iPad, Apple's 'Mac of the masses,' predicted to sell 21M in 2011

12346»

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 117
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post


    I'm not sure I understand your point. It's not a matter of blame. Assume both companies were "plotting" to control their markets. I do. It's only natural. The point I am making here is that more than one company found out to their chagrin that Bill & Co. would pledge partnership and then work feverishly behind the scenes to undermine them. Sometimes they partnered for no other reason than to use their partnership access to snuff a potential competitor. It took awhile but Microsoft developed a reputation as an untrustworthy partner. When companies didn't need them as much, they looked elsewhere for partnerships. I think Microsoft is still trying to live down their reputation as an unreliable partner, which goes back to incidents like their handling of IBM and OS/2.



    maybe. i really don't know what all went on behind the scenes.

    all i know is that if it weren't for the clones and windows i wouldn't have had a computer for myself for a much longer period of time. i love the mac. thought it was the coolest thing ever but i couldn't afford one. clones were cheaper and you could add all sorts of things, upgrade components from many different companies. i really didn't dislike ms until IE and killing netscape.
  • Reply 102 of 117
    docno42docno42 Posts: 3,702member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Newtron View Post


    He has also stated many times that the iPad is magical.



    We also know nothing is magical (at least from Apple) for you



    If Apple were purely profit motivated then gee.... they would be like everyone else kicking out mediocre products with minimal end user focus.



    Since they aren't like every other manufacturer, there probably is more than a kernel of truth to the statement.
  • Reply 103 of 117
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by screamingfist View Post


    maybe. i really don't know what all went on behind the scenes.

    all i know is that if it weren't for the clones and windows i wouldn't have had a computer for myself for a much longer period of time. i love the mac. thought it was the coolest thing ever but i couldn't afford one. clones were cheaper and you could add all sorts of things, upgrade components from many different companies. i really didn't dislike ms until IE and killing netscape.



    I think you would have disliked Microsoft far sooner if you'd known what they were doing to create and preserve their market dominance. I also can't agree with the proposition that Microsoft had anything to do with cloning and were in any way responsible for the commodity pricing of hardware. This was the fault of IBM. What was created, essentially by accident, was a market with lots of participants but one where a single company made the lion's share of the profit. Had the market been more diverse (i.e., healthier), prices to consumers overall would have been lower, not higher. As it happened, PC clone hardware prices might have been driven down, but at the same time, PC buyers were paying monopoly rents to Microsoft.



    As for precisely what happened behind the scenes with IBM, we'll probably never know (just as we'll never hear the complete story about how IBM chose Microsoft to produce DOS), but we witnessed Microsoft shafting partners often enough over the years to get the general drift.
  • Reply 104 of 117
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post


    I think you would have disliked Microsoft far sooner if you'd known what they were doing to create and preserve their market dominance. I also can't agree with the proposition that Microsoft had anything to do with cloning and were in any way responsible for the commodity pricing of hardware. This was the fault of IBM. What was created, essentially by accident, was a market with lots of participants but one where a single company made the lion's share of the profit. Had the market been more diverse (i.e., healthier), prices to consumers overall would have been lower, not higher. As it happened, PC clone hardware prices might have been driven down, but at the same time, PC buyers were paying monopoly rents to Microsoft.



    As for precisely what happened behind the scenes with IBM, we'll probably never know (just as we'll never hear the complete story about how IBM chose Microsoft to produce DOS), but we witnessed Microsoft shafting partners often enough over the years to get the general drift.





    i didn't say ms did the cloning. i said the clones ran dos. ibm choosing to use off the shelf parts that allowed people to recreate and sell a machine clone (well, they reverse engineered the ibm BIOS).

    allowed the clones to happen.

    totally disagree with your 'diverse' statements. lets see what happens in the smartphone market in a few years and see if you are right. think someone will come out of that with the bigger piece of the pie?
  • Reply 105 of 117
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by screamingfist View Post


    i didn't say ms did the cloning. i said the clones ran dos. ibm choosing to use off the shelf parts that allowed people to recreate and sell a machine clone (well, they reverse engineered the ibm BIOS).

    allowed the clones to happen.

    totally disagree with your 'diverse' statements. lets see what happens in the smartphone market in a few years and see if you are right. think someone will come out of that with the bigger piece of the pie?



    IBM had no intention of creating a generic hardware platform. As you know, they intended to protect it from duplication with the copyrighted ROM-BIOS. Even so, the clones could have run any number of operating systems. In fact they did, but Microsoft used a variety of anticompetitive tactics to run the alternatives out of the market. And this was good for consumers, how exactly?



    Diversity is the result of competition, which is always a good thing. It's how efficient markets for goods work. Someone may come out with the biggest slice of the pie in any competitive market, but not the sort of 95% dominance of the PC that Microsoft was gifted virtually from the very start. Everyone seems to be looking for a repeat of the Microsoft phenomenon, as though total dominance of any market by one player is good or inevitable. Fortunately, in fact, it is rare. It would be difficult to name another one like it.
  • Reply 106 of 117
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post


    IBM had no intention of creating a generic hardware platform. As you know, they intended to protect it from duplication with the copyrighted ROM-BIOS. Even so, the clones could have run any number of operating systems. In fact they did, but Microsoft used a variety of anticompetitive tactics to run the alternatives out of the market. And this was good for consumers, how exactly?



    Diversity is the result of competition, which is always a good thing. It's how efficient markets for goods work. Someone may come out with the biggest slice of the pie in any competitive market, but not the sort of 95% dominance of the PC that Microsoft was gifted virtually from the very start. Everyone seems to be looking for a repeat of the Microsoft phenomenon, as though total dominance of any market by one player is good or inevitable. Fortunately, in fact, it is rare. It would be difficult to name another one like it.



    first you need to prove ms used anticompetitive tactics to run the others out of business. i looked at the history of the amiga and find no mention of that type of thing. what about the others?
  • Reply 107 of 117
    docno42docno42 Posts: 3,702member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by screamingfist View Post


    first you need to prove ms used anticompetitive tactics to run the others out of business.



    Missed that whole convicted monopolist and operating under a consent decree thing, eh?
  • Reply 108 of 117
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DocNo42 View Post


    Missed that whole convicted monopolist and operating under a consent decree thing, eh?



    yes, put a link or some valid data on here so i can see it. i didn't know that went on during the early years with amiga os and the other oses of the period. thanks,



    i looked around. i found the famous trial info from 2000. if that is what you mean then you aren't paying attention to what i am talking about.
  • Reply 109 of 117
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by screamingfist View Post


    first you need to prove ms used anticompetitive tactics to run the others out of business. i looked at the history of the amiga and find no mention of that type of thing. what about the others?



    See U.S. v Microsoft, for starters, which was the direct result of an earlier Consent Decree. Not sure what else to do, short of explaining the entire thing.



    Where does Amiga come into this?
  • Reply 110 of 117
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post


    See U.S. v Microsoft, for starters, which was the direct result of an earlier Consent Decree. Not sure what else to do, short of explaining the entire thing.



    Where does Amiga come into this?



    where does amiga come into this? where does apple come into this or any other of the early competitors? <sarcasm>..... never mind you are skewing the time tables to match your chatter.



    i am not talking about netscape and windows i thought we were talking about competition in the early days where you claimed ms was using illegal means to squash them.
  • Reply 111 of 117
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by screamingfist View Post


    where does amiga come into this? where does apple come into this or any other of the early competitors? <sarcasm>..... never mind you are skewing the time tables to match your chatter.



    i am not talking about netscape and windows i thought we were talking about competition in the early days where you claimed ms was using illegal means to squash them.



    Sarcasm is not conducive to discussion.



    I did not mention Apple or Amiga in this context, because they are not immediately relevant. No timelines are being skewed. What I am relating is Microsoft's use of anticompetitive means to lock up the PC platform. One technique in particular which they used to great effect was the so-called CPU tax. Beginning in the mid-1980s at least, a Microsoft OEM had to pay them a license fee for every CPU they sold, whether or not it was loaded with a Microsoft OS. This tactic put all other OSs at an immediate competitive disadvantage. In a Consent Decree, Microsoft agreed to stop doing that bad thing. Then they found other ways to keep the OEMs in line. Which led to an investigation at the FTC, which led to U.S. v Microsoft. The Findings of Fact included a litany of their antitrust law violations -- check this document out sometime, you might find it illuminating.



    So, if you want to talk about Apple in this context, they do figure in at least as an example of Microsoft's power and how they wielded it. During the late '80s - early '90s timeframe, Apple was developing a version of MacOS for the PC platform. You might have heard of this, it was called Project Star Trek. In the depositions in the government's case against Microsoft, Apple execs testified that Project Star Trek was abandoned in part due to Apple's inability to work with any of the OEMs, which had been brought to heal by Microsoft in a variety of ways, including the one described above.
  • Reply 112 of 117
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post


    Sarcasm is not conducive to discussion.



    I did not mention Apple or Amiga in this context, because they are not immediately relevant. No timelines are being skewed. What I am relating is Microsoft's use of anticompetitive means to lock up the PC platform. One technique in particular which they used to great effect was the so-called CPU tax. Beginning in the mid-1980s at least, a Microsoft OEM had to pay them a license fee for every CPU they sold, whether or not it was loaded with a Microsoft OS. This tactic put all other OSs at an immediate competitive disadvantage. In a Consent Decree, Microsoft agreed to stop doing that bad thing. Then they found other ways to keep the OEMs in line. Which led to an investigation at the FTC, which led to U.S. v Microsoft. The Findings of Fact included a litany of their antitrust law violations -- check this document out sometime, you might find it illuminating.



    So, if you want to talk about Apple in this context, they do figure in at least as an example of Microsoft's power and how they wielded it. During the late '80s - early '90s timeframe, Apple was developing a version of MacOS for the PC platform. You might have heard of this, it was called Project Star Trek. In the depositions in the government's case against Microsoft, Apple execs testified that Project Star Trek was abandoned in part due to Apple's inability to work with any of the OEMs, which had been brought to heal by Microsoft in a variety of ways, including the one described above.





    so if ms was being so naughty and keeping poor companies down (like apple...wait, you could buy an apple without an oem and without dealing with ms couldn't you?) then after they lost and were ordered to stop why didn't they lose ground? why did companies like the one i work at rid themselves of macs and go all windows? pressure from ms? pressure from oem?

    not trying to say windows is great or ms is wonderful just i don't buy the whole 'ms is top dog because they break the law and are unethical and evil etc.'
  • Reply 113 of 117
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by screamingfist View Post


    so if ms was being so naughty and keeping poor companies down (like apple...wait, you could buy an apple without an oem and without dealing with ms couldn't you?) then after they lost and were ordered to stop why didn't they lose ground? why did companies like the one i work at rid themselves of macs and go all windows? pressure from ms? pressure from oem?

    not trying to say windows is great or ms is wonderful just i don't buy the whole 'ms is top dog because they break the law and are unethical and evil etc.'



    I am simply describing what happened, because you asked. Maybe you only asked because you didn't think I had an answer. I don't know. You seem to accept that what Microsoft did to Netscape was wrong, and somehow changed your opinion about the company. What I am telling you is, all of these anticompetitive shenanigans were going on long before Netscape, and it happened to a lot of other companies. Those of us who knew what they were doing changed our opinions about Microsoft long ago.
  • Reply 114 of 117
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post


    I am simply describing what happened, because you asked. Maybe you only asked because you didn't think I had an answer. I don't know. You seem to accept that what Microsoft did to Netscape was wrong, and somehow changed your opinion about the company. What I am telling you is, all of these anticompetitive shenanigans were going on long before Netscape, and it happened to a lot of other companies. Those of us who knew what they were doing changed our opinions about Microsoft long ago.



    i wasn't aware of the 1994 decree and the oem 'license'. i am not saying that ms hasn't done some dodgy things (and they aren't the only one apparently).

    it was a tiring day and i was tired. sorry for not seeing your point.
  • Reply 115 of 117
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by screamingfist View Post


    i wasn't aware of the 1994 decree and the oem 'license'. i am not saying that ms hasn't done some dodgy things (and they aren't the only one apparently).

    it was a tiring day and i was tired. sorry for not seeing your point.



    Not a problem. We all have days like that.
  • Reply 116 of 117
    nvidia2008nvidia2008 Posts: 9,262member
    It's October 4, 2010. If I was an analyst I would really be wondering where the heck all those iPad international launches are at. What happened to them? Seriously.
  • Reply 117 of 117
    emacs72emacs72 Posts: 356member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by maccherry View Post


    But RIM doesn't have the software chops like ... They need security for their tablet,customization etc.



    one of the chief reasons RIM is so successful with their Blackberry, in the corporate world, is their encryption / security layer.
Sign In or Register to comment.