Yes there is lots of confusion over what constitutes Monopoly. I am not using the casual definition.
I am taking about the Mac OS market worth billions of dollars annually where there is only one player with a monopoly who controls the whole market.
There is no competition in the market and the monopoly is maintained through Trademark, Copywrite and Patents. Through the use of Trademark, Copywrite and Patents no other company can make a product to run the OS that is protected by Trademark, Copywrite and Patents.
Many, many companies would like a piece of this market (like the one this article is about) but they are not allowed to compete. This is the textbook definition of Monopoly...
Also, although I am a very happy Apple user and have introduced them into the company I work, as the purchaser of hardware and software for the company I am beholden to Apple for all Hardware for the software I have purchased.
As far as windows computers I've switched between Dell, HP and even Gateway in the last few years. The software purchased runs on all. If I choose not to run Apple Hardware now I will be out thousands of dollars of Mac OSX specific software that runs nowhere else but on Apple Hardware.
In addition based on the Windows Licence I can run Windows on the Apple hardware in emulation,or what ever. I cannot run the Mac OS on any other computer system natively or in emulation.
There is a computer operating system market. Competing products are OSX, Windows, Unix, Linux, etc. You can install any operating system on a Mac that you want, however, the Mac OS is made for the Mac (duh!). Apple chooses not to make their OS available for any other computer other than their own. If anything, this limits their market when compared to other options out there.
Many, many companies would like a piece of what market? The Mac Market? There is none. There is only a computer market. The OSX market? There is none. There is only an OS market. Why? Because a Mac and OSX are brands that belong to Apple and therefore cannot be markets in their own right. There are competing products to both Macs and OSX, products that have the same or similar functions as both of these products. Just because they're not as good as Apple's proprietary branded products is not Apple's fault.
What are you saying? Let's pretend you're a computer programmer who developed some application that does what other applications do, but just in a much more productive way. You brand it and put it out to market. Problem is, it only works on PCs (not Macs). Someone says you've got a monopoly on your product and tries to sue you for not making a Mac version. Where do you stand on this issue? You own this product and have the right to develop it however you want. If you don't want to make a Mac version, you don't have to. Nobody has the right to force you to port it over to Mac.
One thing I stated above that would be incorrect would be the assumption that it is possible to have a monopoly on your own product. It isn't. Your saying that Apple has a monopoly on Macs and OSX is simply wrong. Ownership of a product excludes the possibility of a monopoly. The term monopoly doesn't even apply. When you own something, it is yours and yours to do with as you please. When you have a monopoly, you are influencing an entire industry you do NOT own and do not have any rights to (other than the right to compete in that industry).
Apple owns Mac. Therefore the term monopoly isn't applicable.
Apple doesn't own the computing industry and clearly, Apple doesn't have a monopoly there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tink
Yes there is lots of confusion over what constitutes Monopoly. I am not using the casual definition.
I am taking about the Mac OS market worth billions of dollars annually where there is only one player with a monopoly who controls the whole market.
There is no competition in the market and the monopoly is maintained through Trademark, Copywrite and Patents. Through the use of Trademark, Copywrite and Patents no other company can make a product to run the OS that is protected by Trademark, Copywrite and Patents.
Many, many companies would like a piece of this market (like the one this article is about) but they are not allowed to compete. This is the textbook definition of Monopoly...
Tink is just not getting it, is s(he)? How many times do we both need to say the same thing for it to sink in?
I suspect we are dealing with actual intellectual deficiencies here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder
I am taking about the Coca Cola market worth billions of dollars annually where there is only one player with a monopoly who controls the whole market.
I am taking about the Pepsi market worth billions of dollars annually where there is only one player with a monopoly who controls the whole market.
I am taking about the RC Cola market worth billions of dollars annually where there is only one player with a monopoly who controls the whole market.
Do you seriously think Pepsi should be able to make and sell Coke?
You're still confused - a monopoly is all of a TYPE OF PRODUCT, not all of a product. Computer is a type of product, mac is a product. With your interpretation, Dell and HP and Gateway all have monopolies as well. Must be nice for them to have no competition since nobody else makes a Dell or HP or Gateway box...
And you still haven't given an example showing that your confused definition doesn't define EVERY product as a monopoly. Why can't you give an example demonstrating that your definition doesn't define everything as a monopoly? (hint: because your definition is wrong, and it DOES do just that)
Really, why can't you answer that simple question?
And that is Apple's fault? You knew what the rules of the game were when you entered into it. Now that you've committed yourself to the platform, you don't like the rules and want to change them. That's fine. However, Apple doesn't owe you anything and buy purchasing their hardware/software, you entered into a legal agreement regarding how you will use their software. You might not like it but you agreed to it and therefore have to live with it.
By saying that it's wrong for Apple has a monopoly on Apple products and therefore, their terms of use should be challenged is a really stupid argument.
Sorry, it just is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tink
If I choose not to run Apple Hardware now I will be out thousands of dollars of Mac OSX specific software that runs nowhere else but on Apple Hardware.
And that is Apple's fault? You knew what the rules of the game were when you entered into it. Now that you've committed yourself to the platform, you don't like the rules and want to change them. That's fine. However, Apple doesn't owe you anything and by purchasing their hardware/software, you entered into a legal agreement regarding how you will use their software. You might not like it but you agreed to it and therefore have to live with it.
By saying that it's wrong for Apple to have a monopoly on Apple products and therefore, their terms of use should be challenged is a really stupid argument.
Sorry, it just is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tink
If I choose not to run Apple Hardware now I will be out thousands of dollars of Mac OSX specific software that runs nowhere else but on Apple Hardware.
I am taking about the Coca Cola market worth billions of dollars annually where there is only one player with a monopoly who controls the whole market.
I am taking about the Pepsi market worth billions of dollars annually where there is only one player with a monopoly who controls the whole market.
I am taking about the RC Cola market worth billions of dollars annually where there is only one player with a monopoly who controls the whole market.
Do you seriously think Pepsi should be able to make and sell Coke?
You're still confused - a monopoly is all of a TYPE OF PRODUCT, not all of a product. Computer is a type of product, mac is a product. With your interpretation, Dell and HP and Gateway all have monopolies as well. Must be nice for them to have no competition since nobody else makes a Dell or HP or Gateway box...
And you still haven't given an example showing that your confused definition doesn't define EVERY product as a monopoly. Why can't you give an example demonstrating that your definition doesn't define everything as a monopoly? (hint: because your definition is wrong, and it DOES do just that)
Really, why can't you answer that simple question?
It's preaty simple to me. I think your making things really convoluted. I'm not talking about any other companies, brands, industries, cars, drinks or hamburgers, just the Mac OS market. I'm sorry that I wont be able to answer your question with the answer you would like. I've tried my best. You could try a patent and trademark attorney who maybe better at explaining this.
And that is Apple's fault? You knew what the rules of the game were when you entered into it. Now that you've committed yourself to the platform, you don't like the rules and want to change them. That's fine. However, Apple doesn't owe you anything and by purchasing their hardware/software, you entered into a legal agreement regarding how you will use their software. You might not like it but you agreed to it and therefore have to live with it.
By saying that it's wrong for Apple to have a monopoly on Apple products and therefore, their terms of use should be challenged is a really stupid argument.
Sorry, it just is.
What the F#@^! How did you read anything I wrote and get that.
I don't think that a monopoly is a bad thing. It's working out fine for Apple right now and I don't think they are doing anything wrong.
I love Apple hardware and software and I have been a shareholder for over a decade.
I have always owned macs and have since the 80's. I have many many friends who work for the mother ship since system 7 and I too may work there someday.
I plan on switching over more of our hardware to the Mac as soon as it's feasible.
It's preaty simple to me. I think your making things really convoluted. I'm not talking about any other companies, brands, industries, cars, drinks or hamburgers, just the Mac OS market. I'm sorry that I wont be able to answer your question with the answer you would like. I've tried my best. You could try a patent and trademark attorney who maybe better at explaining this.
I've got to get back to work,.
-tink
Whew! What a relief. I was about to suggest we all chip in a few bucks each
so you can swap out your Mac equipment for new PCs.
What the F#@^! How did you read anything I wrote and get that.
I don't think that a monopoly is a bad thing. It's working out fine for Apple right now and I don't think they are doing anything wrong.
I love Apple hardware and software and I have been a shareholder for over a decade.
I have always owned macs and have since the 80's. I have many many friends who work for the mother ship since system 7 and I too may work there someday.
I plan on switching over more of our hardware to the Mac as soon as it's feasible.
That leaves the sub-$1000 pro-sumer market wide open. It's a market Apple doesn't address at all. iMacs are too expensive and are bundled with what is for most people an unnecessary extra monitor. The mini doesn't have a graphics card and is severely underpowered for the price. That's why this clone is so interesting to so many people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder
That's the key right there. The only reason this exists is because apple doesn't offer any reasonably priced mid to low end boxes, specifically a midtower. If apple would finally release one, it would make this whole thing moot.
I doubt this will make much of a splash, but I think it will focus public attention on the hole in Apple's product line and put some pressure on apple. And I think that's a good thing.
All the stuff about monopolies is just taking up space and is just so much cr_p. This is about what users want. Booga and Minderbinder have the right idea.
I don't have enough money to buy Rolls-Royce. So, Rolls-Royce should is monopoly and should be sued because they don't allow Kia to use their engines in their cars hence making me afford one.
I really cannot afford to buy a PS3. So, Sony is having a monopoly over their PS3 OS. They should allow cheap Chines hardware to run PS3 OS so I can play PS3 games and watch Blue-Ray movies.
What else? Apple have monopoly over their AppleTV software? iPhone? iPod?
Grow up..
Life is full of disappointment. If you cannot afford a Mac then get a cheap Windows or Linux PC.
...The car analogy is getting old and never worked for me. Honda doesn't have a monopoly on the roads or the gas they operate on, just their brand. Dell or HP doesn't have a monopoly on the operating system they run on, just their brand. Apple has a monopoly on the operating system and they have their brand. No other brand drives on the Mac OSX road, no other brand runs on that Mac OSX fuel.
OK. Apple doesn't have a monopoly on the electricity to run their computer or the Internet used to surf it. Does that make the car analogy work better? Another one is you can use genuine Honda parts or third party stuff; RAM in the computer would be a good example of this.
Oh, wait, Apple doesn't have a monopoly on what type of computer you can run Word, Excel or PowerPoint either! Microsoft decides this by not allowing these applications to run on Linux (if we use the operating-system-as-road analogy) and we already know just how weak "monopoly" laws are about this... Microsoft is still doing what they do best.
OS X the road or the fuel?
OS X is more of a transportation device... like a car!
Never try to force the Windows paradigm on Mac OS X, where game console operating systems apply more appropriately. Hey, don't most game consoles now use those Cell processor (that are PowerPC derivative)? Guess they will all run each other's games right after PsyStar wins the eventual court action.
It's preaty simple to me. I think your making things really convoluted. I'm not talking about any other companies, brands, industries, cars, drinks or hamburgers, just the Mac OS market. I'm sorry that I wont be able to answer your question with the answer you would like. I've tried my best. You could try a patent and trademark attorney who maybe better at explaining this.
I've got to get back to work,.
-tink
Nope, I'm making things simple as can be.
You can have a monopoly on computers, or sodas, or cars.
You can't have a monopoly on Macs or Coke or Hondas.
I don't see how that could possibly be any simpler.
The fact is, you have made up your own twisted definition of monopoly. Aside from the fact that you're wrong, the fact that your definition makes EVERY product from EVERY company a monopoly just shows that your interpretation makes no sense (unless you are OK with the notion that every company has a monopoly, which I doubt).
In fact, you haven't answered my question at all, you haven't even tried. And I'm not sure how to interpret your unwillingness to do so other than an admission that you're wrong.
I know you will never change your mind regardless of how wrong you are proved, if it takes you going away to put an end to this, that's fine with me. It's a shame this thread got derailed by someone sticking stubbornly to misinformation.
Really, it's just an excuse for whining that you can't get a cheaper mac.
I am taking about the Mac OS market worth billions of dollars annually where there is only one player with a monopoly who controls the whole market.
Although there has already been some rejoinder to this comment, and in that Minderbinder and Canucklehead have given excellent examples, they still haven't explained exactly where your reasoning is faulty.
You are making what is called a Category Mistake. You are confusing two different categories as being the same thing when they are not.
To use an example myself; a good friend of mine comes to visit me from out of state, and during his visit I offer to show him the university where I teach and so I take him and show him around. I introduce him to my colleagues and coworkers, I buy him lunch at the faculty club, I show him the interesting architecture of the buildings on campus, etc. At the end of the day, my friend says "You've introduced me to all these nice people, you've shown me some fascinating architecture, but you still haven't shown me the University!"
My friend is making a category mistake; he is assuming there is some thing that exists in and of itself separate from all the buildings and people that is "the university". He is not understanding that all of the buildings and people comprise the university.
You are making the same error in reasoning; you are assuming that Apple products are a a "market" that exist separately from the larger context of the industry involved with producing and selling computer products.
To reiterate what both Minderbinder and Canucklehead have already said; there is not Mac (or OS X) market; Macintosh computers are one product that is part of a larger entity that is the computer market.
I suspect that at this point, if you won't accept this, there are three reasons;
1) You're being deliberately perverse to annoy and irritate people.
2) You're refusing to change your position because you have some emotional or psychological investment and admitting you're wrong would create so much cognitive dissonance for you your brain would melt, or you'd have an emotional breakdown.
3) You're just too dense to see plain logic when it's staring you in the face.
Regardless; you are mistaken and the entire basis of your argument is false, even if you think you're right. Lots of people think the world is flat, but that doesn't make them right, and it doesn't make the world flat.
Comments
Yes there is lots of confusion over what constitutes Monopoly. I am not using the casual definition.
I am taking about the Mac OS market worth billions of dollars annually where there is only one player with a monopoly who controls the whole market.
There is no competition in the market and the monopoly is maintained through Trademark, Copywrite and Patents. Through the use of Trademark, Copywrite and Patents no other company can make a product to run the OS that is protected by Trademark, Copywrite and Patents.
Many, many companies would like a piece of this market (like the one this article is about) but they are not allowed to compete. This is the textbook definition of Monopoly...
Also, although I am a very happy Apple user and have introduced them into the company I work, as the purchaser of hardware and software for the company I am beholden to Apple for all Hardware for the software I have purchased.
As far as windows computers I've switched between Dell, HP and even Gateway in the last few years. The software purchased runs on all. If I choose not to run Apple Hardware now I will be out thousands of dollars of Mac OSX specific software that runs nowhere else but on Apple Hardware.
In addition based on the Windows Licence I can run Windows on the Apple hardware in emulation,or what ever. I cannot run the Mac OS on any other computer system natively or in emulation.
There is no Mac OS (OSX) market, PERIOD.
There is a computer operating system market. Competing products are OSX, Windows, Unix, Linux, etc. You can install any operating system on a Mac that you want, however, the Mac OS is made for the Mac (duh!). Apple chooses not to make their OS available for any other computer other than their own. If anything, this limits their market when compared to other options out there.
Many, many companies would like a piece of what market? The Mac Market? There is none. There is only a computer market. The OSX market? There is none. There is only an OS market. Why? Because a Mac and OSX are brands that belong to Apple and therefore cannot be markets in their own right. There are competing products to both Macs and OSX, products that have the same or similar functions as both of these products. Just because they're not as good as Apple's proprietary branded products is not Apple's fault.
What are you saying? Let's pretend you're a computer programmer who developed some application that does what other applications do, but just in a much more productive way. You brand it and put it out to market. Problem is, it only works on PCs (not Macs). Someone says you've got a monopoly on your product and tries to sue you for not making a Mac version. Where do you stand on this issue? You own this product and have the right to develop it however you want. If you don't want to make a Mac version, you don't have to. Nobody has the right to force you to port it over to Mac.
One thing I stated above that would be incorrect would be the assumption that it is possible to have a monopoly on your own product. It isn't. Your saying that Apple has a monopoly on Macs and OSX is simply wrong. Ownership of a product excludes the possibility of a monopoly. The term monopoly doesn't even apply. When you own something, it is yours and yours to do with as you please. When you have a monopoly, you are influencing an entire industry you do NOT own and do not have any rights to (other than the right to compete in that industry).
Apple owns Mac. Therefore the term monopoly isn't applicable.
Apple doesn't own the computing industry and clearly, Apple doesn't have a monopoly there.
Yes there is lots of confusion over what constitutes Monopoly. I am not using the casual definition.
I am taking about the Mac OS market worth billions of dollars annually where there is only one player with a monopoly who controls the whole market.
There is no competition in the market and the monopoly is maintained through Trademark, Copywrite and Patents. Through the use of Trademark, Copywrite and Patents no other company can make a product to run the OS that is protected by Trademark, Copywrite and Patents.
Many, many companies would like a piece of this market (like the one this article is about) but they are not allowed to compete. This is the textbook definition of Monopoly...
Tink is just not getting it, is s(he)? How many times do we both need to say the same thing for it to sink in?
I suspect we are dealing with actual intellectual deficiencies here.
I am taking about the Coca Cola market worth billions of dollars annually where there is only one player with a monopoly who controls the whole market.
I am taking about the Pepsi market worth billions of dollars annually where there is only one player with a monopoly who controls the whole market.
I am taking about the RC Cola market worth billions of dollars annually where there is only one player with a monopoly who controls the whole market.
Do you seriously think Pepsi should be able to make and sell Coke?
You're still confused - a monopoly is all of a TYPE OF PRODUCT, not all of a product. Computer is a type of product, mac is a product. With your interpretation, Dell and HP and Gateway all have monopolies as well. Must be nice for them to have no competition since nobody else makes a Dell or HP or Gateway box...
And you still haven't given an example showing that your confused definition doesn't define EVERY product as a monopoly. Why can't you give an example demonstrating that your definition doesn't define everything as a monopoly? (hint: because your definition is wrong, and it DOES do just that)
Really, why can't you answer that simple question?
LOL! I think you're just as annoyed as I am!
Tink is just not getting it, is s(he)? How many times do we both need to say the same thing for it to sink in?
I suspect we are dealing with actual intellectual deficiencies here.
I think it's just stubbornness and a refusal to accept the facts.
He/she is convinced it must be a monopoly, therefore nothing will ever convince him/her otherwise.
By saying that it's wrong for Apple has a monopoly on Apple products and therefore, their terms of use should be challenged is a really stupid argument.
Sorry, it just is.
If I choose not to run Apple Hardware now I will be out thousands of dollars of Mac OSX specific software that runs nowhere else but on Apple Hardware.
By saying that it's wrong for Apple to have a monopoly on Apple products and therefore, their terms of use should be challenged is a really stupid argument.
Sorry, it just is.
If I choose not to run Apple Hardware now I will be out thousands of dollars of Mac OSX specific software that runs nowhere else but on Apple Hardware.
I am taking about the Coca Cola market worth billions of dollars annually where there is only one player with a monopoly who controls the whole market.
I am taking about the Pepsi market worth billions of dollars annually where there is only one player with a monopoly who controls the whole market.
I am taking about the RC Cola market worth billions of dollars annually where there is only one player with a monopoly who controls the whole market.
Do you seriously think Pepsi should be able to make and sell Coke?
You're still confused - a monopoly is all of a TYPE OF PRODUCT, not all of a product. Computer is a type of product, mac is a product. With your interpretation, Dell and HP and Gateway all have monopolies as well. Must be nice for them to have no competition since nobody else makes a Dell or HP or Gateway box...
And you still haven't given an example showing that your confused definition doesn't define EVERY product as a monopoly. Why can't you give an example demonstrating that your definition doesn't define everything as a monopoly? (hint: because your definition is wrong, and it DOES do just that)
Really, why can't you answer that simple question?
It's preaty simple to me. I think your making things really convoluted. I'm not talking about any other companies, brands, industries, cars, drinks or hamburgers, just the Mac OS market. I'm sorry that I wont be able to answer your question with the answer you would like. I've tried my best. You could try a patent and trademark attorney who maybe better at explaining this.
I've got to get back to work,.
-tink
And that is Apple's fault? You knew what the rules of the game were when you entered into it. Now that you've committed yourself to the platform, you don't like the rules and want to change them. That's fine. However, Apple doesn't owe you anything and by purchasing their hardware/software, you entered into a legal agreement regarding how you will use their software. You might not like it but you agreed to it and therefore have to live with it.
By saying that it's wrong for Apple to have a monopoly on Apple products and therefore, their terms of use should be challenged is a really stupid argument.
Sorry, it just is.
What the F#@^! How did you read anything I wrote and get that.
I don't think that a monopoly is a bad thing. It's working out fine for Apple right now and I don't think they are doing anything wrong.
I love Apple hardware and software and I have been a shareholder for over a decade.
I have always owned macs and have since the 80's. I have many many friends who work for the mother ship since system 7 and I too may work there someday.
I plan on switching over more of our hardware to the Mac as soon as it's feasible.
but.... Apple is a Monopoly.
but.... Apple is a Monopoly.
It's preaty simple to me. I think your making things really convoluted. I'm not talking about any other companies, brands, industries, cars, drinks or hamburgers, just the Mac OS market. I'm sorry that I wont be able to answer your question with the answer you would like. I've tried my best. You could try a patent and trademark attorney who maybe better at explaining this.
I've got to get back to work,.
-tink
Whew! What a relief. I was about to suggest we all chip in a few bucks each
so you can swap out your Mac equipment for new PCs.
What the F#@^! How did you read anything I wrote and get that.
I don't think that a monopoly is a bad thing. It's working out fine for Apple right now and I don't think they are doing anything wrong.
I love Apple hardware and software and I have been a shareholder for over a decade.
I have always owned macs and have since the 80's. I have many many friends who work for the mother ship since system 7 and I too may work there someday.
I plan on switching over more of our hardware to the Mac as soon as it's feasible.
but.... Apple is a Monopoly.
I spoke too soon. AAAAARRRRRRGGGHHHH
Originally Posted by Booga
That leaves the sub-$1000 pro-sumer market wide open. It's a market Apple doesn't address at all. iMacs are too expensive and are bundled with what is for most people an unnecessary extra monitor. The mini doesn't have a graphics card and is severely underpowered for the price. That's why this clone is so interesting to so many people.
That's the key right there. The only reason this exists is because apple doesn't offer any reasonably priced mid to low end boxes, specifically a midtower. If apple would finally release one, it would make this whole thing moot.
I doubt this will make much of a splash, but I think it will focus public attention on the hole in Apple's product line and put some pressure on apple. And I think that's a good thing.
All the stuff about monopolies is just taking up space and is just so much cr_p. This is about what users want. Booga and Minderbinder have the right idea.
I really cannot afford to buy a PS3. So, Sony is having a monopoly over their PS3 OS. They should allow cheap Chines hardware to run PS3 OS so I can play PS3 games and watch Blue-Ray movies.
What else? Apple have monopoly over their AppleTV software? iPhone? iPod?
Grow up..
Life is full of disappointment. If you cannot afford a Mac then get a cheap Windows or Linux PC.
...The car analogy is getting old and never worked for me. Honda doesn't have a monopoly on the roads or the gas they operate on, just their brand. Dell or HP doesn't have a monopoly on the operating system they run on, just their brand. Apple has a monopoly on the operating system and they have their brand. No other brand drives on the Mac OSX road, no other brand runs on that Mac OSX fuel.
OK. Apple doesn't have a monopoly on the electricity to run their computer or the Internet used to surf it. Does that make the car analogy work better? Another one is you can use genuine Honda parts or third party stuff; RAM in the computer would be a good example of this.
Oh, wait, Apple doesn't have a monopoly on what type of computer you can run Word, Excel or PowerPoint either! Microsoft decides this by not allowing these applications to run on Linux (if we use the operating-system-as-road analogy) and we already know just how weak "monopoly" laws are about this... Microsoft is still doing what they do best.
OS X the road or the fuel?
OS X is more of a transportation device... like a car!
Never try to force the Windows paradigm on Mac OS X, where game console operating systems apply more appropriately. Hey, don't most game consoles now use those Cell processor (that are PowerPC derivative)? Guess they will all run each other's games right after PsyStar wins the eventual court action.
It's preaty simple to me. I think your making things really convoluted. I'm not talking about any other companies, brands, industries, cars, drinks or hamburgers, just the Mac OS market. I'm sorry that I wont be able to answer your question with the answer you would like. I've tried my best. You could try a patent and trademark attorney who maybe better at explaining this.
I've got to get back to work,.
-tink
Nope, I'm making things simple as can be.
You can have a monopoly on computers, or sodas, or cars.
You can't have a monopoly on Macs or Coke or Hondas.
I don't see how that could possibly be any simpler.
The fact is, you have made up your own twisted definition of monopoly. Aside from the fact that you're wrong, the fact that your definition makes EVERY product from EVERY company a monopoly just shows that your interpretation makes no sense (unless you are OK with the notion that every company has a monopoly, which I doubt).
In fact, you haven't answered my question at all, you haven't even tried. And I'm not sure how to interpret your unwillingness to do so other than an admission that you're wrong.
I know you will never change your mind regardless of how wrong you are proved, if it takes you going away to put an end to this, that's fine with me. It's a shame this thread got derailed by someone sticking stubbornly to misinformation.
Really, it's just an excuse for whining that you can't get a cheaper mac.
I am taking about the Mac OS market worth billions of dollars annually where there is only one player with a monopoly who controls the whole market.
Although there has already been some rejoinder to this comment, and in that Minderbinder and Canucklehead have given excellent examples, they still haven't explained exactly where your reasoning is faulty.
You are making what is called a Category Mistake. You are confusing two different categories as being the same thing when they are not.
To use an example myself; a good friend of mine comes to visit me from out of state, and during his visit I offer to show him the university where I teach and so I take him and show him around. I introduce him to my colleagues and coworkers, I buy him lunch at the faculty club, I show him the interesting architecture of the buildings on campus, etc. At the end of the day, my friend says "You've introduced me to all these nice people, you've shown me some fascinating architecture, but you still haven't shown me the University!"
My friend is making a category mistake; he is assuming there is some thing that exists in and of itself separate from all the buildings and people that is "the university". He is not understanding that all of the buildings and people comprise the university.
You are making the same error in reasoning; you are assuming that Apple products are a a "market" that exist separately from the larger context of the industry involved with producing and selling computer products.
To reiterate what both Minderbinder and Canucklehead have already said; there is not Mac (or OS X) market; Macintosh computers are one product that is part of a larger entity that is the computer market.
I suspect that at this point, if you won't accept this, there are three reasons;
1) You're being deliberately perverse to annoy and irritate people.
2) You're refusing to change your position because you have some emotional or psychological investment and admitting you're wrong would create so much cognitive dissonance for you your brain would melt, or you'd have an emotional breakdown.
3) You're just too dense to see plain logic when it's staring you in the face.
Regardless; you are mistaken and the entire basis of your argument is false, even if you think you're right. Lots of people think the world is flat, but that doesn't make them right, and it doesn't make the world flat.