Is iPhone competing or trying to maintain monopoly?

Discussion in 'iPhone' started by VinegarTasters, Jan 3, 2013.

  1. VinegarTasters, Jan 3, 2013
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2013

    VinegarTasters macrumors 6502


    Nov 20, 2007
    I am surprised at the length companies will go to gain marketshare.

    Lets look at some history. Microsoft bought or hired most of the talent in the early days so that they can define the de facto system for computing. That is of course Windows. They rode the office system and gaming computing era of the 80's and 90's. Then Sony and Nintendo came in and took over the gaming (consoles), so Microsoft was left with only office suite. They then went in and created XBox to try to get back the lost customers who went with console for their gaming fix.

    Of course Microsoft being Microsoft is very sneaky in retaining customers. Going after all game developers with money to make ports to the Xbox universe. Then they start giving money for exclusives. Then money is given to developers so that they delay the making of games on the PS3. Now, for popular games (like Skyrim), new expansions are not even coming out on PS3 (due to bugs or something). Then Starcraft 2, Heart of the Swarm beta is not working on Mac systems (due to bugs or something). This points people towards XBox360 or Windows systems to get their gaming fix. I hope nothing is out of the ordinary here.

    Apple does the opposite (almost schizophrenic in nature). On Windows version of iTunes, you can sometimes do more than iTunes on old OSX systems. Apple cripples their own iTunes so that they don't run on old OSX, but keep more features in Windows versions (running on old versions). This lets people decide what system to upgrade to when they are upgrading.

    It also cripples its own iMovie, first exporting finished movies will pixellate all dark areas. Then when people started to copy working modules to fix the export pixellating, they cripple the importing, so now iMovie is now useless... all night scenes are crippled with pixellated scenes right on import. Logic? Drive people to the working Windows MovieMaker. (I think Apple was thinking people will shelve hundreds or thousands for Final Cut Pro, when they can get a free one that works better on other operating systems).

    For iPhone, instead of trying to please the customers (look at Samsung with the variety of sizes), it is trying to force customers into one type. Again, forcing everyone to fit into their vision for the 1%, not catering to the 99%.
  2. thewitt macrumors 68020


    Sep 13, 2011
  3. mobilehaathi macrumors G3


    Aug 19, 2008
    The Anthropocene
    Apple is hardly a monopoly.

    That's awfully naive.
  4. kage207 macrumors 6502a

    Jul 23, 2008
    I'm sorry I don't see any logic.

    Apple does not have a monopoly.

    Also features in iTunes may be different due to technologies of implementing them. (Think from a programmer perspective, different platforms utilize different technology)

    Secondly, Apple is not trying to get people into 1% because of screen sizes. There are two. (3.5" and 4") Take your pick.

    Last time I checked market share was a good thing when you are making a profit with each item sold. How is that bad? I need money to run my business and live my life. Sorry for trying to eat, stay healthy and enjoy my life.
  5. VinegarTasters, Jan 4, 2013
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2013

    VinegarTasters thread starter macrumors 6502


    Nov 20, 2007
    Apple does have a monopoly... app store software. Android may have more phones, but there are more software in the app store than competing companies (well, legitimate useful ones).

    The main point is the way they try to maintain a monopoly. Microsoft in the early days, to make a profit for its partners would purposely bloat their operating system on each version so people would have to upgrade their hardware (benefiting Intel especially... WinTel) to run it. However once you have upgraded to handle the larger operating system (more harddrive space, faster cpu, more ram etc), software and games can still run fast (because they basically are unaffected, direct API to the metal mostly using C or assembly), and people can always upgrade their GPU.

    Apple, on the other hand, when they have something good, they will cripple it hoping people will buy a different product at a higher price point. When it is crippled, it is useless, people don't use it. Lets look at the iMovie example. It is great software, probably the only thing on the Mac that is worthwhile. However, in the beginning, they allow you to import your camera clips just fine, manipulate it, making final touches. When you export, all dark or night scenes go through a crippling filter, making all night and dark scenes pixellated. Then people found out you can replace the export module in iMovie with a non-crippled one (similar one from final cut pro). To cripple it again, now ALL imports are crippled (dark and night scenes pixellated) so now during movie manipulation, you think the software is screwed up, can't handle dark or night scenes and abandon iMovie. All in the name of hoping people will shell out hundred/thousands for Final Cut Pro.

    So which is better?

    Make the current operating system good, but next one even better (to make more profit) but requires you to shell out more money for hardware? But with original and new software running fine or even better...

    Or cripple your best software so people abandon it to other products? Hoping they will go for a non-crippled more expensive offering you sell?

    In the first case (Microsoft Windows), you get the original still working, and get an even better one still working after paying more money. In the latter case, they make sure you get a non-working version, and with each release cripple it even more until people abandon it and buy expensive Final Cut Pro (to make more profit).

    Lets look at XBox. When Sony found out people were hacking their PS3 system, they locked it down real tight. Then a certain segment of people abandoned PS3, because all the free cracked software were not available. Microsoft, on the other hand, purposely leave a hole, and issue license it to the hackers to hack. You can to this day run cracked software on the Xbox 360.

    Software availability is the main purpose of a computer. Smarphone is headed in the same direction. Yes, before... a phone is only a phone, but now that you can do more than just make calls or write some messages. It is the software universe that people are buying into. If there is no software available (legitimate or illegitimate), you lose customers. Should all Apple software be crippled so you need to make another REAL (working) purchase of a profitable software from Apple? Or should all initial (basic) versions work, THEN you buy a better version for more features? That is the main issue here. I don't think Microsoft will purposely cripple Windows XP so you need Windows 7. But that is what Apple is doing with iMovie, hoping people will buy Final Cut Pro. The thing is, during the transition from iMovie to another product, would they choose Final Cut Pro, or will they choose another software on for example Windows?

    Microsoft would rather hurt your chances of abandoning their eco-system any way they can (like losing profit to keep you in their system). While Apple will hurt your chances of a good working product on their own eco-system to make a profit, with a high possibility of abandoning their eco-system.
  6. Beeplance macrumors 68000


    Jul 29, 2012
    Well well well, what do you know, another thread by VingerTasters...

    I don't think Apple has a monopoly, just a significant amount of market share. Definition of monopoly in economic terms refers to a single firm in the industry with significant market share. In the smartphone industry, there're other firms like Samsung, HTC, Nokia, Motorola selling smartphones.
  7. wxman2003 Suspended

    Apr 12, 2011
    Apple has no monopoly in phones or in apps. Apparently you have never been to the google app store or Cydia.
  8. VinegarTasters thread starter macrumors 6502


    Nov 20, 2007
    Please re-read the main explanation...

    APP STORE, number of software.

    NOT number of phones. Why? Because the App Store supports, iPhones, iPads, iPod Touches, even some movies and music.

    Now count the number of software on other "app stores". The defining term is number of apps in an app store. So the monopoly is app store. Think of it as ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX TV channels, and who maintains a monopoly, rather than what they can be displayed on (TV, HDTV, Computer, etc).
  9. ThatsMeRight macrumors 68020

    Sep 12, 2009
    We're talking about a monopoly when a company has like 95+% of the market share and has only one or two small competitors.

    Apple has a market share of about 20-40% (depending on country) and has lots of competition.
  10. dotme macrumors 6502a

    Oct 18, 2011
    You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

  11. Beeplance macrumors 68000


    Jul 29, 2012
    Even if it's the App Store, there's still no monopoly. Google Play store also have a significant amount of apps, it's a viable competitor.
  12. ThatsMeRight macrumors 68020

    Sep 12, 2009
    In October, Apple had 700000 apps and Google also 700000. Microsoft had 120000.

    That means Apple has a market share of 46%, Google of 46% and Microsoft of 8%.

    That's not a monopoly for any company. At best, it's a duopoly for Apple and Google.
  13. VinegarTasters thread starter macrumors 6502


    Nov 20, 2007
    Well, at the risk of stepping on some toes... look at the last few words in the first paragraph of post #5.
  14. iMikeCrook macrumors newbie

    Jan 4, 2013
    I don't see anything that Apple has done to deserve the accusation of being a monopoly. What I DO see, however, is a company aggressively defending its place in the industry, just as it's obligated to do as a public corporation supported by investor dollars.
  15. likethesoup2 macrumors 6502a

    Mar 29, 2011
    Orlando, Florida
    A monopoly exists when a specific person or enterprise is the only supplier of a particular commodity.

    Monopolies are thus characterized by a lack of economic competition to produce the good or service and a lack of viable substitute goods.

    NOT remotely true with Apple. You have alternatives.

    Do us all a favor -- next time, prior to using a word, actually know what it means.
  16. VinegarTasters thread starter macrumors 6502


    Nov 20, 2007
    Can you please be a little more objective? So Microsoft was not a monopoly even though the courts says it is a monopoly? At that time, there was Linux, Apple's OS, BSD, AIX, BeOS, and about a hundred more. BUT it was still a monopoly.
  17. Scrub175 macrumors 6502


    Apr 25, 2012
    Port St Lucie FL
    Yes apple has a monopoly on their devices only being able to use iTunes for content and apps for non-jb devices.

    Android has amazon App Store as a competitive means to keep google play in check.

    What keeps me here is the seamless integration with other apple devices. Google struggles to connect google tv with an android phone natively.

    Is this what you're saying? If not I'm lost.
  18. VinegarTasters thread starter macrumors 6502


    Nov 20, 2007
    Thanks. Someone with objectivity and free thought.
  19. njean777 macrumors 6502

    Oct 17, 2009
    Not true, you can use rdio, spotify, amazon mp3, etc (for music at least). ITunes is nicely integrated, but not the only store for movies and such. Same with the ipad as you can use amazon instant video to rent movies and watch them, asme with netflix and other things. Itunes is not the only way to get content on idevices.
  20. Interstella5555 macrumors 603


    Jun 30, 2008
    You seem to be wildy confused about what a monopoly is...

    Think of it like this. We're talking about a PS3.
    By your reasoning, the PSN maintains Sony's monopoly with games, music and movies.
    The Number of software titles is greater than Nintendo online offering, therefore Sony has a monopoly. I'm not even sure how to touch your TV analogy, but regardless, by definition "A monopoly (from Greek monos μόνος (alone or single) + polein πωλεῖν (to sell)) exists when a specific person or enterprise is the only supplier of a particular commodity." (emphases added) You can't say pepsi has a monopoly because coke sells less than pepsi and doesn't sell Pepsi Clear.
  21. imanidiot Suspended

    May 1, 2011
    Denver, CO
    But not up to the level of "iPhone people shave their heads?";)
  22. John T macrumors 68020

    John T

    Mar 18, 2006
    I note the OP is "surprised at the length companies will go to gain marketshare". Surprised?! Market Share is the lifeblood of any company. Without a good share if it's market, no company will succeed.

    That is why all companies, must do all they can to maintain and increase their market share. That's what advertising is about, together with being "one up" on competitive products.
  23. 0dev macrumors 68040


    Dec 22, 2009
    If anything Google and Amazon care more about increasing their marketshare than Apple since they sell their hardware at cost price so they can sell more content. Apple actually has the opposite business model - they sell premium hardware to the high end market and the content stores are just money on the side. They don't actually care if they dominate the whole market, they go for the high end and force competitors into the low end. And it works.
  24. AFDoc macrumors 68030

    Jun 29, 2012
    Colorado Springs USA for now
    I know the mighty apple seems like a big bully and of course they are but when you get that big all you can do is throw your weight around. I know some say it's all about protecting IP but that's a bunch of crap. It's about trying to keep the other guy down long enough so eventually they go away.

Share This Page