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".
You mean like when someone says "aha, there is no monopoly, because there is no market"?
Of course you can ignore monopolies for the purpose of defining a market. You do understand you can have a market without a monopoly? That is the premise for setting the definition of a monopoly aside for a moment. It seems to confuse some.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
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.
So then, ignoring who has a monopoly where, you admit there is a Windows market within the overall PC market. You throw the Mac in there as well, but then 2-3 years ago, when there weren't Intel Macs, they were not part of this sub market. Then, when Macs were PPC, were they a distinct market? Since you admit there is a market for Windows systems, within the larger market of PC's in general, how can there not be a Mac market? Please don't revert to stupid and say it is because there is only one vendor. Number of vendors does not define a market.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
There is also a "Unix" market that sounds more generic because there is no single dominant player. The Mac belongs to that as well.
Yes, true. So, you have a within the larger PC market, you have a Windows market...and a UNIX/Linux market...
In particular vinea, your entire argument boils down to, there is no monopoly, because there is no Mac market. There is a distinct Windows market, within the larger PC market. There is a distinct UNIX market, within the larger PC market. But there is no Mac market. Circular at best. There is no monopoly, because there is no market. There is no market, because to define one would mean there is a monopoly, which cannot exist, so there is no market. So, since the monopoly cannot exist, the market cannot be defined, therefore it cannot be a monopoly market....
So then, ignoring who has a monopoly where, you admit there is a Windows market within the overall PC market.
No one has made that admission in the way you continue to suggest. Folks have continously stated that there is a PC market and that the Mac is part of it.
Quote:
You throw the Mac in there as well, but then 2-3 years ago, when there weren't Intel Macs, they were not part of this sub market.
The Mac has always been in the PC market. Otherwise it would never show up at all in the top 5/top 10 PC manufacturer lists because it wouldn't BE one.
Folks specify "intel-based" largely because the DOJ did for their monopoly case but industry treated them all as one PC market. Hence the fact that Apple was once the top PC manufacturer without actually selling any intel boxes or windows.
Intel-based PC and PC are essentially equivalent terms today since no other microprocessor family remains in mainstream use in a PC.
Quote:
Then, when Macs were PPC, were they a distinct market? Since you admit there is a market for Windows systems, within the larger market of PC's in general, how can there not be a Mac market?
Except that no one has made that admission in the way you state it.
Quote:
In particular vinea, your entire argument boils down to, there is no monopoly, because there is no Mac market. There is a distinct Windows market, within the larger PC market. There is a distinct UNIX market, within the larger PC market.
The Unix market overlaps with the PC market but isn't a true subset since it covers servers as well. The Unix market is a subset of the OS market. Just like the PC market is a subset of the Computer market.
Quote:
But there is no Mac market. Circular at best. There is no monopoly, because there is no market. There is no market, because to define one would mean there is a monopoly, which cannot exist, so there is no market. So, since the monopoly cannot exist, the market cannot be defined, therefore it cannot be a monopoly market....
There is no monopoly because while you can define a windows or a mac "market" like you might define a PS3 or Wii "market" neither Sony nor Nintendo have "monopoly" status because both belong to the console market. This is despite there being an ecosystem that are often specific to each like specific controllers, headsets, games, etc.
Therefore, yes, there is a "mac market" but not in the way you mean because, again, it's like saying that just because there is a "wii market" that Nintendo has monopoly status.
It doesn't because there are two other consoles on the market with significant share that provide the same function as the Wii. The Mac is a PC (or server) just like the Wii is a console. Likewise Apple doesn't have a monopoly in either the OS or PC markets because there are other operating systems and personal computers that provide the same function as the OSX or the Mac.
The number of vendors do not define a "market" but the function certainly does. Functionally both OSX and the Mac have equivalents and competitors with larger share.
Try to define the function of a Mac that doesn't also include a Dell running Windows.
There is no monopoly because while you can define a windows or a mac "market" like you might define a PS3 or Wii "market" neither Sony nor Nintendo have "monopoly" status because both belong to the console market. This is despite there being an ecosystem that are often specific to each like specific controllers, headsets, games, etc.
Therefore, yes, there is a "mac market" but not in the way you mean because, again, it's like saying that just because there is a "wii market" that Nintendo has monopoly status.
It doesn't because there are two other consoles on the market with significant share that provide the same function as the Wii. The Mac is a PC (or server) just like the Wii is a console. Likewise Apple doesn't have a monopoly in either the OS or PC markets because there are other operating systems and personal computers that provide the same function as the OSX or the Mac.
Another bad analogy. The console market can only be broken into submarkets that contain each contain single vendors. There are many vendors for Windows systems.
As I have tried to say a number of times, we really have no disagreement here. If you unable to distinguish smaller segments or submarkets within the overall PC market, then you cannot. Without this, then certainly all possibility of an Apple monopoly is moot, since your have defined the market itself out of existence. No market, no monopoly, no debate.
If however, one can see that within the overall PC market there is more granularity, then it becomes a possibility.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
The number of vendors do not define a "market" but the function certainly does. Functionally both OSX and the Mac have equivalents and competitors with larger share.
Try to define the function of a Mac that doesn't also include a Dell running Windows.
Try to define a function a foreign car has over a domestic car? Yet, within the North American market, it is common to reduce the market further into foreign and domestic. Certainly location of head offices of these car companies does not affect function of the vehicle...or maybe it does, since markets can only be defined by function????
I would think the easiest definition of a market would be the group of customer that might buy, will buy or could be convinced to buy with a given product category and/or further distinguishing criteria (a la foreign and domestic). Generally, within the PC market, this will include Windows systems, Macs, Linux etc. But, why cannot the market be more finely defined than that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
In that sense the "Mac market" does not exist.
Strictly by function? OK, if by your definition, a market is solely defined by overall functionality, then no, you cannot distinguish a Mac from a PC. Or server from desktop. or professional from consumer. Functionally speaking, there really isn't much to distinguish these. Some might be single purposed or specifically configured, but realistically, potential functionality is the same.
If there was an Apple monopoly I would have expected someone with deep pockets to bring action against Apple in court. Can you say 'Dell'.
Why would any large systems vendor want to sue Apple to be allowed to install OSX? They already sell into the larger Windows market, so why go through the trouble and expense of going to court for the right to sell into the relatively tiny Mac market? Just like when Apple opened MacOS to clones, I don't recall seeing HP/Dell/Compaq clones coming out. Smaller companies with little to nothing invested into the Windows market jumped in though. I think IBM had a license, but don't recall them putting out any systems themselves, though they may have sublicenses to one of the smaller companies.
A small company might risk it (suing), just to get into a market without many other competitors.
Another bad analogy. The console market can only be broken into submarkets that contain each contain single vendors. There are many vendors for Windows systems.
Why is this only a bad analogy when it is exactly the same thing you do to the mac?
Take the overall PC market. Reduce it to "submarkets" in the same way in the past and you have Commodore Amiga, Atari ST, Apple Mac, Wintel.
That the Mac, Amiga and ST were single vendor PCs doesn't mean that Apple, Commodore or Atari had some magical monopoly over a "market". This is just like the PS3, 360 and the Wii. If MS licensed out the 360 like they do windows all three would STILL exist in the same market. Not three.
Quote:
As I have tried to say a number of times, we really have no disagreement here. If you unable to distinguish smaller segments or submarkets within the overall PC market, then you cannot. Without this, then certainly all possibility of an Apple monopoly is moot, since your have defined the market itself out of existence. No market, no monopoly, no debate.
It is not the "inability to distinguish" that there are smaller segments of the PC market but that you do not classify them as a "market". Rather it is your fabrication of a market out of a fragment of a market.
Quote:
Try to define a function a foreign car has over a domestic car? Yet, within the North American market, it is common to reduce the market further into foreign and domestic. Certainly location of head offices of these car companies does not affect function of the vehicle...or maybe it does, since markets can only be defined by function????
And if GM held 100% share of all domestic car manufacturing but only 6% of the total car market it would NOT be a monopoly. It would simply be one manufacturer among many.
Mazda is the only manufacturer of cars with rotary engines. Does it have a monopoly? No. Anyone can build their own variant of a wankel rotary if they like. Just like anyone can build an OSX like unix variant if they like.
Is it forced to obey the rules for a monopoly? No. Does it have to license it's 13B rotary engine or sell it as a separate item? No. For example, you can buy the housing for their Le Mans winning R26B rotary but none of the internal parts.
Why? Because consumers have a vast array of alternatives that do the same thing. Therefore, once again you're confusing a market segment with the market as a whole.
Quote:
I would think the easiest definition of a market would be the group of customer that might buy, will buy or could be convinced to buy with a given product category and/or further distinguishing criteria (a la foreign and domestic). Generally, within the PC market, this will include Windows systems, Macs, Linux etc. But, why cannot the market be more finely defined than that?
You can define a human more finely as pieces of the human body. It doesn't make a liver a human being.
Quote:
Strictly by function? OK, if by your definition, a market is solely defined by overall functionality, then no, you cannot distinguish a Mac from a PC. Or server from desktop. or professional from consumer. Functionally speaking, there really isn't much to distinguish these. Some might be single purposed or specifically configured, but realistically, potential functionality is the same.
Yes, you can. A PC is a personal computer typically for a single user. Hence the term personal. A server is a typically for use by multiple users. They are only similar at the very top end of the desktop and the very bottom end of the server. The middle and top end servers represent far greater capabilities than found in even the most uber of desktop or even workstation. An 8 core Mac pro isn't in the same class with a 32 core M8000 Server much less a 128 core M9000 server even if it isn't much different from 2-4 CPU low end Xeon based server from Dell.
If Sun made the vast majority of heavy iron, enterprise servers it would have a monopoly even with the desktop PC market dominated by wintel machines that go up to 4-way (16 core) machines.
A professional vs consumer desktop PCs is harder to justify as independent markets and I'm not going to try to. There are many "professionals" with consumer grade PCs instead of "pro grade" workstations.
As I have tried to say a number of times, we really have no disagreement here. If you unable to distinguish smaller segments or submarkets within the overall PC market, then you cannot. Without this, then certainly all possibility of an Apple monopoly is moot, since your have defined the market itself out of existence. No market, no monopoly, no debate.
I think the flaw in your "if there is a Windows market then there must be a Mac market and if there is a Mac market then it has a monopoly" is that the Windows market IS the desktop OS market, and it is a monopoly. The monopoly isn't because it is Windows, it is because it is virtually the entire desktop OS market.
If you want to be pedantic and say there is an "OS X market", then fine - but it is not the same type of "market" that Windows is, because there is no element of monopoly of the desktop OS space.
Why is this only a bad analogy when it is exactly the same thing you do to the mac?
Take the overall PC market. Reduce it to "submarkets" in the same way in the past and you have Commodore Amiga, Atari ST, Apple Mac, Wintel.
That the Mac, Amiga and ST were single vendor PCs doesn't mean that Apple, Commodore or Atari had some magical monopoly over a "market". This is just like the PS3, 360 and the Wii. If MS licensed out the 360 like they do windows all three would STILL exist in the same market. Not three.
No, in your example of of the PC platforms of the past, there was still at least one segment (Wintel) that could easily be broken out to it's own sub market, because of the numerous competitors exclusively in that space. Just as when there were mac clones, there were numerous competitors exclusively in that space. Not true of consoles.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
It is not the "inability to distinguish" that there are smaller segments of the PC market but that you do not classify them as a "market". Rather it is your fabrication of a market out of a fragment of a market.
All divisions of a market into sub-markets are 'fabrications'. It is a matter of picking a specific criteria. I am using platform. Similarly, the division of the north american automarket into foreign and domestic...
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
And if GM held 100% share of all domestic car manufacturing but only 6% of the total car market it would NOT be a monopoly. It would simply be one manufacturer among many.
Mazda is the only manufacturer of cars with rotary engines. Does it have a monopoly? No. Anyone can build their own variant of a wankel rotary if they like. Just like anyone can build an OSX like unix variant if they like.
Is it forced to obey the rules for a monopoly? No. Does it have to license it's 13B rotary engine or sell it as a separate item? No. For example, you can buy the housing for their Le Mans winning R26B rotary but none of the internal parts.
Why? Because consumers have a vast array of alternatives that do the same thing. Therefore, once again you're confusing a market segment with the market as a whole.
And again, I am not confusing the segment with the whole. I am saying certain segments are unique enough to, at least subtly define a market.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
You can define a human more finely as pieces of the human body. It doesn't make a liver a human being.
You can define a group of humans by their race. You can further sub divide these groups into countries, nations, provinces, regions, counties, cities and communities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
Yes, you can. A PC is a personal computer typically for a single user. Hence the term personal. A server is a typically for use by multiple users. They are only similar at the very top end of the desktop and the very bottom end of the server. The middle and top end servers represent far greater capabilities than found in even the most uber of desktop or even workstation. An 8 core Mac pro isn't in the same class with a 32 core M8000 Server much less a 128 core M9000 server even if it isn't much different from 2-4 CPU low end Xeon based server from Dell.
And there is nothing keeping you firm using your M8000 as your desktop, other than reason and money. They are just computers. And as you say, any PC can be used as a low to mid range server, depending on your needs.A simple file server need not be anymore robust that a standard PC. So, the division is not on functional capabilities, it is simply a matter of use. You would be pretty stupid to use a 32 core system today for your desktop, as you would be more foolish to use a C2D systems as your enterprise serving SQL server....but you could.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
A professional vs consumer desktop PCs is harder to justify as independent markets and I'm not going to try to. There are many "professionals" with consumer grade PCs instead of "pro grade" workstations.
I think the flaw in your "if there is a Windows market then there must be a Mac market and if there is a Mac market then it has a monopoly" is that the Windows market IS the desktop OS market, and it is a monopoly. The monopoly isn't because it is Windows, it is because it is virtually the entire desktop OS market.
If you want to be pedantic and say there is an "OS X market", then fine - but it is not the same type of "market" that Windows is, because there is no element of monopoly of the desktop OS space.
A reasonable argument. I never claimed an Apple monopoly with a Mac market (if so defined) would violate any anti-trust laws. Likely, it would not be reasonable to legally consider it a distinct market. But, that would be up to a court to decide. First, if there is a distinct market, 2) if Apple has a monopoly 3)if they are violating any laws within that monopoly. Legally, the process would stop at 1 if the decision was that it was not distinct enough to be considered a market.
But you are right, my logic is simply, if the Windows can be defined within the larger PC market, that implies that Mac market could be as well. If the WIndows market cannot be shown to be a distinct market within the greater market, then, no, there can be no distinct Mac market.
Why would any large systems vendor want to sue Apple to be allowed to install OSX? They already sell into the larger Windows market, so why go through the trouble and expense of going to court for the right to sell into the relatively tiny Mac market? Just like when Apple opened MacOS to clones, I don't recall seeing HP/Dell/Compaq clones coming out. Smaller companies with little to nothing invested into the Windows market jumped in though. I think IBM had a license, but don't recall them putting out any systems themselves, though they may have sublicenses to one of the smaller companies.
A small company might risk it (suing), just to get into a market without many other competitors.
Because Mac sales are growing faster than PC (window sales) AND there is the lack of a mid range desktop machine.
Michael Dell has already said they would sell OSX machines IF they could. I don't have time to look it up but I'm sure others here will remember it and support this.
Because Mac sales are growing faster than PC (window sales) AND there is the lack of a mid range desktop machine.
Michael Dell has already said they would sell OSX machines IF they could. I don't have time to look it up but I'm sure others here will remember it and support this.
I think I do remember him saying that. t was a while ago. I imagine,if it was an option, they would consider it. I don't think they would think it was worth the trouble and expense of a lawsuit.
I think I do remember him saying that. t was a while ago. I imagine,if it was an option, they would consider it. I don't think they would think it was worth the trouble and expense of a lawsuit.
Such a alwsuit wouldn't be expensive at all because it would get thrown out. Dell said this almost 3 years ago.
"If Apple decides to open the Mac OS to others, we would be happy to offer it to our customers," Dell apparently wrote in an email.
And the fact that it doesn't fit on the top of your desk. Arguing with you is pointless.
so now it has to fit on your desktop?...wtf, happened to function being your criteria. And no, the fact that it does not fit on your desktop does not prevent you from using it as your desktop computer. Or is size of the box now your criteria? How about colour? If your points aren't valid, then yes you will find arguing pointless...
You mean like when someone says "aha, there is no monopoly, because there is no market"?
Of course you can ignore monopolies for the purpose of defining a market. You do understand you can have a market without a monopoly? That is the premise for setting the definition of a monopoly aside for a moment. It seems to confuse some.
So then, ignoring who has a monopoly where, you admit there is a Windows market within the overall PC market. You throw the Mac in there as well, but then 2-3 years ago, when there weren't Intel Macs, they were not part of this sub market. Then, when Macs were PPC, were they a distinct market? Since you admit there is a market for Windows systems, within the larger market of PC's in general, how can there not be a Mac market? Please don't revert to stupid and say it is because there is only one vendor. Number of vendors does not define a market.
Yes, true. So, you have a within the larger PC market, you have a Windows market...and a UNIX/Linux market...
In particular vinea, your entire argument boils down to, there is no monopoly, because there is no Mac market. There is a distinct Windows market, within the larger PC market. There is a distinct UNIX market, within the larger PC market. But there is no Mac market. Circular at best. There is no monopoly, because there is no market. There is no market, because to define one would mean there is a monopoly, which cannot exist, so there is no market. So, since the monopoly cannot exist, the market cannot be defined, therefore it cannot be a monopoly market....
Just because some may see a Windows market and a OSX market doesn't mean that everyone sees these two markets as being distinct. If you manufacture hard drives, do you see two markets. No. Your market is the computer market. Same if you manufacture monitors, flash drives, external hard drives, keyboards, mouse, speakers, ect.. Now a while back there were Mac, keyboards, Mac mouse, Mac joysticks and other Mac devices. But mainly because the connectors were different. Now everythng is USB and the two separate market becomes one.
However if you're a software programmer, then there are two markets. As you must program differently for each. The same if the device you're marketing needs special drivers. If your resources are limited then you will market your ware to that segment of the market that has the most potential sales. Windows/PC users.
Don't get caught up in the notion that just because some sectors of the population sees a Mac market, for marketing purpose, that the government will see one. The government don't break down consumers to Mac users, Window users, Porsche owners, Kia owners, Xbox gamers, PlayStation gamers, ect.. The government sees computer users, car owners, game console users, etc.. They can't have a section of the law books that just govern Apple. Another for Microsoft. And another for Porsche. The government do not care about the markets that are only markets for marketing purpose. To the government, a Mac user is just a computer user that chose to use a Mac.
Microsoft didn't get in trouble because it had a monoploy in the consumer computer OS market. It got in trouble because it was leveraging their monopoly to engagie in anti-competitive practices. The laws Microsoft broke applies to all industries. There wasn't a special section that just applies to consumer computer OS. The government couldn't have care less if Microsoft (or any other company) had 100% of a consumer market. So long as they obtained that 100% fair and square. Without breaking any anti-trust laws and engaging in any anti-competitive practices. If all the consumers freely chose Microsoft OS for their computers, that's the way the government will leave it. How can the government justify breaking up a monopoly in the name of giving consumers more choices if the monopoly they're breaking up was the result of consumers choice in the first place. It is only when there is abuse of that monopoly, that the government will step in to protect the consumers (or other businesses).
Last year, Pfizer won a patent infringement case against another drug company (Teva). Teva was marketing a generic version of Pfizer's Celebrex. US Federal Courts unheld Pfizer patents on the drug. Pfizer will have a monopoly on Celebrex until at least 2015. Is Celebrex users a "market"? Well, I'm willing to bet that more people uses Celebrex than uses OSX. And the target market for Celebrex is much larger than that of OSX. And that Pfizer makes more money on Celebrex that Apple does on OSX/Macs. So how come the US government didn't step in and break up Pfizers' monopoly on Celebrex? How come the US government didn't step in so that Celebrex users has a choice of who to purchase Celebrex from. Other drug companies makes drugs similar to Celebrex. But those aren't alternatives if you have adverse side effects, medical condtions that prevents you from using them or they just aren't as effective. So here we have a case where the US government could have made it so that Celebrex users could have had access to a cheaper generic version of Celebrex. But instead, they ruled to protect Pfizer rights to keep their intellectual property for themselves. And this case isn't unique. There are thousands of such cases where the intellectual property owners of a drug prevents cheaper generic versions of the drug from being marketed. Thus keeping their monopoly on that drug.
OSX is Apple intellectual property. The government will not let any other company take it away. The government will not force Apple to give it up unless OSX becomes the monopoly AND Apple abuses that monopoly. Just being a monopoly is not enough. And without Apple having to give up OSX, there can never be a Mac clone.
It doesn't matter that Apple is the only vender for OSX. Just like it doesn;t matter that Pfizer is the only vender for Celebrex. The government will enforce the rights of the intellectual property holders before they give in to consumers demand for choice. And there better be a better reason than "I'm required to use a Mac but I can't afford one". There's a reason why we have copyright, patent and trademark laws. If the government isn't going to enforce those laws, then they might as well shut down those agencies.
So to answer your main questin, "Is there a Mac market? I like to think so. As many here. I like to think myself as being more defined than just a computer user. I use a Mac and therfore I deserved to be separated from other computer users. However, to the government, there's no Mac market. To them. I"m nothing more than a consumer computer user, that happens to use a Mac. \
Comments
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".
You mean like when someone says "aha, there is no monopoly, because there is no market"?
Of course you can ignore monopolies for the purpose of defining a market. You do understand you can have a market without a monopoly? That is the premise for setting the definition of a monopoly aside for a moment. It seems to confuse some.
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.
So then, ignoring who has a monopoly where, you admit there is a Windows market within the overall PC market. You throw the Mac in there as well, but then 2-3 years ago, when there weren't Intel Macs, they were not part of this sub market. Then, when Macs were PPC, were they a distinct market? Since you admit there is a market for Windows systems, within the larger market of PC's in general, how can there not be a Mac market? Please don't revert to stupid and say it is because there is only one vendor. Number of vendors does not define a market.
There is also a "Unix" market that sounds more generic because there is no single dominant player. The Mac belongs to that as well.
Yes, true. So, you have a within the larger PC market, you have a Windows market...and a UNIX/Linux market...
In particular vinea, your entire argument boils down to, there is no monopoly, because there is no Mac market. There is a distinct Windows market, within the larger PC market. There is a distinct UNIX market, within the larger PC market. But there is no Mac market. Circular at best. There is no monopoly, because there is no market. There is no market, because to define one would mean there is a monopoly, which cannot exist, so there is no market. So, since the monopoly cannot exist, the market cannot be defined, therefore it cannot be a monopoly market....
So then, ignoring who has a monopoly where, you admit there is a Windows market within the overall PC market.
No one has made that admission in the way you continue to suggest. Folks have continously stated that there is a PC market and that the Mac is part of it.
You throw the Mac in there as well, but then 2-3 years ago, when there weren't Intel Macs, they were not part of this sub market.
The Mac has always been in the PC market. Otherwise it would never show up at all in the top 5/top 10 PC manufacturer lists because it wouldn't BE one.
Folks specify "intel-based" largely because the DOJ did for their monopoly case but industry treated them all as one PC market. Hence the fact that Apple was once the top PC manufacturer without actually selling any intel boxes or windows.
Intel-based PC and PC are essentially equivalent terms today since no other microprocessor family remains in mainstream use in a PC.
Then, when Macs were PPC, were they a distinct market? Since you admit there is a market for Windows systems, within the larger market of PC's in general, how can there not be a Mac market?
Except that no one has made that admission in the way you state it.
In particular vinea, your entire argument boils down to, there is no monopoly, because there is no Mac market. There is a distinct Windows market, within the larger PC market. There is a distinct UNIX market, within the larger PC market.
The Unix market overlaps with the PC market but isn't a true subset since it covers servers as well. The Unix market is a subset of the OS market. Just like the PC market is a subset of the Computer market.
But there is no Mac market. Circular at best. There is no monopoly, because there is no market. There is no market, because to define one would mean there is a monopoly, which cannot exist, so there is no market. So, since the monopoly cannot exist, the market cannot be defined, therefore it cannot be a monopoly market....
There is no monopoly because while you can define a windows or a mac "market" like you might define a PS3 or Wii "market" neither Sony nor Nintendo have "monopoly" status because both belong to the console market. This is despite there being an ecosystem that are often specific to each like specific controllers, headsets, games, etc.
Therefore, yes, there is a "mac market" but not in the way you mean because, again, it's like saying that just because there is a "wii market" that Nintendo has monopoly status.
It doesn't because there are two other consoles on the market with significant share that provide the same function as the Wii. The Mac is a PC (or server) just like the Wii is a console. Likewise Apple doesn't have a monopoly in either the OS or PC markets because there are other operating systems and personal computers that provide the same function as the OSX or the Mac.
The number of vendors do not define a "market" but the function certainly does. Functionally both OSX and the Mac have equivalents and competitors with larger share.
Try to define the function of a Mac that doesn't also include a Dell running Windows.
In that sense the "Mac market" does not exist.
I agree with what Vinea has said.
If there was an Apple monopoly I would have expected someone with deep pockets to bring action against Apple in court. Can you say 'Dell'.
There is no monopoly because while you can define a windows or a mac "market" like you might define a PS3 or Wii "market" neither Sony nor Nintendo have "monopoly" status because both belong to the console market. This is despite there being an ecosystem that are often specific to each like specific controllers, headsets, games, etc.
Therefore, yes, there is a "mac market" but not in the way you mean because, again, it's like saying that just because there is a "wii market" that Nintendo has monopoly status.
It doesn't because there are two other consoles on the market with significant share that provide the same function as the Wii. The Mac is a PC (or server) just like the Wii is a console. Likewise Apple doesn't have a monopoly in either the OS or PC markets because there are other operating systems and personal computers that provide the same function as the OSX or the Mac.
Another bad analogy. The console market can only be broken into submarkets that contain each contain single vendors. There are many vendors for Windows systems.
As I have tried to say a number of times, we really have no disagreement here. If you unable to distinguish smaller segments or submarkets within the overall PC market, then you cannot. Without this, then certainly all possibility of an Apple monopoly is moot, since your have defined the market itself out of existence. No market, no monopoly, no debate.
If however, one can see that within the overall PC market there is more granularity, then it becomes a possibility.
The number of vendors do not define a "market" but the function certainly does. Functionally both OSX and the Mac have equivalents and competitors with larger share.
Try to define the function of a Mac that doesn't also include a Dell running Windows.
Try to define a function a foreign car has over a domestic car? Yet, within the North American market, it is common to reduce the market further into foreign and domestic. Certainly location of head offices of these car companies does not affect function of the vehicle...or maybe it does, since markets can only be defined by function????
I would think the easiest definition of a market would be the group of customer that might buy, will buy or could be convinced to buy with a given product category and/or further distinguishing criteria (a la foreign and domestic). Generally, within the PC market, this will include Windows systems, Macs, Linux etc. But, why cannot the market be more finely defined than that?
In that sense the "Mac market" does not exist.
Strictly by function? OK, if by your definition, a market is solely defined by overall functionality, then no, you cannot distinguish a Mac from a PC. Or server from desktop. or professional from consumer. Functionally speaking, there really isn't much to distinguish these. Some might be single purposed or specifically configured, but realistically, potential functionality is the same.
The Apple monopoly argument is tenuous at best.
I agree with what Vinea has said.
If there was an Apple monopoly I would have expected someone with deep pockets to bring action against Apple in court. Can you say 'Dell'.
Why would any large systems vendor want to sue Apple to be allowed to install OSX? They already sell into the larger Windows market, so why go through the trouble and expense of going to court for the right to sell into the relatively tiny Mac market? Just like when Apple opened MacOS to clones, I don't recall seeing HP/Dell/Compaq clones coming out. Smaller companies with little to nothing invested into the Windows market jumped in though. I think IBM had a license, but don't recall them putting out any systems themselves, though they may have sublicenses to one of the smaller companies.
A small company might risk it (suing), just to get into a market without many other competitors.
Another bad analogy. The console market can only be broken into submarkets that contain each contain single vendors. There are many vendors for Windows systems.
Why is this only a bad analogy when it is exactly the same thing you do to the mac?
Take the overall PC market. Reduce it to "submarkets" in the same way in the past and you have Commodore Amiga, Atari ST, Apple Mac, Wintel.
That the Mac, Amiga and ST were single vendor PCs doesn't mean that Apple, Commodore or Atari had some magical monopoly over a "market". This is just like the PS3, 360 and the Wii. If MS licensed out the 360 like they do windows all three would STILL exist in the same market. Not three.
As I have tried to say a number of times, we really have no disagreement here. If you unable to distinguish smaller segments or submarkets within the overall PC market, then you cannot. Without this, then certainly all possibility of an Apple monopoly is moot, since your have defined the market itself out of existence. No market, no monopoly, no debate.
It is not the "inability to distinguish" that there are smaller segments of the PC market but that you do not classify them as a "market". Rather it is your fabrication of a market out of a fragment of a market.
Try to define a function a foreign car has over a domestic car? Yet, within the North American market, it is common to reduce the market further into foreign and domestic. Certainly location of head offices of these car companies does not affect function of the vehicle...or maybe it does, since markets can only be defined by function????
And if GM held 100% share of all domestic car manufacturing but only 6% of the total car market it would NOT be a monopoly. It would simply be one manufacturer among many.
Mazda is the only manufacturer of cars with rotary engines. Does it have a monopoly? No. Anyone can build their own variant of a wankel rotary if they like. Just like anyone can build an OSX like unix variant if they like.
Is it forced to obey the rules for a monopoly? No. Does it have to license it's 13B rotary engine or sell it as a separate item? No. For example, you can buy the housing for their Le Mans winning R26B rotary but none of the internal parts.
Why? Because consumers have a vast array of alternatives that do the same thing. Therefore, once again you're confusing a market segment with the market as a whole.
I would think the easiest definition of a market would be the group of customer that might buy, will buy or could be convinced to buy with a given product category and/or further distinguishing criteria (a la foreign and domestic). Generally, within the PC market, this will include Windows systems, Macs, Linux etc. But, why cannot the market be more finely defined than that?
You can define a human more finely as pieces of the human body. It doesn't make a liver a human being.
Strictly by function? OK, if by your definition, a market is solely defined by overall functionality, then no, you cannot distinguish a Mac from a PC. Or server from desktop. or professional from consumer. Functionally speaking, there really isn't much to distinguish these. Some might be single purposed or specifically configured, but realistically, potential functionality is the same.
Yes, you can. A PC is a personal computer typically for a single user. Hence the term personal. A server is a typically for use by multiple users. They are only similar at the very top end of the desktop and the very bottom end of the server. The middle and top end servers represent far greater capabilities than found in even the most uber of desktop or even workstation. An 8 core Mac pro isn't in the same class with a 32 core M8000 Server much less a 128 core M9000 server even if it isn't much different from 2-4 CPU low end Xeon based server from Dell.
If Sun made the vast majority of heavy iron, enterprise servers it would have a monopoly even with the desktop PC market dominated by wintel machines that go up to 4-way (16 core) machines.
A professional vs consumer desktop PCs is harder to justify as independent markets and I'm not going to try to. There are many "professionals" with consumer grade PCs instead of "pro grade" workstations.
As I have tried to say a number of times, we really have no disagreement here. If you unable to distinguish smaller segments or submarkets within the overall PC market, then you cannot. Without this, then certainly all possibility of an Apple monopoly is moot, since your have defined the market itself out of existence. No market, no monopoly, no debate.
I think the flaw in your "if there is a Windows market then there must be a Mac market and if there is a Mac market then it has a monopoly" is that the Windows market IS the desktop OS market, and it is a monopoly. The monopoly isn't because it is Windows, it is because it is virtually the entire desktop OS market.
If you want to be pedantic and say there is an "OS X market", then fine - but it is not the same type of "market" that Windows is, because there is no element of monopoly of the desktop OS space.
Why is this only a bad analogy when it is exactly the same thing you do to the mac?
Take the overall PC market. Reduce it to "submarkets" in the same way in the past and you have Commodore Amiga, Atari ST, Apple Mac, Wintel.
That the Mac, Amiga and ST were single vendor PCs doesn't mean that Apple, Commodore or Atari had some magical monopoly over a "market". This is just like the PS3, 360 and the Wii. If MS licensed out the 360 like they do windows all three would STILL exist in the same market. Not three.
No, in your example of of the PC platforms of the past, there was still at least one segment (Wintel) that could easily be broken out to it's own sub market, because of the numerous competitors exclusively in that space. Just as when there were mac clones, there were numerous competitors exclusively in that space. Not true of consoles.
It is not the "inability to distinguish" that there are smaller segments of the PC market but that you do not classify them as a "market". Rather it is your fabrication of a market out of a fragment of a market.
All divisions of a market into sub-markets are 'fabrications'. It is a matter of picking a specific criteria. I am using platform. Similarly, the division of the north american automarket into foreign and domestic...
And if GM held 100% share of all domestic car manufacturing but only 6% of the total car market it would NOT be a monopoly. It would simply be one manufacturer among many.
Mazda is the only manufacturer of cars with rotary engines. Does it have a monopoly? No. Anyone can build their own variant of a wankel rotary if they like. Just like anyone can build an OSX like unix variant if they like.
Is it forced to obey the rules for a monopoly? No. Does it have to license it's 13B rotary engine or sell it as a separate item? No. For example, you can buy the housing for their Le Mans winning R26B rotary but none of the internal parts.
Why? Because consumers have a vast array of alternatives that do the same thing. Therefore, once again you're confusing a market segment with the market as a whole.
And again, I am not confusing the segment with the whole. I am saying certain segments are unique enough to, at least subtly define a market.
You can define a human more finely as pieces of the human body. It doesn't make a liver a human being.
You can define a group of humans by their race. You can further sub divide these groups into countries, nations, provinces, regions, counties, cities and communities.
Yes, you can. A PC is a personal computer typically for a single user. Hence the term personal. A server is a typically for use by multiple users. They are only similar at the very top end of the desktop and the very bottom end of the server. The middle and top end servers represent far greater capabilities than found in even the most uber of desktop or even workstation. An 8 core Mac pro isn't in the same class with a 32 core M8000 Server much less a 128 core M9000 server even if it isn't much different from 2-4 CPU low end Xeon based server from Dell.
And there is nothing keeping you firm using your M8000 as your desktop, other than reason and money. They are just computers. And as you say, any PC can be used as a low to mid range server, depending on your needs.A simple file server need not be anymore robust that a standard PC. So, the division is not on functional capabilities, it is simply a matter of use. You would be pretty stupid to use a 32 core system today for your desktop, as you would be more foolish to use a C2D systems as your enterprise serving SQL server....but you could.
A professional vs consumer desktop PCs is harder to justify as independent markets and I'm not going to try to. There are many "professionals" with consumer grade PCs instead of "pro grade" workstations.
quite.
I think the flaw in your "if there is a Windows market then there must be a Mac market and if there is a Mac market then it has a monopoly" is that the Windows market IS the desktop OS market, and it is a monopoly. The monopoly isn't because it is Windows, it is because it is virtually the entire desktop OS market.
If you want to be pedantic and say there is an "OS X market", then fine - but it is not the same type of "market" that Windows is, because there is no element of monopoly of the desktop OS space.
A reasonable argument. I never claimed an Apple monopoly with a Mac market (if so defined) would violate any anti-trust laws. Likely, it would not be reasonable to legally consider it a distinct market. But, that would be up to a court to decide. First, if there is a distinct market, 2) if Apple has a monopoly 3)if they are violating any laws within that monopoly. Legally, the process would stop at 1 if the decision was that it was not distinct enough to be considered a market.
But you are right, my logic is simply, if the Windows can be defined within the larger PC market, that implies that Mac market could be as well. If the WIndows market cannot be shown to be a distinct market within the greater market, then, no, there can be no distinct Mac market.
Why would any large systems vendor want to sue Apple to be allowed to install OSX? They already sell into the larger Windows market, so why go through the trouble and expense of going to court for the right to sell into the relatively tiny Mac market? Just like when Apple opened MacOS to clones, I don't recall seeing HP/Dell/Compaq clones coming out. Smaller companies with little to nothing invested into the Windows market jumped in though. I think IBM had a license, but don't recall them putting out any systems themselves, though they may have sublicenses to one of the smaller companies.
A small company might risk it (suing), just to get into a market without many other competitors.
Because Mac sales are growing faster than PC (window sales) AND there is the lack of a mid range desktop machine.
Michael Dell has already said they would sell OSX machines IF they could. I don't have time to look it up but I'm sure others here will remember it and support this.
Because Mac sales are growing faster than PC (window sales) AND there is the lack of a mid range desktop machine.
Michael Dell has already said they would sell OSX machines IF they could. I don't have time to look it up but I'm sure others here will remember it and support this.
I think I do remember him saying that. t was a while ago. I imagine,if it was an option, they would consider it. I don't think they would think it was worth the trouble and expense of a lawsuit.
I think I do remember him saying that. t was a while ago. I imagine,if it was an option, they would consider it. I don't think they would think it was worth the trouble and expense of a lawsuit.
Such a alwsuit wouldn't be expensive at all because it would get thrown out. Dell said this almost 3 years ago.
And there is nothing keeping you firm using your M8000 as your desktop, other than reason and money.
And the fact that it doesn't fit on the top of your desk. Arguing with you is pointless.
And the fact that it doesn't fit on the top of your desk. Arguing with you is pointless.
so now it has to fit on your desktop?...wtf, happened to function being your criteria. And no, the fact that it does not fit on your desktop does not prevent you from using it as your desktop computer. Or is size of the box now your criteria? How about colour? If your points aren't valid, then yes you will find arguing pointless...
You mean like when someone says "aha, there is no monopoly, because there is no market"?
Of course you can ignore monopolies for the purpose of defining a market. You do understand you can have a market without a monopoly? That is the premise for setting the definition of a monopoly aside for a moment. It seems to confuse some.
So then, ignoring who has a monopoly where, you admit there is a Windows market within the overall PC market. You throw the Mac in there as well, but then 2-3 years ago, when there weren't Intel Macs, they were not part of this sub market. Then, when Macs were PPC, were they a distinct market? Since you admit there is a market for Windows systems, within the larger market of PC's in general, how can there not be a Mac market? Please don't revert to stupid and say it is because there is only one vendor. Number of vendors does not define a market.
Yes, true. So, you have a within the larger PC market, you have a Windows market...and a UNIX/Linux market...
In particular vinea, your entire argument boils down to, there is no monopoly, because there is no Mac market. There is a distinct Windows market, within the larger PC market. There is a distinct UNIX market, within the larger PC market. But there is no Mac market. Circular at best. There is no monopoly, because there is no market. There is no market, because to define one would mean there is a monopoly, which cannot exist, so there is no market. So, since the monopoly cannot exist, the market cannot be defined, therefore it cannot be a monopoly market....
Just because some may see a Windows market and a OSX market doesn't mean that everyone sees these two markets as being distinct. If you manufacture hard drives, do you see two markets. No. Your market is the computer market. Same if you manufacture monitors, flash drives, external hard drives, keyboards, mouse, speakers, ect.. Now a while back there were Mac, keyboards, Mac mouse, Mac joysticks and other Mac devices. But mainly because the connectors were different. Now everythng is USB and the two separate market becomes one.
However if you're a software programmer, then there are two markets. As you must program differently for each. The same if the device you're marketing needs special drivers. If your resources are limited then you will market your ware to that segment of the market that has the most potential sales. Windows/PC users.
Don't get caught up in the notion that just because some sectors of the population sees a Mac market, for marketing purpose, that the government will see one. The government don't break down consumers to Mac users, Window users, Porsche owners, Kia owners, Xbox gamers, PlayStation gamers, ect.. The government sees computer users, car owners, game console users, etc.. They can't have a section of the law books that just govern Apple. Another for Microsoft. And another for Porsche. The government do not care about the markets that are only markets for marketing purpose. To the government, a Mac user is just a computer user that chose to use a Mac.
Microsoft didn't get in trouble because it had a monoploy in the consumer computer OS market. It got in trouble because it was leveraging their monopoly to engagie in anti-competitive practices. The laws Microsoft broke applies to all industries. There wasn't a special section that just applies to consumer computer OS. The government couldn't have care less if Microsoft (or any other company) had 100% of a consumer market. So long as they obtained that 100% fair and square. Without breaking any anti-trust laws and engaging in any anti-competitive practices. If all the consumers freely chose Microsoft OS for their computers, that's the way the government will leave it. How can the government justify breaking up a monopoly in the name of giving consumers more choices if the monopoly they're breaking up was the result of consumers choice in the first place. It is only when there is abuse of that monopoly, that the government will step in to protect the consumers (or other businesses).
Last year, Pfizer won a patent infringement case against another drug company (Teva). Teva was marketing a generic version of Pfizer's Celebrex. US Federal Courts unheld Pfizer patents on the drug. Pfizer will have a monopoly on Celebrex until at least 2015. Is Celebrex users a "market"? Well, I'm willing to bet that more people uses Celebrex than uses OSX. And the target market for Celebrex is much larger than that of OSX. And that Pfizer makes more money on Celebrex that Apple does on OSX/Macs. So how come the US government didn't step in and break up Pfizers' monopoly on Celebrex? How come the US government didn't step in so that Celebrex users has a choice of who to purchase Celebrex from. Other drug companies makes drugs similar to Celebrex. But those aren't alternatives if you have adverse side effects, medical condtions that prevents you from using them or they just aren't as effective. So here we have a case where the US government could have made it so that Celebrex users could have had access to a cheaper generic version of Celebrex. But instead, they ruled to protect Pfizer rights to keep their intellectual property for themselves. And this case isn't unique. There are thousands of such cases where the intellectual property owners of a drug prevents cheaper generic versions of the drug from being marketed. Thus keeping their monopoly on that drug.
OSX is Apple intellectual property. The government will not let any other company take it away. The government will not force Apple to give it up unless OSX becomes the monopoly AND Apple abuses that monopoly. Just being a monopoly is not enough. And without Apple having to give up OSX, there can never be a Mac clone.
It doesn't matter that Apple is the only vender for OSX. Just like it doesn;t matter that Pfizer is the only vender for Celebrex. The government will enforce the rights of the intellectual property holders before they give in to consumers demand for choice. And there better be a better reason than "I'm required to use a Mac but I can't afford one". There's a reason why we have copyright, patent and trademark laws. If the government isn't going to enforce those laws, then they might as well shut down those agencies.
So to answer your main questin, "Is there a Mac market? I like to think so. As many here. I like to think myself as being more defined than just a computer user. I use a Mac and therfore I deserved to be separated from other computer users. However, to the government, there's no Mac market. To them. I"m nothing more than a consumer computer user, that happens to use a Mac.