Capitalism is all about bullying. This is why there needs to be many actors on the market. Duopolies and monopolies result overpriced, underperforming products and services and strong arm tactics. Imagine how cheap and fast videocards and CPUs would be if we had 10 companies making them instead of just two or three.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Todays Bully is Apple
- Thread starter Terry Olaes
- Start date
Video cards and CPU are very R&D heavy, and the manufacturing of them can not be done by just anyone, it is very precise and expensive. That is part of the reason why AMD is looking to spin off their manufacturing. Having 10 players in the video card or CPU arena would result in slower, more expensive products. It's called economy of scale. Smaller firms, like say, VIA, do not have the resources that AMD and Intel have. Imagine if he had 10 VIA's running around. They would never have enough of the market share to make the kind of money needed to overhaul production lines quickly and often, they would not be able to afford such a large R&D team to come up with CPU's and video cards that continue to fall in price and increase in performance.
In the case of CPU's and video cards, I think we are in a good place.
In the case of CPU's and video cards, I think we are in a good place.
I have a macbook pro for when I am on the go. I have an 8 core mac pro for when I work at home. and I have a 4 core vista box for gaming.
I would say I like the osx environment a lot better then then windows environment. but i use and enjoy both and i can aimlessly surf and download anything and not have to worries to much about the repercussions in osx unlike windows
mac and osx can do somethings better then windows and windows can do some things better.
use what suits you needs the most.
or use both... or even better screw them all and go open source.. Ubuntu !
I would say I like the osx environment a lot better then then windows environment. but i use and enjoy both and i can aimlessly surf and download anything and not have to worries to much about the repercussions in osx unlike windows
mac and osx can do somethings better then windows and windows can do some things better.
use what suits you needs the most.
or use both... or even better screw them all and go open source.. Ubuntu !
sulfur_lad
Weaksauce
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2004
- Messages
- 101
I have a macbook pro for when I am on the go. I have an 8 core mac pro for when I work at home. and I have a 4 core vista box for gaming.
I would say I like the osx environment a lot better then then windows environment. but i use and enjoy both and i can aimlessly surf and download anything and not have to worries to much about the repercussions in osx unlike windows
mac and osx can do somethings better then windows and windows can do some things better.
use what suits you needs the most.
or use both... or even better screw them all and go open source.. Ubuntu !
That's correct. One's better for some things, the other is better for others... and it's all a matter of personal preference. I don't like to buy from Apple because of the way they do things (i.e., the way I see them treating their customers), but that's just my opinion.
OR, it's because I am surrounded by Apple Zealots and it ticks me off to no end to just hear them say "we should do everything like Mac" all the time, like it's the most brilliant thing to ever have been invented. My favourite is when they reference a feature like that where Apple actually borrowed it from Microsoft! Then my head explodes.
One buddy here actually bought a Motorolla F3 on eBay for $30 in protest. OK, the battery in the thing is worth $20. Every time people were showing off their new iPhones around here, he'd pull it out. "Check it out, I can make calls and send text! And the battery lasts for 3 weeks at least!" Now that's awesome.
TechLarry
RIP [H] Brother - June 1, 2022
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2005
- Messages
- 30,481
O come on now LOL
Yes, Jobs may be an ego-maniac, but in the same ranks of Microsoft? Please...
There's one other big difference. Apple doesn't have to push due to mediocre products like Microsoft did.
IMHO, of course.
And no, other than an iPod I own no Apple stuff. But I can tell the difference between a draconian businessman (Gates/Microsoft) and an ego-maniac.
Though I'm not sure which is worse
Yes, Jobs may be an ego-maniac, but in the same ranks of Microsoft? Please...
There's one other big difference. Apple doesn't have to push due to mediocre products like Microsoft did.
IMHO, of course.
And no, other than an iPod I own no Apple stuff. But I can tell the difference between a draconian businessman (Gates/Microsoft) and an ego-maniac.
Though I'm not sure which is worse
Number of servers is pretty irrelevant these days anyway. I vaguely recall an article many moons ago about how there were more web sites being hosted per server on Windows than on *nix.
And this was before virtualization really caught on... Just the thought of the licensing requirements on a single box makes my head spin.
archevilangel
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2003
- Messages
- 1,824
APPLE
Market Cap: 137.42B
Avg Vol (3m): 29,227,100
Microsoft
Market Cap: 236.11B
Avg Vol (3m): 68,204,100
I could have a $1 million dollar company with only 1 share. Since my share is worth $1 million dollars does it mean my company is better than microsoft?
There's more to stocks than just prices.
TechieSooner
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2007
- Messages
- 7,601
Which all equates to zero backwards compatibility. Vista was and is pretty compatible with older stuff, yet in the (grand scheme) few driver issues we had: it was an uproar. What do you think would happen to Apple?????????
Apple can hardly keep their freaking systems patched as-is anymore, much less throwing in thousands of hardware configurations.
Apple is VERY SMALL compared to what it would take to manage all of those new partnerships. And even being VERY SMALL, they are having growing issues with security and such: finally figuring out what the big boys (Windows, Linux) have been dealing with all along.
Apple has quite a few products that have failed in a big way, that they claimed were the freaking best thing since sliced bread.
I have a macbook pro for when I am on the go. I have an 8 core mac pro for when I work at home. and I have a 4 core vista box for gaming.
I would say I like the osx environment a lot better then then windows environment. but i use and enjoy both and i can aimlessly surf and download anything and not have to worries to much about the repercussions in osx unlike windows
mac and osx can do somethings better then windows and windows can do some things better.
use what suits you needs the most.
or use both... or even better screw them all and go open source.. Ubuntu !
Dude, get out of my brain!
And no, other than an iPod I own no Apple stuff. But I can tell the difference between a draconian businessman (Gates/Microsoft) and an ego-maniac.
Though I'm not sure which is worse
To succeed at capitalism on such a scale, that sort of behavior is necessary, unfortunately.
All that said, the anti-trust suits aren't going to happen until Apple gets into outright bullying and anti-competitive coercion that Microsoft did when they were handling OS/2 and the bundling of other default apps by PC builders. Both were blatant examples of coercion in the marketplace leveraged from their monopolistic position. It would take Apple doing something like either refusing to stock iPods or levying fines against retailers like Best Buy if they carried Zunes or other mp3 players. Ditto notebooks, desktops, phones, etc etc.
Holding a monopoly is not against the law, abusing it and engaging in anti-competitive practices is. While Apple exerts draconian control over their own products, it isn't at the expense of squeezing other companies out of the marketplace through anti-competitive actions. It is nothing close to a monopoly. Same with Google. It is a very important difference that a lot of people miss when trying to draw a parallel with what Microsoft did in the 90s. There will be a lot of noise if either company eventually crosses that line.
As an example, the article cites a company called Vudu that sells a streaming media box. He uses Apple TV as an example of Apple squeezing the little guy out with a more successful product.
This is not anti-competitive monopolistic behavior.
Grounds for an anti-trust lawsuit would be Apple threatening to pull products from or levy fines against Best Buy, Circuit City, Fry's, etc, if they also carried the Vudu. That is the sort of behavior that starts anti-trust lawsuits and is exactly what Microsoft got into trouble in the 90s.
Selling successful products doesn't constitute aggressive anti-competitive behavior. Apple exerts a lot of control over their own products, but the way they conduct business is nothing close to being anti-competitive. The fact that they have a very tightly controlled product line and a chain of stores means that they get a lot more control than other companies do, but by no means does that make them a monopoly or anti-competitive. You can go right down the aisle in a Best Buy and pick up an HP notebook or a Zune with no negative repercussions to the retailer from Apple if you do so.
It is an attention grabbing headline but that's all its for; hits and attention. A better argument would have made for better reading.
This is not anti-competitive monopolistic behavior.
Grounds for an anti-trust lawsuit would be Apple threatening to pull products from or levy fines against Best Buy, Circuit City, Fry's, etc, if they also carried the Vudu. That is the sort of behavior that starts anti-trust lawsuits and is exactly what Microsoft got into trouble in the 90s.
Selling successful products doesn't constitute aggressive anti-competitive behavior. Apple exerts a lot of control over their own products, but the way they conduct business is nothing close to being anti-competitive. The fact that they have a very tightly controlled product line and a chain of stores means that they get a lot more control than other companies do, but by no means does that make them a monopoly or anti-competitive. You can go right down the aisle in a Best Buy and pick up an HP notebook or a Zune with no negative repercussions to the retailer from Apple if you do so.
It is an attention grabbing headline but that's all its for; hits and attention. A better argument would have made for better reading.
KaiserWarrior
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2008
- Messages
- 204
Apple is not monopolistic in the pure sense of the word, no. As Serpico says, they don't threaten stores with repercussions if non-apple products are sold. Well, none other than Apple stores, but then they're company-owned in the first place, so they don't count.
They do, however, have some very disagreeable business practices from a customer standpoint, and that is why I will never own an Apple product. Mac's broken? Too bad, looks like you have to go to Apple to get it fixed. Mac's outdated? Looks like you'll have to buy an entirely new system from Apple. Want songs on your IPod? Better get used to Apple's ITunes. It completely denies freedom to their customers.
Which, while not monopolistic, and not illegal, is wrong. Not that the macbook-toting starbucks-drinking trendslaves care.
They do, however, have some very disagreeable business practices from a customer standpoint, and that is why I will never own an Apple product. Mac's broken? Too bad, looks like you have to go to Apple to get it fixed. Mac's outdated? Looks like you'll have to buy an entirely new system from Apple. Want songs on your IPod? Better get used to Apple's ITunes. It completely denies freedom to their customers.
Which, while not monopolistic, and not illegal, is wrong. Not that the macbook-toting starbucks-drinking trendslaves care.
Not true. Shops that are certified for Mac repairs are common. The place I buy my Macs from (independent store that caters to the film and music business) also has in-house repair. Either way, what you are talking about isn't much different from if you decided to buy from Dell or HP. If you wanted a repair done under their warranty then you go to Dell, HP, or a local shop that is certified to do repairs/replacements for them (not sure if this kind of thing even exists).
My first Mac desktop, a Final Cut rig, lasted me five years. I'd gone through three PCs in that same stretch of time so I'd say that I got pretty good value out of it. How is this different from any other PC manufacturer anyways? Being able to incrementally swap PC parts doesn't float as an argument for me since mobo/RAM/CPU socket standards change so regularly. When its time for me to put together a new gaming rig I basically toss everything but the case.
I don't disagree completely with this. That said, DRM is steadily being removed from the iTunes library as record companies allow it. A good size of their library has no DRM now. Until it is 100% DRM free, I always recommend that people get their music downloads from Amazon. It is an excellent service with a wider non-DRM selection.
Joe Average
Ad Blocker - Banned
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2008
- Messages
- 15,459
Not being able to put songs on your iPod with third party software isn't an issue of DRM as it affects non-Apple purchased files/songs also. It's because Apple decided with the 6th generation to encrypt the databases that iTunes uses to keep track of what's on the iPod - so even though you can look at the content, all you end up seeing is the now infamous ridiculously complicated random text string filenames that are effectively useless. They didn't encrypt the song data, just the TOC stuff.
So, in the creation of that "new" concept, they effectively fucked over every third party song management application developer (Anapod Explorer, EphPod, and several others) and force people right back into using iTunes. One could argue from a monopolistic point of view that iTunes is now tied directly to the "normal" usage of a 6th generation iPod, iPod touch, and iPhone for music/song management purposes.
Ooops.
So, in the creation of that "new" concept, they effectively fucked over every third party song management application developer (Anapod Explorer, EphPod, and several others) and force people right back into using iTunes. One could argue from a monopolistic point of view that iTunes is now tied directly to the "normal" usage of a 6th generation iPod, iPod touch, and iPhone for music/song management purposes.
Ooops.
Mediamonkey works fine with iPods and iPhones. iTunes is such a POS on Windows, I wouldn't recommend anything but MM if they wanted to manage and sync their stuff on an iPod.
KaiserWarrior
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2008
- Messages
- 204
To the repair point: I mean in the sense that if a PC part is toast, you can just go get a replacement and swap it in yourself. Can't do that with a Mac unless things have changed very significantly recently.Your point does stand for factory fabs if you don't want to open your case and/or void your warranty, though.