Remember, monopolies are NOT inherently bad. There are LOTS of perfectly legal monopolies around today. It's when they misuse and abuse their powers that they need restraints.
Most good companies establish "monopolies" on design elements, product offerings, etc.
A monopoly, however, can only exist when a company has an overwhelming majority control of a market in a product.
Since Apple creates personal computers, and has only 5% of that market, Apple is not a monolopoly. In fact, someone else has a monopoly in that market.
Apple is a monopoly as much as Sun is a monopoly. They use proprietary software on proprietary hardware, so there's a barrier to entry and exit for the platform. For people with no prior investment, they all compete equally for that customers business.
Apple does not own the entire personal computer market. Therefore it is not a monopoly.
There are in fact no monopolies any more in the computer market: certain sectors have skews towards particular products, but you can find alternate vendors for absolutely anything you want to do.
<a href="http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=monopoly"; target="_blank">Monopoly</a>: Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service.
How widely you define the commodity or service decides whether or not you consider Apple a monopoly. There are certainly commodities Apple has complete control over (Macintosh computers for example). Clearly Apple does not have a monopoly over the personal computer industry.
Microsoft is a monopoly too. but Microsoft's monopoly is bad because Microsoft abuses its power. When a large company, with significant market share in a respective industry, does anything that can hurt competition in that industry, its considered an abuse of monopolistic powers.
apple definitely controls some commodities though.
<a href="http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=monopoly"; target="_blank">Monopoly</a>: Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service.
How widely you define the commodity or service decides whether or not you consider Apple a monopoly. There are certainly commodities Apple has complete control over (Macintosh computers for example). Clearly Apple does not have a monopoly over the personal computer industry.
Microsoft is a monopoly too. but Microsoft's monopoly is bad because Microsoft abuses its power. When a large company, with significant market share in a respective industry, does anything that can hurt competition in that industry, its considered an abuse of monopolistic powers.
apple definitely controls some commodities though.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Except, Macintosh computers aren't a commodity. Computers and hamburgers are commodities. Macintoshes and Whoppers are not.
Microsoft may have a monopoly on operating systems, but saying they have a monopoly on Windows is silly. A company can't have a monopoly on its own products. Wouldn't that make every company a monopoly?
Don't confuse products and commodities. Commodities are just nouns like ice cream, printers, and monitors. Products have names like Phish Food, Stylus, and Cinema Display.
Wal-Mart is a monopey, even though they have good compition from Taget and K-Mart(well a little from them), because they can't tell their suppliers the price they want to pay for band-aids, ect. If you Wal-Mart dosn't buy from you, you just lost out on a good portion of the market. Where as, Taget or K-Mart don't have that sort of leverage.
However, if you want a PPC desktop computer you have no choce buy to pay what ever Apple want. They arn't a monoply, since an x86 desktop is a similar good.
Sony Playstation is like Apple Macs. Sony makes everything for it, as does Apple with their stuff. Heck even Nintendo Gamecubes, Gameboys, etc.
Heck, even Microsoft, when they will start making their own real computers (Xbox successors) can't be told what to do or not. They will be just like Apple. They make the hardware and software, so everyone else just kindly fvck off thank you.
<strong>Except, Macintosh computers aren't a commodity. Computers and hamburgers are commodities. Macintoshes and Whoppers are not.
Microsoft may have a monopoly on operating systems, but saying they have a monopoly on Windows is silly. A company can't have a monopoly on its own products. Wouldn't that make every company a monopoly?
Don't confuse products and commodities. Commodities are just nouns like ice cream, printers, and monitors. Products have names like Phish Food, Stylus, and Cinema Display.</strong><hr></blockquote>
a macintosh computer is something useful that can (and has) been turned to commercial advantage.</strong><hr></blockquote>
A Whopper "is something useful that can (and has) been turned to commercial advantage." I wouldn't call a Whopper a commodity though. It isn't generic enough and neither is Macintosh.
A Whopper is one company's hamburger and a Macintosh is one company's computer. Neither product is a commodity because other computers and hamburgers exist.
<strong>A Whopper "is something useful that can (and has) been turned to commercial advantage." I wouldn't call a Whopper a commodity though. It isn't generic enough and neither is Macintosh.
A Whopper is one company's hamburger and a Macintosh is one company's computer. Neither product is a commodity because other computers and hamburgers exist.
you make a reasonable conclusion, but for the fact that it seems to require a definition inconsistent with one from a <a href="http://www.dictionary.com"; target="_blank">dictionary</a>. i presented you with a definition (and link) of commodity. the word simply doesn't require any amount of genericness.
I have been thinking along those lines as well and I always end up with the same question. Why is Microsoft building IE into Windows any worse that Apple building .Mac into X ? Apple has the monopoly when it comes to operating systems for the Mac. And building .Mac into X and iPhoto does make it seem hard for competitors to offer a similar service.
I know that this isnt the same, since Microsoft pushed a succsessfull company almost out of business with IE, whereas Apple doesnt have any competitors in this market.
And one thing I dont get. What is the main difference between features and applications ? I mean Apache Web server, FTP browsing in Finder, OpenGL are all features of OSX, but when MS buildt IE as a part of Windows as a feature, this was considered illegal bacause users could not remove IE...
Can we remove .Mac, Apache Web Server, FTP browsing etc from X ? Why is this different ?
Apple would be a monopoly in the sense that only their hardware runs their OS and their software. In the general catagory of computers I would not consider them a monopoly, but I don't consider Apple 'just another computer company'.
Apple is not a monopoly. Examples of monopolies include Debeers for diamonds, and Microsoft for personal computer operating systems.
Kecksy:
[quote] Except, Macintosh computers aren't a commodity. Computers and hamburgers are commodities. Macintoshes and Whoppers are not. <hr></blockquote>
This is 100% accurate. To say Apple has a monopoly on Macs is like saying Burger King has a monopoly on Whoppers. Both statements are misleading, because neither product comprises the entire market in its product class.
A monopoly applies to a certain type of product category. One can't say General Motors has a monopoly on the GMC Envoy, for example. One also can't say NBC has a monopoly on "NBC Nightly News". It just doesn't work that way.
Use a dictionary all you want....they're still not a monopoly.
<strong>And one thing I dont get. What is the main difference between features and applications ? I mean Apache Web server, FTP browsing in Finder, OpenGL are all features of OSX, but when MS buildt IE as a part of Windows as a feature, this was considered illegal bacause users could not remove IE...
Can we remove .Mac, Apache Web Server, FTP browsing etc from X ? Why is this different ?
.:BoeManE:.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Because Windows file browsing is based on Internet Explorer. I didn't know that it
couldn't be removed, but if that's true, that would be my first guess as to why.
You can choose to not pay for .Mac, but besides that, I think the other two really are 'features'.
Apple is not a monopoly. Examples of monopolies include Debeers for diamonds, and Microsoft for personal computer operating systems.
This is 100% accurate. To say Apple has a monopoly on Macs is like saying Burger King has a monopoly on Whoppers. Both statements are misleading, because neither product comprises the entire market in its product class.
A monopoly applies to a certain type of product category. One can't say General Motors has a monopoly on the GMC Envoy, for example. One also can't say NBC has a monopoly on "NBC Nightly News". It just doesn't work that way.
Use a dictionary all you want....they're still not a monopoly.
if we don't go by dictionaries' definitions, can i reli on you to define everything i need to lookup?
how do u even define monopoly, aside from a couple of examples.
i'm sorry to say, but you, or anyone else on this board, aren't very convincing to me. dictionary.com is a fairly reputable on-line dictionary; i checked mirriam-webster's version, which is about the same. while it might be true that you have storng convictions about the meaning of monopoly, i tend to believe the dictionary.
!?
Comments
Remember, monopolies are NOT inherently bad. There are LOTS of perfectly legal monopolies around today. It's when they misuse and abuse their powers that they need restraints.
<strong>Actually, Apple IS a monopoly on its products.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Do I even need to point out what's wrong with that statement?
err... Based on your definition, all companies are monopolies. <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
A monopoly, however, can only exist when a company has an overwhelming majority control of a market in a product.
Since Apple creates personal computers, and has only 5% of that market, Apple is not a monolopoly. In fact, someone else has a monopoly in that market.
There you go.
There are in fact no monopolies any more in the computer market: certain sectors have skews towards particular products, but you can find alternate vendors for absolutely anything you want to do.
<a href="http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=monopoly"; target="_blank">Monopoly</a>: Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service.
How widely you define the commodity or service decides whether or not you consider Apple a monopoly. There are certainly commodities Apple has complete control over (Macintosh computers for example). Clearly Apple does not have a monopoly over the personal computer industry.
Microsoft is a monopoly too. but Microsoft's monopoly is bad because Microsoft abuses its power. When a large company, with significant market share in a respective industry, does anything that can hurt competition in that industry, its considered an abuse of monopolistic powers.
apple definitely controls some commodities though.
That's exactly the definition I was thinking of.
<strong>Apple is a monopoly.
<a href="http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=monopoly"; target="_blank">Monopoly</a>: Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service.
How widely you define the commodity or service decides whether or not you consider Apple a monopoly. There are certainly commodities Apple has complete control over (Macintosh computers for example). Clearly Apple does not have a monopoly over the personal computer industry.
Microsoft is a monopoly too. but Microsoft's monopoly is bad because Microsoft abuses its power. When a large company, with significant market share in a respective industry, does anything that can hurt competition in that industry, its considered an abuse of monopolistic powers.
apple definitely controls some commodities though.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Except, Macintosh computers aren't a commodity. Computers and hamburgers are commodities. Macintoshes and Whoppers are not.
Microsoft may have a monopoly on operating systems, but saying they have a monopoly on Windows is silly. A company can't have a monopoly on its own products. Wouldn't that make every company a monopoly?
Don't confuse products and commodities. Commodities are just nouns like ice cream, printers, and monitors. Products have names like Phish Food, Stylus, and Cinema Display.
However, if you want a PPC desktop computer you have no choce buy to pay what ever Apple want. They arn't a monoply, since an x86 desktop is a similar good.
Sony Playstation is like Apple Macs. Sony makes everything for it, as does Apple with their stuff. Heck even Nintendo Gamecubes, Gameboys, etc.
Heck, even Microsoft, when they will start making their own real computers (Xbox successors) can't be told what to do or not. They will be just like Apple. They make the hardware and software, so everyone else just kindly fvck off thank you.
<strong>Except, Macintosh computers aren't a commodity. Computers and hamburgers are commodities. Macintoshes and Whoppers are not.
Microsoft may have a monopoly on operating systems, but saying they have a monopoly on Windows is silly. A company can't have a monopoly on its own products. Wouldn't that make every company a monopoly?
Don't confuse products and commodities. Commodities are just nouns like ice cream, printers, and monitors. Products have names like Phish Food, Stylus, and Cinema Display.</strong><hr></blockquote>
pardon me, but i disagree.
<a href="http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=commodity"; target="_blank">commodity</a>: Something useful that can be turned to commercial or other advantage.
a macintosh computer is something useful that can (and has) been turned to commercial advantage.
<strong>
pardon me, but i disagree.
<a href="http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=commodity"; target="_blank">commodity</a>: Something useful that can be turned to commercial or other advantage.
a macintosh computer is something useful that can (and has) been turned to commercial advantage.</strong><hr></blockquote>
A Whopper "is something useful that can (and has) been turned to commercial advantage." I wouldn't call a Whopper a commodity though. It isn't generic enough and neither is Macintosh.
A Whopper is one company's hamburger and a Macintosh is one company's computer. Neither product is a commodity because other computers and hamburgers exist.
[ 10-21-2002: Message edited by: Kecksy ]</p>
<strong>A Whopper "is something useful that can (and has) been turned to commercial advantage." I wouldn't call a Whopper a commodity though. It isn't generic enough and neither is Macintosh.
A Whopper is one company's hamburger and a Macintosh is one company's computer. Neither product is a commodity because other computers and hamburgers exist.
[ 10-21-2002: Message edited by: Kecksy ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
you make a reasonable conclusion, but for the fact that it seems to require a definition inconsistent with one from a <a href="http://www.dictionary.com"; target="_blank">dictionary</a>. i presented you with a definition (and link) of commodity. the word simply doesn't require any amount of genericness.
Monopoly
Duopoly
Oligopoly
Monopolistic Competition
Perfect Competition
The whole computer market is a bit PC, a bit MC.
A group of clone computers are PC, the market between different platforms is MC.
Barto
I know that this isnt the same, since Microsoft pushed a succsessfull company almost out of business with IE, whereas Apple doesnt have any competitors in this market.
And one thing I dont get. What is the main difference between features and applications ? I mean Apache Web server, FTP browsing in Finder, OpenGL are all features of OSX, but when MS buildt IE as a part of Windows as a feature, this was considered illegal bacause users could not remove IE...
Can we remove .Mac, Apache Web Server, FTP browsing etc from X ? Why is this different ?
.:BoeManE:.
Apple is not a monopoly. Examples of monopolies include Debeers for diamonds, and Microsoft for personal computer operating systems.
Kecksy:
[quote] Except, Macintosh computers aren't a commodity. Computers and hamburgers are commodities. Macintoshes and Whoppers are not. <hr></blockquote>
This is 100% accurate. To say Apple has a monopoly on Macs is like saying Burger King has a monopoly on Whoppers. Both statements are misleading, because neither product comprises the entire market in its product class.
A monopoly applies to a certain type of product category. One can't say General Motors has a monopoly on the GMC Envoy, for example. One also can't say NBC has a monopoly on "NBC Nightly News". It just doesn't work that way.
Use a dictionary all you want....they're still not a monopoly.
[ 10-21-2002: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</p>
<strong>And one thing I dont get. What is the main difference between features and applications ? I mean Apache Web server, FTP browsing in Finder, OpenGL are all features of OSX, but when MS buildt IE as a part of Windows as a feature, this was considered illegal bacause users could not remove IE...
Can we remove .Mac, Apache Web Server, FTP browsing etc from X ? Why is this different ?
.:BoeManE:.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Because Windows file browsing is based on Internet Explorer. I didn't know that it
couldn't be removed, but if that's true, that would be my first guess as to why.
You can choose to not pay for .Mac, but besides that, I think the other two really are 'features'.
<strong>thuh freak:
Apple is not a monopoly. Examples of monopolies include Debeers for diamonds, and Microsoft for personal computer operating systems.
This is 100% accurate. To say Apple has a monopoly on Macs is like saying Burger King has a monopoly on Whoppers. Both statements are misleading, because neither product comprises the entire market in its product class.
A monopoly applies to a certain type of product category. One can't say General Motors has a monopoly on the GMC Envoy, for example. One also can't say NBC has a monopoly on "NBC Nightly News". It just doesn't work that way.
Use a dictionary all you want....they're still not a monopoly.
[ 10-21-2002: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
if we don't go by dictionaries' definitions, can i reli on you to define everything i need to lookup?
how do u even define monopoly, aside from a couple of examples.
i'm sorry to say, but you, or anyone else on this board, aren't very convincing to me. dictionary.com is a fairly reputable on-line dictionary; i checked mirriam-webster's version, which is about the same. while it might be true that you have storng convictions about the meaning of monopoly, i tend to believe the dictionary.