posted by Tulkas>>>There really is no argument here, though there have been far too many posts on the issue. Either there is a Mac market, unique and definable, in which case it is a clear and obvious literal monopoly. Or, there is no distinct Mac market. Obviously, if there is no market, then you cannot have a monopoly. But for those that acknowledge there is a distinct Mac market, how can they possible claim there is no monopoly is...sketchy.
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.
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 \\
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW
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.)
OSX can easily exist without a Macintosh branded computer. It just is not legally allowed. That is the point of this discussion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW
But you can not have a monopoly, in the legal term, in a market that in itself is not a monopoly.
I have no idea what you are trying to say here...
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW
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.
...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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lundy
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.
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?
"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!"
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?
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.
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
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?
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
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.
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.................
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.
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.
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.
Quote:
OSX can easily exist without a Macintosh branded computer. It just is not legally allowed. That is the point of this discussion.
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.
Quote:
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.
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.
I don't think it makes any sense to use a brand name as part of the definition of a market.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
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.
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?
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW
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.
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....
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW
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.
Who said anything about forcing anyone to do anything?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW
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?
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW
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.
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.
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.
Insufficient, as you'd have to state a specific OS to define the market, making it not a generic market description.
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.
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?
Ignoring monopolies for a moment, which you cannot have if you have no market, would 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.
Comments
posted by Tulkas>>>There really is no argument here, though there have been far too many posts on the issue. Either there is a Mac market, unique and definable, in which case it is a clear and obvious literal monopoly. Or, there is no distinct Mac market. Obviously, if there is no market, then you cannot have a monopoly. But for those that acknowledge there is a distinct Mac market, how can they possible claim there is no monopoly is...sketchy.
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.
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 \\
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.
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.)
OSX can easily exist without a Macintosh branded computer. It just is not legally allowed. That is the point of this discussion.
But you can not have a monopoly, in the legal term, in a market that in itself is not a monopoly.
I have no idea what you are trying to say here...
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.
...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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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?
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. "
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
OSX can easily exist without a Macintosh branded computer. It just is not legally allowed. That is the point of this discussion.
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.
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.
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
I don't think it makes any sense to use a brand name as part of the definition of a market.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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....
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Who said anything about forcing anyone to do anything?
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
Insufficient, as you'd have to state a specific OS to define the market, making it not a generic market description.
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.
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.
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?
Ignoring monopolies for a moment, which you cannot have if you have no market, would 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.