WinInfo Daily News   |   Windows IT Pro
in

SuperSite Blog

Apple's culture of lies, Part 2: A different way of looking at it

One thing I've often thought with Apple is how much worse off the PC industry would be if they were ever dominant, because they're such a belligerent company. But a more level-headed way to view Apple's recent push-backs from the top of the heap is that they're suffering from exactly the same problematic mind-set that doomed Microsoft a decade/decade-and-a-half ago, back when antitrust regulators from the FTC and DOJ first accused the company of illegal anti-competitive behavior. That is, they're just a product of their history.

What I mean is, until very recently, Apple was the underdog, and they've been the underdog for almost their entire existence. This creates a certain mindset, and under Steve Jobs especially, it's created a very aggressive competitive spirit. This aggressiveness is fine when you are literally the underdog, just as was the case with Microsoft early in its career and it was trying to wrest the PC industry from IBM, Lotus, WordPerfect, and other tech dinosaurs. But once you have a dominant market position, that aggressive behavior--so important for an up-and-comer--isn't just bad, it's illegal. It's just hard to turn it off when it's been part of the corporate psyche for so long.

Microsoft got into antitrust trouble because they behaved in a manner that was illegal, but only for a company that holds monopoly power. During this time, I fielded innumerable emails from people wondering why it was OK for Apple or Linux to bundle applications in their OSes when it wasn't OK for Microsoft. (Answer: Apple and Linux didn't/doesn't have a desktop OS monopoly.) And so on. The answer was always the same: If Microsoft didn't have a monopoly, what it did in the mid-1990s would have been legal.

As I write this, Apple doesn't quite have a monopoly in any given market, but they are pretty darned close in a few, and getting closer all the time. And you can see how aggressive this company is, and how they're protecting their core products at the expense of users. The time to stop this behavior is now, not after Apple has secured the digital music market (arguably already done), the digital movie and TV show markets, and the consumer smart phone market. These are the markets that Apple is set to monopolize, and we've already arguably passed the point where that is no longer a given, a certainty. You can argue that we're not there yet, possibly. But we will be.

So. With this obvious comparison of two very similarly belligerent companies--Microsoft of the mid-1990s and Apple of today--in mind, I think the time has come to rein Apple in. To examine Apple's exclusive relationships with wireless carriers. To force it to open up iTunes to competing players, and its iPhone and iPod devices to competing software and services. If we don't do this now, it will only be more difficult in the future. All you have to do is look at Microsoft's never-ending antitrust saga--which has now stretched on for 15 years, involved regulatory bodies on three continents, and gone on far longer than its actual bad behavior--to see why it's time.

We spend too much time worrying about whether Microsoft will be the next IBM. What we should be worrying about is that Apple has already become the next Microsoft. Let's fix that. Let's nip this one in the bud. Let's do it now.

Comments

 

RunTimeError said:

Apple's culture of lies, Part 2: Paul Insights Another Flame War Causing Some Users To Ask Why the Apple Fans Are Bothering To Come and Read A Windows Site.

There you go. Fixed that title for you big guy!

August 26, 2009 10:02 AM
 

sunsfan said:

I'm beginning to think Paul writes this stuff because he gets a kick out of reading the comments after such incendiary speech. And because he's more worried about Snow Leopard than he lets on! :)

August 26, 2009 10:07 AM
 

EricoF3 said:

@ robertsgay: Shut up C*o*c*k sucker...

August 26, 2009 10:08 AM
 

FalKirk said:

A thoughtful piece. I'm not sure I agree with the underlying premise - that the exact same actions are legal for one company but illegal if that company has a monopoly. I know this is Microsoft dogma so I don't think there is much point discussing my views here. I'll just say that there is a difference between a "competitive" monopoly created by superior products and tactics and an"illegal" monopoly which uses its monopoly position to forcibly manipulate and strong arm its competition.

Finally, I think the flaw in this article becomes pronounced when we look at Paul's "solutions.

"examine Apple's exclusive relationships with wireless carriers. To force it to open up iTunes to competing players, and its iPhone and iPod devices to competing software and services."

None of these things are illegal. All are practiced by competitors. But according to Paul they become illegal merely due to the size of a company's market share. Who knows. In the murky legal world of monopoly law, he may be right.

August 26, 2009 10:13 AM
 

Avro said:

@sunsfan agreed!  Snow Leopard must be pretty darned good.

How can Apple with 13% of the Mobile Smartphone market constitute a monopoly?

news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-10308173-37.html

iTunes was designed to sell iPods.  Fair enough to keep it exclusive.

As to the Phone Carriers, I agree with Paul it needs to open up, but it isn't just Apple who is involved in this type of sweetheart deal.

August 26, 2009 10:14 AM
 

EricoF3 said:

Yeah Paul but... This is normal companies do that... Since they are little they had to fight to death to keep a little market part so they develop strategy to get alive...

Companies are not intelligent they are empty, so when administrator give a direction to a company the company go in that way and only people can stop this movement, not the company itself... So, using strategy to get alive companies grows and get market parts an become bigger and bigger and like Microsoft once a day we have to stop him and tell him: "Hey don't go that way even further" so the company is force to change their direction...

This is just a capitalism normal thing...

Don't worry... When apple will go to far in their direction justice and law of humanity will stop it an apple will change their direction...

August 26, 2009 10:18 AM
 

chipwinter said:

Paul, you really need to be careful what you wish for.

Just five years ago you wrote:

"Apple's inability to see coming trends in video, subscription content, and interoperability suggests that Apple is repeating the mistakes of the past. In the 1980s, the Mac held an early lead over the PC but was quickly buried after the industry standardized on a common Microsoft technology. Today, that series of events is repeating itself, and online music services -- and to a greater degree, the digital delivery of all media types -- is very much at a nascent stage. If Apple doesn't change its ways, the company simply won't survive."

It kinda looks like you wished Apple would change and follow Microsoft's model of standardizing industries on a common technology -- iTunes, iPhone, etc.

Now that they've done it, it's time to rein them in?

Really?

August 26, 2009 10:24 AM
 

EricoF3 said:

Also, Microsoft never had a monopoly on anything!! They always just take the place nobody wants...

Nobody never wants to do a OS that support all the existing Hardware on the planet, so Microsoft do it... They don't counter others to do the same!! Others just don't want to do that...

This is not what I call a monopoly!!

August 26, 2009 10:26 AM
 

BladRnr said:

Doesn't innovation deserve to be rewarded in the market place? Who was forced to buy an iPod or an iPhone? You can go out and buy any number of MP3 players and download the music you want to them from a CD or from Amazon. What monopoly???

"Let's fix that. Let's nip this one in the bud. Let's do it now."

Yeah, why doesn't MSFT fix that? Come up with something that is innovative. Now that's a novel idea.

I can't believe you are playing the last card you have left: the monopoly card. MSFT can't/won't innovate so let's just say Apple is a monopoly. Good luck getting a judge to agree with you.

August 26, 2009 10:36 AM
 

mikegalos@msn.com said:

Before this gets totally off the rails there are a few items in anti-trust law worth noting.

First, despite FalKirk's not wanting to believe that what's legal action for one company is not for another that is the law. The company that holds a monopoly over a specific market is more tightly restricted than other companies in that market. That's not "Microsoft dogma", that's black letter law.

The key is determining what is or is not "the market" involved.

Going back to DOJ v Microsoft, one of the key debates was "the market" involved was. For example, was it "operating systems" in general? Should things like IBM's mainframe operating systems be part of the market? How about Unix? Should it be "desktop operating systems for personal computers using the Intel x86 family"? That last question was, in fact, a part of one key debate that was very contentious since, at the time, Apple ran Mac OS on PowerPC. If it was only X86 then Apple was not a competitor and should not have been involved in the trial since they were not a competitor. If it was ALL desktop PC operating systems then Microsoft has a smaller market and the question of whether they had a monopoly was more debatable.

So, does Apple have monopoly power in any given markets?

In the case of portable music players there's no question that Apple is the monopoly in that market.

In the case of the iPhone family it becomes VERY much harder since it depends on how you define the market. If you define the market as just cell phones then Apple clearly does NOT have a monopoly (and they're not even a major player). If you define the iPhone as an iPod Touch with an added feature then it clearly IS part of the iPod monopoly on portable media players.

It's all definitions of market. Apple has, without any doubt, performed actions that are vastly in violation of the restrictions placed on a monopoly. (And accused of some that are in violation of the law in any case but that's a different issue)

So, again, the question that must be decided is this: is the portable media player market a significant enough ecosystem to define it as a market subject to monopoly power? It's hard to agrued that it isn't. (but I'm sure some people here will try)

If it is, there's little question that Apple holds monopoly power in that market. And there's also little question that Apple has performed actions in restricting free trade in that market in ways that are not allowed for the monopoly in that market.

August 26, 2009 10:40 AM
 

shark47 said:

And then we have this:

www.techflash.com/.../52839567.html

:-)

Good article, Paul.

August 26, 2009 10:40 AM
 

BladRnr said:

@EricoF3

In a court of law, this is what U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson found:

"Most harmful of all is the message that Microsoft's actions have conveyed to every enterprise with the potential to innovate in the computer industry. Through its conduct toward Netscape, IBM, Compaq, Intel, and others, Microsoft has demonstrated that it will use its prodigious market power and immense profits to harm any firm that insists on pursuing initiatives that could intensify competition against one of Microsoft's core products. Microsoft's past success in hurting such companies and stifling innovation deters investment in technologies and businesses that exhibit the potential to threaten Microsoft. The ultimate result is that some innovations that would truly benefit consumers never occur for the sole reason that they do not coincide with Microsoft's self-interest."

A far cry from what Apple is doing in any of the markets they compete in.

August 26, 2009 10:43 AM
 

mikegalos@msn.com said:

BladRnr

Doesn't innovation deserve to be rewarded in the market place? Who was forced to buy MS-DOS or Windows? You can go out and buy any number of personal computers and install the software you want to them. What monopoly???

"Let's fix that. Let's nip this one in the bud. Let's do it now."

Yeah, why doesn't AAPL fix that? Come up with something that is innovative. Now that's a novel idea.

I can't believe you are playing the last card you have left: the monopoly card. AAPL can't/won't innovate so let's just say Microsoft is a monopoly. Good luck getting a judge to agree with you.

August 26, 2009 10:43 AM
 

BladRnr said:

@Mikegalos

I rarely agree with you, and what Apple has or has not done is debatable, but thank you for bringing facts to the argument.

Cheers.

August 26, 2009 10:45 AM
 

BladRnr said:

@Mikegalos

I didn't say MSFT was a monopoly. Judge Jackson did.

August 26, 2009 10:47 AM
 

BladRnr said:

@Mikegalos

So what would you have Apple do to correct the situation? Seriously.

August 26, 2009 10:54 AM
 

mikegalos@msn.com said:

blad

"A far cry from what Apple is doing in any of the markets they compete in."

You saying something doesn't make it true.

Apple's actions in restricting the iPod/iTunes ecosystem are vastly more anti-competitive than what Microsoft (with it's partner-based ecosystem rather than one-vendor model) ever did even at the time of the DOJ decision.

A few examples:

iPod can only (without violating the license) sync with iTunes. 3rd party competitors cannot license the ability to sync with iTunes

iTunes can only (without violating the license) sync with iPod. 3rd party competitors cannot license the ability to sync with iPod

iTunes users cannot use the software to purchase products and 3rd party stores

3rd party media stores cannot license the code to let users shop at their site with iTunes.

3rd party media software vendors cannot license the ability for their software to purchase items at Apple's store

3rd party media software vendors cannot license the ability for their software to sync with iPods

3rd party hardware vendors cannot produce add-on products for this market without Apple's approval and a license agreement (with licnensing fees so large that they often drive up consumer pricing on accessories such as cables significantly)

3rd party software vendors cannot produce add-on products for this market (device or software or store) without Apple's approval and license agreement (with terms and enforcement often arbitrary or clearly designed to block competition with Apple products)

But, you say it isn't true...

August 26, 2009 10:57 AM
 

mikegalos@msn.com said:

Blad

"So what would you have Apple do to correct the situation? Seriously."

A few items that would likely be in any ruling or settlement agreement are:

Apple must license at a reasonable fee the APIs for 3rd party applications to shop at their store

Apple must license at a reasonable fee the APIs for syncing with iTunes

Apple must license at a reasonable fee the APIs for iTunes to support other stores

Apple must license at a reasonable fee the APIs iTunes to sync with other devices

Apple must license at a reasonable fee the APIs for iPod to sync with other software

Apple must provide a software distribution mechanism that provides an equal method of installing 3rd party applications on iPod family devices

Apple must provide the technical specifications for their iPod hardware interfaces for 3rd party devices and accessories

Apple must remove all code from their devices that restricts use of 3rd party hardware add-ons and accessories.

Or, there could be a settlement that split up Apple's media products groups into separate companies:

* Hardware devices (iPod family including iPhone)

* Computer software (iTunes and related code)

* Media store (iTunes store and related code and sites)

None of these companies would have access to APIs, licenses or patents from the other companies or Apple, Inc  that were not equally made available to 3rd party companies at both an equally reasonable fee and in an equally timely manner. Additionally, the "Hardware devices" company would have to still publish the add-on and accessory items discussed in the non-breakup ideas since there was no breakup resolving those issues.

August 26, 2009 11:09 AM
 

Mirek2 said:

"To examine Apple's exclusive relationships with wireless carriers. To force it to open up iTunes to competing players, and its iPhone and iPod devices to competing software and services."

Come on, Paul, those clearly don't compare to what MS used to be -- actually, it's pretty much a picture of what MS currently is, and, to a lesser point, other competitors. iTunes is pretty much the equivalent of MS's Zune software. No problem there. Exclusive relationships are very normal, and it doesn't make a difference whether it is with carriers or other companies. And as for MS, it is still has a backstabbing, violent monster side -- remember Urge and PlaysForSure?

Sure, Apple definitely has a very ugly, pompous image, but it isn't evil. Just obnoxious.

So, realize that and stop criticizing it for petty stuff, especially when MS is doing the exact same thing.

August 26, 2009 11:12 AM
 

kent909 said:

If you want to comment on the ethical behavior of a company  than you need to put it in a greater context, not just a comparision to MS. Today the media lies, all companies lie, politicians lie, people on this blog lie. It has become perfectly acceptable to lie. Lying is what you tell your children not to do, then make sure you do it because if you don't you won't survive. It is difficult enough to have technology discussions in the blog let alone ethical or philisophical ones. Paul you are really veering off course on this one. Would it not be easier for you just to post a blog and say this is how I feel about Apple, rather than attempting to put it in the context of technology.

August 26, 2009 11:12 AM
 

Waethorn said:

Speaking of lies, I'll leave you with this little festering tidbit to munch on:

Apple suffering from foot-in-mouth disease:

www.engadget.com/.../apple-enlists-david-puddy-to-take-on-the-laptop-hunters

www.engadget.com/.../snow-leopard-packing-antivirus-software

August 26, 2009 11:14 AM
 

TEAMSWITCHER said:

Paul, I know exactly what the PC industry would be like if a belligerent company had gained monopoly power.

A few weeks ago Microsoft published the maximum system specifications for Windows 7 Net-book Edition.  Why did they feel the need to impose such an arbitrary and heavy handed control over this emerging market?  Simple, they are protecting their bottom line! By ensuring that no "partner" ever tries to make a popular inexpensive atom based 15" notebook computer that runs a cheap version of Windows.

So there you have it -  a giant company, leveraging it's monopoly, to control the user experience for products that it doesn't make, to maximize it's revenue.  Will you write so passionately about this injustice?

August 26, 2009 11:16 AM
 

shark47 said:

"Today the media lies, all companies lie, politicians lie, people on this blog lie. It has become perfectly acceptable to lie."

Oh, good. That means it's perfectly acceptable for Apple to lie. Good for them. Woohoo!!!

August 26, 2009 11:22 AM
 

hamiltonstallings said:

I have to admit, a many fortnight ago I bought into the Apple iPod hype.

But once I disovered how crappy the audio quality is, and how iTunes is probably the worse program ever written (I should say program(s), as it comes with just about everything Apple has every written without choice) I ditched it.

iTunes was definately the main reason, as it noticeably slowed down every single computer I installed it on. I love clicking on a song only to wait a full second for iTunes to highlight it.

Boy did I enjoy uninstalling iTunes only to go back to the control panel to see that bonjour, safari, Apple update, ituneshelper, ipodservice, quicktime, quicktimetask, and others ARE STILL INSTALLED AND RUNNING. Talk about extreme bloat.

August 26, 2009 11:30 AM
 

BladRnr said:

@Mikegalos

"iPod can only (without violating the license) sync with iTunes. 3rd party competitors cannot license the ability to sync with iTunes"

Agree.

"iTunes can only (without violating the license) sync with iPod. 3rd party competitors cannot license the ability to sync with iPod"

Agree.

"iTunes users cannot use the software to purchase products and 3rd party stores"

Agree, but they could jump on a web browser and use Amazon. Nothing prevents them from doing that and Apple is not stopping them from doing that.

"3rd party media stores cannot license the code to let users shop at their site with iTunes."

True, but once again, they can use Amazon.

"3rd party media software vendors cannot license the ability for their software to purchase items at Apple's store"

Could they do this with Amazon? And why would they want to?

"3rd party media software vendors cannot license the ability for their software to sync with iPods."

Agree. But will their software work with every other MP3 player out there? I don't know.

"3rd party hardware vendors cannot produce add-on products for this market without Apple's approval and a license agreement (with licnensing fees so large that they often drive up consumer pricing on accessories such as cables significantly)"

I believe anyone could make any add-on product. They just can't mention the name iPod. So that's not entirely true.

"3rd party software vendors cannot produce add-on products for this market (device or software or store) without Apple's approval and license agreement (with terms and enforcement often arbitrary or clearly designed to block competition with Apple products)"

If you are only talking about the iPods, then I agree, but I don't see much of a market for apps on iPods. Maybe that doesn't matter. But they can produce web apps for the iPhone/iPod Touch and they can market their apps in the App Store. How is this different that the other app stores that are being created?

Thanks for the discussion. I can see your points, but I just don't find the MP3 market relevant compared to computers. There were many players before the iPod. There are many other players now. There are also many stores to find music. What you say is true, but does it really hamper consumers from buying another MP3 player and putting music on it from outside iTunes? I don't think so. But I am no legal scholar and I certainly don't claim to understand business law.

What I see is Apple innovating and being rewarded. Let's all agree that people flocked to the original iPod because it was innovative. You don't sell almost 200M iPods without innovation. That is the foundation of my argument.

Heavy-handed? Perhaps with other companies in a passive way, but certainly not in the active way MSFT was in dealing with Netscape, Dell, HP, Compaq, IBM and others. They tried to destroy existing companies who were in the same businesses by entering into strong-armed deals and wiping them out. Judge Jackson noted 412 findings. Not one or two.

Cheers.

August 26, 2009 11:35 AM
 

kent909 said:

"Oh, good. That means it's perfectly acceptable for Apple to lie. Good for them. Woohoo!!!"

In your zeal, you neglect the point that the sentence could be written as follows:

Oh, good. That means it's perfectly acceptable for Microsoft to lie. Good for them. Woohoo!!!

So if Apple does not lie than all is well in the world.

August 26, 2009 11:44 AM
 

Ocean said:

C'mon Paul, lets cover this:  slatest.slate.com/.../4

August 26, 2009 11:44 AM
 

Ocean said:

"To examine Apple's exclusive relationships with wireless carriers."

What does this mean?  

"To force it to open up iTunes to competing players"

It did, at least to the extent the owners of the music allowed them to.

August 26, 2009 11:47 AM
 

BladRnr said:

@Mikegalos

"Apple must license at a reasonable fee the APIs for 3rd party applications to shop at their store"

Why would anyone want to do this? So Apple can sell more music?

"Apple must license at a reasonable fee the APIs for syncing with iTunes"

What do users who buy from Amazon do?

"Apple must license at a reasonable fee the APIs for iTunes to support other stores"

Why? Amazon's system works just fine.

"Apple must license at a reasonable fee the APIs iTunes to sync with other devices"

Agree.

"Apple must license at a reasonable fee the APIs for iPod to sync with other software"

Agree.

"Apple must provide a software distribution mechanism that provides an equal method of installing 3rd party applications on iPod family devices"

What iPod apps are their to begin with. This market is practically non-existent as regards to the classic iPod.

"Apple must provide the technical specifications for their iPod hardware interfaces for 3rd party devices and accessories"

They do this already. There are many third-party devices for the iPod/iPhone.

"Apple must remove all code from their devices that restricts use of 3rd party hardware add-ons and accessories."

Not sure what you are asking for here. How many Apple-only devices are there?

August 26, 2009 11:47 AM
 

Act Now or Apple Will Be the Next Microsoft Monopoly? | Apple News said:

Pingback from  Act Now or Apple Will Be the Next Microsoft Monopoly? | Apple News

August 26, 2009 11:51 AM
 

BladRnr said:

@Mikegalos

And when will we see WMP (or whatever MSFT uses to synch a Zune in Windows) on a Mac running natively? In all fairness, if this iTunes monopoly exists, then why doesn't MSFT write a version of WMP for Mac so they can synch their Zunes via a Mac? Because there's no market for it? Well, then the consumer has spoken.

MSFT is purposefully restricting sales of the Zune to those who own a Mac while in reality saying it's not good enough and Mac users won't buy it. Can't have it both ways.

In fact, from a business perspective, I think they are shooting themselves in the foot by not offering it to Mac users. Dumb move on MSFT's part.

August 26, 2009 11:56 AM
 

Ocean said:

I can't believe Paul thought this argument through.

It reads like a stream of conscience thing.  A little fact checking and all the arguments here just melt.

And Mike is just ginning up controversy for the sake of ginning up controversy...again.

August 26, 2009 11:57 AM
 

EricoF3 said:

@kent909: Capitalism is just a War game and it is normal companies omit. not lie, to tell things to win the game...

So stop telling Microsoft is lying!! It is not! It is just trying to win the game... The same for Apple...

All these things are normal on a war land... But please stop talking about monopoly... Only stupid judge talk about silly monopoly that does not exist!!!

August 26, 2009 11:57 AM
 

CommanderTPlak said:

Enough of this pointless bickering! On my homeworld, we have a saying. Those who use Windows are the blood-feasters of despair, and those who use OS X are the carrion of space-jackals. It will matter not what their business practices are when the Oncoming Storm devours all matter into its endless void.

August 26, 2009 11:58 AM
 

Act Now or Apple Will Be the Next Microsoft Monopoly? | iPhone Daily News Digest said:

Pingback from  Act Now or Apple Will Be the Next Microsoft Monopoly? | iPhone Daily News Digest

August 26, 2009 12:00 PM
 

Act Now or Apple Will Be the Next Microsoft Monopoly? | Gizmo Addiction said:

Pingback from  Act Now or Apple Will Be the Next Microsoft Monopoly? | Gizmo Addiction

August 26, 2009 12:02 PM
 

EricoF3 said:

In another sens... by forgetting monopoly silly issu, we must stop convergence... I mean Apple don't have any monopoly, in my sens, but we must top him from controlling a aspect of a market...

I mean, Apple can be the best seller of the MP3 player but if they begin to buy disk companies and entertainment conglomerate, we must stop him!!

The same for Microsoft... If they begin to buy all hardware maker, or something, we must stop him...

A good example, Google!! It has no monopoly but we cannot let him begin to buy other major web search engine  like Yahoo etc...

They don't have any monopoly but we cannot let him do convergence...

August 26, 2009 12:04 PM
 

subzerohitman721 said:

Following up on my previous one. One person said what if the premise was based upon false information.

Would the U.S. Department of Justice really launch an investigation based upon false evidence?

Usualy, the U.S. D.O.J. is pretty thorough in most cases. Yet we do have clear cut evidence that Apple has abused its monopoly power in the digital music space or hindered competition in both the music player, app market, and the mobile phone market. You don't have to have a monopoly to use your position to be anti-competititve behavior. If it hinders competition, then you're violating the law.

Apple is still innocent until proven guilty by a court. However, I don't think the D.O.J. especially under A.G. Eric Holder would proceed unless they had enough clear cut and more than circumstantial evidence.

I think our Mac fans are worried that Apple may have indeed violated the law. They would not be able to hold Apple up as this shining beacon of law abiding and ethical company. It would be in the same boat as Microsoft. Many signs point that its already there.

You forget that any corporation is run by a man. Men make mistakes. They get money and power. Money and power changes people.

My point is this. If Apple has nothing to fear, then why not open up iTunes to other players? Apple can't walk and chew gum? Why not open the iPod/iPhones to other services? If both products are good, they'll sell themselves and Apple will make their money. Or are they afraid that under the light of true aggressive competition, that Apple wil fall again like it did in the 1990's? If you truely believe in the America's ideals of free market enterprise, competition only makes you stronger not weaker. If Apple cannot hold up to competition against other devices, services, and software, then let it fall and let someone else try.

August 26, 2009 12:04 PM
 

EricoF3 said:

@CommanderTPlak: what are youi talking about???

August 26, 2009 12:05 PM
 

hamiltonstallings said:

Blad,

"In all fairness, if this iTunes monopoly exists, then why doesn't MSFT write a version of WMP for Mac so they can synch their Zunes via a Mac? Because there's no market for it? Well, then the consumer has spoken."

What does the iTunes monopoly have to do with MS making WMP available to the Mac?

Maybe, just maybe, MS doesn't care about writing WMP for the Mac because there is such a small user base, it isn't worth it since only a subset of that user base would actually use it.

"In fact, from a business perspective, I think they are shooting themselves in the foot by not offering it to Mac users. Dumb move on MSFT's part."

Rofl. Ya, they should really be asking you for business advice. With your logic, anything is possible.

Time for you to start paying attention in school kiddy.

August 26, 2009 12:12 PM
 

Stoic said:

What?! Apple's OS upgrade is only $29 which proves how evil MS is. I heard it on MacBreak Weekly.

August 26, 2009 12:21 PM
 

EricoF3 said:

@Stoic: It do not proves MS is evil, silly... It just proves Apple is evil because Microsoft Upgrades (service pack) are ALWAYS free!!! Silly!!

August 26, 2009 12:27 PM
 

trieste said:

Interesting argument - what Microsoft did would have been OK if it had not been illegal.

Apple should be found guilty of something just in case they do something illegal? That kind of legal thinking does have a familiar ring to it.

X executives have "proved, time and time again, to be inaccurate, misleading, evasive, and transparently false. ... X is a company with an institutional disdain for both the truth and for rules of law that lesser entities must respect. It is also a company whose senior management is not averse to offering specious testimony to support spurious defenses to claims of its wrongdoing."

Three guesses what company X is.

August 26, 2009 12:35 PM
 

EricoF3 said:

@hamiltonstallings: On Blad... lol funny funny you are lol

August 26, 2009 12:48 PM
 

Act Now or Apple Will Be the Next Microsoft Monopoly? said:

Pingback from  Act Now or Apple Will Be the Next Microsoft Monopoly?

August 26, 2009 12:50 PM
 

chipwinter said:

Maybe Apple's not the new monopoly abuser; maybe Microsoft still is

At the end of July, Ballmer, whose company makes no notebooks, told financial analysts that Microsoft lost some money this past year on notebooks because they were sold too cheaply: “We’re going to readjust those prices north” with windows 7."

So how does a software company with a monopoly readjust the prices of hardware that is not theirs?

August 26, 2009 12:53 PM
 

Lindy said:

@hamilton can another device sync with Zune software (Windows only if you want)?  Can the Zune Sync with other software that would willingly allow it it too?

There is no difference between the Zune and iPod ecosystems.  Both are locked.  I think this is great, as success or lack of it is totally up to making a better all around product.

Falkirk got this right.  

Microshaft jammed their products down the throats of PC makers and others using their market position or money.  Which only further increased their monopoly.  If MS went to Dell and said, if you offer our OS first, and install our browser only, our trail software (office or whatever that office light crap was back in the day) then we will give you Windows at $10 a copy.  If you dont its going to cost you $100.  Oh and by the way HP is doing it, so is Gateway etc.

They did the same thing with large volume license customers and many other areas.  It’s the proven Microsoft scorched earth policy.  Copy, extend (at great cost up front), extinguish.  They do this all the time.  Its typically starts with offering something for free, or at a greatly reduced price.  Windows/Office was way cheaper than Unix/Novell and say WordPerfect/Lotus/Borderland.  IE vs Netscape, Exchange vs Lotus/Groupwise etc.  Right now they are really late to the Virtualization market and are trying the same stuff with HyperV.  Once they get the leverage things change.

Microsoft has been busted time and time again using this tactic.  Emails back in the Dr. DOS days prove to what lengths they will go to beyond just making a better product to kill off the competition.

Lots of companies use some of these tactics but I think MS is probably the most famous for it. Apple and Jobs I am sure have some killer instinct, the smartphone market is one area where you see this.  

The biggest difference between MS and Apple is that Apple makes both the hardware and software for many products.  Therefore they cant force PC makers to install OS X, or force MP3 makers to use iTunes through the proven MS monopoly tactics.  

Apple MUST ENTICE CUTOMERS to buy their products, since they are locked, hardware/software.  They can’t jam a horrible product down the throats of a Dell or HP (aka Vista) and get sales out of it.  Their either can sell their wholly owned product to consumers or not, and based only on their efforts.

Apple is not even close to a monopoly in the music industry.  Amazon, Microsoft and Walmart are in play.  

If could force certain record labels to only sell music on iTunes, by either threatening them with not selling their products on iTunes, or giving them large amounts of money.......then you peg them for monopolistic practices.

Paul is trying to generate negative press on Apple right before the launch of Snow Leopard.  To think he has any influence is a joke.

His review of Snow Leopard on the main page is so full of inaccurate information, he should be called a liar no?  I think someone pointed this out yesterday.  Paul wont fix those errors or say anything about it.  Its part of his effort to generate negative press, with a sheety review of Snow Leopard and two blog posts that will cause many postings.

Its funny my URL bar says winsupersite.com?????  

August 26, 2009 12:54 PM
 

mikegalos@msn.com said:

blad

An example of how Apple's likely monopoly in the music player market hurts consumers is:

Let's say a company decides they want to produce an alternative to iTunes that rather than being tied to one store is able to scan multiple stores for a particular song in a particular format (encrypted vs unencrypted, various formats, various compression, etc). It would then let the user buy the song from whichever store had the best price and seamlessly download and sync it with the user's iPod. (Let's assume they use an ad-driven revenue model and don't have their own store although that would be possible for a low-margin vendor willing to risk losing some sales to get a reputation as an honest broker with good prices)

This app is now impossible to write legally since Apple does not provide the APIs for shopping their store or syncing with their player. Thus, the consumer is prevented from having a shopping comparison tool that works cleanly with their music player. That is "consumer harm". The current situation also makes it harder for other vendors to compete on price or features (restraint of competition). And all of this is done with anticompetitive bundling of software and hardware and by refusing to license APIs.

While this kind of anticompetitive action is perfectly fine when you do not have monopoly power in a market, if you do have that power that is a clear case of abusing that power and that is against US antitrust law (and likely EU law)

August 26, 2009 12:55 PM
 

solaranox said:

Give me a frigging break here...  Before iTunes and the iPod, We had several different MP3 players and several different pieces of software to manage music.  Windows Media Player was arguably the most popular.  How many years was Windows Media Player out there before iTunes?  MS could have innovated then, but they didn't.

So, Apple comes along, introduces the iPod and iTunes and people flock to it...  It was innovative and IT WORKED the way people wanted.  Apple has continued to innovate.

How long was did it take MS to introduce a Zune and Zune Software?  (Which, by the way, copied Apple's closed "it just works" system?)

It's not like MS was ever short of money!

Now, Apple has the iPhone.  How long has MS let Windows Mobile stagnate?????

Apple comes in and makes all these devices, software, and services that people LOVE, and Paul wants to put a stop to it.  He wants to go back to the days when you never really knew if that PDA, MP3 Player, or Phone was going to sync with your information.

Pfft!  No way do I want that!

Mine and my Wife's iPhone sync PERFECTLY every time with our contacts, calendar, notes, music, videos, and photos.  I was NEVER able to say that when using numerous Palms, Windows Mobile PDA's and Phones, and various MP3 Players.

I have nothing against MS...  They have the cash... If they want people to buy their Zunes and Windows Mobile phones, then THEY NEED TO START INNOVATING!

Palm came out with an iPhone competator... You mean to tell me that MS cannnot????

It is my impression that consumers are HAPPY with their iPods and iPhones!!!!

If not, there ARE OTHER CHOICES!!!!

Poor Paul... Boo Hoo... He cannot buy an iPhone that works on Verizon.  Whats the problem with that?  My iPhone works perfectly fine on AT&T.  I came over from Tmobile.  If I did not want to move from Tmobile, then I that is MY DECISION and I would have had to CHOOSE to pick a Tmobile phone.

I just don't get this Monopoly argument at all...  There are tons of different MP3 players out there, and there are tons of different cell phones out there.  There are MUCH BIGGER companies than Apple in those markets too!   Let them INNOVATE and I will buy their products!

August 26, 2009 12:56 PM
 

Lindy said:

What I find totally ironic is that Paul will often quote Apple's market share as very little, to insignificant.  Yet here he is talking Apple monopolies???

Multiple Personality Disorder.

@Chipwinter, great point on those netbook comments.  Again to even suggest that MS is going to do this suggests that they will strong arm Hardware makers into higher pricing.   If Microsoft made the netbooks and the OS then it would be up to them to provide a compelling reason to buy their wholly owned product, you know like the Zune.

August 26, 2009 12:59 PM
 

EricoF3 said:

@ robertsgay: Shut up C*o*c*k sucker...

August 26, 2009 1:00 PM
 

mikegalos@msn.com said:

trieste

You seem to be confusing "being found to have a monopoly" with being found guilty of something.

Being a monopoly does NOT make you guilty of anything. It just means that you have sufficient power over a market that you have to work within a more restrictive set of rules.

The example I usually give to explain it is this:

You go to a small town and realize that there is nobody there who gives haircuts. You open a barber shop.

You now are:

An entrepeneur (by seeing a market opening and entering it)

AND A small business owner (a single barber shop is likely a small business)

AND A monopoly (you have total control over the market for haircuts in that town)

Did you do anything wrong? No

Does your position give you power that you would not have if there were competitors? Of course

Do you have to play be extra rules such as not working to block competitors from opening a competing barber shop? Yes

August 26, 2009 1:02 PM
 

mikegalos@msn.com said:

Lindy

As you know, monopoly is by market and not by company.

Apple is a small player in PC operating systems and simultaneously a likely monopolist in portable media players.

Microsoft is a monopoly player in PC operating systems and simultaneously a small player in portable media players.

There now that wasn't so hard, was it.

August 26, 2009 1:07 PM
 

EricoF3 said:

@solaranox: "It is my impression that consumers are HAPPY with their iPods and iPhones!!!!"

Yesss!!! People really like when their 600 box Iphone and ITouch explode in their faces... lol... Do somebody ever ear that a Zune exploded in the face of somebody??

@solaranox: "How long was did it take MS to introduce a Zune and Zune Software?  (Which, by the way, copied Apple's closed "it just works" system?)"

Zune Software a copy of ITune?????? D'oh!!! I think you don't talk about he same software then I!!! Please don't talk about what you don't know!!!

Zune Payer software is almost the more innovative multimedia player right now!!! ITune seems to be close then Excel in comparison with the Zune Player software 3.0...

I suggest all of you to use the Zune Player software to play music and video on your PC even if you don't own a Zune... THis software is the most amazing player for Windows actually... You can Download it for free at www.zune.com...

Just try it... You will see...

August 26, 2009 1:11 PM
 

yoshipod said:

The true culture of lies are those coming from this website.

Just look at Paul's Snow Leopard Quick Take.  The whole review is filled with lies.

"Had Microsoft released such an update for Windows, they would have called it a service pack and delivered it gratis."

This is the change list right from Microsoft for Vista SP2.  You are really comparing Snow Leopard to this.

Hardware ecosystem support and enhancements

• SP2 adds support for the 64-bit central processing unit (CPU) from VIA Technologies, which adds the ID and vendor strings for the new VIA 64-bit CPU.

• SP2 integrates the Windows Vista Feature Pack for Wireless, which contains support for Bluetooth v2.1 and Windows Connect Now (WCN) Wi-Fi Configuration. Bluetooth v2.1 is the most recent specification for Bluetooth wireless technology.

• SP2 improves performance for Wi-Fi connections after resuming from sleep mode.

• SP2 includes updates to the RSS feeds sidebar for improved performance and responsiveness.

• SP2 includes ability to record data to Blu-Ray Disc media.

Operating system experience updates

• SP2 includes Windows Search 4.0, which builds on Microsoft’s search technology with improved indexing and search relevance. It also helps find and preview documents, e-mail (including signed e-mail messages), music files, photos, and other items on the computer. The search engine in Windows Search 4.0 is a Microsoft Windows® service that is also used by programs such as Microsoft Office Outlook® 2007 and Microsoft Office OneNote® 2007. Autotuning Diagnostics in SP2 now interprets current network conditions when implementing Windows scaling. This feature includes full netsh support.

• SP2 improves Windows Media Center (WMC) in the area of content protection for TV.

• SP2 removes the limit of 10 half open outbound TCP connections. By default, SP2 has no limit on the number of half open outbound TCP connections.

"Snow Leopard takes another page from the Windows 7 playbook with a new feature of the Exposé window management tool. In previous versions of Mac OS X, Exposé was very much a power user feature, and you could really only use it effectively via the keyboard, an oddity in the mouse-focused OS X interface."

Expose has been around since 2003 with Mac OS 10.3.  So how can this take a page from the Windows 7 playbook?  Flip 3D and Areo Snap are the Microsoft taking the page from the OS X playbook.  This technology is six years old.  In addition, you can set any of the Expose controls to work on any mouse button or trackpad right from the system preferences, so I have no idea why Paul is saying its an oddity.

"Snow Leopard expands on the icon preview functionality in Windows 7 in dramatic if somewhat unnecessary ways. You can now instantly preview the contents of many document types right in the icon for those documents in the Finder....But the sheer number of ways in which you can access documents and other data files in Snow Leopard borders on the ludicrous. In addition to these in-icon previews, you can also use a new Quick Look utility to preview documents full screen"

Umm, no, it expands on the icon preview functionality of 10.4 & 10.5, not Windows 7.  For years, you could play movies, music, etc. right from the finder by highlighting the icon. I can select an icon in 10.5, hit the space bar, and get the quicklook preview.  I can also zoom it full screen.  Been doing that for the past 2 years, so I don't understand how 10.6 is improving on a Windows 7 feature.

"On the other hand, QuickTime X continues Apple's hypocritical waltz into inconsistency, as this application bears absolutely no resemblance at all to any other Snow Leopard applications."

Do you mean the black titlebar?  Because all the controllers look an awful lot like the DVD, quicklook & frontrow controllers.  By the way, how come in Windows 7, the fact that TWO applications have a ribbon interface is a great feature, but ONE application in OS X has a different interface and that is a problem.  

August 26, 2009 1:12 PM
 

Lindy said:

@ Mike your example of someone creating piece of software to scan for music on iTunes, and Apple not allowing the scan to happen is not in any way consumer harm.

Apple forcing labels not to sell their music through Amazon or MS Zune software and only through iTunes is consumer harm.

August 26, 2009 1:14 PM
 

EricoF3 said:

@ yoshipod: The real lie is comparing OSX White Leopard Upgrad with a Windows 7 Upgrade...

OSX WHITE LEOPARD IS A SERVICE PACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

August 26, 2009 1:18 PM
 

Lindy said:

@Mike, its not about being a monopoly its about forcing your monopoly, or more commonly stated using monopolistic tactics to keep that monopoly.  

Apple is a monopoly in the digital delivery of music at 67%. or whatever.  However they are a monopoly based completely on consumer demand, and not by strong arm tactics.

August 26, 2009 1:19 PM
 

Act Now or Apple Will Be the Next Microsoft Monopoly? | TEST ZONE said:

Pingback from  Act Now or Apple Will Be the Next Microsoft Monopoly? | TEST ZONE

August 26, 2009 1:21 PM
 

hamiltonstallings said:

I find it funny that the Mac evangelists keep using the word 'innovate'. These are the ones you can tell Steve Jobs has mind control over.

@Lindy,

"@hamilton can another device sync with Zune software (Windows only if you want)?  Can the Zune Sync with other software that would willingly allow it it too?"

Yes. And your next comment proves you are an idiot.

August 26, 2009 1:22 PM
 

lazysquirrell said:

August 26, 2009 1:24 PM
 

yoshipod said:

"@ yoshipod: The real lie is comparing OSX White Leopard Upgrad with a Windows 7 Upgrade...

OSX WHITE LEOPARD IS A SERVICE PACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Please explain why this is so.

Please list the features of Windows 7 and why that is an upgrade and why 10.6 is a service pack.  

The lie is saying one is an SP and one is not. Both are clearly upgrades.  Half the features Paul lists in the Windows 7 upgrade are also in 10.6, so what make windows 7 such an upgrade?

This is not a troll, but a legitimate question.  It seems that since there are no MAJOR UI changes that means is an SP?  I don't get that.  

August 26, 2009 1:27 PM
 

Apple’s culture of lies, Part 2: A different way of looking at it | The Software Nook said:

Pingback from  Apple’s culture of lies, Part 2: A different way of looking at it | The Software Nook

August 26, 2009 1:31 PM
 

BladRnr said:

@mikegalos

"This app is now impossible to write legally since Apple does not provide the APIs for shopping their store or syncing with their player. Thus, the consumer is prevented from having a shopping comparison tool that works cleanly with their music player. That is "consumer harm"."

I suppose, but do you really think there is a market for this? We can come up with a myriad of possible solutions, but ultimately the market will either support it or not. And there are alternatives:

1. Shop at Amazon for MP3s (in fact, I believe they have a larger selection than Apple)

2. By a CD and rip it

3. Go to the library and rip it (did I say that?)

4. Use MSFT's WMP store

5. Use a slew of other online stores

That's my point. A judge may agree with you, but somehow theorizing how other companies can't use iTunes seems to have a limited scope. I see your point. I just don't think there is a market for it. It's music.

Besides, right now I can go onto Limewire and download whatever I want for free (I don't, but I could). So you're suggesting a solution to a monopolistic practice when in reality the vast majority of MP3s are downloaded illegally. If anything, Apple is helping the music industry by trying to get people to be legal. Not preventing competition. In fact, if we looked at all of the MP3s downloaded, legally and illegally, Apple is probably nowhere near a monopoly. Just saying.

"Do you have to play be extra rules such as not working to block competitors from opening a competing barber shop? Yes"

How is Apple preventing competition? Are there other MP3 players? Yes. Are their other means of buying music outside of iTMS? Yes.

In the barber scenario, how is Apple preventing, for instance, Amazon or MSFT, from selling MP3s? I don't think they are, IMHO.

August 26, 2009 1:32 PM
 

EricoF3 said:

@yoshipod: NOOOOP!!! Microsoft NEVER do Major UI changes in a Service Pack ... And this is historical... I am sorry...

August 26, 2009 1:33 PM
 

lehenbauer said:

Troll much, Paul?

August 26, 2009 1:34 PM
 

gfryesc1 said:

didn't Paul chastise Opera from this same loopy behavior of using the power of government against a competitor instead of competing in the marketplace?   I think he said he's had it with Opera or that they jumped the shark or another of the constant cliches he uses.    

August 26, 2009 1:34 PM
 

EricoF3 said:

@yoshipod: I am sorry, my last post is off ... I just miss read your last sentence!! Sorry

August 26, 2009 1:34 PM
 

yoshipod said:

Still not sure what makes 10.6 an SP and Windows 7 an upgrade.

Please someone define them, because I don't get it.

August 26, 2009 1:38 PM
 

EricoF3 said:

@yoshipod: The reason OSX White Leopard is a SP this is because it change  only near 10 things... And the majority of this changes are changes in utilities that are not rally important like the Chat client and QuickTime and so on...

Microsoft don't sell upgrade only to update notepad... I am sorry... Windows 7 is a major improvement over Vista...

In general people hope of Windows 7 to be a free upgrade because they pay for Vista that had been unpopular and a pseudo flaw (Although not actually)... But in fact Windows 7 is a major OS upgrade...

August 26, 2009 1:40 PM
 

EricoF3 said:

@yoshipod: I mean OSX upgrade is near to 10 correction/improvement  ...

But Windows 7 is over 1000 correction/improvement probably much much much more...

August 26, 2009 1:42 PM
 

Lindy said:

@EricoF3 just because you say "Windows 7 is a major improvement over Vista..." does not make it so.  Answer yoshipod's question.

Please tell us what a user of Windows Vista SP2, plus all updates that come from Microsoft (IE8) gets when they go to 7?  Please I would like to know how its a major update.

August 26, 2009 1:47 PM
 

Lindy said:

@EricoF3 just because you say "Windows 7 is a major improvement over Vista..." does not make it so.  Answer yoshipod's question.

Please tell us what a user of Windows Vista SP2, plus all updates that come from Microsoft (IE8) gets when they go to 7?  Please I would like to know how its a major update.

August 26, 2009 1:47 PM
 

notawindowsuser said:

I paid £25 for Snow Leopard and £50 for Windows 7 Home Premium, service packs or not, £75 for the latest and greatest, I'm one happy camper :-)

August 26, 2009 1:53 PM
 

yoshipod said:

@yoshipod: The reason OSX White Leopard is a SP this is because it change  only near 10 things... And the majority of this changes are changes in utilities that are not rally important like the Chat client and QuickTime and so on...

Apple stated they reworked 90% of the projects that make up OS X.  That is quite a bit more than 10 "correction/improvement ".

Read through the Window 7 list Paul has and point out items make it an upgrade.  Paul lists stuff like calculator and Windows Media 12.  If those items make Windows 7 an upgrade then iChat and Quicktime make 10.6 and upgrade as well.

Which of the features are big enough to warrant upgrade over SP.  It sounds like so many of the things listed are  " streamlined and simplified" , "revamped",  "ships with" or  "includes" " the latest version of ",  "enhanced version".  This is the same with the "refinements" that 10.6 makes.

August 26, 2009 1:59 PM
 

EricoF3 said:

@ Lindy:

Just go here: www.microsoft.com/.../whats-new.aspx

and see by yourself... I don't have to explain that to you just do some reading and you will see...

August 26, 2009 2:01 PM
 

yoshipod said:

www.apple.com/.../refinements

See what I did there....

August 26, 2009 2:05 PM
 

EricoF3 said:

@yoshipod: It true that Apple had a lot of rework to do to become near to Windows 7... You have a point...

Especially, doing a Multi core support that is available in Windows for 10 years...

And a nice feature that allow you to boot in 64Bits by holding the apple key... lol...

Also, it is right to tell that the major project rewriting had been done in Windows Vista on the Microsoft side... So it is hard to compare OSX White Leopard Upgrade and Windows 7 Upgrade...

August 26, 2009 2:06 PM
 

lazysquirrell said:

I think its more about the re marketing of Vista and a lot of tweeks and small ui changes that makes 7 great, its just no longer cool to rubbish MS.

On the other hand people are just bored with OSX. Thats my take on it anyhow..But i will say this there seems to be a massive buzz around win 7, at least here in the UK and i will be taking advantage of that.

August 26, 2009 2:10 PM
 

EricoF3 said:

@lazysquirrell: right!!

August 26, 2009 2:14 PM
 

EricoF3 said:

It seem that microsoft don't specify specific changes ... I mean they will not tell in "What's new in Windows 7" that they rewrite the complete networking or that they rewrite threading of the OS to get high speed improvement ...

They only tell about things that user can see, like : Much Speed or Fast internet access...

Understand?

August 26, 2009 2:18 PM
 

yoshipod said:

"Especially, doing a Multi core support that is available in Windows for 10 years..."

Kind of like how the taskbar is now just like the Dock.....or Aero snap is like expose.  

"And a nice feature that allow you to boot in 64Bits by holding the apple key... lol..."

Actually that is good.  One OS installation allows me to boot in either 32 bit or 64 mode. No need to wipe my entire computer if decided I want to change the mode to operate in, or have some software that works better in one mode or the other.  There is no way to upgrade from 32 bit Vista to 64 Windows 7. You HAVE to do a clean install. So while you laugh at this, you don't realize that it is actually a good thing to have.

"Also, it is right to tell that the major project rewriting had been done in Windows Vista on the Microsoft side... So it is hard to compare OSX White Leopard Upgrade and Windows 7 Upgrade..."

Both Apple and Microsoft have done quite a bit of work in each of these upgrades.  That is my point.  Yet Paul, and many others, keep calling 10.6 a Service Pack and saying it should be free.  But fail to call out Microsoft for charging for Windows 7.  

That is my point and that is why Paul is lying about 10.6

August 26, 2009 2:20 PM
 

mikegalos@msn.com said:

blad

You're missing a key point. The requirement for abuse of monopoly power is NOT that competing is totally 100% impossible at any level. It's also not that there is a guaranteed high profit successful business that's being blocked.

You're setting the bar to the point that there would never be any antitrust violations. By your requirements, Microsoft would not have had anything ruled against it since Linux exists.

That there are potential competitors to Apple being blocked from competing by Apple's own control of the market is abuse of monopoly power. That's all it takes.

If that app would compete with Apple and can't be built then Apple is violating monopoly power (If they're ruled a monopoly). It doesn't require that the app would be guaranteed to be successful. Nothing is.

The example I gave is a FAR worse abuse of power than any of the findings against Microsoft (Yes, I really did read all 7,000+ pages of DOJ v Microsoft) and so if the bar was set there, Apple is clearly in trouble.

August 26, 2009 2:21 PM
 

Lindy said:

@EricoF3 like I thought, you cant prove your point.  

I went there.  Somethings that stand out in your provided link..

IE8, Windows Search, compatibility, faster, Windows Live Essentials....NONE of them are different in Vista SP2 with all updates, and most of those are in XP as well.

In fact when it comes to performance....

crave.cnet.co.uk/.../0,39029471,49303203-7,00.htm

Your link has 3 tabs with 18 items, 5-7 are in Vista today.  Others like Touch are useless for 98% of computers, because they dont have a touch screen.

Yet I go here....

www.apple.com/.../enhancements-refinements.html

and I see more than 10 items.  Please tell me where I am wrong?  To call Windows 7 an major update over Vista SP2 is a joke.  To say SL is a service pack is a joke.

August 26, 2009 2:21 PM
 

Lindy said:

@ Mike how do you not get it.  Your words... "You're setting the bar to the point that there would never be any antitrust violations. By your requirements, Microsoft would not have had anything ruled against it since Linux exists."

The real life example is not that Linux is an option for consumers to choose and Microsoft beat them.  Its that Microsoft told Dell if you offer Linux as an option I will stop giving you a discounted copy of Windows and you will loose money on every PC you sell.  The FORCED Dell or whomever to load Windows on any new PC.

To your barber shop example.  If barbershop #1 paid the city or had some leverage over them like MS has with PC makers, to do something like make it cost a ton of money for permit to cut hair for any other barbershop then that would be like MS.

August 26, 2009 2:27 PM
 

EricoF3 said:

@Lindy: Ok stop talking an just try it!!! Try intensively Windows Vista and after Try intensively Windows 7... Like I do...

I use Windows Vista at work 8 hours a day and I use Windows 7 at home for the rest of the time and the only thing I can tell you is that Windows 7 is a MAJOR improvement over Vista ... This is it!!

I can not prove you anything because Microsoft don't publicly specify the OS internal changes ... But the only thing I can tell you is that when I use Windows 7 I feel that is a major upgrade, the experience is really improved... That's it!

August 26, 2009 2:32 PM
 

chipwinter said:

In Mike's barbershop, in which the lone barbershop is a monopoly:

- If Microsoft were the owner, they would threaten their product supplier with pulling their business if they sold products to a new barbershop.

- If Apple were the owner, they would not let the new barbershop put signs in Apple's windows announcing the new shop.

There's nothing governing monopolies that say they have to offer a hand to another business, while there are laws saying you can't use your monopoly position to prevent competition.

August 26, 2009 2:33 PM
 

EricoF3 said:

@yoshipod: "Actually that is good.  One OS installation allows me to boot in either 32 bit or 64 mode. No need to wipe my entire computer if decided I want to change the mode to operate in, or have some software that works better in one mode or the other.  There is no way to upgrade from 32 bit Vista to 64 Windows 7. You HAVE to do a clean install. So while you laugh at this, you don't realize that it is actually a good thing to have."

D'oh! 64 bit processing only allow you to use more memory... So if you use the 64 bit version of the OS on the same machine that you run the 32 version the only thing you will get is a down boost of performances because it is more slow to work with 64 bit memory address than 32 bit memory address ...

August 26, 2009 2:36 PM
 

lazysquirrell said:

Personally i think they're both worth the upgrade.

60 quid win7...luv it.

August 26, 2009 2:36 PM
 

yoshipod said:

"I use Windows Vista at work 8 hours a day and I use Windows 7 at home for the rest of the time and the only thing I can tell you is that Windows 7 is a MAJOR improvement over Vista ... This is it!!"

So your opinion make Windows 7 a Major upgrade and 10.6 a service pack.

Therefore, I can claim that since 10.6 is a Major Improvement over 10.5 that it is a Major upgrade.

I do not doubt that Windows 7 is a very important upgrade for Windows users.  I expect that same level of respect about 10.6 for Mac Users.  Calling is an SP is simply a lie.  

August 26, 2009 2:51 PM
 

EricoF3 said:

@yoshipod: OK if you want!! You know I just tell this because I have read the Paul article an in it it seem to me that it was not a major upgrade but I really cannot compare OSX 6.5 and 6.6 by myself so ... you are probably right If you think OSX 6.6 is a big major upgrade, even before you tried it ... OK you are probably right lol

August 26, 2009 2:58 PM
 

Lindy said:

@EricoF3  Ok let me get this straight.  

You send me a link from Microsoft that lists 18 new items.  About 7 of which already exist in Vista SP2 with updates.  Some even in XP (IE8 and Search 4.0). Fact.

I post a link from Apple refuting your "SL has only 10 updates".  Fact.

I then ask you to clarify/prove your "Windows 7 major update" statement and you tell me it feels faster?

Ok well I have been using the Windows 7 RTM as my primary Windows computer since the 7th, and it feels no faster or better than Vista SP2 or XP to me, so does prove me or you correct?

Oh as for your 32bit/64bit kernel comments, they are wrong as well.  Fact Check...

www.macworld.com/.../snow_leopard_64_bit.html

"Snow Leopard runs 64-bit-capable applications in 64-bit mode regardless of whether it’s booting into a 64-bit or 32-bit kernel. In fact, the only big advantage of booting into a 64-bit kernel would be the ability to use more than 32 gigabytes of RAM. There aren't any Macs that can do that now, anyway, due to hardware limitations.

Applications running in Snow Leopard will have access to a full 16 exabyte virtual address space, just the same as if they were running in a 64-bit kernel. As a result, there’s very little difference between booting into the 64-bit kernel and the 32-bit kernel in current Mac systems"

I guess if you need more that 32 gigs of RAM on a client OS then it could be a problem.

August 26, 2009 3:00 PM
 

smoothbond said:

@falkirk 'None of these things are illegal. All are practiced by competitors. But according to Paul they become illegal merely due to the size of a company's market share. Who knows. In the murky legal world of monopoly law, he may be right'

Of course he's right, how else do you explain the fact that no other Browser maker is attacking apple for bundling Safari with OS X, yet its perfectly acceptable for every Browser and their cousin to demand Microsoft exclude IE from Windows.

August 26, 2009 3:02 PM
 

yoshipod said:

"D'oh! 64 bit processing only allow you to use more memory... So if you use the 64 bit version of the OS on the same machine that you run the 32 version the only thing you will get is a down boost of performances because it is more slow to work with 64 bit memory address than 32 bit memory address ..."

64 bit is more than just memory addressing.  It also has to do with integer size, etc.

Anyways, despite the speed boost from running in 32 bit mode with 32 bit apps, one may also need to use legacy hardware without 64 bit drivers. So with Windows you would not be able to easily switch mode, where as in 10.6, as I understand, you would be able to simply reboot into 32 bit mode and use older hardware.

August 26, 2009 3:03 PM
 

EricoF3 said:

@yoshipod: yes interger size, which is result in a slower processing performance than in 32 bit integer....

August 26, 2009 3:16 PM
 

EricoF3 said:

@yoshipod: "Anyways, despite the speed boost from running in 32 bit mode with 32 bit apps, one may also need to use legacy hardware without 64 bit drivers."

This point of view is OK to me and I admit you have a point here!

August 26, 2009 3:18 PM
 

lazysquirrell said:

Although its not all relevent its still an excellent read.blogs.msdn.com/.../default.aspx

Surprisingly ive not seen a comprehensive whitepaper on 7, can someone direct me?

August 26, 2009 3:19 PM
 

EricoF3 said:

@Lindy: "Oh as for your 32bit/64bit kernel comments, they are wrong as well.  Fact Check..."

Why do you told me I am wrong if you continu by telling the following: "As a result, there’s very little difference between booting into the 64-bit kernel and the 32-bit kernel in current Mac systems"!!!???

I never told that your machine will be transform in a PPC with 40Mhz when booting in 64 bit mode, I just tell it will gives you nothing, or a little down boost in performance, which you will probably not notice...

Please stop listen all people and companies that tell you that 64bits is a major improvement... Its not true... 64bits only give you more memory addressing and yes larger integer... But who really need this? Near nobody... The only exception is really specialized software that need a lot of memory, that's it...

August 26, 2009 3:24 PM
 

FalKirk said:

@falkirk 'None of these things are illegal. All are practiced by competitors. But according to Paul they become illegal merely due to the size of a company's market share. Who knows. In the murky legal world of monopoly law, he may be right'

"Of course he's right, how else do you explain the fact that no other Browser maker is attacking apple for bundling Safari with OS X, yet its perfectly acceptable for every Browser and their cousin to demand Microsoft exclude IE from Windows."- Smoothbond

I don't think the example is germane. Microsoft was convicted of using it's monopoly position to exclude Explorer's competitors from it's OS. That could explain the additional scrutiny, no?

Can you think of another example?

August 26, 2009 3:27 PM
 

EricoF3 said:

@ lazysquirrell: Like I told Microsoft didn't publicly give us a White Paper for Windows 7 so it is difficult to argument with Mac Fan Boys about Windows 7 changes over Vista...

Fortunatly, you can find a White Paper for OSX 6.6... Apple is willing to tell to end user that they had a comma in a specific place in the OS core that improve the core stability...

August 26, 2009 3:31 PM
 

Waethorn said:

@all:

Mac OS won't have a major upgrade until version 11.

August 26, 2009 3:44 PM
 

EricoF3 said:

@Lindy: See the comment of Waethorn!!

August 26, 2009 4:05 PM
 

lazysquirrell said:

@ lazysquirrell

Neither will windows lol

August 26, 2009 4:06 PM
 

lazysquirrell said:

lets try that again

@ Waethorn

Neither will windows lol

better?

August 26, 2009 4:09 PM
 

fishyuk said:

Paul is very fair on Apple products (just doesn't like the ethos like me) so getting so much stick from the mac fanatics really just proves his point. Listen to Windows weekly and he gives MS a bloody hard time in my opinion, in fact often too hard a time.  Then try listening to the sycophantic MacBreak weekly. I forget the guy who runs pixel corps but every week it is something like "if apple came up with this, and it was fusion powered, and they tied everyone in, and you only needed to bang your forehead against one button, they'd rule the world and I'd LOVE IT". Completely embarrassing.

Paul is right to challenge Apple's (and lingering MS) nastiness. They make great products but have a horrible attitude that smacks of the worst kind of elitism that is even disappearing from the UK.

I'm typing this on a brand new MacPro in OSX. It will mainly be a Windows machine but much of the credit goes to Paul who has always been very complimentary about the hardware. I also have a Mac Mini purely dedicated to OSX as a messing about machine. To all the Windows and Mac guys who understand both sides then well done. To those who feel their "manhood" offended by a critical article then either grow up or go elsewhere....

August 26, 2009 4:10 PM
 

Act Now or Apple Will Be the Next Microsoft Monopoly? | All iPhone News said:

Pingback from  Act Now or Apple Will Be the Next Microsoft Monopoly? | All iPhone News

August 26, 2009 4:10 PM
 

gfryesc1 said:

loved paul's quicktake of snow leopard.  It basically says snow leopard is overpriced at $29 and copies everything from Windows, and some of those things from Win7 which isn't even out yet!

With these lovely adjectives and adverbs, how can anyone think that Paul is anything if not fair:

hyperbolic

letdown

cryptic

unnecessary

ludicrous

hypocritical

inconsistency

August 26, 2009 4:12 PM
 

yoshipod said:

Paul is very fair on Apple products (just doesn't like the ethos like me) so getting so much stick from the mac fanatics really just proves his point.

No he is not fair. He always puts them down whenever he has a chance.

I went through all his OS X reviews and this is what I pulled from them

10.2 - "Essentially a minor upgrade to previous Mac OS X versions, Jaguar includes numerous small updates and refinements but few major new innovations."

10.3 -"Reading the various Apple-friendly reviews now available online, you might get the idea that Panther is a major OS upgrade. After spending a few weeks with the fledgling system, I can assure you that it's not."

10.4 - "Though it is marketed by Apple as a major release, Tiger is in fact a minor upgrade with few major new features for end users "

10.5 - "While the Apple hype machine and its fanatical followers would have you believe that Mac OS X 10.5 "Leopard" is a major upgrade to the company's venerable operating system, nothing could be further from the truth."

10.6  - "Had Microsoft released such an update for Windows, they would have called it a service pack and delivered it gratis."

So every version of  OS X is minor, except for 10.1.  Well hold on there..

10.3 -"Over the course of three minor updates—10.1 in late 2001, 10.2 in late 2002, and now 10.3—Apple has done much to strengthen Mac OS X's underpinnings with a usable fascia that's bursting with functionality."

I don't get it. They are all minor updates. How can that be since they stack up well against Windows.

10.1 -  "This new Mac OS offers at least as much of an advance for users of that platform as does XP on the PC"

10.4 - "Apple Mac OS X 10.4 "Tiger" is the strongest OS X release yet and a worthy competitor to Windows XP"

10.5  - "Leopard is, however, equal to Vista in many ways."

So despite being minor updates, Paul thinks OS X is as good as or better than similar Windows versions, all which have been MAJOR upgrades.  That is fair and balanced....just like Fox News.

The best thing I found was this gem...

10.3 - "That's a lot of money to pay for mostly subtle refinements that, arguably, should have been in the system to begin with. I wish Panther were more reasonably priced—perhaps in the $30 ballpark."

So Paul thinks that subtle refinements are worth paying $30 for, yet thinks 10.6 should be given away free, because thats what Microsoft would have done.

Paul's Culture of Lies

August 26, 2009 4:21 PM
 

Waethorn said:

"Paul's Culture of Lies"

Speaking of lies, I'll leave you with this little festering tidbit to munch on:

Apple suffering from foot-in-mouth disease:

www.engadget.com/.../apple-enlists-david-puddy-to-take-on-the-laptop-hunters

www.engadget.com/.../snow-leopard-packing-antivirus-software

August 26, 2009 4:29 PM
 

Bodypaint said:

Here's an interesting article that clearly shows that the Snow Leopard update is simply a snow job.. When most of the new functionality won't work on any machine that apple  delivered prior to 08, intel or otherwise should tell you enough. Check out the graph of what systems support what.

blogs.zdnet.com/Bott

What's equally interesting is how this story has eluded the like of engadget, wired, and gizmodo.. hm, do you think they're pro apple?

August 26, 2009 4:35 PM
 

lazysquirrell said:

For all sides.

Culture of lies.

Microsoft.  Min specs for Vista...oops

Apple. It just works....umm no

Linux. I got a girlfriend.....sorry had to do it.

August 26, 2009 4:39 PM
 

Lindy said:

@bodypaint, Snow Job how?  Ed clearly states...

"I was very disappointed to learn that OpenCL support and H.264 hardware acceleration wouldn’t be available on my machine. In fact, the latter feature appears to be available only on systems with Nvidia 9400M graphics. On Windows 7, I’ve compared HD playback using an Intel GMA 950 (the same graphics chip used in my Mac Mini) against the same source on a system with an Nvidia 9500 GS. It’s no contest: the discrete GPU annihilates the onboard graphics, especially with a CUDA-enabled Windows app like PowerDVD 9. I’ll need to upgrade to a more powerful Mac to make a fair comparison."

So on both his PC with GMA950 and his Mac Mini with GMA950 advanced features like CUDA or Open CL wont work.  They both require a faster more modern GPU to use these brand new GPU API's.  Wow imagine that.

Maybe I should email Ed and tell him that the GMA 950 wont even run some 3 year old PC and Mac games before he complains about that as well?

August 26, 2009 4:56 PM
 

mikegalos@msn.com said:

Bodypaint

Interesting. Summarizing Ed Bott's chart (which he uses by permission from the creator, Stephen Foskett) we get the following tiny list of Macintosh computers that can use all of Snow Leopard's features:

MacBooks (only those made in 2009-present)

Unibody MacBooks

MacBook Airs (only those made from late 2008-present)

Unibody MacBook Pros

IMac 9400M (the only model including current produts)

Mac Mini (2009 only)

Mac Pro (2009 only)

In short, if you bought a new Macintosh more than a year ago you will NOT get all of Snow Leopard's new features. And, in fact, even some current models and virtually ALL Macs built prior to 2009 are locked out of some features like the 64 bit kernel (that Apple's been claiming for years but which first really appears now)

I thought a 3 year backward compatibility limit was bad but when products that Apple currently sells can't run their own current OS without turning off key system features that's just sad.

August 26, 2009 5:00 PM
 

rr0de74@live.com said:

@Mike, if I walk into a apple store today and buy a Mac, any Mac, can it use all of those features in SL?  Yep.  I might have to force some models to always boot in 64bit mode, and possibly have problems with some non-Apple software.

August 26, 2009 5:46 PM
 

lotsamystuff said:

"@ robertsgay: Shut up C*o*c*k sucker..."

That's the kind of insightful commentary I expect from a WinJihadist.

"You know I just tell this because I have read the Paul article an in it it seem to me that it was not a major upgrade but I really cannot compare OSX 6.5 and 6.6 by myself so ... you are probably right If you think OSX 6.6 is a big major upgrade, even before you tried it ... OK you are probably right lol"

Ladies and gentlemen, please join me in welcoming "Borat" to this forum!

August 26, 2009 5:55 PM
 

iPhone Topic|TechBeta » Act Now or Apple Will Be the Next Microsoft Monopoly? said:

Pingback from  iPhone Topic|TechBeta » Act Now or Apple Will Be the Next Microsoft Monopoly?

August 26, 2009 6:11 PM
 

robertsjoe said:

This post is so pathetic, I feel ill.

August 26, 2009 6:25 PM
 

robertsjoe said:

@EricoF3: Nice to see you are able to partake in this group. Especially with your severe mental retardation.

August 26, 2009 6:27 PM
 

iPhone 3G » Blog Archive » Act Now or Apple Will Be the Next Microsoft Monopoly? said:

Pingback from  iPhone 3G  » Blog Archive   » Act Now or Apple Will Be the Next Microsoft Monopoly?

August 26, 2009 6:28 PM
 

robertsjoe said:

Where's the moderation on this forum? Yes, I know, you could moderate me. But @EricoF3 seems to be quite slow and is quite rude and insulting.  Sure, we have digs at one another, but mostly are in good fun. But this is overboard. I know the blog has jumped the shark, does it mean it's a sewer?

August 26, 2009 6:29 PM
 

robertsjoe said:

It's obvious that Paul has been mandated by MS to start a mud slinging match. Not that Apple needs to worry. They are far too good to lower themselves to Paul's level.

August 26, 2009 6:31 PM
 

EricoF3 said:

@lazysquirrell: you mean: Linux. I got a gayfriend..... lol

August 26, 2009 7:43 PM
 

Act Now or Apple Will Be the Next Microsoft Monopoly? | MyiPhonePlace.com said:

Pingback from  Act Now or Apple Will Be the Next Microsoft Monopoly? | MyiPhonePlace.com

August 26, 2009 7:46 PM
 

jcstene said:

Yes, let's nip success in the bud now, before it has an opportunity to encourage other companies to make better products!

August 26, 2009 7:56 PM
 

EricoF3 said:

@robertsjoe: what it prove that you have mantal retardation it is your habit to come on a Windows blog and always post stupid Mac Fan Boys silly comment...

You know I am not the one who call you "robertsgay" first!!!

August 26, 2009 8:10 PM
 

EricoF3 said:

@lotsamystuff: WinJihadist!!!!

Here's the big words...

It is funny!! Apple fan boys always talk like MacJihadist but it is us that are WinJihadist...

Apple user will always make me cry!!!

August 26, 2009 8:20 PM
 

panache1023 said:

MikeGalos,

In your usual hypocritical tone...care to explain the whole "Vista Capable" debacle?

Didn't you just say, "...but when products that Apple currently sells can't run their own current OS without turning off key system features that's just sad."

What about that whole, "My machine won't run Aero, a key system feature, but the machine said it was Vista Capable...or was that Vista Ready?"

Wow man....ever hear the saying, "Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones"?

You are such a hypocrite.

August 26, 2009 8:30 PM
 

cesjr said:

Wow Paul is really running scared here.  His call to action is a little pointless, though.  The geek blog community doesn't enforce the antitrust law.  The DOJ and the courts do that.  And assurance by Paul Thurrott that Apple will "real soon now" have a monopoly in some market isn't quite enough, sorry.  

Macs - at most 10 percent of the US market (and global is smaller as Paul always reminds us).

iPhones - 13.7 percent of global smartphone market.  Blackberry and Nokia are still the leaders in their respective main markets (US and europe, respectively).

Music - there's no such thing as the "digital music market."  There's the market for recorded music, whether on CD, downloads or whatever.  Downloads are still a minority of the market (25% I think).

TV and Movies - even as to digital delivery, there's pay cable, pay-per-view, etc.  Plus the huge market for DVDs which clearly outsells Apple.

DOJ and the courts aren't going to conclude that Apple has to change ANYTHING based on speculation that it "most definitely" will have a monopoly in any of these markets some time in the future, combined with some unknown set of anticompetitive conduct at that unknown point in the future with an unknown set of facts and unknown competitive landscape.

You see, when it comes to finding a company in violation of the law (for example the antitrust law), you have to wait until -- oops -- the company has actually violated the law.  You can't "nip in the bud" a speculative prediction of a future violation.

Sorry Paul.

August 26, 2009 8:49 PM
 

Lindy said:

I need to use babblefish to decipher EricoF3's posts.

August 26, 2009 9:11 PM
 

SPiotr said:

@mikegalos

"If it was ALL desktop PC operating systems then Microsoft has a smaller market and the question of whether they had a monopoly was more debatable."

Honest question (You do seem to know your tech history!)

Was it really 'debatable'? What was Microsoft's share of ALL descktops back then?

August 26, 2009 9:31 PM
 

rr0de74@live.com said:

Wow look here a real, unbiased review of Snow Leopard.  Take note Paul, this is what people are really reading...

reviews.cnet.com/.../4505-3673_7-33676737.html

August 26, 2009 10:01 PM
 

mikegalos@msn.com said:

SPiotr

I don't recall the numbers but remember that at the time Windows was still competing with IBM's OS/2 Warp, NeXT's NeXTSTEP, Be's BeOS, Apple's Mac OS as well as Linux and BSD. Additionally, Apple and IBM were still still trying to take over the market with their jointly developed AIM Alliance Taligent OS (and Apple's Copland, Gershwin and Pink had just failed and IBM still had Workplace OS under development as a fallback)

It was certainly nowhere near as boring an operating system market as we have now with Windows being the only alternative to 1960s Unix clones and add-ons.

August 26, 2009 10:07 PM
 

mikegalos@msn.com said:

rr0de

You mean referring to Snow Leopard as just a "tune-up"?

Or that despite all Apple's claims of signifcantly improved performance especially in high load conditions CNet found that "[t]hough the system performs well in everyday use, many of our tests indicate it is slightly slower than the older version of Leopard in more intensive application processes"?

Or is it that despite even the newest Apple ads starting this week touting how Macs don't get viruses Apple has felt it necessary to bundle their new anti-virus/anti-spyware product on all copies?

August 26, 2009 10:23 PM
 

SPiotr said:

@mikegalos

I think I found the answer:

www.gartner.com/.../pr19990129a.html

36 million PCs sold in 1998

Apple sold 2.7 million worldwide so ... possibly around 4% of the US market.

That seems to still leave Microsoft with over 90% of the desktop OS market. (or have I missed something?)

Do you still insist that there was any doubt about Microsoft's massive market power?

August 26, 2009 10:30 PM
 

inhaledalarm said:

I have been following this all day, and this is just crazy! Windows 7 is brand new OS with a lot of parts taken from vista and fixed(to be faster,leaner,over all better and to just re brand the name), mac OSX is more of a fix things up type of upgrade. They fix minor details which i dont believe you can say about windows 7. I mean did anyone on the mac side think "hey i wonder why this is only 30 dollars instead of my normal 129"

of course not and  Engadget said it best "appearances and expectations matter, and there's simply not enough glitz on this kitty to warrant the usual $129"

link

www.engadget.com/.../snow-leopard-review

August 26, 2009 10:32 PM
 

robertsjoe said:

@lindy: "I need to use babblefish to decipher EricoF3's posts."

Yes, you need Googles retard to English translator.

August 26, 2009 10:53 PM
 

robertsjoe said:

@mikegalos: "Macs don't get viruses "

That is correct. Unlike Windows with it's many, many thousands of viruses, spyware and the like.

August 26, 2009 10:55 PM
 

rr0de74@live.com said:

@inhaledalarm you would have to be a total and I mean total idiot to not see that 7 is 95% or more Vista.  98% of of the UI is exactly the same.  It uses the same exact driver model.  Its kernel version 6.1 vs 6.0 for Vista.  Brand new OS lol.

@Mike of course you pull out all of the negative points, but I think those are valid along with the positive.  CNET at least was technically accurate.  Paul had little to no accuracy.  CNET's tone was informative and not Snarky.   My 8 year old daughter could have done a better hack job than Paul's review.

I think they are both minor updates.  I think that 7 is mostly surface and a small under the hood tweaks to what is Vista SP2 with all updates.  I think SL is very minor surface updates but major changes under the hood, 64bit when possible, all PPC code ripped out, Open CL, Grand Central.

Both should be $29, only one is.

August 26, 2009 10:55 PM
 

robertsjoe said:

The reason for these posts are the Mac ads which get under the skin of Microtards all over. They are to truthful and to the core that it gets Windows fanboys where it hurts.

August 26, 2009 11:00 PM
 

iPhone Unlock - The Best IPhone Unlocking Solution - AnyIPhoneUnlock » Blog Archive » Act Now or Apple Will Be the Next Microsoft Monopoly? said:

Pingback from  iPhone Unlock - The Best IPhone Unlocking Solution - AnyIPhoneUnlock  » Blog Archive   » Act Now or Apple Will Be the Next Microsoft Monopoly?

August 26, 2009 11:06 PM
 

rr0de74@live.com said:

From inhaledalarm's link...

"The biggest compatibility-breaker is the demise of InputManager plugins in 64-bit apps, which means things like Unsanity's Application Enhancer framework"

This is the same app that bit many Tiger users that upgraded to Leopard over the top.  Hopefully they wont make that mistake twice.

August 26, 2009 11:07 PM
 

inhaledalarm said:

@rr0de yes i know 95% is vista, but are you saying that they did not have alot of fixing to do with that 5% the point of vista was to be secure(unlike xp turned out to be). However they had to change the code dramatically to make it run smoother and faster. Also they just did a overhall of the driver software in vista(note all the people pissed off there stuff didnt work). so to change it would be crazy. Apple is clearly making the push to 64 bit OS for no reason(yes i saw points above) so now mac people(i think) will know what it is like to have stuff no work with it.

August 26, 2009 11:21 PM
 

SPiotr said:

@mikegalos

Mike I agree. If Apple were ever to come up against the DOJ for the anti-trust violations that you are so certain they have committed... an awful lot of time would be taken up with defining the relevant markets.

Unfortunately there is a rather large flaw in the way that you have attempted to define these markets.

"If you define the market as just cell phones then Apple clearly does NOT have a monopoly (and they're not even a major player)."

Agreed. Even if the market was defined as just "smart phones" I don't think iPhone would have sufficient market power. (yet!)

"If you define the iPhone as an iPod Touch with an added feature then it clearly IS part of the iPod monopoly on portable media players."

That's the problem! What you are basically saying here, is that the iPhone is basically just a cell phone and a PMP combined. If that were the case then you would have to include ALL cell phones that were ALSO portable media players.  My (very rough) guess at the size of that market in the US.... getting close to 200 million a year. How many of those are Apple products?

If people are going to accuse Apple of anti-trust violations because they are preventing the Palm Pre from accessing iTunes then you WOULD have to include both the phone and PMP markets.

"In the case of portable music players there's no question that Apple is the monopoly in that market."

Yep. But we have just agreed that(most) cell phones are just PMPs with an additional feature, so it appears that Apple's iPods don't have a monopoly  in THAT market either. That really should be no surprise to anyone here. Steve Jobs must have lied to us about the market share figures.

However, all is not lost. I am sure that collectively we can come up with a specific market that will prove beyond doubt that iPods and iPhones suffer from no viable competition.

August 26, 2009 11:28 PM
 

wlow3 said:

Boy, I just read his OS X 10.6 review and contains some basic proof-reading errors:

"It's just that when compared ..." --> missing comma after "that" for the non-restrictive clause

"Snow Leopard offers a simpler taken (sic) ..."

"which like Windows Media Player in Windows 7, " --> should have a comma after "which"

"is the most substantial offering ..." should be "is the MORE substantial offering" --> more and better when rating two items; most and best when rating more than two  

August 26, 2009 11:29 PM
 

TrackBack said:

Pingback from  

August 27, 2009 12:10 AM
 

mikegalos@msn.com said:

Spiotr

Actually you're missing a couple of things:

1) The period of the investigation for the DOJ trial was mostly about the earlier period leading up to the release of Windows 95 and shortly after.

2) There were a LOT more choices in the OS market at the time than just Windows and Mac OS. Remember that, at the time, the number two GUI was not the Mac but IBM's OS/2 Warp and that GUIs were NOT universal yet with a large percentage of the installed base still on MS-DOS and various MS-DOS clones.

August 27, 2009 12:31 AM
 

mikegalos@msn.com said:

Spiotr

Or, to put it more simply, the trial mainly covered events that happened during the "OS Wars" when there was massive competition for what would become the next big operating system and when Microsoft's status in the operating system market was hardly that dominent or secure.

BUT, by the time the trial actually happened, the OS Wars were over, Microsoft had one and at that point could be judged to have monopoly power over personal computer operating systems.

In effect, one of the many flaws in the trial was that it was hearing complaints not about how a monopoly had abused that power but how a non-monopoly competitor had won a massive competition and in the process gained monopoly power.

One of the big complaints, for example, was that IBM claimed that Microsoft had refused them a license to Windows 95. IBM claimed (with no evidence, by the way) that Microsoft's refusal was as revenge for the success in the market of IBM's OS/2 family. Microsoft claimed (with excellent documentation that was NOT refuted by IBM) that they refused to give IBM a new license because IBM was over a year behind on paying for their existing license and that when Microsoft audited IBM they found that IBM had vastly underreported the number of copies of Windows 3.x that they had sold and were obligated to pay for. Microsoft had offered to give IBM the license for Windows 95 once IBM had set up a plan to pay their existing bill.

August 27, 2009 12:47 AM
 

Act Now or Apple Will Be the Next Microsoft Monopoly? | My Apple iPhone said:

Pingback from  Act Now or Apple Will Be the Next Microsoft Monopoly? | My Apple iPhone

August 27, 2009 2:42 AM
 

Act Now or Apple Will Be the Next Microsoft Monopoly? | IPHONE NEWS said:

Pingback from  Act Now or Apple Will Be the Next Microsoft Monopoly? | IPHONE NEWS

August 27, 2009 3:37 AM
 

Prs said:

EricoF3,

Can I ask you to please refrain from posting that kind of homophobic gibberish, please?

August 27, 2009 4:40 AM
 

cesjr said:

Remembrance of Things Past

So for a more reasoned perspective, let us take a breath and remember what the world was like before Apple introduced the iPhone:

Carriers ruled the industry with an iron fist

To access carriers’ networks handset makers capitulated everything

Carriers dictated phone designs, features, apps, prices, marketing, advertising and branding

Phones were reduced to cheap, disposable lures for carriers’ service contracts

There was no revenue sharing between carriers and manufacturers

There was no notion of phone networks becoming dumb pipes anytime soon

Affordable, unlimited data plans as standard were unheard of

A phone that would entice people to switch networks by the millions was a pipe dream

Mobile devices were phones first and last, not usable handheld computers

Even the smartest phones didn’t have seamless WiFi integration

Without Visual Voice Mail, messages couldn’t be managed non-linearly

There were no manufacturer owned and operated on-the-phone application stores as the sole source

An on-the-phone store having 65,000 apps downloaded nearly 2 billion times was not on anyone’s radar screen

Low-cost, high-volume app pricing strategy with a 70/30 split didn’t exist

Robust one-click in-app transactions were unknown

There was no efficient, large scale, consistent and lucrative mobile app market for developers large and small

Buttons, keys, joysticks, sliders…anything but the screen was the focus of phones

Phones didn’t come with huge 3.5″ touch screens

Pervasive multitouch, gesture-based UI was science fiction

Actually usable, multi-language, multitouch virtual keyboards on phones didn’t exist

Integrated sensors like accelerometers and proximity detectors had no place in phones

Phones could never compete in 3D/gaming with dedicated portable consoles

iPod-class audio/video players on mobiles didn’t exist

No phone had ever offered a desktop-like web browser experience

Sophisticated SDKs and phones were strangers to each other

This list too could go on. But it’s sobering to remember that a single device by a company with zero experience in the industry and against all odds caused such a tidal wave of change. Change didn’t come because of Nokia, Microsoft, Sony Ericsson, Samsung, RIM or any other player in the market for the past 15 years bet their company on it. Android and webOS weren’t there before the iPhone. But it’s convenient to forget all this when the meme demands Apple to be smeared with the evil brush.

counternotions.com/.../pre-iphone

August 27, 2009 6:17 AM
 

The Apple Crunch: Tech Bloggers tighten the Screws « The Reluctant App-Aratchik said:

Pingback from  The Apple Crunch: Tech Bloggers tighten the Screws «  The Reluctant App-Aratchik

August 27, 2009 6:24 AM
 

Act Now or Apple Will Be the Next Microsoft Monopoly?. Merita sau nu? said:

Pingback from  Act Now or Apple Will Be the Next Microsoft Monopoly?. Merita sau nu?

August 27, 2009 6:34 AM
 

rr0de74@live.com said:

@inhaledaralm is 7 really that much faster?

crave.cnet.co.uk/.../0,39029471,49303203-7,00.htm

August 27, 2009 6:37 AM
 

Dew Drop – August 27, 2009 | Alvin Ashcraft's Morning Dew said:

Pingback from  Dew Drop – August 27, 2009 | Alvin Ashcraft's Morning Dew

August 27, 2009 7:26 AM
 

lotsamystuff said:

"Yes, you need Googles retard to English translator."

Dude, that's just classless. Don't stoop to that level, please.

August 27, 2009 9:17 AM
 

Act Now or Apple Will Be the Next Microsoft Monopoly? « Everything iPhone said:

Pingback from  Act Now or Apple Will Be the Next Microsoft Monopoly? «  Everything iPhone

August 27, 2009 3:03 PM
 

Act Now or Apple Will Be the Next Microsoft Monopoly? | iPhone Info said:

Pingback from  Act Now or Apple Will Be the Next Microsoft Monopoly? | iPhone Info

August 27, 2009 4:04 PM
 

Apple's culture of lies, Part 2: A different way of looking at it … said:

Pingback from  Apple's culture of lies, Part 2: A different way of looking at it …

August 28, 2009 12:12 AM
 

Failure of Offshore Outsourcing | Offshore Jobs And News From Around The TInternet said:

Pingback from  Failure of Offshore Outsourcing | Offshore Jobs And News From Around The TInternet

September 2, 2009 11:25 PM
Acceptable Use Policy

About pthurrott

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

Calculate your savings nowSee how SAN is 57% cheaper than DAS over three years Free CDs Offer Fundamental Content for IT ProsAre you up to speed on the latest technologies and solutions? Don't miss out on your chance to get up to speed quickly on fundamental, in-depth information on some of the hottest topics in our library of content. Let Your Users Reset Their Own Passwords: Free Download Try a 30 day free trial of Desktop Authority Password Self-Service – it provides an easy-to-use, robust system for allowing users to reset their own forgotten passwords or locked accounts. Exchange Server 2010: Deploying Unified Communications - Virtual conferenceDecember 1, 2009 - Free Registration. Build your Unified Communications future on a strong Exchange Server 2010 foundation. Get Windows IT Pro & Mark Minasi’s Favorite Power Tools GuideOrder Windows IT Pro now and get "More of Mark Minasi's Favorite Power Tools"--a in-depth guide to the most useful Windows commands --FREE with your paid order! Subscribe today, and save 58% off the cover price! Migration, Virtualization, Availability, and Desktop ManagementRealize the importance of a workload optimization strategy...it can affect your bottom line! Deep Dive into VMware vSphere, eLearning SeriesJoin John Savill to explore the major functionality capabilities of the vSphere virtualization platform, including identification of the changes from ESX 3.5.
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