[maineguy]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Even the most ardent iPod supporter must admit the iPod V was getting a bit long in the tooth and couldn't really be regarded as "innovative."
The point is that Apple isn't the only innovative company out there, and they aren't infallible.

---

I agree, but the Apple marketing machine you reference is exactly my point. That too is innovation, and the fact that there is soooooo much hype in the media about a future announcement shows that innovation is expected, every time. They mention a future announcement and it's news, just like that.
Sure they fail sometimes, and no doubt they will likely again, but it'll still be on the front page before it does! And, the reason it's news is they do it right more times than not.
It is fun to watch, isn't it???

[Gatesbasher]

Quote:

---

Can we try that?

---

Why bother? Obviously you haven't read the article this thread is in reply to, or any of the postings, which destroy your specious argument point by point. If we thought you could learn anything, it would be different, but you've proved the reverse.
And yes, Bill Gates and company should be busting rocks in Leavenworth. If you disagree, you've been asleep for the last 25 years. The history is too lengthy and sordid to go into in depth on this forum.

[jpmhughes]

Well there ya go.
I was going to post pretty much the same response.
You obviously did not read any (or many) of the posts here.
If you had, you would see that the questions you ask, have already been posed.
You just proved many of the points already made.
Jim
Now please go back and read the posts.

[Dan Frakes]

Welcome, Mike. Here are some responses to your comments and questions:

Quote:

---

The goal in this brand of conversation isn't to learn, but to defend the faith, and disempowered the enemy.

---

Although I agree that this is often the case when it comes to discussions relating to Macs and Windows -- I've been skewered from both sides at various times -- it wasn't the case for my article. In fact, as I mentioned in the article, I think the idea that Apple has grown to the point where it weilds considerable power, and at times uses that power to get what it wants, has merit.
My issues with your column were that you went beyond such a discussion to effectively equate Apple's recent actions to those of Microsoft at its worst, and that many of the "examples" you gave were deeply flawed -- some factually, some logically. That's a very different thing than the type of fanboyism you attribute to me. Just because in this particular case I took issue with some of your criticisms of Apple, that doesn't mean I blindly defend the company or, to quote you, "feel threated by ideas that suggest the possibility of Apple's imperfection." I've written more than a few criticisms of the company myself.

Quote:

---

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?

---

Definitely true.

Quote:

---

2. My opinion is that, if true, Apple should be defended against these attacks. Do you agree or disagree?

---

If Apple's actions are legit, and the company isn't actually being "a monopolist, copycat and bully," sure. But if the criticisms are justified, then no.

Quote:

---

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?

---

The big issue here, and this is where we appear to fundamentally disagree, is that you think Microsoft did nothing wrong and that the courts should have left the company alone. I think the company broke the law and its prosecution was justified -- not because I'm a Mac user, but because I believe in a free and fair market.
Because of your belief that Microsoft didn't break the law, it's easy for you to assign some sort of "moral equivalency" between Apple and Microsoft. I feel there's a major difference between the collective actions of Apple today and Microsoft back then, precisely because one set of actions was illegal and the other wasn't. (And by "actions" I mean what Apple is actually doing, which isn't necessarily the same thing, in my opinion, as what you claimed in your article that the company is doing.)
In my view, Microsoft shouldn't have been left alone by the courts because the company was doing illegal things. If Apple did those same illegal things, I would expect the courts to go after Apple, as well.

Quote:

---

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.

---

The issue isn't whether the attacks and lawsuits are similar; it's whether or not the actions of the companies are similar -- i.e., whether or not Apple breaks the law, or even just acts like a "monopolist, copycat and bully." So far, although the company has done a few things that weren't in customers' best interests, they haven't stooped to that point.
Call me a stickler for details, but I think details matter sometimes.

[Dan Frakes]

Quote:

---

Thank you for completely deleting my post, which had many relevant points in it, not informing me of this, nor simply censoring out what you found offensive.
Really. Where's your sense of humor you brag about? Oh, wait, it isn't meant as humor.

---

I've done some research and it doesn't appear that anyone has deleted or altered your posts. The only thing I could find that you've posted on this topic is this message in a different thread:
http://www.macworld....true#Post533112

[Dan Frakes]

Quote:

---

But a key question is whether the anti-trust action actually resulted in any benefits to consumers. Think about the browser wars, which started everything. At the end of the day, it wasn't Netscape that became the alternative as a result of anti-trust lawsuits. Firefox emerged as the main competitor and started getting a lot of market share because Microsoft let IE wither and become exposed to more and more security flaws.

---

It's easy to speculate that the "real" reason Microsoft isn't so dominant nowadays is because of virus and security issues, but that ignores the bigger picture: that people actually have alternatives now, and the antitrust case played a role in that. I think many people have forgotten the documented behavior on which the case was based.

Quote:

---

Apple came out of virtual oblivion, not because of an anti-trust lawsuit (to which it was never a party), but because it came out with some popular consumer electronics products that reignited interest in its computers.

---

A major factor in Apple's success has been that those consumer electronics products work well with Windows. Based on past behavior, it's not unreasonable to suggest that Microsoft could have made it very difficult for Apple's products to work well. And let's not forget that Microsoft's pledge to continue developing a version of Office for the Mac came at the height of the antitrust case -- a big part of that commitment was anti-antitrust PR. (Although Office makes a good profit for Microsoft now, that wasn't necessarily the case back then.)
Apple may not have been a party to the case, but Mac users have benefited from it considerably, in my opinion.

[Gatesbasher]

Quote:

---

But a key question is whether the anti-trust action actually resulted in any benefits to consumers.

---

I've heard many people express similar sentiments, and I can understand why, considering that Microsoft never suffered any real consequences from them. But really, do we want to live in a world where they were never even challenged on their actions, where they didn't have to draw in their horns at least a little?

[Don_Quixote]

Quote:

---

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?

---

The big issue here, and this is where we appear to fundamentally disagree, is that you think Microsoft did nothing wrong and that the courts should have left the company alone. I think the company broke the law and its prosecution was justified -- not because I'm a Mac user, but because I believe in a free and fair market.

---

I think the issue here is that you think Apple is doing nothing wrong while Microsoft did when two companies did (or doing) a seemingly similar business practice--namely bundling separate products. True, Apple began to bundle iPod iTunes iTunes Store when the mp3 player and the online music market were small. Also true that Apple did not have to pressure any company to bundle anything because it does everything by itself. But these markets have grown tremendously, Apple has taken big chunks of them, and its power is becoming monopolistic.
The Anti-Trust law is not just about pressuring other companies using its dominant power, but it is ultimately about promoting healthy competition in the industry and giving consumers choice . Apple's dominance in the music player and the online music store limits healthy competition by putting other player makers into a disadvantage because their products are not compatible with the major online music store. It also limits choice for consumers who like iTunes store but like non-Apple portable players.

[Dan Frakes]

Quote:

---

Apple's dominance in the music player and the online music store limits healthy competition by putting other player makers into a disadvantage because their products are not compatible with the major online music store. It also limits choice for consumers who like iTunes store but like non-Apple portable players.

---

But neither of those arguments is compelling because there are quality, readily-available alternatives, and every consumer has the free, unfettered choice to use them. You can't blame Apple if its players are more desirable than the others, or if the music store that goes with Apple's players is better. People are choosing to go with the iPod and iTunes; no one is forcing them to do so. In this market, Apple is simply out-competing.
Just as important, Apple has shown that the iTunes Store will sell DRM-free music -- which works with any player -- when the music industry allows it. Similarly, if other online music stores would sell DRM-free tracks, those tracks would work with the iPod. So the real problem is DRM and the music industry, not Apple, the iPod, and iTunes.

[Don_Quixote]

Quote:

---

But neither of those arguments is compelling because there are quality, readily-available alternatives, and every consumer has the free, unfettered choice to use them. You can't blame Apple if its players are more desirable than the others, or if the music store that goes with Apple's players is better. People are choosing to go with the iPod and iTunes; no one is forcing them to do so. In this market, Apple is simply out-competing.

---

I am willing to accept this argument. So according to your argument, at least regarding IE, Microsoft was not so monopolistic either, because consumers had choices of installing Nestcape on top of Windows 98IE or, better yet, buying MacNetscape. Windows 98+IE simply out-competeted others. (By the way, Microsoft did not really have to pressure any company to bundle IE because it was just integrated into Windows 98--similar to Apple's strategy).

Quote:

---

Just as important, Apple has shown that the iTunes Store will sell DRM-free music -- which works with any player -- when the music industry allows it. Similarly, if other online music stores would sell DRM-free tracks, those tracks would work with the iPod. So the real problem is DRM and the music industry, not Apple, the iPod, and iTunes.

---

Your point about DRM is well-taken (although I still have some doubts about Apple's business practice).