WinInfo Daily News   |   Windows IT Pro
in

SuperSite Blog

One Bad Apple

Now that Apple fanatic Steven Levy is gone, apparently Newsweek can tell it like it is about Apple. It's funny, sort of, how this explains my comments about Apple being a "bad" company the other day:

Apple is looking like what Microsoft was 10 years ago—a Bigfoot that squeezes smaller competitors.

A former lieutenant of Steve Jobs's once told me something surprising about his ex-boss. "Steve is a monopolist at heart," he said. "He's just like Bill Gates. He just hasn't been as successful." Well, Jobs is getting there. This summer, Apple's market capitalization surged past Google's, making it the financial king of Silicon Valley. True, Apple still holds only 11 percent of the U.S. consumer PC market, according to researcher NPD [I love how they found some unmeasurable metric to make this number look higher than it really is; Apple owns 8 percent of the US PC market and less than 4 percent worldwide. --Paul], but its influence is far greater than that market share suggests. The iconic iPod dominates its market, and the iTunes music store has sold more than 5 billion songs, making it the No. 1 music retailer in America, ahead of Wal-Mart, according to IDC. Apple's iPhone is the No. 3 smart phone in the United States, according to NPD.

Apple has started looking like what Microsoft was 10 years ago—a company that so controls certain market segments that smaller competitors can survive only by living on its scraps or staying out of its way. (Apple declined to comment for this story.)

The really scary thing about Apple is that it doesn't just make hit products—it controls entire ecosystems. Just as Microsoft controls both the operating system and the applications that run on top of it, Apple owns popular hardware platforms (iPod, iPhone) and operates the only store that can sell music, movies and software programs for those platforms. Apple sets prices and takes 30 percent of the money.

With iPhone, Apple decides which independent applications will be allowed, and it can pull the plug on any application at any time, without explanation—as happened in July to several developers of iPhone apps. "I spent four weeks trying to get through to Apple via e-mail and phone calls, and they wouldn't return my messages," says Cyrus Najmabadi, developer of an iPhone application called Now Playing, an online movie-theater guide that Apple yanked in July after receiving a complaint about the program. (Najmabadi persisted and finally got Apple to put his application back online; Apple declined to comment on the matter.)

Apple's tactics might seem like smart business: why not squeeze every penny out of every deal? The problem is that if Apple squeezes too hard, some partners may go out of business, harming the ecosystem. Bully behavior also invites backlash, as it did for Microsoft when that company rose to power in the 1990s.

So what's the point here? That Apple is "bad" and Microsoft is somehow (by virtue of not being Apple, I guess) "good"?

No.

Microsoft has nothing to do with this story. So drop that line of attack.

It's about Apple. Apple becoming a much more dominant player. Apple exercising its market power and getting some push back from companies that don't like being abused and customers who don't like being treated like they don't matter. It's about that ugly part of Apple's broader "personality" finally becoming more obvious to the wider world. When Apple was just a minority PC maker, no one really paid attention. But when you get really successful--in this case, primarily in digital media--people do pay attention. And yes, Microsoft can tell you how that works. How it is to behave like a much smaller company when you are in fact a corporate behemoth unwittingly (or wittingly, in many cases) harming those around you.

Apple's a big company. They can't behave like they did when Jobs was trying to stave off bankruptcy over a decade ago. And really, that's all this is; Corporate immaturity. If Apple as a corporate entity can learn from the past, they'll figure this out before they end up in a decade-long antitrust case. But my guess is that Jobs' hubris won't let that happen.

Published Sep 07 2008, 12:27 PM by pthurrott
Filed under: ,

Comments

 

Ocean said:

Jobs did a really great job bringing them from near bankruptcy to where they are now.  Lots and lots and lots of credit due.

Other bright tech minds thought the best course was to sell the company, close it, return whatever value existed to the shareholders.  

I say this to say that I think Apple will be bright enough to avoid the governmental problems that other tech companies faced.  While Jobs is the face of the company, it couldn't do what it does without an extremely strong team behind him...and I'd bet that team also curbs  his worst instincts.  They don't get enough credit.

What happened to Levy?  

(On topic, all the time.  Lets keep it that way.)

September 7, 2008 10:39 AM
 

Ocean said:

I might note that this is the 'Fake Steve Jobs' guy.

He's been wrong (very wrong!) before:

www.forbes.com/.../software-linux-lawsuits-tech-oped-cx_dl_0919lyons.html

September 7, 2008 10:45 AM
 

Ocean said:

I might note that this is the 'Fake Steve Jobs' guy.

He's been wrong (very wrong!) before:

www.forbes.com/.../software-linux-lawsuits-tech-oped-cx_dl_0919lyons.html

September 7, 2008 10:47 AM
 

Best Iphone 2 U » Blog Archive » One Bad Apple said:

Pingback from  Best Iphone 2 U  » Blog Archive   » One Bad Apple

September 7, 2008 10:48 AM
 

Ocean said:

This article has a strange bend:

>>In January Apple struck back, introducing a vastly expanded catalog of movie titles, which it started renting, as well as selling. And it came out with a new, cheaper version of the Apple TV box that matched most of Vudu's features. Now Apple is selling or renting more than 50,000 movies a day, and Vudu is laying off staff.<<

Did Apple do anything wrong here?  

>>Apple owns popular hardware platforms (iPod, iPhone) and operates the only store that can sell music, movies and software programs for those platforms. Apple sets prices and takes 30 percent of the money.<<

Is that for Music, Movies and Apps?  I think not...it's only Apps.  Correct me if I am wrong.

That author is trying too hard to make his argument.  Sounds like it was an assignment from an editor instead of something that he really believes.

September 7, 2008 10:57 AM
 

Free Iphone For You » Blog Archive » One Bad Apple said:

Pingback from  Free Iphone For You  &raquo; Blog Archive   &raquo; One Bad Apple

September 7, 2008 10:59 AM
 

shark47 said:

"I might note that this is the 'Fake Steve Jobs' guy.

He's been wrong (very wrong!) before:"

I'm glad you were able to stay on topic at least for one post, Ocean. Baby steps! I'm so proud of you.

September 7, 2008 11:24 AM
 

mikegalos@msn.com said:

Sounds like somebody else noticed that there's some merit to the Psystar antitrust complaint.

September 7, 2008 11:29 AM
 

Ocean said:

>>I'm glad you were able to stay on topic at least for one post, Ocean.<<

You're talking about me.  That's ***OT***.

Talking about the credentials of the author?  No.

September 7, 2008 11:31 AM
 

Ocean said:

>>I'm glad you were able to stay on topic at least for one post, Ocean.<<

You're talking about me.  That's ***OT***.

Talking about the credentials of the author?  No.

September 7, 2008 11:31 AM
 

dmccall said:

"Apple .... operates the only store that can sell music, movies and software programs for those platforms."

ARRRRGHHH!!!! This is NOT TRUE. DRM-free mp3s can be purchased through several other companies and played just as well on an iPod as iTunes songs can!!!

September 7, 2008 11:35 AM
 

Ocean said:

Apologies for the double posts this morning.

Good point dmcall.  Another point against this article.  

September 7, 2008 11:48 AM
 

mikegalos@msn.com said:

dmccall,

The question isn't "does Apple allow you to distribute content on iPod where you can't make money".

The question is "why does Apple tightly restrict anyone else from making money with their products?"

The secondary questions are, "Given that the iPod ecosystem is a dominent player in the MP3 player market, is this a monopoly? If so, are Apple's practices of excessive partner fees, exclusive sales channels, artificial restrictions of formats and manipulation of the developer channel examples of anticompetitive abuse of monopoly power?"

September 7, 2008 11:52 AM
 

One Bad Apple said:

Pingback from  One Bad Apple

September 7, 2008 11:53 AM
 

Ocean said:

>>The question isn't "does Apple allow you to distribute content on iPod where you can't make money".

The question is "why does Apple tightly restrict anyone else from making money with their products?"<<

Both questions ARE valid.

The money being made by all parties is underestimated.  Companies dive out of a market when there is no money to be made.  Lots and lots of companies have benefited from the existence of the iPod infrastructure,

September 7, 2008 12:05 PM
 

Ocean said:

You might say too, that the restrictions serve to protect the quality of the ecosystem, and thus its existence.

Arguable, but a valid point.

September 7, 2008 12:14 PM
 

mikegalos@msn.com said:

Ocean

The test isn't "can you make enough money to survive even with anticompetitive behavior by a monopoly"

The test is, "did the monopoly use their power to restrict the market in ways that harm consumers?"

That companies that participate in a market dominated by one company exist at all is not sufficient defense against anticompetitive abuse of monopoly power.

When Standard Oil (in the early 20th Century) controlled a vertical monopoly from the wells to the pumps and did things like blow up competitor's tank farms, they still had competitors. Their behavior didn't have to give them 100% of all aspects of the market before they were guilty of using their monoply to harm consumers.

September 7, 2008 12:17 PM
 

mikegalos@msn.com said:

Ocean

The, "our restrictive control of this market provides for a product that's intangibly better for consumers" has been used by pretty much everyone brought up on Sherman questions. I don't think it's ever worked. At minimum, they'd have to provide tangible benefits and prove their behavior was the only way to achieve them and thus had both the minimal harm to the consumer while achieving the measurable benefit and they'd have to prove that the benefit was demonstrably better for consumers than the damage cause by their behavior.

And that's under the old rules that there must be actual consumer harm to win. The rules now allow for vague harm base on potential future benefits that don't have to be proven.

September 7, 2008 12:22 PM
 

DRWAM said:

BIllions of songs have been DL'ed from other services, and still can be DL'ed from places other than iTMS. You can play  numerous other formats on the iPod and buy music for it several other popular companies. A monopoly, not even close. You don't even have to buy an iPod to listen to music, as there are many other MP3 players.

The writer [Lyons] also had a bug up his butt about Apple TV, beating out Vudu, which was the first complaint. Well if you think Apple TV is a success, you need to go back to grade school.

iPhone apps can get Apple sued, and crappy apps as well as apps that do the same as apps already on the store just aren't needed.

This is a laugh that a company with less than 3 to 4% world market share is called a monopoly or even bad for trying to survive. iPods started really selling when the iTMS came, and Macs started selling much more when iPods were selling, even though most iPods are sync with Windows [I read up to 90% in fact]. Tell the app writes to write their apps for Windows Mobile if they don't like the rules of producing quality, and not duplicate copy apps. No one needs an app that makes fart sounds or 14 apps that flip a coin or look like a light or flame. I don't want to wade through thousands a crappy apps or duplicates to find what I need, making our experience bad, or limited. The tethering app that made headlines for getting pulled from the store was in conflict with ATT contracts, and Apple did return emails to the company [Nullriver] that were blocked by Null's spam blocker, but that never made it to the news, but was at Null's web site within two days. Should Apple open the iPhone? Yep. Do they need to do it today? No. Will you guys ever be happy with news from Apple? No, unless it's news that Apple blew up or went bankrupt. MS needs competition to improve itself. A good exmaple is MobileMe vs Live. Maybe Live wouldn't be so great without the competition.

Sorry, the bad guys aren't those with 2.5% market share and app writers can make apps for Windows and make tons more money, if there are good. OK, now pull my finger.

Why an I touchy about this stuff? I was sued, or attempted that is, for monopoly mike behavior with my company, which even got investigated by the NJ DOJ-like section, the NJ Attorney General. Needless to say, I know a lot about this stuff and paid a large sum of cash to learn.

September 7, 2008 12:29 PM
 

mikegalos@msn.com said:

DRWAM

"This is a laugh that a company with less than 3 to 4% world market share is called a monopoly ..."

The key in any monopoly charge is defining which market you talk about.

(first off, world share isn't the issue since it would be US law and thus US share at most)

Is it "distribution of music"?

Is it "distribution of music through downloads"?

Is it "commercial sales of music through downloads"?

Is it "commercial sales of music through downloads for the iPod market"?

All of those, even the last where the market is specific to a one company ecosystem, are viable markets for a ruling. And picking the "market" is key to how the ruling will go.

(Note, I am not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV but I've also had to deal with Sherman issues in my career so I've learned a few things)

September 7, 2008 12:44 PM
 

shark47 said:

Actually, Daniel Lyons himself is quite a big fan of Apple. At least, that was the impression I got from reading some of the posts on his new blog. I thought his FSJ blog was funny at times. Now, he doesn't seem to be very different from someone he mocked, not long ago - Robert Scoble. He comes across as an egotistical jerk.

Anyway, I also used to like to read Newsweek. Not anymore. They might as well finish up some of their articles with the statement, "I'm Barack Obama and I endorse this article."

September 7, 2008 12:44 PM
 

mikegalos@msn.com said:

Shark47

One of the things that made Fake Steve Jobs so funny was that it had a very accurate insider feel. Lyons obviously has spent enough time around the Apple world to know them very, very well.

Whether he likes them or hates them is probably something that could be read either way depending on how manly layers of parody you peel off his old postings.

September 7, 2008 12:52 PM
 

shark47 said:

"Anyway, I also used to like to read Newsweek. Not anymore. They might as well finish up some of their articles with the statement, 'I'm Barack Obama and I endorse this article.'"

That was unnecessary. I shouldn't have written that.

September 7, 2008 12:57 PM
 

Lindy said:

I went to get in before the thread lock!!!!

What fraking joke that article is.  I never heard of Vundu or whatever it was called before I read that article.

Its the way of the world, and its never going to change.  If something is successful other companies will try to copy it and get a piece of the action.  They also leap frog each other in features.  This true in all industries.  

Vundu had a great idea, then again it was not a new idea, hell I have wanted to rent movies online, since Blockbuster first came out.  I want a subscription service that has all movies, and I want them the day they come out in the theater, not 6 months later.  I am sure ALL CONSUMERS want that, and Apple, Vundu, Microsoft, Netlix, Blockbuster, Amazon, the movie studios and most important the MOVIE Theaters know this.  

The movie theaters are fighting this war to the last penny because they know that if a movie could come out on DVD/Blu Ray and for digital download on the same day it came out on at theater, they would fold in two years.  Sure there might be 1 or 2 theaters in every large city as a novelty....maybe.

Apple does not have a monopoly on anything.  The choices of device that can play digital media is limitless.  I bet more cell phones that can play mp3's have been sold than iPod's.  The choices of places to buy music is also rather large.  Heck you buy an iPod and never buy 1 thing on iTunes, and enjoy it just as well.

iPod/iTunes is so successful before Apple focused on the CONSUMER, first and not some geek list of features that 98% of users wont use.  Wifi song squirting could not be a better example of a geek feature that joe user wont use.

Paul, you have to know that digging up this cr@p and posting it on the Winsupersite, makes you look OH SO foolish.  

That comment should close this thread or get me banned:)

September 7, 2008 1:00 PM
 

DRWAM said:

Just so you know that we aren't that bad, we were not allowing Imaging centers in network that had crappy equipment or Radiologists [we even had some that were not Board Certified, although they were not in my group].

Back on topic. The app store is still too rigid, according to developers. While I certainly understand that that Apple wants quality, just like I did [which is why the above comment] as the user experience can be hindered, Apple is taking away a lot of choice at the same time, which overall is bad.

September 7, 2008 1:06 PM
 

shark47 said:

"Wifi song squirting could not be a better example of a geek feature that joe user wont use."

There we go again. I've commented on this earlier too. You guys cannot stand it when someone criticizes Apple and have to somehow get Microsoft into the conversation and find a way to criticize it.

September 7, 2008 1:07 PM
 

joe-dokes said:

Let's start by taking the Apple criticism one issue at a time and see just how anti competitive it is being.

iPod-- Let's see Apple is keeping the iPod ecosystem so closed and so tight that there aren't any third parties willing to make accessories.  Oh wait belkin et al are making millions in the iPod ecosystem.  If you make iPod accessories and WISH to put the made for iPod logo on the product you pay Apple a fee. If you make a compatible product but don't want to pay the fee, fine, just no logo.

iPod and music-- Let's be clear about this, it was the music companies who insisted on DRM.  Apple is willing to sell DRM free music, and does so in a completely open AAC format.  ANY mp3 player on the market who wishes to pay a license the format may do so, unlike the WMA format AAC is not entirely controlled by Apple and is thus arguably more open.

Personally, I take a bit of pleasure that the record companies chose poor little Apple to experiment with music, and helped to create the second largest music seller in the US.  Kind of like how IBM helped to create MS which ended up eroding IBM market position.

iPod- iPhone app store.  As far as I know, Apple takes a smaller cut of proceeds than virtually any other store, I believe that their cut is smaller than the one on blackberries.  Further, Apple allows individuals and companies to give away their applications free of charge.  Target, Wal-Mart each mark up their merchandise far more than 30%.  For small developers the iPod app store is a boon, every application gets essentially the same "shelf space,"  and Apple allows the maker to set any price they wish.

Anti-Trust Concerns.  Many winjihadist are still bitter that MS was first ever accused of being a Monopoly in  violation of anti-trust laws, and were outraged that when they were convicted.  So let's start with this, if you thought the charges against MS were BS than STFU about Apple, because to be honest Apple in most market areas is still tiny.  The one exception is music.

As Apple's market in music increases anti trust law may come in to effect.    

Mike argued--

The secondary questions are, "Given that the iPod ecosystem is a dominent player in the MP3 player market, is this a monopoly? If so, are Apple's practices of excessive partner fees, exclusive sales channels, artificial restrictions of formats and manipulation of the developer channel examples of anticompetitive abuse of monopoly power?"

I'll deal with his arguments one at a time.

Excessive partner fees?  Apple charges for the made for iPod logo, as explained above, a company doesn't have to pay them.  Again considering the huge number of accessories available, it certainly doesn't seem to be a problem.

Exclusive sales channels? Are you referring to Apple products? Apple products are available at a large number of both online and brick and mortar stores, Apple controls the price of said product which the supreme court has ruled is legal.

Artificial restrictions of formats?  As stated above unlike WMA, AAC is actually controlled by a consortium of companies unlike WMA.  You can thank Apple, because had Plays For Sure mp3 players protected WMA actually won the market for portable music players we'd be stuck with DRM for ever.  And a winjihadist complaining about formats is just too funny.

Finally pystar, since I don't know exactly how pystar gets  os X to work on their machines I can only hypothesize how the case will turn out.

If pystar buys retail copies of os X and is able to load them onto their computers without any changes to Apple's code, then they may be able to argue that under first sale doctrine they are allowed to do with the product what they wish.  The could argue that a sale occured not simply a license and thus they are entitled to use the product any way they wish.  

However if pystar buys the retail copies and then has to modify the code, they are on much shakier ground.  For example you can sell you copy of Harry Potter, but if you tore out the last chapter and replaced it with your own, you'd be in big legal trouble.  

Finally, do I agree with every decision made by Apple? Certainly not, but at the same time, those who wish to paint Apple as this evil corporation intent on world domination is laughable.

Regards

Joe Dokes

September 7, 2008 1:09 PM
 

mikegalos@msn.com said:

Lindy

Movie makers control when their product goes out to various distribution channels. What on earth makes you think they'd decide to release to three venues (theaters, disc and download) on the same day?

They didn't release to TV on the same day as release to theaters. (and movies on TV didn't kill theaters)

They didn't release to Premium Cable on the same day as release to theaters. (and Premium Cable didn't kill theaters)

They didn't release to VHS on the same day as release to theaters. (and VHS didn't kill theaters)

They didn't release to DVD on the same day as release to theaters. (and DVD didn't kill theaters)

Every one of those was supposed to kill movie theaters.

They didn't.

People go to movie theaters as a social event not because it's the only source of dramatic entertainment.

Movie theaters survive because they provide a two hour filler in a neutral location where conversation isn't needed in an otherwise awkward period of a date between dinner and determining what, if any, sexual activity will occur.

TV, Cable, VHS, Discs and Downloads don't do that.

September 7, 2008 1:15 PM
 

DRWAM said:

Lyons gave bad examples, but no company is an angel. Apple sued users for iPod ready logo, in fact they have to pay to use it. Apple add-ons, including iPod stuff [cases, gadgets, whatever] actually help sell. It's a shame that Apple did that.  Also, I'm not real happy that any company will try to get me to DL their software, such as the Safari DL with iTunes, much like Google or Yahoo tool bar. While that at most, boarders on abuse, the iPod ready logo stuff is just bad. Not to mention when Apple sued the poor guy for revealing a double secret Apple product on his web site years ago. That was bad too.

September 7, 2008 1:25 PM
 

shark47 said:

The problem, Dokes is that most iCabalists don't see their own hypocrisy while pointing it out among the "WinJihadists".

Let's take this statement:

"Anti-Trust Concerns.  Many winjihadist are still bitter that MS was first ever accused of being a Monopoly in  violation of anti-trust laws, and were outraged that when they were convicted.  So let's start with this, if you thought the charges against MS were BS than STFU about Apple, because to be honest Apple in most market areas is still tiny.  The one exception is music."

First of all, I think it's absurd to call Daniel Lyons a WinJihadist. Secondly, Microsoft has been convicted, so it doesn't matter if the so called "WinJihadists" agree or not. The same laws apply to Apple that do to Microsoft. Thirdly, we're not talking about Apple's computer business here, so stop using the "tiny marketshare" argument. (Oh, and did I mention that this very argument pisses a lot of iCabalists off when Paul uses it?)

Now, I don't agree with everything that's being said in the article. I don't like Dan Lyons. That said, I don't understand the need to attack Paul everytime he makes a statement against Apple and praise him to the skies or ignore it when he attacks Microsoft.

Sorry for another political reference, but you know what I was reminded of when I watched Rudy Giuliani's and Sarah Palin's speeches at the RNC? The Mac ads. The speeches were funny and sarcastic, but totally stretched the truth.

September 7, 2008 1:27 PM
 

DRWAM said:

There were Mac ads during the RNC? Wow, Stevey J is a big democrat. He must be a bigger whore than me. I'll read films for practically any one [of the rest of the my group will not, but I'm the money grubbing Ho-boy].

September 7, 2008 1:33 PM
 

DRWAM said:

Joe and Mike, I feel bad for Psystar, but if memory serves me, the Mac clones also killed sales of Apple computers, which just about killed the company. It [Mac OS EULA and licensing] was one of the first changes that happened when Stevey returned. But you guys know more about that stuff than me. CHUD was a buzz word back then.

September 7, 2008 1:39 PM
 

mikegalos@msn.com said:

shark47

The advertising dichotomoy of:

"Serve our wine and your party will be more fun"

versus

"Wear any jeans but ours to the party and people will be laughing at you behind your back"

doesn't only apply to commercial products. You also get:

"Vote for us and we'll fix healthcare"

vs

"Vote for them and the terrorists will kill your children"

Good guys and Bad guys.

September 7, 2008 1:45 PM
 

Master3 said:

@shark47

"I don't understand the need to attack Paul everytime he makes a statement against Apple and praise him to the skies or ignore it when he attacks Microsoft."

Fundamental truth #1 of Apple fanatics:

Apple fanatics at their core level are required to be dishonest and hypocritical people.

September 7, 2008 1:55 PM
 

DRWAM said:

Master3, "Apple fanatics at their core level are required to be dishonest and hypocritical people" could apply to any type of fanatic...or a lawyer. Sorry, I just couldn't resist:)

See:

Lawyers at their core level are required to be dishonest and hypocritical people.

September 7, 2008 1:59 PM
 

mikegalos@msn.com said:

DRWAM

Actually, the way Steve Jobs killed the cloners when he came back was to change number of the upcoming release of Mac OS 7.7 as Mac OS 8 since, at least according to industry stories, the clone contracts were only valid for version 7 of the operating system and when the version major number changed their contracts ended.

The real Psystar question is whether Apple can legally restrict the use of the OS X product to hardware made by Apple. In the past they could cite "technical" reasons since OS X only ran on PPC hardware using an Apple design and so the issue never made it to trial (previous cloners could be blocked by them needing to license both hardware and software).  

When Apple switched to the existing generic architecture they lost that "technical" reason and their restriction of license (and apparent bomb in the code to cause a kernel panic on non-Apple hardware) are now more valid for legal review. That Apple endorses running non-Apple operating systems on their hardware is pretty solid evidence that the hardware compatibility is not the problem and now the restriction is purely licensing.

Does Psystar have a case for restraint of trade under Sherman? I have no idea. Is the issue more valid than it was at the time of Mac OS 8 on PPC? Absolutely.

September 7, 2008 2:00 PM
 

joe-dokes said:

Shark47,

Perhaps you misunderstood my complaint.  Many Windows Fanbois complained about both the anti-trust charges and the conviction essentially stating they were groundless, and that people just needed to actually compete against MS.  Fair enough, if that is your logic fine, but don't turn around and yell monopolist, anti-trust against Apple, first there is really only one area in which you could argue that Apple really has market power (high capacity mp3 players), and even at that its power is far less than MS has or had.  My problem is with hypocritical MS fanbois.

Mike,

What is really interesting about the whole clone thing is the question as to why IBM did sue the snot out of the cloners back in the 80s.  The reality is they would have loved to, but since they had a huge percentage of the main frame market  and were being investigated by the antitrust arm of the DOJ, IBM made a corporate decision to allow the cloners to copy the bios and not sue them into oblivion.  

Apple clearly doesn't have this obstacle.  Thus, I would argue that pystar should be very nervous.  Truth be told, I am torn by the pystar lawsuit.  On the one hand, I think a lot of good innovation comes from companies willing to modify the offerings of others, and I am a strong believer in first sale doctrine.  Thus, if you wish to buy a Ford and put a Chevy engine into it and sell it, hey that's great.  On the other hand, if pystar has to modify the basic intellectual property of Apple, and doesn't have a license to do it then Apple has both a right and obligation to protect its intellectual property.

Regards

Joe Dokes

September 7, 2008 2:40 PM
 

shark47 said:

@joedokes:

I personally think many of these anti-trust cases being investigated by the EC against Microsoft are frivolous. I also think the only way you're being locked into the iPod ecosystem is through the accessories. Once you buy a Bose Sounddock for the iPod, there is no reason for you to go out and buy another mp3 player. There should be a standardization of docks or more solutions like Ford Sync should be implemented. But I don't know if that's Apple's problem.

BTW, speaking of lock-in, I think Chrome should be investigated if it becomes more popular and dominant. Google complained against IE, but this is probably the best example of a lock-in.

September 7, 2008 2:56 PM
 

DRWAM said:

If patents are involved, it seems like 'case closed' based on the gazillion patent infringement cases going on. This could fall under the same, but I'm not sure if a patent was done. You would think hat you can patent an OS, since you can patent anything else,  and not even make a product that you're suing about it's patent infringement, such as companies that get patents and variations of an idea to total 50 patents, in order to close any loophole that would not enable them to win a patent infringement lawsuit. But like Mike, 'dammit Jim, I'm a doctor, not a lawyer.'

PS, I did not see page 2 of Lyon's article which included the iPod logo issue. But dammit JIm, I'm a doctor, not a journalist.

September 7, 2008 3:05 PM
 

DRWAM said:

Jeez gang, pardon my typos. Sorry.

September 7, 2008 3:16 PM
 

Ocean said:

That article really took it on the chin, didn't it?

Mike, the breadth of your knowledge continues to amaze me: technology, marketing, and antitrust law.

>>Once you buy a Bose Sounddock for the iPod, there is no reason for you to go out and buy another mp3 player. <<

It has a line-in for use with other MP3 players.

Lets clarify:  Where does Apple break antitrust law according to you guys?

Music?  or PC's?

September 7, 2008 4:13 PM
 

mikegalos@msn.com said:

Joe

IBM did sue a LOT of cloners out of business. Initially, there was no case law determining what could and couldn't be protected.

The first batch of clones took the source code to the BIOS which IBM published in the PC Technical Reference and just assembled it into their own BIOS and then sold it. The courts ruled that to be a violation and IBM shut down a lot of companies.

The next batch, led by Compaq, did their own BIOS with black box cloning. They hired people who swore on legally binding documents that they had never seen the IBM BIOS code, gave them reverse engineered specs on the BIOS calls and had them write new code that did identical function. The courts ruled that was OK.

It's how you get modern clones and how Linux variants that clone Windows designs.

IBM also made hardware compatibility a moot point on the PC bus and later the AT update by allowing companies to produce products for the PC so they could get to market. They thought the accessory board market would just help them grow the business for their PCs into markets they thought weren't economically viable to address themselves. This was a conscious choice made on the assumption that an external infrastructure of boards was more valuable than controlling the architecture. It was considered the key to IBM succeeding with the model 5150 IBM PC where they had failed with the earlier 5100, 5110 and 5120 attempts at entering the PC market that kept expansion totally proprietary.

By the time the clone market hit and they realized that the bet had backfired on them, they'd already failed to defend their designs in court and had lost that right.

They tried to take the hardware design back with the Micro Channel Architecture (MCA) in most of the initial PS/2 series. MCA was based on IBM's mainframe and minicomputer bus architectures and gave IBM a vast array of already designed and tested board designs putting them years ahead of their competitors.

Although they'd released the design to the public domain, they tied use of the implementation chipset to paying back royalties on the earlier PC and AT bus designs. When the press misread the announcement and thought IBM actually said that licencing MCA itself required the back payments, IBM marketing and executive staff, over the objections of IBM engineering, decided that they liked that misimpression and reinforced the mistake.

This was one of IBM's biggest mistakes. Virtually everybody who had started work on MCA cards instead worked with a group of IBM's competitors to develop a new bus (EISA) that didn't have the rumored IBM license penalty and aside from a couple of minor clones, MCA never got off the ground and IBM lost a huge edge.

September 7, 2008 5:36 PM
 

Lindy said:

"There we go again. I've commented on this earlier too. You guys cannot stand it when someone criticizes Apple and have to somehow get Microsoft into the conversation and find a way to criticize it."

Shark your genius is amazing.  The first line in that article is

""""Apple is looking like what Microsoft"""""  

So if I compared Apple to MS, when stating why Apple connects with consumers better in the digital media arena I am just follow the topic brother.

May I suggest    www.rif.org  ???

September 7, 2008 5:38 PM
 

mikegalos@msn.com said:

Ocean

Technology and marketing I learned by choice. Antitrust law I learned by being an "official Microsoft spokesperson" during the era of the DOJ trial. I was briefed by Microsoft lawyers and, once, by Steve Ballmer right after he came back from testifying.

As for the line-in, that does not provide control signals. It's not the same functionality as you get from a dock.

As for where Apple breaks antitrust law, that's yet to be determined. There are cases to be made for both. Whether either, neither or both will ever be prosecuted and whether prosecuted will be ruled against Apple is a very complex issue that, at this point, nobody can predict. To say they have monopoly power in some markets is a no brainer. They do. Whether that will result in court orders enforcing that is a different issue.

September 7, 2008 5:45 PM
 

Lindy said:

"They didn't release to TV on the same day as release to theaters. (and movies on TV didn't kill theaters)"....blah....blah...blah.  You dont say?????  Could that be because people wanted to see the movie when it came out and the ONLY choice they had was going to the movies???  Funny how that works.

He Mike, thanks for stating the obvious.  I have read some articles in the last year stating that some directors are pushing for the release on DVD and Cable at the same time as the their movies were released in theaters.  Why?  

Well these articles went to quote movie theater ticket sales have been either flat or declining.   Also that DVD sales now are higher than movie ticket sales, but even those are now declining.  The went further into their basic logic to sate that vast majority of viewers either watch a movie at the theater or on DVD but NOT on both...so you would not be loosing money overall.

Lastly they stated more obvious, that the theaters are fighting the simultaneous release of theater and DVD/Cable/iTunes/Amazon/Blockbuster/Netflix because they know it will KILL  their business.  So much so than when the director of Chicken Little wanted to release the DVD the same day the movie theaters threatened to not show his movie.

Personally I HATE going to the movies.  Its over priced, I have to deal with teenagers texting on their FRAKING bright cell phones, and talking etc.  My home theater is more than adequate and so I vote for choice.  I am not saying shut down the movie theaters, I am saying release it on all and give the consumer a choice.  I am also saying that if you did, I think from the people I know at least,  that people going to the movies would drop by about 60%.

September 7, 2008 5:51 PM
 

mikegalos@msn.com said:

Lindy

That's a nice long post that basically says you agree with me that your premise that simultaneous release of films to theaters, BluRay and download will kill movie theaters is not going to happen. Glad you agree.

September 7, 2008 5:53 PM
 

MaryW said:

@Paul "Microsoft has nothing to do with this story"

Apart from the fact that Dan Lyon's whole article is based on comparing Apple to Microsoft! Did you read the tag line Paul? Here it is again.

"Apple is looking like what Microsoft was 10 years ago—a Bigfoot that squeezes smaller competitors."

Actually. let's give Paul a break, even the author appears to have not read it. He mentions only one "competitor" (that hardly anyone has heard of) and offers no examples of Apple's so called "squeezing".

I am disappointed in Dan. I liked Fake Steve.

Since the rise of the iPod i have read a hundred similar articles (with almost identical headlines!). It just strikes me as pretty lazy journalism. There is nothing new here .... not even an original opinion. The technique is simple. just find a whole bunch of 'bad' news Apple facts, package them all together, mention Microsoft a couple of times, throw in a "monopoly" here and there, confuse the terms 'ecosystem" with "market segments" and ..... finally "did I mention Steve Jobs is a control freak?" ..... and what do you get ?

Microsoft was Bad..... and now Apple is too.

Well great. At least Paul gets to say that he said it first.

September 7, 2008 5:57 PM
 

DRWAM said:

Mary, the company was Vudu, and the Apple product was Apple TV, which is not only a non-successful product, but Apple provided a cheaper, arguably better product, and other movie DL services were available. Apple did not wack them in any way. Apple just beat with price and quality. This is a very poor example that Apple did anything wrong. At least Paul gives some reasonable reasons for his beliefs. Although Lyons has a little bit of an argument with the tight hold on iPhone apps. Even that could be argued due to the potential security problems, quality issues that could effect the iPhone and contract issues with ATT [as well as greed to sell their own navigation software:)]

Going back to Psystar, doesn't anyone think it's strange that Apple did not get an injunction to cease sales? Was it because of the potential bad publicity or does the case have more merit than we think? Hmmm.

September 7, 2008 6:48 PM
 

Lindy said:

No Mike I dont agree with you and I rarely do.  I think it will happen.  The gap is closing year after year as to how fast you can get a movie on DVD.  I think movie ticket prices are way to high and I know more and more people that just dont go and wait to rent a movie, especially after a person makes a good investment on a HDTV and Blu Ray device.

However I concede since I got other things to do than go round and round with you.  I come back in a few days and see that you have drowned out everyone else with 1/4 or more of the posts in this thread.  I guess everyone has a calling.

September 7, 2008 7:19 PM
 

shark47 said:

"Shark your genius is amazing.  The first line in that article is ..."

Amazing, Lindy. You've already brought Zune into the conversation using the word "Microsoft" in the article as an excuse. Why don't you use this post to criticize all of Microsoft's products that you dislike? You've already brought XBox into an article about MobileMe in the past and brought Zune into the conversation today, so that wouldn't be too hard for you to do.

Just because Microsoft has been mentioned in the article doesn't mean this becomes a forum to bash everything that you dislike about the company.

September 7, 2008 8:02 PM
 

Lindy said:

@Shark  "Microsoft mentioned"  No far more than that, Apple compared to Microsoft's and its monopolistic ways.  As in Microsoft is an 800 pound gorilla that uses strong arm/monopolistic tactics and Apple is starting to look like them.  Again the full first line of the article.

"Apple is looking like what Microsoft was 10 years ago—a Bigfoot that squeezes smaller competitors."

The author goes on to compare Apple's dominance in the iPod arena to """Just as Microsoft controls both the operating system and the applications that run on top of it"""""  The author references Microsoft 5 times in his short article.

So somehow me doing the same when commenting on this article is wrong?  The author focused mainly on the iPod/iTunes and me comparing the Zune is wrong?

You know I would almost give you 1 star on your comment IF I had said "Apple's iPod/iTunes is so much better than Microsoft Systems Management Server" and the article in question compared Apple to Oracle.  Then you would have gotten your star, but not tonight.

Honestly Shark.  Unless you can convince Paul to stop me from posting (which maybe possible with the advent of thread locking recently) I am pretty much going to post whatever I want to, whenever I want to, and the best part I wont give a rats behind what you think:)  Since 50% of what Paul posts on the "Windsupersite" Blog is about Apple, why not post anything you want.

September 7, 2008 9:01 PM
 

johnpapola said:

Get ready for a long one guys.  Sorry.  I skipped the thread conversation and am going right at Paul, this BS article from Lyons, and Pauls effort to gloss over his truly ugly statements in past threads.

Of course, it's no surprise that the increasingly shrill (and shill) Paul Thurrott would cling to this Newsweek hit-job article like a Gospel from heaven.  It's amazing.  Steven Levy could at least construct something with a hint of logic.  And since when does reviewing products that have been receiving top ratings from customers and concurring that they are good make you a hack?  Huh?  Paul acts like Levy and Mossberg are hacks because they like Apple products, ignoring Apple's head-and-shoulders superiority to it's competitors in survey after survey of customer satisfaction.  But then, mr. bigoted generalization man thinks that essentially everyone that works at Apple, likes Apple or uses Apple products is not only part of a cabal, but is also a bad person.  A bad human being.  Yeah.

First, I must address the article itself.  This thing is an absolute, sensational trainwreck.  Lyons is clearly groping for hits with a hit piece so poorly constructed and argued that it truly makes me long for his FSJ analysis.  It's unsurprising that Lyons would try to distance himself from Apple this way, given how long he spend pretending to be Steve Jobs and praising every move the company made (I know much of it was sarcasm, but much of it wasn't either).

There's plenty of good places to criticize Apple right now.  Lyons hints at some, but in such a completely wrong argument with such terrible examples and support and a lose collection of blog skimming that it's got zero credibility. Oh, and plenty of downright mistakes (since when is iTunes the only place you can buy audio and video content for the ipod?  Oh right.... never)

He kicks things off with some unattributed quote that a Jobs associate called him a "monopolist just like gates but not as successful".  That sure sounds damning, doesn't it?  Except of course that it's ludicrous.  Gates, Jobs, the Google execs, the Sun execs, the Oracle exec, Jerry Yang and EVERYONE IN BUSINESS is interested in limitless success and domination of their sought-after market.  Jobs may have it more acute in the sense that he recognizes how great design comes from dictatorial control.  So Jobs wants monopoly power of the product's design and distribution. Gates has never in the least cared about design or experience.  He saw the power of software before anyone and saw the potential for "windows everywhere".  100% Windows marketshare.  I've read that Gates used to really focus on this objective, and he network effects of a software platform like Windows support that objective.  I don't believe "monopolist" is a personal attribute someone can have because it's a legal and economic construct.  Jobs is a control freak.  That much is universally known.

Now, Lyons' best example of Apple's alleged Microsoft-like crushing of competitors is THE SUCCESS OF THE APPLE TV?  Is this guy KIDDING!?!?!?  I have and like the Apple TV, but this thing is a niche product that's certainly nowhere close to a mass-market success.  The only thing Vudu's apparent troubles have to do with Apple is the fact that both are struggling to make a business out of streaming set-top boxes.  Lyons is off the deep end with this and it instantly torpedoes the whole argument of his article.

Concerns and criticisms about the Appstore process are certainly reasonable, and Lyons could (and should) have spent an entire article digging deeper into the issues there.  He could have also tried some ACTUAL JOURNALISM.  You know, real research with many sources.  Gotten on both sides of the real issues.  Corroborated some of the claims (does Apple really take up to 75% of the sales price for items sold in their retail stores?  Seriously?).

Instead, Lyons started with a conclusion (Apple is like Microsoft now) and sought out any disparate example that he thought could cobble together proof of the thesis.  Does the mobileme trouble (and Apple's 3 months of free service in return) in any way relate the premise of this article?  Does some class action money grab from yet another lawyer looking to make millions in this litigious sue-happy freak of a country prove anything at all?  Every business is hit with suits all the time.  Both Microsoft and Apple probably have 50 worthless lawsuits each  being thrown their way by greedy law firms at any given time.  Does this prove anything at all?

NOPE.  Did Apple use to get by scott free from users for mistakes?  HELL NO.  This hack seems to forget that the "good old days" included the word "beleaguered" attached to Apple in every news story. 

What the recent problems show is that they're having some Microsoft-like problems with execution in web services or the lingering bugs in iPhone.  But that isn't the comparison Lyons was going for.  I agree that Apple has some execution problems with the iPhone and mobileme that we can all agree are real and need fixing.  But what does that have to do with Microsoft, really?

The root of Microsoft's trouble is that they achieved true monopoly power.  Monopoly power that was deemed such in court.  Monopoly power because they had (and have) 95% marketshare of ALL COMPUTERS SOLD as so many partisans love to point out.

If Microsoft had the kind of "dominance" with Windows during the DOJ trial that Apple currently has in music, there'd have been no case.  Why?  

Because dominance isn't monopoly.  Because Apple doesn't have any monopolies.  Period.  There's no real debating that with any honesty... until a court proves me wrong.

But It hasn't been found in any court.  They don't have the kind of control of any market outside of their own products themselves that allows restriction of trade.  

Apple's most dominant position is in a market with 100% identical replacement products from many many large sources including Walmart.  That's music.  And if you buy a track from Amazon MP3 right now it is an exact replacement for the same song on iTunes.  Oh, and that dominance isn't helping Apple get the labels to let them sell DRM-free music.  Nope.  They're not dominant enough in music to bully the labels.  And whoever cries for the labels doesn't deserve to be acknowledged.  They are the real illegal cartel that's been hit with collusion on many occasions.

As for computers, every apple-basher will tell you that a PC is more than an adequate substitute for a mac for everything, and that Apple has 4% share.  Nobody with a shred of honesty can claim they have a computing monopoly of any meaning.  Nobody.

Now back to Paul.  First, he starts off this blog with a little re-writing of history.  Paul didn't call Apple a "bad company".  He said that Apple, their marketing, the mainstream press and many of their users were "bad people".  Yeah.  Bad human beings because they attack their competitor in their advertising.  Paul thinks that Walt Mossberg is a bad human being because his review of Vista said it was good, but not as good as Leopard in his opinion.  This was an outrageous and broad slander from Paul, obviously, and now he's trying to make it seem like amazing commentary. 

Sorry, Paul.  You went too far.  You doubled-down in the comments (before shutting them down).  Nothing can change that.

P.S. I realize you guys are debating about whether Apple is or isn't a monopoly.  But there really isn't a debate.  They aren't.  

September 7, 2008 10:00 PM
 

cesjr said:

"It's funny, sort of, how this explains my comments about Apple being a "bad" company the other day:"

Paul, seriously, can you read?  The reasons Lyons gives for Apple being bad are completely different from those you advanced the other day.   Your basic issue is that apple is not supposed to say windows is inferior to the mac (which you call being "smug" and being scornful of other peoples' views).

September 7, 2008 10:05 PM
 

shark47 said:

"Honestly Shark.  Unless you can convince Paul to stop me from posting (which maybe possible with the advent of thread locking recently) I am pretty much going to post whatever I want to, whenever I want to, and the best part I wont give a rats behind what you think:) "

Apparently you care enough to keep responding to my comments. Anyway, good for you, because I don't think you'll be flattered by what I think about you. I don't give a damn if you give me one star or no star at all. In my opinion, you're nothing but a troll, trying to score cheap shots at Microsoft.

You can argue all night long, but, sadly, you don't realize that you're only proving him right when he says the iCabal cannot take any article that's even slightly critical of Apple.

If you don't want to read articles that are critical of Apple, shut your eyes when Paul mentions Apple or simply stop reading the blog. The same goes for the latest issue of Newsweek. (How dare Dan Lyons compare Apple to Microsoft?) Or better yet, issue an iFatwa against him and everybody who dares speak ill of Apple. I'm sure the leader of your herd has already done that.

And I don't blame Apple for all that snark and arrogance, because that's what people like Lindy (isn't that a woman's name?) want and cheer. And if what you post here is none of my business, neither is what Paul writes any of yours, Lindy. So, you keep commenting and I'll keep pointing out the hypocrisy in your statements. :-)

September 7, 2008 11:22 PM
 

Ocean said:

>>As for the line-in, that does not provide control signals. It's not the same functionality as you get from a dock.<<

The point is that it's not useless without an iPod.

September 8, 2008 12:12 AM
 

Ocean said:

>>As for the line-in, that does not provide control signals. It's not the same functionality as you get from a dock.<<

The point is that it's not useless without an iPod.

September 8, 2008 12:16 AM
 

Ocean said:

Great post Mr. Papola.

Careful though.  You don't want to become Pauls target.  He'll take your avatar away.  :)

September 8, 2008 12:17 AM
 

lotsamystuff said:

@mikegalos: "To say they have monopoly power in some markets is a no brainer. They do. Whether that will result in court orders enforcing that is a different issue."

With all due respect, Mike, you're missing the boat on this one. Having a monopoly is not illegal. From the FTC's website: "While it is not illegal to have a monopoly position in a market, the antitrust laws make it unlawful to maintain or attempt to create a monopoly through tactics that either unreasonably exclude firms from the market or significantly impair their ability to compete. A single firm may commit a violation through its unilateral actions, or a violation may result if a group of firms work together to monopolize a market."

THAT is the real question. All this discussion about whether Apple (or Microsoft, or anyone else) HAS a monopoly is irrelevant. It's their actions that count. That's what got Microsoft (the "old, bad Microsoft", to quote Paul) in trouble in the first place.

September 8, 2008 7:00 AM
 

RobertC said:

Papola, Paul is not criticising Apple for attacking their competitors. He's criticising them for deceiving consumers in the process of the attack.

September 8, 2008 7:00 AM
 

re: One Bad Apple said:

Pingback from  re: One Bad Apple

September 8, 2008 7:08 AM
 

shark47 said:

"The point is that it's not useless without an iPod."

Yes, but how many people are going to spend $400 on an iPod dock and then go and buy a SanDisk? The dock is practically useless with other mp3 players. In fact, some luxury cars provide iPod docks and no line in connection for other media players, which automatically shuts out competing players. Unless Apple does something catastrophic  with iPods, there's no reason for people to switch.

September 8, 2008 7:18 AM
 

lotsamystuff said:

"Apple owns popular hardware platforms (iPod, iPhone) and operates the only store that can sell music, movies and software programs for those platforms. Apple sets prices and takes 30 percent of the money."

Lyons knows better. His fact-checker obviously missed the point that music is available from numerous sources for the iPod and movies can be copied to an iPod with relative ease. He does have a point about "software programs".

Apple should take a page from Microsoft and respond thusly: ""This topic has already been covered extensively in the media. This new story repeats old information, and contains rumors and innuendo from anonymous sources, attempting to create a new sensational angle, and is highly irresponsible."

;-)

September 8, 2008 7:26 AM
 

Mum said:

"There we go again. I've commented on this earlier too. You guys cannot stand it when someone criticizes Apple and have to somehow get Microsoft into the conversation and find a way to criticize it."

This seems to work the other way around too. Once I left a critical comment of Microsoft under a Microsoft-related topic on this Microsoft-related blog, and immediately two guys jumped in and started bashing Apple, because that obviously invalidates any MS-critical argument and, of course, deeply hurts the feelings of whoever thinks MS can sometimes do something wrong.

But that's probably a different thing somehow, isn't it?

September 8, 2008 7:55 AM
 

subzerohitman721 said:

lotsa stated:

"While it is not illegal to have a monopoly position in a market, the antitrust laws make it unlawful to maintain or attempt to create a monopoly through tactics that either unreasonably exclude firms from the market or significantly impair their ability to compete. A single firm may commit a violation through its unilateral actions, or a violation may result if a group of firms work together to monopolize a market."

Okay, lotsa. Thanks for that. Now I may proceed.

First, Apple INTENTIONALLY put a kernel panic bomb into OS-X to prevent anyone else from using an Operating System that doesn't have proprietary hardware. That is clearly a "unilateral action that prevents anyone else from competing directly with Apple." I would call that anti-consumer and anti-competitive. The action of a software maker to stifle competition for anyone else using an OS doesn't violate antitrust, but it does stifle competition. Thats where could be tried for violation of the law.

Second, its not always about antitrus but the same rules apply to Apple as it does to Microsoft. Nobody is going to win that Apple, Inc's computer division is a monopoly. However, the same bundling practices that Microsoft was busted for still applies to Apple. The tight integration of applications to work smoothly together while third parties cannot could be another violation. IE and the Windows Explorer tie in? That could be said about all these Apple apps and yet third parties cannot.

Third, the iPod and iTunes monopoly. 80 percent of the world's digital downloads happen at Apple iTunes Store. However, no other music store or device can fairly compete because of the tight controls and lack of fair competition. Can you take a competitor's device to the Apple Store? No. Can any other music store's software directly sync to the iPod? No. This also applies to iPhone and the AT&T exlcusivity contract. So how do these conditions allow for competition?

Finally, there's Mobile Me. Intentionally blocking Microsoft's Internet Explorer from the store. That could be seen as interfering in trade as written in the Sherman Act and expanded on by the Clayton Act.

According to the Clayton Act of 1914, "any person who shall be injured in his business or property by reason of anything forbidden in the antitrust laws." I would see disenfranchising over 70 percent of 1 billion users in multiple nations around the world as a potential violation of the Clayton Act. It prevents Microsoft's customers from directly accessing Mobile Me. What if the consumer doesn't want Firefox or Safari? Its still anti-competitive action against another competitor willful and intentional.

So thanks, lotsa. You just helped me prove that Apple could be seen with 4 potential violations of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and the Clayton Act. All it takes is one conviction and yes their are court cases in the works. All we need is someone in the DOJ who's got the guts or a consumer advocate who's willing to take on Apple. So thats all legit complaints. The rest of you guys, quit whining about it. You just prove Paul's "iCabal" theory is correct. Where the heck were you guys when we were talking about Google? I rest my case.

September 8, 2008 8:16 AM
 

mikegalos@msn.com said:

Lotsa

I'm well aware that it is not illegal to be a monopoly (or that it even makes you a bad guy)

What it does do, however, is mean you have different rules that you have to play by because you now fall under the "maintain a monopoly" rules.

Apple has to live under those rules whether there's been a ruling of monopoly or not. And they aren't.

September 8, 2008 8:44 AM
 

mikegalos@msn.com said:

Subzero

Exactly right.

What I'd add on the MobileMe/IE7 issue is that since the MobileMe product does, in fact, work with IE7 (as people here have pointed out, ironically, in defense of Apple) and since Apple has IE7 specific features (sharing of IE7 Favorites), Apple has intentionally disparaged a competitor's product with the intent of shutting out the use of that competitor's product with an Apple product that's a part of the iPod/iPhone product line.

If it didn't work correctly and it was discovered at the last moment, Apple might have been OK with putting up a notice like "IE 7 is not supported at this time. We will update the MobileMe page when we add that feature" and, as long as it was true and they were working on it seriously. Putting up a note disparaging IE 7 while MobileMe actually works with it and, in fact, has features tied to it, is just plain bad.

September 8, 2008 8:53 AM
 

shark47 said:

I think a lot of Apple fans view Apple as 'Robin Hood' in the MobileMe/IE issue, trying to steal marketshare from the rich (M$) and give it to the poor (Apple, Mozilla, etc.).

"But that's probably a different thing somehow, isn't it?"

No. It's not. It's just as irritating.

September 8, 2008 9:02 AM
 

chuckb84 said:

"Apple's a big company. They can't behave like they did when Jobs was trying to stave off bankruptcy over a decade ago. And really, that's all this is; Corporate immaturity."

Oh, my, now that's funny. The best example I know of "corporate immaturity" is Mr. Chair-thrower:

www.theregister.co.uk/.../chair_chucking

"Fucking Eric Schmidt is a fucking ***. I'm going to fucking bury that guy, I have done it before, and I will do it again. I'm going to fucking kill Google."

Now, that's mature, isn't it.

Microsoft, not Apple, is a convicted monopolist. Still being fined by the EU. Read the details:

www.roughlydrafted.com/.../paul-thurrott-calls-apple-“the-bad-guys”-of-microsofts-300-million-ads/#more-2385

Guys, as you all love to point out when Paul posts his intermittent, "Apple sucks and the proof is in the marketshare numbers", MIcrosoft---not Apple--controls 90+% of the desktops in the world. A BILLION users, remember?

So, which way do you want it? Apple is an irrelevant niche player or Apple is a huge controlling monopolist threat (which I find just hilarious coming from Windows advocates).

Decide which of these mutually exclusive views you want to have, then we can talk seriously.

September 8, 2008 9:07 AM
 

mikegalos@msn.com said:

Subzero

On the exclusivity contract with AT&T and iPhone some notes:

1) Exclusive distribution of the iPhone is a trickier issue since Apple doesn't have anywhere near a monopoly on the phone side. However, since iPhone could easily be ruled a version of the iPod (iPod touch with extra telephony features) they'd have a hard time without pulling the iPod features.

2) They'd also be subject to bundling charges since you cannot get an iPhone with Zune replacing iPod as the music player. And you can't get the equivalent iPod software as an add-on to other phones. Precedent would have Apple required to allow vendors to offer iPhone with other music players as default, provide a user friendly way to pick which music player is the default and offer an iPhone N with no music player bundled for less money in the EU market.

3) Since exclusive contracts are the norm in the cell phone business and since it falls under all those complex telecom rules, it becomes a tricker case on the exclusivity charge. The bundling charge, however, is awfully suspect, though, based on both the DOJ and EU interpretations of bundled middleware.

But, again, I Am Not A Lawyer

September 8, 2008 9:08 AM
 

Dude1313 said:

SubZero good points but here is where some of it falls apart:

- Google- Last I looked there were plenty of other search engines... Google didn't/doesn't unfairly lock them out.

- MP3 players- There are other MP3 players out there besides the iPod. Why does Apple have to allow them to use their software or sell them MP3s. And on the subject of MP3... why are the record companies forcing Apple to DRM their files, but sell them elsewhere unlocked? If the record companies allowed fopr unlocked files at the store, problem solved.

- OSX. Their are other computers out there which one can freely use for Windows. 4% of the market as is gleefully pointed out time and again is not a monopoly, not even close. Kernel Panics? Where does it say that Apple has support PC hardware? If you are talking about Psystar that is a completely different set of issues that they can't hope to win, and ff it comes remotely close to being winnable, Apple will bury them in appeals, that is if a summary injunction (which seems at least a possibility) doesn't come first.

Barring that Apple can simply stop selling the OS in a box, big loss for everyone and where will the consumer be then? By Bye Pystar's business "model".

As far as anti-trust: as a member of neither political party I can objectively say this, there is no way the DoJ is going against anyone on Anti-Trust. If MS isn't getting split up/ hand slapped, then no one in the Computer industry is. Whoever wins in November is not going to be messing with any comapny in today's economy.

September 8, 2008 9:11 AM
 

mikegalos@msn.com said:

BTW:

If I don't respond to a posting directed at me, it's because I'm going to be at the same Microsoft Virtualization conference as Paul for most of today.

If you want to follow along, the conference URL is http://www.getvirtualnow.com and they will be webcasting the keynote/product launch starting at 9AM Pacific at www.microsoft.com/.../default.mspx

September 8, 2008 9:13 AM
 

DRWAM said:

That is a good point Mike, Also, iTunes does not need to add all the software that it wants you to add, obviously, although we are given a choice. Also, if it were illegal, Google and Yahoo toolbars would not be offered on just about every free app on the web.

Still there is more to these anti-trust laws/acts then the few lines typed here.. There is an entire background , including qualifications that we don't have here or even understand. Apple, MS and other companies have every right to protect their intellectual properties. Otherwise, we could sue a Porsche dealer for not selling a Ford [or Lotus for Mike and me]. Heart would not be able to protect 'Barracuda' for use with Palin's ads and any Musician could not sue for improper use of their music [Beatles on iTunes]. Mr Coffee filters  do not work in Melita coffee makers, so I should sue. Third party companies sign agreements in order to create software for MS or Apple and they must abide by the agreement, otherwise make it for someone else. MP3 players use software interfaces to add music to them. MS does it as well as Sansa. If you don't like it, don't buy them. If you do buy them, don't cry that you must do things their way as you should have done the research on the usage rules. Companies should listen to consumers, but don't have to commit to every demand. There's reasons why they can or cannot, and some of them are legit...while others obviously are self protective.

September 8, 2008 9:15 AM
 

DRWAM said:

BTW, I have been posting a lot the past few days because I've been stuck at home on call [rather than trolling], and a sustained a partial hamstring tear running. Yep Sub, I should have been a little more careful with Creatine. But I'm getting old and lifting is getting tougher, and the dang stuff works a little, and is legal.

Doc

September 8, 2008 9:19 AM
 

WebGuy3000 said:

DRWAM said:

"If you don't like it, don't buy them. If you do buy them, don't cry that you must do things their way as you should have done the research on the usage rules."

Wow.  Doc, in two short sentences you have cut to the heart of this thread, and virtually negated just about every comment that come before.  Well said.

September 8, 2008 9:40 AM
 

mikegalos@msn.com said:

Dude1313

"As far as anti-trust: as a member of neither political party I can objectively say this, there is no way the DoJ is going against anyone on Anti-Trust. If MS isn't getting split up/ hand slapped, then no one in the Computer industry is. Whoever wins in November is not going to be messing with any comapny in today's economy. "

Exactly Backwards

Antitrust law is there to protect the consumer (especially in tough times) and to protect a competitive market (especially in tough times) and not to protect the ability of an entrenched monopoly to abuse their power.

As for the political ramifications, a Obama administration would have little choice in persuing this to make sure there was no question of showing favoritism to Apple due to Obama's friendship with Apple board member, Al Gore. This is much the same as when the Clinton administration had to aggressively pursue charges against Microsoft despite Bill Gates' friendship with President Clinton.

September 8, 2008 9:42 AM
 

mikegalos@msn.com said:

Oh, and Dude1313

Take each point you made about Apple and apply it to Microsoft and you'll see they don't hold up so well under "maintain a monopoly" rules.

In short, if Microsoft can't do it in markets where it's dominent, Apple can't do it in markets they dominate. (downloaded music and related products, possibly OS X based computers, etc)

September 8, 2008 9:45 AM
 

tayme said:

@Doc - You beat me to the punch on that one. That is pretty close to how I would have responded to Mikes comment - "They'd also be subject to bundling charges since you cannot get an iPhone with Zune replacing iPod as the music player. And you can't get the equivalent iPod software as an add-on to other phones." Your argument regarding suing Porche for not selling Fords should actually read something like this - "I could sue Porche for not selling me a 911 with a Ford 351 Cleveland engine". This is an argument that many, including me, have tried in the past when defending MS for bundling IE.

--tayme

September 8, 2008 9:59 AM
 

shark47 said:

The problem is the same stuff that you can get away with when you don't have a dominant position in the market can get you into trouble when you do. Like I said earlier, if Chrome does become more popular, the issue of locking out rival web services will become important. The same goes for Apple. The car analogy is ridiculous. The engine is part of the car. You cannot buy an engine separately. That's like saying Apple should sell computers with AMD chips. A better analogy would be Dell saying their desktops will work only with Dell monitors.  

September 8, 2008 10:07 AM
 

lotsamystuff said:

@mike galos: "Apple has to live under those rules whether there's been a ruling of monopoly or not. And they aren't. "

Citation, please? Has there been a court ruling I'm not aware of?

@subzero: I think it's time for your Valium.

"So thanks, lotsa. You just helped me prove that Apple could be seen with 4 potential violations of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and the Clayton Act."

*sigh*

Again, from the FTC site:

www.ftc.gov/.../maintain.htm

"Because the antitrust laws encourage competition that leads to low prices, courts and antitrust authorities challenge predatory activities only when they will lead to higher prices."

Has Apple's "monopoly" in music led to higher prices? Certainly, the lower-priced competition from Amazon (compatible with the iPod) would indicate "no". iPods aren't the lowest-priced mp3 players out there, either. And the iPhone hasn't maintained any kind of premium pricing (look at the recent Palm Treo for a perfect example).

If anyone should be charged with these kinds of violations, it's the record labels who encourage price-fixing, determine who can and can't offer DRM-free music, and are actively manipulating the market.

Based on the FTC's guidelines above, I don't see any problem for Apple. But then, I'm not a zealot.

September 8, 2008 10:09 AM
Acceptable Use Policy

About pthurrott

Paul Thurrott is the guy behind the SuperSite for Windows. Way behind. :)
SPONSORED LINKS FEATURED LINKS

Get Microsoft Microsoft Certified With Train Signal Computer TrainingTrain Signal’s computer training software videos will teach you the skills you need to get certified and gain experience in areas like Windows Server 2008, Exchange Server, SharePoint Server, and more. Get Mark Minasi’s Windows Server 2008 Audio CDs"Windows expert, consultant and best-selling author Mark Minasi shows you if 2008 is right for you and, if so, how to get the most out of it! Desktop Management is a Never-Ending Job for AdministratorsGet a complete desktop management solution to centralize the management of thousands of desktops that will help you keep up with increased demand with limited manpower. Integrate Fax Servers into Your Unified Communications PlanIn this fundamentals eBook you will learn how you can implement a solution that is easy to support, secure, and integrate. Take Control of Your Email Optimize your email storage – Download this white paper to learn key how-to’s in email storage management. Get Windows IT Pro To Go!The Windows IT Pro Magazine Master CD is a powerful combination of content and convenience.   Order now, and save up to 25%--plus you’ll get online access to new articles each and every month!  Subscribe today!
Windows IT Pro |  Subscribe |  Register |  FAQ for Windows |  Media Kit |  WinInfo News |  Europe Edition |  About Us |  Contact Us/Customer Service |  Affiliates/Licensing
SQL Server Magazine |  Office & SharePoint Pro |  WinDevPro |  asp.netPRO |  IT Library |  Technology Resource Directory |  ITTV |  IT Job Hound

© 2009 Penton Media, Inc.     Terms of Use | Privacy Statement | Reprints and Licensing