On Dec 10, 2011 1:12 PM, "Anthony Q. Martin" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 12/10/2011 3:56 PM, Joshua MacCraw wrote: >> >> On Dec 10, 2011 8:57 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!). >> >> HARDWARE! Windows can run on any mac, can IOS do the same on any wintel >> box? NO! Artificial prevention and lack of drivers. > > > So? What does that have to do with being a monopoly. Apple choses to only support its own hardware. One can chose to either use it or not use it. If Apple did exactly what MS has done, they could just be an also-ran and disappear in the market. They exist mainly because they are a clear alternative. Why does this bother anyone? Why must you argue that they need to get in line just like the Dells, Acers, etc of the world? Then you truly would have no choices. > > >> >> MS was slapped several times for their practices. Apples only IP is IOS so >> your argument is idiotic. > > > Your statement is idiotic because it makes no sense. People are claiming you need an apple computer to run an apple OS, which is based on Linux anyhow. Even less reason why it could be a monopoly. They practically give their OS away, too. >>
Again you must not be reading what I responded to because Ant made the IP argument about mac clones which is NOT the case since the only IP is software and I'm talking about hardware. >> There's a big difference between being a socialist and doing things for the >> betterment of society. > > > ??? > > Apple is a business. Business don't exist to do things for the betterment of society. > Red herring! Response to Ant's random bit about Obama only not relevant but if you actually processed the exchange you wouldn't have posted this. > >> >>> 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. >> >> Right, because the average consumer understands enough to choose based on >> specs and facts? LOL! > > > What does that have to do with Apple being a monopoly? It certainly adds nothing to the conversation. > >> >>> 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? >> >> Whenever the next PC game is announced maybe? > > > That's just sad...the only interesting piece of software you can point to is a computer game. > >> >>> Remember the days when we all wanted to get the latest software? Those >> >> days are so dead. We have MS to thank for that. >> Right, keep drinking the koolaid. I laugh and point to apples famous 1984 >> commercial with the room full of clones. Now that room is full of prius >> driving hipsters who think they're unique despite being forced into the >> same cookie cutter choices. > > What does that mean? > > >>> 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 >>>> >>>>
