The analogy of Apple to specialty car companies has always worked and still does today. Sure, you can build a cheap PC, but that’s what you end up with, a cheap PC. Can you say Yugo?

Apple has always [almost] been more like Ferrari, Porsche, and Lotus in that it makes quality computers that cost more, last longer, and excel at certain things. Lately, it has been an incredible blend of style and performance. Despite the appeared difference in Mhz speed, a truly superfluous quality measure, Apple has put out some of the best products they’ve ever produced in the past three years. (A better indicator is the number of instructions per cycle completed, a fact that gives the RISC processors a huge advantage, despite the slower Hz ratings).

Compaq, which started out like a quality car company, quickly turned into the Geo Metro’s of the computer world. The company has fought long and hard to make a comeback and not be relegated to the status of making boxes such as Packard-Bell (sorry guys, but they stink worse than a roomfull of raw sewage).

Add to it the MS operating system breaking code of their middleware software vendors and other high handed tactics and you can see why BG and the rest of the clan in Redmond are in such hot water.

Monopolies exist on different levels

A number of interesting points have been raised in this discussion.

tbone1—your auto analogy is slightly inaccurate (Toyota and VAG - Volkswagen Audi Group are two of the top four), but point taken.

Some useful definitions:

Monopoly—a company or group having exclusive control over a commercial activity

Duopoly—two companies or groups having exclusive control over a commercial activity

Oligopoly—a market in which sellers are so few that the actions of any one of them will materially affect price and have a measurable impact on competitors

Monopsony—a market in which the product or service of several sellers is sought by only one buyer

Monopolies can also exist at different levels.

When Apple Macs were based on the 68000 series of processors, Motorola had a monopoly on the supply of the processors to Apple.  Apple on the other hand did not have a monopoly on the sale of personal computers.

PC manufacturers are faced with a duoploy when buying processors (AMD or Intel), but have many choices when buying motherboards.  Airlines also face a duopoly (Boeing and Airbus), but until recently, Boeing had a monopoly on large planes (over 400 seats) with the Boeing 747.

If an end user has to use one particular software application that only runs on one platform then the manufacturer of that platform could be said to have a monopoly in the eyes of those people.  There is a possibility that Shake might create this situation for Apple after 2003.

This I don’t see.  People can argue all they want about how a Mac is faster with this processor and set up or a PC is faster with this processor and set up.  There are Liars, Damn Liars and Statisticians.  I don’t believe everything I see when it comes to statistics.

Generally in the computer market… or any other market for that matter, you buy what you need.  If I’m doing Multimedia or digital recording… I’ll buy that Dual G4 with OSX so that I can run the recording software I need.  If I need to render 3D graphics for Industrial Light and Magic (That’d be the coolest job I think I’d ever have)  I’d be working on a $30K Silicon Graphics machine.  I need project scheduling, I need AutoCAD and I need project estimation software… (and I like my games).  Let’s face it… the software just isn’t available for the Mac.  Maybe OSX will improve that.  But more machine for you money?  The only difference is the OS.  1.2MHz is 1.2MHz no matter what.  Windows screwed up with Me and 2000.  XP is noce, but it’s still not as stable as it could be.  I have NT 4 at home and I haven’t had that machine crash since I loaded it last year.  I’d be happy to put it to the test against a similar Mac.

(BTW, I’m enjoying this discussion… I haven’t had a fresh Mac v. PC debate in a while.)

Back to the main topic… I really don’t see where MS is a monopoly.  They are a software company.  Apple on the other hand controls the Apple and Macintosh market.  MS is just bigger and did a few shady things.  They aren’t a monopoly simply because you *do* have more options.  I’m not forced to go buy a Gateway, or (dude) a Dell if I have to run Windows.  I have choices.  However, people who have to use a Mac OS program HAVE to buy an Apple.

Re: Ernesbitt’s Post.

Project schedualing?  Chronos Organizer.
CADD?  PowerCADD, CADintosh, RealCADD, Deneba CAD, Artiface (see http://www.architosh.com/ for more), 3d?  Lightwave.  For more Mac applications than you can shake a fist at visit http://guide.apple.com/ and http://www.versiontracker.com/

You’ll be surprised.  The Mac has software in every category you can imagine.

Monopolies

Ford is not a monopoly even though they are the only manufacturer of Fords.

Where they would run into trouble is if they had enough market share to bully radio manufacturers into producing radios that would not work as well in Dodges (by threatening to give away free, Ford-manufactured radios with their cars if their demands were not met).  They’d lose money with each radio, but eventually it would become really difficult to get a Dodge with a good radio, because radio manufacturers wouldn’t have the profits generated by other products to fall back on, which would let them absorb that expense.  Since radio manufacturing would no longer be as viable a market, most manufacturers would go out of business, making it even more difficult to get a good non-Ford radio.

If the radio industry agreed to Ford’s demands, Then Ford would still get marketing mileage from having better radios than Dodge, and radio manufacturers would still suffer from a shrinking Dodge market and live under the shadow of Ford repeating this very same threat when it wanted better pricing.

They would also run into trouble if they approached every parts manufacturer and said, ‘We will not allow you to manufacture parts for Fords unless you stop producing parts for our major competitor, Dodge.’ Remember, in our scenario, Ford has the vast majority of the market.  Lose a small part of your customer base or lose a big part of your customer base:  What would you choose?  What if Ford told WalMart they could get their Ford repair parts for half price, but only if they stopped selling Dodge parts?

Monopoly in the political sense is all about the ‘anticompetitive practice’. 

Ford would not be committing an anticompetitive practice by building radios, even by building better radios.  They would be committing an anticompetitive act by using their dominant Automobile market position to undercut the automobile radio industry (which would enhance their position in the Automobile market).  They would be committing an anticompetitive act by deliberately restricting the availability of repair parts for competitors.

Imagine if Ford had enough market to threaten you into paying Ford for each vehicle you purchased, even if you bought a Jeep (for which you also paid AMC).  What if Ford could make the oil companies brew a gasoline that would improve your gas mileage ONLY if you drove a Ford, the machanism of which was protected by intellectual property so that no other automobile manufacturer could use it, but it would make gasoline slightly more expensive for everyone?

MS has done so many of these things and more, it’s simply amazing that they haven’t been stopped before now.  Apple’s done some lousy stuff, but if you didn’t own an Apple (or a formerly-licensed Apple clone), most likely it didn’t affect you.

It’s not the building of a better mousetrap that’s such a bad thing: It’s the act of blackmailing the rest of the world into giving you more compliant mice.

Re: Monopolies

[quote author=“MonkeyT”]It’s not the building of a better mousetrap that’s such a bad thing: It’s the act of blackmailing the rest of the world into giving you more compliant mice.

8)

Apple and Microsoft have different types of monoplies

Apple is a vertical monopoly.
Microsoft is almost a horizontal monopoly.

monopolies can be dangerous but not always.

1.2 Mhz is 1.2 Mhz but it does NOT say much about the speed of a computer.

Microsoft has abused its monopolistic situation repeatedly and shows no shame or remorse about it. It may stimulate general software competition, but interferes in segments it wants to own (like internet software) and relies completely on its near monopoly in non-server operating systems to do so.

Fortunately, Apple has fought hard against this and the only way it has been able to FORCE its way into the non-server Operating System market is to maintain its vertical monopoly.

Capitalism depends on competition in market segments. Microsoft has created a situation that makes competition in any market it chooses to be destroyed. As a result consumers have no choice in that market segment which means no competition and no growth. (and bloated junkware that slows down the productivity of the entire world

Aaron

Is Apple a Monoply?

:o If just a few PC makers would grow a back bone and Tell MS that they are looking into other operating systems, Ms would not have that control (not monopoly) over them. MS can handle one PC maker at a time but not several of them. The industry brings this on itself. I also think that if Apple has had their marketing strategy in order that they would be under the “Monopoly” scope too. It is normal in just about any industry that a few companies are the innovators and the rest follow. And the innovator companies are generally not as profitable. If the Mac OS were the dominating system they would not have a superior product. Apple has a passion for computing and MS has a passion for profits. One is not better that the other but you have to decide witch one you want to pursue. Is Apple a monopoly? Not with open source and a history of not going after copyright and patent violators. They just want the better system and in order to achieve that they need to be in control of the hardware as well.

i believe that many people would say that MS is considered a monopoly because of the extent of it’s control over most of the computer os market, although i do think that figures based on marketshare (how many computers of a specific type are sold during a year) are waaaaaay off.  having used both, and knowing friends with both, i can tend to say that people owning macs tend to keep them around for a lot longer than people owning pc’s with windows (sorry, don’t know any linux/*nix users).  if a mac user keeps their computer for 4-5 years before buying a new one, compared to a windows user who updates their computer ever 1.5 - 2 years,  that gives a false indication of how many base users there are.  and not all of the computers are passed onto someone else to us, which is why there are so many in landfills in china poisoning their environment.

and while win2000 is pretty stable, better than 98 when i had it here at work, netscape on it keeps breaking to the point where it won’t work on links, or sometimes even freezes totally, and the only recourse is to reboot.  and no, i won’t use IE, it has a program in it that keeps a log of all your activities, one that you cannot delete (i have tried) and i am totally against spyware (i’ve mentioned before that i am paranoid )

for a user like me, i don’t do 3-d gaming on the computer (my boyfriend has a playstation we use), and most of my needs are met fairly easily.  when they upgraded my computer here at work (a forced 3-yr upgrade cycle) and it had a higher mhz rate going from 667 to 933, i haven’t really noticed a difference in performance.  maybe i don’t stress it enough, even though i usually have around 5-6 apps open at a time, and switching between constantly. 

though i haven’t actually timed it, perceptually the performance is about the same as my 500mhz iMac at home.

wow, am i a slow typer!!!  i was replying to ERNesbitt’s 3rd post, and look at all the ones that got posted before me

[quote author=“ERNesbitt”]Let’s face it… the software just isn’t available for the Mac. 

It depends on which software you are interested in.  For most applications this simple isn’t true.  For some games, and for high-end CAD I’ll agree with you 100% though. 

1.2MHz is 1.2MHz no matter what. 

I would firmly disagree on this matter, but let’s not take this otherwise good thread down that path.  We can start a new one if you’d like, I’ll outline the MhZ myth and you can say “yes, but 2Ghz”, and I’ll outline the Mhz myth, and you can say “yes, but 2Ghz”, and I’ll…   I’d agree that x86 is faster at the moment, but not as much as the Mhz would have you believe (and not at all tasks, find me the one in a hundred cache-bound altivec enhanced algorithm and you’ve lost ). 

Back to the main topic…

good

I really don’t see where MS is a monopoly.  They are a software company.  Apple on the other hand controls the Apple and Macintosh market.  MS is just bigger and did a few shady things.  They aren’t a monopoly simply because you *do* have more options.  I’m not forced to go buy a Gateway, or (dude) a Dell if I have to run Windows.  I have choices. 

They don’t have to control the whole process to be a monopoly.  They are a monopoly on the software end of the market.  Not because they are the ONLY game in town, but because they are the dominant one.  The analogy could be drawn to utility companies (sortof).  Power companies for example almost always have a monopoly.  You have no choice in which power company you buy power from.  But even in this pretty clear cut case I could still go out and by a bunch of solar panels, or windturbines, or… and so I still have a choice.  In computers, yes you have a choice, windows, mac, linux, but for most people this isn’t a choice (sadly).  The problem is that MS knows they are in this position and is clearly willing to use this to their advantage.  If you want to talk about overpriced items, look no further than Office, or a retail copy if windows.  good GOD!!! :o I though economies of scale were supposed to reduce prices!

[quote author=“ERNesbitt”]I really don’t see where MS is a monopoly.

Okay, following Jeff Goldblum’s example, let’s try it in three easy steps.

Step 1:  Apple makes their own computers.  They are, therefore, allowed to put whatever OS they want on their computers. This is no different than Ford putting Ford-made radios in their Ford-made Explorers.

Step 2: Microsoft does not make their own computers.  Instead, they put their OS in the marketplace, where PC OEMs like Gateway, Dell, and Compaq can buy it and install it on their computers if they want to.

Step 3: In theory, if Gateway, Compaq, and Dell suddenly decided that Windows costs too much, and choose instead fo install Linux on all their PCs, they have every right to do so (see Apple example in step 1).
In reality, this doesn’t happen because Microsoft has forced them to continue buying Windows (and not buying alternatives) through various antitrust practices (examples available on request).  Microsoft thus has illegally maintained a monopoly on third-party PC operating systems.

And this is why Apple is not a monopoly, Microsoft is a monopoly, and Bill Gates is in deep legal ca-ca.

I really do have to agree that MS was found guilty of abusing its monopoly and that, yes, Apple is a monopoly in its own space. That was proved when it got rid of the clone makers.

On the issue mentioned earlier when someone wrote that if you build a cheap PC all you have is a cheap PC. More true from my experience in building a couple of computers is that if you buy a cheap PC you will have a cheap PC.  You can build a very low cost machine that is made from good parts and experience very few, if any, problems with integration and reliability.  Really. It makes me sad that I can’t do the same thing in the Macintosh space, and that is because Apple is a monopoly in that space.

[quote author=“iShadow”]i won’t use IE, it has a program in it that keeps a log of all your activities, one that you cannot delete (i have tried) and i am totally against spyware (i’ve mentioned before that i am paranoid )

Netscape has this too.  They are required to have it so that if the Feds ever catch you looking at kiddie porn, they have an undeleteable record of what you’ve been downloading.  To get rid of it, just format every once in a while (1-2 years) and re-install everything.

As for spyware… look no further than your Gnutella network browser.  KaZaA, Morpheus, and Limewire all have built in spyware.  They intend on using it to create a “Large Scale Peer-to-Peer Network”.  Basically imagine a SETI@home running the whole gnutella network and nothing on your computer is safe.  By agreeing to it, you open up your bandwidth and processing power to their use, which they then charge users for… but you don’t get paid for.

For EDGar: MHz is a measurment of frequency… just like cubic meters is a measure of volume.  1m^3=1m^3 just as 1MHz=1MHz.  It’s OS performance that really determines speed.

I do agree that Mr. Gates is in it deep.  I also agree (somewhat) that MS Office and Windows are overpriced… But, you are paying for intellectual property.  It’s tough to put a price on someone’s ideas… really it all comes down to: How much will people pay for it?

apple on has a monopoly on slow computers with crappy os’s.