No one lives up to that claim... but then again, they aren't making it. Apple is the one stupid enough to have made the claim, so it only matters if they live up to it.
Er... what standard are we judging universal availability by? PDF isn't supported by default in IE, for example, does that make it not universally available? I'd say Flash, if not Java, is every bit as available as PDF. If you count one you have to count the other.
Is it really that hard of a concept to grasp that oil is a global commodity that is currently facing increased demand at a time when production is leveling off/dropping? This is economics 101 -- you don't have to be Adam Smith to understand it.
And? That doesn't mean it's the reason behind the price increases. I recognize the possibility, I'm saying that's not it.
Congress has investigated the oil companies multiple times for price gouging. They've come up empty every single time. Do you really think that there isn't some ambitious politician that would love to make an issue out of this if he/she could prove they were fixing prices?
Congress? Are you seriously trusting what they say? Don't make me laugh. Any company with sufficient money (and oil companies certainly have that) is above the law in the US, because of how corrupt our elected traitors--sorry, I meant representatives, are. I don't trust a word our Congressmen say, much less when it applies to businesses.
What do you want to regulate? Honestly.... what would you regulate that would bring prices down?
Where is that competition going to obtain it's oil from? Do you think there is some surplus of available oil on the market that American oil companies aren't taking advantage of?
I'll answer you honestly: I don't know. My suggestions are very rough, and I haven't fully looked into what should be done, simply because I don't care. Nothing I say is going to change anything, so I have more interesting things to concern myself with. If that makes me come off as a fool, so be it, I guess, but regulation or competition seem to be the most promising roads to better oil prices to me. It's an uninformed, layman's opinion, but I'm ok with that.
If you really cared about universal availability you'd make everything available in the de facto web formats HTML, PDF, JPG, PNG, etc. Only then can you get closer to universal availability.
Flash and Java are just as much "de facto web formats" as any of those other formats.
No, the advertisement authority did the right thing here. "The entire internet" is a lofty claim, and Apple isn't living up to it. I don't give a damn if 99% of the population doesn't care about the entire internet, Apple is still responsible for being factual in their claims.
Which clearly explains why prices have been coming down for the last few weeks.....
There's no other way to explain the exorbitant prices that there are now. If they couldn't just charge what they wanted, the prices wouldn't be even as high as they are now, let alone what they were a couple of months ago. People would've revolted ages ago.
Why not?
FFS. I covered this. Gas is something that most people need. Not want, need. There are few enough oil companies that they can keep prices high and not worry about being out-priced by a competitor, and people will pay for it because they have to. They may as well be charging for the only supply of oxygen, that's how much leeway they have to do what they want.
I'm a lifelong Democrat but I'm getting tired of hearing people make "big oil" into the problem. Windfall profits tax? WTF is that? Since when did America punish people merely for being successful? And I gotta say that I love all of this talk about their "excessive" profits. The profit margin of the oil industry pales in comparison to the telecommunications and pharmaceutical industries. Why aren't we taxing them more?
I don't want to tax them more. That's retarded. They'll just pass the tax off to the consumer. What should be done is either some regulation, or trying to get some competition going. One of those might lead to lower prices.
And comparing oil companies to telecom doesn't help your argument at all. Saying that one bad guy is better than an even worse guy is meaningless. That's like saying "The flu rocks! I mean, think about it: we could have HIV! I'm so glad I have the flu and not HIV!". It's technically true, but meaningless, because both are bad.
The amount of gas price increases we've seen would suggest that there is no such flaw. They've backed off for now, but I doubt it's anything except temporary, given past history of gas prices.
Right, it isn't a strategy game, it is an RTS game.
/facepalm
I'm sorry, you take any RTS, move it to the competitive level, and it is going to be about the strategy they use and how fast they can click to position their units and micromanage.
While I can't say I've seen many RTSes at the competitive level apart from Starcraft, I've seen a great many at the amateur level, and Starcraft is one of the only ones that favors twitch gameplay over strategy. Thus, I find your statement a bit difficult to swallow. Starcraft doesn't become twitch-based at the competitive level, it's only exhibiting the qualities inherent to the game at all levels of play. I'd wager that if you took a proper RTS, like Sins of a Solar Empire, and played it at a competitive level, you wouldn't see it degenerate into a clickfest.
What you are talking about doesn't exist.
Sure it does, it's called "most other RTSes". Great example, just off the top of my head: Sins of a Solar Empire. Great RTS, doesn't revolve around click-click-click and micro. It involves actual strategy, you know, the thing the "S" stands for in RTS.
Apple has every right to tie their software to their hardware if they choose.
No company has the right to tie one of their products to another of their products.
Imagine how much more money they would have to spend on support and development if all of a sudden OSX was expected to run on any random configuration of hardware.
$0. They say, "Here's the software, we're not supporting it if you don't run it on our machines, even though it may work. Have fun!". They don't need to spend another dime on support and development.
One of the nice things about the Mac platform is that there is a small number of machines that officially run Mac OS, and those machines all have hardware that is solid.
This will still be something that's nice about Apple computers, even if they're forced to let anyone who wants to run their OS. Nothing will change on this front.
Like it or not, one of the reasons Mac systems are generally more stable than Windows systems is that Windows will run on really crappy hardware.
Actually, Mac OS hasn't had any serious stability advantage on Windows ever since Windows XP was released, simply because there's no room for serious improvement over XP's stability. It's awfully hard to mess up XP, except with bad hardware or bad drivers (neither of which is the OS maker's responsibility). If this is what would mess Mac OS up, that's an indication that Mac OS is sloppily written.
I most certainly do. I also know that the oil companies have a product that everyone needs, and there is no meaningful competition, so they can charge whatever the hell they want. This isn't a scenario where the benefits of a free market are apparent.
Indeed. My parents used to do all their shopping in Green Bay, but when they raised their sales tax rate by.5% (to pay for the renovations to Lambeau Field), they took their business to another county, because they didn't support using taxpayer money for this project. Wisconsin's tax system is more complex, it's true, but it allows a big advantage in being able to have some choice about whether or not to pay for certain government projects you disagree with.
Actually, no, they won't. If Exxon collects $60 billion this year, and pays $4 billion in taxes, they damn well will be collecting $64 billion in revenue next year. They have a product which a lot of people can't go without, and can charge whatever they want (up to a point, but we're far from that point yet).
Are you blind? Deaf? Do you not pay attention to what goes on in the world? Because those are the only excuses I can think of for not knowing this. Apple's monopolistic practice is tying sales of their OS to sales of their hardware. They have no right to say that you must buy their hardware to buy their OS, because that's artificially propping up their hardware sales. If they wish to sell hardware, let them sell it in a competitive manner, with no artificial propping up.
I get tired of hearing the same absurd nonsense from people whose knowledge of antitrust laws boils down to "houses are green and hotels are red."
This is not absurd, nor is it nonsense. It is plain common sense. I am not a lawyer, and will readily admit it to anyone who asks. If you really wish me to put a "IANAL..." disclaimer in every post I make that touches the law, you're going to be very disappointed. Moreover, I'm not even talking about what the law is. I'm saying what should be, whether reality matches that statement or not.
I'd also defy you to find any statement from Apple about them being a hardware company...
You win. I'm not going to scour the internets to find something like this. They've said things to this effect, and it is commonly accepted fact that this is their business model. If you want to dispute it, you're technically in the right, since I have no proof, nor am I willing to fetch any, but you've won the battle and lost the war.
they sell the complete system
The copies of OS X I can find at my local store say otherwise.
Favorable pricing for prior customers is one of the benefits one expects from being a repeat customer, and supporting this line of reasoning supports it being banned as anticompetitive. Those posters on Slashdot making points like yours are so painfully short-sighted that it's no wonder consumers are treated with disdain.
This is not "favorable pricing for prior customers". This is "requiring purchase of product B in order to purchase product A". That is tying, and if it isn't illegal, it bloody well should be.
You're cutting off your nose to spite your face.
No I'm not. First of all, I hate OS X. I would never run it unless you paid me to do so. This doesn't affect me in the slightest. Second, even if it did effect me, I have enough principle that I'd stoically take the bad effect for me, because the end result was just.
Simply put, they're under no obligation to sell to others at all...
Agreed. If they sell to one person, however, they must sell to all who will pay. If Apple stops keeping the farce that is boxed copies of OS X in stores, and only includes it with a new computer (for no added price, of course), I'll be satisfied. If they stop pretending they can dictate what people do with the copies they have in stores, I'll also be satisfied. But they have to pick one.
The law is all about wording. Notice how many judges don't apply the spirit of the law, but rather the letter of the law. I think you're extremely incorrect in saying that a judge is going to be annoyed at someone for following exactly what Apple's terms state. If Apple wanted something specific, they should have specified it, not left it ambiguous.
Slashdot Mirror
You said that PDF is universally available, though, which is the whole point we've been working at. Flash and Java are every bit as much de facto standards, and widely available, as PDF is... so because PDF is included on your list, Flash and Java should be included as well.
In a realistic scenario, any of those is fine. Most people have all those things. In an edge case, HTML, because that's all they're guaranteed to have. Failing that, the other three are equally acceptable backup options.
Yet "it's not the whole internet" people don't bitch about FTP.
That's bullshit. Many people in this discussion have said that every protocol must be supported if they claim to deliver the whole internet. Furthermore, it's fucking pointless to go and single out every single thing that the iPhone doesn't support. We have a few on hand, and that's good enough at the moment. You're going to ridiculous lengths to be an Apple apologist.
And that's what they delivered.
No.
They delivered what the W3C says the Web should be coded to. They delivered email following the POP3 and IMAP standards for email.
Exactly. This is not the entire internet, nor should it be allowed to be advertised as such.
If the W3C/RFP documents that outline HTML, HTTP, HTTPS don't outline what "web and email" are, then nothing does.
Quite true. Nothing does. Like it or not, Flash and Java content is an important part of the Web, and were you to promise to deliver the whole Web (to say nothing of the internet itself, a far loftier claim!), you must deliver them. Period. If a Web site has it as content, you must be able to display it before you can say you deliver the whole Web.
I'm not saying it's unreasonable of Apple to not want to dick around with that, I'm saying they can't claim they're delivering more than they actually are.
Agreed. I've never understood when companies try to play stupid morale games with their employees, rather than doing the obvious things. Pay them more, make their job more interesting to them, make sure their boss isn't a jerk. If my company started trying to play morale games with me, I'd just feel insulted, not uplifted.
Because I wanted to know if you had put any intellectual thought into your opinions or you were just repeating cookie-cutter Liberal talking points. It seems that you are repeating talking points.
Your false dichotomy leads to an unfair characterization. I have put some thought into it, and most certainly am not repeating cookie-cutter talking points. "Put any intellectual thought into your opinions" doesn't mean I've put more than a few minutes' thought into them, just that they are my own opinions, and the product of some amount of rational thought. In fact, the fact that I'm willing to admit my lack of knowledge (or desire to gain knowledge) should be an indicator to you that I am thinking for myself, and not just spouting what others tell me to think. If I were spouting what others told me to think, I'd try to defend my opinions with bluster and BS, instead of simply admitting the limits of my knowledge.
The world is not divided into well-thought-out plans and mindless drivel, and there is such a thing as half-formed ideas. Please don't try to force false dichotomies.
"The entire internet" does not mean "the entire internet, except for the parts that aren't standardized". What don't you get about this? They promised the whole thing, the fact that they can't deliver is their own problem.
It could be argued, by this logic, that no device can access 'the entire internet' with the possible exception of Windows based PC's because only a Windows PC will run ActiveX controls (wine hackage not withstanding).
Indeed. Which is why companies shouldn't make stupid, pie-in-the-sky claims like Apple did. That easy.
I don't have a hard time believing that some members of Congress are in the pockets of the oil industry. I have a very hard time believing that all of them are.
No, not all. Just most. Given the sheer amount of abuse of liberties and general dumbassery our government enacts, what on earth would cause you to think the bad ones are in the minority? The recent telecom immunity bill should be proof enough that a significant percentage of our congress is corrupt, because only corruption and bribery could have passed that bill.
So you don't know and all of your ideas are based on gut feelings with no real facts to back them up. Why should anybody take you seriously?
Kind of like the rest of slashdot. This isn't a serious forum, with highly-researched experts on everything. And no, no one should really take anything said here seriously. What's your point here? I'm posting to slashdot, I don't expect to be taken seriously. If I wanted to be taken seriously, I'd develop a detailed, bulletproof plan and deliver it to the people who can implement it.
I'll ask again: Where is the "competition" that you are going to magically create going to procure it's oil from? Do you think that the Saudis/Canadians/Russians/etc will sell it cheaper to some upstart than they will sell it to Exxon? If so then why hasn't some entrepreneur started a new oil company? And what do you want to regulate to bring prices down? I'm really curious. As previously stated I'm not opposed to all regulation. Regulation has it's place -- particularly in the arenas of safety (consumers have the right to expect that their cars won't blow up) and environmental protection. I just question the notion that more regulation will bring down prices. Most all regulation increases the cost of doing business. That's an acceptable trade-off when talking about protecting the environment or consumer safety -- but don't delude yourself into thinking that more regulation will result in lower prices.
What the fuck? Didn't I already say I honestly don't know? Why the hell are you asking me again? I don't know. I haven't painstakingly developed a plan, nor do I care to. This is not going to change just because you want a better answer out of me.
So why is it a problem if it can't use an annoying plugin that is a big hassle for many disabled people
Because Flash is useful for many sites.
but not a problem if it can't do a simple file retrieval over gopher or ftp?
When did I say this wouldn't be a problem? This is also obviously a problem. If Apple claims "the entire internet", they must deliver the entire internet.
No one lives up to that claim... but then again, they aren't making it. Apple is the one stupid enough to have made the claim, so it only matters if they live up to it.
Er... what standard are we judging universal availability by? PDF isn't supported by default in IE, for example, does that make it not universally available? I'd say Flash, if not Java, is every bit as available as PDF. If you count one you have to count the other.
Is it really that hard of a concept to grasp that oil is a global commodity that is currently facing increased demand at a time when production is leveling off/dropping? This is economics 101 -- you don't have to be Adam Smith to understand it.
And? That doesn't mean it's the reason behind the price increases. I recognize the possibility, I'm saying that's not it.
Congress has investigated the oil companies multiple times for price gouging. They've come up empty every single time. Do you really think that there isn't some ambitious politician that would love to make an issue out of this if he/she could prove they were fixing prices?
Congress? Are you seriously trusting what they say? Don't make me laugh. Any company with sufficient money (and oil companies certainly have that) is above the law in the US, because of how corrupt our elected traitors--sorry, I meant representatives, are. I don't trust a word our Congressmen say, much less when it applies to businesses.
What do you want to regulate? Honestly.... what would you regulate that would bring prices down?
Where is that competition going to obtain it's oil from? Do you think there is some surplus of available oil on the market that American oil companies aren't taking advantage of?
I'll answer you honestly: I don't know. My suggestions are very rough, and I haven't fully looked into what should be done, simply because I don't care. Nothing I say is going to change anything, so I have more interesting things to concern myself with. If that makes me come off as a fool, so be it, I guess, but regulation or competition seem to be the most promising roads to better oil prices to me. It's an uninformed, layman's opinion, but I'm ok with that.
If you really cared about universal availability you'd make everything available in the de facto web formats HTML, PDF, JPG, PNG, etc. Only then can you get closer to universal availability.
Flash and Java are just as much "de facto web formats" as any of those other formats.
No, the advertisement authority did the right thing here. "The entire internet" is a lofty claim, and Apple isn't living up to it. I don't give a damn if 99% of the population doesn't care about the entire internet, Apple is still responsible for being factual in their claims.
Which clearly explains why prices have been coming down for the last few weeks.....
There's no other way to explain the exorbitant prices that there are now. If they couldn't just charge what they wanted, the prices wouldn't be even as high as they are now, let alone what they were a couple of months ago. People would've revolted ages ago.
Why not?
FFS. I covered this. Gas is something that most people need. Not want, need. There are few enough oil companies that they can keep prices high and not worry about being out-priced by a competitor, and people will pay for it because they have to. They may as well be charging for the only supply of oxygen, that's how much leeway they have to do what they want.
I'm a lifelong Democrat but I'm getting tired of hearing people make "big oil" into the problem. Windfall profits tax? WTF is that? Since when did America punish people merely for being successful? And I gotta say that I love all of this talk about their "excessive" profits. The profit margin of the oil industry pales in comparison to the telecommunications and pharmaceutical industries. Why aren't we taxing them more?
I don't want to tax them more. That's retarded. They'll just pass the tax off to the consumer. What should be done is either some regulation, or trying to get some competition going. One of those might lead to lower prices.
And comparing oil companies to telecom doesn't help your argument at all. Saying that one bad guy is better than an even worse guy is meaningless. That's like saying "The flu rocks! I mean, think about it: we could have HIV! I'm so glad I have the flu and not HIV!". It's technically true, but meaningless, because both are bad.
The amount of gas price increases we've seen would suggest that there is no such flaw. They've backed off for now, but I doubt it's anything except temporary, given past history of gas prices.
Right, it isn't a strategy game, it is an RTS game.
/facepalm
I'm sorry, you take any RTS, move it to the competitive level, and it is going to be about the strategy they use and how fast they can click to position their units and micromanage.
While I can't say I've seen many RTSes at the competitive level apart from Starcraft, I've seen a great many at the amateur level, and Starcraft is one of the only ones that favors twitch gameplay over strategy. Thus, I find your statement a bit difficult to swallow. Starcraft doesn't become twitch-based at the competitive level, it's only exhibiting the qualities inherent to the game at all levels of play. I'd wager that if you took a proper RTS, like Sins of a Solar Empire, and played it at a competitive level, you wouldn't see it degenerate into a clickfest.
What you are talking about doesn't exist.
Sure it does, it's called "most other RTSes". Great example, just off the top of my head: Sins of a Solar Empire. Great RTS, doesn't revolve around click-click-click and micro. It involves actual strategy, you know, the thing the "S" stands for in RTS.
Apple has every right to tie their software to their hardware if they choose.
No company has the right to tie one of their products to another of their products.
Imagine how much more money they would have to spend on support and development if all of a sudden OSX was expected to run on any random configuration of hardware.
$0. They say, "Here's the software, we're not supporting it if you don't run it on our machines, even though it may work. Have fun!". They don't need to spend another dime on support and development.
One of the nice things about the Mac platform is that there is a small number of machines that officially run Mac OS, and those machines all have hardware that is solid.
This will still be something that's nice about Apple computers, even if they're forced to let anyone who wants to run their OS. Nothing will change on this front.
Like it or not, one of the reasons Mac systems are generally more stable than Windows systems is that Windows will run on really crappy hardware.
Actually, Mac OS hasn't had any serious stability advantage on Windows ever since Windows XP was released, simply because there's no room for serious improvement over XP's stability. It's awfully hard to mess up XP, except with bad hardware or bad drivers (neither of which is the OS maker's responsibility). If this is what would mess Mac OS up, that's an indication that Mac OS is sloppily written.
I most certainly do. I also know that the oil companies have a product that everyone needs, and there is no meaningful competition, so they can charge whatever the hell they want. This isn't a scenario where the benefits of a free market are apparent.
Indeed. My parents used to do all their shopping in Green Bay, but when they raised their sales tax rate by .5% (to pay for the renovations to Lambeau Field), they took their business to another county, because they didn't support using taxpayer money for this project. Wisconsin's tax system is more complex, it's true, but it allows a big advantage in being able to have some choice about whether or not to pay for certain government projects you disagree with.
Actually, no, they won't. If Exxon collects $60 billion this year, and pays $4 billion in taxes, they damn well will be collecting $64 billion in revenue next year. They have a product which a lot of people can't go without, and can charge whatever they want (up to a point, but we're far from that point yet).
What monopolistic practices?
Are you blind? Deaf? Do you not pay attention to what goes on in the world? Because those are the only excuses I can think of for not knowing this. Apple's monopolistic practice is tying sales of their OS to sales of their hardware. They have no right to say that you must buy their hardware to buy their OS, because that's artificially propping up their hardware sales. If they wish to sell hardware, let them sell it in a competitive manner, with no artificial propping up.
I get tired of hearing the same absurd nonsense from people whose knowledge of antitrust laws boils down to "houses are green and hotels are red."
This is not absurd, nor is it nonsense. It is plain common sense. I am not a lawyer, and will readily admit it to anyone who asks. If you really wish me to put a "IANAL..." disclaimer in every post I make that touches the law, you're going to be very disappointed. Moreover, I'm not even talking about what the law is. I'm saying what should be, whether reality matches that statement or not.
I'd also defy you to find any statement from Apple about them being a hardware company...
You win. I'm not going to scour the internets to find something like this. They've said things to this effect, and it is commonly accepted fact that this is their business model. If you want to dispute it, you're technically in the right, since I have no proof, nor am I willing to fetch any, but you've won the battle and lost the war.
they sell the complete system
The copies of OS X I can find at my local store say otherwise.
Favorable pricing for prior customers is one of the benefits one expects from being a repeat customer, and supporting this line of reasoning supports it being banned as anticompetitive. Those posters on Slashdot making points like yours are so painfully short-sighted that it's no wonder consumers are treated with disdain.
This is not "favorable pricing for prior customers". This is "requiring purchase of product B in order to purchase product A". That is tying, and if it isn't illegal, it bloody well should be.
You're cutting off your nose to spite your face.
No I'm not. First of all, I hate OS X. I would never run it unless you paid me to do so. This doesn't affect me in the slightest. Second, even if it did effect me, I have enough principle that I'd stoically take the bad effect for me, because the end result was just.
Simply put, they're under no obligation to sell to others at all...
Agreed. If they sell to one person, however, they must sell to all who will pay. If Apple stops keeping the farce that is boxed copies of OS X in stores, and only includes it with a new computer (for no added price, of course), I'll be satisfied. If they stop pretending they can dictate what people do with the copies they have in stores, I'll also be satisfied. But they have to pick one.
The law is all about wording. Notice how many judges don't apply the spirit of the law, but rather the letter of the law. I think you're extremely incorrect in saying that a judge is going to be annoyed at someone for following exactly what Apple's terms state. If Apple wanted something specific, they should have specified it, not left it ambiguous.