Dude,
I didn't say Microsoft had a monopoly..I was saying they were much
closer to a monopoly than apple ever was. Having a closed system
doesn't come close to making you a monopoly. When people can easily buy
other PC, tablets, mp3 players, etc, they aren't forced to use anything
you sell. Nothing there is single source. Just because you supposely
have to have their hardware to use their OS doesn't mean they have a
monopoly (I have heard that one can indeed built a machine that runs the
Apple OS X). There are other OSes you can use. It's not as if they
lower product amounts and then raise prices...or if they did, they'd
just lose money because folks would refuse to buy apple hardware and
hence, apple OSes. if they were the only source of an OS around, then
they would have a monopoly.
And your comment about me loving Apple is crazy. I only have one Apple
device - a tablet. I'm a firm PC guy and have been for yours. Come to
my place and start counting PCs.
On 12/10/2011 2:38 PM, Gary Udstrand wrote:
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
