Look! Olternaut wants a tablet and Apple won't make them.
Kinda supports my case.
C.
Your case? Have you presented "your case" to Apple, and were you injured when they tossed you out the door?
The amount of people here that think they know how to run Apple, better than it's being run, is amazing. How many have put their money where their mouth is and actually started a company to compete with Apple, using their "case" to corner Apple's market share? Why absolutely none!
We have saying about such people, "All hat, and no cattle!".
Mmm, Dell already sells PCs with Ubuntu pre-installed.
And they cost more than the same and better-spec'd Windows model equivalents. But what Dell does offer, is that the laptop/desktop will work OOB with Ubuntu, as also provides support.
Yet, Dell is a bigger player than say, System76, and still doesn't sell that many Linux PCs...Linux is OK on the desktop, but you'd still have to fairly tech-savy, and willing to deal with vendor issues or devices simply not working, because companies don't work with the open-source community. I don't see most Mac or Windows users being tech-savy or willing to deal devices not working OOB.
Simply put, Linux isn't a competitor to Microsoft or Apple in the desktop arena ATM - it's good, but not something that can just be tossed on a machine, and everything get picked up.
.
I've been fooling around with Ubuntu and with Dell offering it pre-installed and with media codecs pre-installed, I'm beginning to think that Linux is about to gain some ground in market share.
Eliminating installation of media codecs and most common HW drivers for Linux will go a long way towards making Linux more appealing to mainstream users. Yes, users will need drivers for printers and other peripherals, but often they have to do this with Vista too. But Ubuntu has a nice UI and is teh snappy on just about any hardware. On low end HW its really the best OS available IMO.
If OSX ran on any hardware the cannibalization argument wont be theoretical. Apple hardware would sell about as well as all the other Workstations, AIOs and SFF computers: poorly.
The cost/performance delta is huge and you can pretty much just write off Apple's entire desktop line and they'd sell as much hardware as Sony.
Notice the lack of Sony in the Top 5 lists?
I don't agree with it, but that's a valid argument.
You are saying that if Sony offered OS X, Apple customers would migrate to (better/cheaper) Sony hardware.
I don't agree. because...
1) I think Apple hardware is superior to Sony design-wise and is competitive price/performance-wise.
2) If it isn't, it really ought to be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
Large numbers of those computers will continue to run XP/Vista because the software they need are Windows only. Everything from business apps to games.
This is also true. Some people actually *like* Windows. And quite a few folks need to run apps which are only in Win32 versions. So Apple cannot capture that 92% overnight.
But a lot of people seem very eager to move away from Windows too. There is a groundswell of Windows anger out there. A sizable minority of the 92% are unhappy with Windows and would happily switch to Leopard.
The justaposition of Apples best OS, at the same moment as Windows most bungled OS introduction creates a historic opportunity. Persuade just 10% of Windows users to switch, and the OS X market share would double rapidly.
Doubling the OS X market share would be very significant for Apple. The visibility of the brand would increase, the acceptance of it standards would increase. And you might get some momentum. It might also drive forward hardware sales. In a halo effect.
Currently potential switchers are road-blocked because the only way to get Mac OS, is by buying a high-end boutique system. Which according to you, is poor value.
Resorting to that kind of talk negates any persuasiveness that you had going.
Olternaut had unwittingly missed the point I was making. He quoted from my post which said that Apple do not make many different lines. There were folks, including on this forum who pine for exotic hardware which Apple will never ever make. Including (euggh) tablets.
So by saying "Hey, I want a tablet, I'm no idiot" he was actually supporting my argument.
(That Apple's software growth is potentially much greater than its hardware growth)
Oh, Carniphage, the British invented so many things of which others reaped the benefits! The jet engine, the fully electronic programmable computer.... Most of the cars on the road owe their existence to the original Mini, but they waited till the patents on the constant-velocity U-joints that made front-wheel-drive really practical were just running out to start copying it. Hell, even the atomic bomb: the Manhattan Project would never have gotten started if Tube Alloys wasn't already there and the Frisch-Peierls report hadn't concluded that, against all previous speculation, an atomic bomb might be achievable, and in a reasonable time-frame.... As an Anglophile, it just makes me sad!
That said, I disagree pretty strongly with your argument here, but weirder things have happened in the business world, and you only have to look at the history of Apple to see that! However, even if licensing OS X was a good idea (mind you, I think it's a very bad idea,) what was the first thing Steve Jobs did when he regained control of the company? That's right: he put an end to the previous clone experiment. You can argue that times have changed, and circumstances have changed, but unless Steve Jobs has changed as well, I don't think it's a psychological possibility. You may say that's a bad thing, I say it's a good thing, but the fact is, it's not going to happen as long as he's at the helm. And personally, I want him to stay at the helm for as long as possible, because he must be doing something right.
Large numbers of those computers will continue to run XP/Vista because the software they need are Windows only. Everything from business apps to games.
The number of folks willing to dual boot is tiny. So, the infrastructure to capture that 92% share isn't present and a good chunk of it (MS Office) will get pulled as soon as MS can.
Your massive potential is illusory.
Why is that do you think? If your company developed an business class software app which OS would you write it for? the 99% of business machines that run windows or the 1% that run OSX? It is not even worth writing for both.
Now, what would you do if suddenly the bar to business running OSX had been lifted and a good proportion (20-30% ?) of your customer base were telling you they wanted to switch to OSX. You would immediately get to work rewriting code.
Your issue does not exist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wobegon
No, they DON'T. They don't just sell the OS. Microsoft only sells Windows in any major capacity by illegally bundling it with PCs. Windows market share is where it is due to some luck and breaking the law.
The fatal flaw in your reasoning is your assumption that Apple can just do the same thing: bundle their operating system with new PCs. They CAN'T. That is ILLEGAL. The DoJ didn't give a damn back then and now they can't do a thing about Microsoft's OS monopoly. They sure as hell WOULD stop Apple, Linux, or any other company that tried the same thing today..
I am sorry but where on Earth did you get this idea from? How on earth is bundling an operating system with new hardware illegal? I have never heard so much rubbish in my life. Are you saying selling an iMac with OSX is illegal too?
What about a DVD player? or a new Air Conditioning unit? Are they illegal too?
The only reason why Microsoft has a monopoly is because they have been the only company making a brilliant OS capable of delivering what the consumer needs and made available to all PC manufacturers and home PC builders at a low cost.
Illegal? You are mad, if you really want to see the monopoly broken then the only way is for someone else to step up to the plate with an OS that can replace Windows on the PC market.
I am sorry but where on Earth did you get this idea from? How on earth is bundling an operating system with new hardware illegal? I have never heard so much rubbish in my life. Are you saying selling an iMac with OSX is illegal too?
What's illegal is using your monopoly position to force OEMs to buy a Windows license for every computer they sell, whether they want to sell it with some other OS or not, and then telling them they'd damn well better not sell it with any other OS, or you'll stop selling them Windows. Has Apple ever done anything like that?
What's illegal is using your monopoly position to force OEMs to buy a Windows license for every computer they sell, whether they want to sell it with some other OS or not, and then telling them they'd damn well better not sell it with any other OS, or you'll stop selling them Windows. Has Apple ever done anything like that?
Nobody is forcing OEM's to do anything. Microsoft has every right to include whatever terms and conditions in its OEM contracts as it pleases and further has every right to enforce those terms if it pleases. If the OEM does not agree then they do not have to sign and they can sell something else instead.
Illegal? No, Immoral? Probably, yes.
If it were Apple who owned the market like Microsoft does then they more than likely be doing something very similar themeless. Apple are a business too and their one and only primary goal is to make money, just like Microsoft believe it or not.
The only reason why Microsoft are able to get away this this is because they have such a large monopoly. But the reason for that is because they were brilliant at what they did. Nobody minded having windows bundled on PC's because it was perfect for the job. There was and still is no viable option if you are an ordinary home user and want a PC. If you want to be different you could buy a mac but people only buy mac's to look cool* and they don't really build the types of PC that you like. So what is the point?
* Not my opinion of course but the general opinion, these are people who have no idea what OSX is remember, hell many of them think Mac's run windows too!
So either someone offers an alternative or we stop bashing Microsoft for being guilty of only doing their job correctly.
At the end of the day, can anyone make software for managing songs on an iPod? Can i use my iPod to buy music from another store?
Do you complain about this, or think it is also illegal?
Nobody is forcing OEM's to do anything. Microsoft has every right to include whatever terms and conditions in its OEM contracts as it pleases and further has every right to enforce those terms if it pleases. If the OEM does not agree then they do not have to sign and they can sell something else instead.
Yeah, they can sell a computer with some other OS that nobody's ever heard of, that won't run the apps everybody needs to use. Sounds like a viable business model to me!
Quote:
Originally Posted by murphyweb
Illegal? No, Immoral? Probably, yes.
They've been convicted of this crime in open court. That doesn't mean they've stopped committing it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by murphyweb
But the reason for that is because they were brilliant at what they did. Nobody minded having windows bundled on PC's because it was perfect for the job.
Brilliant? They copied Mac OS when that idiot Sculley handed it to them on a silver platter, and you can see the results: Windows! Brilliant? LMAO! Microsoft has never written anything original in its existence! They bought DOS, from a company that had ported CP/M to 16-bit, they copied Apple's GUI, with disastrous results.... Windows is a total train wreck, from the word go. If it weren't for the criminal tactics they've used to achieve their monopoly, nobody would remember their name today!
Yeah, they can sell a computer with some other OS that nobody's ever heard of, that won't run the apps everybody needs to use. Sounds like a viable business model to me!
But how is that Microsoft's fault? They cannot be blamed for the lack of serious competition.
What if I owned an MP3 retail outlet? I would have no choice but to sell iPods would I?
What if I never really wanted to sell iPods because Apple kept the margins so low but felt forced to because that was what everyone wanted to buy. Are Apple stuffing me over? Are Apple abusing their position or is this simply a case of a business doing what it takes to make money?
You cannot have it both ways, you cannot cherry pick between the best of Capitalism and the best of Communism (unless of course you were in China). Business is Business.
Quote:
Brilliant? They copied Mac OS when that idiot Sculley handed it to them on a silver platter, and you can see the results: Windows! Brilliant? LMAO! Microsoft has never written anything original in its existence! They bought DOS, from a company that had ported CP/M to 16-bit, they copied Apple's GUI, with disastrous results.... Windows is a total train wreck, from the word go. If it weren't for the criminal tactics they've used to achieve their monopoly, nobody would remember their name today!
? Of course they were brilliant at what they did, your post only serves to highlight that more!
If the product is as bad as you say they Microsoft were even more brilliant than I thought to get to the position they are in now. As a business they are outstanding.
Microsoft are a great company, they made less bad decisions along the way than Apple did full stop. Put Apple in Microsoft's place and they would be just the same. You would probably on here every day telling everyone how Vista is wonderful and how Apple are a bunch of crooks.
Windows has been wonderful and is totally responsible for the fact that just about everybody in the developed world owns a computer and every business runs on one. Hell Windows is even partly responsible for the number of Mac users out there today.
Microsoft did what Apple failed to do. Apple may well have the best product in OSX (And I think they do) and they may have some of the nicest looking machines on the market but that does not mean that Microsoft are a bunch of crooks with a bad product. If you really believe that then your are seriously deluded.
Do not underestimate the general public, I know it is easy to think people can be forced into buying things they do not want but as a rule this is not true. It is a fact that is that if Windows was not such a great, life changing product then Microsoft would not be where they are today. You cannot become a world leader with a bad product, it simply does not work like that.
You cannot become a world leader with a bad product, it simply does not work like that.
Well, they did just exactly that, so I guess that disproves your point pretty effectively. Windows has succeeded because it has always been made the Path of Least Resistance? (Maybe that should be their new slogan?) Now it's finally encountering some. I don't think it can survive the experience. Your contention that Microsoft has done nothing illegal has been disproved in court again and again. Seriously, switch to a Windows forum! (I'm assuming there are some?)
Well, they did just exactly that, so I guess that disproves your point pretty effectively. Windows has succeeded because it has always been made the Path of Least Resistance? (Maybe that should be their new slogan?) Now it's finally encountering some. I don't think it can survive the experience. Your contention that Microsoft has done nothing illegal has been disproved in court again and again. Seriously, switch to a Windows forum! (I'm assuming there are some?)
Well, they did just exactly that, so I guess that disproves your point pretty effectively. Windows has succeeded because it has always been made the Path of Least Resistance? (Maybe that should be their new slogan?) Now it's finally encountering some. I don't think it can survive the experience. Your contention that Microsoft has done nothing illegal has been disproved in court again and again. Seriously, switch to a Windows forum! (I'm assuming there are some?)
I could switch to a Windows forum you are right but as I am typing this on a Mac Book Pro what would be the point?
You are clearly one of these people who assume that is Apple = Good then MS must = Bad. A very silly view to have and one that has no basis in reality.
You of course have every right to think as you do and you clearly have no intention of trying to understand the truth of the matter. So I will let you carry on in your deluded world.
I have to stop typing now, my hands get sore after a while. Nothing serious, just a throwback to my early teens when Bill Gates came round to my house and repeatedly smashed my hands with a hammer until I reluctantly agreed to buy his crappy product. They brainwashed me too, though of course everyone back then had been put under his evil spell so we all know what that is like.
Well, they did just exactly that, so I guess that disproves your point pretty effectively. Windows has succeeded because it has always been made the Path of Least Resistance™ (Maybe that should be their new slogan?) Now it's finally encountering some. I don't think it can survive the experience. Your contention that Microsoft has done nothing illegal has been disproved in court again and again. Seriously, switch to a Windows forum! (I'm assuming there are some?)
Do me a favour and type this into Google "apple illegal trading"
Not only are the expected hits on stories about the dodgy share trading activity that seems to have dogged Apple for a while but you will also see stories on anti-trust lawsuits filed against Apple for it's itunes store and also a story on the Korean FTC investigating Apple for unfair trade practices. This is just the first page.
Welcome to the real world, this is business, stuff like this goes on all the time. The more successful you are the more mud gets thrown at you, sometimes the mud sticks but that is fine too. As long as you turn a profit that is all that is important.
You do know that Apple is a business don't you?
EDIT: Clarification!
I am not saying that anything goes in business and of course there should be laws and guidelines to protect the free market. But I was just pointing out that just because MS get their wrists slapped sometimes for crossing the line it does not mean they have got to the top by illegal practices alone. My point is simply to highlight that any GOOD business will push the boundaries and blur the lines in any way they can in order to get a competitive advantage. Sometimes they go to far and get penalised but this does not make them a bad company and does not mean their product is crap because of it.
Comments
There are a lot of people who want tablets not just idiots.
Look! Olternaut wants a tablet and Apple won't make them.
Kinda supports my case.
C.
Look! Olternaut wants a tablet and Apple won't make them.
Kinda supports my case.
C.
Your case? Have you presented "your case" to Apple, and were you injured when they tossed you out the door?
The amount of people here that think they know how to run Apple, better than it's being run, is amazing. How many have put their money where their mouth is and actually started a company to compete with Apple, using their "case" to corner Apple's market share? Why absolutely none!
We have saying about such people, "All hat, and no cattle!".
There are a lot of people who want tablets not just idiots. England huh? I guess that makes you an expert of all markets globally.....NOT!
Look! Olternaut wants a tablet and Apple won't make them.
Kinda supports my case.
C.
Resorting to that kind of talk negates any persuasiveness that you had going.
Mmm, Dell already sells PCs with Ubuntu pre-installed.
And they cost more than the same and better-spec'd Windows model equivalents. But what Dell does offer, is that the laptop/desktop will work OOB with Ubuntu, as also provides support.
Yet, Dell is a bigger player than say, System76, and still doesn't sell that many Linux PCs...Linux is OK on the desktop, but you'd still have to fairly tech-savy, and willing to deal with vendor issues or devices simply not working, because companies don't work with the open-source community. I don't see most Mac or Windows users being tech-savy or willing to deal devices not working OOB.
Simply put, Linux isn't a competitor to Microsoft or Apple in the desktop arena ATM - it's good, but not something that can just be tossed on a machine, and everything get picked up.
.
I've been fooling around with Ubuntu and with Dell offering it pre-installed and with media codecs pre-installed, I'm beginning to think that Linux is about to gain some ground in market share.
Eliminating installation of media codecs and most common HW drivers for Linux will go a long way towards making Linux more appealing to mainstream users. Yes, users will need drivers for printers and other peripherals, but often they have to do this with Vista too. But Ubuntu has a nice UI and is teh snappy on just about any hardware. On low end HW its really the best OS available IMO.
If OSX ran on any hardware the cannibalization argument wont be theoretical. Apple hardware would sell about as well as all the other Workstations, AIOs and SFF computers: poorly.
The cost/performance delta is huge and you can pretty much just write off Apple's entire desktop line and they'd sell as much hardware as Sony.
Notice the lack of Sony in the Top 5 lists?
I don't agree with it, but that's a valid argument.
You are saying that if Sony offered OS X, Apple customers would migrate to (better/cheaper) Sony hardware.
I don't agree. because...
1) I think Apple hardware is superior to Sony design-wise and is competitive price/performance-wise.
2) If it isn't, it really ought to be.
Large numbers of those computers will continue to run XP/Vista because the software they need are Windows only. Everything from business apps to games.
This is also true. Some people actually *like* Windows. And quite a few folks need to run apps which are only in Win32 versions. So Apple cannot capture that 92% overnight.
But a lot of people seem very eager to move away from Windows too. There is a groundswell of Windows anger out there. A sizable minority of the 92% are unhappy with Windows and would happily switch to Leopard.
The justaposition of Apples best OS, at the same moment as Windows most bungled OS introduction creates a historic opportunity. Persuade just 10% of Windows users to switch, and the OS X market share would double rapidly.
Doubling the OS X market share would be very significant for Apple. The visibility of the brand would increase, the acceptance of it standards would increase. And you might get some momentum. It might also drive forward hardware sales. In a halo effect.
Currently potential switchers are road-blocked because the only way to get Mac OS, is by buying a high-end boutique system. Which according to you, is poor value.
C.
England huh? I guess that makes you an expert of all markets globally.....NOT!
Dude, we *invented* the computer. You heard of it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colossus_computer
C.
Resorting to that kind of talk negates any persuasiveness that you had going.
Olternaut had unwittingly missed the point I was making. He quoted from my post which said that Apple do not make many different lines. There were folks, including on this forum who pine for exotic hardware which Apple will never ever make. Including (euggh) tablets.
So by saying "Hey, I want a tablet, I'm no idiot" he was actually supporting my argument.
(That Apple's software growth is potentially much greater than its hardware growth)
C.
Tablet fans should read....
http://www.tuaw.com/2008/07/23/a-mac...o-but-heck-no/
Dude, we *invented* the computer. You heard of it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colossus_computer
C.
Yeah, everyone is wanting a Colossus.
Dude, we *invented* the computer. You heard of it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colossus_computer
C.
Oh, Carniphage, the British invented so many things of which others reaped the benefits! The jet engine, the fully electronic programmable computer.... Most of the cars on the road owe their existence to the original Mini, but they waited till the patents on the constant-velocity U-joints that made front-wheel-drive really practical were just running out to start copying it. Hell, even the atomic bomb: the Manhattan Project would never have gotten started if Tube Alloys wasn't already there and the Frisch-Peierls report hadn't concluded that, against all previous speculation, an atomic bomb might be achievable, and in a reasonable time-frame.... As an Anglophile, it just makes me sad!
That said, I disagree pretty strongly with your argument here, but weirder things have happened in the business world, and you only have to look at the history of Apple to see that! However, even if licensing OS X was a good idea (mind you, I think it's a very bad idea,) what was the first thing Steve Jobs did when he regained control of the company? That's right: he put an end to the previous clone experiment. You can argue that times have changed, and circumstances have changed, but unless Steve Jobs has changed as well, I don't think it's a psychological possibility. You may say that's a bad thing, I say it's a good thing, but the fact is, it's not going to happen as long as he's at the helm. And personally, I want him to stay at the helm for as long as possible, because he must be doing something right.
Large numbers of those computers will continue to run XP/Vista because the software they need are Windows only. Everything from business apps to games.
The number of folks willing to dual boot is tiny. So, the infrastructure to capture that 92% share isn't present and a good chunk of it (MS Office) will get pulled as soon as MS can.
Your massive potential is illusory.
Why is that do you think? If your company developed an business class software app which OS would you write it for? the 99% of business machines that run windows or the 1% that run OSX? It is not even worth writing for both.
Now, what would you do if suddenly the bar to business running OSX had been lifted and a good proportion (20-30% ?) of your customer base were telling you they wanted to switch to OSX. You would immediately get to work rewriting code.
Your issue does not exist.
No, they DON'T. They don't just sell the OS. Microsoft only sells Windows in any major capacity by illegally bundling it with PCs. Windows market share is where it is due to some luck and breaking the law.
The fatal flaw in your reasoning is your assumption that Apple can just do the same thing: bundle their operating system with new PCs. They CAN'T. That is ILLEGAL. The DoJ didn't give a damn back then and now they can't do a thing about Microsoft's OS monopoly. They sure as hell WOULD stop Apple, Linux, or any other company that tried the same thing today..
I am sorry but where on Earth did you get this idea from? How on earth is bundling an operating system with new hardware illegal? I have never heard so much rubbish in my life. Are you saying selling an iMac with OSX is illegal too?
What about a DVD player? or a new Air Conditioning unit? Are they illegal too?
The only reason why Microsoft has a monopoly is because they have been the only company making a brilliant OS capable of delivering what the consumer needs and made available to all PC manufacturers and home PC builders at a low cost.
Illegal? You are mad, if you really want to see the monopoly broken then the only way is for someone else to step up to the plate with an OS that can replace Windows on the PC market.
I am sorry but where on Earth did you get this idea from? How on earth is bundling an operating system with new hardware illegal? I have never heard so much rubbish in my life. Are you saying selling an iMac with OSX is illegal too?
What's illegal is using your monopoly position to force OEMs to buy a Windows license for every computer they sell, whether they want to sell it with some other OS or not, and then telling them they'd damn well better not sell it with any other OS, or you'll stop selling them Windows. Has Apple ever done anything like that?
What's illegal is using your monopoly position to force OEMs to buy a Windows license for every computer they sell, whether they want to sell it with some other OS or not, and then telling them they'd damn well better not sell it with any other OS, or you'll stop selling them Windows. Has Apple ever done anything like that?
Nobody is forcing OEM's to do anything. Microsoft has every right to include whatever terms and conditions in its OEM contracts as it pleases and further has every right to enforce those terms if it pleases. If the OEM does not agree then they do not have to sign and they can sell something else instead.
Illegal? No, Immoral? Probably, yes.
If it were Apple who owned the market like Microsoft does then they more than likely be doing something very similar themeless. Apple are a business too and their one and only primary goal is to make money, just like Microsoft believe it or not.
The only reason why Microsoft are able to get away this this is because they have such a large monopoly. But the reason for that is because they were brilliant at what they did. Nobody minded having windows bundled on PC's because it was perfect for the job. There was and still is no viable option if you are an ordinary home user and want a PC. If you want to be different you could buy a mac but people only buy mac's to look cool* and they don't really build the types of PC that you like. So what is the point?
* Not my opinion of course but the general opinion, these are people who have no idea what OSX is remember, hell many of them think Mac's run windows too!
So either someone offers an alternative or we stop bashing Microsoft for being guilty of only doing their job correctly.
At the end of the day, can anyone make software for managing songs on an iPod? Can i use my iPod to buy music from another store?
Do you complain about this, or think it is also illegal?
Nobody is forcing OEM's to do anything. Microsoft has every right to include whatever terms and conditions in its OEM contracts as it pleases and further has every right to enforce those terms if it pleases. If the OEM does not agree then they do not have to sign and they can sell something else instead.
Yeah, they can sell a computer with some other OS that nobody's ever heard of, that won't run the apps everybody needs to use. Sounds like a viable business model to me!
Illegal? No, Immoral? Probably, yes.
They've been convicted of this crime in open court. That doesn't mean they've stopped committing it.
But the reason for that is because they were brilliant at what they did. Nobody minded having windows bundled on PC's because it was perfect for the job.
Brilliant? They copied Mac OS when that idiot Sculley handed it to them on a silver platter, and you can see the results: Windows! Brilliant? LMAO! Microsoft has never written anything original in its existence! They bought DOS, from a company that had ported CP/M to 16-bit, they copied Apple's GUI, with disastrous results.... Windows is a total train wreck, from the word go. If it weren't for the criminal tactics they've used to achieve their monopoly, nobody would remember their name today!
Yeah, they can sell a computer with some other OS that nobody's ever heard of, that won't run the apps everybody needs to use. Sounds like a viable business model to me!
But how is that Microsoft's fault? They cannot be blamed for the lack of serious competition.
What if I owned an MP3 retail outlet? I would have no choice but to sell iPods would I?
What if I never really wanted to sell iPods because Apple kept the margins so low but felt forced to because that was what everyone wanted to buy. Are Apple stuffing me over? Are Apple abusing their position or is this simply a case of a business doing what it takes to make money?
You cannot have it both ways, you cannot cherry pick between the best of Capitalism and the best of Communism (unless of course you were in China). Business is Business.
Brilliant? They copied Mac OS when that idiot Sculley handed it to them on a silver platter, and you can see the results: Windows! Brilliant? LMAO! Microsoft has never written anything original in its existence! They bought DOS, from a company that had ported CP/M to 16-bit, they copied Apple's GUI, with disastrous results.... Windows is a total train wreck, from the word go. If it weren't for the criminal tactics they've used to achieve their monopoly, nobody would remember their name today!
? Of course they were brilliant at what they did, your post only serves to highlight that more!
If the product is as bad as you say they Microsoft were even more brilliant than I thought to get to the position they are in now. As a business they are outstanding.
Microsoft are a great company, they made less bad decisions along the way than Apple did full stop. Put Apple in Microsoft's place and they would be just the same. You would probably on here every day telling everyone how Vista is wonderful and how Apple are a bunch of crooks.
Windows has been wonderful and is totally responsible for the fact that just about everybody in the developed world owns a computer and every business runs on one. Hell Windows is even partly responsible for the number of Mac users out there today.
Microsoft did what Apple failed to do. Apple may well have the best product in OSX (And I think they do) and they may have some of the nicest looking machines on the market but that does not mean that Microsoft are a bunch of crooks with a bad product. If you really believe that then your are seriously deluded.
Do not underestimate the general public, I know it is easy to think people can be forced into buying things they do not want but as a rule this is not true. It is a fact that is that if Windows was not such a great, life changing product then Microsoft would not be where they are today. You cannot become a world leader with a bad product, it simply does not work like that.
You cannot become a world leader with a bad product, it simply does not work like that.
Well, they did just exactly that, so I guess that disproves your point pretty effectively. Windows has succeeded because it has always been made the Path of Least Resistance? (Maybe that should be their new slogan?) Now it's finally encountering some. I don't think it can survive the experience. Your contention that Microsoft has done nothing illegal has been disproved in court again and again. Seriously, switch to a Windows forum! (I'm assuming there are some?)
Well, they did just exactly that, so I guess that disproves your point pretty effectively. Windows has succeeded because it has always been made the Path of Least Resistance? (Maybe that should be their new slogan?) Now it's finally encountering some. I don't think it can survive the experience. Your contention that Microsoft has done nothing illegal has been disproved in court again and again. Seriously, switch to a Windows forum! (I'm assuming there are some?)
Your socialism is showing.
Your socialism is showing.
I know you consider this an insult, but it didn't land.
Well, they did just exactly that, so I guess that disproves your point pretty effectively. Windows has succeeded because it has always been made the Path of Least Resistance? (Maybe that should be their new slogan?) Now it's finally encountering some. I don't think it can survive the experience. Your contention that Microsoft has done nothing illegal has been disproved in court again and again. Seriously, switch to a Windows forum! (I'm assuming there are some?)
I could switch to a Windows forum you are right but as I am typing this on a Mac Book Pro what would be the point?
You are clearly one of these people who assume that is Apple = Good then MS must = Bad. A very silly view to have and one that has no basis in reality.
You of course have every right to think as you do and you clearly have no intention of trying to understand the truth of the matter. So I will let you carry on in your deluded world.
I have to stop typing now, my hands get sore after a while. Nothing serious, just a throwback to my early teens when Bill Gates came round to my house and repeatedly smashed my hands with a hammer until I reluctantly agreed to buy his crappy product. They brainwashed me too, though of course everyone back then had been put under his evil spell so we all know what that is like.
Well, they did just exactly that, so I guess that disproves your point pretty effectively. Windows has succeeded because it has always been made the Path of Least Resistance™ (Maybe that should be their new slogan?) Now it's finally encountering some. I don't think it can survive the experience. Your contention that Microsoft has done nothing illegal has been disproved in court again and again. Seriously, switch to a Windows forum! (I'm assuming there are some?)
Do me a favour and type this into Google "apple illegal trading"
Not only are the expected hits on stories about the dodgy share trading activity that seems to have dogged Apple for a while but you will also see stories on anti-trust lawsuits filed against Apple for it's itunes store and also a story on the Korean FTC investigating Apple for unfair trade practices. This is just the first page.
Welcome to the real world, this is business, stuff like this goes on all the time. The more successful you are the more mud gets thrown at you, sometimes the mud sticks but that is fine too. As long as you turn a profit that is all that is important.
You do know that Apple is a business don't you?
EDIT: Clarification!
I am not saying that anything goes in business and of course there should be laws and guidelines to protect the free market. But I was just pointing out that just because MS get their wrists slapped sometimes for crossing the line it does not mean they have got to the top by illegal practices alone. My point is simply to highlight that any GOOD business will push the boundaries and blur the lines in any way they can in order to get a competitive advantage. Sometimes they go to far and get penalised but this does not make them a bad company and does not mean their product is crap because of it.