Beatles Bite Apple 895
blamanj writes "Apple Computer, which once got into hot water with the Beatles Apple record label, has been sued once again by the same group. Apple Records says iTunes and the iPod violate the previous agreement." Apple's broke their agreement in the past when speakers were first used with their computers to play music.
Talk about Sour Apples. (Score:3, Funny)
O_o (Score:4, Insightful)
-uso.
Re:O_o (Score:5, Insightful)
I will agree with you, but only for the iPod. I've never seen Apple Corps release a music player. The RESALE of music however is a much trickier issue that will likely be ruled in Apple (the Beatles') favor, as it is for all intents and purposes impossible to distinguish Apple (Computer's) intent with the iTunes music store from the topic the agreement was made about.
My opinion? Music PLAYERS (iTunes, iPod, speakers) would not violate. iTMS *DOES*. (Well, there is a subtle distinction in that Apple serves as a store, but in the modern computer age, distribution through the internet is just as good as manufacturing/label.
I've been wondering why Corps didn't do it sooner, since I knew it was inevitable. All I can see is an uphill battle for Apple.
Re:O_o (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:O_o (Score:5, Insightful)
That's because they are irrelevant. As it was in another post, No one with any common sense would confuse the 2 entities. I dare say that people under 20 don't even know an apple corps exists/existed. The original suit was frivolous to begin with. Speakers on a computer somehow would cause market place confusion and such. give it a rest guys.
Re:O_o (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:O_o (Score:5, Informative)
Granted that this case is about contract law, what you have said actually demonstrates that Apple Corps are not being frivolous. If an average 20 year old is unaware that Apple Corp exists, they may well assume that various CDs they find in their local CD shop are distributed by Apple Computer. If customers then phone Apple Computer about new CD releases, etc this is not good for Apple Corp.
Re:O_o (Score:5, Interesting)
I dare say that people under 20 don't even know an apple corps exists/existed.
So you're saying no one under 20 has a copy of Let It Be, has ever looked at the front of the CD, and seen the little (whole) apple logo with "apple records" on it just underneath the (c) 1970 EMI Records Ltd. statement? Or of the Beatles' Anthology disks, all of which have apples on the disks themselves?
Sorry, this is not a frivolous lawsuit. Apple Corps has an agreement with Apple Computer in which they agreed to stay out of the music business. Apple Computer is now releasing "iTMS exclusive" tracks given to them by their recording company partners, in which they are effectively behaving in a way indistinguishable from a record label, which is what Apple Records is. Sure, nearly everybody is able to make the distinction, but Apple's foray into the recording industry is obscuring the original Apple Records' brand - people think Apple and recordings, and they think iTMS. That's one of the points to trademarks.
Anyway, Apple Computer will just buy Apple records off with another huge settlement; McCartney has said that Apple Records made more money from lawsuits against Apple Computer than on any of their recording releases (and that's saying something, given the couple of Beatles' albums).
IANAL.
Re:O_o (Score:5, Insightful)
Note though that this is about trademarks, and Apple Corps clearly has had trademarks well before Apple Computer even started. That Apple was ever apple to be named that was based on them not being in music business. Now they are extending there, and getting into trademark problem. In this case you either believe trademark law makes sense, or you don't; and only in latter case you can consider this case frivolous.
Easiest thing for Apple should be just spinning off their music download business to another fully owned company, names, say, iTunes? Problem solved.
Irrelevant - it's a contract suit, not trademark (Score:5, Informative)
As part of the settlement of that lawsuit, Apple Computer agreed not to sell music. It's that settlement agreement -- a contract -- that Apple Corps is charging Apple Computer with violating.
Sure, today Apple Corps probably wouldn't stand much chance in a trademark suit against Apple Computer, even if they did have the trademark first. But that's not what this lawsuit is about.
Re:Irrelevant - it's a contract suit, not trademar (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:O_o (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:O_o (Score:3, Funny)
Re:O_o (Score:5, Funny)
so the moral of the story is... although you may not like the music of the beatles, it exists in probably everythign you listen to (unless you listen to classical or jazz or variants of those).
kraftwerk was more influential in the long run (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:O_o (Score:5, Insightful)
Go get a copy of Pet Sounds. Listen to it. Better yet, listen to it, particulary to the music rather than the lyrics. Especially track 8 -- God Only Knows. (Unless, of course, your hearing is already totally shot from listening to head banging heavy metal acid rock at 130 dB.)
BTW, Brian Wilson was inspired to create Pet Sounds when he heard the Beatles' Rubber Soul. In turn, Pet Sounds inspired the Beatles to do Sergeant Pepper's, which in turn prompted the Rolling Stones to create On Their Satanic Majesties Request. Rubber Soul, BTW, was partly a result of Bob Dylan's influence on the Beatles.
Re:O_o (Score:5, Informative)
sure they knew. the second system beep developed for the mac (after "sysbeep") was called "sosumi" - which is pronounced "so sue me". it was in direct reference to apple records and the whole "can't make music" clause.
Re:O_o (Score:3, Funny)
What's an intensive purpose?
A mean porpoise.
What's that? He didn't say "insensitive porpoise"?
Nevermind.
Re:O_o (Score:5, Funny)
fap...fap...fap...fap
Re:O_o (Score:5, Funny)
Apple:Beetles [apple.com]::Apple:Beatles
Re:O_o (Score:4, Interesting)
Trademark point? (Score:3, Insightful)
If Apple Computers agreed to stay out of the music busines.. you get the picture.
Nowadays, nobody will confuse Apple with Apple.. but in the day when Apple Records decided to settle out of court with Apple Computers.. it was a different story.
Re:O_o (Score:5, Informative)
It's not a trademark battle. Apple Computer signed a binding agreement that promised that they'd stay out of the music business.
Shortsighted, but still a legal contract.
Re:O_o (Score:5, Insightful)
There's no way to mistake those two, but when the Wildlife Fund first complained, the wrestling federation signed an agreement that they wouldn't use the initials internationally. Then the web came along and they registered wwf.com. After a long court battle, the Wildlife Fund won because of the prior agreement.
In the Apple vs Apple case, there's much more room for confusion. Just on trademark law alone Apple Computer would probably lose. But if they did sign an agreement say they'd stay out of the music business, then they don't have a chance. Most likely result though is they'll either settle for cash, or spin off iTunes into a seperate division that doesn't use the Apple name.
Corp Dump (Score:3, Funny)
sosumi (Score:5, Funny)
FYI- IIRC, this was the origin of the "sosumi" sound (one of the first sounds apples made) (so-sue-me)
Re:sosumi (Score:5, Funny)
Re:sosumi (Score:5, Informative)
Apple renamed the sound (but left the sound the same) to sosumi in response.
This occured long before the Carl Sagan scandal. What a putz! I'd be honored to have someone CODENAME a project after me (not a marketable name, a CODENAME).
Re:sosumi (Score:5, Informative)
This is what happened. Carl Sagan was the 7100, the mid-range in the first three models that used the then-new PowerPC. The 6100 and 8100 were called Cold Fusion and PDM, which stood for Piltdown Man (a faked "missing link" fossil, if you don't know). It's entirely possible you'd still be honored (I think if it were me I'd just laugh), but I can understand why Sagan was upset.
If you know all this already, sorry, consider it as extra information for the others.
Re:sosumi (Score:5, Insightful)
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Records
"At one point, Apple Records sued Apple Computer for trademark infringement because the computer company broke their earlier agreement not to add sound to its computers. The case was settled out of court. Apple computers ever since have included a sound labelled sosumi ("So, sue me")."
Re:sosumi (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:sosumi (Score:5, Interesting)
I like both Sagan and Apple, but I think the whole episode reflects a bit poorly on both, though it's kind of funny, too - kind of like the current Apple vs. Apple, actually.
Damn... (Score:5, Funny)
(You know, he owns the rights to the Beatles songs)
Re:Damn... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Damn... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Damn... (Score:3, Informative)
I overheard... (Score:3, Funny)
These agreements can really screw you up (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:These agreements can really screw you up (Score:3, Funny)
But why did they have to pick the unfortunate choice of Entertainment? Saying that an athletic contest is just mere entertainment is a gross oversimplification. It just serves to cheapen the image of all of the dedicated athletes through history who have strived against adversity to be the best they could be. Surely the WW"E" could have honored their athletes better, along with all of the world's athletes regardless of the
Re:These agreements can really screw you up (Score:5, Insightful)
The autocompletion feature is the most problematic-- as the "World Wide Fund" owns the senior mark. But every time a user typed "wwf" in his address bar, the site reflecting the "junior trademark" would be loaded. Instant trademark dilution.
I Can't Believe This (Score:3, Flamebait)
This seems like a desperate move to gain money and alienate fans. They have certainly alienated this fan. I can't see myself spending another penny on anything Beatles related, just because of this suit. I hope that others will do the same.
Re:I Can't Believe This (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I Can't Believe This (Score:5, Funny)
A desperate move to alienate fans?
So that's how money is made in the music business. :-)
Re:I Can't Believe This (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:You should be embarrassed (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I Can't Believe This (Score:3, Insightful)
Riiiiiiiiiiiight. And what's a lot? 5, 10? As much as I support voting with your dollar I don't think it will be effective in this case. If you're so upset about this decision, write to Apple Records and tell them that the music business and computer business can be complementary and that this lawsuit looks like a cheap way to get extra bucks from Apple.
Hate to be so out-of-touch with this (Score:3, Interesting)
Confusion.. (Score:5, Interesting)
The Beatles songs and the economic copyrights (all revenue generated by) are owned by Micheal Jackson. Is he involved in this, him being technically the owner of all things 'Beatles' anymore.
Who is sueing who here? Can someone please clarify?
Re:Confusion.. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Confusion.. (Score:5, Informative)
Apple Corps - after the music library was transferred to other companies - owns the Apple trademark in US, UK, Switzerland for music production and manages all subsequent performances of the partners- Paul, RIngo, George and Yoko - from that point on. Those four (actually through their reps including Yoko) hold 25% of the corporation.
Apple Corps has subsidiaries including Apple Records CA, Apple Records NY, Apple Music Publishing, Apple Films, Python Music, Maclen Music, & Subafilms.
They went thru this when the put the Ensoniq chip in the IIGS.
They have something of a point on the trademark confusion if AAPL continues to use "AppleMusic", but the consensus is (though they do not disclose actual earnings) is that Apple Corps loses money most years, so this could be a fishing expedition for some no-work income. Memo to Darl McBride...
I bet this could be ironed out over a long lunch by reasonable people.
And/or (duh) they could release their records since the end of the Beatles library to ITMS and make some money from it as well as sales.
The real History of Apple Corps. Ltd (Score:3, Interesting)
When the Beatles were legally dissolved in 1974, Apple Corps continued. The judge ordered the profits divided 5% to each member, 80% to the holding company. They continued making money with the 1962 - 1
Huh? Now I'm confused (Score:5, Funny)
How utterly annoying for Apple Computer (Score:5, Insightful)
Give me a break. I still can't believe that an earlier suit was won against Apple Computer because they included speakers with their PC.
Something's gotta give here. Hopefully some judge will step in and say "This is retarded. Case dismissed."
Re:How utterly annoying for Apple Computer (Score:5, Interesting)
Branding, while not important to me, is understandably important to a corporate or business entity as that is how they are identified. I couldn't start an ebook distribution company called Scholastic Ebooks, certainly Scholastic the publishing company would have something to say.
I think we just have a (1)negative first reaction to lawsuits and (2) Apple computers is much more in our minds than Apple Music. That shouldn't negate Apple Music's rights to keep their branding untarnished.
Re:How utterly annoying for Apple Computer (Score:3, Insightful)
There's many many companies out there with the same name elements, and many of them even do similar things. They don't sue each other because not many of them are billion dollar companies like Apple Computer. That's the only reason this lawsuit exists.
Apple Is Dying (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Apple Is Dying (Score:5, Interesting)
How does that make any sense? (Score:5, Insightful)
NOT EVEN ONCE!
This strikes me as Apple (the record company) being a bunch of greedy bastards. They sued because Apple computers couple play music over external speakers - and won? I suspect that they are looking for another payday, and given past history, will probably get it.
I would wager that if you walked up to a person on the street and asked them what they think about apple, they are probably going to talk about fruit or computers more often than they talk about record companies...
Re:How does that make any sense? (Score:3, Interesting)
True now. But not true in 1976 when Jobs intentionally stole Apple Corp's trademark.
Re:How does that make any sense? (Score:5, Insightful)
That being said, these companies have been around so long, anyone who is confused needs to be shot and have his wallet taken away from him.
Re:How does that make any sense? (Score:3, Insightful)
This strikes me as Apple (the record company) being a bunch of greedy bastards
Given the way the RIAA has been behaving lately, this shouldn't come as a surprise. Pretty soon we will be able to look forward to a "Behind the Music Label" expose. Somebody, somewhere is going to write a book about the thinking of the RIAA/majors during this time. I suspect it will be a stunning read, as in "How could they be so clueless?!?"
Maybe I can be the first to suggest ... (Score:5, Funny)
Apple Computer needs to settle. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Apple Computer needs to settle. (Score:3, Interesting)
After the incident most of the themes were regenerated from scratch, and there hasn't been an issue since.
The DVD thing is bad, yeah.
Re:Apple Computer needs to settle. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Apple Computer needs to settle. (Score:3, Informative)
The C&D letters to the makers of Aqua skins were not presented for copying Aqua's look and feel. The first round of skins were pixmaps made from screenshots of OSX. When people generated the
Apple Records WWW presence (Score:5, Interesting)
I wonder what they're running that Apache 1.3.26 on...
RTFA People!!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
That is not the case today. Apple Computer has been sued and lost twice already to the tune of $50 million. Now they open a website named AppleMusic which sells music. If that doesn't put them in the music business, I don't know what does. Not only that, but AppleMusic could easily be confused with Apple Corp's music business.
This is a stupid mistake by a company that KNOWS they will lose a suit (since it has happened in the past with much more obscure violations). In those other suits, I would've sided with Apple Computer but not in this one.
Re:RTFA People!!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Now I know we love apple and hate the RIAA, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
The question I have is: why? Why wouldn't Apple spin off some other company named Golden Delicious Music, or produce the iPod by Granny Smith or something? They pay their lawyers to come up with stuff like this, no?
Seems like Apple Computers knowingly breached a contract. Blatently. Seems like poor managerial decision making.
What has Apple Corps Done, Lately? (Score:5, Interesting)
Aside from popping up every ten years to sue Apple Computers, has Apple Corps [applecorps.com] actually put out any sort of product? A quick Google for Apple Corps brings up several other sites long before Apple Corps' placeholder website; has Apple Corps made an effort to protect its trademark, aside from prosecuting this single case?
Some of the hits on Google, in order of appearance:
I understand that Apple Corps has a standing agreement with Apple Computer, and Apple Computer is very likely in breach of that contract with iTunes and iPod because, as was true in the infamous speaker case, the contract was worded so loosely that if a Macintosh makes a sound, it's in breach. But, has this company actually done anything with itself, or taken any measures to protect its trademark from much more egregious infringements by organizations with shallower pockets?
Re:What has Apple Corps Done, Lately? (Score:3, Informative)
(2003) Beatles Anthology DVD release (#1 dvd charts)
(2001)George Harrison's "All Things Must Pass" re-release, also owned by Apple Records.
(2000) - Imagine (John Lennon) remastered
(2000)Beatles "1" CD release , over 30,000,000 copies sold.
(1999) Beatles "Yellow Submarine" DVD cartoon and CD/LP re-issue (Remastered)
1998 - "White Album" limited edition (big apple records label on this one!)
1996 - Beatles Anthology 3
1996 - George Harrison "Electronic Sound"
1995
Smacking lightly of stupid... (Score:4, Insightful)
Clearly there shouldn't be an issue here, but the thing is that the first ruling was stupid. But apple signed an agreement that said they wouldn't intrude on the music business.
That's where apple is stuck, they will settle and they'll continue on as normal. Seriously, no one would confuse the two, primarily because one is a music distributor (through ITunes) and one is a music producer (who has how many bands represented).
If companies weren't companies than this thing would be solved more amicably. As they are however, companies, and one signed an agreement to not do what it is doing. Tough for apple, then again now they probably have a little more money to fight or settle this thing to their end.
In Other News... (Score:5, Funny)
Is it me? (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe it's cause I am young, whoops.
Apple Computer Doesn't Care... (Score:5, Insightful)
Imagine.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you think that would go over well with Microsoft, the software manufacturer?
Apple Computer was started when the name "Apple Records" was very fresh in the minds of most music lovers in the world. They asked to use the name, got in trouble back then with Apple Records, and lost. Plain and simple. They therefore had a legal precedent that essentially should have made them negotiate with Apple Records if they ever decided to enter the music business.. and obviously they didn't, all because Apple Records continues to be a very well known and popluar selling record label! (Do note that the Beatles '1' album has sold over 30,000,000 copies, and Apple continues to release new compliations that continue to sell very well -- Apple records does make good money!)
The reason many of us won't confuse Apple Computer from Apple Records is because we are all GEEKS. Your mom isn't, and frankly, non-geeks (most of the rest of the world) could get confused, hence, I feel strongly in favour of Apple Records.
Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
You can't be serious.
Apple is well known brand and has ads about the music store in mainstream media almost daily. When was the last time Apple Records advertised at all, or even published something?
Do note that the Beatles '1' album has sold over 30,000,000 copies, and Apple continues to release new compliations that continue to sell very well -- Apple records does make good money!
Ummm, are you sure abo
Slightly OT, but..... (Score:4, Interesting)
Say it ain't so, *Ringo*!! (Score:4, Funny)
Why do I have this strange sensation that Jobs is going to say "Sosumi" ?
Whats The Big Deal? (Score:3, Insightful)
This is not about Apple Records crying foul over trademark or copyright infringements but is moreover most likely related to the laws governing incorporation of a business. If Apple Records was already registed in California as Apple Inc. or something similar Apple Computer would had to have gotten permission from Apple Records to be incorporated under a similar name.
Most companies will let this happen but only if the company wanting to incorporate under a similar name agrees not to enter its market. This appears to be exactly what Apple Music asked of Apple Computer and Apple Computer obliged. So we really should not be making Apple Music into another big bad ligitation-happy corporation because they are simply enforcing the agreement Apple Computer willingly signed.
Now whether we feel the merits of the lawsuits are justified is not important in contract law. The only thing that is important is whether the contract is legally binding and enforcable. It seems as if it is and Apple Computer has willingly cornered itself in its business strategy.
After all who would of thought of music on personal computers back in the early 80's.
Therefore instead of getting upset with Apple Records we should all see that Apple Computers latest lawsuit is one that they knew would be coming and have probably set aside some money to pay Apple Music off. Just don't be surprised if Apple Records wants some sort of royalties from iPods or something of the like.
Finally I repeat even though we may not like it Apple Music is merely enforcing its contract that was mutually agreed to by Apple Computer.
Background Info (Score:5, Informative)
LONDON (AP)
Saturday, October 12, 1991
A multimillion dollar trademark battle between Apple Computer Inc. and the Beatles' Apple Corps holding company over their similar corporate logos has ended with an out-of-court settlement.
Apple Corps, formed by the Beatles in 1963 to manage their music rights, accused Apple Computer of violating a 1981 agreement by using its apple logo on music-synthesizing equipment.
Apple Computer's logo features a horizontally striped apple with a bite out of it and a leaf on top, while the Apple Corp logo is an apple with a stalk on top.
The two-year-old dispute centered on Apple Computer's musical instrument digital interface or Midi. Apple Corps contended the personal computer maker had agreed to use the apple logo only on computer equipment in order to avoid interfering with the British company's music business.
Gordon Pollock, a lawyer for Apple Corps, said in the High Court on Friday that the companies had reached an amicable settlement.
Apple Corps sued Apple Computer in the court last Oct. 29. "It has been a long, hard road," Pollock said. He said the terms of the settlement were confidential.
The San Francisco Chronicle cited one report that it said called for Apple Computer to pay $29 million. The newspaper did not reveal the source of the report.
Apple Computer, based in Cupertino, Calif., disclosed in July that it had put about $38 million in reserve to settle the litigation.
Apple Corps is owned by the three surviving members of the Beatles Paul McCartney, George Harrison and Ringo Starr and by the estate of John Lennon, who was shot to death in New York in December 1980.
London news reports said the case cost the two companies an estimated 7 million pounds ($11.9 million) in lawyers' fees and other costs.
Apple Corps was asking for a worldwide ban on the use of the Apple Computer logo on music-synthesizing equipment designed by Apple Computer.
Lawyers for Apple Computer argued that the agreement was unenforceable and that Apple Corps' claim violated the 1957 Treaty of Rome that set up the European Common Market.
--
Re:For Christs's Sake (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe they should hire Paul ? (Score:3, Insightful)
You know what would be neat is if the two companies merged on this issue and Apple Computer and Apple Corps worked together to provide songs to the public as this is the sort of thing that John, Paul, George and Ringo envisioned when they started Apple Corps.
Confused?!?! (Score:4, Funny)
Things will get worse (Score:5, Funny)
Things are going to get a lot worse when we start hooking up Macs to food replicators and order lunch by saying:
"Computer, a Big Mac, Fries and a Coke..."
There will also be trademark confusion when trucking companies start using autopilots for their long haul routes. You'll see Macs driving Mack Trucks.
Brand confusion will get ugly I tell ya.
Re:Apple Sauce (Score:3, Funny)
BANG!
Jobs: Apple sauce, bitch
Actually Ringo Starr means applesauce in Japanese.
This would be funnier if it were, you know, TRUE (Score:3, Informative)
I will admit that it's possible that there's a Japanese word I don't know that means "sauce" and sounds like "Starr," but if so,
This goes back to the early days of Apple (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, it may be frivolous, but iTunes is in the music business. The Beatles may not need the money, but it's the thought that counts.
I could be wrong...but I'm a Beatle fan first, and a computer fan second.
Re:This goes back to the early days of Apple (Score:5, Informative)
Interesting [beatles.com]
Re:This goes back to the early days of Apple (Score:4, Informative)
I belive Micheal Jackson controls all the beatles works. So I would say he is sueing Apple.
IE: A fruit is sueing another fruit.
Re:This goes back to the early days of Apple (Score:5, Informative)
Whacko had the rights to most of the lyrics a while back, but sold them to Sony.
The way music licensing works is generally as follows
The tune / lyrics belong to whoever wrote them, and these are licensed to a specific publisher. Note that this may not be the label, it can be a seperate company, or in some cases, a part of a company (for example EMI have EMI publishing which licenses tunes and lyrics)
The record label in turn owns the rights to a particular recording of that music, be it a studio track, or a live track.
So whilst Sony own the rights to the beatles lyrics, EMI (through Apple Music) own the rights to recordings of those things.
And that's the simple version, it gets very very messy very quickly when band swap labels, perform live or the song writer moves between publishers.
Re:This goes back to the early days of Apple (Score:4, Interesting)
Which is why, for example, you can pickup an Elvis' Greatest Hits and it won't have "You ain't nothing but a hound dog!" or a Sinatra Greatest Hits that doesn't have "My Way."
Re:This goes back to the early days of Apple (Score:4, Funny)
But what will come out of this?
-EMI losing, since the record company Apple essentially doesn't exist (is declared partially rotten and is discarded)
-HugeCashSettlement (let's give more money to the large record companies!)
-Apple starts a subsidiary (Banana or Pineapple) and transfers all music-related things there
-Name is changed to The Computer Company Formerly Known As Apple (TCCFKAS)
-Apple uses the Chewbacca defense
Re:This goes back to the early days of Apple (Score:3, Funny)
uh, that was Todd Rundgren, not the Beatles.
kinda like the Beatles
And that was, Three Dog Night, I think...
Re:heh (Score:5, Funny)
Sosumi (Score:5, Funny)
Ai Yi IEEE! (Score:5, Funny)
TPF
Re:Ai Yi IEEE! (Score:3, Funny)
In the name of all that is decent in this world I hope that is a joke with no basis in realty.
Sorry, but the G5 is a good value (Score:5, Insightful)
$3,000 for a 64-bit, 2GHz, dual processor unix workstation that runs consumer apps, has a great Java development environment and burns DVDs?
Seems like a good value to me.
If they didn't gouge the consumer so effectively
You do understand the difference between "not dirt cheap" and "gouging," right? Nobody has to buy a G5, but Apple invests more in creating and manufacturing a product than Dell does, so they believe it's worth more. I happen to agree, but you, of course, don't have to.
If everyone just assembled components and sold them as dirt cheap boxes, the industry would be even more stagnant than it already is. Fortunately, we have Apple.
- Scott