Apple plans to crank up the anti-Vista rhetoric at its international chain of retail stores later this week, the latest move in a broader bid by the Mac maker to undermine the new operating system release from rival Microsoft. The campaign, set to get underway this Saturday, will include new store displays and employee t-shirts gently mocking Vista as little more than a washed-up attempt at a modern operating system, those familiar with the matter say. In a multi-page training manual made available through the company’s internal retail system this week, Apple challenged its employees to learn and tout the Mac’s many existing advantages over Vista-equipped Windows PCs.
It’s business. I don’t see what’s to be riled up about. Macs are 3% of the market, but a viable choice for a /great/ deal more people. Plus, Macs run Windows (arguably better than a PC does), people are going to be asking lots of questions about Vista and by having trained staff to answer those questions is going to be absolute critical to Apple being heard above the noise Microsoft is making over Vista.
I would have thought apple would train their staff to know the good points of their os anyway – it applies to all shops. staff should know what they are selling!
“Plus, Macs run Windows (arguably better than a PC does)”
Depends on who’s making the argument…I’m sure Apple wants the Windows camp to believe that, but all the numbers I’ve seen show at least 10% performance degradation.
I did say arguably. For me, Windows only became fun once I could run it optionally on a Mac. In Bootcamp there is no slowdown at all, it’s absolutely native. The 10% dent is only when virtualising with Parallels.
“Macs run Windows (arguably better than a PC does)”
That is simply not true. There are still Driver issues which results in hardware not working or creating some problems at least.
What is true is, that windows partly runs faster on Macs than OS X does. USB performacen, for example, greatly outperforms OS X on Macs.
That does not mean that Windows XP runs better on Macs than on generic x86 hardware.
Another thing is, that the majority of Macs sold have realy weak GPUs (the smallest iMac, the MacBook and the MacMini). That GPU (the GMA 950) does not have any Vertex acceleration at all and thus no Hardware T&L, which places it performance wise on a level with year 1999/2000 GPUs. Unnecessary to say that this is not at all usable for Vista.
What is true is, that windows partly runs faster on Macs than OS X does. USB performacen, for example, greatly outperforms OS X on Macs.
– USB performance ??? hum…. Let’s see…
Let’s take a simple “real life” example.
You take a USB stick, you plug in it into you mac (running OS X) it takes less than 2 Sec to be fully usable (detected, mounted and “aliased” on your desktop), you copy a single file or folder (a few couple a MBs) and you unplug it using either “command + E” or drag the icon into the trash that turns into a an eject icon (ejection is immediate).
Now let’s do the same thing on XP/Vista and I can assure you that by the time XP or Vista will have detected the USB stick (after about 5000 access to the registry) I would have ejected my stick on OS X and continued my work…
That does not mean that Windows XP runs better on Macs than on generic x86 hardware.
– I agree wiht you on that.
Another thing is, that the majority of Macs sold have realy weak GPUs (the smallest iMac, the MacBook and the MacMini). That GPU (the GMA 950) does not have any Vertex acceleration at all and thus no Hardware T&L, which places it performance wise on a level with year 1999/2000 GPUs. Unnecessary to say that this is not at all usable for Vista.
– While the facts are true (weak GPUs in low end macs) I don’t agree with your conclusion.
Tiger with GMA950 will give you full-flashy-animated UI (you know Exposé, Dashboard, transparency, rotating cube when switching users…). Using the same hardware XP or Vista give you a very poor UI compared to OS X (performance-wise).
Don’t get me wrong I’m not saying OS X is better or worse than its Microsoft’s alternatives, but IMO it’s too hard to compare OSes because there are way too much parameters to take in account. Too many benchmarks are biaised either intentionaly or not.
But from a general user perspective OS X fills all my need. It also fills most of my needs in computer related stuffs (network, development, and kernel related stuff). More generaly my macbook fits alls my needs (running several OSes). The extraordinary macbook/OS X sales (for a company like apple which was nearly dead a decade ago) tends show that I’m not the only one who thinks so.
You take a USB stick, you plug in it into you mac (running OS X) it takes less than 2 Sec to be fully usable (detected, mounted and “aliased” on your desktop), you copy a single file or folder (a few couple a MBs) and you unplug it using either “command + E” or drag the icon into the trash that turns into a an eject icon (ejection is immediate).
Windows takes no longer to detect and ready the device, and you don’t need a key combo or specific action for ejection. Because Windows supports surprise removal, you can just remove the device from the drive.
– While the facts are true (weak GPUs in low end macs) I don’t agree with your conclusion.
Tiger with GMA950 will give you full-flashy-animated UI (you know Exposé, Dashboard, transparency, rotating cube when switching users…). Using the same hardware XP or Vista give you a very poor UI compared to OS X (performance-wise).
Performance is driver dependent, and at this juncture, there is limited performance optimization in available drivers for Windows Vista. Also, OS X still does all of it’s drawing in software vs. Windows’ full hardware rendering when supported. Leopard will be where there is greater parity between what Windows does and what OS X does, and the hardware requirements will be similar.
“Another thing is, that the majority of Macs sold have realy weak GPUs (the smallest iMac, the MacBook and the MacMini). That GPU (the GMA 950) does not have any Vertex acceleration at all and thus no Hardware T&L, which places it performance wise on a level with year 1999/2000 GPUs. Unnecessary to say that this is not at all usable for Vista.”
This while Mac OS X runs fine on it.
while being modern, visually appealing and using GPU acceleration
It’s business. I don’t see what’s to be riled up about. Macs are 3% of the market, but a viable choice for a /great/ deal more people. Plus, Macs run Windows (arguably better than a PC does), people are going to be asking lots of questions about Vista and by having trained staff to answer those questions is going to be absolute critical to Apple being heard above the noise Microsoft is making over Vista.
You’re right, its up to the two companies to tout the features of their respective platform, and up to the end user to decide what they wish to run.
People make decisions in their lives, but I find it funny when I hear advocates from both sides claiming those people have been ‘brainwashed’ – to peoples shoc here, some people actually have very valid reason for running Windows or MacOS X – its about time people here respected their reasons for running their chosen operating system rather than claiming that they know best for everyone else.
Interesting. Would love to see some creative stuff coming from the opensource community as well.
It helps a lot to inform the public that there are real alternatives to Windows, some of them that include for years most of the features that are now being present on Vista as being supposedly “new” or in any way “revolutionary” and even that there are free (as in free beer) operating systems out there that are actually not made “for geeks”.
Linus has been a bit too quiet lately, right?
The thing is, that the linux community wants the companies to reach out the consumers, not themselves. They want Michael Dell to sell Linux, but why is there no Linux-StoreTM?
If Linux is that ready, then somebody should setup a shop selling Linux computers, Apple-style, with trained staff to provide support, advice and a confusion-free environment. Then, Linux might actually get somewhere, either that or the problems that do exist will actually become obvious, and something will be done about it.
That’s actually a decent idea. However, I don’t think any companies are willing to make that financial commitment, especially considering they would probably have trouble making a profit for a while since Linux doesn’t have the history and branding that a Mac does.
There are a number of places that sell Linux hardware and support, they are just drowned out in the sea of other retailers hawking their computers.
Here are a few of the more successful ones;
http://www.terrasoftsolutions.com/
http://www.emperorlinux.com/
The only way OS X can seriously challenge Windows is it Apple allows it to be installed on computers other than those made by Apple.
Please understand that Apple are very, very profitable right now. Their brand is recognised worldwide. They are on top form and innovating out of every orifice.
Apple do not need to ‘beat’ Microsoft to win, they are already winning very much. Apple’s goal is not to suplant Windows, that is why OS X will never be licenced in this current economic environment. Apple only need to ensure that they do /something/ to be noticied above the Vista marketing blitz.
Edited 2007-02-07 22:51
It depends on how you define ‘winning’. If by profits, then fine Apple is ‘winning’. If you define winning by the amount of market share they command, then no, Apple is not winning. Apple is profitable, but Microsoft is way more profitable.
How profitable your competitors are, should not dictate how profitable you are; you alone dictate how profitable you are. Apple don’t need more marketshare than Windows. This is a delusion to think that that is Apple’s perogative. Apple’s goals are 1) stay profitable, 2) grow that profitability. Part of 1 & 2 is to grow marketshare, by making better products and selling them better, not to beat Microsoft.
Microsft however wake up in the morning and all they do is concern themselves with how to keep hold of the marketshare they have, anyway possible, legal or not.
“Part of 1 & 2 is to grow marketshare, by making better products and selling them better, not to beat Microsoft.”
That’s interesting…all of their “switch” ads definitely made me think otherwise. Beating Vista seems to be very high (if not number 1) on their list right now.
QUOTE: “It depends on how you define ‘winning’.”
Take a close look at these numbers (of today):
Apple Market Value: $ 73,484,916,200
Dell Market Value: $ 54,109,845,480
Now take a look at some articles from major publications featuring analysts and columnists predictions from ten years ago:
o Fortune, 2/19/1996: “By the time you read this story, the quirky cult company…will end its wild ride as an independent enterprise.”
o BusinessWeek, 10/16/95: “Having underforecast demand, the company has a $1 billion-plus order backlog….The only alternative: to merge with a company with the marketing and financial clout to help Apple survive the switch to a software-based company. The most likely candidate, many think, is IBM Corp.”
o A Forrester Research analyst, 1/25/96 (quoted in, of all places, The New York Times): “Whether they stand alone or are acquired, Apple as we know it is cooked. It’s so classic. It’s so sad.”
o Nathan Myhrvold (Microsoft’s chief technology officer, 6/97: “The NeXT purchase is too little too late. Apple is already dead.”
o Wired, “101 Ways to Save Apple,” 6/97: “1. Admit it. You’re out of the hardware game.”
o The Economist, 2/23/95: “Apple could hang on for years, gamely trying to slow the decline, but few expect it to make such a mistake. Instead it seems to have two options. The first is to break itself up, selling the hardware side. The second is to sell the company outright.”
o The Financial Times, 7/11/97: “Apple no longer plays a leading role in the $200 billion personal computer industry. ‘The idea that they’re going to go back to the past to hit a big home run…is delusional,’ says Dave Winer, a software developer.”
…bearing in mind what people have said in the past and all the nonsense about Apple’s way of business that people still spread everyday (Dvorak, Enderle, Gartner…), I would say Apple is really winning.
With just 3% of the market share, Apple does not have a leading position in the personal computer field.
With just 3% of the market share, Apple does not have a leading position in the personal computer field.
Do you have figures for laptops? I believe that it’s much higher.
In any case, the point the other poster was trying to make is that many people forecast doom for Apple 10-12 years ago, and that all these analysts are now forced to eat crow.
Apple once dominated the desktop world… WHAT HAPPENNED??? Why eat crow when there is enough turkey to go around.
What? Apple has never dominated the desktop world.
You’re not making much sense.
They did in the late 70’s and early 80’s, or don’t you remember the Apple 2 series.
They did (dominate the desktop market) in the late 70’s and early 80’s, or don’t you remember the Apple 2 series.
Sure, but the market was tiny at the time.
It may have been timy by today’s standards but they had an opportunity to control the market but threw it away. Remember that the Mac was to be the computer ‘for the rest of us’. Hah! Big laugh, the computer for the rich, not the average family.
You’re contradicting yourself here: either Apple dominated the desktop, or their threw the opportunity away.
I certainly do. I remember hacking the Wizardry save file to give my characters maximum hit points.
That said, they didn’t dominate the desktop back then. No one did. You had the Apple II, certainly, but you also had the TRS-80 series, the Commodore PETs, the Sinclair micro-PCs, the TI-99, and quite a few others…In the early 80s, the IBM PC was already king.
Certainly, the Apple II was the most advanced home PC for a while, but it did not dominate the market in terms of market share (which is what we were talking about, remember?)
Edited 2007-02-08 00:54
Apple had their chance with the introduction of the Mac to totally dominate the personal computer world with an operating system far ahead of the competition. Instead they priced the Mac so far out of reach of the average family in a time when the average price on PC’s were falling.
Apple had their chance with the introduction of the Mac to totally dominate the personal computer world with an operating system far ahead of the competition.
What is this obsession with dominating the market anyway? A diverse OS ecosystem is a *good* thing, as long as interoperability is there.
Instead they priced the Mac so far out of reach of the average family in a time when the average price on PC’s were falling.
…and yet, of all the big PC makers of that era, they are the only ones still around. Yeah, I guess they made really bad choices.
(They did, when they tried to make beige boxes, but they managed to come back from that as well.)
archiesteel why do you let hate cloud your judgement. I sometime pity people like you with so much hate in your heart that you come in every news regarding Microsoft and badmouth Microsoft and Windows:) Anyways aside from that:
Is it too hard for your tiny brain to understand that MAC failed because PC was cheaper? MAC could have captured the market if they or Jobs wasn’t short-sighted to see that the money is in selling software and let the hardware go free.
Instead his stupid decisions led to his eventual firing from Apple. Now before you go on iPOD saga, yes he did some good things in recent past but that doesn’t mean he or Apple never screwed up.
And here I thought the Mac failed because Microsoft and IBM had the business software market rolled up. Silly me.
It’s the software, silly!
archiesteel why do you let hate cloud your judgement.
You speak of hate, and yet you’re the one throwing insults.
I don’t have a shred of hate in my heart for MS. And you seem to have nary a valid argument in your rhetorical repertoire.
Mac hasn’t failed Apple: it’s still around. They are a successful company. There’s little else to say, really.
They wouldn’t be the one to create cheap ads if they were successful.
Don’t you really think that Jobs wants to be where Gates is and that he is pretty pissed off ever since Microsoft sucked the life out of Apple in past?
Ok well iPod changed Apple’s luck but what in computer business they were and to me still are a failure…that’s why the word Computer got removed from there name.
“…and yet, of all the big PC makers of that era, they are the only ones still around. Yeah, I guess they made really bad choices.”
Is that so? Damn, nobody told me that IBM went out of business… when did that happen?
Is that so? Damn, nobody told me that IBM went out of business… when did that happen?
I’m sorry, I should have said “they are the only ones still around and making PCs today.”
How refreshing. Some one who remembers reality. I am always amazed at those who see personal computing as Apple vs Microsoft.
Something that is lost on the Mac vs PC crowd is that in the early days of personal computers there were many manufacterers building hardware and their own OS/software.
IBM was dominant primarily because business users were more able to afford purchasing computers. Commodore briefly dominated the home computer market. Tandy (Radio Shack) was a very large player in these infant markets, offering systems and models that offered resonable cost and expandability for both home and office. TRS-80 series were probably the first true SOHO solutions.
Atair did well briefly, but never got much past its game identity. Sinclair and Texas Instruments were quite strong. Although some would say limited in their offerings, they provided excellent solutions for busy executives and managers.
Apple is really the only computer company in this sense to have survived. I don’t think that Apple was so much interested in “World Domination”, rather Apple was more interested in being out in front of the pack. I really don’t think that Apple has any illusions about being able to “take over” the PC market, after all they are back logged on orders as it is. I see their marketing campaigns targeted to keep their “position” if you will as the innovators and leaders in personal computer technologies.
Edited 2007-02-08 03:32
Before Apple entered the entertainment/music buisness, their stock hovered below $10 and even below $3 in the late nineties.
Its clearly evident that Apple’s systems buisness only contributes a tiny bit to their huge revenue stream from iPod and music sales.
I don’t have the stats from Q1 2007, but if you look at the published info from Q4 2006, you can estimate that Macs accounted for 45%+ of their revenue for the quarter. In Q1 2007, iTMS and iPod accessories together accounted for less than 10% of their revenue.
I’m not so sure that I agree apple is winning. Actually I wonder why its a matter of win or loose. I like Apple products there are some Microsoft products I like and some I don’t.
Really its a personal prefence. I’d honestly like to see apple more main stream and go after the buisness market but I don’t see them doing that anytime soon. They are profitable at what they do and they do it very well.
Apple VS Microsoft VS Linux. Its a matter of choice sometimes I prefere linux sometimes i prefer mac and sometimes I prefer Windows simply depends on what I’m working on.
Well there’s my two cents for what its worth.
I agree Apple is doing very well which is great. That’s why selling themselves in opposition all the time just grows more and more pathetic. It seems designed to preach to the converted and make current mac users feel good and non mac users feel stupid. Winning people over by making them feel stupid is not a winning strategy. It turns off so many people know and comes off as childish. You beat MS? Big Whup. Single guy linux distros also have some features that are better than vista’s.
Why not have more confidence? I love the “awesome out of the box” ads from mac but you rarely see those and instead you get the snickering guy in the corner. I like OS X but who really wants to be part of that club? So sad.
edit = spelling mistake
Edited 2007-02-09 03:28
The only way OS X can seriously challenge Windows is it Apple allows it to be installed on computers other than those made by Apple.
Apple is a hardware company, not a software company. MS is mostly a software company.
Apple doesn’t need to displace Windows to “win”…it only needs to increase its market share a little. Same holds true for Linux, actually. Completely owning the OS market mostly seems to be the obsession of Microsoft and its cheerleaders…
Nonsense and boulderdash. You are not winning the war with a 3% market share.
If Apple allowed OS X to be installed on other computers and digitally signed drivers, The loss, if any from hardware sales would be made up a hundred fold in software sales.
Nonsense and boulderdash.
That’s “balderdash.”
You are not winning the war with a 3% market share.
In business, “winning” is defined by how much money you make. You could say that Apple’s 3% market share for the OS is small, but it’s 3% market share for actual machines sold is a lot more significant. Again, Apple is a hardware company, not a software company. If Apple was to increase its market share to 5%, that would mean a *lot* more money for them. More money is “winning” in my book, and in Apple’s book too, it seems.
Also consider that Apple laptops have a much higher market share than desktops. They are, in fact, very nice machines, and even I am tempted to buy one as my next machine, and put all three OSes (OS X, Ubuntu Linux and Windows XP) on it.
If Apple allowed OS X to be installed on other computers and digitally signed drivers, The loss, if any from hardware sales would be made up a hundred fold in software sales.
That is your opinion, and you’re entitled to it, but you have no proof of this, and I do believe that you are wrong. In any case I doubt this will ever happen – the last time Apple tried that it was a total fiasco.
‘Apple is a hardware company, not a software company….’
Right… They are not a software company, and GM does not produce automoblies either.
Right… They are not a software company, and GM does not produce automoblies either.
Don’t be silly. GM is a car company. Apple is a hardware company. Apple *does* produce software (and, with iTunes, servers), but only to add a plus-value to their hardware.
So, yes, Apple is a hardware company. If you want to challenge this assertion, may I suggest using actual arguments instead of an inaccurate reductio ad absurdum?
“You are not winning the war with a 3% market share. ”
It’s not a war, it’s business. As long as you turn a profit you are winning, when you don’t you are losing and it is actually not possible to ever “win”.
“Apple doesn’t need to displace Windows to “win”…it only needs to increase its market share a little. Same holds true for Linux, actually.”
OK, but a market share of at least 10% would be useful both for Apple and Linux. The reasons are quite obvious.
OK, but a market share of at least 10% would be useful both for Apple and Linux. The reasons are quite obvious.
Yes, obvioulsy. However, my point was to specify that there is no “winning threshold”…as long as people continue to choose Mac or Linux, it doesn’t need to take over the market (in a way approaching Windows’ market share) in order to succeed.
World domination is an obsession of Microsoft and its cohorts – you just have to look at the pro-MS posters here, and how the idea that MS should have a lower market share makes them tear up their shirts in outrage (then again, I suspect that quite a few of them, i.e. n4cer, MollyC and a few others, are actually MS employees).
World domination is an obsession of Microsoft and its cohorts – you just have to look at the pro-MS posters here, and how the idea that MS should have a lower market share makes them tear up their shirts in outrage (then again, I suspect that quite a few of them, i.e. n4cer, MollyC and a few others, are actually MS employees).
… a very poor and shabby attempt to distract people from the argument. It’s a pity that you’re irrational hatred of Microsoft spoiled what was a very good point.
I’m sorry, Rayz, are you mad at me because I forgot to put you on the list? I guess you felt left out…
Joking aside, I don’t have an irrational hatred of Microsoft. That’s just a weak attempt at an ad hominem attack. I simply happen to believe that there are MS-paid shills polluting Internet forums with their Redmond-supplied talking points. MS has the motive, the means, and the history of doing this sort of things, so the real question is “why wouldn’t they do it?”
Honestly, I don’t see why *anyone* who doesn’t have a personal stake in MS would spend so much energy to defend their monopolistic practices. It just doesn’t make sense, unless they’re paid to do so. Of course, this is just my opinion and I have no proof that this is the case (if I had, it would be national news…)
Edited 2007-02-08 15:27
Who’s paying you? Why do you have an incentive to post?
My answers to these questions: 1) no one is paying me.
2) I often post against anti-Microsoft posters because I’m a fair-minded person. I cannot defend the indefensible actions that Microsoft has taken (like releasing ME upon the world), but I don’t think a lot of the criticisms I see from folks like you, twenex, and even the respectable Raynier are accurate or fair.
<rant on why MS is successful>
To be honest, in the technical computing field which Raynier seems to be in, it is hard to beat linux since it’s both tunable and highly-tuned for efficiency in ways NT simply cannot be due to its requirement of stable APIs and compatibility. But for many other uses, Windows really isn’t the crappy OS it’s made out to be.
Sometimes it seems like people forget that Microsoft has many legions of quite competent programmers (and I’m sure a couple of legions of incompetent ones). When they release something crappy, some people are happy because it confirms their worldview that the giant corporation is a bumbling dolt. When they release something good based on their user research and marketing (which involves both selling what you have and deciding what to build because of the market out there), the same people are likely to chalk up their success to “monopolistic practice” without regard for the fact that the product was actually good for its target.
Finally, a lot of linux adherents seem frustrated by their OS’s lack of rapid rise to the top despite the fact that it’s free and open. I think it will happen eventually, but it may take up to 10 years. You have to remember that Microsoft is a private corporation and Linux is attacking one of its great revenue streams. You really can’t expect them to help Linux destroy Windows, especially when they are currently so far on top that their old versions are their primary competitors. Some commenters here expect Microsoft to embrace and help their competitors for no good reason at all.
Microsoft is a juggernaut and they are not going to be beaten trivially, but their position has only limited security on the home-user desktop and the non-specialized corporate desktop, in my opinion. If you have all your stuff on the web or in new-ish .NET LOB apps, porting to linux is pretty trivial. It just takes time and further development. If you expect switches to happen overnight, then you’ll only be frustrated and make unfair posts on internet forums.
</end rant>
What I see too much is a lack of curiosity over here. People are so sure of their positions and knowledge of other OSes that they often spout nonsense that is either outdated or was never true to begin with. I’ve learned a fair amount about Windows mechanisms at the Kernel level, and I’ve spent some time looking at certain aspects of the linux kernel source. I’d love to talk to someone who knows about Solaris (I’m sorry, “Slowaris”
) I think it would be far more worthwhile to discuss technical topics and learn more in-depth information about our OSes of choice than engage in the endless OS circle-jerk. We’ll probably find that more is the same than different.
I don’t believe raising suspicions about you, unless you also post under a different name here (which would be rather dishonest).
You also misunderstand my position. I don’t want Linux to replace Windows, I want it to stop its anticompetitive practices so we can have a diverse OS ecosystem.
While I’ll be the first to admit that MS *has* put out some high-quality products over the years (I’ll take the opportunity to remind everyone that I use MS Office regularly, and that I own an Xbox), I don’t believe that is the reason it has achieved market dominance. Rather, it has often acted in a predatory manner and basically blackmailed OEMs into offering only its OSes on their PCs for more than a decade (BeOS, anyone?).
What I want is for MS to support Linux, accept that it does not need a 90% share of the OS market to be a successful company, and release MS Office for it (and, why not, DirectX). These are the gestures of goodwill that will reconcile me with MS in the field of personal computing.
Will this ever happen? I doubt it…meanwhile, I’ll continue to use their products as I see fit while criticizing its behavior.
I think you should look up the definition of blackmail and then edit your post.
No, what MS did to OEMs in the 80s and 90s was basically blackmail: either they *only* preloaded Windows on their PCs, or they wouldn’t be able to sell Windows at all. That to me is a form of blackmail.
They’ve softened their stance since then, though it’s still a form of blackmail for companies with smaller profit margins: either they only recommend Windows, or they lose the large discount on unit price MS gives them.
This has been amply documented by the way. Google it.
Again, please go look up the definition of blackmail.
I know what you are trying to say, but you are using the wrong word.
Again, please go look up the definition of blackmail.
I know what you are trying to say, but you are using the wrong word.
No, I’m not. From http://www.dictionary.com:
black·mail /ˈblaekˌmeɪl/
–noun
1. any payment extorted by intimidation, as by threats of injurious revelations or accusations.
2. the extortion of such payment: He confessed rather than suffer the dishonor of blackmail.
3. a tribute formerly exacted in the north of England and in Scotland by freebooting chiefs for protection from pillage.
–verb (used with object)
4. to extort money from (a person) by the use of threats.
5. to force or coerce into a particular action, statement, etc.: The strikers claimed they were blackmailed into signing the new contract.
I think you’re only thinking of meaning #1 (i.e. involving threats of injurious revelations), but as you can see the word has a broader meaning. For my part, I was using definition #5, which does not imply that those who are victim of blackmail have something to hide.
So, no, I was not using the wrong word. You, however, were using too narrow a definition, just like you did for the word “monopoly.” Such misguided nitpicking is becoming rather annoying, I must say.
Interesting. The definition I’ve always known matched up with checking all the sources I did — American Heritage dictionary, Merriam-Webster, Columbia University Press Encyclopedia, Wikipedia. There were a few others as well. I figured after checking that many, that definition I always had known was accurate.
Figures that dictionary.com would be that vague. It’s kind of sad that different dictionaries have such different definitions for words.
Languages evolve with time – English is notorious for evolving much faster than other tongues.
To be fair, I could have used a less ambiguous words, such as “coerced.”
No, what MS did to OEMs in the 80s and 90s was basically blackmail: either they *only* preloaded Windows on their PCs, or they wouldn’t be able to sell Windows at all. That to me is a form of blackmail.
That’s inaccurate. The OEMs signed contracts that gave them discounts on Windows beyond the standard OEM price, and in some cases, money or incentives for co-marketing efforts, depending on their level of commitment to selling Windows and other MS products.
The OEMs were free to sell other OSes standalone as well, or even dual-boot Windows and another OS, but with each other option, the price to acquire Windows was greater. The OEMs wanted to keep the deep discounts without the restrictions even though they agreed to them in the contracts. The simple answer would have been to not sign a contract, and acquire Windows at the standard OEM price as the majority of system builders do, but the OEMs didn’t want to pay the price for that flexibility.
BeOS killed themselves in overpricing themselves when dealing with Steve Jobs, depending on Be Boxes for too long, then expanding beyond their capabilities when they lacked support for common hardware and sofware, offering the OS for free, and trying to piggyback off of Microsoft in the OEM market (and at way too late in the game anyway) rather than marketing their own solution to the public at large and figuring out a profitable niche for their product.
Edited 2007-02-08 20:40
Why do you always have to resort to accusing people of being paid by MS (whether employees or shills)?
Your posts are otherwise pretty good, so it’s sad that you feel the need to do that.
Why do you always have to resort to accusing people of being paid by MS (whether employees or shills)?
Correction: I don’t *always* do it, I *occasionally* do it.
There’s a nuance.
Your posts are otherwise pretty good, so it’s sad that you feel the need to do that.
Part of my posts are logical arguments, part of them are personal opinions. I know that you don’t agree with my assessment, but for the record I do *not* think you are a MS shill. You convinced me last time we talked about it, and I’ve actually seen you be critical of MS a couple of times since then.
The point I was making is that I see little reason for people to argue that MS having a near-monopoly status is a *good* thing – except if they have a stake in MS dominating the OS landscape, or if they are paid to do it. You may not agree, and I respect your opinion – all I ask in return is that you respect mine.
Edited 2007-02-08 16:28
Correction: I don’t *always* do it, I *occasionally* do it.
There’s a nuance.
You’re right, sorry. I didn’t mean to actually say you ALWAYS do it.
The point I was making is that I see little reason for people to argue that MS having a near-monopoly status is a *good* thing – except if they have a stake in MS dominating the OS landscape, or if they are paid to do it. You may not agree, and I respect your opinion – all I ask in return is that you respect mine.
What you need to realize that people *can* form opinions on their own, even if you find them to be (and even if they are) completely ridiculous, without having a monetary reason for doing so. The internet proves that quite well. When you accuse someone of being paid to say what they do, especially when you have absolutely no proof (their opinion is not proof), you are straight up insulting them. You are saying that are unable to form their own indepenent opinion (again, no matter how bad it may be). Making such an accusation services no purpose other than to detract from the issue and insult the person.
Yes, it is your *opinion* that they are paid. However, your opinion here is serving no purpose, as I said, other than to insult. Even further, people *can* call out your opinion, which I am doing.
What you need to realize that people *can* form opinions on their own, even if you find them to be (and even if they are) completely ridiculous, without having a monetary reason for doing so. The internet proves that quite well. When you accuse someone of being paid to say what they do, especially when you have absolutely no proof (their opinion is not proof), you are straight up insulting them.
To be faire, I didn’t “accuse” them of being MS shills, I am “suspecting” them. Anyone who’s ever played Clue will remember the difference – you don’t accuse someone unless you have reasonable proof.
If they find this insulting, perhaps they can themselve explain why they think that MS having a monopoly is a good thing.
By the way, a monopoly as describe in the Sherman Anti-Trust act is *not* required to have 100% of a market; it only needs to have a large enough portion of it to use this position to give it unfair advantage in other markets, which MS was found guilty of doing.
Yes, it is your *opinion* that they are paid. However, your opinion here is serving no purpose, as I said, other than to insult.
I disagree. It’s not an insult, it’s a challenge. If they can argue that they are *not* paid by MS, but that there is an actual rationale for *always* defending Microsoft’s monopolistic practices, then I’m willing to be convinced otherwise.
Note, however, that neither of those I mentioned even tried to contradict me…
Even further, people *can* call out your opinion, which I am doing.
You can’t call someone on their opinion, you can only offer counter-opinions. Let me ask you, what makes you believe that they are *not* shills?
Wait, how exactly do you propose they prove they are *not* shills? They can’t. It would be nearly impossible — and no making a good argument would not prove anything.
YOU are the one making the accusation–sorry, “suspecting”–and it is therefore up to YOU to provide the proof. The burden of proof is on you and you have not. The burden of proof is NOT on them. To think otherwise is delusional, dishonest and reeks of logical fallacies.
For all intents and purposes, on this forum, “suspecting” someone and “accusing” them is the same thing. It will lead to the same thing. There are subtle differences, but those differences, in my eyes, are only relevant in courts. When arguing verbally, on the internet, the differences are essentially irrelevant.
Wait, how exactly do you propose they prove they are *not* shills? They can’t. It would be nearly impossible — and no making a good argument would not prove anything.
Actually, you’re wrong. I’m more than open to being convinced by a good argument. After all *you* did convince me.
YOU are the one making the accusation–sorry, “suspecting”–and it is therefore up to YOU to provide the proof.
I don’t have any proof, and that’s why these are only suspicions. If I *did* have proof, these wouldn’t be suspicions. That seems obvious.
The burden of proof is on you and you have not. The burden of proof is NOT on them. To think otherwise is delusional, dishonest and reeks of logical fallacies.
I’m sorry, but you are wrong. There is no delusion, logical fallacy or dishonesty in stating an opinion. Now, if I had said “I *know* these people are shills” without offering any proof, then you’d be right. But I was clear in stating that this was a suspicion, therefore an opinion, and not a statement of fact.
For all intents and purposes, on this forum, “suspecting” someone and “accusing” them is the same thing.
That’s *your* opinion, and I disagree with it. It is actually pretty simple to demonstrate why you’re wrong on this: if I had proof, you’d be convinced I was right. Since I don’t have any proof, you remain unconvinced. I don’t have proof, therefore I can only suspect and you are welcome to express your skepticism.
Hey, when people once accused me of being an IBM shill, I took it in stride and argued that I wasn’t (and, yes, it was an accusation, not a suspicion). It was pretty easy, actually, all I had to do was to make some pointed criticism of IBM…
Edited 2007-02-08 17:15
But there is no reason for you to throw it out there that you suspect. It’s just throwing negativity into the mix that serves NO purpose. No good will come from it.
It is often said that once someone is publically accused or suspected of something, they are guilty in the publics eye. Of course, this isn’t always true, but the public tends to default to “guilty”. I think the same tends to hold true on the internet, especially public forums. All it takes to hurt someones reputation is an accusation or someone “suspecting” them of something. Unless you have VERY GOOD REASON to do so, it’s bad judgement, and yet again serves NO [good] purpose.
But there is no reason for you to throw it out there that you suspect. It’s just throwing negativity into the mix that serves NO purpose. No good will come from it.
I disagree, there was a reason in the argument I gave. I was making the point that “world domination” should *not* be the goal of any OS, and that I could not see why anyone would argue this, unless they had a stake in MS. I *could* have refrained from naming names, but then the effect would have been worse, as many people would have thought that I was targeting them (even you might have had this impression).
It is often said that once someone is publically accused or suspected of something, they are guilty in the publics eye.
I disagree with this assertion. The fact that you objected to my suspicions is proof that it isn’t
You’ve got it backward, it’s not my voiced suspicion that will convince anyone that n4cer and MollyC might be MS shills, rather it’s ther invariable, talking-point like defense of MS every time the monopolist is criticized.
All it takes to hurt someones reputation is an accusation or someone “suspecting” them of something.
Actually, I’ll argue the contrary. Accusations on Internet forums are *much less* likely to damage someone’s reputation than when they are made in other media (and suspicions even less so), because people are much less likely to take internet postings at face value and will naturally be suspicious of them. So I do believe you are wrong in your assessment here.
Unless you have VERY GOOD REASON to do so, it’s bad judgement, and yet again serves NO [good] purpose.
I believe I had good reasons to express my opinion. I’m also going to keep making these observations when I see fit, as I believe anyone should feel free to express opinions, and I accept that I’ll get criticized for it (ain’t freedom of speech grand?).
You’re welcome to keep disagreeing with me, but to save you time you should just ignore me or simply mod me down (under the “personal attack” rationale, even though *I* don’t agree that they are, it’s really your call when modding…). I’ve said what I had to say about this, and we’re getting quite off-topic, so let’s agree to disagree and move on.
Fine, we just disagree on it then. I think you’re just being a dick for doing it, you think you’re making a point.
You’re welcome to your opinion. As for myself, I’ll wait to see whether those I named care to try and dispell my suspicions.
“””Apple is a hardware company, not a software company.””””
wow… i must sould like a broken record! apple is BOTH a software AND a hardware company!!! i can’t for the life of me… figure our WHY you people DONT get it! DELL… dell is a hardware company… ADOBE… adobe is a software company… APPLE does BOTH….BOTH!!!
oh… and folks… APPLE has already won! i mean… seriously… it 2007… and they are still here!!! the mac… is STILL here… and OSX rocks! and the iPOD rocks… and FCP, LOGIC, SAFARI, MOTION, ITUNES… IMOVIE….
APPLE IS in it golden age RIGHT NOW…. there has never been a bettertime to be and apple user…. PERIOD!
so for all you cool dudes out there that back in 95 were BRAGGING that “mac is dieing… NT is where its at…you mac guys are idiots… i am better than you cuz i got in IT job and play online games…” BLA BLA BLA
the mac is STILL here!!!!
I don’t like the negative add campain, but I’m all for the little guy beating up on the big guy. So whats a consumer to do, I can’t buy OSX to intsall on my x86 computer. Apple needs to through there money at something I can use, not negative adds.
Apple would do better with a promo that their computers are the best platform to run Vista, AND OS X.
Vista runs with Paralells on my macbook. If you need or wnat both Mac is defintaly the way to go.
“Apple would do better with a promo that their computers are the best platform to run Vista, AND OS X.”””
yea… and apple should just forget about OSX and show the world just how good Windows runs on Mac hardware!!!!!!!? what???? are we talking about DELL? or HP? or Compaq? or SGI?
NO…. this is apple… and apple builds to BEST alternative to windows!!! WHY WOULD YOU WANT THEN TO SELL WINDOWS!!!!!
please, people… let apple be apple…. there are plenty of “PC” companies… why do so many of you want apple to turn in to one of those companies? WHYYYYYY? what would be the point!!!!
Why do you think Apple made Bootcamp??? Don’t you know that Apple now runs Windows, or are you just ignorant. It would be an excellent marketing paln to boast that your computer is the best hardware platform for running Vista, and you get OS X also!!!
“Apple needs to through there money at something I can use, not negative adds.”
How about an ipod?
“”So whats a consumer to do, I can’t buy OSX to intsall on my x86 computer””
Simple… use an OS that runs on YOUR x86 computer and stop worrying about Apple and OSX…. and be happy!
but… if you still find yourself unhappy…. uping the dosage of your meds aint going to help…..
you may have to break down and visit an apple store!
MS got as secure as Linux or even more secure? Would all the MS people who do not like MS change their minds?
For that, MS would have to break compatibility…for example, making sure a file is not executable simply because it has an .exe, .bat, .scr, .vbs or .com extension…
If Windows was secure, it would still have the registry, stil require re-installing every six-months/year, still cost too much, still have too many popup-bubbles and prompts, still have abusive, intrusive, unwanted third party software and still be hell bent on not being interoperable with anything else. If Windows was secure, I might not have moved to a Mac so quickly, but Leopard compared to Vista would have sold me straight away.
“stil require re-installing every six-months/year”
Man, must be a long time since you used Windows, you haven’t had to do that since Win2k.
“still be hell bent on not being interoperable with anything else”
Are you still living in 1992? Come on, interoperability between platforms have never been higher. You have Services for Unix (Free) which give NFS and standard unix tools, you have Active Directory (LDAP, and comes free with Win2k server and up) MSDSS allows Netware and Windows boxes to synchronise user info and accounts, and supports 2-way synchronization. Samba and CIFS allows other OS’s to use Windows file and printer sharing, and even be a NT domain controller. C# is an ECMA standard. Web services on windows can be used by any language, any platform. NetBIOS is dead, long live TCP/IP
Even if MS is not the most well-behaved companies, Windows interoperates with all sorts of different products, on all sorts of hardware, At home, my linux box mounts fileshares from my win2k3 domain controller at bootup, no problems, and didn’t take any effort really on either OS. I think anybody beating the interoperbility horse right now had better find another horse
Even if Windows became as secure and stable as Linux, and got rid of the UI brain-damage that is Vista, and got rid of the corporate culture of embracing massive complexity in their APIs, they still could not wash off the fact that they systematically and anti-competitively leveraged their monopoly to drive their competitors out of business in the 1990s.
There used to be a time when you had three major word processors to choose from, and MS Word wasn’t the de-facto one. If Microsoft hadn’t anti-competitively leveraged their Windows monopoly to gain ground in the productivity software market, you’d still have these choices. And of course, we can’t forget all the markets Microsoft demolished as they were emerging, just by subsidizing their entry with profits from their Windows and Office businesses.
One has to keep in mind that most of Microsoft’s divisions lose money. Indeed, for a long time, Windows and Office were the only divisions that made a profit. In a competitive market, those poorly-performing divisions would’ve been excised. But because Microsoft has a strangle-hold on Windows, they can afford to take losses almost indefinitely if it means muscling a smaller competitor out of the market.
But yeah, if they somehow manage to rewrite history, there would be no reason not to change one’s mind about MS…
You must be doing a good impress of Lord Haw Haw.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Haw-Haw
Instead of trying to ridicule Rayiner – a respected and knowledgeable contributor to these forums – you should try actually coming up with counter-arguments.
When people mindless echo the manta that Microsoft is a monopoly, then they get what they deserve.
That Microsoft is a monopoly isn’t a mantra, an opinion, or a conjecture. It’s a conclusion that has been reached by multiple courts, both in the United States and abroad.
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm
This is Judge Thomas Jackson’s findings of fact on the case “United States versus Microsoft” in 1999. Section III, parts 33 and 34 detail the relevant conclusion, with the remainder of the section offering detailed supporting evidence. In 2004 the European commission imposed penalties against Microsoft for abusing their monopoly position, and a European court of appeals upheld the decision by denying Microsoft’s appeal.
The relevant text for that decision is here: http://www.legi-internet.ro/fileadmin/editor_folder/pdf/decizie_mic…. Search for “Conclusion” (capital C) and follow the chain of logic. Section 6.2.1.1.4 is choice.
The two major commercial legal bodies in the world are operating on the assumption that Microsoft is indeed a monopoly. Arguing the point is mere denial.
Edited 2007-02-08 00:28
If Microsoft was a monopoly, then you would NOT have a choice. You would ONLY have Windows and nothing else. To go on about Microsoft being a monopoly shows your own ignorance and bias.
To say that a monopoly implies having no other choice shows your ignorance of basic economic terms.
Dude, we don’t care, you are off topic, there is a place to put all the trash talking about micorsoft you want, but not here, please, you are just being annoying.
Charter Communication is a monopoly in the St. Louis area for cable TV. Comcast n other area, and Time Warner in other area. I cannot have another provider through the cable that goes into my house.
Has Microsoft done anything to prevent you from running Linux or FreeBSD on your computer? Have they sent Lt. Frank Drebbin of the Police Squad to bust down your door and sieze your computer for running an illegal non-Windows OS?
None of these are requirements for being a monopoly. “Monopoly” has precise economic and legal definitions. The relevant anti-trust legislation defines exactly what it takes to be a monopoly. The rulings I linked you to conclude that Microsoft is a monopoly based on that legislation, detailing exactly how they reached that conclusion. Either point out the flaws in the reasoning of the rulings, or drop the argument.
How many Linux distributions are available that can run on your computer???
Ever heard of Plessy vs Ferguson?
It’s not like judges are incapable of being morons.
Plessy vs. Ferguson was consistent with the thinking of the time. The fact that we consider it moronic now doesn’t mean that the legal basis wasn’t sound, but rather that we’ve since repudiated the laws on which that decision was based.
If you’re going to argue that these rulings are incorrect, then you’re either going to have to point out how the decision is at odds with the existing law, or how the law itself is ill-concieved. Since this particular decision has been held up at numerous levels, the former argument is a tough one to make, and since the majority of first-world countries have similar anti-trust legislation, the second argument is also a tough one to make.
I’m perfectly willing to argue this with you, but you’re going to have to do it in precise economic and legal terms, not just insinuate that the judge was a moron.
“Plessy vs. Ferguson was consistent with the thinking of the time. The fact that we consider it moronic now doesn’t mean that the legal basis wasn’t sound, but rather that we’ve since repudiated the laws on which that decision was based.”
You’re greatly simplifying history. At the time, many disagreed with that decision, and have been proven to be right. Same with the Dred Scott decision. It’s not the case that everyone simply accepted those decisions at the time they were made, and saying that those decisions were “consistent with the tinking of the time” lets off the racists that supported them and does a disservice to the many that disagreed.
As for the MS/DOJ case, I maintain that Judge Jackson was incompetent. He failed correctly identify the monopoly that Microsoft did have. He claimed they had a monopoly on “desktop operating systems for intel-compatible CPUs”, which I and many do not agree with (just as many did not agree with the racist decisions I refer to above), and in fact is empirically incorrect. And therefore the rest of his rulings based on that misruling are flawed. What Microsoft had was not a monopoly on “desktop OSes for intel-compatible CPUs”, but a monopoly on OSes that run Windows apps. Had he come to *that* conclusion, and based his further rulings on that, then it would’ve made sense. Then he could have more adeptly supported his “remedy” of splitting the company along OS and apps lines, or even made the more meaningful ruling of splitting the Windows division into two companies each competing with their own versions of Windows. (The latter splitting could not have been supported by his “desktop OSes on intel-compatible CPUs” monopoly drivel, but could have been supported by a “monopoly on Windows-compatible OSes” ruling.)
Instead, he was slapped down, reprimanded, his remedies thrown out, and was removed from the case and replaced with a more competent judge. And this greatly undercut the DOJ’s case such that the DOJ decided to settle rather than retry the remedy phase (because Jackson’s monopoly ruling did not support the tougher remedies, and the DOJ knew that a competent judge would see that).
The industry would be better off had Microsoft been split up, but Jackson was too incompetent to support his remedy because he misfired on the monopoly ruling.
BTW, as stated above, Jackson declared Microsoft’s monopoly to “desktop OSes for intel-compatible CPUs“, a market that Mac was not in at the time. So Mac and Windows weren’t competitors at all, according to Jackson. Therefore his monopoly ruling is not germane to any Mac vs Windows story, and it should not have been brought up in this thread.
Edited 2007-02-08 04:43
(OT philosophical question on the inability to define “right” and “wrong” outside the context of a specific society deleted).
which I and many do not agree with (just as many did not agree with the racist decisions I refer to above), and in fact is empirically incorrect.
How many is “you and many”? What serious lawyer-type people are disputing not only Jackson’s ruling, but the EC’s ruling?
Instead, he was slapped down, reprimanded, his remedies thrown out, and was removed from the case and replaced with a more competent judge.
Nice spin, but it’s bullshit. The appeals court reprimanded Jackson for his criticism of Microsoft in the press, and for not holding a hearing on his proposal to break up Microsoft. However, it “unanimously supported Jackson’s finding of fact that the Windows operating system holds a monopoly in the PC market and that Microsoft used its market clout to maintain that monopoly, thus violating the Sherman Anti-trust Act.” (http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/01_29/b3741123.htm) The fact that the EC and an EU appeals court have also upheld a similar conclusion suggests that Jackson’s interpretation is entirely consistent with the notion of anti-trust legislation as it is understood in the US and EU.
Edited 2007-02-08 05:08
However, it “unanimously supported Jackson’s finding of fact that the Windows operating system holds a monopoly in the PC market and that Microsoft used its market clout to maintain that monopoly, thus violating the Sherman Anti-trust Act.” (http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/01_29/b3741123.htm) The fact that the EC and an EU appeals court have also upheld a similar conclusion suggests that Jackson’s interpretation is entirely consistent with the notion of anti-trust legislation as it is understood in the US and EU.
The court didn’t have much choice. They had to weigh Jackson’s partiality and amount of erronious findings with those that may have merit and decide whether to maintain or reject the findings in full. There was no middle ground.
The Federal Rules require that district court findings of fact not be set aside unless they are clearly erroneous. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a). Ordinarily, there is no basis for doubting that the District Court’s factual findings are entitled to the substantial deference the clearly erroneous standard entails. But of course this is no ordinary case. Deference to a district court’s factfindings presumes impartiality on the lower court’s part. When impartiality is called into question, how much deference is due?
The question implies that there is some middle ground, but we believe there is none. As the rules are written, district court factfindings receive either full deference under the clearly erroneous standard or they must be vacated. There is no de novo appellate review of factfindings and no intermediate level between de novo and clear error, not even for findings the court of appeals may consider sub-par. See Amadeo v. Zant, 486 U.S. 214, 228 (1988) (“The District Court’s lack of precision, however, is no excuse for the Court of Appeals to ignore the dictates of Rule 52(a) and engage in impermissible appellate factfinding.”); Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 571-75 (1985) (criticizing district court practice of adopting a party’s proposed factfindings but overturning court of appeals’ application of “close scrutiny” to such findings).
The defined market was so narrow as to be almost self-evident for Jackson’s conclusions. It’s like saying that at that time, Apple had a monopoly on desktop OSes for PowerPC-compatible CPUs. The defined market was tailored to fit the pre-judgement.
Also, the court did not just provide remedies for Jackson’s behavior, but also amended his rulings, and did remove him from the case as MollyC said.
As noted above, see supra Section II.C, we have found a causal connection between Microsoft’s exclusionary conduct and its continuing position in the operating systems market only through inference. See 3 Areeda & Hovenkamp, Antitrust Law p 653(b), at 91-92 (suggesting that “more extensive equitable relief, particularly remedies such as divestiture designed to eliminate the monopoly altogether, … require a clearer indication of significant causal connection between the conduct and creation or maintenance of the market power”). Indeed, the District Court expressly did not adopt the position that Microsoft would have lost its position in the OS market but for its anticompetitive behavior. Findings of Fact p 411 (“There is insufficient evidence to find that, absent Microsoft’s actions, Navigator and Java already would have ignited genuine competition in the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems.”). If the court on remand is unconvinced of the causal connection between Microsoft’s exclusionary conduct and the company’s position in the OS market, it may well conclude that divestiture is not an appropriate remedy.
While we do not undertake to dictate to the District Court the precise form that relief should take on remand, we note again that it should be tailored to fit the wrong creating the occasion for the remedy.
G. Conclusion
In sum, we vacate the District Court’s remedies decree for three reasons. First, the District Court failed to hold an evidentiary hearing despite the presence of remedies-specific factual disputes. Second, the court did not provide adequate reasons for its decreed remedies. Finally, we have drastically altered the scope of Microsoft’s liability, and it is for the District Court in the first instance to determine the propriety of a specific remedy for the limited ground of liability which we have upheld.
…
The judgment of the District Court is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded in part. We vacate in full the Final Judgment embodying the remedial order, and remand the case to the District Court for reassignment to a different trial judge for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/legal/06-28opinion.mspx
The opinion of the appeals court calls into question Jackson’s impartiality, and asserts that breakup is not an appropriate remedy to the problem, but nowhere does it object to the conclusion that Microsoft is in fact a monopoly. If that conclusion was in doubt, the ruling would have been overturned entirely.
Moreover, there remains the fact that the EC has decided the same thing. While none of these courts agree on the precise measures to be taken against Microsoft, as of yet none of argued against their monopoly status.
Go and read Jackson’s judgement. It might not have been classy for him to attack Microsoft in the press, but the reasoning is sound, and Microsoft is shown to be a textbook example of a monopoly.
Textbook example? A textbook example would be a company with 100% of the market, not 85-95%.
In fact, “monopoly” is traditionally defined as having exclusive control in something. Microsoft obviously does not have that. See http://www.answers.com/monopoly&r=67. I believe courts were the first to ever conclude that a company had a monopoly when there were in fact other players in the market.
Not only that, the ruling was not that Microsoft is a monopoly, but rather they have a monopoly. Microsoft is in other markets where they do not have a majority marketshare. How can they themselves be the monopoly?
The opinion of the appeals court calls into question Jackson’s impartiality, and asserts that breakup is not an appropriate remedy to the problem, but nowhere does it object to the conclusion that Microsoft is in fact a monopoly. If that conclusion was in doubt, the ruling would have been overturned entirely.
The appeals court, as stated in the quote I gave, had their hands tied. They had to either judge the findings completely erroneous and reject them in full, or maintain them for review by another court.
Moreover, there remains the fact that the EC has decided the same thing. While none of these courts agree on the precise measures to be taken against Microsoft, as of yet none of argued against their monopoly status.
And in both cases, these judgements were, and continue to be, driven by competitors to deliver the best remidies for themselves and not for the consumers as the law is supposed to do. In both cases, the original court ignored the actual market and reduced it to fit their foregone conclusions.
Go and read Jackson’s judgement. It might not have been classy for him to attack Microsoft in the press, but the reasoning is sound, and Microsoft is shown to be a textbook example of a monopoly.
Go read Kotelly’s final ruling and the transcripts leading up to it. You can’t just look at Jackson’s initial findings and ignore years of case law after it, though the Groklaw faithful always do just that.
Microsoft is a near-monopoly. For all practical purposes, that is the same thing as a bona fide monopoly.
That said, insulting people only betrays your own lack of arguments. When you’ve posted as many insightful posts over the years as Rayiner has done here, then we’ll talk.
Not so much the security that is the only issue with using Windows. I hate the fact that Windows requires so much user input to keep the system up and running well.
There are File System Defragmentation/truncation problems with NTFS
There is Malware
Registry issues
MS Office apps that leave *.tmp files littering your desktop
The default of Windows Swap file causes lots of File System Fragmentation.
In summary, compared to the alternatives, Windows requires a hell of a lot of user intervention to keep running well. That being said, one doesn’t need to re-install the OS every 6 months as others have stated here. I have had Win2K systems up and running for years on end without the need for re-installing but they do need hand holding. Never had to use such effort with Unix/OS-X.
No, because security isn’t the only thing people don’t like about Microsoft and it’s products.
Edited 2007-02-08 11:31
My biggest gripe with Microsft is they assume all their customers are pirates and make things very difficult. with keycode and activation codes. though many other companies have gone the same route.
Apple is baffling me on this one…granted they could never just outright say something like this, but couldn’t they tout the fact that Vista can run on a Mac as a selling point? That was the #1 reason I switched recently, and there is a huge market for crossover users like me.
If they were just a hardware company, as some seem to indicate, then that is just what they would do.
You seem to be very much into splitting hairs…when some says that they are a hardware company, that doesn’t mean that they are *exclusively* a hardware company.
The fact remains that Apple’s revenue comes mostly from their hardware, and that the main purpose of their other products and services is to increase their hardware business.
Those shopping for Vista will not be at the Apple Store. This seems more to placate the base than to win new converts.
Yes….because Windows users never buy iPods and will also never buy iPhones so they would have absolutely no reason to be in an Apple store…
Yes….because Windows users never buy iPods and will also never buy iPhones so they would have absolutely no reason to be in an Apple store…
Well there is no iPhone yet, I would imagine this campaign will be over before June. And I would imagine that most iPods sold to Windows users are sold at places like Amazon.com and Best Buy.
Apple’s showing what their audience will end up running. ^^
Apple doesn’t target the average consumer (ie no 999$ mini-tower PC).
Regular people throw out the screen when they get a new computer because they come with a new screen. Sometimes regular people think the computer is the screen.
By “doesn’t target the average consumer… mini tower PC”, you actually mean, doesn’t target you.
@Kroc
Regular people throw out the screen when they get a new computer because they come with a new screen.
Most people keep their monitors when they get a new PC. Other than the big jump, from CRT to LCD, they just buy a new mini-tower because they already have a monitor that works fine.
By “doesn’t target the average consumer… mini tower PC”, you actually mean, doesn’t target you.
Nah. I meant the average consumer has in “the average consumer.” You know, the cheap PCs that people buy and eventually upgrade the video card and add other peripherals inside. This is the big gap that Apple has in their PC line up.
Sometimes regular people think the computer is the screen.
Sometimes people invest themselves emotionaly in junk. And will start taking offense at any criticism toward that junk.
I recently heard someone say they wanted a new computer. One of the wide screens.
I just kept silent.
This is typical of Steve Jobs. He is an immature hippy suffering from envy. This type of campaign simply makes Apple users appear to be wankers. It also brings attention to Vista which is otherwise a non-event.
How about getting some independent analysts to do TCO for OSX vs vista in the corporate world?
Apple grow up and get serious and you may get some serious market share.
…go to one of the local Apple stores and call their bluff. I don’t hate Macs/ OSX, I hate arrogant dumbasses who think computers are fashion accessories.
Dido, nicely said
Computers are fashion accessories. I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but in the last several years computer modding has become very popular. Most of the time modding only serves to enhance the look not the functionality of a PC.
There is also a huge market for stylish pre-made cases. You might also notice that laptops have become more stylized. I would also point out that as computers move more and more into the living room they become fashionable decor.
I would also like to point out that not everybody who works in an Apple store or an Apple partner store are ‘arrogant dumbasses who think computers are fashion accessories’. I’ve been into several Apple stores and the sales people were quite nice and very informative. Much more than in most other PC stores. As a matter of fact I’ve had more bad experiences with arrogance from stores that sell Windows PC’s than those that sell Apples.
I say go for it though. You might very well walk out the victor, but more than likely you’ll walk out a loser.
I would also like to point out that not everybody who works in an Apple store or an Apple partner store are ‘arrogant dumbasses who think computers are fashion accessories’. I’ve been into several Apple stores and the sales people were quite nice and very informative. Much more than in most other PC stores. As a matter of fact I’ve had more bad experiences with arrogance from stores that sell Windows PC’s than those that sell Apples.
I agree. There is NO WAY the folks at the Apple Store could be more ignorant about computers that the average Best Buy or Circuit City sales person.
You mean… ‘um… it comes with a… CD-ROM drive… and… uh… a mouse. Oh, yeah… it uh… comes with Windows and… uh… has 500 GB of memory. It also has the latest… uh… nVidia Radeon video board with 256 bits of RAM.’
Yes it can be as painful to hear as it is to read. And yes I did actually have a sales person at Best Buy tell me that a computer had just such a video card in it. When I pointed out that Radeon was made by ATI he argued with me. He told me that ATI was a motherboard maker. I had lots of fun with that guy before leaving.
At best Leopard is a bolt onto Tiger.
Apple really shouldn’t be poking fun, if anything it is fair to say that Vista is more of a re-write than Leopard is from Tiger.
This is just PR line noise – apply your anti-distortion field deflector as needed.
Well, I don’t know what the final veesion of Leopard will be like, but in my opinion, this kind of negative campaigning makes them look … desperate.
At best Leopard is a bolt onto Tiger.
See, THIS is why there are so many flames on message boards. There is no question in my mind, I say with 100% certainty, that you are speaking in ignorance. You have NO IDEA what is in store for Leopard. It hasn’t been revealed. All you know is that WHAT YOU KNOW is “a bolt into Tiger.”
Is there a new UI? Is the Finder updated? What are the other new features? You have no idea.
I suggest they start using a new term for computers that aren’t powerful enough to (decently) run Vista.
Instead of “Vista-equipped PC’s”, you then get:
“Vista-crippled PC’s”
sounds catchy
Edited 2007-02-08 10:07
“This while Mac OS X runs fine on it.
while being modern, visually appealing and using GPU acceleration”
Yes, that’s true. However, most devices are NOT powerful enough when you want to run XP/Vista with Boot Camp in order to be able to run OSX and still be able to run all your Windows games.
I wish Apple would make at least the graphics card more upgradable, with 1 or 2 upgrade options for the graphics card. For example, at this point in time they could put out a 7900GT/7600GT upgrade card or an ATI X1900 upgrade card. Something like that.
“Yes, that’s true. However, most devices are NOT powerful enough when you want to run XP/Vista with Boot Camp in order to be able to run OSX and still be able to run all your Windows games.”
What does that say about Vista?
“I wish Apple would make at least the graphics card more upgradable, with 1 or 2 upgrade options for the graphics card. For example, at this point in time they could put out a 7900GT/7600GT upgrade card or an ATI X1900 upgrade card. Something like that.”
I don’t know if they do or don’t, but if they don’t then I agree with you they should.
I want to know more about the t-shirts. What do they say on them? What do they look like? Is Apple planning on selling Windows-bashing shirts at their stores? I’ve always thought “It’s Curtains for Windows” would be a good slogan.
I just recently purchased Apple products. I have always heard a lot of talk about Apple’s marketshare, but I think there is a real problem with the analogy. Apple tends to support their old hardware and software much longer that PC vendors. In addition, the people who use the hardware/software don’t easily or needlessly upgrade. The marketshare figures do not include those who hold onto their hardware for extended periods. The assumption that so few people use Apple products doesn’t take into account how many people fall so in love with their Apples that they don’t trade them in or give them up. I am amazed at the short-sightedness of the computer markets. Rather than being excited about how many people are using computers we’re only excited about new sales. I guess it is unfortunate that computers aren’t like cars where they have to maintian registration if they are used….sure would clear up a great deal.
Mac apologists claim Apple is not interested in growing market share. In other words Apple is so profitable that it does not need to grow beyond the 3% market share they have now. If this is true why do they spend so much money and time bad-mouthing Windows on TV. The purpose of course is to get people to buy the Mac instead of Windows ie to increase sales and market share.
Take a hint people. That strategy is not working and nobody is switching because of those silly adverts. You are stuck at 3% and that will not increase. In fact Linux has already replaced the Mac as the second commonest OS if you can somehow count all the free downloads and self installs.
Apple needs another strategy: Make OEM partnerships, allow OSX installs on non-apple hardware and stop living in denial.
“Mac apologists claim Apple is not interested in growing market share.”
No, like other people have said: It’s more about not trying to beat Microsoft. Of course they would want a bifgger market share. But not if it lowers their profit.
“Take a hint people. That strategy is not working and nobody is switching because of those silly adverts. You are stuck at 3% and that will not increase.”
I read today that the market share in France went up from 2.6 to 3.3 percent last quarter. That seems to contradict what you’re saying. The growth numbers were similar for the US last quarter if my memory serves me.
“Apple needs another strategy: Make OEM partnerships, allow OSX installs on non-apple hardware and stop living in denial.”
If Apple thought that they would be making more money that way and that there wouldn’t be any long term problems, don’t you think they would do just that?
I’m pretty sure they even spent at least as much time as you have, analyzing this. But then again, you might be smarter.
Edited 2007-02-09 17:36