Reseller's website offline following pledge of $400 Mac clone - Page 6

No judge would rule this way. A company cannot be forced to share its intellectual property as long as their is sufficient room for fair competition. No judge would rule an integrated product family a market within itself that requires competition.

The Mac's competition is Dell, HP, Acer, Toshiba, Lenovo, Sony.

OS X competition is Windows and Linux.

Apple is unique in the computer business because they make both the OS and hardware. But let's suppose that OSX is made by a company call "Grapefruit". And Apple signs an exclusive agreement to license "Grapefruit" OSX for their Apple computer. Now the OSX/Apple market share is about 10% of the US computer market and less than 4% of the World computer market. Is "Grapefruit" a monopoly (by any definition of the term) in the computer OS market? NO. Do "Grapefruit have to license their OSX to anyone that wants to use it? NO. Is Apple a monopoly in the computer hardware market? No. Is this arrangement legal? Yes

Now where do we this kind of arrangement done all the time? In the gaming industry. Gaming programers like Take Two Interactive, Activision, Bungie and Electronic Arts sign exclusive licenses all the time. Some of their game titles are only available on one platform.

So if you want to play "Halo", you have to buy an Xbox from MS. If you want to run OSX, you have to buy a Mac from Apple. If you go backwards, Xbox has a monopoly in the Halo/Xbox market. And If you don't think there's a Halo/Xbox market, then someone's lying about the 2.5 million copies (including pre-orders) sold on the first day alone. Mac has a monopoly in the OSX/Mac market. But the hardware monopoly only occurs because of an exclusive arrangement with the software maker. And that arrangement is perfectly legal.

So does it matter that Apple doesn't license OSX from "Grapefruit" but owns OSX? No. Just like it doesn't matter that Microsoft doesn't license Halo from Bungie. MS owns Halo.

The monopoly Macs' has with OSX will never be a legal issue until OSX by itseft becomes a monopoly. (Which sounds kind of strange because Apple owns both and OSX can't exist without a Mac.) But you can not have a monopoly, in the legal term, in a market that in itself is not a monopoly. The OSX market is not a monopoly. When (or if) OSX (or which ever OS version Macs will be using at the time) becomes a monopoly, Apple will be forced to open up their OS to other hardware venders.

Sorry, you missed the point again. again and again. I have already said, it is obvious Apple has no monopoly, literally or legally, over the overall computer market.


OSX can easily exist without a Macintosh branded computer. It just is not legally allowed. That is the point of this discussion.


I have no idea what you are trying to say here...


...or here


Again, to make it as simple as possible: there is no monopoly where there is no market. If you dod not feel the Mac market is a distinct market, then there can be no monopoly. If you see the Mac market as existing, then there is an obvious literal monopoly. Just because there is a single vendor is not a good enough excuse to say there is no market. Just the fact that there was at one time more than one vendor invalids that fault assumption. The fact the cable companies are the sole provider of cable services in any area invalids that faulty assumption. So, please stop with the comparisons of other industries. Either there is a mac market or not. That is the simple debate. If you think there is no mac market that exists, then great, there cannot be a monopoly.

Again, I think there is a distinct Mac market, that is a part of the larger PC market. Just as there is a Windows systems market, that is a part of the larger PC market, but it has lots of players. And there is a Linux market within the larger PC market, again with lots of players. Outside of relative size of these markets, the biggest difference is the number of vendors within them. Guess which one only has a single vendor.

If I am in the market to buy a system with Windows installed, I have lots of choices of vendors and Apple is not in the group. If I am in the market to buy a Mac system, I have one choice of vendor. It is really as simple as that for me to see a market..what I am in the market to buy. And yes, there are those who are in the market only for a single platform.

CHOICE is optimum word. You choose to use a Mac. There is no reason why you have to use a Mac. Apple has no significant market advantage that forces anyone to use its products. Everyone uses them (or not) by CHOICE.

Lets say Apple dominated the PC market. The Mac owns 70% of the computer market because the market decided it likes OS X better than the other options. As long as Apple has not lied, cohered, or unfairly stifled competition. As long as Dell, HP, Windows, and Linux have had a fair chance at success. The government still could not force Apple to open OS X to other hardware.

Well if they had 70% then they likely will have mid-towers and high end desktops that don't have sever ram and cpus in them.

also they would have laptops in the $1000-$1800 with 15in or bigger screens and real video cards.

CHOICE is the optimum word and you have managed to either not understand it or take it out of context. One does not always have the choice of platforms. Your school, workplace or organization might mandate Windows or Mac. In that case, the Windows market has a CHOICE of vendor. The Mac market does not have a CHOICE of vendor. If however, I have my own CHOICE of platform, then, if I make the CHOICE to buy a Windows system, I again have a CHOICE of vendor. If I make the CHOICE to to buy a Mac system, then again, there isn't a CHOICE of vendor.

See how easy that is when you leave the word in the context it was meant?


Irrelevant and meaningless to the discussion. If Apple has a monopoly in the Mac market, then there could be legal challenges to actions taken to defend that monopoly. This would be up to a judge. Again, if you do not see a Mac market, then you won't see a monopoly...no market, no monopoly.

I don't think your argument makes sense either.

Microsoft was taken to court because of a monopoly in desktop operating systems, not because of a monopoly in "Windows systems."

Specifically, after being determined to be a monopoly, they were ruled to have used a monopoly in one market (desktop operating systems) to unfairly compete in another market (internet browsers).

All I see here is Apple finally gains a few points in market share and all of a sudden the Windows defenders start yelling about a monopoly. A monopoly with 6% of the market? A monopoly in "Macintosh operating systems?" Give me a break.

All true. And I am not talking about the overall PC market. Since you obviously do not think there is a distinct Mac market, you cannot possibly think there is a monopoly, by literal or legal definition. That would make no sense.


And the Macs percentage in market share in the over PC market really have no bearing on if there is a distinct market within the larger PC market.

And the remark about 'Windows' defenders? Where did that come from? One could hardly call me a Windows defender, having used Macs since 84 and Apples before that. This has nada to do with Windows defenders or Apple's gains within the overall PC market.

Simple questions few others have answered:
1)Within the overall desktop market, is there a definable Windows systems market?
2)If 1 is true, is there competition within this market?
3)Within the overall desktop market, is the a definable Mac market?
2)If 3 is true, is there competition within this market?

Again: There really is no debate about a monopoly here. Either there is no distinct Mac market, and so there logically cannot be a monopoly in the non-existent market. Or there is a distinct Mac market. If so, 0 competition, at least literally, means monopoly. It really does not have to get more complicated by bringing silly car analogies and Windows antitrust comparisons. If there is no Mac market, then it is just silly. I see a Mac market. Do you not?

"Viewsonic accuses Apple of monopoly behavior"

LINK

"Reuters reports that screen giant Viewsonic is considering legal action against Apple's iMac computer. The iMac is a computer system where the computer is actually built into the monitor.

Viewsonic spokesman, Butler Sync, declared. " I just don't know how they have been getting away with it for so long. The iMac has complete control of the iMac market. It's a monopoly! and now they (Apple) are bolting screens onto the computer."

Rob Enderle, principle analyst and President for Life of California's Enderle Group said. "I pointed out months ago that this was folly. iMac users should be able to choose their own accessories and the screen manufacturers should be able to compete fairly in the iMac market." Mr Enderle added. "I think this is one monopoly too far for Steve Jobs. He's going to have to face the music. It's his own fault. He should have listened to me!"

In a further statement Butler Sync said. "This is still America you know!"

Apple declined to comment. "

I really don't agree. I think that's quite an odd set of reasoning. I think it's a distraction, arguing this point is being stuck in an eddy rather than moving on.

What is your agenda, really? Are you trying to convince people that the DoJ should look into Apple's practices? Do you think that Apple should be required to license their software? Do you want to see Apple split up or shut down? If not, what is your desire with respect to this topic? It sure seems like you're trying to lead people to a conclusion that they're not going to arrive at if they disagree with several of the steps necessary to get there.

You talk as if there are no alternatives to Macs. If someone decides to get a Mac, thats' their deal, but Macs aren't really necessary for anything. They're just nicer than the alternatives, that's all, it's not life or death, and it's not going to destroy major sections of any country to go without, they just get Windows or Linux and be done with it. Anyone that says they have to have a Mac or bust has their own problem, that blame cannot be laid on anyone else.

And that is OK. We can disagree. I am really ok with someone who does not see a mac market. That is okeedokey. I just find it foolish to acknowledge a mac market but deny it is a monopoly.



Agenda. Please, don't get all X-Files on me. No agenda. Are you so wrapped up in yourself that you believe that if others disagree with you they have an agenda? Why do I continue to reply to posts? Probably a touch of Asperger's. Partly to occupy time while online. Partly because I enjoy debate.

I am now and always been a fanboy, Retardedly so. I have been responsible for more than a couple people making the switch. I have been told I was a fool for buying Macs when they were 'embattled' and 'once iconic'. I have fought to increase the Mac support in our products at work and to assign more Mac dedicated developers.


Mostly agree. You assuming no one needs to get a Mac. As I have said, some do. If you school or work requires Macs, you have to buy a Mac. Not life or death, just work and school.



Again: If you want to or have to buy a Windows system, you have lots options.
Dell, Sony, HP, your local whitebox vendor, Acer etc.

If you choose to or need to buy a Mac, you do not have options. I am ok with this. Even if they opened the market to competition again through license clones, it would take a pretty impressive vendor to even tempt me away from Apple hardware. But my bias and support towards Apple doesn't lead to automatically make excuses for them. Since I see the Mac market as distinct, my support for Apple doesn't make me blind to that. And as I have said, if there is a Mac market, then there is a m.................


forget it.

You need to understand that I'm not interested in making excuses for Apple, or anyone for that matter. I too jump in with comments if I see a silly argument, regardless of whether the argument presents Apple in a good or a bad light. I do this even if I agree with the conclusion, but the argument is contrived.

I don't think it makes any sense to use a brand name as part of the definition of a market. Maybe I can agree with you if you can define a market that effectively consists of Macintosh computers without using any brand names, trade marks or other forms of brand identities in defining that market. It really needs to be a generic description.

The reason I ask about the agenda is not the position but how contrived the argument looked to me and how often it was reiterated. I really couldn't make sense of it other than that.

And several of us here has been trying to convince you that. that is all that matters. Apple does not have a monopoly in the over all computer market. The OSX/Mac market belongs to Apple. They created it. They can own 100% of it. So long as the OSX/Mac market is not a monopoly. You want to play Halo, you have to use an Xbox (from MS). Your company wants to buy a Dreamliner, you have to buy it from Boeing. You want a PlayStation, you have to buy one from Sony. MS, Boeing and Sony created those respective market and do not have to share them with anyone. You would never expect anyone forcing Boeing to give up their design blueprints, for the Dreamliner, to Airbus. There are other choices besides Halo, Dreamliner and PlayStaion. And there are other choices besides OSX.

There is no such thing as "I have to use OSX". Not when 96% of the World computer users get by with MS Windows, Unix, Linus or what ever. If your job requires you to use a OSX and you don't want to use a Mac, find another job. If your network requires OSX and you want to buy cheaper computers than a Mac, change to a MS network and buy Dells. Macs' too expensive, buy a use Mac. The price of a new cheap Dell, HP or Sony will get you a descent used Mac that can run still the lastest OSX with plenty of horsepower left for you apps. It's not like buying a used Dell that can't ever run Vista. There are other choices. You may not like them. You're just going to have to learn to deal with the choices you got or the choices you've already made.


Easy for who? Not for Apple. It's not like porting Halo to play on a PlayStation. A PlayStation is one system. A PC is constantly changing. And is different form one vender to another. Who has to support the OS when there is a bug in the hardware? Who has to support the OS when changes are made to new MB? Who has to support the OS when drivers for USB, BlueTooth, graphic card, ethernet card, etc. needs updating? Most of venders will drop the ballon Apples' lap. Just as they do now with MS. The MB on a Mac is not a standard MB. It is especially designed with Apple specs. Just because it's easy to get a PC running with a hacked OSX doesn't mean that that PC/OSX is running like a Mac.



No, the biggest difference is that all the other OSs' are not designed to run on any one specific computer. OSX is written to run on one type of computer, a Mac. You can argue all you want about how a hacked OSX can be made to run on a PC is proof otherwise. But OSX (and all of Apples other previous OSs') is designed for Macs'. That is why there's only one vender for OSX. Apple do not have to design their OS to support any other system. Nor should they be forced to.

Suppose AlienWare designed an OS for their systems that is optimized for playing games. And they get several game programers to port games for it. Along with writing a few exclusive games for them. AlienWare would have a monopoly in this OS market. So, do you think that AlienWare should be forced to make their OS available to the likes of Dell, HP or Sony? By your standards, it would be easy to do since AlienWare also uses an X86 platform, And this some how justifies forcing them to give up their OS.

Now suppose AlienWare designed an OS for one of their system that allow you to play Xbox games. Do you think Microsoft is going to allow this? Should it matter that Microsoft has a monopoly in the Xbox game market? Suppose this system was half the price of an Xbox? Do you think AleinWare should be allowed to market such a system so that the gaming consumers don't have to buy an overpriced Xbox? Or have a choice of hardware?

Sony, MS, HP,IBM, Dell, Cisco, Sun, RIMM, you name it. All the tech companies are on Apple side on this one. If Apple and the law can't protect their intellectual property, then the intellectual property of these companies and others (well maybe not Dell ) are no longer safe.

Then take brand out of the picture. The Windows market is defined by the OS they run not the brand on the box. Similarly, the Mac market would be defined by the OS they run.


When there were clones, there was a more obvious market. At that point, no one would be silly enough to argue that there was only one vendor for Mac systems (well almost no one). Maybe at that point, it would have been enough for some to accept there was a distinct market. Now, with the cloners having been closed down and leaving a single vendor, that means the market has disappeared, because there is only a single vendor?

Actually, that is something I have been repeating, so you are hardly in a position to say you have been trying to convince me of it.


Hands down, one of the weakest, dumbest arguments I have ever heard. If you school uses Macs you are going to transfer? If it uses Windows you would quit? Are you 12? Like you said, it isn't life a death. If I need a specific platform, I will buy a specific platform. Wow, I would love to see you explain to your wife that you quit your job because they use Windows....


Just because you feel there is no Mac market, please don't use silly arguments like "you could just choose Windows. No, as a matter of fact, some people need a Mac. That really doesn't matter. The fact that some people are going to buy a Mac or might buy a Mac or could buy a Mac, implies a mac market. Don't get lazy and argue they could just choose a Windows machine instead...that holds no water.


Again...don't be lazy with your arguments. I said OSX could easily exist on on non-Apple hardware. This is not in question. It it actively prevented, technically and legally, from running on non Apple hardware. Remove those barriers, and voila, it runs. This statement has nothing to do with driver support, supporting mulitple configurations etc. I don't say Apple would have to support other vendors . I said OSX could run on other hardware.




I will assume this argument is from a lack of understanding of software. OSX was designed and will run on commodity PC hardware. Anything specific required to run it on Apple branded hardware is an artificial barrier put in place to prevent it from running. Remove the barrier, and it runs just fine. The 'hacks' as you put it, are simply to get around those barriers.


Who said anything about forcing anyone to do anything?


So long as they did not break any of MS patents, then yes, I would agree with a decision to allow AlienWare to market their own system that could run xBox games. If MS fought it, it would be a court decision.



All of you arguments aside, those that make sense and the others, the only really important one is that you do not see a distinct Mac market. That is all that matters in this discussion. For get brands, forget IP, forget artificially preventing OSX from running on generic PCs, forget xBox, forget quitting your job and leaving school because they use the wrong platform. All that matters is that you do not think there is a Mac market. In that case, you are 100% correct and we have no disagreement...there is no monopoly. But if you believe there is a distinct Mac market, we have a discussion.

Insufficient, as you'd have to state a specific OS to define the market, making it not a generic market description.

You have to state something to define any market.

Of course, but can you do it without stating a brand name? If you can't define the market without using a brand name or a trademark, then I really don't think you have a market. "OS X computers" doesn't qualify.

In defining what a monopoly is in the Microsoft case, or any other case, the US government had to do just that, and they managed to do that just fine.

Ignoring monopolies for a moment, which you cannot have if you have no market, would you acknowledge a market for Windows systems?

You can't ignore monopolies for a moment because you intend to turn around and say "Ah ha! A market means that Apple is a monopoly".

The answer is yes, there is a "Windows" market because that is shorthand for saying there is a market for intel-based Personal Computers for which the Windows family of products currently dominates and the Mac is a part of. But again, it's the PC market with respect to monopoly definition.

There is also a "Unix" market that sounds more generic because there is no single dominant player. The Mac belongs to that as well.

You mean like when someone says "aha, there is no monopoly, because there is no market"?
Of course you can ignore monopolies for the purpose of defining a market. You do understand you can have a market without a monopoly? That is the premise for setting the definition of a monopoly aside for a moment. It seems to confuse some.


So then, ignoring who has a monopoly where, you admit there is a Windows market within the overall PC market. You throw the Mac in there as well, but then 2-3 years ago, when there weren't Intel Macs, they were not part of this sub market. Then, when Macs were PPC, were they a distinct market? Since you admit there is a market for Windows systems, within the larger market of PC's in general, how can there not be a Mac market? Please don't revert to stupid and say it is because there is only one vendor. Number of vendors does not define a market.


Yes, true. So, you have a within the larger PC market, you have a Windows market...and a UNIX/Linux market...


In particular vinea, your entire argument boils down to, there is no monopoly, because there is no Mac market. There is a distinct Windows market, within the larger PC market. There is a distinct UNIX market, within the larger PC market. But there is no Mac market. Circular at best. There is no monopoly, because there is no market. There is no market, because to define one would mean there is a monopoly, which cannot exist, so there is no market. So, since the monopoly cannot exist, the market cannot be defined, therefore it cannot be a monopoly market....

No one has made that admission in the way you continue to suggest. Folks have continously stated that there is a PC market and that the Mac is part of it.


The Mac has always been in the PC market. Otherwise it would never show up at all in the top 5/top 10 PC manufacturer lists because it wouldn't BE one.

Folks specify "intel-based" largely because the DOJ did for their monopoly case but industry treated them all as one PC market. Hence the fact that Apple was once the top PC manufacturer without actually selling any intel boxes or windows.

Intel-based PC and PC are essentially equivalent terms today since no other microprocessor family remains in mainstream use in a PC.


Except that no one has made that admission in the way you state it.


The Unix market overlaps with the PC market but isn't a true subset since it covers servers as well. The Unix market is a subset of the OS market. Just like the PC market is a subset of the Computer market.


There is no monopoly because while you can define a windows or a mac "market" like you might define a PS3 or Wii "market" neither Sony nor Nintendo have "monopoly" status because both belong to the console market. This is despite there being an ecosystem that are often specific to each like specific controllers, headsets, games, etc.

Therefore, yes, there is a "mac market" but not in the way you mean because, again, it's like saying that just because there is a "wii market" that Nintendo has monopoly status.

It doesn't because there are two other consoles on the market with significant share that provide the same function as the Wii. The Mac is a PC (or server) just like the Wii is a console. Likewise Apple doesn't have a monopoly in either the OS or PC markets because there are other operating systems and personal computers that provide the same function as the OSX or the Mac.

The number of vendors do not define a "market" but the function certainly does. Functionally both OSX and the Mac have equivalents and competitors with larger share.

Try to define the function of a Mac that doesn't also include a Dell running Windows.

In that sense the "Mac market" does not exist.

The Apple monopoly argument is tenuous at best.

I agree with what Vinea has said.

If there was an Apple monopoly I would have expected someone with deep pockets to bring action against Apple in court. Can you say 'Dell'.

Another bad analogy. The console market can only be broken into submarkets that contain each contain single vendors. There are many vendors for Windows systems.

As I have tried to say a number of times, we really have no disagreement here. If you unable to distinguish smaller segments or submarkets within the overall PC market, then you cannot. Without this, then certainly all possibility of an Apple monopoly is moot, since your have defined the market itself out of existence. No market, no monopoly, no debate.

If however, one can see that within the overall PC market there is more granularity, then it becomes a possibility.


Try to define a function a foreign car has over a domestic car? Yet, within the North American market, it is common to reduce the market further into foreign and domestic. Certainly location of head offices of these car companies does not affect function of the vehicle...or maybe it does, since markets can only be defined by function????

I would think the easiest definition of a market would be the group of customer that might buy, will buy or could be convinced to buy with a given product category and/or further distinguishing criteria (a la foreign and domestic). Generally, within the PC market, this will include Windows systems, Macs, Linux etc. But, why cannot the market be more finely defined than that?


Strictly by function? OK, if by your definition, a market is solely defined by overall functionality, then no, you cannot distinguish a Mac from a PC. Or server from desktop. or professional from consumer. Functionally speaking, there really isn't much to distinguish these. Some might be single purposed or specifically configured, but realistically, potential functionality is the same.

Why would any large systems vendor want to sue Apple to be allowed to install OSX? They already sell into the larger Windows market, so why go through the trouble and expense of going to court for the right to sell into the relatively tiny Mac market? Just like when Apple opened MacOS to clones, I don't recall seeing HP/Dell/Compaq clones coming out. Smaller companies with little to nothing invested into the Windows market jumped in though. I think IBM had a license, but don't recall them putting out any systems themselves, though they may have sublicenses to one of the smaller companies.

A small company might risk it (suing), just to get into a market without many other competitors.

Why is this only a bad analogy when it is exactly the same thing you do to the mac?

Take the overall PC market. Reduce it to "submarkets" in the same way in the past and you have Commodore Amiga, Atari ST, Apple Mac, Wintel.

That the Mac, Amiga and ST were single vendor PCs doesn't mean that Apple, Commodore or Atari had some magical monopoly over a "market". This is just like the PS3, 360 and the Wii. If MS licensed out the 360 like they do windows all three would STILL exist in the same market. Not three.


It is not the "inability to distinguish" that there are smaller segments of the PC market but that you do not classify them as a "market". Rather it is your fabrication of a market out of a fragment of a market.


And if GM held 100% share of all domestic car manufacturing but only 6% of the total car market it would NOT be a monopoly. It would simply be one manufacturer among many.

Mazda is the only manufacturer of cars with rotary engines. Does it have a monopoly? No. Anyone can build their own variant of a wankel rotary if they like. Just like anyone can build an OSX like unix variant if they like.

Is it forced to obey the rules for a monopoly? No. Does it have to license it's 13B rotary engine or sell it as a separate item? No. For example, you can buy the housing for their Le Mans winning R26B rotary but none of the internal parts.

Why? Because consumers have a vast array of alternatives that do the same thing. Therefore, once again you're confusing a market segment with the market as a whole.


You can define a human more finely as pieces of the human body. It doesn't make a liver a human being.


Yes, you can. A PC is a personal computer typically for a single user. Hence the term personal. A server is a typically for use by multiple users. They are only similar at the very top end of the desktop and the very bottom end of the server. The middle and top end servers represent far greater capabilities than found in even the most uber of desktop or even workstation. An 8 core Mac pro isn't in the same class with a 32 core M8000 Server much less a 128 core M9000 server even if it isn't much different from 2-4 CPU low end Xeon based server from Dell.

If Sun made the vast majority of heavy iron, enterprise servers it would have a monopoly even with the desktop PC market dominated by wintel machines that go up to 4-way (16 core) machines.

A professional vs consumer desktop PCs is harder to justify as independent markets and I'm not going to try to. There are many "professionals" with consumer grade PCs instead of "pro grade" workstations.

I think the flaw in your "if there is a Windows market then there must be a Mac market and if there is a Mac market then it has a monopoly" is that the Windows market IS the desktop OS market, and it is a monopoly. The monopoly isn't because it is Windows, it is because it is virtually the entire desktop OS market.

If you want to be pedantic and say there is an "OS X market", then fine - but it is not the same type of "market" that Windows is, because there is no element of monopoly of the desktop OS space.

No, in your example of of the PC platforms of the past, there was still at least one segment (Wintel) that could easily be broken out to it's own sub market, because of the numerous competitors exclusively in that space. Just as when there were mac clones, there were numerous competitors exclusively in that space. Not true of consoles.


All divisions of a market into sub-markets are 'fabrications'. It is a matter of picking a specific criteria. I am using platform. Similarly, the division of the north american automarket into foreign and domestic...


And again, I am not confusing the segment with the whole. I am saying certain segments are unique enough to, at least subtly define a market.


You can define a group of humans by their race. You can further sub divide these groups into countries, nations, provinces, regions, counties, cities and communities.


And there is nothing keeping you firm using your M8000 as your desktop, other than reason and money. They are just computers. And as you say, any PC can be used as a low to mid range server, depending on your needs.A simple file server need not be anymore robust that a standard PC. So, the division is not on functional capabilities, it is simply a matter of use. You would be pretty stupid to use a 32 core system today for your desktop, as you would be more foolish to use a C2D systems as your enterprise serving SQL server....but you could.


quite.

A reasonable argument. I never claimed an Apple monopoly with a Mac market (if so defined) would violate any anti-trust laws. Likely, it would not be reasonable to legally consider it a distinct market. But, that would be up to a court to decide. First, if there is a distinct market, 2) if Apple has a monopoly 3)if they are violating any laws within that monopoly. Legally, the process would stop at 1 if the decision was that it was not distinct enough to be considered a market.

But you are right, my logic is simply, if the Windows can be defined within the larger PC market, that implies that Mac market could be as well. If the WIndows market cannot be shown to be a distinct market within the greater market, then, no, there can be no distinct Mac market.

Because Mac sales are growing faster than PC (window sales) AND there is the lack of a mid range desktop machine.

Michael Dell has already said they would sell OSX machines IF they could. I don't have time to look it up but I'm sure others here will remember it and support this.

I think I do remember him saying that. t was a while ago. I imagine,if it was an option, they would consider it. I don't think they would think it was worth the trouble and expense of a lawsuit.

Such a alwsuit wouldn't be expensive at all because it would get thrown out. Dell said this almost 3 years ago.

"If Apple decides to open the Mac OS to others, we would be happy to offer it to our customers," Dell apparently wrote in an email.
•

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/06...ll_eyes_apple/

And the fact that it doesn't fit on the top of your desk. Arguing with you is pointless.

so now it has to fit on your desktop?...wtf, happened to function being your criteria. And no, the fact that it does not fit on your desktop does not prevent you from using it as your desktop computer. Or is size of the box now your criteria? How about colour? If your points aren't valid, then yes you will find arguing pointless...

Just because some may see a Windows market and a OSX market doesn't mean that everyone sees these two markets as being distinct. If you manufacture hard drives, do you see two markets. No. Your market is the computer market. Same if you manufacture monitors, flash drives, external hard drives, keyboards, mouse, speakers, ect.. Now a while back there were Mac, keyboards, Mac mouse, Mac joysticks and other Mac devices. But mainly because the connectors were different. Now everythng is USB and the two separate market becomes one.

However if you're a software programmer, then there are two markets. As you must program differently for each. The same if the device you're marketing needs special drivers. If your resources are limited then you will market your ware to that segment of the market that has the most potential sales. Windows/PC users.

Don't get caught up in the notion that just because some sectors of the population sees a Mac market, for marketing purpose, that the government will see one. The government don't break down consumers to Mac users, Window users, Porsche owners, Kia owners, Xbox gamers, PlayStation gamers, ect.. The government sees computer users, car owners, game console users, etc.. They can't have a section of the law books that just govern Apple. Another for Microsoft. And another for Porsche. The government do not care about the markets that are only markets for marketing purpose. To the government, a Mac user is just a computer user that chose to use a Mac.

Microsoft didn't get in trouble because it had a monoploy in the consumer computer OS market. It got in trouble because it was leveraging their monopoly to engagie in anti-competitive practices. The laws Microsoft broke applies to all industries. There wasn't a special section that just applies to consumer computer OS. The government couldn't have care less if Microsoft (or any other company) had 100% of a consumer market. So long as they obtained that 100% fair and square. Without breaking any anti-trust laws and engaging in any anti-competitive practices. If all the consumers freely chose Microsoft OS for their computers, that's the way the government will leave it. How can the government justify breaking up a monopoly in the name of giving consumers more choices if the monopoly they're breaking up was the result of consumers choice in the first place. It is only when there is abuse of that monopoly, that the government will step in to protect the consumers (or other businesses).

Last year, Pfizer won a patent infringement case against another drug company (Teva). Teva was marketing a generic version of Pfizer's Celebrex. US Federal Courts unheld Pfizer patents on the drug. Pfizer will have a monopoly on Celebrex until at least 2015. Is Celebrex users a "market"? Well, I'm willing to bet that more people uses Celebrex than uses OSX. And the target market for Celebrex is much larger than that of OSX. And that Pfizer makes more money on Celebrex that Apple does on OSX/Macs. So how come the US government didn't step in and break up Pfizers' monopoly on Celebrex? How come the US government didn't step in so that Celebrex users has a choice of who to purchase Celebrex from. Other drug companies makes drugs similar to Celebrex. But those aren't alternatives if you have adverse side effects, medical condtions that prevents you from using them or they just aren't as effective. So here we have a case where the US government could have made it so that Celebrex users could have had access to a cheaper generic version of Celebrex. But instead, they ruled to protect Pfizer rights to keep their intellectual property for themselves. And this case isn't unique. There are thousands of such cases where the intellectual property owners of a drug prevents cheaper generic versions of the drug from being marketed. Thus keeping their monopoly on that drug.

OSX is Apple intellectual property. The government will not let any other company take it away. The government will not force Apple to give it up unless OSX becomes the monopoly AND Apple abuses that monopoly. Just being a monopoly is not enough. And without Apple having to give up OSX, there can never be a Mac clone.

It doesn't matter that Apple is the only vender for OSX. Just like it doesn;t matter that Pfizer is the only vender for Celebrex. The government will enforce the rights of the intellectual property holders before they give in to consumers demand for choice. And there better be a better reason than "I'm required to use a Mac but I can't afford one". There's a reason why we have copyright, patent and trademark laws. If the government isn't going to enforce those laws, then they might as well shut down those agencies.

So to answer your main questin, "Is there a Mac market? I like to think so. As many here. I like to think myself as being more defined than just a computer user. I use a Mac and therfore I deserved to be separated from other computer users. However, to the government, there's no Mac market. To them. I"m nothing more than a consumer computer user, that happens to use a Mac. \