Apple's culture of lies, Part 2: A different way of looking at it

One thing I've often thought with Apple is how much worse off the PC industry would be if they were ever dominant, because they're such a belligerent company. But a more level-headed way to view Apple's recent push-backs from the top of the heap is that they're suffering from exactly the same problematic mind-set that doomed Microsoft a decade/decade-and-a-half ago, back when antitrust regulators from the FTC and DOJ first accused the company of illegal anti-competitive behavior. That is, they're just a product of their history.

What I mean is, until very recently, Apple was the underdog, and they've been the underdog for almost their entire existence. This creates a certain mindset, and under Steve Jobs especially, it's created a very aggressive competitive spirit. This aggressiveness is fine when you are literally the underdog, just as was the case with Microsoft early in its career and it was trying to wrest the PC industry from IBM, Lotus, WordPerfect, and other tech dinosaurs. But once you have a dominant market position, that aggressive behavior--so important for an up-and-comer--isn't just bad, it's illegal. It's just hard to turn it off when it's been part of the corporate psyche for so long.

Microsoft got into antitrust trouble because they behaved in a manner that was illegal, but only for a company that holds monopoly power. During this time, I fielded innumerable emails from people wondering why it was OK for Apple or Linux to bundle applications in their OSes when it wasn't OK for Microsoft. (Answer: Apple and Linux didn't/doesn't have a desktop OS monopoly.) And so on. The answer was always the same: If Microsoft didn't have a monopoly, what it did in the mid-1990s would have been legal.

As I write this, Apple doesn't quite have a monopoly in any given market, but they are pretty darned close in a few, and getting closer all the time. And you can see how aggressive this company is, and how they're protecting their core products at the expense of users. The time to stop this behavior is now, not after Apple has secured the digital music market (arguably already done), the digital movie and TV show markets, and the consumer smart phone market. These are the markets that Apple is set to monopolize, and we've already arguably passed the point where that is no longer a given, a certainty. You can argue that we're not there yet, possibly. But we will be.

So. With this obvious comparison of two very similarly belligerent companies--Microsoft of the mid-1990s and Apple of today--in mind, I think the time has come to rein Apple in. To examine Apple's exclusive relationships with wireless carriers. To force it to open up iTunes to competing players, and its iPhone and iPod devices to competing software and services. If we don't do this now, it will only be more difficult in the future. All you have to do is look at Microsoft's never-ending antitrust saga--which has now stretched on for 15 years, involved regulatory bodies on three continents, and gone on far longer than its actual bad behavior--to see why it's time.

We spend too much time worrying about whether Microsoft will be the next IBM. What we should be worrying about is that Apple has already become the next Microsoft. Let's fix that. Let's nip this one in the bud. Let's do it now.

Discuss this Article 130

RunTimeError
on Aug 26, 2009
Apple's culture of lies, Part 2: Paul Insights Another Flame War Causing Some Users To Ask Why the Apple Fans Are Bothering To Come and Read A Windows Site. There you go. Fixed that title for you big guy!
sunsfan
on Aug 26, 2009
I'm beginning to think Paul writes this stuff because he gets a kick out of reading the comments after such incendiary speech. And because he's more worried about Snow Leopard than he lets on! :)
EricoF3
on Aug 26, 2009
@ robertsgay: Shut up C*o*c*k sucker...
FalKirk
on Aug 26, 2009
A thoughtful piece. I'm not sure I agree with the underlying premise - that the exact same actions are legal for one company but illegal if that company has a monopoly. I know this is Microsoft dogma so I don't think there is much point discussing my views here. I'll just say that there is a difference between a "competitive" monopoly created by superior products and tactics and an"illegal" monopoly which uses its monopoly position to forcibly manipulate and strong arm its competition. Finally, I think the flaw in this article becomes pronounced when we look at Paul's "solutions. "examine Apple's exclusive relationships with wireless carriers. To force it to open up iTunes to competing players, and its iPhone and iPod devices to competing software and services." None of these things are illegal. All are practiced by competitors. But according to Paul they become illegal merely due to the size of a company's market share. Who knows. In the murky legal world of monopoly law, he may be right.
Avro
on Aug 26, 2009
@sunsfan agreed! Snow Leopard must be pretty darned good. How can Apple with 13% of the Mobile Smartphone market constitute a monopoly? http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-10308173-37.html iTunes was designed to sell iPods. Fair enough to keep it exclusive. As to the Phone Carriers, I agree with Paul it needs to open up, but it isn't just Apple who is involved in this type of sweetheart deal.
EricoF3
on Aug 26, 2009
Yeah Paul but... This is normal companies do that... Since they are little they had to fight to death to keep a little market part so they develop strategy to get alive... Companies are not intelligent they are empty, so when administrator give a direction to a company the company go in that way and only people can stop this movement, not the company itself... So, using strategy to get alive companies grows and get market parts an become bigger and bigger and like Microsoft once a day we have to stop him and tell him: "Hey don't go that way even further" so the company is force to change their direction... This is just a capitalism normal thing... Don't worry... When apple will go to far in their direction justice and law of humanity will stop it an apple will change their direction...
chipwinter
on Aug 26, 2009
Paul, you really need to be careful what you wish for. Just five years ago you wrote: "Apple's inability to see coming trends in video, subscription content, and interoperability suggests that Apple is repeating the mistakes of the past. In the 1980s, the Mac held an early lead over the PC but was quickly buried after the industry standardized on a common Microsoft technology. Today, that series of events is repeating itself, and online music services -- and to a greater degree, the digital delivery of all media types -- is very much at a nascent stage. If Apple doesn't change its ways, the company simply won't survive." It kinda looks like you wished Apple would change and follow Microsoft's model of standardizing industries on a common technology -- iTunes, iPhone, etc. Now that they've done it, it's time to rein them in? Really?
EricoF3
on Aug 26, 2009
Also, Microsoft never had a monopoly on anything!! They always just take the place nobody wants... Nobody never wants to do a OS that support all the existing Hardware on the planet, so Microsoft do it... They don't counter others to do the same!! Others just don't want to do that... This is not what I call a monopoly!!
mikegalos@msn.com
on Aug 26, 2009
Before this gets totally off the rails there are a few items in anti-trust law worth noting. First, despite FalKirk's not wanting to believe that what's legal action for one company is not for another that is the law. The company that holds a monopoly over a specific market is more tightly restricted than other companies in that market. That's not "Microsoft dogma", that's black letter law. The key is determining what is or is not "the market" involved. Going back to DOJ v Microsoft, one of the key debates was "the market" involved was. For example, was it "operating systems" in general? Should things like IBM's mainframe operating systems be part of the market? How about Unix? Should it be "desktop operating systems for personal computers using the Intel x86 family"? That last question was, in fact, a part of one key debate that was very contentious since, at the time, Apple ran Mac OS on PowerPC. If it was only X86 then Apple was not a competitor and should not have been involved in the trial since they were not a competitor. If it was ALL desktop PC operating systems then Microsoft has a smaller market and the question of whether they had a monopoly was more debatable. So, does Apple have monopoly power in any given markets? In the case of portable music players there's no question that Apple is the monopoly in that market. In the case of the iPhone family it becomes VERY much harder since it depends on how you define the market. If you define the market as just cell phones then Apple clearly does NOT have a monopoly (and they're not even a major player). If you define the iPhone as an iPod Touch with an added feature then it clearly IS part of the iPod monopoly on portable media players. It's all definitions of market. Apple has, without any doubt, performed actions that are vastly in violation of the restrictions placed on a monopoly. (And accused of some that are in violation of the law in any case but that's a different issue) So, again, the question that must be decided is this: is the portable media player market a significant enough ecosystem to define it as a market subject to monopoly power? It's hard to agrued that it isn't. (but I'm sure some people here will try) If it is, there's little question that Apple holds monopoly power in that market. And there's also little question that Apple has performed actions in restricting free trade in that market in ways that are not allowed for the monopoly in that market.
shark47
on Aug 26, 2009
And then we have this: http://www.techflash.com/microsoft/52839567.html :-) Good article, Paul.
mikegalos@msn.com
on Aug 26, 2009
BladRnr Doesn't innovation deserve to be rewarded in the market place? Who was forced to buy MS-DOS or Windows? You can go out and buy any number of personal computers and install the software you want to them. What monopoly??? "Let's fix that. Let's nip this one in the bud. Let's do it now." Yeah, why doesn't AAPL fix that? Come up with something that is innovative. Now that's a novel idea. I can't believe you are playing the last card you have left: the monopoly card. AAPL can't/won't innovate so let's just say Microsoft is a monopoly. Good luck getting a judge to agree with you.
mikegalos@msn.com
on Aug 26, 2009
blad "A far cry from what Apple is doing in any of the markets they compete in." You saying something doesn't make it true. Apple's actions in restricting the iPod/iTunes ecosystem are vastly more anti-competitive than what Microsoft (with it's partner-based ecosystem rather than one-vendor model) ever did even at the time of the DOJ decision. A few examples: iPod can only (without violating the license) sync with iTunes. 3rd party competitors cannot license the ability to sync with iTunes iTunes can only (without violating the license) sync with iPod. 3rd party competitors cannot license the ability to sync with iPod iTunes users cannot use the software to purchase products and 3rd party stores 3rd party media stores cannot license the code to let users shop at their site with iTunes. 3rd party media software vendors cannot license the ability for their software to purchase items at Apple's store 3rd party media software vendors cannot license the ability for their software to sync with iPods 3rd party hardware vendors cannot produce add-on products for this market without Apple's approval and a license agreement (with licnensing fees so large that they often drive up consumer pricing on accessories such as cables significantly) 3rd party software vendors cannot produce add-on products for this market (device or software or store) without Apple's approval and license agreement (with terms and enforcement often arbitrary or clearly designed to block competition with Apple products) But, you say it isn't true...
mikegalos@msn.com
on Aug 26, 2009
Blad "So what would you have Apple do to correct the situation? Seriously." A few items that would likely be in any ruling or settlement agreement are: Apple must license at a reasonable fee the APIs for 3rd party applications to shop at their store Apple must license at a reasonable fee the APIs for syncing with iTunes Apple must license at a reasonable fee the APIs for iTunes to support other stores Apple must license at a reasonable fee the APIs iTunes to sync with other devices Apple must license at a reasonable fee the APIs for iPod to sync with other software Apple must provide a software distribution mechanism that provides an equal method of installing 3rd party applications on iPod family devices Apple must provide the technical specifications for their iPod hardware interfaces for 3rd party devices and accessories Apple must remove all code from their devices that restricts use of 3rd party hardware add-ons and accessories. Or, there could be a settlement that split up Apple's media products groups into separate companies: * Hardware devices (iPod family including iPhone) * Computer software (iTunes and related code) * Media store (iTunes store and related code and sites) None of these companies would have access to APIs, licenses or patents from the other companies or Apple, Inc that were not equally made available to 3rd party companies at both an equally reasonable fee and in an equally timely manner. Additionally, the "Hardware devices" company would have to still publish the add-on and accessory items discussed in the non-breakup ideas since there was no breakup resolving those issues.
Mirek2
on Aug 26, 2009
"To examine Apple's exclusive relationships with wireless carriers. To force it to open up iTunes to competing players, and its iPhone and iPod devices to competing software and services." Come on, Paul, those clearly don't compare to what MS used to be -- actually, it's pretty much a picture of what MS currently is, and, to a lesser point, other competitors. iTunes is pretty much the equivalent of MS's Zune software. No problem there. Exclusive relationships are very normal, and it doesn't make a difference whether it is with carriers or other companies. And as for MS, it is still has a backstabbing, violent monster side -- remember Urge and PlaysForSure? Sure, Apple definitely has a very ugly, pompous image, but it isn't evil. Just obnoxious. So, realize that and stop criticizing it for petty stuff, especially when MS is doing the exact same thing.
kent909
on Aug 26, 2009
If you want to comment on the ethical behavior of a company than you need to put it in a greater context, not just a comparision to MS. Today the media lies, all companies lie, politicians lie, people on this blog lie. It has become perfectly acceptable to lie. Lying is what you tell your children not to do, then make sure you do it because if you don't you won't survive. It is difficult enough to have technology discussions in the blog let alone ethical or philisophical ones. Paul you are really veering off course on this one. Would it not be easier for you just to post a blog and say this is how I feel about Apple, rather than attempting to put it in the context of technology.
Waethorn
on Aug 26, 2009
Speaking of lies, I'll leave you with this little festering tidbit to munch on: Apple suffering from foot-in-mouth disease: http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/24/apple-enlists-david-puddy-to-take-on-... http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/25/snow-leopard-packing-antivirus-software/
TEAMSWITCHER
on Aug 26, 2009
Paul, I know exactly what the PC industry would be like if a belligerent company had gained monopoly power. A few weeks ago Microsoft published the maximum system specifications for Windows 7 Net-book Edition. Why did they feel the need to impose such an arbitrary and heavy handed control over this emerging market? Simple, they are protecting their bottom line! By ensuring that no "partner" ever tries to make a popular inexpensive atom based 15" notebook computer that runs a cheap version of Windows. So there you have it - a giant company, leveraging it's monopoly, to control the user experience for products that it doesn't make, to maximize it's revenue. Will you write so passionately about this injustice?
shark47
on Aug 26, 2009
"Today the media lies, all companies lie, politicians lie, people on this blog lie. It has become perfectly acceptable to lie." Oh, good. That means it's perfectly acceptable for Apple to lie. Good for them. Woohoo!!!
hamiltonstallings
on Aug 26, 2009
I have to admit, a many fortnight ago I bought into the Apple iPod hype. But once I disovered how crappy the audio quality is, and how iTunes is probably the worse program ever written (I should say program(s), as it comes with just about everything Apple has every written without choice) I ditched it. iTunes was definately the main reason, as it noticeably slowed down every single computer I installed it on. I love clicking on a song only to wait a full second for iTunes to highlight it. Boy did I enjoy uninstalling iTunes only to go back to the control panel to see that bonjour, safari, Apple update, ituneshelper, ipodservice, quicktime, quicktimetask, and others ARE STILL INSTALLED AND RUNNING. Talk about extreme bloat.
kent909
on Aug 26, 2009
"Oh, good. That means it's perfectly acceptable for Apple to lie. Good for them. Woohoo!!!" In your zeal, you neglect the point that the sentence could be written as follows: Oh, good. That means it's perfectly acceptable for Microsoft to lie. Good for them. Woohoo!!! So if Apple does not lie than all is well in the world.
Ocean
on Aug 26, 2009
Ocean
on Aug 26, 2009
"To examine Apple's exclusive relationships with wireless carriers." What does this mean? "To force it to open up iTunes to competing players" It did, at least to the extent the owners of the music allowed them to.
Ocean
on Aug 26, 2009
I can't believe Paul thought this argument through. It reads like a stream of conscience thing. A little fact checking and all the arguments here just melt. And Mike is just ginning up controversy for the sake of ginning up controversy...again.
EricoF3
on Aug 26, 2009
@kent909: Capitalism is just a War game and it is normal companies omit. not lie, to tell things to win the game... So stop telling Microsoft is lying!! It is not! It is just trying to win the game... The same for Apple... All these things are normal on a war land... But please stop talking about monopoly... Only stupid judge talk about silly monopoly that does not exist!!!
CommanderTPlak
on Aug 26, 2009
Enough of this pointless bickering! On my homeworld, we have a saying. Those who use Windows are the blood-feasters of despair, and those who use OS X are the carrion of space-jackals. It will matter not what their business practices are when the Oncoming Storm devours all matter into its endless void.
EricoF3
on Aug 26, 2009
In another sens... by forgetting monopoly silly issu, we must stop convergence... I mean Apple don't have any monopoly, in my sens, but we must top him from controlling a aspect of a market... I mean, Apple can be the best seller of the MP3 player but if they begin to buy disk companies and entertainment conglomerate, we must stop him!! The same for Microsoft... If they begin to buy all hardware maker, or something, we must stop him... A good example, Google!! It has no monopoly but we cannot let him begin to buy other major web search engine like Yahoo etc... They don't have any monopoly but we cannot let him do convergence...
subzerohitman721
on Aug 26, 2009
Following up on my previous one. One person said what if the premise was based upon false information. Would the U.S. Department of Justice really launch an investigation based upon false evidence? Usualy, the U.S. D.O.J. is pretty thorough in most cases. Yet we do have clear cut evidence that Apple has abused its monopoly power in the digital music space or hindered competition in both the music player, app market, and the mobile phone market. You don't have to have a monopoly to use your position to be anti-competititve behavior. If it hinders competition, then you're violating the law. Apple is still innocent until proven guilty by a court. However, I don't think the D.O.J. especially under A.G. Eric Holder would proceed unless they had enough clear cut and more than circumstantial evidence. I think our Mac fans are worried that Apple may have indeed violated the law. They would not be able to hold Apple up as this shining beacon of law abiding and ethical company. It would be in the same boat as Microsoft. Many signs point that its already there. You forget that any corporation is run by a man. Men make mistakes. They get money and power. Money and power changes people. My point is this. If Apple has nothing to fear, then why not open up iTunes to other players? Apple can't walk and chew gum? Why not open the iPod/iPhones to other services? If both products are good, they'll sell themselves and Apple will make their money. Or are they afraid that under the light of true aggressive competition, that Apple wil fall again like it did in the 1990's? If you truely believe in the America's ideals of free market enterprise, competition only makes you stronger not weaker. If Apple cannot hold up to competition against other devices, services, and software, then let it fall and let someone else try.
EricoF3
on Aug 26, 2009
@CommanderTPlak: what are youi talking about???
hamiltonstallings
on Aug 26, 2009
Blad, "In all fairness, if this iTunes monopoly exists, then why doesn't MSFT write a version of WMP for Mac so they can synch their Zunes via a Mac? Because there's no market for it? Well, then the consumer has spoken." What does the iTunes monopoly have to do with MS making WMP available to the Mac? Maybe, just maybe, MS doesn't care about writing WMP for the Mac because there is such a small user base, it isn't worth it since only a subset of that user base would actually use it. "In fact, from a business perspective, I think they are shooting themselves in the foot by not offering it to Mac users. Dumb move on MSFT's part." Rofl. Ya, they should really be asking you for business advice. With your logic, anything is possible. Time for you to start paying attention in school kiddy.
Stoic
on Aug 26, 2009
What?! Apple's OS upgrade is only $29 which proves how evil MS is. I heard it on MacBreak Weekly.
EricoF3
on Aug 26, 2009
@Stoic: It do not proves MS is evil, silly... It just proves Apple is evil because Microsoft Upgrades (service pack) are ALWAYS free!!! Silly!!
trieste
on Aug 26, 2009
Interesting argument - what Microsoft did would have been OK if it had not been illegal. Apple should be found guilty of something just in case they do something illegal? That kind of legal thinking does have a familiar ring to it. X executives have "proved, time and time again, to be inaccurate, misleading, evasive, and transparently false. ... X is a company with an institutional disdain for both the truth and for rules of law that lesser entities must respect. It is also a company whose senior management is not averse to offering specious testimony to support spurious defenses to claims of its wrongdoing." Three guesses what company X is.
EricoF3
on Aug 26, 2009
@hamiltonstallings: On Blad... lol funny funny you are lol
chipwinter
on Aug 26, 2009
Maybe Apple's not the new monopoly abuser; maybe Microsoft still is At the end of July, Ballmer, whose company makes no notebooks, told financial analysts that Microsoft lost some money this past year on notebooks because they were sold too cheaply: “We’re going to readjust those prices north” with windows 7." So how does a software company with a monopoly readjust the prices of hardware that is not theirs?
Lindy
on Aug 26, 2009
@hamilton can another device sync with Zune software (Windows only if you want)? Can the Zune Sync with other software that would willingly allow it it too? There is no difference between the Zune and iPod ecosystems. Both are locked. I think this is great, as success or lack of it is totally up to making a better all around product. Falkirk got this right. Microshaft jammed their products down the throats of PC makers and others using their market position or money. Which only further increased their monopoly. If MS went to Dell and said, if you offer our OS first, and install our browser only, our trail software (office or whatever that office light crap was back in the day) then we will give you Windows at $10 a copy. If you dont its going to cost you $100. Oh and by the way HP is doing it, so is Gateway etc. They did the same thing with large volume license customers and many other areas. It’s the proven Microsoft scorched earth policy. Copy, extend (at great cost up front), extinguish. They do this all the time. Its typically starts with offering something for free, or at a greatly reduced price. Windows/Office was way cheaper than Unix/Novell and say WordPerfect/Lotus/Borderland. IE vs Netscape, Exchange vs Lotus/Groupwise etc. Right now they are really late to the Virtualization market and are trying the same stuff with HyperV. Once they get the leverage things change. Microsoft has been busted time and time again using this tactic. Emails back in the Dr. DOS days prove to what lengths they will go to beyond just making a better product to kill off the competition. Lots of companies use some of these tactics but I think MS is probably the most famous for it. Apple and Jobs I am sure have some killer instinct, the smartphone market is one area where you see this. The biggest difference between MS and Apple is that Apple makes both the hardware and software for many products. Therefore they cant force PC makers to install OS X, or force MP3 makers to use iTunes through the proven MS monopoly tactics. Apple MUST ENTICE CUTOMERS to buy their products, since they are locked, hardware/software. They can’t jam a horrible product down the throats of a Dell or HP (aka Vista) and get sales out of it. Their either can sell their wholly owned product to consumers or not, and based only on their efforts. Apple is not even close to a monopoly in the music industry. Amazon, Microsoft and Walmart are in play. If could force certain record labels to only sell music on iTunes, by either threatening them with not selling their products on iTunes, or giving them large amounts of money.......then you peg them for monopolistic practices. Paul is trying to generate negative press on Apple right before the launch of Snow Leopard. To think he has any influence is a joke. His review of Snow Leopard on the main page is so full of inaccurate information, he should be called a liar no? I think someone pointed this out yesterday. Paul wont fix those errors or say anything about it. Its part of his effort to generate negative press, with a sheety review of Snow Leopard and two blog posts that will cause many postings. Its funny my URL bar says winsupersite.com?????
mikegalos@msn.com
on Aug 26, 2009
blad An example of how Apple's likely monopoly in the music player market hurts consumers is: Let's say a company decides they want to produce an alternative to iTunes that rather than being tied to one store is able to scan multiple stores for a particular song in a particular format (encrypted vs unencrypted, various formats, various compression, etc). It would then let the user buy the song from whichever store had the best price and seamlessly download and sync it with the user's iPod. (Let's assume they use an ad-driven revenue model and don't have their own store although that would be possible for a low-margin vendor willing to risk losing some sales to get a reputation as an honest broker with good prices) This app is now impossible to write legally since Apple does not provide the APIs for shopping their store or syncing with their player. Thus, the consumer is prevented from having a shopping comparison tool that works cleanly with their music player. That is "consumer harm". The current situation also makes it harder for other vendors to compete on price or features (restraint of competition). And all of this is done with anticompetitive bundling of software and hardware and by refusing to license APIs. While this kind of anticompetitive action is perfectly fine when you do not have monopoly power in a market, if you do have that power that is a clear case of abusing that power and that is against US antitrust law (and likely EU law)
solaranox
on Aug 26, 2009
Give me a frigging break here... Before iTunes and the iPod, We had several different MP3 players and several different pieces of software to manage music. Windows Media Player was arguably the most popular. How many years was Windows Media Player out there before iTunes? MS could have innovated then, but they didn't. So, Apple comes along, introduces the iPod and iTunes and people flock to it... It was innovative and IT WORKED the way people wanted. Apple has continued to innovate. How long was did it take MS to introduce a Zune and Zune Software? (Which, by the way, copied Apple's closed "it just works" system?) It's not like MS was ever short of money! Now, Apple has the iPhone. How long has MS let Windows Mobile stagnate????? Apple comes in and makes all these devices, software, and services that people LOVE, and Paul wants to put a stop to it. He wants to go back to the days when you never really knew if that PDA, MP3 Player, or Phone was going to sync with your information. Pfft! No way do I want that! Mine and my Wife's iPhone sync PERFECTLY every time with our contacts, calendar, notes, music, videos, and photos. I was NEVER able to say that when using numerous Palms, Windows Mobile PDA's and Phones, and various MP3 Players. I have nothing against MS... They have the cash... If they want people to buy their Zunes and Windows Mobile phones, then THEY NEED TO START INNOVATING! Palm came out with an iPhone competator... You mean to tell me that MS cannnot???? It is my impression that consumers are HAPPY with their iPods and iPhones!!!! If not, there ARE OTHER CHOICES!!!! Poor Paul... Boo Hoo... He cannot buy an iPhone that works on Verizon. Whats the problem with that? My iPhone works perfectly fine on AT&T. I came over from Tmobile. If I did not want to move from Tmobile, then I that is MY DECISION and I would have had to CHOOSE to pick a Tmobile phone. I just don't get this Monopoly argument at all... There are tons of different MP3 players out there, and there are tons of different cell phones out there. There are MUCH BIGGER companies than Apple in those markets too! Let them INNOVATE and I will buy their products!
Lindy
on Aug 26, 2009
What I find totally ironic is that Paul will often quote Apple's market share as very little, to insignificant. Yet here he is talking Apple monopolies??? Multiple Personality Disorder. @Chipwinter, great point on those netbook comments. Again to even suggest that MS is going to do this suggests that they will strong arm Hardware makers into higher pricing. If Microsoft made the netbooks and the OS then it would be up to them to provide a compelling reason to buy their wholly owned product, you know like the Zune.
EricoF3
on Aug 26, 2009
@ robertsgay: Shut up C*o*c*k sucker...
mikegalos@msn.com
on Aug 26, 2009
trieste You seem to be confusing "being found to have a monopoly" with being found guilty of something. Being a monopoly does NOT make you guilty of anything. It just means that you have sufficient power over a market that you have to work within a more restrictive set of rules. The example I usually give to explain it is this: You go to a small town and realize that there is nobody there who gives haircuts. You open a barber shop. You now are: An entrepeneur (by seeing a market opening and entering it) AND A small business owner (a single barber shop is likely a small business) AND A monopoly (you have total control over the market for haircuts in that town) Did you do anything wrong? No Does your position give you power that you would not have if there were competitors? Of course Do you have to play be extra rules such as not working to block competitors from opening a competing barber shop? Yes
mikegalos@msn.com
on Aug 26, 2009
Lindy As you know, monopoly is by market and not by company. Apple is a small player in PC operating systems and simultaneously a likely monopolist in portable media players. Microsoft is a monopoly player in PC operating systems and simultaneously a small player in portable media players. There now that wasn't so hard, was it.
EricoF3
on Aug 26, 2009
@solaranox: "It is my impression that consumers are HAPPY with their iPods and iPhones!!!!" Yesss!!! People really like when their 600 box Iphone and ITouch explode in their faces... lol... Do somebody ever ear that a Zune exploded in the face of somebody?? @solaranox: "How long was did it take MS to introduce a Zune and Zune Software? (Which, by the way, copied Apple's closed "it just works" system?)" Zune Software a copy of ITune?????? D'oh!!! I think you don't talk about he same software then I!!! Please don't talk about what you don't know!!! Zune Payer software is almost the more innovative multimedia player right now!!! ITune seems to be close then Excel in comparison with the Zune Player software 3.0... I suggest all of you to use the Zune Player software to play music and video on your PC even if you don't own a Zune... THis software is the most amazing player for Windows actually... You can Download it for free at www.zune.com... Just try it... You will see...
yoshipod
on Aug 26, 2009
The true culture of lies are those coming from this website. Just look at Paul's Snow Leopard Quick Take. The whole review is filled with lies. "Had Microsoft released such an update for Windows, they would have called it a service pack and delivered it gratis." This is the change list right from Microsoft for Vista SP2. You are really comparing Snow Leopard to this. Hardware ecosystem support and enhancements • SP2 adds support for the 64-bit central processing unit (CPU) from VIA Technologies, which adds the ID and vendor strings for the new VIA 64-bit CPU. • SP2 integrates the Windows Vista Feature Pack for Wireless, which contains support for Bluetooth v2.1 and Windows Connect Now (WCN) Wi-Fi Configuration. Bluetooth v2.1 is the most recent specification for Bluetooth wireless technology. • SP2 improves performance for Wi-Fi connections after resuming from sleep mode. • SP2 includes updates to the RSS feeds sidebar for improved performance and responsiveness. • SP2 includes ability to record data to Blu-Ray Disc media. Operating system experience updates • SP2 includes Windows Search 4.0, which builds on Microsoft’s search technology with improved indexing and search relevance. It also helps find and preview documents, e-mail (including signed e-mail messages), music files, photos, and other items on the computer. The search engine in Windows Search 4.0 is a Microsoft Windows® service that is also used by programs such as Microsoft Office Outlook® 2007 and Microsoft Office OneNote® 2007. Autotuning Diagnostics in SP2 now interprets current network conditions when implementing Windows scaling. This feature includes full netsh support. • SP2 improves Windows Media Center (WMC) in the area of content protection for TV. • SP2 removes the limit of 10 half open outbound TCP connections. By default, SP2 has no limit on the number of half open outbound TCP connections. "Snow Leopard takes another page from the Windows 7 playbook with a new feature of the Exposé window management tool. In previous versions of Mac OS X, Exposé was very much a power user feature, and you could really only use it effectively via the keyboard, an oddity in the mouse-focused OS X interface." Expose has been around since 2003 with Mac OS 10.3. So how can this take a page from the Windows 7 playbook? Flip 3D and Areo Snap are the Microsoft taking the page from the OS X playbook. This technology is six years old. In addition, you can set any of the Expose controls to work on any mouse button or trackpad right from the system preferences, so I have no idea why Paul is saying its an oddity. "Snow Leopard expands on the icon preview functionality in Windows 7 in dramatic if somewhat unnecessary ways. You can now instantly preview the contents of many document types right in the icon for those documents in the Finder....But the sheer number of ways in which you can access documents and other data files in Snow Leopard borders on the ludicrous. In addition to these in-icon previews, you can also use a new Quick Look utility to preview documents full screen" Umm, no, it expands on the icon preview functionality of 10.4 & 10.5, not Windows 7. For years, you could play movies, music, etc. right from the finder by highlighting the icon. I can select an icon in 10.5, hit the space bar, and get the quicklook preview. I can also zoom it full screen. Been doing that for the past 2 years, so I don't understand how 10.6 is improving on a Windows 7 feature. "On the other hand, QuickTime X continues Apple's hypocritical waltz into inconsistency, as this application bears absolutely no resemblance at all to any other Snow Leopard applications." Do you mean the black titlebar? Because all the controllers look an awful lot like the DVD, quicklook & frontrow controllers. By the way, how come in Windows 7, the fact that TWO applications have a ribbon interface is a great feature, but ONE application in OS X has a different interface and that is a problem.
Lindy
on Aug 26, 2009
@ Mike your example of someone creating piece of software to scan for music on iTunes, and Apple not allowing the scan to happen is not in any way consumer harm. Apple forcing labels not to sell their music through Amazon or MS Zune software and only through iTunes is consumer harm.
EricoF3
on Aug 26, 2009
@ yoshipod: The real lie is comparing OSX White Leopard Upgrad with a Windows 7 Upgrade... OSX WHITE LEOPARD IS A SERVICE PACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Lindy
on Aug 26, 2009
@Mike, its not about being a monopoly its about forcing your monopoly, or more commonly stated using monopolistic tactics to keep that monopoly. Apple is a monopoly in the digital delivery of music at 67%. or whatever. However they are a monopoly based completely on consumer demand, and not by strong arm tactics.
hamiltonstallings
on Aug 26, 2009
I find it funny that the Mac evangelists keep using the word 'innovate'. These are the ones you can tell Steve Jobs has mind control over. @Lindy, "@hamilton can another device sync with Zune software (Windows only if you want)? Can the Zune Sync with other software that would willingly allow it it too?" Yes. And your next comment proves you are an idiot.
lazysquirrell
on Aug 26, 2009
yoshipod
on Aug 26, 2009
"@ yoshipod: The real lie is comparing OSX White Leopard Upgrad with a Windows 7 Upgrade... OSX WHITE LEOPARD IS A SERVICE PACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" Please explain why this is so. Please list the features of Windows 7 and why that is an upgrade and why 10.6 is a service pack. The lie is saying one is an SP and one is not. Both are clearly upgrades. Half the features Paul lists in the Windows 7 upgrade are also in 10.6, so what make windows 7 such an upgrade? This is not a troll, but a legitimate question. It seems that since there are no MAJOR UI changes that means is an SP? I don't get that.
EricoF3
on Aug 26, 2009
@yoshipod: NOOOOP!!! Microsoft NEVER do Major UI changes in a Service Pack ... And this is historical... I am sorry...

Please or Register to post comments.

IT/Dev Connections

Las Vegas
September 30th - October 4th

Paul ThurottYou'll have the opportunity to experience:
• 120 Technical
Sessions
• Networking with Peers
• Expert Speakers


Come See Paul Thurrott & Mary Jo Foley in Person!

Register Now

Office 365 InfoCenter

Get the latest insight and info from Paul

Read Now!

What I Use