[rhemy1]

ALSO, having the choice to use something or to not use something is not competition. So for everyone out there who believes this understand the difference between competition and choice.

If i want to use mac osx (it is a seperate product from apple hardware, because it is sold seperately), and the only choice i have is to use it on apple hardware or not use it all. That is choice not compeition.

If microsoft kept any other browser from working on windows and said, 'you dont have to buy windows. You can use osx or linux os." That would not be allowing for real competition. Sure there is competition amongst OS's, but it is not allowing for competition to occur between browsers in any real sense. Browsers, OS's, and computer's are all different products in different markets. Using dominance in one market to further sprend domince across other markets is anti-competitive behavior.

It is wrong for microsoft to actively keep other browsers from working with there OS. In the same way it is wrong that Apple actively keep it's os from working on someone elses hardware. Hardware and software are not 1 product.

Apple accepts this notion by allowing consumers to install windows os on there hardware. It evern refers to is as an OS. It is not one of those power management addons that one would get when buying a sony computer. Everyone accepts the notation that Osx is not merely an extension of the mac hardware, but an OS in its own right. And that is why Apple should not be able to artifically limit its accessibility.

[mdawson]

Quote

rhemy1 wrote:

>

Quote

From a company perspective, what is the difference between software as a product and hardware as a product (beyond the physical difference)?

Ever heard of a Microsoft PC? No. Do you know why? Because Microsoft built their company around selling software to be run on hardware manufactured by others. Selling software is Microsoft?s primary business model and it is how Microsoft makes the vast majority of its money. Microsoft is first and foremost a software development firm.

Apple sells computers. Apple does and has always developed the operating system exclusively for the Mac and no other systems. Apple does not make money selling operating systems, period. Apple once attempted to permit Mac clones in the 1990s, not the 1980s?more proof that you people cannot get your facts straight?to a select few companies that had to meet a set of standards to ensure compatibility. The program gutted Apple?s bottom line, which is selling Macs. Apple is first and foremost a hardware company. In fact, as the only OEM that designs computers, Apple is, as another poster so eloquently put it a few years back, an engineering design firm.

Profiting from the sale of software is not and has never been Apple?s business model and they cannot compete with Microsoft as a software developer. Apple executives know the company?s history and they learned from it. Apple is currently the most successful PC OEM quarter to quarter for several years running so obviously Apple?s executive staff knows better than you on how to run their company. Those of us that defend that position, get it. You do not.

Quote

rhemy1 wrote:

>

Quote

If Apple can create a store called Itunes to dispense applications for the iphone os, Why can't microsoft create a store called iwindows and dispense programs for its pc os (there by limiting all browser competition (browsers are just programs like say "I am rich" from the itunes store)?

You mean like Zune.net.

Quote

rhemy1 wrote:

>
If apple can create an OS and limit it to hardware of it's choosing, why can't microsoft limit windows to hardware of it's choosing. What would be wrong with microsoft saying for now on, windows can only be used on gateway computers?

If you knew anything about anti-trust law you could answer this question for yourself.

Microsoft makes software for IBM-compatible x86 systems. Therefore, Microsoft cannot provide their software to some OEMs and not others. Doing so is creating a trust that locks out other OEMs from competing on the Wintel platform and complicity is illegal. The computers assembled by the Wintel OEMs do not have to come with Windows pre-installed because Microsoft does not own any of the OEMs nor are they the owners of the platform. The only reason the OEMs do universally offer Windows pre-installed is because Microsoft illegally abused their market position to coerce the OEMs by threatening them with all or nothing licensing. By that action, Microsoft locked out any competing operating systems that the OEMs were well within their rights to pre-install on their hardware, but none of them could afford being sanctioned from offering systems with the most popular OS and subsequently systems that could run most of the mainstream and vertical corporate software on the market. Microsoft has been found guilty of several counts of anti-trust violantions both in the United States and abroad.

OS X is Apple?s operating system that was designed exclusively for the Mac, which is Apple?s computer hardware. Apple owns the hardware and software, and as a consequence the Macintohs platform. The Mac platform is a segment of the personal computer market in which Apple competes against other PCs. The Mac is sold with OS X as a single product; the over-the-shelf copies of OS X are system upgrades offered exclusively for people that own Macs. Nothing that Apple is doing is illegal because Apple has every right to control their brand and platform just as do Garmin, Tom Tom, Sony (PlayStation), Nintendo (Wii), and any other hardware manufacturer in any market that has a product that includes proprietary system software.

rhemy1 wrote:
>
It's so funny to read agruments against the anti-competive nature of microsoft, yet apple is doing the same thing.

Survey says:
bq. [color="#FF0000"]XXX[/color]
Microsoft has a 90+ market share making them a monopoly. Simply being a monopoly is not illegal. Microsoft?s business practices in threatening the OEMs if they even thought of offering another OS, embedding IE code in Windows, etc., has been an abuse of their monopoly power and they have been found guilty in several international courts of anti-trust for that reason.

The only place where Apple has a substantially large market share is in the portable digital music player market, but nothing Apple does precludes anyone from using other products or buying music. Consumers have the choice to buy an iPod or any other MP3 player that they chose. If they chose to buy an iPod then they can use iTunes to manage their music and player. If not, they have to use other software and that software is readily available. The binding of Apple?s music management software with Apple?s music player is no different from the binding of Epson?s printer drivers to Epson?s printers. iTunes is in fact even more open than hardware drivers because the files used by iTunes are portable except for protected AAC files that can be easily converted into another format by burning the music to CD.

No law exists that dictates that Apple has to make iTunes support other music players anymore than Epson?s printer drivers have to support printers from HP or Canon. No law exists that states that Apple has to make the iPod compatible with Windows Media Player, RealPlayer, et al., but by the same token, Apple is not doing anything to preclude Microsoft, Real, et al., from adding iPod compatibility to their software; those companies chose not to do so.


As to the iTunes Store, it is exclusively for iTunes users, but it is far from the only source for buying and downloading music. If you choose to not use iTunes, then you choose to not shop at the iTunes Store. Making that decision does not preclude anyone from buying music from countless other sources. So again, nothing Apple is doing is anti-completive. Also, if you really feel the need to buy your music from the iTunes Store, there is nothing stopping you from downloading and installing iTunes for free, getting your music and using it with whatever other software or music player you wish.

Apple?s market share in the PC and cell phone markets is too small for anti-competitive behavior to even be a consideration. So how exactly is Apple being anti-completive other than in the fantasy world you seem to live in?

rhemy1 wrote:
>
It would be like if every pc maker created there own browser and then said sorry guys you have to use the sony browser, or the toshiba browser, or the gateway browser to surf the web. We use our world famous browser to sell hardware.

You really are ignorant if you think for one second that this point of argument has any merit whatsoever. If Sony, Toshiba, Gateway, Dell, et al., developed their own browser they could not prevent anyone from using it on another Wintel PC, because the browser would be designed to run in Windows not on a given brand of PC. Windows runs on PCs assembled by the Wintel OEMs so if Sony developed a browser it would work on a Gateway, Dell, HP, et al., without the user having to hack the software. Software is OS compatible and not brand compatible.

You cannot just install OS X on non-Apple hardware and start using it like you can on a Mac. Running OS X on generic hardware requires hacking the OS because OS X is designed to run on very specific hardware.

rhemy1 wrote:
>
If everyone operated how apple operated. I think it would be terrible for the consumer. Apple gets away with it because windows has so much of the market. But as they get bigger that model will definately begin to break down.

If everyone operated like Apple, it would be just as it was during the first ten years of the microcomputer revolution. The business model of the Wintel platform is the result of a break from the traditional PC business model due to everyone and their mother manufacturing IBM PC clones. Every computer company used to sell computers with proprietary system software and even if that system software was licensed it was still specifically for a given brand of computer. If you actually knew anything about the history of computers then you would already know this, but obviously such knowledge is lost on you.

The size of Apple?s market share will change nothing. As long as Apple does not abuse their market position Apple cannot be legally forced to change their business model.

rhemy1 wrote:
>
Microsoft may not be friendly, but it's business model is way more consumer friendly. I mean despite all their anti competive behavior i could still download firefox and use it on their software. Infact i can use a variety of media players and paint programs. They may not be readily available when I first bootup the computer, but i can find them and use them.

What does this have to do with anything? When it comes to software development, it is easier to develop software for the Mac, because unlike Microsoft, Apple is not in the habit of engaign in activities such as embedding Safari?s base code into OS X so as to give Safari an unfair advantage over other Mac-compatible browsers or causing the OS to break if someone that opts uninstall Safari because they have no intension of using Apple?s browser. Several browsers, media players and graphics applications exist for the Mac, so what is you point?

Oh wait? Like all Psystar supporters, you do not have one.

rhemy1 wrote:
>
It would be different if the cd's that were bought in the store were actually only upgrade disk, instead of being the whole program. The fact that it is the whole program means that they are selling Mac OSx seperately.

Whether the software on the after market discs are complete OS installs or not is irrelevant. When you use software you must first agree to the licensing conditions, period. If you breach the conditions of that license then the developer has the right to take legal action against you. Apple is not wasting their time going after individuals that breach the EULA. Those people take it upon themselves to operate unsupported systems. If something goes wrong, they are on their own.

Psystar is not only breaching the EULA, they are profiteering off of Apple?s brand identity. They are also engaging in an illegal business practice, because any OEM must have an OEM license to sell hardware with another company?s operating system pre-installed. Apple does not offer OEM licensing, therefore Psystae does not have the legal right to sell computers with Apple?s operating system.

rhemy1 wrote:
>
So, mdawson im sorry but you should apparently watch those commericals more closely and take a few marketing classes.

You do not even understand what a market is, so do you really expect anyone to take stock in anything you state. Apple?s commercials advertise their hardware; the software is a part of the experience. Do you see ads for iWork, FileMaker or Final Cut Pro? No, because Apple only makes commercials to sell their hardware. OS X is a part of the Mac package, there are not nor have their ever been commercials for the Mac OS. iPod commercials are about the iPod not iTunes. The same goes for the iPhone.

rhemy1 wrote:
>
They only truely care about the thing they interact with- the software. After all the tag line- "it just works." is not meant to describe the cd player or the keyboard- lol. It's meant to describe the software.

CD players and keyboards. Does your straw man argument have no limit? Macs just work because the OS that is made by Apple is integrated with a finite set of hardware that is made by Apple. The iPod and iPhone, which are both made by Apple, just works because it is integrated with iTunes, which is made by Apple. If OS X were permitted to run on any hardware then Apple?s tagline would have to be changed to ?just as reliable as Windows?. But again, you do not get it because based on everything you have posted, you are completely unknowledgeable of anything related to computer history, Apple history, hardware, software, operating systems, markets, platforms, branding, anti-trust law and basic economics.