I can't for the life of me understand how that comment relates to what I wrote (the part you quoted), but anyway, it's not quite as black and white as you try to make it.
You seem to be weeping for poor-old Microsoft, which is why I quoted your post citing how “hard” it was for them with all their billions of dollars to deliver technologies competitors had produced years before and make them work.
These days, Apple is the monopoly crazy one, but they fly under the radar because A) they're small, and B) their fanclub of yes-men will applaud anything they do and defend it to death. Apple isn't quite as cute as you think.
I said they did not engage in under hand tactics.
Not so many years ago there were Mac clones
That lost Apple money. Bad business, so they got out.
lots of third party partnerships when it came to software (Netscape, IE and Outlook Express all shipped with MacOS at some point)
Microsoft offer Entourage Mail and could include Outlook Express, but choose not to. Microsoft also chose to stop developing IE for the Mac (see later when we get onto Safari). "Netscape" still exists on the platform. People just choose not to use it in great numbers.
Today they have monopoly on the hardware again
Just an Canon, Sony, Dell and any other company has a “monopoly” on their hardware.
The OS is exclusive to that hardware
Yes, this is the case with most devices. When one buys a washing machine, you get the hardware and software, same with a car, a camera, television etc.
One of the only places where the hardware-software is sold separately is the PC platform and much of the success was due to the signing of exclusive OEM contracts with vendors.
The same strategy was applied by Microsoft to digital music and they failed dismally (plays for sure™).
and they're trying their darndest to hog the entire Mac software business for themselves.
Evidence please? Good Mac software companies have always existed and will always exist. I use stuff from Omni, MacroMates, Panic, MacRabbit, VMWare, Microsoft AND have paid money for them. I know many people who have done the same.
Apple needed to get healthy, and that meant having good software to run on their OS. If that software did not exist, they built it themselves (you may remember that not all of the software developers were initially leaping for joy at the prospect of doing Mac OS X software).
They're including a shamelessly Firefox-resembling web browser with the system (the same thing MS got lynched for)
This is where you need to get your facts in order
[1] IE had been discontinued by Microsoft. Apple didn't tell/bride/request MS do this.
[2] Firefox was still in beta when Safari was released.
Apple has two options:
[1] "Wait and see" if anyone created a Web Browser, and ship an "internet ready" OS
without a good Web Browser for however long it takes for a third party to possibly produce one.
[2] Make one yourself.
Unlike IE 7, Apple choose the KHTML engine to make WebKit, which is
open source. It is being used by Google on their Android mobile platform.
You now go on and list a load of software which does not demostrate your point very well.
Apple released these
because there was nothing on the market for the Mac like it. That is very different to seeing someone has a good idea worth a bit of money and copying it.
QuickTime was a really innovative product when it launched in 1991.
QuickTime isn't the little media player that sits in the Dock! It's a key framework used by the OS used for all multimedia playback. Although the Framework is proprietary, notice how Apple always chooses standard codes, from AAC audio to H.264 video.
Another very innovative product in 2001.
Again, no one had anything like it on the Mac.
Launched in 2001. How many easy-to-use DVD production tools were there then?
Launched in 1999, when there where very few good consumer video editors.
Again, Apple needed a Mail client, others are available. Many people use web mail. Apple has never tried to kill off the competition using underhand tactics.
No openings for third parties there
Mail has “Default email reader” option where you can pick a third party app.
Mail and Safari have “Default RSS reader” option where you can pick a third party app.
Safari has “Default Web Browser” option where you can pick a third party app.
iChat has “Default IM Application” option where you can pick a third party app.
Image Capture has option where you can pick a third party app when inserting a camera.
So in reality there are plenty of openings for third parties. Some of the third party apps just aren't as good as Apple's.
They challenged Adobe with their Premiere and After Effects killers Final Cut and Shake. Adobe got really miffed and stopped developing Premiere + AE for MacOS (they recently started again).
This is quite a nice re-writing of history to look favourable towards Adobe and less than favourably towards Apple.
[1] Why should Adobe be challenged? I guess competition is ok for some and not for others?
[2] Apple wanted a good pro video editor for OS X and Premiere wasn't delivering the goods at the time.
[3] The reason they are developing for the Mac is because there is money in it for them, because the Mac platform is strong again, but it wouldn't be the case if Apple hadn't delivered the good apps that made the OS attractive.
Then they went ahead and bought Emagic and turned Logic into an Apple product and immediately discontinued the Windows version of Logic, forcing Logic users to go Mac.
Not the smartest move. I'll give you that one.
But there's still one more to push out of the nest -- they're working hard on getting rid of MS Office from the Mac scene with iWork (featuring Word, Excel and PowerPoint equivalents so far).
Those are consumer apps, much like the old AppleWorks, which lived side-by-side Office.
Microsoft gave up on the Mac in 1994. They did come back a few years later, but whose to say they won't do the same again. iWork is an insurance policy.
After that they've pretty much killed all third parties
Plainly not true, see above point. And there are more apps coming, like the just released
pixelmator and
flow.
I have no idea how long you have had a Mac, but you seem to be very disrespectful of the platform and all the developers using it. It's a thriving environment. If Apple were so keen on eradicating third parties, why is WWDC getting bigger every year and why do they make developer tools which help third parties integrate with to the address book, time machine, quicklook etc.
except maybe Adobe... but who knows, maybe Apple has a Photoshop killer up their sleeve.
So what if they did? Adobe has to keep delivering with improvements to Photoshop. They have no reason to be complacent. If Apple does something better, then it is up to Adobe to raise their game. That is how competition works.
And then of course there's the iPods which will only work with iTunes, no opening for third parties there either (IIRC, they're getting sued in the EU over this).
This is the case with most players. Most recently the Zune only works with Zune software.
You have two choices with iPod. Take it or leave it. There are commercial players from Sony, Samsung, Creative, SanDisk, iRiver, Microsoft etc. Apple has beaten these to number one in a fair and free fight. No dirty tricks, no rigged ballot boxes.
The EU has an issue with iTunes songs being priced different across Europe.
They're getting away with being ten times worse than Microsoft on their own territory, because their territory is small.
Not true. Example: MS actively plotted to bring down Netscape. Apple thought “Oh, looks like we don't have a good Web Browser on the platform, let's make one ourselves and release the source for the rendering engine so everyone can look at it and improve upon it”. Furthermore, we can let all our developers use a WebKit view in their own Applications.
Two very different approaches see?
Meanwhile, Microsoft is scared sh*tless of getting entangled in more lawsuits and bending over backwards in order to not step on any third party toes.
This is there own making. If they hadn't abused their power to begin with they would not be in this position. The issue is not with their monopoly, the issue is abuse of power.
So that's why they don't dare do the Apple thing and include everything you need with the OS, just good enough to get you interested in such a product but you'll have to turn to a third party to get all the functionality you want.
Which is why many Windows users browse the web with Internet Explorer, check their email with Outlook, write documents in Microsoft Word, manage spreadsheets in Excel, view movies in Windows Media Player, use Windows Live! Instant Messenger, develop applications using .NET and stay protected with Windows Live One Care.
All because Microsoft is so interested in protecting their third parties.
To paint a picture of "poor-old unfortunate" Microsoft against "halfway between the devil and Hitler" Apple is damn right misleading.
