Apple monopoly?

[_bnkr612]

MR Friends-

While I was at the bar tonight with some buddies, the topic of Apple came up. We started talking about what "rumors" were around lately and all sorts of Apple blabber.

Anyway, a friend mentioned that Apple has a monopoly as much as M$ on allowing people to create/sell an OS for a computer, and I lashed back and said, "Apple provides their own computers and Operating Systems, why should something that works almost seemlessly well need some outside company to offer anything different? Microsoft bullied there way through for Windows to come with every PC, blowing out OS's like GeoWorks."

He replied, "It doesn't matter, Apple has a monopoly and that's that."

Worst debate I had.

Can I get anyone to back me up and also debate with this issue, I am curious to get some responses here.

Granted I know I might not have all the facts... I am a loyal Apple consumer and I was trying to defend its 2% market share.

Cheers.

 

[MacFan26]

What exactly was he debating, that Apple has a monopoly of the operating system on its own computers? If so, I don't really understand the argument, they make the computers, they ought to be able to choose what system to package with them. Since they're also a software company, why not package their easy to use OS with the computers they make. The way that software interacts seamlessly the hardware is part of the deal. Besides, Apple makes most of their money off hardware and not software. Consumers still have the right whether or not to use that system, such as installing Linux, etc. If the consumer wants something else, don't buy Apple hardware. I don't know if that will help with this debate, lol, but good luck

 

[Sun Baked]

Not really... Since Apple isn't the only PPC-based maker around.

The clone machines are not totally dead -- they're still being sold based on the specs Apple came up with years ago for the CHRP platform, but without the Mac OS, they're Linux PPCs.

IBM sold one for a long time, though IBM did finally put their CHRP-based machine out of it's misery, and has yet to replace it.

Heck even Amiga could be considered a vendor and direct PPC-based competition, a stuggling and bankrupt vendor, that is watching it's G4-based hardware fall behind as well as having a OS that's taking forever to hit the market.

---

Basically the Mac OS is the only mainstream OS that hits the news regularly for the PowerPC based machines -- Linux, AIX, Amiga spawned MorphOS and current PPC-based AmigaOS 4.0 are generally background noise.

 

[junior]

MR Friends-


...and I was trying to defend its 2% market share.

Cheers.

Exactly the point you should make. How can there possibly be a monopoly when a company has 2% of the market share. There's nothing to debate.

 

[LethalWolfe]

Your friend is confused about what a monopoly is. A monopoly refers to companie's position in its respective market place, it has nothing to do w/their products. MS isn't a monopoly because it has Windows, Office, and IE. MS is a monopoly because it has used/is using it's domination of the computer world to create a severely unfair advantage to its competition.

Following your friend's logic every company that produces a product is a monopoly because no other company produces that specific product. Is Reebok a monopoly because no one else makes Reebok shoes? No. Is Timex a monopoly because no one else makes Timex watches? No.

Hopefully your friend had been drinking a lot and that's why he sounds like such a dumb@ss.


Lethal

 

[urban1985_]

For some reason when I saw the thread title for this thing, I thought of an Apple version of the Monopoly board game.

Maybe I just miss that game a lot haha.

 

[5300cs]

I hate arguing with idiots. I had an argument with some jerk somewhere else who said Apple was just a follower. I came up with this list of Apple firsts, like first computer with USB, FireWire, a trackpad, mouse, etc, etc. The guy said "Apple didn't invent any of those. See? Just a follower. NEXT." I could have cheerfully killed him then.

Tell your friend "It does matter. Look up monopoly in the dictionary, then get back to me when you know what you're talking about."

 

[Blue Velvet]

It's very hard to change people's minds by arguing with them.

They may have to admit that they are... wrong
(and in front of other people)

Just smugly bask in the ineffable glow of your right-ness...

 

[jsalzer]

Analogies

Heya,

When dealing with people who insist on comparing MS and Apple, I first put a blow to their head by explaining that Microsoft is a software company and that Apple is a hardware company. They should compare Apple with IBM or Dell. The main difference here being that they license an OS from a different vendor, whereas Apple makes their own.

If that doesn't fully get you there, ask why Microsoft doesn't allow other platforms on their X-Box, why Sony doesn't allow other platforms on their Playstations, etc. Do they have monopolies?

And, when Ford builds a car with all those fancy computer diagnostics that cars have nowadays, why don't they allow for the car to run Chevy's diagnostic program?

Why - because these are hardware manufacturers! Just like Apple. When you produce hardware, you decide what components you make yourself and which you integrate from outside vendors.

Now, the minute Apple tells Quark to stop producing their Windows version or they'll find a way to cripple Quark in the Mac, then Apple would be acting monopolistically (is that a word?) Until then, what the heck is he talking about?

On the side - I also expected a rumor about an Apple-related Monopoly board game when I went into this thread.

 

[MemphisSoulStew]

Anyway, a friend mentioned that Apple has a monopoly as much as M$ on allowing people to create/sell an OS for a computer, and I lashed back and said, "Apple provides their own computers and Operating Systems, why should something that works almost seemlessly well need some outside company to offer anything different? Microsoft bullied there way through for Windows to come with every PC, blowing out OS's like GeoWorks."

He replied, "It doesn't matter, Apple has a monopoly and that's that."

Unless you started the debate by stating that MS had a monopoly, and that was a bad thing, just tell him that you don't care. You don't choose your hardware and software based on the number of companies that produce them, you choose based on how well they do the job.

Your choice was to buy Apple hardware and software, not xxxxxxx's <insert hardware manufacturer here> hardware and MS's software. You don't care that MS has a monopoly on producing Windows, nor that Apple have a monopoly on producing the Mac OS.

The difference between the companies is the way they use their respective monopolies: MS were not sued for having a monopoly, but for using their monopoly to force hardware vendors to bundle MS apps in with their OS at the expense of other software vendors (notably IBM and Netscape), something that Apple do not do. As recently as May of this year (the last time I bought a new Mac) Apple still bundled Internet Explorer with new Macs.

And I like jsalzer's arguments very much! Nice one.

 

[_bnkr612]

Heya,

When dealing with people who insist on comparing MS and Apple, I first put a blow to their head by explaining that Microsoft is a software company and that Apple is a hardware company. They should compare Apple with IBM or Dell. The main difference here being that they license an OS from a different vendor, whereas Apple makes their own.

If that doesn't fully get you there, ask why Microsoft doesn't allow other platforms on their X-Box, why Sony doesn't allow other platforms on their Playstations, etc. Do they have monopolies?

And, when Ford builds a car with all those fancy computer diagnostics that cars have nowadays, why don't they allow for the car to run Chevy's diagnostic program?

Why - because these are hardware manufacturers! Just like Apple. When you produce hardware, you decide what components you make yourself and which you integrate from outside vendors.

Now, the minute Apple tells Quark to stop producing their Windows version or they'll find a way to cripple Quark in the Mac, then Apple would be acting monopolistically (is that a word?) Until then, what the heck is he talking about?

On the side - I also expected a rumor about an Apple-related Monopoly board game when I went into this thread.

Well put. I have learned a bit more for future debates! Thanks.

 

[KingSleaze]

I hate arguing with idiots. I had an argument with some jerk somewhere else who said Apple was just a follower. I came up with this list of Apple firsts, like first computer with USB, FireWire, a trackpad, mouse, etc, etc. The guy said "Apple didn't invent any of those. See? Just a follower. NEXT." I could have cheerfully killed him then.

Tell your friend "It does matter. Look up monopoly in the dictionary, then get back to me when you know what you're talking about."

Definite moron. Apple did invent Firewire. Anybody else using the term 'firewire' to describe their product has to pay licensing fee to Apple. Otherwise, the products are labeled as IEEE 1394 (or Sony's name for it iLink) compliant.

He is however correct that Apple didn't invent USB (Windows 95 had the capability of using USB devices before the introduction of the iMac which popularized the use of USB) or mouse (read up on the origins of the first Mac)

 

[Jalexster]

You hear that class? A person thinks Apple is a monopoly? You know what that means?

A WITCH!

 

[wwooden]

haha

For some reason when I saw the thread title for this thing, I thought of an Apple version of the Monopoly board game.

Maybe I just miss that game a lot haha.

I thought the exact same thing. I do a lot of crossword puzzles so maybe it was that side of my brain thinking.

 

[dsharits]

For some reason when I saw the thread title for this thing, I thought of an Apple version of the Monopoly board game.

That would be cool. Use different Apple products as the game pieces (I'm thinking iMac, iBook, iPod, PowerBook, PowerMac, AirPort Base Station and a big steel "X"), Steve Jobs could be the little character on all of the cards and stuff, each space could be a different Apple Store and jail could represent being locked in Microsoft-only territory with Bill Gates in the cell next to you. I can see it now...

Daniel

 

[Blue Velvet]

That would be cool. Use different Apple products as the game pieces (I'm thinking iMac, iBook, iPod, PowerBook, PowerMac, AirPort Base Station and a big steel "X"), Steve Jobs could be the little character on all of the cards and stuff, each space could be a different Apple Store and jail could represent being locked in Microsoft-only territory with Bill Gates in the cell next to you. I can see it now...

Daniel

Pass Go and collect...

A lucky bag!

 

[dsharits]

Wow, this is getting better by the minute! We really should produce the game.

Daniel

 

[gwangung]

Heh.

If somebody talks about Apple being a monopoly, and then refers to a 2% market share...then I think "idiot" would be quite charitable in referring to them....

 

[savar]

Anyway, a friend mentioned that Apple has a monopoly as much as M$ on allowing people to create/sell an OS for a computer, and I lashed back and

Monopolies aren't illegal, and not even necessarily bad for consumers. Sherman Anti-Trust speaks to "anti-competitive business practices", ie. the abuse of monopoly power, not the existence of monopoly itself...Microsoft abuses its monopoly power when it bullies PC makers into bundling IE instead of Netscape, for instance. (PC makers have to have Windows, after all. A blank PC would sell poorly.)

But if you invent a unique product and you're the only person selling it, you have a monopoly on that market and its not necessarily a bad thing. I think Apple is a pretty clear case of that. Apple's control over the software that ships with their Macs is a very good thing.

 

[solvs]

I'd just say that yes, Apple does have a monopoly of Apple computers. So? You can't really argue with that.