There’s an online roundtable discussion on Apple and Intel and the futures of both going on this week that includes industry people like Andy Hertzfeld and Tim Bray. Here are a couple of comments. One from the first day, the other from Thursday.
Kevin Krewell:Blend in a music/video player, an ultra-small-form-factor PC with touch screen (sort of an updated Newton), with wireless communications (VoIP or WiMAX), and an revised GUI optimized for a smaller display and pen input. I’ll call it iNewTune (a pun on the Newton).
The reason I bring this idea up is that Intel is working on sub-5W x86 processor systems.
Nathan Brookwood: I was just trying to cut to the chase regarding my belief that Apple will not voluntarily offer OSX on an OEM or unbundled basis, and thus some deep-pocketed OEM will be forced to use the courts to compel this behavior. Since Federal District and Appellate courts have already ruled on this issue (in obviously unrelated cases that Apple will claim differ from its own situation), I anticipate that the matter will be litigated, possibly up to the Supreme Court. I’ll admit it’s a bit of a stretch to assume the Court will grant Cert and hear the case, but Apple is such a high profile company it just might do so. If the Supremes pass on this review, Apple will have no recourse but to open up the software to the clones.
Now that Apple’s software will run on more-or-less industry standard platforms, the opportunity becomes more interesting and the case ripens from a legal perspective.
I still don’t understand the reasoning behind this.
On another of Nathan’s posts:
… I believe that as long as OSX runs on a “standard” x86 platform, the law will requires Apple to sell its software (on reasonable terms), separate from the underlying hardware. Anything less would be considered bundling or a “tie-in” sale, and there’s a lot of case law that makes those approaches illegal. (Of course, Apple could continue to offer bundled versions in addition to the unbundled ones.) The use of a proprietary ROM chip that identifies the hardware as “Authentic Apple” or such would likely be viewed by the courts as a flimsy means to enforce Apple’s monopoly position as the sole provider of Macintosh-compatible hardware.
Interesting that any company could claim it was damaged by the inability to run MacOS X on its computers. 🙂
Wouldn’t Apple need to have more than “boutique” levels of market-share before consumers would have legal standing for damages in a class-action suit?
If manufacturers haven’t found the legal-standing to sue Apple over the lack of Fairplay DRM-licensing in the market for portable music players, why will they have legal standing at the OS level for PCs?
If there is a strong legal basis for this, it only gives Apple added incentive to build anything but “standard” x86 platform computers.
The final OSX release will not run on a standard x86 motherboard. It will require proprietary components built to Apple standards. The final release will not be like this leaked developers release that seem s to have gotten everyone drooling. There will be hardware tied to the system. No Chinese firm is going to sell these boards, just like you can’t buy Mac system boards knockoffs today. All of this is much ado about nothing, except giving Apple a bunch of free press.