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.
Cable companies are service providers. You have an alternative to get TV channels, so they are actually not monopoly. Remember AT&T? was broken down to break the monopoly. No matter who you are, monopoly is illegal, there is nothing called legal monopoly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
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?
You still need Mac OS 10.5 to run Windows on a MAC. So your math is off. It is still a Mac. The clones were never Mac, they were clones.
Cable companies are service providers. You have an alternative to get TV channels, so they are actually not monopoly. Remember AT&T? was broken down to break the monopoly. No matter who you are, monopoly is illegal, there is nothing called legal monopoly.
yeah, there is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE
You still need Mac OS 10.5 to run Windows on a MAC. So your math is off. It is still a Mac.The clones were never Mac, they were clones.
The clones were still mac compatible. They were competition within the Mac market.
Also, there are people that have Windows running on their Macs without OSX. I can't imagine why they would do that, but it is technically possible.
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?
You are aware that MS decided to keep Windows Vista Home from running in bootcamp (via EULA) until January this year? And Windows IS a monopoly OS unlike OSX.
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)
OSX is a Open Brand UNIX 03 registered product. There are at least 3 other competing UNIX 03 products on the market. Solaris, HPUX and AIX. The core of the OS is BSD Unix, now certified, running on a Mach kernel. On the server market, I'd say Apple has pretty low share. Of course, in the desktop market it probably is the most successful Unix.
Of course, if you wish to look at OSX as a desktop operating system vs a unix one, then yes, you DO need to consider Windows.
Oh wait, do you want to argue that OSX isn't an operating system? Like the Accord is somehow not a car?
The only way that Apple has a "monopoly" is if OSX had 80% market share in desktop operating systems. It doesn't.
The "Mac Market" as you define it is no different from the "Honda Market" or the "PS3 Market". Only Sony makes PS3s and the PS3 OS on it. Oooohhh...no kidding?
If I choose dumb assed assumptions I can clearly come up with dumb assed conclusions.
The point is that a monopoly covers a product market or a particular region.
Product MARKET. Not PRODUCT.
In any case, the US DOJ defintion for this product category is "Intel-based desktop operating systems". Which is what it used in the Microsoft monopoly case. Which OSX also clearly belongs.
Apple clearly has no control over the price of either Intel-based desktop operating systems OR Intel-based desktop computers. It has zero monopoly power in these markets because it doesn't have enough market share to matter.
This is very different than in the download music market where Apple does seem to be able to influence the price of all digital music downloads.
Well, I know lots of folks here are going to say that Apple can't afford to offer OSX customer service to computers they don't build, or something like that, and that might be true - if they did, they might end up with similar, or worse, customer service and quality issues than Microsoft has.
That said, it would be great if it was possible to have an OSX desktop that sacrificed the pretty plastic form-factor of the existing Apple-built options for a super-cheap mid-tower option as this company was trying to do.
This model was basically the same specs as an iMac and much, much cheaper than even an old macmini. I wonder what it would cost them to build something closer to a Mac Pro?
Stop it! This is the internet! You're making too much sense!
Vast majority of customers do not care about "upgrades."
Vast majority do not want to futz with cables.
Vast majority do not even know what a video card IS.
The "$999 xMac" wouldn't sell as it does not come with a display.
The "$1500 xMac" wouldn't sell as the iMac is cheaper and DOES come with a display.
Put them side-by-side in the Apple Stores and the customer will buy the iMac the vast majority of the time. A big heavy tower, connecting cables, increased footprint, and no display far outweigh the "advantage" of "upgrading the video card" to the customer.
iMac locks you into the display of Apple's choice. As for "futzing with cables," that's exactly what iMacs and Mac minis force you to do. Want more than one hard drive? Add a USB or Firewire cable and a power supply for the external 3.5" enclosure. I've seen an iMac with three external hard drives. It had more cables than a tower would have, and ate up a lot more outlets on the UPS with bulky transformer blocks that suck power at all times. Also, a mini has as many cables as a tower would. That doesn't seem to be hurting its sales, despite AI's past prognostications of doom for the small computer. People want to do more than just upgrade video cards. They don't want to be locked into the CPU Apple installed. Upgrading it on the iMac and mini is not for the faint of heart or the light of wallet since Apple chose laptop CPUs for those systems. Or they may want more disk space, especially now that there's Time Machine. Or they may want more RAM. More than 2GB is effectively impossible on the mini and difficult on the iMac, since its two slots require more expensive 2GB DIMMs. Video isn't the only thing people want to upgrade, and the only option for an upgradeable Mac now is a $2200+ Mac Pro, which is unpalatable for many and unaffordable for others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ros3ntan
OS X cannot run on a PC. you have to get an emulator.
Completely wrong. OS X can run natively on a PC as long as you have the right patches and drivers for the hardware that's not standard on Macs. That's nothing like an emulator. VirtualPC was an emulator. Parallels is not an emulator for Windows. Neither is VMware Fusion. Boot Camp is not an emulator. And the OSx86 project is not an emulator.
OSX is a Open Brand UNIX 03 registered product. There are at least 3 other competing UNIX 03 products on the market. Solaris, HPUX and AIX. The core of the OS is BSD Unix, now certified, running on a Mach kernel. On the server market, I'd say Apple has pretty low share. Of course, in the desktop market it probably is the most successful Unix.
Of course, if you wish to look at OSX as a desktop operating system vs a unix one, then yes, you DO need to consider Windows.
Oh wait, do you want to argue that OSX isn't an operating system? Like the Accord is somehow not a car?
The only way that Apple has a "monopoly" is if OSX had 80% market share in desktop operating systems. It doesn't.
they do have 100% of the Mac compatible systems market
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
The "Mac Market" as you define it is no different from the "Honda Market" or the "PS3 Market". Only Sony makes PS3s and the PS3 OS on it. Oooohhh...no kidding?
I do think that the Mac market is distinct enough and unique enough to consider it market. Cable operators are a monopoly. Can you argue otherwise? No, because they are. Yet, you can buy your TV service elsewhere, i.e. cable. But, for those with eyes to see, satellite, IP TV, etc are distinct enough to be consider separate markets, even though they overlap in offerings and customers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
If I choose dumb assed assumptions I can clearly come up with dumb assed conclusions.
The point is that a monopoly covers a product market or a particular region.
Product MARKET. Not PRODUCT.
In any case, the US DOJ defintion for this product category is "Intel-based desktop operating systems". Which is what it used in the Microsoft monopoly case. Which OSX also clearly belongs.
not at the time of the trial it wasn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
Apple clearly has no control over the price of either Intel-based desktop operating systems OR Intel-based desktop computers. It has zero monopoly power in these markets because it doesn't have enough market share to matter.
They do have 100% control over the price of OSX compatible hardware systems. Something even MS cannot control on Windows compatible hardware systems.
If you cannot see the Mac market as distinct, then you are completely correct. I guess this is the easy line of thought, as Apple is the only company selling OSX compatible systems, then it is easy to compare them to say, Honda, as part of the larger PC market as Honda is part of the larger car market. Let me repeat when I have had to say before: Apple is clearly not a monopoly in the over all desktop computer market. Similarly, Microsoft is not a monopoly in the overall computer OS market (all sub-categories).
I see it as a distinct market. Obviously, when the allowed clones, someone thought it was a distinct product market (not viable, distinct). At that time, if Apple forced pricing directly on the clones, they could have been open to an anti-trust suit. Just because they closed the clones down and no longer have competitors in their market, doesn't mean the product market disappeared. If one can conceive of the idea that the Mac market is a distinct product market within the desktop/laptop market, then Apple does hold a monopoly position.
When MS wouldn't allow Netscape browser to properly install on MS Windows computers, they were denying Netscape access to 100% of the Windows PC market. But this wasn't why MS got in trouble for abusing their monopoly. They got in trouble because they were denying Netscape access to over 90% of the consumer computer market. In which they are also deemed a monopoly. If MS Windows was only 10% of the computer market, they wouldn't have gotten in trouble because they would not be considered a monopoly in the consumer computer market. Even though they would still be denying Netscape access to 100% of the Windows PC market. In this case, Netscape would still have 90% of the market to sell their product in.
Apple Macs makes up about 10% (depending on how to caluculate market share) of the consumer computer market. But they have 100% of the Mac market. A consumer isn't forced to use a Mac. They have other choices. They can choose to use what the other 90% of the market uses. Be it a Dell, HP, Sony, IBM. etc.. A Windows PC can do everything a Mac/OSX can do. You just have to make the right choice in software. And it's your choice. If you want to run iLife, then you made the choice to also buy a Mac. Otherwise there are plenty of other programs that will do what iLife does, that will run on a cheap Windows PC.
Now if you bought a copy of OSX then you can only install it on a Mac. OSX is was written for a Mac. It states cleary on the EULA that it's only to be installed in a Mac. It doesn't matter that you think it should run on a cheap Dell. It's not your intellectual property. Apple never intended OSX to run on anything except a Mac. Just because you (or someone else) can make it run on a Dell doesn'r mean that Apple should allow it. If you want to buy cheap hardware, then buy a Dell. Apple is not stopping you. "But I can't run OSX on a Dell" you cried. Well, you can cry a river for all Apple care. It was you who first made the choice to buy cheap hardware. Apple did not limit your choices. You did. If you had chosen to spend more on hardware, then you could have bought a Mac and be able to choose between OSX, Vista, XP, Unix, Linix, Etc..
Look at it tis way. If you only want to spend $15,000 on a new car, is it BMWs', Porsches' or Mercedes' fault that they don't have a car for you to choose from. Did they limit your choices because they have a monopoly in their respective market? No. Because you can still choose to buy a Kia, a Toyota, a Nissan, a Ford, etc.. "But I can't go over 130MPH in those" you cried. Well, you can cry them a river for all they care. They shouldn't be forced to sell cheaper cars so that you can own one. Nor should they have to offer their technology so that Kia, Toyota, Nissan, Ford, etc. can market a car that can go over 130MPH for $15,000.
Now if you can buy a Kia body and install a Porsche engine in it for $15,000, should you be allow to do so? Yes. For your own personal use. Even if Porshce doesn't agree to it. But should you be able to market a Kia with a Porsche engine? No. Because a Porsche engine is not designed for a Kia body. Porshce has every right to stop you from marketing such a car with their engine in it. Porsche has every right to prevent you from tarnishing their brand by you marketing such a car. You can argue all you want about how the engine (with a few modifications) can be made to work in a Kia body. Or how Porsche is abusing their monopoly in the Porsche engine market by making you buy an expensive Porsche. The courts will be on Porsche side. Even in the EU. And the courts will be on Apple side with this issue.
Completely wrong. OS X can run natively on a PC as long as you have the right patches and drivers for the hardware that's not standard on Macs. That's nothing like an emulator. VirtualPC was an emulator. Parallels is not an emulator for Windows. Neither is VMware Fusion. Boot Camp is not an emulator. And the OSx86 project is not an emulator.
You need to trick OSX into thinking that it is loading into a Mac. A Mac has a piece of firmware that let OSX know it's a Mac. Even if you have a PC configured exactly like a Mac, OSX will not load. I think the "emulator" that "ros3ntan" is referring to is a software hack that must be loaded into the PC before OSX will load. It tricks OSX into thinking that the PC is a Mac. It's "emulating" a Mac on a PC. After OSX loads, it runs as though it's natively on a Mac. Not in "emulation" mode. The hack is an infringement of the Apple firmware found in a Mac.
No matter who you are, monopoly is illegal, there is nothing called legal monopoly.
There can be and are legal monopolies. I don't know where you get this idea that all monopolies are illegal. There are certain activities that are illegal for a monopoly to do though.
Agreed. The question is whether Apple using this software EULA to stifle competitors on their hardware is legal. They are a monopoly on Mac compatible hardware and on the OS. Are they using their monopoly position on the OS to unfairly prevent competition to their hardware? I am not in anyway saying that they are. Just trying to explain why a company that is prevented from selling hardware that is OSX compatible might have a case to argue.
The answer is no. And here's why. 90% of the hardware that makes up a Mac is no different than that found on a PC by Dell, HP, Sony, etc.. They (including Apple) are all competing in the computer hardware space. OSX is Apples' competitive edge. OSX is what Apple uses to lure customers into buying a Mac. Just like how MS uses "Halo" to lure customers into buying an Xbox. "Halo" is one of MS competitive edge against Sony and Wii. You would not even think of forcing MS to port "Halo" to work on a PalyStation. "Halo" is not prohibiting competition. If Sony wants to compete, let them write a better game than "Halo". MS is not stopping them. No way should MS give up "Halo" to help the competition compete against them. The same with OSX. You can't take away Apples' competitive edge because the competition can't compete. Apple is not in the business of developing software to help Dell sell more cheap computers.
Here you are crying about how Apple is hurting the consumers by prohibiting competition. But you're willing to accept that Apple should be forced to give away their rights to develope advantages that helps them compete in their market. And they are competing in the computer hardware market. Not the Mac market. Apple already owns 100% of the Mac market. They don't need to compete there. Just like how MS is not competing in the Xbox market. They compete in the game console market. But all of Apples market share only amounts to about 10% (depending on who's doing the counting) of the US computer hardware market and less the 4% of the world market. A far cry from a monopoly. No matter who's definition you choose to use.
The technology that Apple developes may give them an unfair advanage over Dell, HP, Sony, IBM, etc.. So you cry unfair use of their monopolistic power in the Mac market. I say that if Dell, Sony, HP and the likes wants to compete in the Mac market, let them write their own OS. Instead of depending on MS. Let them start their own platform and convince developers to write programs for them. Let them try to develope their own advantage that will get Mac users to buy a Dell. Apple is not stopping them. And Apple should not have to provide them with any technological help.
Apple could choose to sell their Mac hardware with MS Windows. But this don't give them any advantage over Dell, Hp, Sony, etc.. That's the way competition works. You come up with an advantage and this forces your competitors into developing something better than your advantage. The consumers win. Do you think that MS would have developed XP and Vista if it weren't for Apple developing OSX? Do you think that other cell phones makers would be working so hard on improving their touch screen phones if it weren't for the competition they're getting from the iPhone?: Don't you think that right now, Sony is working on a game better than "Halo"? The consumers win when companies are forced to come up with their own ways of competing. Not when advantages are taken away form one company and given to another to help level what is a temporary unevenness in the playing field.
You need to trick OSX into thinking that it is loading into a Mac. A Mac has a piece of firmware that let OSX know it's a Mac. Even if you have a PC configured exactly like a Mac, OSX will not load. I think the "emulator" that "ros3ntan" is referring to is a software hack that must be loaded into the PC before OSX will load. It tricks OSX into thinking that the PC is a Mac. It's "emulating" a Mac on a PC. After OSX loads, it runs as though it's natively on a Mac. Not in "emulation" mode. The hack is an infringement of the Apple firmware found in a Mac.
Now you're just guessing. And you're guessing wrong.
Read the section under EFI. Apple wrote their own firmware using Intels EFI architecture. The EFI is equivilent to what was once called the BIOS. The Apple EFI is what the hack "emulates" in order for OSX to load. The "illegal" "Hackintosh" version of OSX has the EFI emulator as part of the boot sequence. If you want to load from an original version of OSX then you have to hack the EFI on your PC on your own before OSX will load. There are sites that tells you how to rewrite it so your PC appears to be a Mac to OSX. The EFI firmware belongs to Apple. It's meant to be used only on their Macs'.
Read the section under EFI. Apple wrote their own firmware using Intels EFI architecture. The EFI is equivilent to what was once called the BIOS. The Apple EFI is what the hack "emulates" in order for OSX to load. The "illegal" "Hackintosh" version of OSX has the EFI emulator as part of the boot sequence. If you want to load from an original version of OSX then you have to hack the EFI on your PC on your own before OSX will load. There are sites that tells you how to rewrite it so your PC appears to be a Mac to OSX. The EFI firmware belongs to Apple. It's meant to be used only on their Macs'.
I know what EFI does. I don't know which specific piece of software infringes and on what. Emulation isn't infringement.
The answer is no. And here's why. 90% of the hardware that makes up a Mac is no different than that found on a PC by Dell, HP, Sony, etc.. They (including Apple) are all competing in the computer hardware space. OSX is Apples' competitive edge. OSX is what Apple uses to lure customers into buying a Mac. Just like how MS uses "Halo" to lure customers into buying an Xbox. "Halo" is one of MS competitive edge against Sony and Wii. You would not even think of forcing MS to port "Halo" to work on a PalyStation. "Halo" is not prohibiting competition. If Sony wants to compete, let them write a better game than "Halo". MS is not stopping them. No way should MS give up "Halo" to help the competition compete against them. The same with OSX. You can't take away Apples' competitive edge because the competition can't compete. Apple is not in the business of developing software to help Dell sell more cheap computers.
Is there a Windows PC market? Forget Apple in there for a moment, because until a couple years ago, they were not using Intel. Again, is there a Windows PC market, as a sub market within the overall desktop/laptop market? Of course there is. Using the simplistic definition used by others here, there are numerous competitors selling Windows PCs.
So, how many competitors make a market? Answer? The number is irrelevant. If you want cable services, be it TV or internet, you have to go through your one local cable company. There doesn't mean there isn't a cable market. Sure, you could go to other vendors for TV service or internet, but for cable, there is only one. So, just because Apple is the only vendor for Mac compatible hardware systems, does not mean there is no market. Just as there is a Windows PC market within the larger market, there is a Mac market within the larger market. It just happens that they have been able to prevent competitors from succeeding in this market.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW
Here you are crying about how Apple is hurting the consumers by prohibiting competition. But you're willing to accept that Apple should be forced to give away their rights to develope advantages that helps them compete in their market. And they are competing in the computer hardware market. Not the Mac market. Apple already owns 100% of the Mac market. They don't need to compete there. Just like how MS is not competing in the Xbox market. They compete in the game console market. But all of Apples market share only amounts to about 10% (depending on who's doing the counting) of the US computer hardware market and less the 4% of the world market. A far cry from a monopoly. No matter who's definition you choose to use.
I am crying about what? I really don't care that Apple doesn't allow others to compete. I buy Macs from Apple because I like the hardware and software. A number of people I know bought PowerComputing systems back in the day because they were cheaper and faster, but that doesn't affect my feelings.
As for your logic: "Apple already owns 100% of the Mac market"...and you don't see that as a monopoly, within the Mac market? There was a time they did not own 100% of the Mac market, so you can hardly say it is not a distinct market...there were competitors within the Mac market.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW
The technology that Apple developes may give them an unfair advanage over Dell, HP, Sony, IBM, etc.. So you cry unfair use of their monopolistic power in the Mac market. I say that if Dell, Sony, HP and the likes wants to compete in the Mac market, let them write their own OS. Instead of depending on MS. Let them start their own platform and convince developers to write programs for them. Let them try to develope their own advantage that will get Mac users to buy a Dell. Apple is not stopping them. And Apple should not have to provide them with any technological help.
How can they compete in the Mac market by writing their own OS? That makes zero sense. Certainly they can compete against Apple with their own OS, within the overall PC market, but they can continue to use Windows for that. If they want to compete within the smaller mac market, they need to sell Mac compatible hardware. (Well, technically, they already do, they just aren't allowed to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW
Apple could choose to sell their Mac hardware with MS Windows. But this don't give them any advantage over Dell, Hp, Sony, etc.. That's the way competition works. You come up with an advantage and this forces your competitors into developing something better than your advantage. The consumers win. Do you think that MS would have developed XP and Vista if it weren't for Apple developing OSX? Do you think that other cell phones makers would be working so hard on improving their touch screen phones if it weren't for the competition they're getting from the iPhone?: Don't you think that right now, Sony is working on a game better than "Halo"? The consumers win when companies are forced to come up with their own ways of competing. Not when advantages are taken away form one company and given to another to help level what is a temporary unevenness in the playing field.
There arguments are valid, within the larger, overall PC, market. Within the Mac market, Apple is the only player, and that is their competitive advantage. At one point in the past there were other players. Did that make it a distinct market? Other here foolishly say it isn't a market now because they are the only company in the market, but when there were clones, was it a market? If so, then did getting rid of the clones magically make it no longer a market? So, if a company can eliminate there competitors, that means there is no longer a market? faulty.
So now the "normal" user browses to Psystar's website, sees that they're selling OS X and thinks something like "mhhh ... Apple allows others to sell this system? Great, I'll order a cheap "Mac" instead of the expensive ones from Apple. Now he has his PC / Mac and installs an update (I know that they're saying don't do this, but who'd care?) ... and "his Mac" is not working anymore (and he lost all his documents, music, mails et cetera) - because of Apple, not Psystar. Do you think he will ever buy an Apple product again?
I wanted a Mac (OS X) since ages, tried OSX86 on 3 computers - no success. Running it inside a virtual machine worked, but was _very_ slow, so I thought it's crap. Then I got my Macbook and changed my opinion within seconds
Btw: Macbooks have two-finger-scrolling / -clicking, iSight, this magnetic power plug ... Psystar NOT!
edit: Even if they're right, Apple can sell OS X Media Center (Mac mini) for 500$, OS X Mobile (Macbook) for 1,500$ and OS X Ultimate for 2,000$ and OS X Update (only for Ultimate) for 120$ ... all Apple systems come with an (OEM) Ultimate Licence.
Comments
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.
Cable companies are service providers. You have an alternative to get TV channels, so they are actually not monopoly. Remember AT&T? was broken down to break the monopoly. No matter who you are, monopoly is illegal, there is nothing called legal monopoly.
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?
You still need Mac OS 10.5 to run Windows on a MAC. So your math is off. It is still a Mac. The clones were never Mac, they were clones.
Cable companies are service providers. You have an alternative to get TV channels, so they are actually not monopoly. Remember AT&T? was broken down to break the monopoly. No matter who you are, monopoly is illegal, there is nothing called legal monopoly.
yeah, there is.
You still need Mac OS 10.5 to run Windows on a MAC. So your math is off. It is still a Mac.The clones were never Mac, they were clones.
The clones were still mac compatible. They were competition within the Mac market.
Also, there are people that have Windows running on their Macs without OSX. I can't imagine why they would do that, but it is technically possible.
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?
You are aware that MS decided to keep Windows Vista Home from running in bootcamp (via EULA) until January this year? And Windows IS a monopoly OS unlike OSX.
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)
OSX is a Open Brand UNIX 03 registered product. There are at least 3 other competing UNIX 03 products on the market. Solaris, HPUX and AIX. The core of the OS is BSD Unix, now certified, running on a Mach kernel. On the server market, I'd say Apple has pretty low share. Of course, in the desktop market it probably is the most successful Unix.
Of course, if you wish to look at OSX as a desktop operating system vs a unix one, then yes, you DO need to consider Windows.
Oh wait, do you want to argue that OSX isn't an operating system? Like the Accord is somehow not a car?
The only way that Apple has a "monopoly" is if OSX had 80% market share in desktop operating systems. It doesn't.
The "Mac Market" as you define it is no different from the "Honda Market" or the "PS3 Market". Only Sony makes PS3s and the PS3 OS on it. Oooohhh...no kidding?
If I choose dumb assed assumptions I can clearly come up with dumb assed conclusions.
point?
The point is that a monopoly covers a product market or a particular region.
Product MARKET. Not PRODUCT.
In any case, the US DOJ defintion for this product category is "Intel-based desktop operating systems". Which is what it used in the Microsoft monopoly case. Which OSX also clearly belongs.
Apple clearly has no control over the price of either Intel-based desktop operating systems OR Intel-based desktop computers. It has zero monopoly power in these markets because it doesn't have enough market share to matter.
This is very different than in the download music market where Apple does seem to be able to influence the price of all digital music downloads.
Well, I know lots of folks here are going to say that Apple can't afford to offer OSX customer service to computers they don't build, or something like that, and that might be true - if they did, they might end up with similar, or worse, customer service and quality issues than Microsoft has.
That said, it would be great if it was possible to have an OSX desktop that sacrificed the pretty plastic form-factor of the existing Apple-built options for a super-cheap mid-tower option as this company was trying to do.
This model was basically the same specs as an iMac and much, much cheaper than even an old macmini. I wonder what it would cost them to build something closer to a Mac Pro?
Stop it! This is the internet! You're making too much sense!
QFT.
iMac is cheaper and comes with a display.
Vast majority of customers do not care about "upgrades."
Vast majority do not want to futz with cables.
Vast majority do not even know what a video card IS.
The "$999 xMac" wouldn't sell as it does not come with a display.
The "$1500 xMac" wouldn't sell as the iMac is cheaper and DOES come with a display.
Put them side-by-side in the Apple Stores and the customer will buy the iMac the vast majority of the time. A big heavy tower, connecting cables, increased footprint, and no display far outweigh the "advantage" of "upgrading the video card" to the customer.
iMac locks you into the display of Apple's choice. As for "futzing with cables," that's exactly what iMacs and Mac minis force you to do. Want more than one hard drive? Add a USB or Firewire cable and a power supply for the external 3.5" enclosure. I've seen an iMac with three external hard drives. It had more cables than a tower would have, and ate up a lot more outlets on the UPS with bulky transformer blocks that suck power at all times. Also, a mini has as many cables as a tower would. That doesn't seem to be hurting its sales, despite AI's past prognostications of doom for the small computer. People want to do more than just upgrade video cards. They don't want to be locked into the CPU Apple installed. Upgrading it on the iMac and mini is not for the faint of heart or the light of wallet since Apple chose laptop CPUs for those systems. Or they may want more disk space, especially now that there's Time Machine. Or they may want more RAM. More than 2GB is effectively impossible on the mini and difficult on the iMac, since its two slots require more expensive 2GB DIMMs. Video isn't the only thing people want to upgrade, and the only option for an upgradeable Mac now is a $2200+ Mac Pro, which is unpalatable for many and unaffordable for others.
OS X cannot run on a PC. you have to get an emulator.
Completely wrong. OS X can run natively on a PC as long as you have the right patches and drivers for the hardware that's not standard on Macs. That's nothing like an emulator. VirtualPC was an emulator. Parallels is not an emulator for Windows. Neither is VMware Fusion. Boot Camp is not an emulator. And the OSx86 project is not an emulator.
OSX is a Open Brand UNIX 03 registered product. There are at least 3 other competing UNIX 03 products on the market. Solaris, HPUX and AIX. The core of the OS is BSD Unix, now certified, running on a Mach kernel. On the server market, I'd say Apple has pretty low share. Of course, in the desktop market it probably is the most successful Unix.
Of course, if you wish to look at OSX as a desktop operating system vs a unix one, then yes, you DO need to consider Windows.
Oh wait, do you want to argue that OSX isn't an operating system? Like the Accord is somehow not a car?
The only way that Apple has a "monopoly" is if OSX had 80% market share in desktop operating systems. It doesn't.
they do have 100% of the Mac compatible systems market
The "Mac Market" as you define it is no different from the "Honda Market" or the "PS3 Market". Only Sony makes PS3s and the PS3 OS on it. Oooohhh...no kidding?
I do think that the Mac market is distinct enough and unique enough to consider it market. Cable operators are a monopoly. Can you argue otherwise? No, because they are. Yet, you can buy your TV service elsewhere, i.e. cable. But, for those with eyes to see, satellite, IP TV, etc are distinct enough to be consider separate markets, even though they overlap in offerings and customers.
If I choose dumb assed assumptions I can clearly come up with dumb assed conclusions.
Obiously.
The point is that a monopoly covers a product market or a particular region.
Product MARKET. Not PRODUCT.
In any case, the US DOJ defintion for this product category is "Intel-based desktop operating systems". Which is what it used in the Microsoft monopoly case. Which OSX also clearly belongs.
not at the time of the trial it wasn't.
Apple clearly has no control over the price of either Intel-based desktop operating systems OR Intel-based desktop computers. It has zero monopoly power in these markets because it doesn't have enough market share to matter.
They do have 100% control over the price of OSX compatible hardware systems. Something even MS cannot control on Windows compatible hardware systems.
If you cannot see the Mac market as distinct, then you are completely correct. I guess this is the easy line of thought, as Apple is the only company selling OSX compatible systems, then it is easy to compare them to say, Honda, as part of the larger PC market as Honda is part of the larger car market. Let me repeat when I have had to say before: Apple is clearly not a monopoly in the over all desktop computer market. Similarly, Microsoft is not a monopoly in the overall computer OS market (all sub-categories).
I see it as a distinct market. Obviously, when the allowed clones, someone thought it was a distinct product market (not viable, distinct). At that time, if Apple forced pricing directly on the clones, they could have been open to an anti-trust suit. Just because they closed the clones down and no longer have competitors in their market, doesn't mean the product market disappeared. If one can conceive of the idea that the Mac market is a distinct product market within the desktop/laptop market, then Apple does hold a monopoly position.
Apple Macs makes up about 10% (depending on how to caluculate market share) of the consumer computer market. But they have 100% of the Mac market. A consumer isn't forced to use a Mac. They have other choices. They can choose to use what the other 90% of the market uses. Be it a Dell, HP, Sony, IBM. etc.. A Windows PC can do everything a Mac/OSX can do. You just have to make the right choice in software. And it's your choice. If you want to run iLife, then you made the choice to also buy a Mac. Otherwise there are plenty of other programs that will do what iLife does, that will run on a cheap Windows PC.
Now if you bought a copy of OSX then you can only install it on a Mac. OSX is was written for a Mac. It states cleary on the EULA that it's only to be installed in a Mac. It doesn't matter that you think it should run on a cheap Dell. It's not your intellectual property. Apple never intended OSX to run on anything except a Mac. Just because you (or someone else) can make it run on a Dell doesn'r mean that Apple should allow it. If you want to buy cheap hardware, then buy a Dell. Apple is not stopping you. "But I can't run OSX on a Dell" you cried. Well, you can cry a river for all Apple care. It was you who first made the choice to buy cheap hardware. Apple did not limit your choices. You did. If you had chosen to spend more on hardware, then you could have bought a Mac and be able to choose between OSX, Vista, XP, Unix, Linix, Etc..
Look at it tis way. If you only want to spend $15,000 on a new car, is it BMWs', Porsches' or Mercedes' fault that they don't have a car for you to choose from. Did they limit your choices because they have a monopoly in their respective market? No. Because you can still choose to buy a Kia, a Toyota, a Nissan, a Ford, etc.. "But I can't go over 130MPH in those" you cried. Well, you can cry them a river for all they care. They shouldn't be forced to sell cheaper cars so that you can own one. Nor should they have to offer their technology so that Kia, Toyota, Nissan, Ford, etc. can market a car that can go over 130MPH for $15,000.
Now if you can buy a Kia body and install a Porsche engine in it for $15,000, should you be allow to do so? Yes. For your own personal use. Even if Porshce doesn't agree to it. But should you be able to market a Kia with a Porsche engine? No. Because a Porsche engine is not designed for a Kia body. Porshce has every right to stop you from marketing such a car with their engine in it. Porsche has every right to prevent you from tarnishing their brand by you marketing such a car. You can argue all you want about how the engine (with a few modifications) can be made to work in a Kia body. Or how Porsche is abusing their monopoly in the Porsche engine market by making you buy an expensive Porsche. The courts will be on Porsche side. Even in the EU. And the courts will be on Apple side with this issue.
Completely wrong. OS X can run natively on a PC as long as you have the right patches and drivers for the hardware that's not standard on Macs. That's nothing like an emulator. VirtualPC was an emulator. Parallels is not an emulator for Windows. Neither is VMware Fusion. Boot Camp is not an emulator. And the OSx86 project is not an emulator.
You need to trick OSX into thinking that it is loading into a Mac. A Mac has a piece of firmware that let OSX know it's a Mac. Even if you have a PC configured exactly like a Mac, OSX will not load. I think the "emulator" that "ros3ntan" is referring to is a software hack that must be loaded into the PC before OSX will load. It tricks OSX into thinking that the PC is a Mac. It's "emulating" a Mac on a PC. After OSX loads, it runs as though it's natively on a Mac. Not in "emulation" mode. The hack is an infringement of the Apple firmware found in a Mac.
No matter who you are, monopoly is illegal, there is nothing called legal monopoly.
There can be and are legal monopolies. I don't know where you get this idea that all monopolies are illegal. There are certain activities that are illegal for a monopoly to do though.
The hack is an infringement of the Apple firmware found in a Mac.
What kind of infringement exactly? Do you have a link to technical details?
So there are in a way cheating the public consumer!
Agreed. The question is whether Apple using this software EULA to stifle competitors on their hardware is legal. They are a monopoly on Mac compatible hardware and on the OS. Are they using their monopoly position on the OS to unfairly prevent competition to their hardware? I am not in anyway saying that they are. Just trying to explain why a company that is prevented from selling hardware that is OSX compatible might have a case to argue.
The answer is no. And here's why. 90% of the hardware that makes up a Mac is no different than that found on a PC by Dell, HP, Sony, etc.. They (including Apple) are all competing in the computer hardware space. OSX is Apples' competitive edge. OSX is what Apple uses to lure customers into buying a Mac. Just like how MS uses "Halo" to lure customers into buying an Xbox. "Halo" is one of MS competitive edge against Sony and Wii. You would not even think of forcing MS to port "Halo" to work on a PalyStation. "Halo" is not prohibiting competition. If Sony wants to compete, let them write a better game than "Halo". MS is not stopping them. No way should MS give up "Halo" to help the competition compete against them. The same with OSX. You can't take away Apples' competitive edge because the competition can't compete. Apple is not in the business of developing software to help Dell sell more cheap computers.
Here you are crying about how Apple is hurting the consumers by prohibiting competition. But you're willing to accept that Apple should be forced to give away their rights to develope advantages that helps them compete in their market. And they are competing in the computer hardware market. Not the Mac market. Apple already owns 100% of the Mac market. They don't need to compete there. Just like how MS is not competing in the Xbox market. They compete in the game console market. But all of Apples market share only amounts to about 10% (depending on who's doing the counting) of the US computer hardware market and less the 4% of the world market. A far cry from a monopoly. No matter who's definition you choose to use.
The technology that Apple developes may give them an unfair advanage over Dell, HP, Sony, IBM, etc.. So you cry unfair use of their monopolistic power in the Mac market. I say that if Dell, Sony, HP and the likes wants to compete in the Mac market, let them write their own OS. Instead of depending on MS. Let them start their own platform and convince developers to write programs for them. Let them try to develope their own advantage that will get Mac users to buy a Dell. Apple is not stopping them. And Apple should not have to provide them with any technological help.
Apple could choose to sell their Mac hardware with MS Windows. But this don't give them any advantage over Dell, Hp, Sony, etc.. That's the way competition works. You come up with an advantage and this forces your competitors into developing something better than your advantage. The consumers win. Do you think that MS would have developed XP and Vista if it weren't for Apple developing OSX? Do you think that other cell phones makers would be working so hard on improving their touch screen phones if it weren't for the competition they're getting from the iPhone?: Don't you think that right now, Sony is working on a game better than "Halo"? The consumers win when companies are forced to come up with their own ways of competing. Not when advantages are taken away form one company and given to another to help level what is a temporary unevenness in the playing field.
You need to trick OSX into thinking that it is loading into a Mac. A Mac has a piece of firmware that let OSX know it's a Mac. Even if you have a PC configured exactly like a Mac, OSX will not load. I think the "emulator" that "ros3ntan" is referring to is a software hack that must be loaded into the PC before OSX will load. It tricks OSX into thinking that the PC is a Mac. It's "emulating" a Mac on a PC. After OSX loads, it runs as though it's natively on a Mac. Not in "emulation" mode. The hack is an infringement of the Apple firmware found in a Mac.
Now you're just guessing. And you're guessing wrong.
What kind of infringement exactly? Do you have a link to technical details?
http://wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/index.php/EFI
Read the section under EFI. Apple wrote their own firmware using Intels EFI architecture. The EFI is equivilent to what was once called the BIOS. The Apple EFI is what the hack "emulates" in order for OSX to load. The "illegal" "Hackintosh" version of OSX has the EFI emulator as part of the boot sequence. If you want to load from an original version of OSX then you have to hack the EFI on your PC on your own before OSX will load. There are sites that tells you how to rewrite it so your PC appears to be a Mac to OSX. The EFI firmware belongs to Apple. It's meant to be used only on their Macs'.
http://wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/index.php/EFI
Read the section under EFI. Apple wrote their own firmware using Intels EFI architecture. The EFI is equivilent to what was once called the BIOS. The Apple EFI is what the hack "emulates" in order for OSX to load. The "illegal" "Hackintosh" version of OSX has the EFI emulator as part of the boot sequence. If you want to load from an original version of OSX then you have to hack the EFI on your PC on your own before OSX will load. There are sites that tells you how to rewrite it so your PC appears to be a Mac to OSX. The EFI firmware belongs to Apple. It's meant to be used only on their Macs'.
I know what EFI does. I don't know which specific piece of software infringes and on what. Emulation isn't infringement.
The answer is no. And here's why. 90% of the hardware that makes up a Mac is no different than that found on a PC by Dell, HP, Sony, etc.. They (including Apple) are all competing in the computer hardware space. OSX is Apples' competitive edge. OSX is what Apple uses to lure customers into buying a Mac. Just like how MS uses "Halo" to lure customers into buying an Xbox. "Halo" is one of MS competitive edge against Sony and Wii. You would not even think of forcing MS to port "Halo" to work on a PalyStation. "Halo" is not prohibiting competition. If Sony wants to compete, let them write a better game than "Halo". MS is not stopping them. No way should MS give up "Halo" to help the competition compete against them. The same with OSX. You can't take away Apples' competitive edge because the competition can't compete. Apple is not in the business of developing software to help Dell sell more cheap computers.
Is there a Windows PC market? Forget Apple in there for a moment, because until a couple years ago, they were not using Intel. Again, is there a Windows PC market, as a sub market within the overall desktop/laptop market? Of course there is. Using the simplistic definition used by others here, there are numerous competitors selling Windows PCs.
So, how many competitors make a market? Answer? The number is irrelevant. If you want cable services, be it TV or internet, you have to go through your one local cable company. There doesn't mean there isn't a cable market. Sure, you could go to other vendors for TV service or internet, but for cable, there is only one. So, just because Apple is the only vendor for Mac compatible hardware systems, does not mean there is no market. Just as there is a Windows PC market within the larger market, there is a Mac market within the larger market. It just happens that they have been able to prevent competitors from succeeding in this market.
Here you are crying about how Apple is hurting the consumers by prohibiting competition. But you're willing to accept that Apple should be forced to give away their rights to develope advantages that helps them compete in their market. And they are competing in the computer hardware market. Not the Mac market. Apple already owns 100% of the Mac market. They don't need to compete there. Just like how MS is not competing in the Xbox market. They compete in the game console market. But all of Apples market share only amounts to about 10% (depending on who's doing the counting) of the US computer hardware market and less the 4% of the world market. A far cry from a monopoly. No matter who's definition you choose to use.
I am crying about what? I really don't care that Apple doesn't allow others to compete. I buy Macs from Apple because I like the hardware and software. A number of people I know bought PowerComputing systems back in the day because they were cheaper and faster, but that doesn't affect my feelings.
As for your logic: "Apple already owns 100% of the Mac market"...and you don't see that as a monopoly, within the Mac market? There was a time they did not own 100% of the Mac market, so you can hardly say it is not a distinct market...there were competitors within the Mac market.
The technology that Apple developes may give them an unfair advanage over Dell, HP, Sony, IBM, etc.. So you cry unfair use of their monopolistic power in the Mac market. I say that if Dell, Sony, HP and the likes wants to compete in the Mac market, let them write their own OS. Instead of depending on MS. Let them start their own platform and convince developers to write programs for them. Let them try to develope their own advantage that will get Mac users to buy a Dell. Apple is not stopping them. And Apple should not have to provide them with any technological help.
How can they compete in the Mac market by writing their own OS? That makes zero sense. Certainly they can compete against Apple with their own OS, within the overall PC market, but they can continue to use Windows for that. If they want to compete within the smaller mac market, they need to sell Mac compatible hardware. (Well, technically, they already do, they just aren't allowed to.
Apple could choose to sell their Mac hardware with MS Windows. But this don't give them any advantage over Dell, Hp, Sony, etc.. That's the way competition works. You come up with an advantage and this forces your competitors into developing something better than your advantage. The consumers win. Do you think that MS would have developed XP and Vista if it weren't for Apple developing OSX? Do you think that other cell phones makers would be working so hard on improving their touch screen phones if it weren't for the competition they're getting from the iPhone?: Don't you think that right now, Sony is working on a game better than "Halo"? The consumers win when companies are forced to come up with their own ways of competing. Not when advantages are taken away form one company and given to another to help level what is a temporary unevenness in the playing field.
There arguments are valid, within the larger, overall PC, market. Within the Mac market, Apple is the only player, and that is their competitive advantage. At one point in the past there were other players. Did that make it a distinct market? Other here foolishly say it isn't a market now because they are the only company in the market, but when there were clones, was it a market? If so, then did getting rid of the clones magically make it no longer a market? So, if a company can eliminate there competitors, that means there is no longer a market? faulty.
I wanted a Mac (OS X) since ages, tried OSX86 on 3 computers - no success. Running it inside a virtual machine worked, but was _very_ slow, so I thought it's crap. Then I got my Macbook and changed my opinion within seconds
Btw: Macbooks have two-finger-scrolling / -clicking, iSight, this magnetic power plug ... Psystar NOT!
edit: Even if they're right, Apple can sell OS X Media Center (Mac mini) for 500$, OS X Mobile (Macbook) for 1,500$ and OS X Ultimate for 2,000$ and OS X Update (only for Ultimate) for 120$ ... all Apple systems come with an (OEM) Ultimate Licence.