PDA

View Full Version : Zune ahead of iPod on Amazon Bestseller list


MacBytes
Nov 21, 2007, 11:22 PM
http://www.macbytes.com/images/bytessig.gif (http://www.macbytes.com)

Category: 3rd Party Hardware
Link: Zune ahead of iPod on Amazon Bestseller list (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20071122002203)
Description:: For the first time a Zune (brown, 30 GB) is ahead of all iPod models on the Amazon.com electronics bestseller list heading into the holiday season. The brown model? You've got to be kidding!

Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)
Approved by Mudbug

GoCubsGo
Nov 21, 2007, 11:50 PM
Brown is the new black isn't it?
Fact is the number of windows users exceeds the number of mac users and while the ipod is stylish you cannot really argue with some of the great features with the zune. However, Zune as far as I know does not work with mac. If it did, I would consider buying one.

bigandy
Nov 22, 2007, 12:10 AM
how many zunes are microsoft buying off amazon then?

;)

paulmoscow
Nov 22, 2007, 12:21 AM
The secret is very simple: for some time they offered the brown zune for $90.

EricNau
Nov 22, 2007, 12:26 AM
The fact that "Kindle" is #2 is more surprising.

deggs37
Nov 22, 2007, 12:42 AM
Doesn't mean a whole lot since two iPods are directly beneath the Zune. And there are like 3 or 4 more iPods below that before another Zune shows up.

samuraikiss
Nov 22, 2007, 01:10 AM
Typo by some Amazon editor or sick joke? I think the latter.

winmacguy
Nov 22, 2007, 01:29 AM
The 30GB Zune @$99 might have something to do with it - down from $199
The 4GB iPod is $134.99

Genghis Khan
Nov 22, 2007, 02:48 AM
i still don't see how you can buy a zune at any money.........

PCMacUser
Nov 22, 2007, 04:11 AM
I think this is good news. Apple needs competition. We can't have them resting on their laurels, because then we as the customers lose.

GamecockMac
Nov 22, 2007, 05:13 AM
Scan the top 20 and some interesting things emerge:

1. Kindle - $399 (wtf? who is buying this?)
4. Zune 1G 30GB brown - $100
5. iPod nano 3G 4GB silver - $135
6. iPod nano 3G 8GB black - $180
9. iPod classic 80GB black - $237
16. iPod touch 16GB - $390
17. iPod nano 3G 8GB blue - $180
18. Zune 1G 30GB black - $140

I think it's pretty obvious that the price slash on the 1st-gen Zune turd has inspired lots of Windows-using bargain-hunters to whip out their credit cards to pick up some stocking stuffers for kids who are in all likelihood going to look at the things like they are lumps of coal. The impressive thing is that the iPod touch is outselling the black Zune 1G despite having half the storage and being nearly triple the cost. To say nothing of the various nanos moving very well.

BKKbill
Nov 22, 2007, 05:32 AM
Scan the top 20 and some interesting things emerge

I think it's pretty obvious that the price slash on the 1st-gen Zune turd has inspired lots of Windows-using bargain-hunters to whip out their credit cards to pick up some stocking stuffers

Stocking stuffer STOCKING STUFFER what the ...... I used to get candy canes. Anyway I want a recount.

HTrig
Nov 22, 2007, 05:54 AM
i think this may also have something to do with the now expanded range of ipods. in the past the ipod nano would always be at the top because most people who want that kind of storrage or price had to go for a nano. now however there are also ipod touches in that range taking away the top buyers and leaving those with limited funds to go for the nano. so this has to be more to do with the split customer base than the popularity of the brown squirter

Oneness
Nov 22, 2007, 08:07 AM
Stocking stuffer STOCKING STUFFER what the ...... I used to get candy canes. Anyway I want a recount.

I got (and get) underwear and socks. Even candy canes beat that.

gkarris
Nov 22, 2007, 08:42 AM
Already at the stores the Zune 30, 4, and 8, are getting discounted...

Maybe it'll drive the iPod prices down.

GO ZUNE!!!

GSMiller
Nov 22, 2007, 09:16 AM
Well no wonder it's outselling the iPod! It's only $100!

Anyway, I'm quite glad the Zune doesn't work with Mac OS X. If it did, Microsoft would have to begin developing Windows Media for Mac again which would in turn allow .wmv and .wma files with DRM to be played on Macs and then DRM would never die.

reverie
Nov 22, 2007, 10:17 AM
i think this may also have something to do with the now expanded range of ipods. in the past the ipod nano would always be at the top because most people who want that kind of storrage or price had to go for a nano. now however there are also ipod touches in that range taking away the top buyers and leaving those with limited funds to go for the nano. so this has to be more to do with the split customer base than the popularity of the brown squirter

On the other hand, Apple took away one iPod nano size and one iPod shuffle colour. If you count the number of different SKUs, it's still 15 items like last year, including the iPod touch (the red iPod shuffles, U2 iPod and iPhone are not included in my count, because they're not available on Amazon).

I think it's most likely that the Zune at $99 really is seen as bargain. I would never buy this. As the old saying goes: Buy cheap, buy twice.

IJ Reilly
Nov 22, 2007, 10:45 AM
Fry's is also advertising the original model Zune, 30 GB, brown only for $99. One per customer, limited quantities. This does not reflect great demand for brown Zunes. It reflects a warehouse full of brown Zunes that Microsoft could not move at the full price.

macFanDave
Nov 22, 2007, 02:09 PM
Clearly people are buying brown Zune's at half-price as collector's items.

They are the 2000's version of the Edsel. Or New Coke. These are all some of the most embarrassing examples of stupidity by America's most prominent corporations.

The brown Zune causes such a WTF reaction that having on on your mantle will trigger giggles of delight for many decades to come.

What is the brown Zune's killer feature it has over the iPod? Point-and-laugh!

cr8383942
Nov 22, 2007, 02:35 PM
I actually originally submitted this link. The reason was to point out so people wouldn't forget just what a grueling marathon it is competing with Microsoft. In the past Apple Computer, Netscape, Palm, Playstation - all market leaders often with over 90% of marketshare all virtually marginalized by Microsoft's ability to keep pouring money and leverage Windows into an area until erosion occurs and the dam breaks. Apple's iPhone and Touch are cool and new and push things but they need to compete more on price if they're going to prevent this slow chipping away from happening... everyone laughed at Internet Explorer 1.0 when it came out too. This, I believe is why Apple has kept the iTunes - iPod ecosystem closed - not so much as monopoly but to avoid letting MS get in as a Trojan horse offering compatibility (then eventually removing it like Java from a browser).:eek:

IJ Reilly
Nov 22, 2007, 04:08 PM
I actually originally submitted this link. The reason was to point out so people wouldn't forget just what a grueling marathon it is competing with Microsoft. In the past Apple Computer, Netscape, Palm, Playstation - all market leaders often with over 90% of marketshare all virtually marginalized by Microsoft's ability to keep pouring money and leverage Windows into an area until erosion occurs and the dam breaks. Apple's iPhone and Touch are cool and new and push things but they need to compete more on price if they're going to prevent this slow chipping away from happening... everyone laughed at Internet Explorer 1.0 when it came out too. This, I believe is why Apple has kept the iTunes - iPod ecosystem closed - not so much as monopoly but to avoid letting MS get in as a Trojan horse offering compatibility (then eventually removing it like Java from a browser).:eek:

There's certainly some truth in what you say, but I think in the case of the brown Zune (sounds like the title of a story by A. Conan Doyle), it's more a matter of Microsoft being faced with the choice of dumping them on the market for cheap or grinding them up as scrap. Nobody doubts that Microsoft will continue to throw money at the Zune, and by virtue of it even gain some market share. But the history of this company strongly suggests that without an existing monopoly to leverage to sell a new product, Microsoft tends to flop around like a fish on dry land.

Passante
Nov 22, 2007, 04:27 PM
I actually originally submitted this link. The reason was to point out so people wouldn't forget just what a grueling marathon it is competing with Microsoft. In the past Apple Computer, Netscape, Palm, Playstation - all market leaders often with over 90% of marketshare all virtually marginalized by Microsoft's ability to keep pouring money and leverage Windows into an area until erosion occurs and the dam breaks. Apple's iPhone and Touch are cool and new and push things but they need to compete more on price if they're going to prevent this slow chipping away from happening... everyone laughed at Internet Explorer 1.0 when it came out too. This, I believe is why Apple has kept the iTunes - iPod ecosystem closed - not so much as monopoly but to avoid letting MS get in as a Trojan horse offering compatibility (then eventually removing it like Java from a browser).:eek:

Spoken like a newbie poster....:p

RossoA
Nov 22, 2007, 04:33 PM
Funny, the Amazon Kindle is no 1.

I think there is some bias in the Amazon bestsellers list...

SPUY767
Nov 23, 2007, 07:12 AM
They're practically giving these things away, it's not surprising that they are high on the best seller list. And, from a specifications standpoint, they're the best deal in media players right now. Of course, we all know that specifications mean jack all and there are going to be some very disappointed people trying to find random folks with whom to share their music.

solvs
Nov 24, 2007, 12:47 AM
The Zune is back to $160 (still much cheaper than when it originally came out) and the 4Gb iPod (slightly discounted at $138) is back to the number 2 slot.

I'm thinking Apple isn't too worried. ;)

GoodWatch
Nov 24, 2007, 01:52 AM
But the history of this company strongly suggests that without an existing monopoly to leverage to sell a new product, Microsoft tends to flop around like a fish on dry land.

Monopoly? I don't want to be rude sir, but could you name me 1 other computer, not made by Apple that runs OS X? (Not the mention the clone debacle of many years ago........)

solvs
Nov 24, 2007, 01:54 AM
Monopoly? I don't want to be rude sir, but could you name me 1 other computer, not made by Apple that runs OS X? (Not the mention the clone debacle of many years ago........)

That's not a monopoly.

GoodWatch
Nov 24, 2007, 02:13 AM
That's not a monopoly.


I'm sorry, I keep forgetting. It's exclusivity :p

IJ Reilly
Nov 24, 2007, 11:21 AM
I'm sorry, I keep forgetting. It's exclusivity :p

It's called a "product." Can you buy a Honda Accord from anyone but Honda? An Xbox from anyone but Microsoft?

GoodWatch
Nov 24, 2007, 11:51 AM
It's called a "product." Can you buy a Honda Accord from anyone but Honda? An Xbox from anyone but Microsoft?

Yes sir, I can. I can buy an Xbox from Toys-r-Us, Dixon's, put in any vendor here, etc. I can buy a Honda from any of the dozens of garages that sell them. But an iPhone? An iPhone, e.g. in Germany, can be bought from, wait for it, here is the list:

T-Mobile,
T-Mobile,
T-Mobile,
T-Mobile,
.

macFanDave
Nov 24, 2007, 10:49 PM
Yes sir, I can. I can buy an Xbox from Toys-r-Us, Dixon's, put in any vendor here, etc. I can buy a Honda from any of the dozens of garages that sell them. But an iPhone? An iPhone, e.g. in Germany, can be bought from, wait for it, here is the list:

T-Mobile,
T-Mobile,
T-Mobile,
T-Mobile,
.

What are you complaining about? You have FOUR choices!!! They could be a little more original about their names -- how do you tell them apart?

Until recently, in Canadian football, they had eight teams and two of them were called the Rough Riders. Apparently, true fans could know which team you are talking about just by your inflection. Maybe that is the case with all of your T-Mobiles.

IJ Reilly
Nov 24, 2007, 11:10 PM
Yes sir, I can. I can buy an Xbox from Toys-r-Us, Dixon's, put in any vendor here, etc. I can buy a Honda from any of the dozens of garages that sell them. But an iPhone? An iPhone, e.g. in Germany, can be bought from, wait for it, here is the list:

T-Mobile,
T-Mobile,
T-Mobile,
T-Mobile,
.

Did you seriously misunderstand my response that completetly, or are you just joking?

Digital Skunk
Nov 24, 2007, 11:41 PM
The fact that "Kindle" is #2 is more surprising.

People are buying brown Zunes and Kindles... it must be the end-times and people are loosing their minds.

Anyway, I believe that the MS is just clearing out old stock, like Apple may be doing with the MacPro in Jan. when the new models come out. I would buy a Zune for $100 to, and give it away as a Christmas gift, which may or may not be the case for many people grabbing a turd colored Zune.

About exclusivity, the same can be said for many other companies... Apple was not the first, and isn't the worst case of exclusivity to date. Sony, Microsoft, Camera companies, etc do the same thing. Why can't I play Final Fantasy on an xBox 360, and why can't I play Halo on my Playstation? When you buy a PC you will usually have Windows on it, just like a Macintosh. And if you buy a Sony digital camera, you'd better grab a Sony memory stick to work with it.

GoodWatch
Nov 25, 2007, 01:33 AM
Did you seriously misunderstand my response that completetly, or are you just joking?

I answered your question. And before this turns into yet another 'I'm right and you're wrong' debate I fold. If you don't want to see the obvious there's no reasoning possible. Enjoy your weekend!

GoodWatch
Nov 25, 2007, 01:35 AM
What are you complaining about? You have FOUR choices!!! They could be a little more original about their names -- how do you tell them apart?

Until recently, in Canadian football, they had eight teams and two of them were called the Rough Riders. Apparently, true fans could know which team you are talking about just by your inflection. Maybe that is the case with all of your T-Mobiles.

a. I'm not from Germany
b. There's no competition

macFanDave
Nov 25, 2007, 10:20 AM
a. I'm not from Germany
b. There's no competition

I was just kidding. Trying to get an LOL or a :) out of you.

Cromulent
Nov 25, 2007, 10:24 AM
Yes sir, I can. I can buy an Xbox from Toys-r-Us, Dixon's, put in any vendor here, etc. I can buy a Honda from any of the dozens of garages that sell them. But an iPhone? An iPhone, e.g. in Germany, can be bought from, wait for it, here is the list:

T-Mobile,
T-Mobile,
T-Mobile,
T-Mobile,
.

You can buy an Apple Mac from numerous third part resellers. I'm not sure you understand what a monopoly is based off your posts.

Even the fact that you can only get an iPhone on one network does not equal a monopoly as it does not have the majority market share and there are other types of phone available offering competition within the marketplace.

Apple do not have a monopoly on phones or personal computers.

GoodWatch
Nov 25, 2007, 10:25 AM
I was just kidding. Trying to get an LOL or a :) out of you.

You must be from Canada, eh?

zap2
Nov 25, 2007, 10:53 AM
Yes sir, I can. I can buy an Xbox from Toys-r-Us, Dixon's, put in any vendor here, etc. I can buy a Honda from any of the dozens of garages that sell them. But an iPhone? An iPhone, e.g. in Germany, can be bought from, wait for it, here is the list:

T-Mobile,
T-Mobile,
T-Mobile,
T-Mobile,
.


Wow, now you talking about two things. First OS X being on only Macs and iPhone only buying from T Mobile

But your wrong on both accounts....I can buy an iPhone from Apple.com, AT&T's website, amazon, etc....and for Macs I can buy them from Best Buy, CompUSA, Apple Store etc....

Cleverboy
Nov 25, 2007, 10:56 AM
I answered your question. And before this turns into yet another 'I'm right and you're wrong' debate I fold. If you don't want to see the obvious there's no reasoning possible. Enjoy your weekend!LOL. Just give up now. I see this is not an isolated experience. IJ Reilly, you must have this affect on everyone. I'll try my best to give the unwary early warnings.

Goodwatch totally has a point, people. Apple has complete exclusivity on the Macintosh platform and uses hardware/software "tying" to enhance their position. The only thing that keeps this from being detrimental to the consumer experience, is the fact that Apple is still a very small percentage of the PC market. This doesn't invalidate the fact that Microsoft tends to flop around without solid competition. I suspect given the same circumstance, Apple would "flop around" too. In fact, Apple's early success with the Apple II did make it a bit complacent in my opinion. Windows swooped in and ate its lunch. Decades later we still have the battle of the business models.

You don't have to hate Apple to see looming problems with the business model that worked on a small scale, begin to create issues on the large scale. I'm just glad they relented on the Made for iPod accessory licensing fees (last check anyways).

Regarding the Zunes... they're perfectly good Mp3 players. I was playing with one in Staples the other day. Mac users and Apple fans love to knock it all day long, but the main reasons most people don' switch over to Zune, have to do with compatibility. If you could switch to Zune tomorrow from a 1st gen Nano for $99-$160, and use all your music and videos... that's a complete NO BRAINER. That's why its selling well, even though you can't switch your music. At the same or similar price, Zune really can't compete. Microsoft is assuming a LOSS in order to gain crucial "switcher" marketshare. They're "dumping". It's clearly hurting iPod "first adopter" sales, and creates a potential future market for new Zunes. When it comes to losing money to gain marketshare, Microsoft is king from their commitment in other sectors. They've been doing it with Xbox forever and apparently think this is a great business model as long as they can bleed their way to top dog status.

~ CB

GoodWatch
Nov 25, 2007, 11:15 AM
Wow, now you talking about two things. First OS X being on only Macs and iPhone only buying from T Mobile

But your wrong on both accounts....I can buy an iPhone from Apple.com, AT&T's website, amazon, etc....and for Macs I can buy them from Best Buy, CompUSA, Apple Store etc....

That is the problem with many who feel the need to chime in. I can do this and I can do that. Too US-centric reasoning. And OS X IS only available on Macs. What have I done to deserve this? :rolleyes:

Peace
Nov 25, 2007, 11:21 AM
There's a new kid on the block folks.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/electronics/ref=sv_etk_ce_av__1/102-6511693-2540101

zap2
Nov 25, 2007, 11:46 AM
That is the problem with many who feel the need to chime in. I can do this and I can do that. :

I was using myself as an example....your point was wrong, so your now nitpicking...

Too US-centric reasoning.

Don't use that crap...someone in Germany can go to T Mobile, Apple Stores, Saturn stores, etc.....I just used the US as an example because I live there!

Also,that has nothing to do with you point...but I'm not surprised, as your point is wrong, so you can't defend it..

And OS X IS only available on Macs. What have I done to deserve this? :rolleyes:
Halo 3 is only for sale on Xbox 360, Spiderman 3 isn't for sale on HD DVD...its called business...its how companies make money

IJ Reilly
Nov 25, 2007, 11:53 AM
Goodwatch totally has a point, people. Apple has complete exclusivity on the Macintosh platform and uses hardware/software "tying" to enhance their position. The only thing that keeps this from being detrimental to the consumer experience, is the fact that Apple is still a very small percentage of the PC market. This doesn't invalidate the fact that Microsoft tends to flop around without solid competition. I suspect given the same circumstance, Apple would "flop around" too. In fact, Apple's early success with the Apple II did make it a bit complacent in my opinion. Windows swooped in and ate its lunch. Decades later we still have the battle of the business models.

Goodwatch didn't have a point at all, as nearly as I and several other posters could tell. He seems to be confusing retailing with the manufacturing of proprietary products. On the one hand, he's obviously incorrect (I didn't need to point that out, others did), and on the other, proprietary is the rule not the exception in industry. If you're going to argue that a company is a "monopoly," then you'd better have a good working understanding of the meaning of the term.

As for tying, yes Apple does this, as do many other companies. According the laws in most countries at least, this is not considered to be inherently anticompetitive behavior. If (as in the case of Microsoft) market share is sufficient for tying to be considered a barrier to competition, then tying can be found to be illegal restraint of trade. Apple needs to monitor their own behavior in the digital music player market for this reason -- or others, including the courts, will do it for them.

Microsoft doesn't tend to flop around without competition, they tend to flop around with it. They haven't launched a new, profitable product in ages. They lose money on both the Zune and Xbox. Can you imagine the market reaction if Apple lost money on two of their most high-profile products?

Incidentally, I don't know what point you were trying to make with the Apple II and Windows comparison, since these products did not exist in the same timeframe. I'm also not sure what you mean by the "battle of business models." Which ones, and how?

GoodWatch
Nov 25, 2007, 12:14 PM
Don't use that crap...someone in Germany can go to T Mobile, Apple Stores, Saturn stores, etc.....I just used the US as an example because I live there!

Before you decide to become rude again, go to the German Apple store and try to order an iPhone. It is in German but I'm sure you can work out the meaning of the words 'Exclusiv' and T-Mobile. But this isn't about the iPhone isn't it? It is about something completely different. Cheer up man, there's more to life than a piece of hardware :)

zap2
Nov 25, 2007, 12:28 PM
Before you decide to become rude again, go to the German Apple store and try to order an iPhone. It is in German but I'm sure you can work out the meaning of the words 'Exclusiv' and T-Mobile. But this isn't about the iPhone isn't it? It is about something completely different. Cheer up man, there's more to life than a piece of hardware :)

So, basicly your saying your point about Apple and OS X being a monopoly is wrong?

Yea, I thought so...

GoodWatch
Nov 25, 2007, 12:41 PM
So, basicly your saying your point about Apple and OS X being a monopoly is wrong?

Yea, I thought so...

Whatever you say dude, whatever you say. I guess I haven't seen the light yet.

IJ Reilly
Nov 25, 2007, 01:12 PM
Incidentally, the LG Voyager (the so-called "iPhone killer") is being sold exclusively through Verizon for $349 (minus a $50 rebate). Two year Verizon service contract required. Yet another monopoly, I guess.

zap2
Nov 25, 2007, 01:51 PM
Incidentally, the LG Voyager (the so-called "iPhone killer") is being sold exclusively through Verizon for $349 (minus a $50 rebate). Two year Verizon service contract required. Yet another monopoly, I guess.

And the Sidekick....T Mobile only....

And currently Palm Centro and Palm Treo 755p are only on Sprint!

IJ Reilly
Nov 25, 2007, 02:00 PM
And the Sidekick....T Mobile only....

And currently Palm Centro and Palm Treo 755p are only on Sprint!

Gah! Monopolies to the left of me, monopolies to the right of me!

Digital Skunk
Nov 25, 2007, 05:58 PM
And the Sidekick....T Mobile only....

And currently Palm Centro and Palm Treo 755p are only on Sprint!

Well, the Palm 755p is only on Sprint's network, but Palm makes two or more versions of the same phone. I think Cingular's version is the Treo 680 and it does exactly the same thing. But I get your point.

zap2
Nov 25, 2007, 06:29 PM
Well, the Palm 755p is only on Sprint's network, but Palm makes two or more versions of the same phone. I think Cingular's version is the Treo 680 and it does exactly the same thing. But I get your point.

They are a bit different, better camera on Treo 755p, small stuff....but I see where your coming from(same basic design, same OS...most of the big stuff)


But clearly you got what I was trying to say....hopefully so did GoodWatch

Digital Skunk
Nov 25, 2007, 09:07 PM
They are a bit different, better camera on Treo 755p, small stuff....but I see where your coming from(same basic design, same OS...most of the big stuff)


But clearly you got what I was trying to say....hopefully so did GoodWatch

Yeah, I get you perfectly. And I know that exclusivity is a thing of the present. Current day capitalism is based on that concept. Give the consumer all the cans they want for cheap or free, but sell them the can opener for a small fortune.

Apple's philosophy makes sense to some, keep things closed and protected so that there isn't chaos, like the Windows world which left everything open. Not that Windows doesn't have its advantages for being an open system.

solvs
Nov 25, 2007, 11:44 PM
Whatever you say dude, whatever you say. I guess I haven't seen the light yet.
You don't need to "see the light", just back up your claim instead of making posts saying things like "if you don't want to see the obvious there's no reasoning possible" then accusing others of being rude if they dispute you.

Besides, I thought you folded?

Cleverboy
Nov 26, 2007, 02:40 AM
Well, it's not going to help the discussion if people choose to get so uptight about the word "monopoly" that they lose its very meaning unless its tied to Microsoft. The point of any discussion of monopoly is not whether it exists (just look in a dictionary and use rational judgement), but whether it is harmful. Monopolies by themselves aren't necessarily bad or undesireable.

People who employ "fuzzy" definitions that change with the shifting of their mood should take stock of what they're really arguing about. Yes, Goodwatch has a GOOD POINT. Whether you agree with the conclusion he arrives at is something completely different. Personally, I don't come to the same conclusion but I won't begrudge the point itself, or I'd be highly disingenuous in my appreciation for what Apple is doing. I like "integration", but there's only so much exclusivity you can protect.

Encyclopedia of Business, by The Gale Group, Inc.
A monopoly is a market condition in which a single seller controls the entire output of a particular good or service. A firm is a monopoly if it is the sole seller of its product and if its product has no close substitutes. Close substitutes are those goods that could closely take the place of a particular good; for example, a Pepsi soft drink would be a close substitute for a Coke drink, but a juice drink would not. The fundamental cause of monopoly is barriers to entry; these are technological or economic conditions of a market that raise the cost for firms wanting to enter the market above the cost for firms already in the market or otherwise make new entry difficult. If the barriers to entry prevent others firms from entering the market, there is no competition and the monopoly remains the only seller in its market. The seller is then able to set the price and output of a particular good or service. Is Microsoft NOT a monopoly because there are other operatings systems like Ubuntu and Mac OS? Nope, they're still a monopoly. While there are many flavors of Linux, there is only one commerical vendor of Windows compatible OS's and one commercial vendor of Mac OS compatible OS's.

In creating the Zune, Microsoft has followed Apple's formula rather than its own. If Microsoft had been first, and ran the Zune like the iPod (instead of using its licenseable uber-limitable cross-compatible DRM system), its pretty clear the howling now murmuring at Apple's good job, would have long become a primal scream at Microsoft's rusty gates. I'm not sure how many people remember the blackbox Mac OS api system that was being developed for BeOS back in the day. It seemed conceivable at the time that it might be a way for BeOS to become the next generation of MacOS, before NeXT ate its lunch. In the midst of CHRP and clones bursting all over the place, the concept seemed to die a horrible death... one I'm not entirely clear wasn't by an Apple cease in desist (blackbox practices notwithstanding). Meanwhile, both Parallels and VMWare have publically backed off any effort to virtualize the Mac OS (unlike support for other operating systems), after noises from Apple.

A lot of territory marking going on. Just keep it real.

That's all. Carry on.

~ CB

IJ Reilly
Nov 26, 2007, 10:50 AM
Well, it's not going to help the discussion if people choose to get so uptight about the word "monopoly" that they lose its very meaning unless its tied to Microsoft. The point of any discussion of monopoly is not whether it exists (just look in a dictionary and use rational judgement), but whether it is harmful. Monopolies by themselves aren't necessarily bad or undesireable.

People who employ "fuzzy" definitions that change with the shifting of their mood should take stock of what they're really arguing about. Yes, Goodwatch has a GOOD POINT. Whether you agree with the conclusion he arrives at is something completely different. Personally, I don't come to the same conclusion but I won't begrudge the point itself, or I'd be highly disingenuous in my appreciation for what Apple is doing. I like "integration", but there's only so much exclusivity you can protect.

Is Microsoft NOT a monopoly because there are other operatings systems like Ubuntu and Mac OS? Nope, they're still a monopoly. While there are many flavors of Linux, there is only one commerical vendor of Windows compatible OS's and one commercial vendor of Mac OS compatible OS's.

Not wanting to get too technical, I did not try to make the distinction between the dictionary definition of monopoly and the definition which is applicable to antitrust law. In reality it's nearly impossible for any company to be a true, dictionary-defined monopoly. This argument is used often to "prove" that Microsoft is not a monopoly, because competitors, no matter how marginalized, have always existed. Antitrust law uses different definitions. They look at "market power," which is the ability of one player in a market to restrain trade and to disadvantage competitors. This is what Microsoft was found guilty of doing.

As you say, a monopoly, no matter how it's defined, is not illegal. Using market power to restrain trade is, and you don't need a dictionary-definition monopoly for that to occur. It does matter whether any given company's behavior has violated antitrust laws, and we are a long way from proving that in Apple's case. In fact, I haven't seen any evidence of this presented by anybody. Apple selling a product in a way which does not appeal to you personally is not evidence of antitrust, or of behavior which isn't protected by law.

I realize this may seem like a hopelessly pedantic point to some. I'm one who believes that these definitions matter. Without them, I don't know what we're really talking about or what point is being made.

Cleverboy
Nov 26, 2007, 07:22 PM
I'm one who believes that these definitions matter. Without them, I don't know what we're really talking about or what point is being made.You know, we may actually be the same person with a mild case of multiple personalities. Stranger things have happened... Much like Good Watch, its sounds like we agree on the broad strokes but draw a conclusion ever so slightly different. I have a cousin who works at Microsoft. He's in charge of organizing the teams that remove features Microsoft gets sued into getting rid of. In many cases, their only recourse toward innovation is to hide new features so deeply in the OS that people can hardly identify them, much less match them to some obscure patent. If the news trends are any indication, Apple's now beginning to gain its share of legal saber rattling in earnest. The first monopoly suits are beginning to roll in. Personally I'm not impressed with them, but sooner or later every spitball finds it mark.

~ CB

solvs
Nov 27, 2007, 02:14 AM
I don't know what we're really talking about or what point is being made.
Apparently the point was that it was obvious Apple was a monopoly and we're all just missing it. I'd be happy with some proof, or reasoning, to back up this "good point". Maybe with some examples, or at least a little expansion of what it is we're missing. Guess if I don't see the light, and no one wants to show it to me, I'll never know. :p

spydr
Nov 27, 2007, 09:06 AM
I see no Zune among the top 20.

Must have overtaken iPod for an hour or so when Ball head placed a large order for his extended family with brown bricks. :)

IJ Reilly
Nov 27, 2007, 10:46 AM
If the news trends are any indication, Apple's now beginning to gain its share of legal saber rattling in earnest. The first monopoly suits are beginning to roll in. Personally I'm not impressed with them, but sooner or later every spitball finds it mark.

Apple does have to mind its peas and queues in the digital music player market. Their share of this market does raise the prospect of them using it to restrain trade, not that such a case has been made yet. But in the mobile phone market? That's pretty laughable -- their target market share is 1%!

Apparently the point was that it was obvious Apple was a monopoly and we're all just missing it. I'd be happy with some proof, or reasoning, to back up this "good point". Maybe with some examples, or at least a little expansion of what it is we're missing. Guess if I don't see the light, and no one wants to show it to me, I'll never know. :p

I understand why some people feel aggrieved by Apple's hardball approach to the phone market, which isn't very different from their approach to selling computers. They want to control the user's experience with the product, presumably because they think they've gotten user experience right. Maybe Apple is making a big mistake. I admit, I don't really know. What I do know is that consumers get to vote with their dollars (or euros), and few governments are going to protect consumers from having to make that choice. Nor should they, IMO.

solvs
Nov 27, 2007, 02:23 PM
I understand why some people feel aggrieved by Apple's hardball approach to the phone market, which isn't very different from their approach to selling computers.
Maybe, but the argument was made very well. I guess I'm just jaded from my time in the PRSI forums. I'd prefer people back up their claims, or at least explain them, instead of just telling us it's obvious and wondering why we don't get it. I just think some people don't understand quite what a monopoly is, and what's legal or ethical and what isn't.

Meanwhile, I'm enjoying my iPhone as is, though anxiously awaiting the results of the SDK, if nothing else than out of curiosity.

GoodWatch
Nov 27, 2007, 03:18 PM
There is a Swiss watch manufacturer with an even more vice-like grip on the market they operate in. The watches they produce are not bad, far from it but not very special either. The founder wasn’t a watchmaker and he wasn’t Swiss either. He was, however, a marketing genius. He managed, aided by clever advertising, to conjure up the image of immense desirability of his watches. The result, in 2007, is that they are regarded as one of the best watches in the world and perspective buyers are prepared to pay the annual 10% price increase. (Even Apple could learn a thing or two from that company!). The watches are only sold at ADs (Authorised Dealers) who all maintain the same retail prices and parts are not available to non-certified dealers or watchmakers. A great deal of that success can be attributed to the fact they control every step in the manufacturing process and make everything themselves. One of their models (which I owned before it was stolen) became so desirable in 2000 that buyers were put on waiting lists after it had received a favourable and special interest review. I had to wait over 3 months for ‘the call’. The reason I bought it had nothing to do with that review but with an experience I had during my time in the military. And it is just a cool watch. :cool:

New owners think the watches represent the latest in ‘haute horlogerie’ (which they don’t) and also believe the watches are still hand made. (They are not; 2 million a year is mass production). They also think the watch they just bought is worth every Euro cent and more. New models or rumours about a change in the way a bracelet is attached to the case will rattle the brand forums for months. Sounds familiar?

No, this doesn’t constitute a monopoly because you have the choice to buy another brand of watch and you don’t have to buy one either. While writing this it dawned to me that Apple’s machinations are no monopoly in the strict legal sense.

So all the honourable forum members who slapped me on the wrist about the ‘exclusivity’ remarks are right! I apologise. But I still feel very, very strongly that both that watch producer’s- and Apple’s methods stink. If you don’t mind me saying so. :p

IJ Reilly
Nov 27, 2007, 03:43 PM
"Haute horlogerie." That's a new one for me. I will remember to use it sometime.

Your story of the watchmaker does sound somewhat familiar. I think this analogy actually holds true for all makers of products who don't strive for mass market appeal. I suppose we could all supply a dozen other examples off the tops of our heads. Apple in particular (under Steve Jobs at least), has striven to be "best of breed" in the consumer electronics market. This is certainly a different vision for a company than maximizing sales. If Apple went in this direction, they'd be a very different company than the one we know today. Much more like Microsoft, I think -- where "just good enough" has always been the unspoken but obvious mission.

Do we really want to see this approach from Apple? I think this is the real question we've been asking, in not so many words. If the answer is "no" then perhaps we need to be prepared for an occasionally grating attitude from Jobs & Co.

GoodWatch
Nov 27, 2007, 03:57 PM
"Haute horlogerie." That's a new one for me. I will remember to use it sometime. --- If the answer is "no" then perhaps we need to be prepared for an occasionally grating attitude from Jobs & Co.

Nice huh? Even a hard headed clogger can be reasonable :p Haute horlogerie stands for miracles like the Patek Philippe Calibre 89.

About the grating, I'm covered in blisters, does that count? :rolleyes:

IJ Reilly
Nov 27, 2007, 04:03 PM
About the grating, I'm covered in blisters, does that count? :rolleyes:

Boils, sackcloth and ashes usually does the trick!

GoodWatch
Nov 27, 2007, 04:09 PM
Boils, sackcloth and ashes usually does the trick!

I'm in the company of men with a more than rudimentary level of intelligence here! :p On an Apple forum :rolleyes: :p

Cleverboy
Nov 28, 2007, 08:34 AM
So all the honourable forum members who slapped me on the wrist about the ‘exclusivity’ remarks are right! I apologise. But I still feel very, very strongly that both that watch producer’s- and Apple’s methods stink. If you don’t mind me saying so. :pNo... you're completely CORRECT the first time. You can't compare a watchmaker to a computer manufacturer. There is nothing to stop a watchmaker from conducting its business end-to-end, but with computers, Microsoft fought and LOST the right to pick and choose what software they bundled with their operating system to the exclusion of others. This was done mostly for the detrimental effect such actions had on the open market and fair competition. In the "strictest" sense, Apple has a number of monopolies, but only inside its own ecosystem.

As its ecosystem grows an grows, there will be more complaints regarding the degree of control they wield inside of it. Right now, Microsoft ironically, has been kicked in the proverbial nutsack, by iWork. How many people are going to buy Microsoft Office, if iWork is office compatible, costs $79 (compared to over $300) and has a "trial" version bundled with the machine. Is every piece of software Apple offers competing solutions for to simply "rollover" if Apple chooses to throw its hat in the ring?

Again, let's not continue to forget that the "definition" of monopoly is entirely correct when it applies to many of Apple's market positions. --And that there may be NOTHING WRONG with Apple having that monopoly, UNLESS it begins to stifle competition, and then like the tale of AT&T and the baby bells, a splittin' would be in the cards.

That Apple isn't there yet shouldn't make people cover their eyes and be disingenuous to what is going on. It becomes weird and easily the subject of a justifiable flame war.

~ CB

IJ Reilly
Nov 28, 2007, 10:33 AM
Microsoft fought and lost because of their 90-95% market share and the ease with which it could be demonstrated that they were deliberately thwarting competition. Even so, these antitrust cases lumbered on for over a decade, and you will notice, in the end, Microsoft was not broken up. So I think the chances that Apple will ever be broken up by order of a court are nil.

Cleverboy
Nov 29, 2007, 04:44 AM
Microsoft fought and lost because of their 90-95% market share and the ease with which it could be demonstrated that they were deliberately thwarting competition. Even so, these antitrust cases lumbered on for over a decade, and you will notice, in the end, Microsoft was not broken up. So I think the chances that Apple will ever be broken up by order of a court are nil.
We're saying the exact same thing.

% of the market = monopoly, not intention.

It is one thing to BE a monopoly, but another to operate AS a monopoly (abusing monopoly powers, etc) instead of operating as the business has operated throughout its history.

Anti-competitive intention/action = Anti-trust as applies to entities in monopoly positions.

Microsoft didn't end up being split, but its not to say that the courts didn't order it (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/781852.stm) (followed inevitably by appeal). Remember this chestnut?
Wednesday, 7 June, 2000, 22:37 GMT 23:37 UK
An American court has ordered that software giant Microsoft be split in two for abusing its dominant market position.
Judge Thomas Penfold Jackson said the action was needed to ensure the company - once the world's biggest - did not operate as a monopoly.

He also ordered the firm to modify its conduct to give its competitors a better chance of selling their own software.

Microsoft said it would appeal against the ruling. The implementation of the break-up order is likely to be delayed until the higher courts reach a decision.Judge Jackson said the company should be split into two separate businesses:

One to market and produce Windows
The other to handle Microsoft Office and other applications software, along with the Internet Explorer web browser.
The US Justice Department, which brought the case along with 17 states, was jubilant that the judge had accepted its recommendations.
"Our efforts will protect competition and ensure that consumers will have improved products in the marketplace," US Attorney General Janet Reno said.Friday, 2 November, 2001, 16:58 GMT
The US Justice Department has reached a settlement with Microsoft in the three-year-old anti-trust case against the software giant. The agreement falls far short of the original government aim of breaking up the company, but imposes a number of restrictions. "This historic settlement will bring effective relief to the market and ensure that consumers will have more choices in meeting their computer needs," US Attorney General John Ashcroft said in a statement.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/1634449.stm

But AT&T is an echoing example of what happened in the past, though ironically the pieces have slowly been reforming like some horror matinee film ghoul. When you get too big, sometimes you might not intend to crush competitors and stifle competition.. it just happens. Companies like Microsoft then need to go out of their way NOT to abuse their monopoly in a way that raises the ire of the US Justice Department.

Just like filing joint taxes for married couples, government regulation always adds an interesting level of consideration as Apple looks at its iPod division and decides what the future holds. I feel we'll be seeing MacOSX, gradually appear in far more high-profile venues than Windows offerings (emphasis: high-profile)... and this will have further ranging implications given the degree of developer-friendliness. While Microsoft continues to implement "one-off" technologies like Windows Sideshow and Zune wireless syncing, Apple has the opportunity to continue its simplification philosophy. If Erica Sadun's (of TUAW) work on Bonjour (http://www.tuaw.com/2007/11/07/iphone-coding-bonjour-wrapper-simplifies-iphone-implementation/) support for iPhone is any indication (http://www.tuaw.com/2007/10/22/mdns-and-caffeine-how-i-got-bonjour-running-on-my-iphone/) (along with Apple's patents of smart devices that inform each other of capabilities)... Apple will have the SAME effect in the OS space, as its had in the vendor accessory space (where vendors have bemoaned that few other vendors have standardized ports as much as Apple has with its iPod line, which cuts into how much support they can offer).

The scenery of industry movement is much more enjoyable to observe when none of us are laboring under the illusion that any corporation is above reproach.

~ CB

shoelessone
Nov 29, 2007, 08:41 AM
If Zunes worked on Macs I'd buy one.

ClassicMac247
Dec 2, 2007, 12:19 AM
wait wait wait 30gb brown beat ipod! thats bs!

Digital Skunk
Dec 2, 2007, 12:36 AM
If Zunes worked on Macs I'd buy one.

That and if they had a 160GB version and a multi-touch version.

wait wait wait 30gb brown beat ipod! thats bs!

Yeah it did. They had to lower the price to $99.

skuzzy
Dec 2, 2007, 01:50 AM
Now it isn't even in the top 20 list. Only the 2nd generation black model. However, I see 7 Apple products - all iPods :D Looks like everyone finally came to their senses.