I don't even remember any actually agreeing. Speculating: they just weren't making enough once they had to compete on a level playing field with apple--people bought clones because they were less expensive than the real thing. Paying the same/similar costs resulted in same/similar prices--would you by the clone if you were only saving 5%?
IIRC, the steep royalty increase only applied to the the upper-end machines, not to the low-end machines. Low end machines, though, left companies in essentially the same industry as x86 pc clones.
Please provide me with some references. I'd love to learn more about this because it sounds as though, if it were never cancelled, that third-party manufacturers could today license and sell Macintosh-compatible hardware? Sweet... I have none handy, but go to sources such as macweek *during* the negotiations, describing the problems. The summaries afterwards are the mythology we live with today.
Basically what happened was that Apple wanted to hand the low-end to the cloners, and keep the high end for itself. The licenses provided board designs--from apple's low end--and a fixed per machine license.
Instead of sticking with those, cloners goosed the speed and added other features, producing machines as fast as the high end--the machines that paid for the R&D (they weren't too interested in the low end, either, once they saw they could do this).
Appple did indeed demand negotiations, but offered a license fee of hundreds of dollars per high end machine--what each of those sales cost apple. The cloners refused.
Given that there have been no clones for several years, I doubt that the contracts even exist for current machines. However, if they would actually pay their way *and* increase rather than decrease apple profits, I wouldn't be surprised to see apple agree. However, this wouldn't result in less expensive machines--the reasons that the fast clones cost less than apple's high end last time was that they just weren't carrying the R&D load, and apple isn't foolish enough to blow that again.
Sure, if Windows is hardly a monopoly. There are reasonable arguments that both have sufficient competition that they shouldn't be considered monopolies, No. Windows *is* a monopoly by any defini9tion used by economists or the law, save for a hyper-technical definition.
Ipod, however, may well be the largest player, but they don't control a majority of the market, let alone control the market.
More importantly, I've seen no (serious) allegation that they're using market power. Rather, people simply like what they offer, and buy that.
Does iTunes work with any other player? Does the iTunes Music Store work with any other player? Without a monopoly or use of market power, these are just plain irrelevant.
Even if it's not a complete monopoly, my point is that Apple does far more lock-in, DRM, avoiding standards, and so on, than Microsoft ever does. Or rather, they are more extreme about it -- not being a complete monopoly, they have far less opportunity to do these things. And not being a monopoly at all, this just doesn't matter.
And thus, my point is that were Apple the dominant OS vendor, or the dominant in any field, they'd be even more proprietary and anticompetitive than Microsoft is -- in fact, they already are No. This assumption is where the problem is. Apple would have no choice but to function differently if it were to become a monopoly. What is acceptable, even desirable, for a smaller player is neither legal, nor likely the optimal strategy, as a monopolist.
Furthermore, given its products, apple dominating the market is no more likely than Cadillac doing so. Generally (perhaps always), you can't dominate a market and obtain a monopoly from the high end. Apple lost it's interest in the lower end years ago.
Here, it goes farther in tort. For example, fishing line being used to hang pictures was found foreseeable (I think that one was about labeling). Extensions of warranty have been primarily statutory, which would tend to make the law diverge more between US and Britain.
No pictures of the F-22? Seems kind of odd since the Air Force F-22 demo team performed in front of a couple hundred thousand people in Columbus, OH last weekend at the "Gathering of Mustangs and Legends" air show /me nods sagely
Yep, that's what they tell people (even the people at the show). However, none of those couple hundred thousand saw or heard anything due to the stealth technology.:)
>his scorched earth policy of discontinuing 3rd-party hardware licensing
This is repeated as often as it is untrue.
Apple did *not* discontinue or cancel the licensing program. It *did* demand a significantly larger royalty on high-performance machines, which none of the licensees were willing to pay. At the time, apple shelled out more in R&D per high-end machine that it sold than the licensees paid--while using apple designed boards.
The only reason they get away with it is that they actually make good products, so for the most part, people are happy with Apple as a monopoly (where it is), And where would that be?
Ipod's are hardly a monopoly, and itunes has thriving competitors.
It would sort of be like Microsoft using the only encrypted code in windows and detecting you have DR-DOS installed on your computer while booting MS Windows and then freezing without explanation .
There. Better.:)
hawk
[OK, OK. The encrypted code actually did this if it didn't find a "known" version of MS-DOS.]
>Someone please correct me with some solid evidence that I'm wrong! I don't want to be right about this...
Sure. It's in the file wedged between the solid evidence that you've never hit a woman and the one with the solid evidence that you've never been abducted and probed by an alien . .:)
You are assuming that everything is set up right. Here in Las Vegas, there are massive problems with red light runners, but we also have intersections where the lights are timed incorrectly, making it possible to enter a green light at the speed limit and still leave the red light before leaving the intersection. Or a couple on Sunset where, at the speed limit, the choice (again, at the speed limit)on a yellow is not between stopping and going, but between an emergency stop (due to the distance before the intersection) and running the light.
The acquisition of Star Division had two purposes,
1) Sun's vision of the future is smart terminals connected to servers (which, naturally, Sun will sell). To displace/dent windows, this needs something compatible with MS office files to run on the server. StarOffice/Openoffice/forks meets this just fine. Furthermore, the total revenue to Sun is the same whether they sell everyone StarOffice or everyone installs open source (but not with a mix).
2) McNeally and Gates loath one another, and distributing a free office suite was a great dagger . . .
Star Office was free for non-commercial use before it was purchased by Sun (and I assume the older versions remain so).
The post-Sun releases under "Star Office" weren't available for free download, afaik, until they became part of the google packs. OpenOffice, though, has.
. . . figure out why people were doing that rather than using killall in their xterms--but then, my giving up lynx as my primary browser is a fairly recent event (I'm told that the bug that forced the change has been fixed).
Slashdot Mirror
I don't even remember any actually agreeing. Speculating: they just weren't making enough once they had to compete on a level playing field with apple--people bought clones because they were less expensive than the real thing. Paying the same/similar costs resulted in same/similar prices--would you by the clone if you were only saving 5%?
IIRC, the steep royalty increase only applied to the the upper-end machines, not to the low-end machines. Low end machines, though, left companies in essentially the same industry as x86 pc clones.
hawk
Basically what happened was that Apple wanted to hand the low-end to the cloners, and keep the high end for itself. The licenses provided board designs--from apple's low end--and a fixed per machine license.
Instead of sticking with those, cloners goosed the speed and added other features, producing machines as fast as the high end--the machines that paid for the R&D (they weren't too interested in the low end, either, once they saw they could do this).
Appple did indeed demand negotiations, but offered a license fee of hundreds of dollars per high end machine--what each of those sales cost apple. The cloners refused.
Given that there have been no clones for several years, I doubt that the contracts even exist for current machines. However, if they would actually pay their way *and* increase rather than decrease apple profits, I wouldn't be surprised to see apple agree. However, this wouldn't result in less expensive machines--the reasons that the fast clones cost less than apple's high end last time was that they just weren't carrying the R&D load, and apple isn't foolish enough to blow that again.
hawk
Ipod, however, may well be the largest player, but they don't control a majority of the market, let alone control the market.
More importantly, I've seen no (serious) allegation that they're using market power. Rather, people simply like what they offer, and buy that. Does iTunes work with any other player? Does the iTunes Music Store work with any other player? Without a monopoly or use of market power, these are just plain irrelevant. Even if it's not a complete monopoly, my point is that Apple does far more lock-in, DRM, avoiding standards, and so on, than Microsoft ever does. Or rather, they are more extreme about it -- not being a complete monopoly, they have far less opportunity to do these things. And not being a monopoly at all, this just doesn't matter. And thus, my point is that were Apple the dominant OS vendor, or the dominant in any field, they'd be even more proprietary and anticompetitive than Microsoft is -- in fact, they already are No. This assumption is where the problem is. Apple would have no choice but to function differently if it were to become a monopoly. What is acceptable, even desirable, for a smaller player is neither legal, nor likely the optimal strategy, as a monopolist.
Furthermore, given its products, apple dominating the market is no more likely than Cadillac doing so. Generally (perhaps always), you can't dominate a market and obtain a monopoly from the high end. Apple lost it's interest in the lower end years ago.
hawk
Here, it goes farther in tort. For example, fishing line being used to hang pictures was found foreseeable (I think that one was about labeling). Extensions of warranty have been primarily statutory, which would tend to make the law diverge more between US and Britain.
hawk, esq
Yep, that's what they tell people (even the people at the show). However, none of those couple hundred thousand saw or heard anything due to the stealth technology.
hawk
>his scorched earth policy of discontinuing 3rd-party hardware licensing
This is repeated as often as it is untrue.
Apple did *not* discontinue or cancel the licensing program. It *did* demand a significantly larger royalty on high-performance machines, which none of the licensees were willing to pay. At the time, apple shelled out more in R&D per high-end machine that it sold than the licensees paid--while using apple designed boards.
hawk
Ipod's are hardly a monopoly, and itunes has thriving competitors.
hawk
I am a lawyer, but this is not legal advice.
You are mixing product liability law (reasonably foreseeable uses) and warranty law. They're different.
hawk, esq.
There. Better.
hawk
[OK, OK. The encrypted code actually did this if it didn't find a "known" version of MS-DOS.]
You clearly read a different post; he said no such thing.
Strike the if clause from your code, and always do the second.
What he said is that if the do_it code has collateral effects on modified products, that it's the modifier's problem, not the manufacturer's.
hawkk
>The entire interview is just vapor.
:)
At least that proves that it's really Amiga . .
hawk
>If Capital could prove that it hurt them for $222 thousand dollars it would be correct
But, in fact, the copyright act is deliberately designed to create such awards without actual damages. That is the *point* of statutory damages.
>They should appeal this case and get a judge that doesn't inflict absurd penalties for simple acts.
The damages were assessed by the jury, not the judge.
hawk
>Someone please correct me with some solid evidence that I'm wrong! I don't want to be right about this...
:)
Sure. It's in the file wedged between the solid evidence that you've never hit a woman and the one with the solid evidence that you've never been abducted and probed by an alien . .
hawk
IIAL, but this is not legal advice.
If you can win the case, threatening to sue if the potential defendant doesn't settle is not in any way, shape, or form extortion.
They were awarded roughly a hundred times the amount they were willing to accept as settlement . . .
hawk, esq
I *insist* that the screws holding the plate on my power outlet be solid gold. Let me know when they carry those.
hawk
We're about to change the meaning of "earmark" . . . :)
hawk
>I think so far as Slashdot and EFF are concerned, the actual issue is a virtual irrelevance.
:)
As is the FA, and whether it comes from a reliable source, and . . .
hawk
. . . vampires rarely work by day? Rush hour problems? :)
hawk
You are assuming that everything is set up right. Here in Las Vegas, there are massive problems with red light runners, but we also have intersections where the lights are timed incorrectly, making it possible to enter a green light at the speed limit and still leave the red light before leaving the intersection. Or a couple on Sunset where, at the speed limit, the choice (again, at the speed limit)on a yellow is not between stopping and going, but between an emergency stop (due to the distance before the intersection) and running the light.
hawk
>Useful? What use do you plan to put these gorillas to?
Why, recycling computers, of course!
hawk
The acquisition of Star Division had two purposes,
1) Sun's vision of the future is smart terminals connected to servers (which, naturally, Sun will sell). To displace/dent windows, this needs something compatible with MS office files to run on the server. StarOffice/Openoffice/forks meets this just fine. Furthermore, the total revenue to Sun is the same whether they sell everyone StarOffice or everyone installs open source (but not with a mix).
2) McNeally and Gates loath one another, and distributing a free office suite was a great dagger . . .
hawk
Star Office was free for non-commercial use before it was purchased by Sun (and I assume the older versions remain so).
The post-Sun releases under "Star Office" weren't available for free download, afaik, until they became part of the google packs. OpenOffice, though, has.
hawk
I suspect he believes this goes both ways, Does that mean no boyfriend, either?
hawk
and the downside is????
hawk, momentarily forgetting his profession
. . . figure out why people were doing that rather than using killall in their xterms--but then, my giving up lynx as my primary browser is a fairly recent event (I'm told that the bug that forced the change has been fixed).
hawk