But that's the only point I was making...as I said the post to Chris,
I'm not even a major apple user, I only own the iPad 2. Apple is not
angel company and they are obviously acting in their own interests on
many fronts, but then so does MS, Google, etc. The business world is
dog-eat-dog and we might as well acknowledge that.
On 12/10/2011 4:53 PM, Greg Sevart wrote:
I'm not going to get into this discussion even though I have pretty strong
feelings about it...but I think you may do well to stop focusing on the term
"monopoly" and instead consider each side with respect to policies and
behaviors potentially being anti-competitive and/or anti-consumer (in a
collective sense, not anecdotal accounts of "vendor XYZ replaced my
1200-year-old abacus with a new tablet for free). Further, I don't believe
that all monopolies are necessarily bad.
That is all. :)
Greg
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:hardware-
[email protected]] On Behalf Of Anthony Q. Martin
Sent: Saturday, December 10, 2011 3:13 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [H] Laptop?
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.
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.
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
