I’m looking for supported opinions please.
If you can answer this question, I would love to hear it.
Apple prohibits the production of third party computers that run a mac os.
Doesn’t that make them a monopoly?
And if not, why?
Is it based more on market share?

As I understand it, this doesn’t make them a monopoly. They have the right to license their OS to whomever they want, and if they don’t want to license it for use on third-party machines, that’s fine. A monopoly exists when one firm controls the market for a whole class of goods, not for one particular variety of those goods: for water, not Poland Spring water, or operating systems for personal computers, not the Mac OS. Whether or not one has a monopoly, I think, depends on several things: one can have a legal monopoly on something (e.g., if I have patented some technology, I have a legal monopoly on its production until my patent expires); in the absence of something like this, whether or not one has a monopoly depends on market share, and in particular on the question whether one has enough market share to be able to use one’s power to discourage legitimate competition. But here again the market one needs to have a controlling share of is not e.g. the market in Mac OS-compatible computers, but personal computers, servers, workstations, etc.

Well put, Hilzoy.

If Apple were to gain a controlling share of the computer market, while leaving Microsoft/Linux in a niche status, then Apple could well be considered a monopoly.

Hilzoy’s water analogy was probably the best analogy for that. 

Well put, Hilzoy.

If Apple were to gain a controlling share of the computer market, while leaving Microsoft/Linux in a niche status, then Apple could well be considered a monopoly.

Hilzoy’s water analogy was probably the best analogy for that. 

It goes back to the start of computers really.

Originally, all companies created both the OS and the hardware. Apple, Atari, and Commodore are prime examples. The only exception was IBM, which didn’t make the OS. They relied on Microsoft for that.

When companies began to clone the more popular brands (IBM and yes, even the old pre-mac Apples) Apple simply closed the system further, making it difficult, or impossible for other companies to accurately create a working system. IBM on the other hand, couldn’t close the OS, they could only make the hardware more proprietary. Microsoft could sell more copies of their product if they supported those clone systems. By the time of Windows 95 and the Pentium, IBM no longer had any real control over the hardware that Microsoft would support, and was essentially forced out of the PC business.

Because of this, The Wintel PC does not belong to any single company, and Microsoft legally has no say in how those systems are built and bundled. They can always influence, suggest, and chose what to and what not to support, of course. The issue is that because they control so much of the marketplace, they can, and do, use that power in ways that unfairly hinder competition, restrict business partners, and artificially manipulate pricing, supply and demand.

If Apple and/or Linux held a higher percentage of the market, then there would be ample competition for Microsoft’s customers and business partners. They could then choose NOT to support Microsoft’s tactics. Since Microsoft dominates such a large area of the market though, many consumers can’t or won’t choose to penalize them by choosing another computer system.  When that happens, the government steps in to ensure choices can be made again.

Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary

Monopoly - 1) exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action 2) exclusive possession, 3) a commodity controlled by one party 4) a person or group having a monopoly

From the Lectric Law Library Lexicon

MONOPOLY - This word has various significations. 1. It is the abuse of free commerce by which one or more individuals have procured the advantage of selling alone all of a particular kind of merchandise, to the detriment of the public.

All combinations among merchants to raise the price of merchandise to the injury of the public, is also said to be a monopoly.

A monopoly is also an institution or allowance by a grant from the sovereign power of a state, by commission, letters patent, or otherwise, to any person, or corporation, by which the exclusive right of buying, selling, making, working, or using anything, is given.

The Sherman Anti-Trust law was written by a bunch of politicians who misused the word.  Microsoft isn’t a monopoly any more than Coka-Cola and Pepsi are a Monopoly.  Now, should MS limit the number of users to their intellectual property… people will go elsewhere because they have the option.

Now, under the true definition… Yes, Apple is a monopoly on Apples and the Mac OS.  They hold exclusive possession of the technology.  Are they or MS a monopoly in the computer OS market?  No way!  But a bunch of stuffed shirts in Washington DC said… “Wait, they’re making money at this… It can’t be legal.”

MS is doing no more or less than any other large corporation.  They report their earnings, they take care of their employees just like any other big company.  You get a ham and a bonus check every year for Christmas.

Just because someone misuses a word often enough doesn’t change the meaning of the word.

No.  I’m sorry but I think you are missing a LARGE part of the current anti-trust suit.  They are NOT being tried for being a monopoly.  There is nothing technically illegal about being a monopoly (I think)  They are being tried for abusing their monopoly power.  This is blatantly illegal, and is not something the american consumer should be stuck with.  It think the case for their guilt has been pretty well laid out and accepted in a court of law. 

The only problem is all of the Washington DC suits who keep saying.. oh, but they were making so much money, that must have been good for the economy (and the poloticians campaign funds) so we should let them do whatever they want. 

I will agree that apple is a monopoly.  It’s been a while since economics 101, but I believe they are called a vertical monopoly because they control all aspects of a portion of the market from production to consumer.  Microsoft is a Horizontal monopoly because they dominate one portion of the market.  In economic terms you don’t need to be the ONLY provider of a service merely one which completely dominates the market.  There are a lot of other economics that I don’t fully understand, and perhaps DawnTreader could help out a bit here. 

Microsoft is NOT on trial for making money, they are on trial for abusing their monopoly power in a way that is unfair to other groups who are trying to operate in the same market and in a way that is ultimately damaging to consumers.

[quote author=“ERNesbitt”]Just because someone misuses a word often enough doesn’t change the meaning of the word.

I’d actually disagree with this too.  This is how languages evolve, and misuses of words (if they are persistent enough) often become incorporated into the dictionary. 

To quote myself and my own sig line:

“Microsoft’s tyranny lies not in its success, but in the way it achieved and maintains that success.”

I don’t mean for this to get off topic into a discussion on Microsoft’s sins, since haasenphefer’s question is about Apple, but I did think this point needs to be clear. 

[quote author=“EDGar”]Microsoft is NOT on trial for making money, they are on trial for abusing their monopoly power in a way that is unfair to other groups who are trying to operate in the same market and in a way that is ultimately damaging to consumers.

I do agree with everything you said..  However, Most large software companies support both Macintosh and Intel systems.  Adobe and Macromedia started on the Mac.  Companies like Autodesk originally started in PCs because of fewer restrictions of hardware.  (In the early days, CAD Companies shied away from Macs because of only having one mouse button.)  Software controls which system consumers use.  Recording and multimedia professionals use Macs because they are better for it.  CAD and 3D users use PCs.

Apple controls their own market.  They make their software, they make their hardware.  If I want to build a Mac, It’s cheaper to just buy one from Apple.  If I want to build a PC, I have so many options of hardware alone that I can build myself a dual 1.13MHz computer with 100GB of hard disk and 2GB of RAM for less than $1000.  Early on, Compaq got themselves into a bad situation with consumers by only using proprietary hardware.  Personally, I like PCs better because of flexibility.  I turned a 166MHz pentium, 80MB RAM and 24Meg Voodoo 2, into a 533 with a GeForce2 with 256 Meg for less than $300.  and I used most of the same parts from my old computer.

I also like PCs better because they can run the high end CAD programs (AutoCAD).  The day AutoCAD can run natively on a Mac, I *might* consider buying one…

APPLE IS NOT A MONOPOLY.

Throughtout industry, there are examples of companies that control almost every aspect of the creation of their product… some car makers (high-priced ones), laundry equipment companies, yada, yada, yada.

Being in a position where you dictate total development of your product is not always easy, cheap or good. Apple, as I have learned over the past couple of years, is unique to the computer industry. They design and produce products they believe in. Apple is on the hook for the software that comes on their computers and the hardware that runs it. Critics, and I am one, say that it also inflates some costs too.

Mitch

There are four types of monopoly:

1) Those where one individual entity can produce a product. As a fictional example, if you own the land with the only gold deposit in the world, then you have a monopoly in gold. Likewise, if you are the only person who knows how to manufacture a product, you are a monopoly. These are very rare and do not last long, because people will either find alternatives to gold or someone will back-engineer your product.

2) Those which are granted by government entities. In America, this generally means utilities: electric companies, water companies, local telephone companies (sometimes), and so on. They are also created by the government when the government denies individuals to do something the government does. An example of where this is good is the military. (Private armies do not make for happy history.) An example where this is bad (in how they kill liberty and cost taxpayers money) is ... sorry, there are too many to choose just one.

3) You can produce a commodity so much cheaper than the competition that they go out of business. This is very rare, actually; often there will always be at least three companies that survive in an industry. (Auto: Ford, GM, Chrysler)

4) You buy out all your competition, or you and all your competition join together.The government really frowns on this. There are cases where they’ve stopped this type of move; generally, a foreign company buys the companies and moves the jobs overseas.

5) You have a patent on a process/product. Patents, however, run out, and back-engineering tends to undercut it, anyway.

So in this sense, Apple is a monopoly, because no one else produces machines that can run OS X, or indeed OS X. People *could* do this, of course. There is no technical reason that, say, Texas Instruments couldn’t buy an iMac and back-engineer a machine that could do it. However, the return for the investment would be low; OS X users generally prefer Apple anyway; and they would be pestered by Apple’s legal team.

However, Apple tends to play nice, at least in business terms, with software. They certainly don’t stop others from producing, say, competing MP3 players. While their iMovie competes with an Adobe product, Apple is not writing their operating system so that Adobe’s product will break. At least as far as I know.

So yeah, Apple is a monopoly, but only in the sense that Ford has a monopoly on Lincolns and GM on Chevys.

For an instance of how unfair trade practices play out in MS’s scheme of things, and as a contrast to Apple’s mode of operation, you might look at this story  

From what i understand, it is hard for a big company to not run amuk of antitrust laws.  Microsoft thoroughly spanked middleware providers and other competitors in the marketplace.  But those companies still had enough money to hire good lawers and buy a few bad polititians.

But enough about MS.  Apple may or may not be a monopoly but they are most certainly anti-competitive.  And it has negative effects on its market.  Lower speced products, confiscatorily high prices, slow update cycle and many others that I won’t name here are just a part of the price Apple’s market pays for lack of competition. 

In some ways, I believe that Apple is far more anti-competitive than MS.  Every company wishes it could kill its competition.  But Apple actually has.

dandbj13, you simply can’t separate Apple from the computer market.  Apple’s competition is Microsoft and the rest of the Wintel hegemony.  Since the companies in the hegemony still exist, how did Apple kill off its competition?

AS for being more anti-competitive than MS, I am stunned to hear you say that.  Apple doesn’t do anything at all to lock you into its software, and you are very free to buy that other OS (Windows). Apple has middleware, but puts nothing in place to block the competition’s.  Apple lets you uninstall anything you want in the OS.

MS constantly and consistently leverages its monopoly power in the OS and productivity market into other markets for the sole reason for gaining new market share.  They have been quoted in their own freakin’ e-mails literally saying that about IE, MSNM, and other middleware.

In addition, they have exerted pressure in the retail space that required retailers to exclude or limit the competition’s shelf space as a prerequisite for selling Windows.

They inserted code into their OS to make it look like another version of DOS was broken.

They stand acccused of deliberately breaking other companies’ code.

They leveraged their OS monopoly power to get contracts that kept OEMs from including the competition’s middleware.  They also leveraged that monopoly power to force contracts on its OEMs that required those OEMs to pay MS a license fee for every single box sold, whether or not it included Windows.

I could go on and on and on about the anti-competitive crap that Microsoft has engaged during the last 10-12 years.

What has Apple done?  Screwed over its licensees?  Yes, they did.  I was one of the people raising a ruckus over this issue during the Clone Wars.  But even by eliminating licensing, which assured the survival of Apple at the expense of a faster upgrade cycle and the cloners themselves, they were still left to compete with Microsoft and the Wintel hegemony.  If they hadn’t done that, there is a good argument for the idea that Apple would have died, too.

Keeping people from licensing your OS when there are other competitors on the market is NOT anti-competitive. People have no “right” to buy cheap Macs.  There is still competition in the form of a company that has monopoly power over the market! Any argument to the contrary can not be made without denying that small bit of reality.

People screaming about X for Intel and similar cries always ignore the fact that Apple is a hardware company that makes its own software. It’s what they do.  It’s a complete package.  That package is left to compete against the combined weight of the other 95% of the market, and if that’s not competition, I don’t know what is.

Apple is no more a monopoly on computers than Ferrari is a monopoly on expensive human crafted cars, or Steinway is a monopoly on hand crafted pianos.  None of these companies enjoy a majority of the market of their machines, and yet all have a process that is unique compared to the majority maker.  Sure I could buy a Ford or a Yamaha, but do I get back in return the same quality?  Of course in those markets the amount a Steinway or Ferrari is priced higher than the majority holder is much so than Apple prices their machines higher.  You may pay at most 5% more on a Mac than a PC, but you’d get a whole lot more machine.  I can buy a $1000 Yamaha piano or a $9000 Ford or GM, compared to the $20,000 Steinway or $200,000 Ferrari.  There is quite a difference there, but the comparison is still apt.