Comments on: Apple Monopolistic? Maybe. Control Freaks? Definitely!

By: Louis wheeler

Louis wheeler — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 20:36:52 +0000

This monopoly issue is bogus. Apple is not the Single Seller of computers in the world. Nor is it the single seller of Operating Systems. All it is doing is saying is that people have no right to run its OS on anything other than Apple’s computer hardware. Anyone who installs Mac OSX promises not to install it on Non Apple hardware.

The people who do are violating Apple’s rights–they are liar and thieves. Why would you have sympathy for them? Are you saying that because you buy the box of software, you have the right to do anything you want with it? Sorry, you don’t.

Let me remind you a situation from high school. Your mother might have said, “This may be where you live, but it is my house. I make the rules If you can’t live with that, go find somewhere else to live.” Apple owns the Mac OSX Operating System. You buy the right to use it under certain conditions. If you don’t like that, write your own Operating System.

By: Al

Al — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 19:30:23 +0000

Apple tried selling the Mac OS to other manufacturers. Apple almost went belly up over it, as the other manufacturers undercut Apple’s prices and Apple’s sales and profits dried up.

Been there, done that. Microsoft gives away Windows and lives off of Office sales while all Macs and Mac clones are undercut by very cheap PCs. Remember, the biggest expense in a $300 PC is the Microsoft Tax.

Apple’s profits are it’s lifeblood. No profit, no R&D. No R&D, no innovation. No innovation, no more Apple Inc.

By: Matt

Matt — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 18:55:20 +0000

What puzzles me about the whole monopoly thing is that there are a great many monopolies. Perhaps too many people out there don’t know the history or have some desire to get back at someone for the trouble MS went though. Now if Apple had deliberately made it so you can’t buy a computer or use a computer other than theirs to do simple tasks I might see this as a monopoly, but you can easily go down to Best Buy and select from perhaps 50+ different models of computers that are not Apple.

It’s correct that those same machines won’t run MACOS, but then again my Garmin Nuvi can’t have it’s OS and data run on a normal computer either, nor will Sony’s Playstation software run on my Dell. Heck, what about XBOX running on my Dell? What about a PPC version of Windows? The firmware in my HP printer won’t work on a Lexmark printer, does that mean HP is impeding me from printing? NO. Now if one wants to hack those to run on different hardware odds are it can be done, but why exactly does Sony, Garmin and HP or anyone else have an OBLIGATION to make their software run on anyone’s hardware?If a MAC is too pricy for you, buy a Windows machine, they do the same thing. I can write a word doc with either, heck, I can write a word doc on any flavour of Linux even. I can edit images, surf the web, send an email, listen to music and watch a movie on pretty much any computer I pick.

If I can’t afford an expensive car it’s hardly the manufactures obligation to make it cheaper for you, just buy a less expensive car. It’s not like one car _really_ does anything all that different from another. Its transportation after-all.

By: Paul

Paul — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 16:08:34 +0000

I agree largely with all that you have said. I also think regardless of whether Apple was in an existing market first or not, if it wants to enter the space it should be allowed to do so without calls of monopoly. No small or large business has a right to own some market. Entries into the market place is good for consumers although it may be bad for Vudu or other small businesses. They don’t however have a right to exist or have a right to protection from larger competitors.

I could be wrong about this, but I believe Apple has said profit is not its first motive and that shareholders that want soley profit should not invest in Apple. If that is true then I think your argument that Apple would be more profitable if others created hardware for Mac OS X is simply not important to Apple.

I think while Apple may have a monopoly or literally be a monopoly in some areas, they are legal monopolies. They may not be good for some groups (such as music companies) but are good for others, such as consumers and possibly small artists.

But Apple need only look after its interests not consumers and not its partners. They should look after their own.