And you call MICROSOFT a Monopoly?

Published on March 23, 2007 By Gideon MacLeish In Personal Computing

I am sick to death of Mac snobs. In variably in any discussion with Mac fanbois, they will cry about Microsoft being a monopoly.

Yeah, uh huh. Keep crying because your computer manufacturer was insanely stupid. The computer company that really brought the idea of upgradeability to personal computing, now puts out boxes that can't be upgraded. The computer company that started serious work on GUI, yet didn't have the foresight to protect it so that Microsoft could use it to create competing operating systems.

But, see, that's only the tip of the iceberg. If you look back at the monopolies that started antitrust legislation, they controlled the suppliers of raw goods, the manufaturing plants, the distribution plants. Basically they controlled costs because all of their suppliers belonged to them.

That doesn't sound like Microsoft, it sounds like Apple.

Quick. Name me three major PC manufacturers. Even the brain dead could come up with HP, Gateway, and Dell. Now, name me three major Mac manufacturers. Apple. (crickets chirp).

Ok, ok, so maybe that wasn't completely fair. Walk into the computer store and ask for a new video card for your iMac (will you crickets STOP that d*** chirping?!?)

Maybe I've given you guys a bum rap. Why don't you just give me the URL of a supplier where I can buy Mac OS/10 to install on my PC (ok, that cricket chirping is getting SERIOUSLY annoying!!!!)

Microsoft may be annoying. Microsoft may engage in less than perfect business practices. But Microsoft is an O/S, they have nothing to do with the BUILDING of my computer, and they don't lock the system from upgrades. I can buy components off the shelf to build a PC, and honestly, the choice of whether to install Windows on that computer is entirely mine. Nobody forced me to do it. I CAN pick from several Linux distros. Yes, I might have to work harder to install them and make them functional, but that's part of exercising choice.

Those choices aren't widely available on a Mac. If Microsoft is the Devil, then Apple is certainly the devil's wetnurse, the evil she demon of an O/S and OEM monopoly combined. But since Mac has a piddly share of the market, nobody seems to give a rat's heinie.

Comments (Page 6)

Dr Guy

on Mar 25, 2007

Apple products is their aesthetic, and ease of use.

Ease of use is relative. Aesthitics? Feng Shui is cheaper.

Adamness

on Mar 25, 2007

ease of use of Macs is a myth. How many programs WON'T run on a Mac? I don't call it "ease of use" when you have to throw half your software away.

Most of the Mac users I know (I know a lot, being at art school), haven't had any major compatibility problems. And might I suggest installing Windows on a Mac? Best of both worlds, I'd say. That's my plan if/when I get a Mac.

Apparently you weren't around in the 80's. Apple was king back then.

I was talking more recently, before the iPod. Basically, between the time Jobs arrived and the release of the iPod. Macs were treated more as novelty items than a practical home or business computer.

Gideon MacLeish

on Mar 25, 2007

I don't want to buy the Mac hardware. That's the point. I'm more than capable of building a PC on my own, so I would rather be able to run a Mac O/S on PC hardware than the other way around, frankly. That's the problem.

I trust MY builds far more than a big box, be it Mac, Dell, Gateway, HP or ANY big box.

Dr Guy

on Mar 25, 2007

I was talking more recently, before the iPod. Basically, between the time Jobs arrived and the release of the iPod. Macs were treated more as novelty items than a practical home or business computer.

Actually, no. They have always been a cult. Was then, are now. I have been using Apples since 1980. And the users (not the knowledgeable folks) have always treated them as idols of worship.

I like them. I just refuse to pay the premium.

Dan Kaschel

on Apr 05, 2007

Oops, double post

Dan Kaschel

on Apr 05, 2007

I've taken both sides of this debate in the past. In MS's defense, I think they had a colossal task before them in the form of Vista. Imagine creating an operating system with decent backward-computability, support for a few million devices out of the box (no flaming please; yes, it's an exaggeration), and multiple ways to render the interface. I tired the beta and used it. I didn't like it. But now I've used release, and hey, it's growing on me. It's like that I like it better than XP and more that I find myself missing Vista tools when I go back to XP. That bodes well for Vista.

In Mac's defense, what's all this "Mac controls everything from that first chip to the finished product" crap? That same comment goes on to talk about Intel processors. Umm... INTEL. And, I wonder, does Mac make its own video cards? And hmm... what if I want to upgrade the RAM on my Mac? Do they control that too? ...Nope. So... they control the case. And the motherboard. And... well, gee, anything else? Not too much.

But I think at some point, when the flaming start to look dogmatic, it's helpful to back up a moment and consider the situation. Take apart a device--anything. Check out all those itty-bitty things stuck into that silicon. Dang, that's tiny, isn't it. God only knows how it all works. And I'm being literal--there's nobody on earth with enough knowledge to build an entire computer and operating system even if they had all the resources in the world. Your home computer is one heck of a complex machine, and sure it's not perfect, but isn't it incredible what it can do?

And isn't it nice that there's a second player in the field that forces MS to keep its OS's moving forward? I still prefer GMail, but I love that my Hotmail and Yahoo accounts are now a hundred times better because of the pressure Google put on Yahoo and MS. In other words, this isn't a monopoly. We're seeing competition at its best. It makes me happy that Linux is starting to gain momentum. That's one more competitor to spur the market leaders on to more consumer-serving products.

Oh, I know it's not perfect. And I am endlessly frustrated with all the bugs in current technology--and that goes for both OS's. But on pure principle, I love every company out there, because even the choices I don't pick positively influence the choice that I do pick.

Dan

Gideon MacLeish

on Apr 05, 2007

In Mac's defense, what's all this "Mac controls everything from that first chip to the finished product" crap? That same comment goes on to talk about Intel processors.

I've never had a problem with AMD's, Dan!

SanChonino

on Apr 05, 2007

I've never had a problem with AMD's

Chonino loves his Turion 64, yesss . . .

Dan Kaschel

on Apr 05, 2007

Now I do have to take sides on this one. I'm a sucker for the underdog, but I think AMD is screwed this time. Just finally moving into 65nm, the stupid 939vsAM2 thing (what were they thinking?) and high-end processors that are getting creamed by less expensive C2D's. I'm not saying it's their "fault," per se, I just don't think they have the resources to recover.

Thank God Intel ditched P4's.

Dan

Gideon MacLeish

on Apr 05, 2007

Dan,

AMD always has had market share, and, I believe, always will. They have some products in the works I am interested in seeing.

Still, even if it were just one proc manufacturer, that is far better than one hardware manufacturer for your whole machine. Proc, motherboard, hard drive, optical drives, memory, video, sound, NIC....

I stand by my original position on this one.

Dan Kaschel

on Apr 06, 2007

Gideon,

AMD? Maybe, maybe not. But either way I don't think it alters the spirit of what I said. It's not unreasonable to suppose that the pressure that forced Intel to make a stellar processor like the C2D (I really do love them) is because AMD, a smaller company, was completely owning them on a regular basis. Big companies like Intel have big egos.

I don't really believe in brand loyalty when it comes to computer equipment. Sure, I trust some mfgs, but if they start making crappy parts I'll switch in an instant. I was buying AMDs for a while, but now Intel has the crown. They're even selling P-D's for under a hundred bucks to snag the low-end market.

Having said all that, my two points still hold: that technology (including processor) development has been innovative and impressive, and that said developent has been driven mostly by competition.

I'm actually not really sure we have any points of disagreement. I love a variety of mfg's as much as the next guy, so we need to pick up a different point to argue. Maybe... pizza toppings? Or which side of the toilet paper role the end should hang?

Huh.

Dan

NGTV

on Apr 06, 2007

Wait until they re-release the Athlon 64-based chips with new Microarchitectures. Let the owning resume.

Though I'd be getting a Core 2.5 Duo just for SSE4 (My Athlon XP's inability to run OSX is making me green all over.)

Dan Kaschel

on Apr 06, 2007

"Wait until they re-release the Athlon 64-based chips with new Microarchitectures. Let the owning resume. Though I'd be getting a Core 2.5 Duo just for SSE4 (My Athlon XP's inability to run OSX is making me green all over.)"

Ahem, that was me.

I agree that when AMD releases its single-chip quad-core processor, it will take the performance lead. But... it's not like Intel has been chilling out with a latte. They've had plenty of time to develop their own quad-core, and I don't think AMD will hold the lead for long. Just think--a 45nm quad-core on a single die. And the clock speeds are only going up, my friend. And, with a larger R&D budget, Intel is probably going to be able to integrate the new silicon replacement faster than AMD. It just doesn't look good, is all I'm saying.

Dan

BuddhaV1

on Apr 10, 2007

Dan, i agree with you. AMDs quad-core will be great, but Intel's got the lead on refining them. AMDs appeal will be to people who want AMD Live! on there machines. I like the idea of an AMD processor, AMD Chipset, ATi Video Card, and extra features to support those. look at how great the NForce chipset worked with NVidia cards. that was great! I'm and AMD kinda guy, the whole FSB thing makes me ill, but the fact is, Intel's #1 and it'll be a whole before that changes. I don't mind, so why all the fighting between gamers and power users? use what you like. being better than someone else isnt that important, is it? why is everyone so damn competitive?

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!