Consumer market.
Other companies offer computers priced similarly to Apple's. Apple isn't the only player, or at least at one point they weren't.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Microsoft Modifies European 'Browser Ballot' to Eliminate Safari's Advantage
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Consumer market.
Other companies offer computers priced similarly to Apple's. Apple isn't the only player, or at least at one point they weren't.
Do you WANT to not get it or what? It has NOTHING to do with IE itself, but with their Windows monopoly and their bundling practice.
YOU might be computer-savvy enough to go out and look for a different browser. The vast majority of people is not. Of course, sometimes they also end up with a different browser, but the competition has to go to much greater lengths than MS. And this situation is not a result of a free market, but of a limited market with very limited OS choice.
Never did I claim that Microsoft will be going down in the next two years, or twenty years for that matter.
Their dominance will likely erode, as the playing field evens out with the advent of Google Chrome, Cloud Computing, OS X, etc.
Microsoft's server business leaves little to be desired, with nearly 3 hours of downtime averaged per year.
FYI, Microsoft did not save Apple with $150 Million, of which they purchased restricted non-voting stock and quickly sold, (big mistake) as Apple had approximately 2 billion cash at the time.
The deal was made to partially settle the GUI pending lawsuits, while assuring that Apple remain a viable competitor, in an attempt to avoid future Monopoly entanglements.
MS will exist for a long time to come, albeit less and less a dominating presence, down the road.
First of all, Google "Ad Hominem" because you are the crowning example of this fallacy. I'm a mac user and I've never even been to a Starbucks. Believe it or not, not every mac user fills your obnoxious stereotypes.
Anti-trust laws are provided to protect consumers. They weren't made to protect smaller corporations. Your ignorance on the matter illustrates your love for monopolies. Monopolies are not good if they are allowed to use their power and influence to price gauge and practice other horrific business techniques. These laws protect US from this happening, just to inform you a little bit.
MS didn't bail Apple out. Apple had MS over a legal barrel regarding patent violations (surprise, surprise!) - a battle which MS would have lost. Apple at the time, in a roundabout way, blackmailed MS into a deal. And the rest is history. Apple caught MS with its pants down, hunched over the photocopier, and took advantage of the situation.
Not at the same spec they do not. Actually to put it a better way, apple lacks the range in thier computers to go outsite of the premium segment. Ill rip you off huge amounts on a Mac Pro and will offer nothing to someone with a thin wallet.
And you cannot say they dominate the premium segment, cause you are implying that premium users use only OS X.
Yes yes, boot camp... though as soon as you install that the noobs are the Genius bar become hopeless and tell you they cannot help...
No they are not entitled regardless what you think. It is a LAW that they are not. If you don't like the law, go to China or Russia where you can bribe yourself into any position you want to.
Jeez, you guys are really not really thinking or reading anything at all, are you?
Apple: no monopoly, about 5% market share in the EU
Microsoft: monopoly, >90% market share in the EU
Apple: allowed to bundle whatever and however they want
Microsoft: not allowed to bundle whatever and however they want
Is that really that hard to comprehend?
Why are we still doing this
Who cares about "browser wars" anymore? They aren't tied to revenue, so why all the fuss?
I agree that Microsoft shouldn't twist the arms of PC manufacturers and force them to bundle a particular piece of software, but I honestly don't see how something as lowly as a web browser can cause so much angst.
They all do the same thing: send HTTP requests and display HTML (among other things). Everything else is just gravy designed to differentiate from the competition, but in the end, they're virtually identical to each other in the sense that they all do the exact same thing.
If these companies were earning revenue from their browsers, then I could see what all the fuss was about. But 99% of the browsers out there are FREE.
Who cares about "browser wars" anymore? They aren't tied to revenue, so why all the fuss?
I agree that Microsoft shouldn't twist the arms of PC manufacturers and force them to bundle a particular piece of software, but I honestly don't see how something as lowly as a web browser can cause so much angst.
They all do the same thing: send HTTP requests and display HTML (among other things). Everything else is just gravy designed to differentiate from the competition, but in the end, they're virtually identical to each other in the sense that they all do the exact same thing.
If these companies were earning revenue from their browsers, then I could see what all the fuss was about. But 99% of the browsers out there are FREE.
You mean the big bucks that Dell and HP are making in the corporate segment?
Other premium segment companies: Sony, Samsung, B&O and probably like 20 others
Because MS wants browsers to behave in such a way as to perpetuate a client-based software architecture, and everyone else wants browsers to behave so as to break the MS monopoly.
Just to be more specific, yes, Apple certainly needed MS.
They needed MS to not steal QuickTime code that was found in a disassembly of Windows Mediaplayer.
In order to keep this matter from blowing up in their face in court, MS agreed keep developing Office for Macs, some large (undisclosed) payments over a few years, and to buy 150 mil of common stock in order to foster the new "relationship" that MS brought upon themselves.
This token investment was a part of settling a whole range of patent disputes, among them MS attempt to steal QT code. MS got caught and this is how they had to pay the piper.
Will MS use a different logo for Opera than the "ZOMGLOOKATME!" red? The one everyone's eye is drawn to?
Blood oath it is. And you can also explain to me why I pay more for Itunes songs in the UK then the rest of europe. And why I cannot use my other players with Itunes.... though let me guess that is okay?
Doesn't that show how bad IE really is? IE is still at >70% worldwide and the so-called "free fall" is happening very slowly. Imagine their market share without the bundling.
Windows Update is an application independent of IE in Vista + 7
It has something to do with this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft
And in the EU:
http://gbr.pepperdine.edu/053/euantitrust.html
The EU also has a counterpart to the Sherman Acts Section 2, which prohibits the willful acquisition or maintenance of monopoly power.[11] Article 82 of the EC Treaty states: Any abuse by one or more undertakings of a dominant position within the common market shall be prohibited as incompatible with the common market insofar as it may affect trade between Member States.[12] Microsoft was found to be an antitrust violator in the EU under Article 82s abuse of dominant position provision, both for restricting the interoperability of competitors server software with the Windows operating system and for bundling the Windows media player with the operating system.[13]
The liscence for the software is with M$, what you think corporate companies buy bundled OEM software with a HP or Dell desktop /facepalm
Read again, companies that are only competeing in the premium sector, not have one or two models. Everything apple has fits in the premium section. Sony has some cheap crap along with the others.
Maybe you should read up on communism, before you throw around words you don't understand. Just because the guys on Fox use it all the time doesn't mean it can be applied to anything you don't like or understand.
Absolutely ridiculous. Will cause a usability nightmare for users with poor computer skills and further problems for the customer support that follows.
As a web designer - yes, it would be fantastic if everyone used FF or Safari but to push people this way just seems unfair on new users to Windows.
The users who will come off worst are exactly the same users who the industry should be assisting.
Very poor by the Mozilla and Opera who seem to have enjoyed squabbling like toddlers.
As a web designer - yes, it would be fantastic if everyone used FF or Safari but to push people this way just seems unfair on new users to Windows.
The users who will come off worst are exactly the same users who the industry should be assisting.
Very poor by the Mozilla and Opera who seem to have enjoyed squabbling like toddlers.
As a mac user, I understand your fascination with pants down and bending over but still it's a known fact that Jobs needed that 150M to continue to survive a company who has lost it all to Microsoft. A battle Jobs had to admit Microsoft had won
Microsoft Won; Apple lost. They control the PC market and the corporate market which includes the world's biggest corporations
These laws are for weak people with no will to do something for themselves
Monopoly is a sign of power and abusing it is a clear sign to your computers to either play with your rules and leave the market. One must eliminitate all competitors at any cost possible the same way Microsoft crushed many companies before
As for consumers, if they dont like it dont buy it. Sit down and make your own OS
Judging by Apple's success and command of mindshare, A closed, controlled platform is the best thing to ever have happened to Apple. If managed correctly, it's golden. Apple commands the Premium segment, half the computer using population is lusting after Macs, and Apple can afford to pick and choose its target market and make a killing. In a recession. With more the cash on hand than Microsoft. And Apple's stock is moving from strength to strength. Everyone and their dog is copying Apple.
While the rest of the industry is fighting over the bottom end, Apple puts out a great product, can command a high price, and people line up to pay. Apple sets the bar. No one, but no one, can differentiate themselves successfully in this industry like Apple.
The only way one can describe Apple is "success story."
Name one cheap crap model from Sony, in ANY market. They may put out crap sometimes, but it's surely not cheap!
You can facepalm all day long, doesn't make you any right-er. Apple sells software and hardware combined so you can't just look at the money MS are making. You also have to put HP+Dell into the equation.
Apple proved that there is a LOT of money to be made in the high-end home user market. They didn't create that sector, it has been there since day 1 of human economy. Apple has never been strong in the corporate market (the iPhone being their best shot so far in my opinion, which doesn't mean that much) and they haven't shown much interest in it. Has their strategy failed because of this?