[fallingheights]

Quote:

---

Elgan started by equating Microsofts forced bundling of Internet Explorer (IE) on Windows PCs back in the 90s with Apples requirement that you install iTunes to use an iPod. The obvious difference here is that the iPod is a computer peripheral; like many peripherals, you need to install software on your computer to use it. If you dont like that software, you have a choice whether or not to purchase that peripheral. Dont like iTunes? Dont buy an iPod; there are a number of other good playersseriouslyout there. Thats a far cry from Microsoft telling PC vendors that if they wanted to sell their computers with Windowsin other words, back then, if they wanted to actually sell their computersthey had to bundle IE. And lets not forget that the big issue with IE was that Microsoft was using its OS monopoly to muscle the (much better and more popular at the time) Netscape browser out of the market. Im sure there are at least half a dozen other ways in which this analogy falls on its face.

---

And Apple has not essentially done the same thing?
-Microsoft uses OS dominance to push the better, more popular Netscape out of the market.
-Apple uses MP3 player dominance to push rival music software and hardware out of the market. Regardless of if the rival software is better or worse, Apple decided it wasn't important for the user to have a choice. Even putting the DRM issue aside, the fact that Apple has such a large market share in portable music players says they're monopolizing by forcing you to use their software (which as explain earlier in the thread is also their store) if you want to use their products. Sound familiar?

[folklore]

Quote:

---

-Microsoft uses OS dominance to push the better, more popular Netscape out of the market.
-Apple uses MP3 player dominance to push rival music software and hardware out of the market. Regardless of if the rival software is better or worse, Apple decided it wasn't important for the user to have a choice. Even putting the DRM issue aside, the fact that Apple has such a large market share in portable music players says they're monopolizing by forcing you to use their software (which as explain earlier in the thread is also their store) if you want to use their products. Sound familiar?

---

That's comparing apples to cumquats.
Microsoft leveraged essential computing software (the OS) to put its non-essential software (the web browser) in a better position. Microsoft used its market dominance to force system integrators to do so through contractual obligations. Basically, Microsoft said, "Put IE - and ONLY IE - on your systems or we won't sell you Windows." It was the "and only IE" part that got them into trouble.
With the iPod, we're talking about a music player. Arguably a good one, and arguably a dominant one, but certainly nowhere near a monopoly when you compare CD sales to digital downloads. More music is still sold on CD than any other medium. No one is "locked in" to iTunes, since even DRM tracks can be burned as CD audio. And, there are real, viable alternatives to the iPod and iTunes on the market. More to the point, Apple does not prevent you (legally or technically) from installing the software for any of those alternatives on your computer.

[fallingheights]

Quote:

---

More to the point, Apple does not prevent you (legally or technically) from installing the software for any of those alternatives on your computer.

---

I never had an issue installing alternative means of accessing the internet on Windows, be it Firefox, Netscape or more recently Safari. In my eyes they're still on the same field, particularly with how important music is to modern society at large.
Besides that, I agree with whoever said that it makes sense for a modern operating system to have the ability, out of the box, to browse the internet.

[Dan Frakes]

Quote:

---

it's 'to wit', not 'to whit'. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

---

Yeah, someone else caught that and sent me an email; it's fixed now. (This is what happens when you post a story past midnight /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif )

[Dan Frakes]

Quote:

---

And Apple has not essentially done the same thing?

---

What folklore said.

[folklore]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

More to the point, Apple does not prevent you (legally or technically) from installing the software for any of those alternatives on your computer.

---

I never had an issue installing alternative means of accessing the internet on Windows, be it Firefox, Netscape or more recently Safari. In my eyes they're still on the same field, particularly with how important music is to modern society at large.
Besides that, I agree with whoever said that it makes sense for a modern operating system to have the ability, out of the box, to browse the internet.

---

Again, the problem wasn't with bundling IE. The problem was not allowing system integrators to install other browsers on the machine. That was the core part of Microsoft's anti-competitive practices that got them in legal trouble. Whether a user could install another browser was never an issue.

[Gatesbasher]

Quote:

---

Again, the problem wasn't with bundling IE. The problem was not allowing system integrators to install other browsers on the machine. That was the core part of Microsoft's anti-competitive practices that got them in legal trouble. Whether a user could install another browser was never an issue.

---

Amen! Let's wait until you can't buy a Zune without buying (buying! See the difference?) iTunes and then we'll talk.

[ronaldlucero]

Many people don't know the meaning or definition of the word "Innovation".
Apple is the most innovative company in the world because they invent, design, create, and most of all, they "commercialize" (globally).
Innovation means commercializing an invention.
If LG was the first to create such phone as their LGs KE850, the question is why I don't know about it. Why people are not excited about having it. Maybe for very few.
For me, a product or technology is a failure if it's not amazingly or insanely marketed or commercialized.
Salute to Apple for being the best in invention and commercialization in this generation. That's why they are the most innovative company in the world. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[taugust04]

Quote:

---

I would agree. I don't much like Mail.App but really need the address book details to sync with my phone.

---

Both iSync and Address Book have open API's, where a software developer could write plug-ins, or an entirely new application, that would still allow you to sync your phone using Apple's built-in software. There is nothing in Mac OS X preventing a developer from doing that. The problem lies in that no one has come up with a better solution than Apple when it comes to the Address Book and iSync, not that they are prevented from doing it.

[SPOOF]

Post deleted by Jason Snell

[gimpymw]

Uh... right...
...Except, Apple doesn't force it's OS and supporting apps onto other computer manufacturers hardware. It only forces it onto its own (Thank God!). Try cleaning all the porn off your drive to free up some HD space.
I think Elgan would have nailed the monopoly thing if he pointed out how OS X plus Safari plus iChat plus Address Book plus iWork plus iTunes is an apple (no pun intended) and Windows plus IE plus MSN plus MS Office plus Windows Media is an orange. Let's compare apples to oranges. Blah, blah, blah, blah...
Please do not go into more detail.

[Don_Quixote]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

More to the point, Apple does not prevent you (legally or technically) from installing the software for any of those alternatives on your computer.

---

I never had an issue installing alternative means of accessing the internet on Windows, be it Firefox, Netscape or more recently Safari. In my eyes they're still on the same field, particularly with how important music is to modern society at large.
Besides that, I agree with whoever said that it makes sense for a modern operating system to have the ability, out of the box, to browse the internet.

---

Again, the problem wasn't with bundling IE. The problem was not allowing system integrators to install other browsers on the machine. That was the core part of Microsoft's anti-competitive practices that got them in legal trouble. Whether a user could install another browser was never an issue.

---

I'm lost. If it was not bundling IE and not preventing users from installing other browsers, what made Microsoft so "anti-competitive" regarding IE?

[maineguy]

Quote:

---

Many people don't know the meaning or definition of the word "Innovation".
Apple is the most innovative company in the world because they invent, design, create, and most of all, they "commercialize" (globally).
Innovation means commercializing an invention.
If LG was the first to create such phone as their LGs KE850, the question is why I don't know about it. Why people are not excited about having it. Maybe for very few.
For me, a product or technology is a failure if it's not amazingly or insanely marketed or commercialized.
Salute to Apple for being the best in invention and commercialization in this generation. That's why they are the most innovative company in the world. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

---

Thank you. I couldn't agree more.
Apple announces that they are going to hold an event or a press conference to announce something to do with the iPod, is secretive and vague, and the world practically stands still for a week. Writers and bloggers start making predictions, every major and minor news outlet has a lead story either in print, on tv or the web (or all) and Apple's stock rises. All this before they even actually make their announcement!
How many other companies can do that??? Let's see...
Motorola announcing the new Razr?
Nokia with a new phone?
HP with a new laptop?
Microsoft with a new Zune?
LG with anything?
No. And the reason why is everyone expects an Apple product announcement to be something worthwhile and innovative. No one breathlessly waits for some tidbit about any of the above mentioned companies "innovations", however worthwhile they may be.
All of these companies have set their own expectations... their announcements don't get the attention of Apple's because people don't expect much from them. Everyone expects more from Apple. And Apple rarely dissapoints. That's innovation.

[mikelgan]

Hi there. Mike Elgan here (author of article in question).
I've been writing columns about computers for 18 years. I've probably written maybe 30 or 40 columns that mention Apple. Unless the message is, in effect, "Apple is perfect, their products are better than sex and Steve Jobs is greatest possible assembly of human DNA possible, then hundreds of defenders -- both amateur and professional -- systematically pick through every sentence looking for any point that can be refuted no matter how trivial or peripheral and list their objections, summing it all up with "the author's an idiot" or some variation thereof.
The same thing happens in political discourse between the Fox News crowd and the MoveOn.org people, between Jews and Muslims and between Indians and Pakistanis.
The goal in this brand of conversation isn't to learn, but to defend the faith, and disempowered the enemy.
Apple deserves enormous credit (and their billions) for creating products that engender this kind of passion. But I personally don't think it's a very interesting approach to take when, in reality, we're talking about consumer products.
I expect to get slammed by thousands of people whenever I write about Apple, so it doesn't bother me when it happens. I would be surprised if it didn't. I still try to do my job, which is to bring attention to trends, provide an alternative point of view from the "conventional wisdom," and shed light on various subjects insufficiently explored.
The only thing that bothers me is that I find it a waste of energy to argue with someone who argues not to learn but to win.
In that spirit, I'd like to try something different. I'd like to request that you (the author) and you (the commenters) take a deep breath, resolve not to feel threatened by ideas that suggest the possibility of Apple's imperfection and re-read my column with the following in mind:
1. My main point is that Apple can and probably will be accused of some of the things people used to accuse Microsoft of, namely being a monopolist, copycat and bully. Is that true or false?
2. My opinion is that, if true, Apple should be defended against these attacks. Do you agree or disagree?
3. And here's the part where I would expect real disagreement: If Apple is innocent of these charges, then wasn't Microsoft innocent also? Should Microsoft have been left alone by the courts just like Apple should be left alone in the future?
If you think attacks and lawsuits against Microsoft were justified, but that similar attacks and lawsuits in the future against Apple are not justified, please explain why. This would be an interesting and enlightening conversation.
Can we try that?
Mike Elgan
mike.elgan@elgan.com