Your argument serves to counter itself. How could Microsoft have a Monopoly when there were other choices? Apple forces you to buy their hardware if you want to use their OS, how is that different? Everything that you provided as a counter argument applies to Apple. If you cannot see that there is no point in any further discussion. Apple, Wintel, Linux.... It is ALL the same. I have written software for all three platforms (and many others) for many, many years. It is only the fanboys who feign a perceived superiority to any of the platforms. They all work, they all have their warts and they all are very useful tools. Job's did an excellent job with marketing and has created some of the most rabid and ardent supporters. We get it, you love Apple; don't hate just because someone else does not share that same *opinion*.
I guess it is at this point that I should apologize for ever asking for a laptop recommendation. -- Gary http://www.twigsandtracks.com Twigs snap and tracks fade, a photograph reacquaints Twigs and Tracks Blog: Painted Falls<http://blog.twigsandtracks.com/2011/06/25/painted-falls/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=painted-falls> On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 10:57 AM, Anthony Q. Martin <[email protected]>wrote: > It shares no characteristics of a monopoly. Sure it's closed...but anyone > can make apps for iOS...who else makes Windows? Who else makes WebOS? > Anyone can write for those platforms, just like they can for Android. It > absolutely isn't a monopoly...heck, you guy's must have forgot...MS was > forcing all PC venders to include Windows on their machines. That was way > closer to a monopoly that anything Apple has done. When one has choice, > there cannot be a monopoly. It's like saying Obama is a socialist because > he wants healthcare for everyone (I'm so sure that Canada is a socialist > country!). > > Apple's choice to harber a closed system had its pros and cons. But MS > was forcing a license of Windows on everything and let everyone develop > their own hardware...and for that we all surferred countless hours dealing > with the resulting headaches that brought. AFAIC, MS didnt' get a > reasonable version of Windows until Windows 7. All those years that we had > to deal with crap software so that Gates and crew could become incredibly > rich. Meantime, Apple being a closed system -- both in terms of software > and hardware kept them small, but much less of a headache for users, which > made them rich. And they made products that people actually wanted to own > after they got smart and decided to live in a niche PC market while still > able to charge premium pricing (by having a less buggy system and excellent > customer support). Now that MS has faded and Apple (and others) have the > limelight, the haters are just changing their focus. It's kinda sad. The > notion that anyone should be able to make a MAC clone is as close to > socialism as I can imagine. They should just give away their intellectual > property just so others can benefit? > > Finally, if Apple were to get 95% of the market like MS has, it would be > because their business model was simply superior to that of all those > others. They still have managed to avoid becoming a commodity product, > which says a lot for their product. > > And if you ask me, MS killed off so much competition that the PC world is > way boring (which is why there are now new markets for opportunity). When > is the last time anyone got excited about any software that runs on a PC? > Remember the days when we all wanted to get the latest software? Those > days are so dead. We have MS to thank for that. > > > On 12/10/2011 11:30 AM, Thane Sherrington wrote: > >> At 09:43 AM 10/12/2011, Anthony Q. Martin wrote: >> >>> What are you talking about, man? Apple makes laptops, pcs, tablets, mp3 >>> players, etc. Others make devices that do exactly the same things that >>> Apple products do. You can't say apple has a monopoly on its products >>> anymore than you can say that lenovo has a monopoly on the x220t laptop or >>> samsung has a monopoly on the series 7 slate. It's a silly argument. >>> Apple laptops are part of a plethora of hardware choices. >>> Having a closed ecosystem doesn't make it a monopoly. You have no loss >>> of choice and you aren't forced into anything. Hating for little reason is >>> not an attractive trait. >>> >> >> I think his point was: If Apple were to get 95% of the market (like >> Microsoft has) then there would be no Dell, HP, Acer, etc choices. If you >> want Apple OS, you must by Apple hardware. I guess it's not a monopoly >> (although it shares some characteristics), it's more of a closed garden. >> Frankly, I'm glad that Microsoft (for all its warts) is the dominant >> player in the PC world. If things were reversed, the PC world would be a >> lot less interesting. >> >> T >> >> >>
