Apple is just as bad as Microsoft
One thing that I don't understand is why Microsoft is being sued by the European commitee for delivering media player and Explorer with its OS.
Apple is doing just the same with iTunes, iLife, Safari and QuickTime.
IMHO Apple even more integrates their applications into the daily workflow,
and competitors don't stand a chance with their own apps this way.
Okay, Safari is not embedded in Finder just like Internet Explorer in Explorer,
but thats not its strength anyway, delivering it as a standard together with
the operating itself is.
Now don't get me wrong - I am starting a debate, I not bashing Apple.
When delivering iLife, iCal and iTunes, they deliver convergence, they deliver
something that is perfectly working together with their other apps.
I benefit from this as well.
But why is Microsoft being sued for this, and Apple not?
IF the European commitee is sueing someone....
1 - I don't think Microsoft should be sued because they have a dominant position in the market
2 - I think they should be sued because they define an entire workflow inside an operating system and kick out possible competitors.
...This means that IMHO at this point Apple should be sued just like Microsoft, or both not at all. I think its stupid that the rules suddenly change when you become the market leader.
Its a tough call when you look at it.
An operating system is a general tool....a method....to run applications on.
That's what they are selling as a foundation. Applications on top are extra's and could rule out competitors who deliver software to this platform. Apple will always have more knowledge and power to tweak the OS to fit their needs to get their apps right, but other developers don't.
On the other side, iLife and iTunes is something that belongs to a media OS.
What do you think about this?
Apple is doing just the same with iTunes, iLife, Safari and QuickTime.
IMHO Apple even more integrates their applications into the daily workflow,
and competitors don't stand a chance with their own apps this way.
Okay, Safari is not embedded in Finder just like Internet Explorer in Explorer,
but thats not its strength anyway, delivering it as a standard together with
the operating itself is.
Now don't get me wrong - I am starting a debate, I not bashing Apple.
When delivering iLife, iCal and iTunes, they deliver convergence, they deliver
something that is perfectly working together with their other apps.
I benefit from this as well.
But why is Microsoft being sued for this, and Apple not?
IF the European commitee is sueing someone....
1 - I don't think Microsoft should be sued because they have a dominant position in the market
2 - I think they should be sued because they define an entire workflow inside an operating system and kick out possible competitors.
...This means that IMHO at this point Apple should be sued just like Microsoft, or both not at all. I think its stupid that the rules suddenly change when you become the market leader.
Its a tough call when you look at it.
An operating system is a general tool....a method....to run applications on.
That's what they are selling as a foundation. Applications on top are extra's and could rule out competitors who deliver software to this platform. Apple will always have more knowledge and power to tweak the OS to fit their needs to get their apps right, but other developers don't.
On the other side, iLife and iTunes is something that belongs to a media OS.
What do you think about this?
Comments
Originally posted by dacloo
One thing that I don't understand is why Microsoft is being sued by the European commitee for delivering media player and Explorer with its OS. Apple is doing just the same with iTunes, iLife, Safari and QuickTime.
1) Microsoft was being sued about the applications, not the frameworks.
2) Microsoft, unlike Apple, has a monopolistic or near-monopolistic effect on the OS market.
3) iTunes, iLife, Safari and QuickTime Player can be removed as easily as moving them to the trash. This is nowhere near as simple on Windows, a difficulty that the EU considered deliberate.
IMHO Apple even more integrates their applications into the daily workflow, and competitors don't stand a chance with their own apps this way.
But Apple is neither a monopoly nor are their applications essential.
1 - I don't think Microsoft should be sued because they have a dominant position in the market
Why not? That's precisely what antitrust is all about.
2 - I think they should be sued because they define an entire workflow inside an operating system and kick out possible competitors.
A strong OS is defined by offering users as many tools as possible. As long as third-parties are still able to write their own replacing tools (which they are), and as long as it's easy to choose one over the other (which it is), there's nothing wrong with this.
You can use a different music player (say, VLC), a different browser (say, Firefox, Shiira*, Camino, OmniWeb*, Opera, etc.) and a different video player (say, VLC).
*) It doesn't matter one single bit that these browsers use Apple's frameworks.
An operating system is a general tool....a method....to run applications on. That's what they are selling as a foundation.
An OS that's nothing but a foundation might as well just be a kernel. Third parties can then sell you their GUI, their file manager and their other stuff. If you define an OS as foundation, that's not a very useful tool fro the average user.
Originally posted by dacloo
One thing that I don't understand is why Microsoft is being sued by the European commitee for delivering media player and Explorer with its OS.
Apple is doing just the same with iTunes, iLife, Safari and QuickTime.
IMHO Apple even more integrates their applications into the daily workflow,
and competitors don't stand a chance with their own apps this way.
Okay, Safari is not embedded in Finder just like Internet Explorer in Explorer,
but thats not its strength anyway, delivering it as a standard together with
the operating itself is.
Ahh. Kill the heretic.
Microsoft, by virtue of its 90%+ market share, is a monopoly. Apple, by contrast, has anywhere between 1% and 5%, depending on who you talk to.
By bundling QuickTime and Safari, Apple is not threatening the existence of competing software, given the fact that they have such a small portion of the market. On the other hand, Microsoft, with its near lock on the OS market, is able to threaten the existence of a competitor simply by including a competing product by default in its OS.
Anti-trust laws stipulate that a monopoly can do whatever it needs to to maintain its monopoly, but that it's illegal to leverage that monopoly in order to enter other markets (example: web browsers).
Apple does not have a monopoly on operating systems, therefore, it's perfectly legal for that company to enter, or attempt to enter, new markets such as music with iTunes.
Originally posted by dacloo
One thing that I don't understand is why Microsoft is being sued by the European commitee for delivering media player and Explorer with its OS.
Apple is doing just the same with iTunes, iLife, Safari and QuickTime.
IMHO Apple even more integrates their applications into the daily workflow,
and competitors don't stand a chance with their own apps this way.
Okay, Safari is not embedded in Finder just like Internet Explorer in Explorer,
but thats not its strength anyway, delivering it as a standard together with
the operating itself is.
Now don't get me wrong - I am starting a debate, I not bashing Apple.
When delivering iLife, iCal and iTunes, they deliver convergence, they deliver
something that is perfectly working together with their other apps.
I benefit from this as well.
But why is Microsoft being sued for this, and Apple not?
IF the European commitee is sueing someone....
1 - I don't think Microsoft should be sued because they have a dominant position in the market
2 - I think they should be sued because they define an entire workflow inside an operating system and kick out possible competitors.
...This means that IMHO at this point Apple should be sued just like Microsoft, or both not at all. I think its stupid that the rules suddenly change when you become the market leader.
Its a tough call when you look at it.
An operating system is a general tool....a method....to run applications on.
That's what they are selling as a foundation. Applications on top are extra's and could rule out competitors who deliver software to this platform. Apple will always have more knowledge and power to tweak the OS to fit their needs to get their apps right, but other developers don't.
On the other side, iLife and iTunes is something that belongs to a media OS.
What do you think about this?
These can easily be removed.
Now go on a windows system and just try, try I dare you to remove internet explorer or windows media player.
I have in the past and because XP is so dependant on a IE it's interface reverts back to something that looks Windows 95ish.
I cannot get the full windows experience if I don't have IE or win media player.
I can get the full OSX experience if I don't have iunes, quicktime, and safari.
I think Apple is just as dominant when you look *inside* their userbase: all Apple users use iTunes, not other applications, because iTunes is thrown in your face, and included with MacOS by default. Some musicplayer developers ceased development because of the position of iTunes. I can imagine the same happens with iLife apps.
I can understand Ecking's point of view though.
Originally posted by dacloo
...but thats exactly my point; why do the rules change once you have more marketshare?
Because, once you're in a dominant position, you get to control your customers as well as the competition, and their customers as well.
Apple controls its customers, to a degree, but it doesn't control the competition, much less their customers.
Microsoft, however, does have an effect on competitors' customers, such as Mac users. ("They need to stay compatible", to put it in layman's terms.)
It's the same businessmodel Apple is using. When do you speak of a dominant player? Is this when you reach 60% of the marketshare? Or 70%? Or 90%?....
Are you contesting that Microsoft is a monopoly? It has been proven by US and EU judges.
I think Apple is just as dominant when you look *inside* their userbase: all Apple users use iTunes,
Their choice to make.
not other applications, because iTunes is thrown in your face, and included with MacOS by default.
Many Mac users don't use Safari, despite it being thrown in one's face. Many Mac users don't use Mail. Many don't use iPhoto. Of the 26 apps in my Dock, 13 are Apple's. The other half is not.
Some musicplayer developers ceased development because of the position of iTunes.
That is correct, but hardly tells the whole story. In fact, you'll want to read The Audion Story as well as The Long Story behind Karelia's New Logo. Specifically, Jobs's comments, while sounding arrogant/condescending, are straight to the point and flat-out correct.
Originally posted by dacloo
...but thats exactly my point; why do the rules change once you have more marketshare? It's the same businessmodel Apple is using. When do you speak of a dominant player? Is this when you reach 60% of the marketshare? Or 70%? Or 90%?....
I think Apple is just as dominant when you look *inside* their userbase: all Apple users use iTunes, not other applications, because iTunes is thrown in your face, and included with MacOS by default. Some musicplayer developers ceased development because of the position of iTunes. I can imagine the same happens with iLife apps.
I can understand Ecking's point of view though.
Sit down and imagine just how popular Apple would be if it didn't bundle QuickTime, Safari and iTunes when MS is doing it.
Like everyone has said...these apps can be thrown out anytime and replaced by other apps. But now realize that if a competitor is offering things that Apple didn't offer for 'ethical reasons', Apple would be wiped out.
People would get a brand new computer with no music player, no media player and no browser. How would they even get a media player or music player without a browser?
Suuuure, Apple cooould bundle Firefox or Camino or whatever...but whichever browser it bundles would, like you say, wipe out the competition. If Apple chose Firefox, Camino and OmniWeb would be in the same situation.
The keyword from other people that have replied here is "framework". Apple provides a framework and provides tiny apps with basic capabilities to tap some of the framework's power.
Safari is by no means a featureful browser. Nor is QuickTime Player a featureful media player.
Apple may be bundling apps but realize that without them Apple would be crushed by MS who would be bundling things that consumers want, and realize that Apple is also providing the framework for others to build a product that is more complete than what Apple is offering.
Apple is actually very careful not to step on developer toes. Safari has remained a very basic browser. QuickTime has always been embarassingly basic...and they charge for a fullscreen option for fuck's sake. If that's not an invitation to use VLC or another media player, I don't know what is.
Originally posted by Chucker
Are you contesting that Microsoft is a monopoly? It has been proven by US and EU judges.
And they are a convicted monopolist in the U.S.
( Convicted of illegally using their monopoly power...not being a monopoly...being a monopoly isn't illegal...abusing monopoly power, however, is...and this is the primary concern for the EU. )
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
And they are a convicted monopolist in the U.S.
( Convicted of illegally using their monopoly power...not being a monopoly...being a monopoly isn't illegal...abusing monopoly power, however, is...and this is the primary concern for the EU. )
Somebody on Slashdot likened the verdict in the Microsoft case to that of somebody found guilty of mass murder, given a ludicrous sentence of six months probation, and then subsequently found by the judge in the case to have broken their probation. In a word, Microsoft is incorrigeable.
I'm not disagreeing with the spirit of your post, but to say that Microsoft was "convicted" is truly laughable.
dacloo, there are a few major differences between Apple and MS, other than the rather glaring issue of market clout.
1) Technology distribution
While both companies aren't *quite* at the extreme ends I'm going to describe, they're close:
MS - produce applications designed to dominate market; throw in as many features as possible to cover *all* possible competitor's feature lists; keep technology/UI/etc created for the application in hidden and proprietary libraries, requiring any developer wishing to create a competing product to recreate the whole ball of wax from scratch
Apple - produce applications designed to show off Mac technologies; keep feature list to a minimum to produce an 'entry' application, allowing plenty of room for other developers to expand into niches; offer technologies created during application production as public APIs so all developers can take advantage of them
2) Niche domination
See above - MS wants to fill every nook and cranny of the marketspace through overblown apps that try and do everything for everyone, while Apple ships basic apps that do what most people would want, but leave *lots* of space for other developers to come in and add value in their own products.
3) Technological honesty
MS likes to weave non-OS technologies (WMP, IE) around in the OS, and their other apps, such that you simply cannot reasonably ditch pieces as you wish. Apple does not. The closest I can think of is QuickTime, but that is a codec and multimedia library... the QuickTime *Player* can be thrown out at any time. WMP? Not so much. There is no technological reason to do things as MS insists, but they'll keep blathering about innovation, technical issues, and crap in a song and dance designed to scare and intimidate non-techies. It's hot air.
There are exceptions to the above points, of course - iTunes, due to its ties to iTMS and the iPod, really shoves other music players aside. That's the closest we have on our platform to an intertwined ecosystem.
The main philosophies, however, remain pretty well intact in my opinion. MS wants to show you how incredibly smart they are by doing *everything*... Apple wants to show you how incredibly smart *you* are by giving you a bunch of tools.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
'Abusing' their monopoly is a broad term; they have been convicted (and then the decision was overturned, let's not "forget" that) of using their monopoly to extend it to other markets (Internet Explorer).
It is my recollection that the recommended remedy was overturned, but not the actual conviction.
Originally posted by JavaCowboy
Somebody on Slashdot likened the verdict in the Microsoft case to that of somebody found guilty of mass murder,
That seems a bit extreme...even for use as an analogy. But, as you said, it was slashdot (I'm not sure there is an ounce of moderate sentiment to be found there)...so it is to be expected.
Originally posted by JavaCowboy
given a ludicrous sentence of six months probation
The "punishment" for MS has been rather "lite".
Originally posted by JavaCowboy
I'm not disagreeing with the spirit of your post, but to say that Microsoft was "convicted" is truly laughable.
Well, I said they were convicted (i.e., found guilty). Whether that conviction led to any signficant changes or fixes...well...that's another matter. You can blame the W administration for that. It was almost their first act upon walking in the door of the White House.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
'Abusing' their monopoly is a broad term; they have been convicted (and then the decision was overturned, let's not "forget" that) of using their monopoly to extend it to other markets (Internet Explorer).
You are mistaken on two points. Microsoft was not "convicted" of anything. It faced civil, not criminal, charges of abusing monopoly power. To that end, it was found to be an illegal monopoly and that it abused its monopoly power. This abuse of power made Microsoft subject to civil penalties. The next thing that you are mistaken about is that this decision was not overturned. In fact, the decision has been appealed and affirmed.
That Microsoft is an illegal monopoly is a matter of Federal law. Penfield Jackson, the trial judge, ruled that Microsoft should be split into two companies as a penalty for its illegal conduct. After his ruling, Judge Jackson, made some derogatory comments about Microsoft. This was hardly surprising because Microsoft tried to defraud the court during the trial. However, Microsoft was able to leverage the judge's comments and get the penalty set aside. Only the penalty was set aside. Microsoft remains an illegal monopoly as per Judge Jackson's finding.
Parties--competitors and customers--who feel aggrieved by Microsoft's illegal conduct are free to sue the company based on Judge Jackson's ruling. Many have done so. Microsoft has paid out $1 millions in settlements of these cases.
Originally posted by Mr. Me
Microsoft was not "convicted" of anything. It faced civil, not criminal, charges of abusing monopoly power. To that end, it was found to be an illegal monopoly and that it abused its monopoly power.
I don't think this is quite right.
The charges were brought by the U.S. Department of Justice.
Perhaps this is a matter of semantics (or my own misunderstanding of the meanings), but this sounds pretty much like a "criminal" (not "civil") case...brought by the U.S. government and a "conviction" in every sense of the word.
They were found to have broken the law. Again...maybe just semantics over the word "convicted".
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
I don't think this is quite right.
The charges were brought by the U.S. Department of Justice.
....
Federal civil cases brought by the U. S. Department of Justice are hardly novel. Civil rights cases come readily to mind. The Microsoft antitrust case was a Federal civil case, not a criminal case. In a criminal trial, the defendent faces jail or loss of life and possible fines. Breaking up the company is not a criminal penalty. In a civil trial, the defendent faces loss of money and other civil penalties. Among these are breaking up the company. The plaintiff, the United States Government, won a civil award. The defendent managed to get the civil penalty reduced to a tap on the fingernail.
Originally posted by Mr. Me
You are mistaken on two points. Microsoft was not "convicted" of anything. It faced civil, not criminal, charges of abusing monopoly power. To that end, it was found to be an illegal monopoly and that it abused its monopoly power. This abuse of power made Microsoft subject to civil penalties.
Before making such a bold statement, you should get your facts straight. Any trial that ends with a 'guilty' epilogue, is considered a "conviction" - and as such, Microsoft was convicted as a monopoly.
Even in Europe, Microsoft has been recently convicted of being a monopoly and abusing that power. Many times such convictions are monetary, because the issue at hand is very broad and non-threatening to public safety. That, however, does not mean that one cannot be convicted and punished accordingly.
The next thing that you are mistaken about is that this decision was not overturned. In fact, the decision has been appealed and affirmed.
I clearly said that the decision has been appealed, and Microsoft has succeeded in overturning the decision of the first court. I clearly stated that, and I even told others not to forget that.
Microsoft remains an illegal monopoly as per Judge Jackson's finding.
Your lack of knowledge of this case is disturbing in light of all the statements you make. Being a monopoly is NOT ILLEGAL. Using that monopoly power to dominate other, unrelated markets is illegal. That's why Microsoft was convicted in Europe, because they used the sheer market of Windows to dominate the market for video as well.
Parties--competitors and customers--who feel aggrieved by Microsoft's illegal conduct are free to sue the company based on Judge Jackson's ruling. Many have done so. Microsoft has paid out $1 millions in settlements of these cases.
You told us nothing new. Your reading skills leave a lot to be desired.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
Before making such a bold statement, you should get your facts straight. Any trial that ends with a 'guilty' epilogue, is considered a "conviction" - and as such, Microsoft was convicted as a monopoly.
My, my. Posting commentaries do not strenthen your argument. The fact remains that the Federal antitrust case against Microsoft was civil and not criminal.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
Even in Europe, Microsoft has been recently convicted of being a monopoly and abusing that power. Many times such convictions are monetary, because the issue at hand is very broad and non-threatening to public safety. That, however, does not mean that one cannot be convicted and punished accordingly.
I applaud the EU and its efforts to force Microsoft to obey the law. However, the US case is at issue here, not the EU case.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
I clearly said that the decision has been appealed, and Microsoft has succeeded in overturning the decision of the first court. I clearly stated that, and I even told others not to forget that.
Yes, you said that the case was appealed, but you got wrong the most important part. I repeat, only the penalty was set aside. The finding that Microsoft is abused its monopoly position remains the Law of the Land.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
.... Being a monopoly is NOT ILLEGAL. ...
You can do better than this. No one--certainly, not I--said that being a monopoly was illegal in and of itself. It is only illegal when the monopoly power is attained illegally or when the monopoly power is abused.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
You told us nothing new. Your reading skills leave a lot to be desired.
I guess this explains everything.
Originally posted by Mr. Me
[B]My, my. Posting commentaries do not strenthen your argument. The fact remains that the Federal antitrust case against Microsoft was civil and not criminal.
It shows quite clearly that once a 'guilty' verdict has been reached - there is a conviction, wether that's a criminal or civil trial.
I applaud the EU and its efforts to force Microsoft to obey the law. However, the US case is at issue here, not the EU case.
Same thing; civil trial and a conviction.
Yes, you said that the case was appealed, but you got wrong the most important part. I repeat, only the penalty was set aside. The finding that Microsoft is abused its monopoly position remains the Law of the Land.
Why would a serious court and a serious judge convict someone of abusing monopolistic power and then just straight out put only the penalty aside? Isn't that the whole point? You are found guilty and as such you need to pay a price for it?
You can do better than this. No one--certainly, not I--said that being a monopoly was illegal in and of itself.
You said:
That Microsoft is an illegal monopoly is a matter of Federal law.
You don't remember what you said just two posts above?
It is only illegal when the monopoly power is attained illegally or when the monopoly power is abused.
I guess this explains everything.
How do you attain monopoly power 'illegaly'? It is not illegal to be a monopoly; it is illegal to USE THAT MONOPOLY AND TRY TO DOMINATE OTHER MARKETS AS WELL.
Read that again.