Let the hive mind of Engadget get that for you.
"As someone who doesn't reside in the USA, I was wondering what would be the best way to get internet for my computer in the US for a couple of weeks? If it were Europe I know I'd look for some prepaid data. Is there anything similar offered by American carriers? A MiFi or a data SIM that I can tether from would work, but I'm trying to maintain a tight budget. Help!"
I dont get where any of this Anti-Trust crap comes into play..
Apple Makes there own computers with there own os.. Just like Ford makes cars with Ford Engines and Microsoft makes Xboxs with the os that runs the Xbox..
Whats the problem? People dont have to share there products if they dont want too.
Go buy a Windows box if you want Windows and a Linux box if you want linux.
If you want a MAC buy a MAC
Apple makes there OS for there computers?
The difference is: I can buy a ford engine and bolt it in a Chevy frame and then sell that truck. The fact that apple sells the OS separate (engine) and doesn't allow it to be installed on any compatible PC (Chevy Frame) is where Psystar and myself have a problem...
> The difference is: I can buy a ford engine and bolt it in a Chevy frame and then sell that truck.
Not on a commercial level. Try making a small mechanical shed that pumps out "Amp Trucks! Toughness of a Chevy, power of a Ford" ...
Sorry that was @rlynd3 not @aMp 732
The problem is Apple is tying the sale of its hardware to the sale of its software. In other words, it is using its software to force people to buy its (overpriced) hardware. That is a no-no if it unreasonably restrains competition. What constitutes "unreasonable restraint" is very complicated, and would take too long to go into on this board, but Psystar's case is nowhere near as bad as these Macheads would have you believe.
mikey: Not true at all, because it doesn't constrain competition at all, in any way, shape or form. Anybody is free to develop Mac software, anybody is free to buy a Mac or a PC if they want. The problem here, and you're taking the same misguided stance that Psystar is, is that you're attempting to define a market that consists only of Macintoshes. There is no "Macintosh market". Macs compete in the same market that PCs and Windows do, which is why their market share is 15% and not 100%. See how that works?
@ Zak. The definition of unreasonably restraining competition is a little more complicated then you saying it ain't so. The court has to look at the mountains of evidence that Apple and Psystar are generating. Apple's lower market share is only relevant to the inquiry of whether there is a monopoly, but (as I've explained to you before), "monopoly" is not the only type of antitrust violation. To say that Apple's actions have no anticompetitive effect is just naive. If a person wishes to buy Apple's OS, but does not wish to use it on Apple hardware, under Apple's EULA, they cannot do it. This prevents totally free competition in the hardware market, because people have to make the choice, Apple OS and Apple software, or non-Apple OS and non-Apple software. Free competition would mean I could buy Apple's OS and put it on my Dell... since I can't do that, there is not free competition. Whether Apple's restraint is unreasonable is a completely different question which neither you nor I are competent to answer.
@ Zak
Seriously, do you know nothing about anti trust laws? You seem to have simply read a couple of news articles on it and believe you have a complete knowledge of it. I do not profess to be any more fluent in the law then you are, but I have done some research and I know that anti trust are not only applicable in cases of complete or near market monopolies. The bottom line is potentially Apple could be violating anti trust laws regardless of whether it has a monopoly or not, and this may very well be the reason they are attempting to settle this behind closed doors.