Apple slams door on Windows themes

It sucks, but what can you do? They're within their rights.

What will this do to the argument that porting an OS to a skinnable application is not a form of ripping?

JaydedRain....not a lot.
This is not the first time Apple flexed its muscles over the use of its 'look' by skinners creating work for the PC platform....and it probably won't be the last.
The prime issue is whether Apple's logo is/was used....and being a registered trademark, it's a breach of copyright.

The 'look', however, is a little harder to defend....

Ok first off I understand the concepts of copyright, but here is my complaint. It seems that any time someone expands the computer world to include apple into the rest of the communities, apple jumps up stamps their feet to squish it. In my view a application skin that mimics or mirrors the apple OS is beneficial to apple. For those that are only PC oriented it gives them a glimps into the apple world. Which is like free advertisements for them. Apple has had a long history of screaming this is mine leave it alone....in the past it has caused them some dramatic business problems, and it seems the entire customizing communities are being targeted by this new "Its mine" view point. I can understand if someone rips the icons, walls, and etc from their OS and pastes it onto another app. But if someone creates a skin or icon from scratch with the same color scheme and general appearance then there should be no complaints. What ever happened to the games of being honored by free advertisement by the mimic of something. Just take a look around the net, we all disagree mostly with rips of our work, but at the same time there is an honor that comes when there is a flood of walls, skins and etc that mimic or mirror something we have done. I guess I just see apple being very petty and childish on some of these complaints.

Well said Mobius...

The thing about Apple is that they fear that there are many users who've been attracted to the Aqua look. Those are potential Mac buyers right there. But if they see they can get a decent facsimile on another OS, they might settle for that instead of going over to the Mac camp. More serious-minded users like the Mac for more reasons than just its look, but there are plenty of users out there who just want the look and could care less about the functionality. I suppose these are the ones Apple fears will be driven away from a potential Mac purchase by a lookalike theme on another platform.

It's not so much the fact that Apple are doing this (again) that bothers me. What bothers me is the way the legal system in the US is set up, so that the person who's prepared to throw the most money at a case is practically guaranteed a win. While asking sites to take down themes that mimic OSX is not a big deal, they have in the past demonstrated a little more on the side of unreason, thus forcing the name of an icon set, I believe it was called Aqua XP, to have the name changed to Cobalt XP. This icon set did not set out to mimic anything of MacOS, but they felt it was an infringement of their trademark because the title contained the word "Aqua". While any reasonable legal system would reach the decision that aqua is in fact a colour, and cannot be trademarked unless something was in direct violation (such as an OS calling itself Aqua), and order Apple to throw a little cash in the direction of the accused party to compensate them for their wasted time, in the US it just comes down to who has the most resources to put into the case. It's the golden rule, them with the gold, make the rules.

I can agree with a good portion of that, AJCrowley, with the exception that it is not just in the US, that seems to be pretty much a global issue.

As for the hard core fans of apple vs the ones that want it to match their interior design. It is funny how apple donated a ton of computer and money to hollywood so that most movies and tv shows would have apple computers in the background. Talking about pushing for sales based on looks and a little subconcious influence.

My thought is this, which is a bigger target they should go after, a few skins and walls that mimic their style, or all the mac based websites that are direct rips of the OS for the website design..If they want to pull this "its mine" ok lets see them try it 100% instead of this little stuff every now and then. TO me I just think this is all rediculous and reminds me of a couple decades ago, and we know how that turned out in the long run for them

Apple's GUI and looks are its selling point. They target new computer buyers, diehards are already glued to it. So if people start skinning the dominant OS on the market to make it look like OSX/MacOS9/etc that is a thread to Apple's appeal to potential customers.

So it's a life and death thing.

Actually, the specific copyright violation that they claim is: "Trade dress" infringement. (Stardock is familiar with Apple's hang ups on using their "look") And, Crae pretty much sums it up. People, who are not already using a Mac, are probably going to be lured to it because of its "look". If they can get the same look on a PC, and still use what they are used to, why buy a Mac?

They won't let you use their logo. You can't copy the OSX look, and *don't* put "Aqua" in the name.

Remember, Mac doesn't exactly have a large portion of the market share (like 5%). They have to keep all their users just to survive.

JavaBrain, I know you have a great deal more experience in dealing with apple than probably any of the non Stardock people on this forum, and I agree with what you're saying (or agreeing with Craeonics) to an extent, but I believe there's more to the issue than this.

No matter how you skin up Windows to look like OSX, it doesn't look as good (though there are many skins that look better IMO). The only way that this could create a real threat to Apple is if someone got an OSX clone to compile on a x86 distro of BSD. Windows just doesn't have the underlying API to do many of the visual effects that the Mac does, at least not without taking a real hit in terms of performance.

It is my opinion that Apple have consistently followed a poor marketing strategy by clinging on to their intellectual properties with such ferocity, and that is the main reason that they play 2nd fiddle to many other players in the hardware and software industries.

I believe that if Apple was prepared to draw more of a line between their hardware and software products, then they would see a significant increase in their sales. I am confident that an x86 version of OSX would be hard to keep on the shelves, and would give Microsoft a far more realistic run for their money, in what (the desktop OS market) is frankly something that they own.

Apple's reasons for not doing this, as far as I can guess, are that this would detract from their hardware sales, but I disagree. If they spent a little less money getting product placement in every movie, and every tv show, which must amount to something in the order of several hundred million, if not a few billion dollars a year, they would be able to lower the cost of their hardware to a competitive level. Opening their platform a little, so that more than a single distribution of Linux is the only alternative to MacOS would also drive Microsoft to develop a compatible version of Windows to stake their share in this market. The additional *NIX OSes that would become available would also make it a little easier to take Apple seriously in the server market.

Apple's stubborness and refusal to move with the times (can you remember the last computer that was bundled together, hardware and software by the same manufacturer? I believe it was Commodore with the Amiga, though it could be argued that Sun still do this, along with several other contenders in the server market, their platforms are still flexible enough to allow you to run other OSes on them, the existence of a version of Windows for Alpha CPU architecture is evidence of this) has always held them back in this industry, and until they seriously rethink their strategy, they're always doomed to be a minority market. But what do I know? I'm just a humble programmer....

Hold up, let's not forget basic marketing:

high price == quality
exclusiveness == quality

Apple's entire brand is built up about "think different". They cannot simply drop to x86 and clone hardware because they will loose their identity.

Now this may sound strange, but that's marketing.

Appl e is first and foremost a computer company, not a software (OS) company. They can't affort to risk to loose hardware sales to gain software sales.
*I* know that hardware is what they are good at. But new users don't know that necessarely. Mac computers perform quite a lot faster than PC. Expensive, yes, but you get what you pay for. The ideal system would be if Windows was available on a Mac, now THAT would kick butt. Not the other way around.
OSX is just pretty, a cute product to get people to buy a Mac computer. I am convinced that Apple would make a big mistake if the OSX was avaiable for PC. Hardware sales would most probably drop considerably.

That's what the whole "Trade Dress" issue comes in. It can be proved (or at least they will try) that by making a product look similar to another product, you are causing a confusion which could lead customers away from their product. If you made a car that looked exactly like a Corvette but was run by a 4 cylinder and had a crappy interior, and costs $15,000 versus $50,000, there is a certain percentage of people who will get the "fake" just because it looks that way.

It's why the "trade dress" law exists.

I'm not defending Apple, BTW. I really don't like their company nor the way they do business. But, I do understand what their issue is. And, considering the biggest draw to a Mac is the way it looks (and obviously Apple thinks the same way or they wouldn't have developed the new IMac) then they have to protect that "look".

I am actually fairly familiar with Macs. My FIL is a Mac freak. Livonia schools (where he works) runs on Macs (except accounting...). This is how I think they should start running the show:
1) be able to have either Mac OS 9 or 10 (kinda' like having the choice of Windows or Linux)
2) Have a more flexible way of ordering the computer/software (choose what you want on it)
3) Have a really cheap PC for kids. Use those crazy flower prints and stuff to make a cute kids computer that is cheap and is preloaded with the stuff kids will use. Make it cheap enough that you can throw it away and buy a new one every couple years (like the price of PCs) (get the kids hooked so that they will continue to buy Macs)

the problem with Apple's pricing is- they are too expensive and too difficult to upgrade. So, when you buy a Mac, you plan on having it for about 4 years before you even *think* of getting a new one. PC's, however, are so cheap now, it's easy to see people just buying new PCs instead of upgrading every couple years. while they are at it, they will upgrade to whatever the new version of Windows is. Mac could do the same thing.

if apple are chaising down theme's again, how long before wincustomize gets a call?

Mr AJCrowley - But what do I know? I'm just a humble programmer....

/me wonders where to get his autograph

i have never encountered a humble programmer before

Lol Feline, that was said out of sarcasm, anyone who's ever met programmers knows that there's no such thing as a humble programmer,, it just had a better ring to it that "I AM MASTAR PROGRAMMAR KING OF UNIVARS!!!!!"

AJ

yeah...programmers and their God complexes.....(oops...did I say that out loud?)

"I am Ozymandias, king of kings! Look upon my works, ye mighty, and despair!"

On a moderately related note, http://www.ozyandmillie.org/ (OK, so it's not related at all - but hey, it's a good read

In your line of work JavaBrain, knowing that your peers frequent this board, that was probably not a good thing to say

Besides, to have a "God complex" means to believe you are a god, programmers don't think this, they know it, now don't you be mean and burst anyone's bubble here, ok?

Funny...
To be a 'God' is one thing...
To be a 'Godess' is something else entirely...

Oh, AJ, if you only knew the verbiage that flies around here......the sarcasm is very thick.....

JavaBrain - yeah...programmers and their God complexes.....

/me agree's
*humans*
no sence of perspective.

/me is waiting for humans to remember that cats are the true gods

Jafo - To be a 'God' is one thing...
To be a 'Godess' is something else entirely...

well, according to dictionary.com these seem to mean the same.

of course, i did use "goddess" as the second word

/me feels all light headed and unsteady

quite a surreal feeling, me correcting Jafo's spelling

/me decides to be both a God and a Goddess at once

this still leaves more of my wonderousness unacounded for.

/me *deep contemplation*

/me also declares self supreme ruler of all chocolate everywhere