You don't see a monopoly because you aren't looking in the right direction. You are comparing operating systems to other operating systems. We're talking about a monopoly on HARDWARE that will run OSX specifically. It doesn't matter if OSX is a small quardrant in the larger Microsoft ocean. We're talking about Apple making boatloads of money because by in their little quadrant, they are the only ones allowed to provide fishing boats AND they get all the fish. Thus they make money off both the fish caught and selling the fishing boats. No one else is allowed to sell fishing boats in their small quadrant of the ocean. Microsoft cannot sell fishing boats (hardware) in the ocean without having to allow others to sell them also. Thus competition for fishing boats (hardware) is alive and well in that part of the ocean even if they still get all the fish. Apple may be a small part of that ocean, but they get ALL the fish in that part and sell ALL of the fishing boats. The problem is that selling fishing boats and selling fish are TWO DIFFERENT BUSINESSES and you CANNOT artificially tie them together and prevent competition in one area from the other area.
IN other words, Apple's OSX is competing against Microsoft's Windows. Apple's hardware is competing against??? The answer is NO ONE because NO ONE else is ALLOWED to compete against their hardware running OSX. THERE is the legal problem and it's why Apple will lose in court.
Responding to the bolded part, I think you are missing the practicality of the situation. There is nothing artificial about tying OS software to a computer, or iPod OS to the iPod, or cell phone software to the cell phone. It is practical and reasonable to do so, and not artificial or intentional abuse at all. I think such practicality will ultimately win out. Apple makes a product, and is trying to make a buck selling that product. I think at the end of the day, that will be respected.
Consider something that could happen that is very similar with cars. Say Ford developed this unbelievably amazing stereo system for their cars. They do the R&D, invest in technology heavily for years and years to develop this stereo. When they finally release it, it is hugely successful, and they start to sell many, many cars,
because of this stereo. Now GM gets pissed because they are losing sales, and they want the same stereo. They offer to buy some from Ford, and Ford says no. Are you telling me that Ford
should be forced to sell these stereos to GM, because they have created a monopoly of these stereos and "artifically tied two products together"? Really?
So let's say Ford is forced to offer the stereos to GM. Ford says, OK, they are $30,000 each. Is that illegal? Are you going to tell me that Ford should be forced to sell them, and can not name whatever price they want? After they made the investment in R&D, they can't control the distribution (in their cars), or the price? Really? Because I don't see what is stopping Apple from selling full-instals of OS X for generic hardware for $1000 or $10,000 if these clones start hurting them.
This is what I am hearing in this thread. It is disturbing, very disturbing. It sounds like something I would expect to hear in communist China, not the USA. If Apple can't control the distribution of their own product, and is forced to license it against their desire, it will have a profound impact on business in this country, and their willingness to invest in new R&D.
And sure, here comes the obvious defense (in a whiny tone):
but we're not talking about stereos, we are talking about software, so it is different. Is it? People want the Apple software on the hardware of their choice. Apple did the R&D on the software, and now is attempting to control the distribution so they can profit from their investment. I see absolutely no difference.
