Actually, they do have that clause...you want to use the Dish Network service you buy Dish network gear. You want to have digital cable you rent a cable box/dvr or a cablecard. Fortunately I have FiOS but I'd still be stuck with a cablecard rental if I wanted to use a real Tivo.
So, you would have the option to purchase a Tivo. Great, you then have choice. If you want to run OSX on another brand of hardware, you would still have to buy OSX from Apple, but would get to choose your hardware. Your ability to choose your own television brand and DVR means you have choice, when if you need to get the CableCard from the CableCo, just as I would have to get OSX from Apple.
A monopoly is not merely the state of having control over a particular product; it also means that there is no real alternative to the monopolized product. Monopolies are thus characterized by a lack of economic competition for the good or service that they provide and a lack of viable substitute goods.
A layman definition of the parts of a word does not equal a legal definition of that word.
Then, within the Mac market, you have competition for the hardware? You have viable substitute goods available? No, you do not. i.e. monopoly. (legal and laymen definition...) A legally defined monopoly does not make it a criminal monopoly.
Cable companies have local monopolies on cable television. You can get your television service elsewhere, but they are a legal monopoly, locally. If they engage in anti-competitive practices, that makes them illegal monopolies.
There is no Mac market? There are Mac retailers, Mac after market services and products, specific to the Mac software, Mac development environments, Mac customers, Mac books, Mac websites, Mac professionals and Mac Developers. If that isn't a distinct market, what is? Yes, obviously, the Mac market is a sub-market to the general PC market in most way, that is not in question. But, within the Mac market, are they a monopoly? Yes, obviously they are. Are they an illegal monopoly?
Please, you don't understand the definition so you are not yourself any favours by continuing this thread.
By your own example, you could exchange pretty much anything you want for Mac and come to the same conclusion. A product ecosystem does not a monopoly make.
ummm...yeah. But, then it depends on what you are buying. If you buy a car, you are allowed to do with it as you please, so long as it abides local laws. You can sell it too. If you buy media, incuding software, there are more legal restrictions on what it means to own it. Irrelevant. Within the legal restrictions of what it means to 'own' your copy of software, there is a limit to what the owners of the software can do to limit your use of that software. It is a matter of what are those limits.
There is no Mac market? There are Mac retailers, Mac after market services and products, specific to the Mac software, Mac development environments, Mac customers, Mac books, Mac websites, Mac professionals and Mac Developers. If that isn't a distinct market, what is? Yes, obviously, the Mac market is a sub-market to the general PC market in most way, that is not in question. But, within the Mac market, are they a monopoly? Yes, obviously they are. Are they an illegal monopoly?
same thing with cars, you are not allowed to modified the cars. If you do, you violate your warranty agreement which means you are no longer covered under the warranty.
btw, i think its better if you say Apple retailers. cause there is a MAC retailer but for make ups
I think you are confusing their business and their market. But to clarify, Apple retailers are under retailer market, which includes Best Buy, Circuit City, Sony Store and everything else in this category. So if Apple has a monopoly in Apple retail store, they are dominating Best Buy, Circuit City, Sony Store, and everything else in that market. If the retailer market has only one store, Apple store, then yes, they are monopolizing.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
INCONCEIVABLE!
Please vinea, explain to me my wealth of options and competition available with the Mac market?
Actually, let's make it more simple. I have explained, why I think they are a monopoly within the Mac market. Your turn. Explain why they are not a monopoly within the Mac market. One assumption: you stay within the Mac market. (please don't say, buy a PC with Windows, as that sort is outside of the Mac market, which we are discussing)
Please, you don't understand the definition so you are not yourself any favours by continuing this thread.
By your own example, you could exchange pretty much anything you want for Mac and come to the same conclusion. A product ecosystem does not a monopoly make.
Legal definition of a monopoly:
An economic advantage held by one or more persons or companies deriving from the exclusive power to carry on a particular business or trade or to manufacture and sell a particular item, thereby suppressing competition and allowing such persons or companies to raise the price of a product or service substantially above the price that would be established by a free market.
same thing with cars, you are not allowed to modified the cars. If you do, you violate your warranty agreement which means you are no longer covered under the warranty.
btw, i think its better if you say Apple retailers. cause there is a MAC retailer but for make ups
I think you are confusing their business and their market. But to clarify, Apple retailers are under retailer market, which includes Best Buy, Circuit City, Sony Store and everything else in this category. So if Apple has a monopoly in Apple retail store, they are dominating Best Buy, Circuit City, Sony Store, and everything else in that market. If the retailer market has only one store, Apple store, then yes, they are monopolizing.
This is not a question of warranty. at all. in any way. Or retailers. mostly.
By your own example, you could exchange pretty much anything you want for Mac and come to the same conclusion. A product ecosystem does not a monopoly make.
yes, at a certain point it does make a monopoly. It doesn't make it a criminal monopoly. That depends on their actions to protect and benefit from their monopoly.
Then, within the Mac market, you have competition for the hardware? You have viable substitute goods available?
Sure do.
I can put any HDD in an Make so long as it conforms to the size and connector restrictions, but these are industry standards. I can upgrade the processor so long as it's a chip that will fit, that is on Intel's head. I can buy RAM from countless sources and it will work fine so long as it has the correct number of pins.
The only part that is proprietary is the motherboard. Are you saying that Apple should ditch its entire line, and instead by off the shelf MoBos? Or are saying that they should sell their MoBo as a separate item so you can build your system and then call them complaining when it doesn't go as planned?
I tried to by the chassis for the Ariel Atom. Well, everything but the engine. It's not that I was being cheap, it's that I didn't want the GM Ecotec engine that they offer in the US. I wanted the Honda Type-R that was offered in the US and is offered in the UK. They wouldn't do it, not their policy. Does that mean they have an unfair monopoly in the giant, street legal go cart market?
I can put any HDD in an Make so long as it conforms to the size and connector restrictions, but these are industry standards. I can upgrade the processor so long as it's a chip that will fit, that is on Intel's head. I can buy RAM from countless sources and it will work fine so long as it has the correct number of pins.
The only part that is proprietary is the motherboard. Are you saying that Apple should ditch its entire line, and instead by off the shelf MoBos? Or are saying that they should sell their MoBo as a separate item so you can build your system and then call them complaining when it doesn't go as planned?
Now who is being dense? Once you buy their hardware, you have all the options you would like. You want to buy their software, how many options do you have?
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
I tried to by the chassis for the Ariel Atom. Well, everything but the engine. It's not that I was being cheap, it's that I didn't want the GM Ecotec engine that they offer in the US. I wanted the Honda Type-R that was offered in the US and is offered in the UK. They wouldn't do it, not their policy. Does that mean they have an unfair monopoly in the giant, street legal go cart market?
But, would they prevent you from buying the the whole thing and putting in your own engine? Put another way, if you bought they whole Ariel Atom and then bought the Honda engine, would Honda stipulate that you cannot put it into the Ariel?
But, would they prevent you from buying the the whole thing and putting in your own engine? Put another way, if you bought they whole Ariel Atom and then bought the Honda engine, would Honda stipulate that you cannot put it into the Ariel?
Just as I can I by a Mac/Atom and install XP/Type-R. In both case I'm buying something as a whole and then doing something different with it. Only one of these voids the warranty and it's not the Mac, but it both of these cases I'm buying the whoel product the way the company has decided to sell it.
You can keep going with your comments but I won't be replying to them. You do see how a layman definition and a legal definition can be different so there is really to discuss until you do.
Just as I can I by a Mac/Atom and install XP/Type-R. In both case I'm buying something as a whole and then doing something different with it. Only one of these voids the warranty and it's not the Mac, but it both of these cases I'm buying the whoel product the way the company has decided to sell it.
And in your analogy, you would be prohibited from buying the Honda engine from Honda, unless you also agreed to buy their whole chassis and install in it there. But, you seem unable to see that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
You can keep going with your comments but I won't be replying to them. You do see how a layman definition and a legal definition can be different so there is really to discuss until you do.
And you appear unable to see how either could be applied. ignorance is bliss, as they say.
Then, within the Mac market, you have competition for the hardware? You have viable substitute goods available? No, you do not. i.e. monopoly. (legal and laymen definition...) A legally defined monopoly does not make it a criminal monopoly.
Cable companies have local monopolies on cable television. You can get your television service elsewhere, but they are a legal monopoly, locally. If they engage in anti-competitive practices, that makes them illegal monopolies.
Based on what you said Toyota have monopoly over Camry because they don't allow everyone else to make a camry! GM have monopoly over Suburban because they don't allow Ford to make one! Panasonic have a monopoly over Viera TVs because they don't allow anyone else to manufacture one!! Please...
So I guess you believe Windows have monopoly over Windows market
Based on your definition, all the patents, copyrights, and trademarks are illegal because they allow one entity to control whatever product/method they spend time and money developing.
Based on what you said Toyota have monopoly over Camry because they don't allow everyone else to make a camry! GM have monopoly over Suburban because they don't allow Ford to make one! Panasonic have a monopoly over Viera TVs because they don't allow anyone else to manufacture one!! Please...
Way to completely miss the point....
Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE
So I guess you believe Windows have monopoly over Windows market
No, because Windows is not a company. Microsoft is. Please...
oh and if you didn't notice a while ago, MS was found to be an illegal monopoly. They were using their control of Windows to hinder competition from other browsers. Manufacturers were barred from substituting other browsers. On Windows. Not on Linux. Not on Macs. They used their control of Windows to stifle other browsers for Windows.
Apple uses their control of OSX to stifle competition from compatible hardware assemblers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE
Based on your definition, all the patents, copyrights, and trademarks are illegal because they allow one entity to control whatever product/method they spend time and money developing.
Did I say they were illegal? Make shit up much?
If however, they use their dominance over one product to stifle competition of another, within a market place, then they are a monopoly.
By your dweinition an Xbox 360 is a monopoly in the Xbox 360 market. A PlayStaion3 is a monopoly in the PlayStaion3 market. And a Wii is a monopoly in the Wii market. But the only thing that counts is that none of these are monolopies in the gaming console market. And Apple is not a monopoly in the computer market. Prohibiting OSX on other hardware is no more anti competitive than MS prohibiting "Halo" for PlayStation3 or Wii.
Your analogy doesn't hold. MS doesn't prohibit Halo for PS3 or Wii - it just doesn't give the rights to any PS3 or Wii developers. And it is a big difference, similar to a musician deciding not to release their album on 8-track or SACD.
A better analogy would be if you could stick a normal Xbox 360 Halo disc (OSX) into a PS3 (generic computer) and have it work with a few minor problems. Then have Microsoft(Apple) try to prevent/sue users who do it, or prevent/sue retailers who sell the 360 Halo disc (OSX) with a PS3 system (generic computer).
Do we also need to mention that Apple encourages people to install Windows on their computers, and in fact uses it in their advertising as a selling point? Wouldn't it be a bit hypocritical for Apple to get pissed off at a PC manufacturer who does the same with OSX?
No, because Windows is not a company. Microsoft is. Please...
oh and if you didn't notice a while ago, MS was found to be an illegal monopoly. They were using their control of Windows to hinder competition from other browsers. Manufacturers were barred from substituting other browsers. On Windows. Not on Linux. Not on Macs. They used their control of Windows to stifle other browsers for Windows.
Apple uses their control of OSX to stifle competition from compatible hardware assemblers.
Did I say they were illegal? Make shit up much?
If however, they use their dominance over one product to stifle competition of another, within a market place, then they are a monopoly.
Monopoly is illegal. You have been crying "Apple has monopoly over Mac Market" I did not make anything up, anyone who reads your post will see that. Mac OS is a software and software have copyrights (you may want to look up the definition of copyright). As the owner of a software, you specify how your software shall be used (an operating system or not) plain and simple.
There is nothing called "Mac Market monopoly". Mac is brand name and specific product manufactured by a specific company not a market. Mac = Apple Manufactured Hardware + Apple manufactured OS. A PC with Mac OS is not a Mac, it runs Mac OS but still not a Mac.
Monopoly is illegal. You have been crying "Apple has monopoly over Mac Market" I did not make anything up, anyone who reads your post will see that. Mac OS is a software and software have copyrights (you may want to look up the definition of copyright). As the owner of a software, you specify how your software shall be used (an operating system or not) plain and simple.
Some monopolies are legal. Cable companies, as an example. As solipsism pointed out, there is the dictionary definition and the legal definition. Either could be interpreted as applying to the Mac market.
And copywrite protections can be considered invalid if use inappropriately.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE
There is nothing called "Mac Market monopoly". Mac is brand name and specific product manufactured by a specific company not a market. Mac = Apple Manufactured Hardware + Apple manufactured OS. A PC with Mac OS is not a Mac, it runs Mac OS but still not a Mac.
Um, if you by a Mac and install Windows, is it still a Mac? yes. And when Apple allowed clones, those were not Apple manufactured, but were still Macs. Your math is off and your logic is flawed.
Simple question: is there a viable Mac market that is separate and distinct from the PC market in general?
Comments
Actually, they do have that clause...you want to use the Dish Network service you buy Dish network gear. You want to have digital cable you rent a cable box/dvr or a cablecard. Fortunately I have FiOS but I'd still be stuck with a cablecard rental if I wanted to use a real Tivo.
So, you would have the option to purchase a Tivo. Great, you then have choice. If you want to run OSX on another brand of hardware, you would still have to buy OSX from Apple, but would get to choose your hardware. Your ability to choose your own television brand and DVR means you have choice, when if you need to get the CableCard from the CableCo, just as I would have to get OSX from Apple.
monopoly
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
INCONCEIVABLE!
A monopoly is not merely the state of having control over a particular product; it also means that there is no real alternative to the monopolized product. Monopolies are thus characterized by a lack of economic competition for the good or service that they provide and a lack of viable substitute goods.
A layman definition of the parts of a word does not equal a legal definition of that word.
Then, within the Mac market, you have competition for the hardware? You have viable substitute goods available? No, you do not. i.e. monopoly. (legal and laymen definition...) A legally defined monopoly does not make it a criminal monopoly.
Cable companies have local monopolies on cable television. You can get your television service elsewhere, but they are a legal monopoly, locally. If they engage in anti-competitive practices, that makes them illegal monopolies.
There is no Mac market? There are Mac retailers, Mac after market services and products, specific to the Mac software, Mac development environments, Mac customers, Mac books, Mac websites, Mac professionals and Mac Developers. If that isn't a distinct market, what is? Yes, obviously, the Mac market is a sub-market to the general PC market in most way, that is not in question. But, within the Mac market, are they a monopoly? Yes, obviously they are. Are they an illegal monopoly?
Please, you don't understand the definition so you are not yourself any favours by continuing this thread.
By your own example, you could exchange pretty much anything you want for Mac and come to the same conclusion. A product ecosystem does not a monopoly make.
ummm...yeah. But, then it depends on what you are buying. If you buy a car, you are allowed to do with it as you please, so long as it abides local laws. You can sell it too. If you buy media, incuding software, there are more legal restrictions on what it means to own it. Irrelevant. Within the legal restrictions of what it means to 'own' your copy of software, there is a limit to what the owners of the software can do to limit your use of that software. It is a matter of what are those limits.
There is no Mac market? There are Mac retailers, Mac after market services and products, specific to the Mac software, Mac development environments, Mac customers, Mac books, Mac websites, Mac professionals and Mac Developers. If that isn't a distinct market, what is? Yes, obviously, the Mac market is a sub-market to the general PC market in most way, that is not in question. But, within the Mac market, are they a monopoly? Yes, obviously they are. Are they an illegal monopoly?
same thing with cars, you are not allowed to modified the cars. If you do, you violate your warranty agreement which means you are no longer covered under the warranty.
btw, i think its better if you say Apple retailers. cause there is a MAC retailer but for make ups
I think you are confusing their business and their market. But to clarify, Apple retailers are under retailer market, which includes Best Buy, Circuit City, Sony Store and everything else in this category. So if Apple has a monopoly in Apple retail store, they are dominating Best Buy, Circuit City, Sony Store, and everything else in that market. If the retailer market has only one store, Apple store, then yes, they are monopolizing.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
INCONCEIVABLE!
Please vinea, explain to me my wealth of options and competition available with the Mac market?
Actually, let's make it more simple. I have explained, why I think they are a monopoly within the Mac market. Your turn. Explain why they are not a monopoly within the Mac market. One assumption: you stay within the Mac market. (please don't say, buy a PC with Windows, as that sort is outside of the Mac market, which we are discussing)
Please, you don't understand the definition so you are not yourself any favours by continuing this thread.
By your own example, you could exchange pretty much anything you want for Mac and come to the same conclusion. A product ecosystem does not a monopoly make.
Legal definition of a monopoly:
An economic advantage held by one or more persons or companies deriving from the exclusive power to carry on a particular business or trade or to manufacture and sell a particular item, thereby suppressing competition and allowing such persons or companies to raise the price of a product or service substantially above the price that would be established by a free market.
Sound familiar?
same thing with cars, you are not allowed to modified the cars. If you do, you violate your warranty agreement which means you are no longer covered under the warranty.
btw, i think its better if you say Apple retailers. cause there is a MAC retailer but for make ups
I think you are confusing their business and their market. But to clarify, Apple retailers are under retailer market, which includes Best Buy, Circuit City, Sony Store and everything else in this category. So if Apple has a monopoly in Apple retail store, they are dominating Best Buy, Circuit City, Sony Store, and everything else in that market. If the retailer market has only one store, Apple store, then yes, they are monopolizing.
This is not a question of warranty. at all. in any way. Or retailers. mostly.
By your own example, you could exchange pretty much anything you want for Mac and come to the same conclusion. A product ecosystem does not a monopoly make.
yes, at a certain point it does make a monopoly. It doesn't make it a criminal monopoly. That depends on their actions to protect and benefit from their monopoly.
Then, within the Mac market, you have competition for the hardware? You have viable substitute goods available?
Sure do.
I can put any HDD in an Make so long as it conforms to the size and connector restrictions, but these are industry standards. I can upgrade the processor so long as it's a chip that will fit, that is on Intel's head. I can buy RAM from countless sources and it will work fine so long as it has the correct number of pins.
The only part that is proprietary is the motherboard. Are you saying that Apple should ditch its entire line, and instead by off the shelf MoBos? Or are saying that they should sell their MoBo as a separate item so you can build your system and then call them complaining when it doesn't go as planned?
I tried to by the chassis for the Ariel Atom. Well, everything but the engine. It's not that I was being cheap, it's that I didn't want the GM Ecotec engine that they offer in the US. I wanted the Honda Type-R that was offered in the US and is offered in the UK. They wouldn't do it, not their policy. Does that mean they have an unfair monopoly in the giant, street legal go cart market?
Sure do.
I can put any HDD in an Make so long as it conforms to the size and connector restrictions, but these are industry standards. I can upgrade the processor so long as it's a chip that will fit, that is on Intel's head. I can buy RAM from countless sources and it will work fine so long as it has the correct number of pins.
The only part that is proprietary is the motherboard. Are you saying that Apple should ditch its entire line, and instead by off the shelf MoBos? Or are saying that they should sell their MoBo as a separate item so you can build your system and then call them complaining when it doesn't go as planned?
Now who is being dense? Once you buy their hardware, you have all the options you would like. You want to buy their software, how many options do you have?
I tried to by the chassis for the Ariel Atom. Well, everything but the engine. It's not that I was being cheap, it's that I didn't want the GM Ecotec engine that they offer in the US. I wanted the Honda Type-R that was offered in the US and is offered in the UK. They wouldn't do it, not their policy. Does that mean they have an unfair monopoly in the giant, street legal go cart market?
But, would they prevent you from buying the the whole thing and putting in your own engine? Put another way, if you bought they whole Ariel Atom and then bought the Honda engine, would Honda stipulate that you cannot put it into the Ariel?
But, would they prevent you from buying the the whole thing and putting in your own engine? Put another way, if you bought they whole Ariel Atom and then bought the Honda engine, would Honda stipulate that you cannot put it into the Ariel?
Just as I can I by a Mac/Atom and install XP/Type-R. In both case I'm buying something as a whole and then doing something different with it. Only one of these voids the warranty and it's not the Mac, but it both of these cases I'm buying the whoel product the way the company has decided to sell it.
You can keep going with your comments but I won't be replying to them. You do see how a layman definition and a legal definition can be different so there is really to discuss until you do.
Just as I can I by a Mac/Atom and install XP/Type-R. In both case I'm buying something as a whole and then doing something different with it. Only one of these voids the warranty and it's not the Mac, but it both of these cases I'm buying the whoel product the way the company has decided to sell it.
And in your analogy, you would be prohibited from buying the Honda engine from Honda, unless you also agreed to buy their whole chassis and install in it there. But, you seem unable to see that.
You can keep going with your comments but I won't be replying to them. You do see how a layman definition and a legal definition can be different so there is really to discuss until you do.
And you appear unable to see how either could be applied. ignorance is bliss, as they say.
Then, within the Mac market, you have competition for the hardware? You have viable substitute goods available? No, you do not. i.e. monopoly. (legal and laymen definition...) A legally defined monopoly does not make it a criminal monopoly.
Cable companies have local monopolies on cable television. You can get your television service elsewhere, but they are a legal monopoly, locally. If they engage in anti-competitive practices, that makes them illegal monopolies.
Based on what you said Toyota have monopoly over Camry because they don't allow everyone else to make a camry! GM have monopoly over Suburban because they don't allow Ford to make one! Panasonic have a monopoly over Viera TVs because they don't allow anyone else to manufacture one!! Please...
So I guess you believe Windows have monopoly over Windows market
Based on your definition, all the patents, copyrights, and trademarks are illegal because they allow one entity to control whatever product/method they spend time and money developing.
Based on what you said Toyota have monopoly over Camry because they don't allow everyone else to make a camry! GM have monopoly over Suburban because they don't allow Ford to make one! Panasonic have a monopoly over Viera TVs because they don't allow anyone else to manufacture one!! Please...
Way to completely miss the point....
So I guess you believe Windows have monopoly over Windows market
No, because Windows is not a company. Microsoft is. Please...
oh and if you didn't notice a while ago, MS was found to be an illegal monopoly. They were using their control of Windows to hinder competition from other browsers. Manufacturers were barred from substituting other browsers. On Windows. Not on Linux. Not on Macs. They used their control of Windows to stifle other browsers for Windows.
Apple uses their control of OSX to stifle competition from compatible hardware assemblers.
Based on your definition, all the patents, copyrights, and trademarks are illegal because they allow one entity to control whatever product/method they spend time and money developing.
Did I say they were illegal? Make shit up much?
If however, they use their dominance over one product to stifle competition of another, within a market place, then they are a monopoly.
? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critici...ti-trust_suits
By your dweinition an Xbox 360 is a monopoly in the Xbox 360 market. A PlayStaion3 is a monopoly in the PlayStaion3 market. And a Wii is a monopoly in the Wii market. But the only thing that counts is that none of these are monolopies in the gaming console market. And Apple is not a monopoly in the computer market. Prohibiting OSX on other hardware is no more anti competitive than MS prohibiting "Halo" for PlayStation3 or Wii.
Your analogy doesn't hold. MS doesn't prohibit Halo for PS3 or Wii - it just doesn't give the rights to any PS3 or Wii developers. And it is a big difference, similar to a musician deciding not to release their album on 8-track or SACD.
A better analogy would be if you could stick a normal Xbox 360 Halo disc (OSX) into a PS3 (generic computer) and have it work with a few minor problems. Then have Microsoft(Apple) try to prevent/sue users who do it, or prevent/sue retailers who sell the 360 Halo disc (OSX) with a PS3 system (generic computer).
Do we also need to mention that Apple encourages people to install Windows on their computers, and in fact uses it in their advertising as a selling point? Wouldn't it be a bit hypocritical for Apple to get pissed off at a PC manufacturer who does the same with OSX?
? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft
? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critici...ti-trust_suits
point?
Way to completely miss the point....
No, because Windows is not a company. Microsoft is. Please...
oh and if you didn't notice a while ago, MS was found to be an illegal monopoly. They were using their control of Windows to hinder competition from other browsers. Manufacturers were barred from substituting other browsers. On Windows. Not on Linux. Not on Macs. They used their control of Windows to stifle other browsers for Windows.
Apple uses their control of OSX to stifle competition from compatible hardware assemblers.
Did I say they were illegal? Make shit up much?
If however, they use their dominance over one product to stifle competition of another, within a market place, then they are a monopoly.
Monopoly is illegal. You have been crying "Apple has monopoly over Mac Market" I did not make anything up, anyone who reads your post will see that. Mac OS is a software and software have copyrights (you may want to look up the definition of copyright). As the owner of a software, you specify how your software shall be used (an operating system or not) plain and simple.
There is nothing called "Mac Market monopoly". Mac is brand name and specific product manufactured by a specific company not a market. Mac = Apple Manufactured Hardware + Apple manufactured OS. A PC with Mac OS is not a Mac, it runs Mac OS but still not a Mac.
Monopoly is illegal. You have been crying "Apple has monopoly over Mac Market" I did not make anything up, anyone who reads your post will see that. Mac OS is a software and software have copyrights (you may want to look up the definition of copyright). As the owner of a software, you specify how your software shall be used (an operating system or not) plain and simple.
Some monopolies are legal. Cable companies, as an example. As solipsism pointed out, there is the dictionary definition and the legal definition. Either could be interpreted as applying to the Mac market.
And copywrite protections can be considered invalid if use inappropriately.
There is nothing called "Mac Market monopoly". Mac is brand name and specific product manufactured by a specific company not a market. Mac = Apple Manufactured Hardware + Apple manufactured OS. A PC with Mac OS is not a Mac, it runs Mac OS but still not a Mac.
Um, if you by a Mac and install Windows, is it still a Mac? yes. And when Apple allowed clones, those were not Apple manufactured, but were still Macs. Your math is off and your logic is flawed.
Simple question: is there a viable Mac market that is separate and distinct from the PC market in general?