In his findings of fact (United States of America v Microsoft Corporation, November 5, 1999), U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson observed, “Microsoft possesses a dominant, persistent, and increasing share of the world-wide market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems. Every year for the last decade, Microsoft’s share of the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems has stood above ninety percent.” — Section III, Paragraph 35
Well, hell’s bells. Apple enjoys 100 percent of the market share for Motorola-compatible PC’s, doesn’t it?
Incredibly, the judge admitted, “The response to a price increase [in Windows] would be somewhat greater among consumers buying their first PC system, because they would not have already invested time and money in an Intel-compatible PC system and a set of compatible applications. Apple does not license the Mac OS separately from its PC hardware, however, and the package of hardware and software comprising an Apple PC system is priced substantially higher than the average price of an Intel-compatible PC system. Furthermore, consumer demand for Apple PC systems suffers on account of the relative dearth of applications written to run on the Mac OS.” — Section II, Paragraph 21
So let’s see. Consumers, faced with whether to buy an overpriced system with a hardcoded operating system and only a handful of apps versus a reasonably priced computer open to a variety of operating systems and a blue million software titles, decide to use their common sense. The unmitigated gall.
Well, when the courts finish reversing the judgements of consumers; when the DOJ finishes diverting attention from its coddling of Chinese spies; when the administration has succeeded in levying a tax it is not authorized to levy; when the congress finally figures out what’s going on; and when computer users get to return to the good ol’ days of using F7 to open a file in one app and Ctrl-Shift-Alt-P to open a file in another app — will everybody be happy?
Or is Apple next?
“It is lucky for rulers that men do not think.” — Adolf Hitler
Without comment on the Microsoft ruling, it should be noted that Apple DID begin licensing MacOS a few years ago, and it turned out to be a spectacular failure, so they cancelled the program.
“It’s my considered opinion you’re all a bunch of sissies!”–Paul’s Grandfather
Phil, I once had a friend, an Apple nut, who had MS-DOS emulation software. It even made groaning and grunting noises so familiar in the boot-up stage of Intel-PCs. I remember thinking then that, if Apple weren’t so myopic and/or incomptent, it could become a serious challenger to Microsoft, even on Intel.
But it chose instead, as you point out, to run away from the first sign of failure and lick its wounds while dominating Motorola systems. Heck, if Microsoft had thought like Apple, it would have abandoned ship after releasing its abysmal Windows 3.0, wouldn’t you agree?
But the (main) question in my OP is why Microsoft, which dominates one market (Intel) is a monopoly while Apple, which dominates another (Motorola) is not? Is it solely because Apple was more politically savvy than Microsoft in maintaining a larger lobbying force in Washington? Or is there a more palatable reason?
“It is lucky for rulers that men do not think.” — Adolf Hitler
Oh, heck, I don’t know. And, having abandoned the Apple platform several years ago, I find it hard to get too concerned about it. My using an IBM PC running Win98 makes me one of the evil ones, I suppose. In any case, as part of my growing trend towards apathy and boredom, I’ll state for the record that it honestly doesn’t matter a whit to me.
Sorry I hurt your thread.
“It’s my considered opinion you’re all a bunch of sissies!”–Paul’s Grandfather
You didn’t hurt it. In fact, you underscored the point. You made a consumer decision to switch from Apple to Microsoft. Millions of other people made the same decision. If Apple could market its way out of a paper bag, you and they might have decided differently.
Monopolies are broken by consumers. They are created by governments.
Phaedrus:
Not likely.
“It is lucky for rulers that men do not think.” — Adolf Hitler
Just a guess but perhaps because Apple doesn’t seem to actively crush competitors. Of course, they don’t really need to because nobody is trying to make a push into their market.
Humph! Let me tell you a thing or two, Sunny Jim, I have had more thoughts on a bad day than you’ll ever have in your entire LIFE!!!
Apple, shmapple, Jobs is a dope and his people were dupes.
I don’t see what the big deal is about anyway. Apples are tasty that is true, but so are bananas and plenty of other fruit.
Wanna go head to head with Phaedy? You’re ill-prepared my son.
:::::::come on, put 'em up::::::::::
(Phaedy circling his victim)
:::::::fight like a man, kid:::::::
I whoop on ya, nen, I’ll put a Injun curse on ya, nen, I’ll moonwalk on yer granpappy’s grave!
Libertarian:
I tend to agree with the op. While I personally despise microsoft for their technical incompetence and business practices, I think much of the “anti-monopoly” fervor that surrounds the case is doobious. However:
Can you defend that assertion using examples from, say: Standard oil, industrialized rail traffic, Bell Telephone, etc?
The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*
Goodness, where to begin? IBM is one example where consumers broke their government subsidized monopoly on computers by opting for Intel clones. IBM failed to take the PC market seriously, and the rest is history. As for government creating monopolies, whenever Senator Fatcat extends favors to Mister Tycoon, and in the process abridges rights of innocent people (property easements, eminent domain, special legislation, etc.), competition is effectively stifled. Who can compete with all those guns?
System Moderator:
Will you kindly censure the irrelevant posts?
“It is lucky for rulers that men do not think.” — Adolf Hitler
It is my understanding that the prosecution of the Microsoft issue came about as a result of complaints. I believe these complaints were submitted by Microsoft’s competitors, and by licensees who perceived that they were being put into the position of competing against Microsoft, as a result of the business practices of Microsoft (the above may be unclear or imprecise, but my point is that the government did not bring the case on a whim).
Now you may respond that this is irrelevant to the issue of a monopoly being enjoyed by Apple. But I see your point as being that it is unfair that the government prosecutes one monopoly while leaving another monopoly alone. (Actually, I see your point as being that it is unfair that the government has the power to prosecute any monopolies at all, but I’ll let that one lie for now, bcause that isn’t what you wrote about in your OP.) If you, or anyone else, wants to see Apple get hauled into court to show cause why the company should not be broken up for the crime of maintaining and profiting from a monopoly all it takes is for a substantive complaint to be filed and investigated.
Of course truth is stranger than fiction. Fiction has to make sense.
Mark Twain
