The CNET Lounge forum

General discussion

Molly the biggest Apple hater on the planet

by djcolley / September 17, 2008 10:17 PM PDT

We don't want junky PCs running OS X. We don't want an open messed up computer system. The reason BOL doesn't talk about anything except Apple rants is because no one else in the industry is doing anything worthwhile right now. So BOL is kind of like the news media, when you have nothing, create something.

Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: Molly the biggest Apple hater on the planet
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: Molly the biggest Apple hater on the planet
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
You just don't give up, do you?
by Slikkster / September 17, 2008 10:56 PM PDT

Aren't you the one who started a similar thread on this? "Junky PC's"? You mean the ones that run on Intel chipsets? Oh wait, that's over half the pc's in the world. So much for that silly argument.

Secondly, who are YOU to say what WE want? How presumptuous. Molly bought an iPhone, for crying out loud. Yeah, I guess that makes her a hater. Come on, dude. Get off your fanboy "Steve Jobs is God!" ivory tower and come back to reality.

Apple doesn't want to license OS X for two reasons:

They lose out on the HUGE margins on their hardware, and secondly, they don't want to take on support for systems outside their very limited (and hence, much more easily controlled) hardware offerings.

Were Apple to simply disclaim support for non-Apple-branded systems, they could make a lot of money. But again, their hardware comes at a huge premium.

Collapse -
Return of the Apple Troll!
by PressAnyKey / September 17, 2008 10:59 PM PDT

He/she/it almost went three weeks without a rant. I'm impressed...

Collapse -
one thing you forgot
by minimalist / September 18, 2008 3:20 AM PDT

is that by allowing other companies to sell systems with OSX means the quality assurance is out of their control. Even if they don't have to support them Apple still has plenty to lose by allowing 3rd party hardware manufacturers to sell systems with OSX.

The most valuable thing that differentiates Apple from other sellers of hardware is their reputation from quality (whether this is deserved or not is besides the point). I suspect that is a large part of why they don't want to to start selling OEM copies of OSX to manufacturers. They may make more money in the short term but they lose control of the one thing that makes them special hurting them in the long run.

That said, Molly Wood is far from and Apple hater. Sometimes I agree with her and sometimes I disagree. But her criticisms are almost always fair.

Collapse -
by minimalist / September 18, 2008 3:22 AM PDT
In reply to: one thing you forgot

"reputation OF quality".

Collapse -
(NT) Molly is *not* the biggest Apple hater - Bill Gates is! duh!
by shawnlin / September 18, 2008 12:09 AM PDT
Collapse -
I don't get your point
by rgunther / September 18, 2008 2:27 AM PDT

No seriously, I really don't understand your point. There are so many superlatives in your statements--all of which, as superlatives, are untrue--it just doesn't make any sense to me. Where were you going with this? And what was that subject line...bait? It seems to me that the BOL hosts are equal opportunity reporters, ranters, and bashers. Perhaps each has a preference for or bias against a particular technology or company, but isn't that what makes BOL more interesting that just reading about it all in a bunch of AP releases? C'mon...this is news as entertainment. Try to just enjoy it.

Collapse -
(NT) Awesome, we haven't had a Molly/Apple hater thread in while.
by kwahhn / September 18, 2008 3:19 AM PDT
Collapse -
by warrenrichards10 / September 28, 2008 8:18 AM PDT

True, its gotta be one anti Molly/Apple rant a week from somebody or the universe will implode, its karma dude.

Collapse -
Dear BOL, why this is the worst post ever...
by robstak / September 18, 2008 3:35 AM PDT

OK, maybe it's not the worst post ever (my title tried to make my point)

I mean, aside from the unrepresented inclusive pronouns, vast generalizations about both apple customers' preferences and PC's quality, gross fact-checkin neglegence regarding the content of the show/ignorance to representative heuristics, diffuse splitting with a clearly dogmatic adherence to the superlative, and the half-assed analogy, it wasn't that bad.

I know you wish you could rant like molly, but it's pretty apparent that you can't lol.

also on other dboards you are responsible for seeing if your post is a repost... which i guess you forgot to do. sry. this post has come up about 80 times over the past 3ish years or so

-dr. karl Happy


Collapse -
by wthomas1h / September 18, 2008 3:45 AM PDT

This is just another reason why Molly is great.

Collapse -
We don't?
by Renegade Knight / September 18, 2008 4:26 AM PDT

You are right. We don't want junky PC's running OS X. I personally want it on my Think Pad which ain't junky.

As for the news. Apple has a knack for getting the world to talk about their hyped up crap. It's in the news.

The iPod touch is cool. My idea on an Android Version. Not. Can't help what reality is.

Collapse -
by Nicholas Buenk / September 18, 2008 6:41 AM PDT

Although I think you're partially right, I rather liked it when Leo was on the other day he counter balanced Molly perfectly.
But as a mac user, I do not want Apple telling me what hardwaee to run my faourite OS on! And psystar is a valid thing to rant about. Sure it's in Apple's interest to keep OS X locked to their hardware, but I really don't think they have a right to do so.

Collapse -
by minimalist / September 18, 2008 10:06 AM PDT
In reply to: Well...

Companies have the right to do business as they see fit as long as they pay their taxes, don't discriminate in the workplace and are not in control of a monopoly. The marketplace sorts everything else out.\

There simply is no monopoly here. 7% is nothing compared to the overall PC market. There is no law which states all OS's must be sold in OEM form to 3rd party hardware manufacturers. Just because Microsoft chooses to do business by licensing their OS does not mean all OS manufacturers are obligated to do so.

I know some people who would LIKE to be able to buy cheaper 3rd party hardware running OSX but just because there is demand does not mean its the government's responsibility to force companies to supply this demand. That is not the free market. If there is a demand for a better OS running on cheap hardware there is nothing stopping another company from manufacturing such a product.

Collapse -
The thing about 'right'
by Nicholas Buenk / September 18, 2008 9:51 PM PDT
In reply to: "Right"?

Is that you are granted a right for a long as you don't violate another persons right.
Don't forget that consumers have rights.
If I buy a software product, they don't get to tell me how and on what I can use it on! They can try and restrict what it runs on by technological means, but then a hacker will just find a way around that.
Far from talking about the government forcing Apple to license there OS. I am saying the government should not be helping a technology company to put restrictions on hackers (and therefore consumers). The law should not get involved here, the case with psystar I regard as an attempt by Apple to abuse copyright law.

Collapse -
Psystar is not a "consumer". Big difference.
by minimalist / September 19, 2008 12:44 AM PDT

<i>Don't forget that consumers have rights.</i>

Psystar is not a consumer and this makes a big difference in the eyes of the law. They are a hardware company trying to make a profit by selling machines running Apple's OS. If Apple does not want to sell their OS in an OEM form Psystar can complain all they want but they can;t FORCE apple to sell their OS to third party manufacturers if they don't want to (nor can the law force them to)

<i>If I buy a software product, they don't get to tell me how and on what I can use it on! They can try and restrict what it runs on by technological means, but then a hacker will just find a way around that.</i>

My point exactly. A hacker finds a way to install the software. Nobody from Apple is beating down his or her door. They get to run OSX on non-Apple hardware. But you they must accept what comes with the territory. You cross that line and you are on your own. You can't legitimately expect support from Apple from here on out and you have to rely on the hacking community to resolve update issues. Same with the jailbreaking community on the iPhone. (Don't hack your phone and then whine when a voluntary software update you were warned might mess up your phone actually does mess up your phone). Notice how no money is changing hands. Unlike the Psystar case these are not commercial transactions.

<i>I am saying the government should not be helping a technology company to put restrictions on hackers (and therefore consumers). The law should not get involved here, the case with psystar I regard as an attempt by Apple to abuse copyright law.</i>

That sounds awfully nanny-state-ish to me. Hackers need the government help them make their jobs easier?

And abusing copyright law? According to my attorney friends this looks like a fairly straightforward case. There are very clear precedents about protecting a company's intellectual property from unauthorized resale. If some little company bought a bunch of mp3's and preloaded them on their mp3 player and sold them (even if they paid for every single copy of the songs that left their warehouse) without those copyright holder's express permission they would be in a heap of a lot of trouble as well. Just because you can buy something does not give you right to do anything and everything you want with it. If its for private, consumer use? Of course you can. If its for commercial use? Not without permission.

Even Creative Commons recognizes the important decision between commercial and private use. You take a CC picture off of Flickr and put it all over you desktop and your friend's desktops. Fine. You take that same picture and start installing it on hardware or software you are selling and you will liable

Collapse -
What's the difference?
by Nicholas Buenk / September 19, 2008 3:11 PM PDT

Psystar buys the OS off Apple that sort of makes them a consumer, they then resell it on their own hardware. The law has no reason to treat them any differently from a consumer, they are not doing anything a consumer can not be expected to do. All it takes is ebay.

And yes it is abusing copyright law and so are the similar examples you gave. What is nanny state like is to expect the government to protect Apple's business model for them.

Collapse -
Its just the way the law works
by minimalist / September 19, 2008 11:20 PM PDT
In reply to: What's the difference?

commercial use and personal use of copyrighted material are two totally different classifications.

You can buy music and play it in your home or your car all you want. Play it in your cafe or bar where you are making money and you must have permission (through ASCAP fees). The music industry does not HAVE to give you permission. But they CHOOSE TO because there is a lot of money to be made in licensing fees.

Same with software. Buy it for yourself and put it on whatever machine you want. its personal use. Buy and sell it on a piece of hardware without the software manufacturer's permission it becomes unauthorized commercial use.

As much as people may WANT to be able to buy a 3rd party Mac, the law simply can not FORCE Apple to let their OS be sold in such a way if they do not wish to pursue that business model. What you do in your own home is your business. You start selling it or making money off of it and its a totally different ballpark.

The only way Psystar has a case against Apple is if they can prove Apple has a monopoly on OS's and that there are no competing ones available in the marketplace. Given their 7% market share that is kind of like trying to prove that the sky is green.

Collapse -
The government actions are exercised with law
by Nicholas Buenk / September 22, 2008 7:24 PM PDT

Law is how the government exercises it's actions. And Apple is trying to get the government to take action against psystar. This is a matter of government interference when it shouldn't really be interfering.
This is not comparable to music playing in a cafe. It is comparable to selling music second hand. A cafe can buy music from a record store, and resell it in their own store without violating any copyright law.
Also anyone can sell a computer together with software, surely you've seen stores do such deals, special offer giving away microsoft office with a computer.
This is essentially what psystar is doing, reselling OS X second hand. With some extra software for it to run on their computer. And it is simply absurd to say that the government should get involved to stop this in order to help Apple. It's not the job of the government to preserve companies business models.
It is not at all matter of the law forcing Apple to let their OS be sold in a certain way. Rather what you're purposing, is the law forcing psystar to not resell something second hand bundled with something else. It is an abuse of copyright law, because this really has nothing to do with protecting intellectual property. It's simply Apple trying to protect a business model.

Collapse -
This precedent is perfectly reasonable
by minimalist / September 19, 2008 11:30 PM PDT
In reply to: What's the difference?

<i> What is nanny state like is to expect the government to protect Apple's business model for them.</i>

This is the way ALL copyright law works not just in the case of Apple. Regardless of how some people might abuse copyright law (most often in terms of personal use such as ridiculous takedown notices for a family YouTube videos) this is not an example of such abuse.

The well established legal precedent of having to get an author's permission to reuse their work <i><b>for commercial purposes</b></i> is perfectly reasonable. Copyright law may have some problems but this is not one of them.

Collapse -
Wow, you guys really put me in my place.
by djcolley / September 18, 2008 9:30 AM PDT

You expect me to be fair. Maybe I should be. Maybe podcasters should be fair as well. I had 20 years of windoze and that is enough. If this Apple thing doesn't work out, maybe Linux will catch up by then. But, I'm not going back. Nor am I going to defend Microsoft for all the mistakes they made all these years. Not to mention their stupid commercials.

Collapse -
Yeah, that's fair
by rgunther / September 18, 2008 10:07 AM PDT

Good points, all. And much easier to understand. Wink I'm a switcher, too, and yes, you have to wonder what the hell Microsoft has been doing for the last five years. About the only solid thing I've seen out of them recently was Office 2007.

Collapse -
Nobody Is Asking You to Defend M$
by PressAnyKey / September 19, 2008 5:21 AM PDT

But when your opening statements come across like a rabid fanboi with a huge chip on your shoulder it's not constructive.

Whatever OS floats your boat is cool with me. No need for angst and personalf attacks...

Popular Forums
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
Laptops 21,181 discussions
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
Phones 17,137 discussions
Security 31,287 discussions
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
Windows 10 2,657 discussions


Help, my PC with Windows 10 won't shut down properly

Since upgrading to Windows 10 my computer won't shut down properly. I use the menu button shutdown and the screen goes blank, but the system does not fully shut down. The only way to get it to shut down is to hold the physical power button down till it shuts down. Any suggestions?