Apple Records Nearly Half of U.S. PC Desktop Retail Industry Revenue

[phaedarus]

Good on Apple.

Now about how taking some of the revenue and reinvesting it into designing decent Mac Pros with more frequent updates and at a better price point rather than splurging an entire R&D budget into consumer electronics?

I realize the realm of graphic design is a niche market but we (along with the educational market) formed Apple's customer base that kept it afloat for over twenty years. How about catering to us sometime in during the new millennium?

 

[czachorski]

They have nearly half the industry sales due to not having to compete directly with anyone for hardware sales (since if you want OSX, you cannot put it on anyone's hardware but Apple's), but they are not a "major" player so there is not anti-trust violation according to the Apple supporters on this issue.... What a crock of bologna!

If Dell could pre-install OSX on any of its computers to sell, do you seriously think for even one second that Apple would be getting nearly half of ALL PC revenue??? There is no freaking way on Earth. PERIOD. They get away with this because they leverage their operating system against the hardware sales instead of against Windows sales (i.e. leveraging one market to force sales in another market, namely software to leverage hardware sales). This leaves Dell, HP, Lenovo, etc. out in the cold for hardware competition because they cannot compete with what they are not allowed to sell (i.e. if you cannot install OSX on their hardware, you cannot consider their hardware to buy if you want OSX) due to tying license agreements Apple has in their OSX license. This "tying" of two different markets to shore up sales in one by leveraging the other is clearly illegal under the Clayton Anti-Trust Act for any market of any financial significance, but apparently certain people think 50% of ALL PC revenue isn't "significant" enough. Having $24+ BILLION in petty cash isn't significant either. That's why they're not guilty of anti-trust violations. They aren't "significant". I wish my income wasn't "significant" in the ways theirs isn't!

Rather than complaining that Apple has violated anti-trust laws, I would just once like to see a call to the other major players in the industry to create their own hardware/software combination like Apple has and offer some real competition. Is the rest of the industry that pathetic that they can not take the "sell the whole widget" business model and compete with Apple at all? Really? If this is true, then, yes, take Apple down on anti-competitive practices - the rest of the industry is too pathetic, untalented and incompetent to even try, so we better tear down the ones that have figured it out and made it successful.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

You're wrong of course. Apple very much competes against Dell, HP, Toshiba, Sony in the computer hardware market. Who they don't compete against is Microsoft.

People who buy a computer don't buy "OS X". They buy a computer to run software. Apple is actually at a disadvantage here because Mac software is not as ubiquitous and prevalent as Windows software and sometimes, it means that there's a transition period for the buyers that are not all too computer savvy.

Sorry, but you have that 100% BACKWARDS. When is the last time you saw an Apple ad on TV that suggested you buy a Mac over a Dell or HP??? NEVER EVER. They don't have to target them because they DO NOT COMPETE WITH THEM. Apple's ads target Microsoft EVERY TIME. They call it "PC" but they mean Windows because Windows is all they talk about in those commercials. You do NOT buy a Mac because Apple's laptops are "great hardware" because they are not. Lately, they've been terrible, removing firewire ports, matte screen options, removable batteries, etc. and having defects like yellow screen issues, bad video card chipsets, keys not typing on the first press, etc. over the past couple of years. Certain people may like their computer inside a monitor cover, but it means laptop parts (until the most recent top line model) and no expansion inside the thing which defeats the point of having compact in the first place. I don't like their hardware. I like OSX. People like OSX. They call it a "Mac" but it's OSX in a pretty case with generic hardware. People buy a Mac for the OS, not for the case. Those that do buy it for the case are not computer literate.

Apple makes the insane amounts of profits they do precisely because some people ARE sick to death of viruses, malware, etc. (that at least need to be constantly screened and updated) that comes with owning a Windows machine. I know it's a major reason I got a Mac, so I'd have a reasonably safe platform to shop/bank/etc. from. But it's OSX that achieves that, not sticking some hardware in the back of a monitor. OSX makes a Mac a Mac, not the hardware. A Mac Mini and Mac Pro look nothing alike, but they're the same thing, a Mac and it's because of OSX, not the hardware. My PPC Mac has different hardware, but it's still a Mac because it's running OSX.

Really, I don't get why supposedly intelligent people cannot grasp the idea that Apple is making gangbusters money soley on the fact that they don't have to compete directly for hardware sales. You don't buy a Mac instead of a Dell because the Mac hardware is better or cheaper (it's NOT). You buy the Mac instead of the Dell because you're sick of Windows problems and BS. If Dell could sell the machine with OSX, I *GUARANTEE* that unless Apple lowered their prices, Apple would lose over half their sales almost overnight because the prices they are charging are RIDICULOUS compared to the other hardware manufacturers selling the SAME BASIC HARDWARE. The ONLY reason Apple CAN charge so much more is because of OSX and because no one else on Earth is allowed to sell their machine with OSX. It is OSX that is the reason you don't buy the Dell. If anything some people buy the Dell *anyway* because the darn Macs cost so darn much, not because they wouldn't prefer to get rid of virus problems, etc. So if there's any competition it's DESPITE the advantages of cornering a market segment (i.e. even if you really need a bulldozer instead of a shovel to do a job; if you cannot afford the bulldozer, you're stuck with the shovel regardless). You don't call that a monopoly. You don't call it tying. You don't call it anything because you LIKE that situation not because it's not true. The sad thing is you cannot even see or acknowledge it. You probably really do people buy Macs for the hardware, not because of OSX, which is patently ABSURD. And that makes you a FANBOY not a logical human being and thus not worth conversing with. End of story.

Rather than complaining that Apple has violated anti-trust laws, I would just once like to see a call to the other major players in the industry to create their own hardware/software combination like Apple has and offer some real competition. Is the rest of the industry that pathetic that they can not take the "sell the whole widget" business model and compete with Apple at all? Really? If this is true, then, yes, take Apple down on anti-competitive practices - the rest of the industry is too pathetic, untalented and incompetent to even try, so we better tear down the ones that have figured it out and made it successful.

So Macs are widgets now? There are competing products to the iPhone. I'm not talking about the iPhone (although the virtual monopoly on stores for apps for the iPhone is another matter). What you're suggesting is a company build a computer and operating system combination to compete with the Mac. The thing is we DID have more computer operating systems out there at one time (Atari, Amiga, even the C64 and Texas Instruments if you want to keep going back). But getting market share enough for an operating system to make a profit and more importantly to keep market developers working for your system bottomed out in the 1990s. The Mac almost bottomed out with it. It wasn't the hardware. It's market share and developers. Linux would have died long ago if it weren't a hobbyist created operating system, for example. It has very little commercial software, especially for the home environment. But unlike Apple, I can buy any hardware I want and install it on it. I can do the same with Windows. I cannot do the same with OSX. That's the difference. All three use the same hardware. But only Apple says I cannot install their OS on the hardware of my choosing. I must buy THEIR hardware at their inflated prices and if I don't like it, I must use another operating system. Well, that sucks because they do not offer certain model computers (home towers, these new sub-notebooks, tablets, etc.) So if you want OSX and you want a sub-notebook, what can you do? You have to hack it or just do without. Where the competition there? Where's the consumer choice? Where's Capitalism at?

I should not be forced to buy HP paper just because I buy an HP printer. In fact, if HP tried to force you to buy ONLY THEIR PAPER, they would be in violation of the "tying" provision of the Clayton Anti-Trust Act because making printers and making paper for printers are two different markets. So why is it that if I buy OSX, I have to buy an Apple computer? It's the SAME THING. Hardware and Software are TWO DIFFERENT MARKETS. And the people here saying it is not are the people that don't have a clue about the law. Tying two products together artificially (and it IS artificial as it's the license that ties them, not any hardware requirement) serves only one purpose and that is to actively try to PREVENT COMPETITION and that is illegal. And yes I'm complaining that the U.S. government isn't doing something about it when they should be. I could see them overlooking Apple when they were a minor player on the verge of bankruptcy, but they are now responsible for almost 50% of the revenue of PCs being sold, control majorities in both the digital music player markets and new smart phone sales and so they can no longer be "ignored" as a minor computer maker. If you're going to play with the big boys, you need to compete with the big boys. It's not fair to either the consumer or HP, Lenovo, Dell, etc. that Apple can corner 100% of the market segment for hardware by those looking to run the OSX operating system just because Apple happens to own OSX. Microsoft owns Internet Explorer and Windows both, but that doesn't mean they can actively try and prevent other browsers from being able to use the same OS functions as Internet Explorer and hopes those other browsers will just go away. It's an unfair advantage in one market due to another market by artificial restraints on competition. And this article here proves just how profitable that is. If I want OSX on Dell hardware I should be able to buy them independently and install OSX without comment or restraint by Apple since they are two different markets and should be treated as such.

 

[cmaier]

Impressive rant, but remember tying, in and of itself, is not a Clayton violation.

There must be market power, which Apple doesn't have. Hp, in you example, may or may not.

Sorry, but you have that 100% BACKWARDS. When is the last time you saw an Apple ad on TV that suggested you buy a Mac over a Dell or HP??? NEVER EVER. They don't have to target them because they DO NOT COMPETE WITH THEM. Apple's ads target Microsoft EVERY TIME. They call it "PC" but they mean Windows because Windows is all they talk about in those commercials. You do NOT buy a Mac because Apple's laptops are "great hardware" because they are not. Lately, they've been terrible, removing firewire ports, matte screen options, removable batteries, etc. and having defects like yellow screen issues, bad video card chipsets, keys not typing on the first press, etc. over the past couple of years. Certain people may like their computer inside a monitor cover, but it means laptop parts (until the most recent top line model) and no expansion inside the thing which defeats the point of having compact in the first place. I don't like their hardware. I like OSX. People like OSX. They call it a "Mac" but it's OSX in a pretty case with generic hardware. People buy a Mac for the OS, not for the case. Those that do buy it for the case are not computer literate.

Apple makes the insane amounts of profits they do precisely because some people ARE sick to death of viruses, malware, etc. (that at least need to be constantly screened and updated) that comes with owning a Windows machine. I know it's a major reason I got a Mac, so I'd have a reasonably safe platform to shop/bank/etc. from. But it's OSX that achieves that, not sticking some hardware in the back of a monitor. OSX makes a Mac a Mac, not the hardware. A Mac Mini and Mac Pro look nothing alike, but they're the same thing, a Mac and it's because of OSX, not the hardware. My PPC Mac has different hardware, but it's still a Mac because it's running OSX.

Really, I don't get why supposedly intelligent people cannot grasp the idea that Apple is making gangbusters money soley on the fact that they don't have to compete directly for hardware sales. You don't buy a Mac instead of a Dell because the Mac hardware is better or cheaper (it's NOT). You buy the Mac instead of the Dell because you're sick of Windows problems and BS. If Dell could sell the machine with OSX, I *GUARANTEE* that unless Apple lowered their prices, Apple would lose over half their sales almost overnight because the prices they are charging are RIDICULOUS compared to the other hardware manufacturers selling the SAME BASIC HARDWARE. The ONLY reason Apple CAN charge so much more is because of OSX and because no one else on Earth is allowed to sell their machine with OSX. It is OSX that is the reason you don't buy the Dell. If anything some people buy the Dell *anyway* because the darn Macs cost so darn much, not because they wouldn't prefer to get rid of virus problems, etc. So if there's any competition it's DESPITE the advantages of cornering a market segment (i.e. even if you really need a bulldozer instead of a shovel to do a job; if you cannot afford the bulldozer, you're stuck with the shovel regardless). You don't call that a monopoly. You don't call it tying. You don't call it anything because you LIKE that situation not because it's not true. The sad thing is you cannot even see or acknowledge it. You probably really do people buy Macs for the hardware, not because of OSX, which is patently ABSURD. And that makes you a FANBOY not a logical human being and thus not worth conversing with. End of story.



So Macs are widgets now? There are competing products to the iPhone. I'm not talking about the iPhone (although the virtual monopoly on stores for apps for the iPhone is another matter). What you're suggesting is a company build a computer and operating system combination to compete with the Mac. The thing is we DID have more computer operating systems out there at one time (Atari, Amiga, even the C64 and Texas Instruments if you want to keep going back). But getting market share enough for an operating system to make a profit and more importantly to keep market developers working for your system bottomed out in the 1990s. The Mac almost bottomed out with it. It wasn't the hardware. It's market share and developers. Linux would have died long ago if it weren't a hobbyist created operating system, for example. It has very little commercial software, especially for the home environment. But unlike Apple, I can buy any hardware I want and install it on it. I can do the same with Windows. I cannot do the same with OSX. That's the difference. All three use the same hardware. But only Apple says I cannot install their OS on the hardware of my choosing. I must buy THEIR hardware at their inflated prices and if I don't like it, I must use another operating system. Well, that sucks because they do not offer certain model computers (home towers, these new sub-notebooks, tablets, etc.) So if you want OSX and you want a sub-notebook, what can you do? You have to hack it or just do without. Where the competition there? Where's the consumer choice? Where's Capitalism at?

I should not be forced to buy HP paper just because I buy an HP printer. In fact, if HP tried to force you to buy ONLY THEIR PAPER, they would be in violation of the "tying" provision of the Clayton Anti-Trust Act because making printers and making paper for printers are two different markets. So why is it that if I buy OSX, I have to buy an Apple computer? It's the SAME THING. Hardware and Software are TWO DIFFERENT MARKETS. And the people here saying it is not are the people that don't have a clue about the law. Tying two products together artificially (and it IS artificial as it's the license that ties them, not any hardware requirement) serves only one purpose and that is to actively try to PREVENT COMPETITION and that is illegal. And yes I'm complaining that the U.S. government isn't doing something about it when they should be. I could see them overlooking Apple when they were a minor player on the verge of bankruptcy, but they are now responsible for almost 50% of the revenue of PCs being sold, control majorities in both the digital music player markets and new smart phone sales and so they can no longer be "ignored" as a minor computer maker. If you're going to play with the big boys, you need to compete with the big boys. It's not fair to either the consumer or HP, Lenovo, Dell, etc. that Apple can corner 100% of the market segment for hardware by those looking to run the OSX operating system just because Apple happens to own OSX. Microsoft owns Internet Explorer and Windows both, but that doesn't mean they can actively try and prevent other browsers from being able to use the same OS functions as Internet Explorer and hopes those other browsers will just go away. It's an unfair advantage in one market due to another market by artificial restraints on competition. And this article here proves just how profitable that is. If I want OSX on Dell hardware I should be able to buy them independently and install OSX without comment or restraint by Apple since they are two different markets and should be treated as such.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Impressive rant, but remember tying, in and of itself, is not a Clayton violation.

There must be market power, which Apple doesn't have. Hp, in you example, may or may not.

Apple has over 50% of the PC revenue and you think they don't have "market power" ??? They have the majority in digital music player and new smart phone sales and 24+ BILLION in petty cash and record profits in a recession and they do NOT have "market power" ??? What world are you living in? They don't control the OS market (software), but hardware-wise and in these gadget markets they're one of the biggest market players around.

 

[KnightWRX]

Apple has over 50% of the PC revenue and you think they don't have "market power" ??? They have the majority in digital music player and new smart phone sales and 24+ BILLION in petty cash and record profits in a recession and they do NOT have "market power" ??? What world are you living in? They don't control the OS market (software), but hardware-wise and in these gadget markets they're one of the biggest market players around.

Revenue means nothing. It only means you sell more expensive stuff, not that you have any kind of control over the direction of the market. 50% Revenu share means you sell 1 Mac Pro at 2500$ vs Dell selling 5 500% boxes. Who has more control over the market in that scenario ? Market share, prevalence, ubiquity are measures of control, revenue share only means you don't sell low-end stuff.

And Apple may advertise against Microsoft, but they compete against HP, Dell, Toshiba, Sony for market share. They sell hardware. It just so happens their main differentiating point is the software that runs on top of it.

And stop the wall of textes. Ranting is not a sign of intelligence or coherent thought. Quite the contrary.

 

[LagunaSol]

If I want OSX on Dell hardware I should be able to buy them independently and install OSX without comment or restraint by Apple since they are two different markets and should be treated as such.

Sigh. Are people seriously still arguing that Apple software being exclusive to Apple hardware is some kind of abusive, illegal arrangement???

 

[cmaier]

Apple has over 50% of the PC revenue and you think they don't have "market power" ??? They have the majority in digital music player and new smart phone sales and 24+ BILLION in petty cash and record profits in a recession and they do NOT have "market power" ??? What world are you living in? They don't control the OS market (software), but hardware-wise and in these gadget markets they're one of the biggest market players around.

The world I live in is the world of law. And that's not how you define market power. market power implies an amount of control over consumer prices. And they clearly don't have that. They set their prices high, and hundreds of competitors set their price low and the competitors get 90% of the sales, exactly like a non-monopolistic market is supposed to operate.

Rather than pointing to irrelevant statistics, how about picking up a law textbook?

 

[LagunaSol]

how about picking up a law textbook?

*shudder*

 

[mrochester]

Apple has over 50% of the PC revenue and you think they don't have "market power" ??? They have the majority in digital music player and new smart phone sales and 24+ BILLION in petty cash and record profits in a recession and they do NOT have "market power" ??? What world are you living in? They don't control the OS market (software), but hardware-wise and in these gadget markets they're one of the biggest market players around.

As expressed by other people, having a tonne of revenue means jack squat as far as market power is concerned - it just means you're rich. Apple could have a £trillion in revenue, but with only 5% or less world market share, they would still have relatively little market power. Apple need to garner far more than 5% market share before they have any significant market power.

 

[strike1555]

Once more Apple shows the way, instead of following stupid advice from pundits to sell barebones and low-cost crap as other inferior PC makers do. Now repeat after me:

MS IS DEAD. DELL IS DEAD.

Congratulations, Apple!

Microsoft and Dell are dead? Honestly, there's being a fanboy and there's just plain being pathetic.


Are you as embarrassed to be a human as I am that you are?

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Revenue means nothing.

Yeah sure it doesn't. Obviously, the government agrees with you. Just look at their deficit.

And stop the wall of textes. Ranting is not a sign of intelligence or coherent thought. Quite the contrary.

When someone has to FLAME (which is against the rules here genius), they've LOST the argument. But based on your posts, that was obvious anyway.

This idea that Apple "competes" with Dell, HP, etc. is LUDICROUS. The reason they can charge such high prices with huge profit margins is precisely because they do *NOT* compete with them. If you want OSX, you *MUST* buy HARDWARE from Apple. How is Dell "competing" against Apple if a Dell cannot serve the same needs as a Mac??? I'll give you an example since you obviously have no idea what this is about. Say if I need the movie Terminator 2 (because that's what my kid asked for Christmas), buying the movie Fargo will not help my situation, despite the fact the same DVD player can player either one. But Apple says I can ONLY play Terminator 2 on THEIR DVD player, despite the fact T2 is sold at Best Buy on its own. So if I want to play T2, I HAVE to buy an Apple DVD player. Substitute the movies for operating systems and the DVD player for computers and you have Apple's OSX license in a nutshell. Apple and Dell WOULD be competing *IF* they were allowed to run the same software (i.e. you could pick your own operating system for their hardware). That would put them on the same playing field as you would be comparing hardware to hardware, not being forced to buy hardware based on your need to run software that is artificially tied to one brand only.

Apple could have a £trillion in revenue, but with only 5% or less world market share, they would still have relatively little market power. Apple need to garner far more than 5% market share before they have any significant market power.

Read the law. Nowhere does it say "market power". You guys just make crap up and then try to defend it. It's unreal. Here's the actual quote from the law:

It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce, to lease or make a sale or contract for sale of goods, wares, merchandise, machinery, supplies, or other commodities, whether patented or unpatented, for use, consumption, or resale within the United States or any Territory thereof or the District of Columbia or any insular possession or other place under the jurisdiction of the United States, or fix a price charged therefor, or discount from, or rebate upon, such price, on the condition, agreement, or understanding that the lessee or purchaser thereof shall not use or deal in the goods, wares, merchandise, machinery, supplies, or other commodities of a competitor or competitors of the lessor or seller, where the effect of such lease, sale, or contract for sale or such condition, agreement, or understanding may be to substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce.

Do you see the word *OR* in the last sentence there? The words "substantially lessen competition *OR* tend to create a monopoly." That is KEY to the violation. I don't have to prove Apple has "significant market power" or anything of the sort. All I have to prove is that Apple's anti-competition license substantially "lessens" competition. Now garnering almost 50% of all PC revenue due to being able to charge huge profit margins due to the tying of OSX to hardware that has no direct competition (i.e. HP, Dell, etc. cannot compete for you sale if you want OSX) is the REASON they control so much of said revenue is MORE than "significant" in the sense they COULD NOT make that money IF they were competing directly with HP, Dell, etc. (i.e .no tie to OSX).

I'm sorry, but you armchair lawyers don't even READ the law you're arguing about and then you insult those that HAVE read it. UNBELIEVABLE.

I know some of you guys love Apple like it was your kid, but come on. If their actual hardware is great as you wish it was, they can make those sales without restricting other hardware makers from running OSX on their own hardware. That is what Capitalism is supposed to be about...competition not trying to AVOID competition. Why it takes a miracle to get some of you to comprehend that is utterly beyond me.

 

[cmaier]

Read the law. Nowhere does it say "market power". You guys just make crap up and then try to defend it. It's unreal. Here's the actual quote from the law:

You are wrong. For example, see http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/hearings/single_firm/docs/222144.htm ("The question should be well settled because antitrust law now requires proof of actual or likely market power or monopoly power to establish most types of antitrust violations. ")

When lawyers refer to "the law" they refer to two sources of law - first, statutory law. Second is "common law," which refers to the aggregated decisions of various courts in interpreting the statutory law.

You can't just cherry pick some language from a statute and claim that market power is not required. Here is some more proof that economic market power (the ability to control prices) is required:

544 F.3d 1323

http://www.aurorawdc.com/arj_cics_tying_arrangements.htm::

The basic requirements that must be met for tying to be per se illegal are as follows:

1. There must be two separate products or services.

2. There must be a sale or an agreement to sell one product (or service) on the condition that the buyer purchase another product or service (or the buyer agrees not to purchase the product or service from another supplier).

3. The seller must have sufficient economic power with respect to the tying product to appreciably restrain free competition in the market for the tied product.

4. The tying arrangement must affect a "not insubstantial" amount of commerce.

Let me know if you want more sources - there are dozens of legal cases which list market power as a requirement.

You're the one making up the law.

 

[cumanzor]

do not even know what OS x is.

SELECT * FROM users WHERE Clue > 0. 0 rows returned.

You don't like the things I like? Wow you are clueless.....

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

You are wrong.

That's what you say, but everything and I mean *EVERYTHING* you said in your post agrees with what I said. I mean how ridiculous is that?

You can't just cherry pick some language from a statute and claim that market power is not required. Here is some more proof that economic market power (the ability to control prices) is required:

Ok, let's use what you quoted. Its' the SAME THING.

544 F.3d 1323

http://www.aurorawdc.com/arj_cics_tying_arrangements.htm::

The basic requirements that must be met for tying to be per se illegal are as follows:

1. There must be two separate products or services.

The two products are OSX and Mac hardware. Condition Met.

2. There must be a sale or an agreement to sell one product (or service) on the condition that the buyer purchase another product or service (or the buyer agrees not to purchase the product or service from another supplier).

This condition is met by the OSX license agreement. You MUST install it ONLY on Apple hardware.

3. The seller must have sufficient economic power with respect to the tying product to appreciably restrain free competition in the market for the tied product.

I'll note that you said ECONOMIC power (i.e. money), not marketing or monopoly power. And if you think that controlling over 50% of the revenue from the entire world market based on overpriced hardware without competition doesn't constitute "appreciably (i.e. somewhat noticeable) you're just flat out LYING. The mere fact that Apple will sue anyone trying to sell hardware with their OS installed constitutes restrained competition. The fact Apple could not make those profit levels if they had ACTUAL competition proves just how restrained it is.

4. The tying arrangement must affect a "not insubstantial" amount of commerce.

Again, 24+ Billion in petty cash and almost 50% of all PC revenue constitutes a "not insubstantial" amount of commerce in ANYONE's book, even Ronald Reagan's. To even hint otherwise tells me you are lying or full of it because it's blatant.

Let me know if you want more sources - there are dozens of legal cases which list market power as a requirement.

Now you say MARKET power (i.e. controlling share), but above you said ECONOMIC power (i.e. substantial share of revenue). The LAW literally says the latter which makes me 100% correct and you stating market power makes you 100% WRONG. Let me know if you want me to put your stupid argument down again because you're clearly CLUELESS. Frankly, I'm getting tired of pointing out the obvious to people that aren't listening. Frankly, as a consumer, you should WANT Apple to compete as you would benefit from it or is it because you're a stock holder and you think that might affect your bottom line? Really, when someone spouts out total BS again and again, I have to question their motivations for trying to deceive people.

You're the one making up the law.

Not only is that 100% WRONG, but you made my case for me.

Get a freaking clue already. The law is what the law is and it's in black and white, clearly as crystal. Psystar's antitrust based lawsuit is STILL pending in Florida right now. This whole matter is far from over.

 

[BaldiMac]

I'll note that you said ECONOMIC power (i.e. money), not marketing or monopoly power. And if you think that controlling over 50% of the revenue from the entire world market based on overpriced hardware without competition doesn't constitute "appreciably (i.e. somewhat noticeable) you're just flat out LYING.

Economic power is the same as market power. Monopoly power is a specific type of market power. Apple does not control over 50% of the revenue for the global PC market. It's under 10%.

The mere fact that Apple will sue anyone trying to sell hardware with their OS installed constitutes restrained competition. The fact Apple could not make those profit levels if they had ACTUAL competition proves just how restrained it is.

Suing to protect your rights is not restraint of competition. Apple does have actual competition that is doing quite well and makes more money than Apple in the PC market.

Again, 24+ Billion in petty cash and almost 50% of all PC revenue constitutes a "not insubstantial" amount of commerce in ANYONE's book, even Ronald Reagan's. To even hint otherwise tells me you are lying or full of it because it's blatant.

Again, Apple does not have 50% of all PC revenue. The amount of cash that they have is irrelevant to an antitrust case.

Now you say MARKET power (i.e. controlling share), but above you said ECONOMIC power (i.e. substantial share of revenue). The LAW literally says the latter which makes me 100% correct and you stating market power makes you 100% WRONG.

You are making up definitions that do not apply in the context of antitrust law. And, again, Apple has less than 10% share of revenue in the global PC market.

3. The seller must have sufficient economic power with respect to the tying product to appreciably restrain free competition in the market for the tied product.

You also seem to be having trouble with this item. In this scenario, Apple must have significant economic power in the OS market to appreciably restrain free competition in the PC hardware market. You haven't even tried to argue that Apple has economic power or market power or monopoly power in the OS market.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Economic power is the same as market power.

Look up the word "economic" and you see that one of the definitions is: "concerned with worldly necessities of life (especially money)". In other words, economic impact or economic power implies relationship to MONETARY means. Now look up "market" and you'll see they are NOT the same thing at ALL. A market is part of an economy. An economy is not part of a market. Thus, your idea that the Clayton Act requires a monopoly or something close to it is just plain in error as it uses the word "economic" not "market" in regards the first possible condition (before the OR). It would not say "OR" in regards to a situation leading to a monopoly if it were the SAME THING no matter how much you would prefer to believe that.

Monopoly power is a specific type of market power. Apple does not control over 50% of the revenue for the global PC market. It's under 10%.

You bring up "monopoly" where NO ONE said it applied. WTF did I ever say Apple was a monopoly???? Where does the LAW say it HAS to be one???? You keep making assertions without ANY basis in reality. The last time I checked, that was called trolling.

Suing to protect your rights is not restraint of competition.

Again, you twist reality in BS World. What rights? Apple has NO RIGHT to limit one market product to another market product artificially by means of contract. In other words, because tying is illegal under the Clayton Act (as quoted above), their license on that part is null and void (illegal). Therefore, they have no right to sue on that basis. In Psystar's case, there was a copyright violation involved (i.e. Psystar modified OSX to install it early on which is a separate violation and a separate issue). That has nothing to do with the anti-trust part of Psystar's lawsuit which is scheduled to be tried in Florida. They are two separate issues and a judge granted that lawsuit to continue. In other words, it was not dismissed because there is probable merit for a case.

And, again, Apple has less than 10% share of revenue in the global PC market.

It's irrelevant. The Clayton Act is not a world law. It's a U.S. law guy. Significant economic impact doesn't require world impact or "evenly spread" impact. It only requires substantial damage to be done to competition. If you read the Clayton Law segment I quoted earlier in the thread, you will clearly see that is EXACTLY what it says. Now if you think that losing out almost half the PC revenue solely due to that tying arrangement hasn't "substantially" hurt the competition, you must be living on Mars or something. That's almost half the money going to Apple solely because of their software license, not because they make superior hardware to compete with Dell and Lenovo, etc. And superior hardware is how Apple SHOULD be competing, not forbidding their OS to be installed on any hardware but their own. That would be the same as HP insisting you buy their paper or ink to use in their printers and no one Else's. It's tying and it's illegal. Capitalism means you COMPETE for both sales, not force one sale on the basis of another sale.

You also seem to be having trouble with this item. In this scenario, Apple must have significant economic power in the OS market to appreciably restrain free competition in the PC hardware market. You

Where did you get this absurd idea from??? Oh, that's right. You just made it up! Where in ANY anti-trust legislation does it point to one specific market being the qualification of another market? Hewlett Packard does not have to control the world paper market to in order to create license agreement or other stipulation that might imply you MUST use their paper with their printers and no one Else's paper. If they did that, they would be in violation of the same tying agreement in the Clayton Act!!! You CANNOT use ONE PRODUCT to force a sale of ANOTHER PRODUCT, especially one in a different market. Printers and paper are two different markets even if they're related in some fashion. Hardware and Software are two different markets entirely. Microsoft got into trouble for tying a browser to their operating system (on the other side of the "OR" involving monopoly) and those two things are a LOT closer in terms of a similar product than code versus machine.

haven't even tried to argue that Apple has economic power or market power or monopoly power in the OS market.

Why would I? It's 100% irrelevant. Apple has a market for OSX. There are people that WANT OSX. No one says you cannot choose something else other than OSX. But IF you want/need OSX, why can you not install it on a Dell or HP machine? It's because Apple forbids it. What gives them the right to forbid it? The Clayton Act says they CANNOT use one product to garner a sale of another product. If you buy OSX (and they DO sell it by itself before you even go down that road), they have no right to tell you that you cannot put it on a Dell computer. It is that simple. Their contract is NULL AND VOID by the tying provision of the Clayton Act. That Act only requires proof of a reasonable amount of market impact. The fact that HP, Lenovo, Dell, etc. are losing out on almost half the market revenue solely due to that tying agreement more than constitutes harm/impact to those companies in terms of possible revenue they simply CANNOT compete for.

 

[LagunaSol]

But IF you want/need OSX, why can you not install it on a Dell or HP machine? It's because Apple forbids it. What gives them the right to forbid it? The Clayton Act says they CANNOT use one product to garner a sale of another product.

The fact that HP, Lenovo, Dell, etc. are losing out on almost half the market revenue solely due to that tying agreement more than constitutes harm/impact to those companies in terms of possible revenue they simply CANNOT compete for.

The HPs and Dells of the world are losing out on half the market revenue because they have chosen to ruin their own brands in a mad rush for the bottom - selling crap $400 computer systems to people gullible enough to buy them, hoping to compensate for razor thin profit margins via sheer volume.

The HPs and Dells of the world have also severed their own feet by tying their products inextricably to Microsoft Windows, where Microsoft probably makes more money on most Dell systems sold than Dell does.

Seems to me perhaps the HPs and Dells of the world should solve their own problems by creating their own OSes?

 

[cmaier]

Oh, stop. You are completely misinterpreting the law. And "market power" is an economic term that refers to the ability to set prices despite the supply-demand curve so as to earn a long-term economic profit. And none of those words I just used mean what you think they do - they are all terms of art used by economists and lawyers that mean different things than they do in the ordinary vernacular.

Apple has something like 10% of the market and its computers cost, on average, more than its competitors. Supply-demand implies that if your machine costs more and does the same thing, it should have a small market share. That's exactly what is happening. The market thus works, and there is no monopoly.

And, as I pointed out earlier by providing case law and treatise citations, and you ignored, market power is required in order for tying to be a violation of Clayton.

Psystar argued antitrust and got nowhere, because legally there's no argument.

 

[LagunaSol]

Psystar argued antitrust and got nowhere, because legally there's no argument.

And weren't similar arguments made against printer companies by companies who made cheap knock-off ink cartridges? Yeah, the impostors lost that battle in court.

Ditto Palm's ridiculous attempt to exploit iTunes for the Pre rather than create their own media software.

Seems to me it's entirely fair (and legal) to assume that if you make and sell the razor, you can make and sell the blades. And you have every right to protect that right (and deny competitors the same). Let them make their own dang razors and blades.

And let Dell make their own OS.

 

[cmaier]

And weren't similar arguments made against printer companies by companies who made cheap knock-off ink cartridges? Yeah, the impostors lost that battle in court.

Ditto Palm's ridiculous attempt to exploit iTunes for the Pre rather than create their own media software.

Seems to me it's entirely fair (and legal) to assume that if you make and sell the razor, you can make and sell the blades. And you have every right to protect that right (and deny competitors the same). Let them make their own dang razors and blades.

And let Dell make their own OS.

The toner guys frequently argue "patent misuse," "Walker process" and similar claims. In some situations these are valid claims. There is a similar doctrine - copyright misuse - that I believe Psystar has now asserted. Makes more sense than antitrust, but it can't win either.

 

[BaldiMac]

Look up the word "economic" and you see that one of the definitions is: "concerned with worldly necessities of life (especially money)". In other words, economic impact or economic power implies relationship to MONETARY means. Now look up "market" and you'll see they are NOT the same thing at ALL. A market is part of an economy. An economy is not part of a market. Thus, your idea that the Clayton Act requires a monopoly or something close to it is just plain in error as it uses the word "economic" not "market" in regards the first possible condition (before the OR). It would not say "OR" in regards to a situation leading to a monopoly if it were the SAME THING no matter how much you would prefer to believe that.

The terms have a specific legal and economic meanings. It's not just whatever definition you pick from a lay dictionary.

You bring up "monopoly" where NO ONE said it applied. WTF did I ever say Apple was a monopoly???? Where does the LAW say it HAS to be one???? You keep making assertions without ANY basis in reality. The last time I checked, that was called trolling.

Actually, most people except you say it applies. As I said, economic power, market power, and monopoly power are all synonyms in respect to antitrust regulations.

Again, you twist reality in BS World. What rights? Apple has NO RIGHT to limit one market product to another market product artificially by means of contract. In other words, because tying is illegal under the Clayton Act (as quoted above), their license on that part is null and void (illegal). Therefore, they have no right to sue on that basis. In Psystar's case, there was a copyright violation involved (i.e. Psystar modified OSX to install it early on which is a separate violation and a separate issue). That has nothing to do with the anti-trust part of Psystar's lawsuit which is scheduled to be tried in Florida. They are two separate issues and a judge granted that lawsuit to continue. In other words, it was not dismissed because there is probable merit for a case.

Did you attempt to read and understand the Psystar summary judgment? Apple sued to protect their copyright on OS X. The antitrust counterclaim made by Psystar was thrown out in California. They are making similar claims in Florida. A judge has not ruled on the validity of any claims in Florida.

It's irrelevant.

It's irrelevant that you made up statistics to back up your point? And when you are shown to be wrong by a huge margin it is suddenly irrelevant. You made the claim that Apple controls "over 50% of the revenue from the entire world market" several times in your previous rant.

The Clayton Act is not a world law. It's a U.S. law guy. Significant economic impact doesn't require world impact or "evenly spread" impact. It only requires substantial damage to be done to competition. If you read the Clayton Law segment I quoted earlier in the thread, you will clearly see that is EXACTLY what it says. Now if you think that losing out almost half the PC revenue solely due to that tying arrangement hasn't "substantially" hurt the competition, you must be living on Mars or something. That's almost half the money going to Apple solely because of their software license, not because they make superior hardware to compete with Dell and Lenovo, etc.

And again you make the same incorrect claim! Apple does not control 50% of the revenue in the world market or the US market or any other significant PC market. In the world, it is under 10%. In the US, it is under 20%.

And superior hardware is how Apple SHOULD be competing, not forbidding their OS to be installed on any hardware but their own. That would be the same as HP insisting you buy their paper or ink to use in their printers and no one Else's. It's tying and it's illegal. Capitalism means you COMPETE for both sales, not force one sale on the basis of another sale.

Apple does compete. It has competition (Dell, HP, Microsoft) that makes more money than they do in the PC and software markets respectively.

Where did you get this absurd idea from??? Oh, that's right. You just made it up!

From the basic requirement for a tying claim that you have quoted before and accepted from cmaier in this thread.

The basic requirements that must be met for tying to be per se illegal are as follows:

1. There must be two separate products or services.

2. There must be a sale or an agreement to sell one product (or service) on the condition that the buyer purchase another product or service (or the buyer agrees not to purchase the product or service from another supplier).

3. The seller must have sufficient economic power with respect to the tying product to appreciably restrain free competition in the market for the tied product.

4. The tying arrangement must affect a "not insubstantial" amount of commerce.

Requirement 3 would require that Apple must have significant economic power in the OS market to appreciably restrain free competition in the PC hardware market.

Where in ANY anti-trust legislation does it point to one specific market being the qualification of another market? Hewlett Packard does not have to control the world paper market to in order to create license agreement or other stipulation that might imply you MUST use their paper with their printers and no one Else's paper. If they did that, they would be in violation of the same tying agreement in the Clayton Act!!! You CANNOT use ONE PRODUCT to force a sale of ANOTHER PRODUCT, especially one in a different market. Printers and paper are two different markets even if they're related in some fashion. Hardware and Software are two different markets entirely. Microsoft got into trouble for tying a browser to their operating system (on the other side of the "OR" involving monopoly) and those two things are a LOT closer in terms of a similar product than code versus machine.

Your printer and paper analogy is not on point.

HP does not have a copyright or patent on paper. Apple does have a copyright on OS X.

Apple doesn't prevent anyone from installing any OS on their hardware. Just like HP doesn't limit which paper to use in their hardware.

However, copyright law gives Apple exclusive rights to copying, distributing, and creating derivative works in respect to OS X with specific limitations. Apple is simply exercising those rights. Psystar claimed that Apple was misusing those rights in tying the two products. The judge denied that claim in summary judgment.

Why would I? It's 100% irrelevant. Apple has a market for OSX. There are people that WANT OSX.

The fact that someone wants OS X is irrelevant.

No one says you cannot choose something else other than OSX. But IF you want/need OSX, why can you not install it on a Dell or HP machine?

Because it belongs to Apple, and they do not want to sell it to you for that purpose.

It's because Apple forbids it. What gives them the right to forbid it?

Copyright law.

The Clayton Act says they CANNOT use one product to garner a sale of another product.

Only is specific circumstances. See the basic requirements above. Or the FTC fact sheet on single firm conduct in respect to tying claims.

If you buy OSX (and they DO sell it by itself before you even go down that road), they have no right to tell you that you cannot put it on a Dell computer. It is that simple.

The judge in the Psystar case disagrees.

Their contract is NULL AND VOID by the tying provision of the Clayton Act.

It the contract is NULL AND VOID than you have no rights to copy OS X or create derivative works thereof other than the specific limitations listed in copyright law. According to the Psystar judgment, both are required to install and use OS X on a PC.

That Act only requires proof of a reasonable amount of market impact. The fact that HP, Lenovo, Dell, etc. are losing out on almost half the market revenue solely due to that tying agreement more than constitutes harm/impact to those companies in terms of possible revenue they simply CANNOT compete for.

No, it requires more than that. See the basic requirements above. And again, you are making up the claim of "almost half of market revenue."

 

[AidenShaw]

And let Dell make their own OS.

...after all, an OS only costs a handful of pennies for the DVD blanks. There's an obscene markup to be made.

 

[DMann]

...after all, an OS only costs a handful of pennies for the DVD blanks. There's an obscene markup to be made.

Yeah, tell us about it.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

The terms have a specific legal and economic meanings. It's not just whatever definition you pick from a lay dictionary.

Just spare me the BS excuses why you cannot READ basic English.

Requirement 3 would require that Apple must have significant economic power in the OS market to appreciably restrain free competition in the PC hardware market.

Nowhere does it say that. Apple has significant economic power in the hardware market BECAUSE it restrains the use of its OS to its own hardware, despite selling it separately. I don't care what you LIE and make up, guy. I read the law and it does NOT SAY what you keep insisting it does say. Where does it say Apple must have power in the OS market? Nowhere. It doesn't talk about the OS market! It says one product cannot be used to "substantially lessen competition" for another product by tying them together in such a way that the sale of one requires the sale of the other as well.

NONE of this other CRAP (and it IS *crap*) you keep spouting on about is written in that law. A company has no right to use one product to force sales of another product for which there is no alternative. That is why the law was written for the tying provision and it is the spirit of that law. Its sole purpose is to PROMOTE COMPETITION *not* RESTRAIN IT for the benefit of the CONSUMER. It is a consumer protection law! I as a consumer should be able to buy an operating system and buy a computer and one should not be able to dictate the other. There are very real reasons for this, not the least of which are a lack of hardware choices from Apple and overly inflated prices that are a DIRECT RESULT of the total lack of competition for hardware that runs OSX. It's that simple. You making up crap about monopoly power being required and other nonsense that is not there is just smoke and mirror tactics. You probably own stock in Apple and stand to gain by them continuing to have no hardware competition. Everything else you have said is just nonsense based on the fact it's not in that law.

Your printer and paper analogy is not on point.

HP does not have a copyright or patent on paper. Apple does have a copyright on OS X.

Copyrights are IRRELEVEANT. The Psystar case on copyright infringement has NOTHING TO DO with the anti-trust law in question. Psystar had no right to modify Apple's code to install it. If they can install it without modifying any Apple code (as they later did), then there would be no copyright case there. My argument has NOTHING and I mean *NOTHING* to do with copyright law or that part of the case. The fact you bring it up just proves what a straw-man your entire argument is.

Apple doesn't prevent anyone from installing any OS on their hardware. Just like HP doesn't limit which paper to use in their hardware.

No, they prevent people from installing their OS on someone else's hardware. In the equation A+B = C, it doesn't matter if the paper or the printer is A or B. It's beside the point since the law simply talks about two products tied together to substantially lessen competition.

However, copyright law gives Apple exclusive rights to copying, distributing, and creating derivative works in respect to OS X with specific limitations.

"Installing" an OS or other software is not considered "copying" under law. If someone buys the OS off the shelf at Best Buy and installs it on a Dell computer without modifying it, they have not broken any copyright law. They have only broken the license agreement for OSX which forbids its installation on all but Apple brand hardware. Since that part of the license is null and void to the Clayton Act, it is meaningless in that regard.

Apple is simply exercising those rights. Psystar claimed that Apple was misusing those rights in tying the two products. The judge denied that claim in summary judgment.

Sorry, but that's not why Psystar lost the copyright case. Psystar was modifying OSX early on in order to get it to install. That is why they lost the case. The case solely involving anti-trust tying is still pending in Florida. One moronic judge dismissing something in a lower level court does not equate to the case being worthless regardless. Many cases are overturned at various levels. Psystar also had to reword their case. My arguments do not depend on the competency of Psystar's lawyers, regardless. My focus is purely on Apple's violation of the Clayton Anti-Trust Act when it attempts to thwart competition instead of simply offering a superior product that I would actually WANT to buy (i.e. compete).

The fact that someone wants OS X is irrelevant.

Your arguments are irrelevant.

Because it belongs to Apple, and they do not want to sell it to you for that purpose.

It's not their choice. They have to obey the laws of the country they operate in.

Copyright law.

No, the Clayton Anti-Trust Act. Get a clue.

The judge in the Psystar case disagrees.

The judge in the Psystar case hasn't ruled on the case yet. GET A CLUE.

It the contract is NULL AND VOID than you have no rights to copy OS X or create derivative works thereof other than the specific limitations listed in copyright law. According to the Psystar judgment, both are required to install and use OS X on a PC.

Who said the entire contract was null and void? I said THAT PART OF THE CONTRACT was null and void. GET A CLUE.

No, it requires more than that. See the basic requirements above. And again, you are making up the claim of "almost half of market revenue."

READ THE TITLE OF THE THREAD and the article that goes with it. GET A CLUE.