Originally Posted by Tulkas
Is there a Windows PC market? Forget Apple in there for a moment, because until a couple years ago, they were not using Intel. Again, is there a Windows PC market, as a sub market within the overall desktop/laptop market? Of course there is. Using the simplistic definition used by others here, there are numerous competitors selling Windows PCs.
So, how many competitors make a market? Answer? The number is irrelevant. If you want cable services, be it TV or internet, you have to go through your one local cable company. There doesn't mean there isn't a cable market. Sure, you could go to other vendors for TV service or internet, but for cable, there is only one. So, just because Apple is the only vendor for Mac compatible hardware systems, does not mean there is no market. Just as there is a Windows PC market within the larger market, there is a Mac market within the larger market. It just happens that they have been able to prevent competitors from succeeding in this market.
But the Windows/PC market and OSX/Mac market isn't defined until one has already purchased a computer. You can not put a group of consumers together, that don't already own a computer, and predict which market they will end up in. They may make their decision based on the type of programs they want to run, what they using at work, games they want to play, price, home decor, OS preference, form factor, weight, etc.. It is from this market that ALL computer makers compete in. Dell, Apple, HP, Sony, etc.. People are not born to use Macs' or PCs'. There's no genetic marker that determined which computer they will eventually end up using. Every potential computer buyer is fair game to ALL computer hardware makers. No one has a monopoly in this market segment. Every computer hardware maker will do what's needed to win over these consumer by marketing their hardware.
Why are there more venders competing in the Windows/PC market than the OSX/Mac market? BECAUSE MICROSOFT (with Windows) IS DEEM A MONOPOLY. (sorry for yelling
)MS must license their OS to anyone that wants to sell a PC. Otherwise they would be denying the vender access to 90% of the World computer market. Apple (with OSX) is not a monopoly. Apple doesn't not have to open their OS to anyone. By not doing so only denies a vender access to less than 4% of the World computer market.
A cable company having a monopoly in an area is no where near the same as Apple having a monopoly in the OSX/Mac market. When a cable company has the monopoly in an area, everyone in the area, that wants or needs cable service must buy it from that cable company. This is not true with Apple monopoly in the OSX/Mac market. Once a consumer buy a Mac and is part of the OSX/Mac market, he/she no longer has to buy any more product from Apple. Ever. Not even an OS. He can choose to buy his programs. HD, ram, keyboard, mouse, monitor, router, printers, etc. from any vender that sells compatible products. The only items he /she may need to buy from Apple is replacement parts that only Apple has. But Apple does not sell replacement parts as a money making venture. It's a service they provide to it's Mac users. So having a monopoly in the OSX/Mac market is not what you think it is. Apple would like them to use Apple products, and if Apple was a true monopoly in this market, they would have to use Apple products.
So the OSX/Mac market is really of no value to the likes of Dell, HP, Sony, IBM, etc. from the viewpoint of computer sales. That is, not until he/she is ready to buy another computer. Then all is fair game again. Apple would have the upper hand but is not a slam dunk that an already OSX/Mac user will buy a Mac the next time around. Now venders like HP and IBM do make a descent amount of money selling computer accessories like printers and HDs'. And they are not locked out of the OSX/MAC market because Apple has a monopoly in the OSX/Mac market.
Every vender that sells programs and accessories for computers can sell their products (that are compatable) in the OSX/Mac market. This hasn't always been true. But ever since Steve Jobs took over and began adopting standard architectures, Macs' can use the same accessories that PCs' uses. But you'll be surprise how how many people still believe that you have to buy (and pay a lot more for) your HD, keyboard, mouse, ram, etc., from Apple (if you own a Mac).
So where is the "monopoly" in Apple having a monopoly in the OSX/Mac market? We can say (and agree) that Apple has a monopoly using the layman definition of monopoly. But I will argue that Apple has no where near a monopoly in the legal definition of monopoly. You can always reach a point of any company being a monopoly if you defined the market narrowly enough. You may disagree. But you havn't yet posted anything that would substantiate such a claim.
I am crying about what? I really don't care that Apple doesn't allow others to compete. I buy Macs from Apple because I like the hardware and software. A number of people I know bought PowerComputing systems back in the day because they were cheaper and faster, but that doesn't affect my feelings.
As for your logic: "Apple already owns 100% of the Mac market"...and you don't see that as a monopoly, within the Mac market? There was a time they did not own 100% of the Mac market, so you can hardly say it is not a distinct market...there were competitors within the Mac market.
How can they compete in the Mac market by writing their own OS? That makes zero sense. Certainly they can compete against Apple with their own OS, within the overall PC market, but they can continue to use Windows for that. If they want to compete within the smaller mac market, they need to sell Mac compatible hardware. (Well, technically, they already do, they just aren't allowed to.
Even back when there were several Mac clones venders, Apple still had 100% of the Mac OS market. Apple did not have to license out their technology. It was a choice Apple made in hopes of increasing their market share in the computer market. Apple did not intend for these venders to compete in the Mac market. As it ended up, these venders were just selling their clones to already Mac users. Apple was still losing market shares in the computer market. So Apple (Jobs) pulled the plug on the licensing of Mac clones. Apple had every right to so. These clone venders did not develope any of the technology in a Mac. These venders did not write or maintained the OS that went into these clones. These venders were the likes of Dell. A screwdriver shop that put together computers. And their main goal was to make it cheaper. As it was back then and is now, why should Apple license their technology so a competitor can compete agaisnt them? Useless they command enough of a market share in the computer market, to be deemed a monopoly, they don't have to.
If Kia wants to compete in the Porsche market (in which Porsche has a monopoly), should Porsche be forced to supply Kia with Porsche engines. So that Kia can market a car with a Porsche engine and call it a Porsche clone. Tell me where's the logic in that? If Kia wants to compete, let them develope their own car with an engine that is better than a Porsche. In hopes of getting Porsche owners to switch over. It would be a different story if Porsche produced 90% of the auto market engines.
And that's the key, getting owners to switch over to your product. Competitors should compete by making their products better than their competitors. In hopes of getting consumers to buy your product over that of a competitors. And if this means developing an OS, so be it. That's what Apple had to do, with OSX. Their "Copeland" project was dead in the water. So they paid NeXT $400 million for NextStep (written for a X86 architecture none the less). From which OSX eventually emerged, three years later. It have to be ported to run on a IBM PPC chip. There was zero (or nearly zero) native programs for OSX when it first came out. Except for what Apple wrote. (But it still ran OS9 programs.) There was no guarantee that any third party venders would write programs native for OSX because Apple had less than 4% of the US computer market share at the time. And if you want to believe the rumors, was on the verge of bankruptcy. Jobs had to convince programers that Apple had a future and that OSX was the key to it. It was a tough sell but Apple did it. And they did it with less than 1/10 of the market cap Dell, HP or Sony has now. Apple is now beginning to reap the rewards of that effort. Apple wasn't given their OSX/Mac marketr shares. They had to fight to keep what they had. And they didn't compete IN the Windows/PC market. They competed FOR the Windows/PC market. And they are slowly getting Windows/PC owners to switch. Along with convincing new computer buyers to buy a Mac as their first computer. And you think that Apple competitors should be given a free ride by forcing Apple to licence out OSX? I say let the likes of Dell, HP, IBM, Sony, etd., compete FOR Apple OSX/Mac market shares. Not until Apple OSX/Mac market shares reach the point of being a monopoly should Apple be forced to give up OSX. No matter what you may think about Apple having an 100% share of the OSX/Mac market, it's still less than 4% of the World computer market and about 10% of the US market.
There arguments are valid, within the larger, overall PC, market. Within the Mac market, Apple is the only player, and that is their competitive advantage. At one point in the past there were other players. Did that make it a distinct market? Other here foolishly say it isn't a market now because they are the only company in the market, but when there were clones, was it a market? If so, then did getting rid of the clones magically make it no longer a market? So, if a company can eliminate there competitors, that means there is no longer a market? faulty.
Back in the mid 90s' there were literally dozens of PC venders. You couldn't turn the pages of a computer magazine without having flyers dropping on your lap, advertising PCs' for sale. Those venders are all gone now. Victims of Dells' "don't make it better, make it cheaper" business motto. Giants like the founder of the PC (IBM) and the founder of the PC clone (Compaq) no longer in the PC business. (IBM still sells laptops and Compaq had to be rescue by HP.) Even HP was at the brink of getting out of the PC market before they aquired Compaq. Dell has put more PC venders out of business than there are venders left. Was this competition good for for the consumers? Well back then it was, because PCs' got cheaper and cheaper. But a lot of the price reduction would have naturally happened anyways as technology advanced. But now look at the PC market. Do consumers have have more choices? The price of a PC has reached the point where the most expensive piece is the OS. How long do you think Apple would survive against a Dell Mac clone? What happens when Apple software team spend more time on PC configuration problems than working on a new OS? What happens when Apple is driven out of the computer business? It's not as though Apple can afford to lose a lot of market shares. All it takes is a loss of 4 or 5% of their present market share. Will the consumer eventually be better off? Who will support the OS on your cheap mini tower Mac clones when Apple can no longer afford to? MS has an 80% margin on their OS. They can afford to drop their price quite a bit in order to maintain their monopoly in the OS market. Now if Dell is allow to eliminate the competition (Apple) because Apple had to give up OSX, would there still be an OSX/Mac market? And you find no fault with this?