# Is Apple as bad as Microsoft?



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

For years, people have complained that Microsoft has used it's monopoly to get richer and screw the little guy. Is Apple using similar tactics?

- Apple has a complete monopoly on digital music players and distribution. Nobody else is allowed to put digital music on an iPod, and iTunes won't work on any other portable player. Think Word vs Wordperfect. How soon before all the other players just give up.

- Apple screws the little guy, i.e. Apple resellers. Apple now deals direct, giving consumers less and less reason to deal with the local guy. Add to that that Apple only lets Apple do educational sales. This gives them an unfair advantage in the market place.

- Apple is proprietary. If you need to fix something in your computer, you typically need an Apple part. This screws the consumer. You can guy generic parts for almost ever other piece of technology (PCs, cars, appliances). Imagine having only one source of parts to fix your home or car.

- Apple controls distribution. They starve the market place, forcing customers to deal direct. They under supply their partners and keep plenty of stock for themselves. They force resellers into ridiculous contracts, making them jump through hoops just to stay in business.

- Apple is unforgiving. They have never apologized for putting people out of business. They have never explained why they hoard their product rather than distributing it fairly.

- Apple doesn't play fair. They don't offer their resellers the same terms and conditions they offer the end consumer. Price protection, returns, discounts, etc.

I like Apple less and less these days.


----------



## Strimkind (Mar 31, 2005)

Apple has always been this way and its success is through this strategy. When Apple tried to spread out through 3rd parties during the mid 90's it almost went under. From those days Apple has learned that people want a kickass product with good warrenty and support. Apple provides all three. Apple provides everything that is needed, and even things you did not think you needed. 

In many ways, I think Apple is worse than Microsoft as they are paving the way for new technologies and ideas while MS is always the follower. The limited amount of hardware generally assures better quality control over PCs however there are many PCs that run beautifully often better than many macs (assuming you get good items and no lemons). 
As for music, the iPod set the pace for the current generation of MP3 players and Apple will milk that to the fullest. Hence iTunes strict compatability.

More and more of the retailers are online which is what Apple is aiming at. The future to apple is online whether it be music, video, TV, radio, shopping, etc. 

Apple IS the new Microsoft, we just don't know it yet.


----------



## MacGYVER (Apr 15, 2005)

guytoronto said:


> For years, people have complained that Microsoft has used it's monopoly to get richer and screw the little guy. Is Apple using similar tactics?
> 
> - Apple has a complete monopoly on digital music players and distribution. Nobody else is allowed to put digital music on an iPod, and iTunes won't work on any other portable player. Think Word vs Wordperfect. How soon before all the other players just give up.
> 
> ...


1. I'm not sure you're accurate in some of your comments regarding nobody else is aloud to put digital music on an iPod. I believe the iPod allows for a few different formats of digital music. You should be asking why the competition refuses to allow to buy music from them and put it on the iPod? Even when they allow for other digital formats then WMP content i.e. MP3.

Why should iTunes work on every other player? The other players should have their own, which makes sense. Why should Apple provide EVERYTHING and let the competition just make MP3 players?

2. Apple has always aloud for direct deals through their ONLINE stores for many years now. The only difference now is, you have more stores for browsing then before. Remember there are some bad dealers out there who have turned people away in the past and present. The good dealers will stick it out and stay around.

3. Buying Apple parts? Completely false! You need new RAM? New HD? New Superdrive? Need a new LCD monitor? Go and buy them at any place. Need a new video card, or screen for your laptop? I don't see how you could expect to buy generic for something like that?

4. People went into business for themselves to sell Apple products. Going into business is always a risk, no matter who or what you go into business for. Times are changing for the good and bad, this is normal in any business and shouldn't come to a shock to anyone.

5. Apple is not responsible for putting anyone out of business. Like I said, when you enter into a business it is a huge risk you take, even if it takes years and years for something bad to happen. Apple wanted to move forward, it is their right, so they did, not all small Apple retailers went out of business, just the ones that couldn't handle the business anymore.


----------



## highapostle (Apr 21, 2004)

A couple of things to point out in your original post:

1) I remember hearing that there are some other players that are recognized by iTunes, though I don't know if they support the protected AAC files from iTMS.

2) Some campus-based computer stores are allowed to give educational discounts.

3) A number of parts are generic such as RAM, hard drives, some video cards (though they often require a BIOS flash). Not to mention most peripherals.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

MacGYVER said:


> You should be asking why the competition refuses to allow to buy music from them and put it on the iPod?


Digital music needs DRM. The only DRM-protected music that will play on an iPod is Fairplay. Apple owns Fairplay and will not license it to others. Apple will not let any other DRM-protected file to play on the iPod



> 2. Apple has always aloud for direct deals through their ONLINE stores for many years now. The only difference now is, you have more stores for browsing then before. Remember there are some bad dealers out there who have turned people away in the past and present. The good dealers will stick it out and stay around.


 Not if they don't have inventory to sell.



> 3. Buying Apple parts? Completely false! You need new RAM? New HD? New Superdrive? Need a new LCD monitor? Go and buy them at any place. Need a new video card, or screen for your laptop? I don't see how you could expect to buy generic for something like that?


If you buy a generic DVD burner, you need to run PatchBurn, and unauthorized utility to enable the drive. Need a new case, processor, power supply, fan, etc, you are dealing with Apple and only Apple.



> People went into business for themselves to sell Apple products. Going into business is always a risk, no matter who or what you go into business for. Times are changing for the good and bad, this is normal in any business and shouldn't come to a shock to anyone.


Same can be said for people who went into business selling competing products to those of Microsoft. Microsoft has put a lot of people out of business. Everybody screams murder. Apple puts people out of business. Everybody says "Oh well."



> Apple is not responsible for putting anyone out of business. Like I said, when you enter into a business it is a huge risk you take, even if it takes years and years for something bad to happen. Apple wanted to move forward, it is their right, so they did, not all small Apple retailers went out of business, just the ones that couldn't handle the business anymore.


Apple has put a lot of people out of business. That is why there are so many lawsuits happening in the US right now. Apple's unfair business practices. Look what Apple did for the companies that made Watson and Konfabulator.


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

I will say this to you just once, if you want to build your own PC box then build your own PC box with some generic mp3 player and all and use it. Apple is in the business of providing total solutions for computing, so if their solutions are not working for you then no one is forcing you to get an Apple. Besides I could say it's Microsoft's fault for not bringing their DRM technology to MacOSX, at least you can buy iTunes songs on a PC. And to my knowledge only MPIO and iRiver mp3 players even get recognized by MacOSX. I wanted a Creative player once before and they simply shut me out saying that they "have no intentions to bringing Mac support to any of their products in the near future". As Apple marketshare inches closer to 6%, who will be the losers?


----------



## audiodan (Sep 26, 2005)

I am not going to give a big speech. Two words: Microsoft sucks!


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

audiodan said:


> I am not going to give a big speech. Two words: Microsoft sucks!


I agree! Leave it to stupid Microsoft to cause my hard drive to crash making me lose all my pictures because I did not know that Windows XP pre-SP1 did not support hard drives formatted to larger than 137GB. And stupid me for not backing up my photos. Three years of photos all gone.  Might as well have burnt that PC.


----------



## IT 101 (Dec 7, 2005)

audiodan said:


> I am not going to give a big speech. Two words: Microsoft sucks!


I couldn’t agree with you more!!


----------



## iNeedhelp (Oct 23, 2005)

audiodan said:


> I am not going to give a big speech. Two words: Microsoft sucks!


Word!


----------



## AppleAuthority (May 21, 2005)

To be fair, both Apple and Microsoft have to use dirty business practises to survive. Especially in the computer industry, which has become and extreme rat race. If Apple were the, "awwwww....little Elite Mac Reseller is losing money..." type of company, it would've gone bankrupt back in 1998. Anyone that knows Apple history can admit that easily.

Also you should consider the margins these days. While Apple still makes the highest margin of any computer company, the profit Apple made per computer five or so years ago, is the _price_ of the computer today. Resellers can only make money on service.

Keep in mind, I never said Apple and Microsoft were equal when it comes to products.


----------



## DBerG (May 24, 2005)

Come on, Microsoft doesn't offer one single good product. Apple does. It does it well. I love their Apps.

If I would have the choice of two monopolies : Apple or Microsoft, I'd go with Apple without thinking.

I just made an outstanding DVD for my spanish project. It took me 7 minutes and it's really amazing! Nothing does that on the PC side.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

guytoronto said:


> For years, people have complained that Microsoft has used it's monopoly to get richer and screw the little guy. Is Apple using similar tactics?
> 
> - Apple has a complete monopoly on digital music players and distribution. Nobody else is allowed to put digital music on an iPod, and iTunes won't work on any other portable player. Think Word vs Wordperfect. How soon before all the other players just give up.
> 
> ...


I tend to agree with your assessment and I'm sure you will get flack on this Applecentric site.

As for Microsoft sucking, there are a few MS products that I much prefer over what Apple can offer. I'd rather run Server 2005 than Apple's offering. Like it or not, when it comes to Office Suite, it is the one to beat.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

DBerG said:


> I just made an outstanding DVD for my spanish project. It took me 7 minutes and it's really amazing! Nothing does that on the PC side.


I'm not sure how using pre-packaged templates qualifies as amazing.
On the Apple side, you still don't have a product that comes close to eDVD...


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

I was going to respond to this thread, but I guess it's okay to talk smack about Apple, but not offer a differing point of view. :baby:

So much for discussion.


----------



## MacGYVER (Apr 15, 2005)

ArtistSeries: 

You're right, the FREE software that comes with every Mac is nothing like spending another USD $200.00 for a program like eDVD for Windows. A program that every house hold Windows user knows about. (Ok that last sentence should be read with heavy sarcasm  )

You want different templates on the Mac side? Make them yourself and use them in iDVD or DVD Studio Pro, that simple.


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

ArtistSeries - DVD Studio Pro? Does it even compare? I've never actually used DVD Studio Pro or eDVD but I'd assume the closest thing we (as a Mac user) to eDVD would be DVD Studio Pro.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

It appears the the discussion is shifting towards the products themselves. I was speaking purely from a business ethics point of view. Apple is just as guilty as Microsoft in some of their business tactics.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Chealion said:


> ArtistSeries - DVD Studio Pro? Does it even compare? I've never actually used DVD Studio Pro or eDVD but I'd assume the closest thing we (as a Mac user) to eDVD would be DVD Studio Pro.


DVDSP does include [email protected] which is supposed to add extra functions to a DVD. I don't know of anyone who has had success with it. eDVD is so much better and easier to use. 

MacGyver, iLife is not always "FREE" software and not all mac will have it bundled.

GuyToronto
In some respects I find Apple worse than MS because of the way they control the hardware and software. They will often have software that has to run on the latest hardware even if an older machine would be perfectly acceptable to run it.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

ArtistSeries said:


> MacGyver, iLife is not always "FREE" software and not all mac will have it bundled.


Can you name one current Mac that does not have it bundled?

There is no such machine.


----------



## DBerG (May 24, 2005)

*Hold on*



ArtistSeries said:


> I'm not sure how using pre-packaged templates qualifies as amazing.
> On the Apple side, you still don't have a product that comes close to eDVD...


Look.
Does eDVD comes with Windows? No. It's not free.

What I was trying to say is that with a Mac you have great tools at your disposal right out of the box and it's *FAST AND EASY*
Don't bash iDVD because you have something better. iDVD is awesome for those who need simplicity, I'm one, so respect us.
I'm no professional yet. tptptptp


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

> I was speaking purely from a business ethics point of view. Apple is just as guilty as Microsoft in some of their business tactics.


Business ethics are an interesting topic.

I don't know enough about Apple's relationship with resellers to comment much, although I do sort of wonder why so many stay as Apple resellers if Apple is so unethical.

As for your other points, I think you need to be more specific. Where exactly is Apple unethical?


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

guytoronto said:


> - Apple has a complete monopoly on digital music players and distribution. Nobody else is allowed to put digital music on an iPod, and iTunes won't work on any other portable player. Think Word vs Wordperfect. How soon before all the other players just give up.


User lock-in is the real problem here, IMO; it's not a monopoly in any meaningful sense, because Windows users have a plethora of options both in players and DRM downloads. Mac users have iPod and iTunes, plus a handful of non-DRM services such as emusic. 

And this situation is not entirely Apple's fault. How, exactly, is it Apple's fault that despite the lock-in and all the options available, Windows users still overwhelmingly prefer iPods and iTunes?

Like it or not, Apple is within its rights to sell its closed system. You are free to buy another brand of player and fill it with music ripped from your CD or LP collection or, if you have a PC, downloads from puretracks or wherever.

I believe Apple is preparing for a day, not far off, when the real money-maker will be music downloads. You'll know that day has come when they do an about-face and license Fairplay to any manufacturer who wants it -- but not to other download services.


----------



## DBerG (May 24, 2005)

iMatt said:


> User lock-in is the real problem here, IMO; it's not a monopoly in any meaningful sense, because Windows users have a plethora of options both in players and DRM downloads. Mac users have iPod and iTunes, plus a handful of non-DRM services such as emusic. [...]
> I believe Apple is preparing for a day, not far off, when the real money-maker will be music downloads. You'll know that day has come when they do an about-face and license Fairplay to anyone who wants it.


And everybody, don't forget that what Apple is selling is not only an iPod. When you buy an iPod you buy the whole iTunes-iPod-iTMS experience. And that's something great.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

guytoronto said:


> It appears the the discussion is shifting towards the products themselves. I was speaking purely from a business ethics point of view. Apple is just as guilty as Microsoft in some of their business tactics.


Some users have a tendency to forget that Apple is a major corporation in business to make money and, more importantly, grow. They like the products so much that they can be blinded to this fact. 

I like many Apple products but don't have any illusions that Apple as a corporation can do no wrong. That said, I don't agree that their ethics and practices are as bad as Microsoft's, because Microsoft has used those practices to become not just a major corporation, but one with an iron grip on a key industry. 

This is qualitatively different from Apple leveraging a popular product to give itself a strong presence (and probably only temporary dominance) in a completely discretionary entertainment sideline. 

As for the other issues you mentioned, it may well be that Apple is not a perfect corporate citizen. But in many cases, you can't compare the company to Microsoft at all. Does Microsoft have a reseller network to screw? No, it has OEMs to screw, and by all accounts it does a dandy job of it.


----------



## davidslegend (Jan 6, 2004)

*Hi,*

Hi,


Funny, I discussed with my Father (whom I'm just starting to get to know in my late adulthood) about the computer corporate history & he made an observasion that was interesting. I explain to him that Bill Gates had licensed DOS to IBM & they laughed at him because at the time the money was in hardware sales. Steve Jobs convinced the Music Industry to "license" iTunes download (licensed? not sure if this is the right word but, you see the similiarity) on the Macintosh platform & Steve Jobs switched it over to the PC platform. We all know what happened then--iTunes became the standard!! Just as DOS was the standard! My Dad said that Steve Job did the exact same thing that Bill Gates had done-he learned & copied from history!!

TorontoGuy, I too worry that Apple is a "monopoly" of sorts...but, we are at the early stages of the game-at least that's what the media says regarding Music downloading...Who knows what will happen next? ...look where the Mac is compared to gaming & such... Apple is still behind in many ways.... The talk is Apple is going to bring flexible pricing to iTunes... Apple has helped musicians & the music companies get there groove online.... ???? 

Many questions... 

Best Regards,

Davidslegend


----------



## i stole this name (May 9, 2005)

I don't know about you, but i think this topic went downhill since the unsubstantiated and shallow "Microsoft Sucks" comment. I'm sorry, MS does not suck.

MS grasped the web, in many ways, much better than apple has. I'm mainly talking about Blogging, where windows has the forehand. Either way, if you can't name a single MS product that's good, then you're nothing more than naive. Microsoft office. the MSN network. Windows server 2003 Is fantastic for servers, and all in all generally cheaper and significantly better than Apple's server software solution.

I'm not saying that Microsoft is better than Apple, i'm just saying that it's plainly uneducated to say that it 'sucks', otherwise it wouldn't have gotten where it was today. 

Microsoft also managed to grasp the concept that the consumer can never have enough options, and licensed the OS to many hardware companies, opening the doors to much lower costs, better distribution and, ultimately, more choices for the many niche-market buyers.

As for the OS and first party applications, i think Apple had finally grasped this with OS X tiger and the iLife software suite. And i'm sorry, but in my opinion, OS 9 was a disaster, and easily worse than Win 98 and 2000; while OS X Puma, Cheetah had virtually no app support and Jaguar was gradually getting there.


----------



## darkscot (Nov 13, 2003)

i stole this name said:


> MS grasped the web, in many ways, much better than apple has. I'm mainly talking about Blogging, where windows has the forehand.


I read a blog once. Part of it anyway. What's the big deal? Dear diary for the masses. I don't get it. What does Windows have to do with blogging?


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

i stole this name said:


> Microsoft also managed to grasp the concept that the consumer can never have enough options, and licensed the OS to many hardware companies, opening the doors to much lower costs, better distribution and, ultimately, more choices for the many niche-market buyers.


Even if we accept this point about hardware choice the result, intended or not, has been a drastic reduction in software choice (unless various flavours of Windows counts as "choice"). And I do believe that it was the intended result.

Once upon a time, the selling point for DOS/Windows machines was the availability of thousands of software choices. Now it's the absence of choice -- Office isn't an option, it's a standard, and so on. 

On the subject of Office, it's really not a very good product, IMO. Take Word for example: it's bloated with features of dubious value, and its handling of ordinary word-processing tasks is often very poorly implemented. There's annoying automation that either can't be turned off, or needs to be turned off in two or three different places before it "sticks." Even its most useful advanced features, such as Track Changes, are sloppily implemented. 



> As for the OS and first party applications, i think Apple had finally grasped this with OS X tiger and the iLife software suite. And i'm sorry, but in my opinion, OS 9 was a disaster, and easily worse than Win 98 and 2000; while OS X Puma, Cheetah had virtually no app support and Jaguar was gradually getting there.


OS 9 wasn't all that bad for what it was (a decent expression of the classic Mac OS), but it was a very late arrival. We should have had something as functional and stable back when we were suffering with 7.5.x -- now that was a disaster. But let's not forget that we were stuck with the Classic Mac OS for so long because Apple made a number of serious strategic errors and also had a major OS project that first bogged down and then derailed entirely, setting them back years. 

Too bad they didn't decide that GUI-on-Unix was the way to go much sooner, because they had exactly that with AIX + the classic GUI many years before NeXT took over. (I view today's Apple as being essentially NeXT with an Apple logo -- Apple was on its last legs, and Jobs and NeXT saved it.)


----------



## TrevX (May 10, 2005)

i stole this name said:


> MS grasped the web, in many ways, much better than apple has. I'm mainly talking about Blogging, where windows has the forehand.


How, exactly, does Windows have the forehand in Blogging? You do realize that a Blog is nothing more than a Journal written in HTML. Microsoft didn't invent HTML and they certainly didn't revolutionize Blogging.

For everything else Web related, Microsoft is playing catch up. They were late to the web game, and they had their ass handed to them by Google in searching and mapping, online advertising, and functional webmail.

Don't believe me? Just ask Steve Ballmer what he thinks of Google. Be sure to duck when he chucks a chair at you and threatens to F'ing kill you along with Google.

Trev


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

TrevX said:


> For everything else Web related, Microsoft is playing catch up. They were late to the web game, and they had their ass handed to them by Google in searching and mapping, online advertising, and functional webmail.
> 
> Don't believe me? Just ask Steve Ballmer what he thinks of Google. Be sure to duck when he chucks a chair at you and threatens to F'ing kill you along with Google.


Instant messaging, Hotmail (yes they bought that), IIS are certainly not domains where MS is playing catch up....


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

> Instant messaging, Hotmail (yes they bought that), IIS are certainly not domains where MS is playing catch up....


Hmmm, not sure I agree regarding messaging. Their offering is not market-leading in any sense that I can find, though I suppose that depends on each user's needs. In terms of subscribers they are indeed catching up as MSN is well behind AOL and, I believe Yahoo.


----------



## TrevX (May 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Instant messaging, Hotmail (yes they bought that), IIS are certainly not domains where MS is playing catch up....


IIS? Are You serious? http://news.netcraft.com/archives/web_server_survey.html

As for Instant Messaging, I refer you to this article which states that AOL commands approximately 56% of the IM market, where Microsoft and Yahoo COMBINED hold 44%. To quote:


> Yahoo and Microsoft will now command upwards of 44 percent of the market, according to research firm Radicati Group, putting new pressure on market leader AOL, which holds around 56 percent market share with AIM and ICQ. And according to recent comScore Media Metrix numbers, MSN Messenger and Yahoo! Messenger together reach 33.5 million unique users each month, more than the 23 million running AIM.


So combined Microsoft and Yahoo are making inroads into AOL's territory, but they are clearing catching up, and only making clear headway by joining forces.

Trev


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

*Apple would be as bad as Microsoft if they had the chance*

But Apple is still the underdog. Even in the MP3 player/legal download market, Apple has nothing more than a commanding lead, which they are _trying_ to solidify into a monopoly. Should they achieve such a monopoly, I have no doubt that they will try to abuse it as egregiously as Microsoft has abused theirs.

As Microsoft has demonstrated, a corporation can get away with the most obvious and extreme abuse of monopoly powers if they make sufficient contributions to the election of the politicians who will preside over any case the Justice Department might bring against them. We will know Apple has achieve what _they_ perceive as a monopoly when they start supporting the Republicans.

However, the current reality is, while Apple is a demonstrably vicious competitor (as any successful company needs to be in a free market... this is one of many problems with laissez-faire capitalism, but that is a different discussion), their market position forces them to create great products, and that's good for us as consumers.

What we, as consumers, need to insure, is that private corporations don't get into monopoly positions. Governments were supposed to do this, but they clearly are no longer as powerful as the corporations they are supposed to be controlling. So now it is up to consumers to stop supporting monopolies. I used to buy lots of Microsoft stuff, but I've stopped supporting them. I still support Apple, but I'll stop buying their stuff if they start showing monopolistic behaviour. I'm seeing signs of this WRT the music side of the company, so I've reduced my music purchasing from the iTMS. Someday, I may buy a Creative MP3 player 

Cheers


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

guytoronto said:


> - Apple has a complete monopoly on digital music players and distribution. Nobody else is allowed to put digital music on an iPod, and iTunes won't work on any other portable player. Think Word vs Wordperfect. How soon before all the other players just give up.


You can put digital music from any non-copy-protected source on the iPod. I don't think that the othes are going to give up soon just because there are people out there who don't like iPods, some who dislike Apple on principle (misguided or otherwise), and quite simply some stores that offer music that iTunes does not.

iTunes will also work with other MP3 players, just not with protected AAC files.



guytoronto said:


> - Apple screws the little guy, i.e. Apple resellers. Apple now deals direct, giving consumers less and less reason to deal with the local guy. Add to that that Apple only lets Apple do educational sales. This gives them an unfair advantage in the market place.


You can buy educationally discounted Apple products at UBC and SFUs computer stores, as well as Waterloo and U of T and i am sure a host of other schools in the US, Canada, and anywhere else that Apple sells to the educational market.

Basically every other computer company also has an online store (HP/Compaq, Sony, Toshiba, to name a few), giving people less and less reason to deal with resellers.



guytoronto said:


> - Apple is proprietary. If you need to fix something in your computer, you typically need an Apple part. This screws the consumer. You can guy generic parts for almost ever other piece of technology (PCs, cars, appliances). Imagine having only one source of parts to fix your home or car.


This is half true. Apple motherboards are proprietary, which is a pain, but HP/Compaq, Sony, Dell and Toshiba (and bascally everyone else's) motherboards are all proprietary as well. HDDs, RAM, and most of the other good stuff is all standard parts.

Apple is also better in this regard than some other companies. For example, if you try to remove keys from the keyboard of some HP laptops it voids your warranty.



guytoronto said:


> - Apple controls distribution. They starve the market place, forcing customers to deal direct. They under supply their partners and keep plenty of stock for themselves. They force resellers into ridiculous contracts, making them jump through hoops just to stay in business.
> 
> - Apple is unforgiving. They have never apologized for putting people out of business. They have never explained why they hoard their product rather than distributing it fairly.


Keeping supply limited artificially inflates demand. High demand makes the company look good to analysts. Analysts then recommend people buy Apple stock. Apple stock then goes up.

Also, by limiting supply, they can ensure to a certain degree that there will always be demand. Remember, Apple is a company that was burned a number of times in the past by making and shipping too many computers too fast.

I don't really like how Apple treats resellers, but again most other companies are not really much better.




guytoronto said:


> - Apple doesn't play fair. They don't offer their resellers the same terms and conditions they offer the end consumer. Price protection, returns, discounts, etc.


Apple does have a return and price protection policy for resellers. Granted, it's more restrictive than some others, but they do have one. Apple also has an EPP set up for discounts for reseller employees.



guytoronto said:


> I like Apple less and less these days.


I think the problem is that most people don't want to accept that Apple is just another computer company. Most people seem to like to think that Apple is somehow better than the other guys. While it's true that they sell what I consider to be better products, I don't see why we should expect them to behave like anything other than what they are: a multi-billion dollar corporation, whose interests lay pretty much soley with themselves and their bottom line (not matter what their marketing material says).

It might even be true that in the past they did treat people better, it's also true that in the past Apple lost money by the bucketload, had their marketshare whittled down to as little as 2%, and were (as the media was so fond of saying) beleagured for many a year.

I don't know what else to say, really. I doubt this is going to convince many of you of anything. All I can say is that I don't think it's reasonable to expect Apple to operate is if they have their revenue streams, their marketshare and their interest at the top of their agenda, whether we like it or not.


----------



## Neptune5.com (Feb 13, 2006)

well if Steve didnt keep control of everything , the quality would be garbage by the time it reaches the store , like who would by an ipod with windows media player ? 

and unlike a pc your mac will last you about 5-10 years what pc can you say that about ?

i really gotta get me that new 24 inch imac


----------



## maccam (Jun 28, 2006)

God another thread posted for Apple zealots and Mac morons hellbent on buying into everything and anything that Stevie boy tosses out there for them to spend all their money on. :lmao: :lmao: Yes I own an iPod, 'cause I have a Mac.  

Is Apple worse than Microsoft? Gotta be in the top three stupidest questions of all time. Apple builds computers, Microsoft makes software. You'd be better off comparing Dell to Apple really. Microsoft has nothing to do with harddrive failures or any other hardware that fails. As far as building a PC that can perform like a Mac? Please, that's such a dumbs ass thing to go on about. 

I don't use PC's or Windows for work anymore, haven't for about 7 years. I just happen to prefer to edit video and photos on the Mac platform, if I were a pro gamer well there would be no debate now would there?  Don't see many Macs on tour. 

It's a computer, get a grip.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

I love it when old threads suddenly come back for no apparent reason.


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

MannyP - 
*Return of the Zombie Threads.*
_Dawn of the Dead? Eat your heart out_
Or 
*Necroposting reaches all time high on internet*
_Tubes clogged. US Senators cry for more Chuck Norris jokes_

;-)


----------



## Configuration (Aug 13, 2006)

guytoronto said:


> - Apple has a complete monopoly on digital music players and distribution. Nobody else is allowed to put digital music on an iPod, and iTunes won't work on any other portable player.


Well that's hardly a monopoly really, since people can always purchase a different media player. The same with iTunes, consumers can purchase music from other places if they own another device.


----------



## thejst (Feb 1, 2005)

Or perhaps, more simply, 

"Dawn of the Thread"

(might make a good NSI short - shot entirely on iChat cams, of course...)


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Configuration said:


> Well that's hardly a monopoly really, since people can always purchase a different media player. The same with iTunes, consumers can purchase music from other places if they own another device.


Does this mean that Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly? People can always buy a different computer / operating system. People can always use a different word processor or spreadsheet program.


----------



## duper (May 7, 2006)

I think you're mistaking criticism for Microsoft as being *because* they have almost a monopoly. That's not the problem with Microsoft at all, so if Apple were to get a near Monopoly, it would not be anything like Microsoft. Microsoft has in the past, and will continue to in the future, make inferior products.

Steve Jobs put it best: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXxCru2TvGo


----------



## modsuperstar (Nov 23, 2004)

guytoronto said:


> For years, people have complained that Microsoft has used it's monopoly to get richer and screw the little guy. Is Apple using similar tactics?
> 
> - Apple has a complete monopoly on digital music players and distribution. Nobody else is allowed to put digital music on an iPod, and iTunes won't work on any other portable player. Think Word vs Wordperfect. How soon before all the other players just give up.


You need to learn what an actual monopoly entails. Apple hasn't created a monopoly in the MP3 marketspace, even though they do handily lead the market. Microsoft was considered a monopoly because they worked out deals with manufacturers that tied Windows OEM licenses to the PCs they manufacture. It makes it very hard for other OSs to find a space to compete in the market when every PC rolling off the assembly line has the cost of Windows built into it, whether you like it or not. Apple doesn't have deals in place that inhibit sales of other players. If they did, it would mean that anywhere an iPod is sold they can't sell any other type of mp3 player, which isn't the case at all.

Apple is under no obligation to open up any of their services to the competition. Using your logic you should be able to buy a Big Mac at Burger King just to level the playing field. Business isn't like that. Apple has taken all the risk in doing the legwork, laying the foundation, creating an infrastructure and negotiating deals with record labels to get the ITMS rolling. With risk comes reward and Apple is reaping the benefits of taking a chance when no one else was willing to do so. Other services to work with the iPod, such as eMusic and possibly soon Yahoo among many smaller independant operations, as they offer mp3 downloads. These have always worked on the iPod with no strings attached. Microsoft was the one that tried to bring their own proprietary format to bear against Apple and it failed miserably.



guytoronto said:


> - Apple is proprietary. If you need to fix something in your computer, you typically need an Apple part. This screws the consumer. You can guy generic parts for almost ever other piece of technology (PCs, cars, appliances). Imagine having only one source of parts to fix your home or car.


And as for the proprietary comment, this complaint seems rather ill conceived. There are plenty of components that can be upgraded in a Mac nowadays. Since the Intel swap there is more flexibility in processor upgrades. You've always been able to use 3rd party ram and hard drives. Other components are proprietary typically because Apple doesn't have much choice in the matter. What other manufacturer makes a computer like the iMac or Mac Mini that would share the same parts? The reason PC parts are so generic is because they just shove them into an oversized box that serves as a one size fits all solution. Apple has always provided new, innovative computing solutions that are aethetically pleasing. If you want a generic box with a bunch of components in it, get a PC and quit bitching.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

> Mac was going bankrupt until Bill Gates bought 25% of Apple.


Oh he did, did he? You'd think this would have been in the news somewhere. Last time I heard about MS investing in Apple, it was $150 million in non-voting shares ten years ago, and Microsoft sold the shares a few years later at a large profit.

Since $150 M hasn't been anywhere near 25% of Apple since the company was much, much smaller and younger, I assume you're talking about something else.



> I'll let you guess what the new strategy at Apple is!


No, no, please tell us.


----------



## Bjornbro (Feb 19, 2000)

> Mac was going bankrupt until Bill Gates bought 25% of Apple.


Who is Mac? What does this company named, Mac, do or manufacture? Why would we care about a company no one has ever even heard of?

I'm going to have to review some old zombie horror flicks to learn how to kill _dead_ things, like this thread, which refuse to _stay dead!_ :lmao:


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

> Mac was going bankrupt until Bill Gates bought 25% of Apple. I'll let you guess what the new strategy at Apple is!


LOL.

Look, everyone, a WinZealot trolling a Mac board. :lmao:


----------



## Vexel (Jan 30, 2005)

> Mac was going bankrupt until Bill Gates bought 25% of Apple. I'll let you guess what the new strategy at Apple is!


----------



## RunTheWorldOnMac (Apr 23, 2006)

Going back a page Maccam has it right %100. Apple is not comparable to microgarabge; Apple is a hardware builder, micrslop is not. As for iPod, why would Apple spend money to license the use of music they sell on other vendors formats? This is not a monopolous, it's called not making a stupid mistake. What's stopping any other vendor from doing what Apple did? I know Apple may not want to team with another vendor that sells $50 mp3 players but if they fit in the same price class a joint adventure could benefit all.


----------



## Jason H (Feb 1, 2004)

guytoronto said:


> *If you buy a generic DVD burner, you need to run PatchBurn, and unauthorized utility to enable the drive.* Need a new case, processor, power supply, fan, etc, you are dealing with Apple and only Apple.


Not unless you buy a drive thats supported... My $50 2 year old LG burner is completely supported, and I'd qualify it as "generic"


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

" ... - Apple has a complete monopoly on digital music players and distribution. Nobody else is allowed to put digital music on an iPod, and iTunes won't work on any other portable player. Think Word vs Wordperfect. ..."

The Recording Industry has the monopoly on music distribution, digital or otherwise, acting as a cartel (also known as an oligopoly) for it's members.

Apple is in a Monopolistic Competitive Market for digital music players, and digitally downloadable music. This market has similar, interchangable products that are not perfect substitutes (there is some difference in consumers' eyes between them). By far the most important aspect of such a monopoly is that in the short term the company with that advantage can exploit it for maximum profit but in the medium to long term whatever distinguishes that company from the others will be duplicated by others, and the market will revert to some other form, preferably but rarely Perfect Competition.

The short answer is that there is no such thing as a monopoly in any market in the short term, the term simply does not apply unless there is some structural condition that sustains it (like, say, you own the patent on Viagra).

Apple has been the leader for a very short time; the iTMS has only existed for about 3 years, almost four if you consider only the United States.

More importantly, that represents the entire history of authorized music downloads worldwide. That a few players have failed to unseat the leader in such a short time is hardly surprising, and it's certainly not unprecedented in any new market; periods of 20+ years (the Model T) and 10 years (Sony Walkman) are the norm.

If and when this becomes permanent (and any fool can tell that's impossible) then the market can be corrected by regulation.

So, just like every company does when things are going good, Apple is making it's bucks when it can and working on insuring revenue later, when it's all over, by continuing to do what made it the market leader in the first place, which is make new, innovative products that capitalize on it's corporate strengths.

Some people seem to forget they are young, and naive, and nothing lasts forever. Five years from now this will be just a blip in the history of the music industry.

It's apt that we mention Microsoft Word versus WordPerfect. Both were DOS programs but for a decade, WordPerfect led the two. For the first half of that decade, neither were anything but bit players; WordStar owned the market.

Microsoft did not have success with Word but they ported v1 to Macintosh and it became very popular. Macintosh Word v3 served as the basis for Word for Windows 4, the very first release for Windows. WordPerfect did not release a Windows version until after Word 5 was out. ** Microsoft Word eventually dominated both the Windows and Macintosh markets, but that took 15 years to play out.

WordPerfect was available for MacOS, Apple ][e, Apple ][gs, UNIX, VMS, Data General, System/370, AmigaOS, Atari ST, OS/2, and later Linux, NextStep (the precursor to OSX) and Windows.

** Microsoft Word v5 is arguably the best word processor every made; those who argue that might still agree its the best version of Word ever made. There are more than a few people who still use it. Tough competition. Which is what is in store for the iPod and the iTMS.


----------



## preformalover (May 23, 2009)

*Apple knows whats best*

they have tried all these thing and found the best solution basicly keep to them self and it realy is not a monopoly because you can only use Itunes you can still use other music or videos


----------



## a7mc (Dec 30, 2002)

This was posted in 2005, then revived in 2006, then 2007, and now 2009. Hey... someone forgot to revive this thread back in 2008. What's up with that!

Seriously... do we really have to revive 4 year old threads?!?

A7


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

I can't wait to read next year's comments!! 

Seriously, I think the wisest thing Apple did was to make iTunes a free download and to let it thrive on Windows computers as well as Macs. _That's_ why Apple sells something like 90% of all portable digital music players. Smart move, because iPods are not cheap, but they are solid.


----------



## mc3251 (Sep 28, 2007)

it's dead, leave it lie


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

mc3251 said:


> it's dead, leave it lie


Yeah, the Zune never did get off the ground, same with the ZuneStore...


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

Old Thread Resurrection Alert was off, and I managed to reply. Oh well; here it is then:

Apple is an "evil corporation" and like all corporations, is not my best friend, my mom, my coach, nor does this entity really care about me as a person. They care about profits, and they are actually required by law as a publicly traded corporation to be self-serving and to look out for themselves above all else.

They cannot help their neighbours with the chores for free, because it's against the law for them to do stuff that is not entirely self-serving, and they can be sued for not being what amounts to a sociopath (1), were they actually human.

I use their products because they are useful to me; they are not my best friend, my son or daughter, someone I am responsible for, nor do I really care about them as a corporation.

When Apple was in fiscal trouble a decade ago I did not lament their demise, I just kept using the products they made as long as they still worked, because that is my own self-interest at work. As it turned out, that lasted beyond the bad times and into the good. Had it turned out differently, I would be using a different computer today. Live goes on.

I think Apple is better at being "nice" than other companies because they have been able in the past to show it's good for business, but should they be "nice" just once and fail to turn that niceness into profits, the shareholders are practically obliged by law to make them promise never to do that again.

So, any little gifts I get from Apple I'm grateful for, because without continued profitability they will be gone, gone, gone.

Are they as bad as Microsoft? Sure. They're as bad as any corporation. A brake shop. Haliburton. General Dynamics. Whatever.

Could they be worse? Of course they could. And for that, I appreciate small favours.

(1) The 2004 film 'The Corporation' applies the DSM-IV Personality Diagnostic Checklist to corporations, and the results show that if they were human, we would be locking them up for life in the rubber room, with high security to boot. If one escaped, community-wide alerts and deadly force would probably not be considered overkill. In that respect, the parent post is akin to comparing two serial killers and deciding one was "better" than the other.


----------



## RC51Pilot (Mar 26, 2004)

Neither Apple nor Microsoft are exactly saints in the business world, but then what corporation is? Neither of them would give you a glass of water if your throat was on fire. They are in business to make money for themselves and their shareholders period - and so far I think, regardless of whose product you think is better, MS is doing a pretty darn good job of that, as is Apple.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Interesting replies, I must say. And to the grumpy ones who don't like seeing old threads resurrected, I say tough nugies! There's nothing wrong with carrying on an old conversation. If you don't like it, don't read it. It certainly does no harm to you.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

gordguide said:


> Are they as bad as Microsoft? Sure. They're as bad as any corporation. A brake shop. Haliburton. General Dynamics. Whatever.


Now *hang on* ...

I will not brook comparisons of Apple to Halliburton. Yes, they are both corporations, and yes they are inherently self-serving moneygrubbers. All true.

But Halliburton *killed* the very soldiers they were paid to protect, serving them contaminated water, electrocuting them in showers (what a horrible way to die!) and feeding them substandard food (among other things) all in the name of profit. On some months, Halliburton and its subsidiaries were killing or injuring *more* US troops than the alleged "enemy"!

Apple, to my knowledge, has not come anywhere near that level of greed or cyncism, and indeed spend a lot of their time trying (unlike almost any other company in their field) to marry art and commerce, to strive for excellence rather than the bare minimum, to advance the craft rather than just move units. They even dare to fail on occasion.

Saying Apple and Halliburton are kin is like saying Hitler was human, and you are human, therefore you're kinda-sorta the same as Hitler.

I like the Microsoft-Halliburton comparison though. Very apt.


----------



## ertman (Jan 15, 2008)

gordguide said:


> ...They cannot help their neighbours with the chores for free, because it's against the law for them to do stuff that is not entirely self-serving, and they can be sued for not being what amounts to a sociopath (1), were they actually human....
> 
> (1) The 2004 film 'The Corporation' applies the DSM-IV Personality Diagnostic Checklist to corporations, and the results show that if they were human, we would be locking them up for life in the rubber room, with high security to boot. If one escaped, community-wide alerts and deadly force would probably not be considered overkill. In that respect, the parent post is akin to comparing two serial killers and deciding one was "better" than the other.


I knew you saw that movie after describing all corporations as a psychopath. Did you happen to take a sociology course?

Its not illegal for a company to do positive actions for even if it is unprofitable, it can become goodwill and profit can be made on this.

While, this film is insightful, given the freedoms corporations have over actual people, it is not necessarily a straight forward view. People often act in similar ways to which corporations are outlined, but they are not considered psychopaths, the difference lies in the scale of their actions, the total number of people that are affected.

While I do agree that their should be some increased restrictions on how corporations exist and do business, this film's view is far from constructive, and to question corporation, a person should also question the film.



gordguide said:


> ...Apple is an "evil corporation" and like all corporations, is not my best friend, my mom, my coach, nor does this entity really care about me as a person. They care about profits, and they are actually required by law as a publicly traded corporation to be self-serving and to look out for themselves above all else.
> 
> ...Are they as bad as Microsoft? Sure. They're as bad as any corporation. A brake shop. Haliburton. General Dynamics. Whatever....


Apple doesn't care for you as a person, and nor should they.

I think defining Apple as being "evil" is a little over the top, even if they are self serving to make profits, does not make them evil, as described in previous posts. They are motivated and driven by profits, so what? this isn't communism where you are told what you want, there has to be some incentive to make products. 

Where it matter is how they do business, and what they do to improve their impact on society. 

Apple has demonstrated atleast some regard for society in how it does business, even if it is driven by the thought of making more profits, if they were truly evil as you suggest, then I am quite sure they can be more profitable at the expense of people and society, which they are not.

What Apple does care about is making profits, but it does have a general care for society in which it does business. They care about you only as far as being able to sell you a product that fills your needs and wants, but this doesnt mean they will harm you to do so etc.

Your comparisons are unfair and possibly invalid. Corporations are not necessarily evil, but some can be. 

Is Apple as bad as Microsoft? They are about equal, maybe Apple is slightly better, but the Apple does a better job with their customers, in just about every product.


----------



## mc3251 (Sep 28, 2007)

Hey, it's a democracy, and if ppl want to revive the thread, I withdraw my previous comment. Lord knows we don't need start a fresh Apple vs MSoft thread.

I think Gord has it right. It's a corporation. With shareholders. And a business model aimed at maximizing market share and profit. 

The situation around Apple gets interesting though because of the Mac religious devotees, fanboys, zealots, or exceptionally loyal customers (pick your favourite term). Criticism becomes heresy, Microsoft bashing is a core requirement. Many people clearly have a very personal relationship with Apple and it's products and become deeply offended if anyone challenges their family. It's customer loyalty taken to the nth degree.


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

" ... Its not illegal for a company to do positive actions for even if it is unprofitable, it can become goodwill and profit can be made on this. ..."

Of course it's not illegal; it's a violation of civil law, which means someone must complain and someone must show harm. Which is why that's not what I wrote in the first place (" ... it's against the law for them to do stuff that is not entirely self-serving ..."). You describe a situation where they do something that IS entirely self-serving, and claim it's a rebuttal. It's not, it's an affirmation.

" ... Your comparisons are unfair and possibly invalid. Corporations are not necessarily evil, but some can be. ..."

Not evil? You've got to be kidding. Compared to what? Murderous Dictators? Any corporation can put all their employees on the street with nary second thought. That they provide jobs is hardly an excuse to ignore the bad ... slavery provides jobs too.

The entity that is a corporation has the ability to be both extremely evil and not break any laws at the same time. To say that some companies don't act evil, even though they could, is irrelevant. Apple could, tomorrow morning, do extremely evil stuff and totally get away with it. As can virtually any corporation. If that's not evil, I don't know what is.


----------

