If Apple had a monopoly....

[whatwoob]

Microsoft has a monopoly in the OS market. But hardware vendors are varied and diverse, with no particular company having full control of the market. As a result, prices are low, and consumers have lots of choices. This means any number of hardware configurations, looks, and gadgets.

What if Apple had the monopoly?

Countless hardware vendors ( Dell, HP, Toshiba, Sony...) and manufacturers, including motherboard manufacturers, case manufacturers, hard drive manufacturers, the list goes on, would all suffer ( except those chosen by Apple ). Not to mention the local computer stores. AMD would also be in big trouble, as Apple has decided to go with Intel CPUs.

In this situation, not only would one company, Apple, have control of the OS everyone uses, they'd decide the hardware, the looks, everything. Apple would control everything - not just software. The diversity in the hardware market would be gone. And you can kiss the custom built PC goodbye.

[ In terms of a monopoly, I think Apple is potentially much worse than Microsoft.]
^ Though I did state that "if Apple had the monopoly" earlier in the post, I think the above sentence was a bit misleading.

So I'm going to rephrase it: If Apple had a monopoly, I think it would be potentially much worse than Microsoft's current monopoly over the OS marker.

What do you think?

 

[diduknowthat]

uh, I'm pretty sure Apple will get busted before they can hold a monopoly over the OS market.

 

[linkin]

Well, it sounds pretty bad. But i doubt it will ever happen. Also, i hope this doesn't turn into a PC vs. Mac thread.

 

[brian]

I think it will not turn into a monopoly. I mean every person chooses an os based on what they want to use it for. Mac is not at all good for games so a large portion of people use windows for that. But others use macs because they want ease of use or video/audio stuff...

 

[tlarkin]

It is not a monopoly it is a platform, just like Sun computers. Sun, also just like Apple, designs their systems from the ground up, only uses set parts and all their computers run Solaris.

Apple's competition is both Sun and the PC companies. If anything Apple brings balance to a PC dominated market. What if MS owned 99% of all markets with computers?

You wouldn't have any reason to buy anything else over anything in particular because no matter what, your hardware can only increase marginal performance if they are all running the same software.

If Apple gained market share, then guess what, someone else would pop up and create another computer company to compete, thus would drive the price of Apple down to compete and some people who wanted more of a bargain would go elsewhere.

Really, what you should look at is what Microsoft has done over the past 10 years. They have acquired 1000s of companies, buying their products and shelving them to stop the competition. Who benefits from that? Not the end user or the consumer, only Microsoft benefits from that.

Free market is just that, a free market and Apple can sell whatever they want however they want and you are free to buy it or buy something else.

I think you need to look up what the word, "monopoly" means.

 

[Ethan3.14159]

Apple kind of already has a monopoly. Their software can only run (legally) on their machines. They are then free to set the prices of their machines how they please.

 

[ScOuT]

Apple kind of already has a monopoly. Their software can only run (legally) on their machines. They are then free to set the prices of their machines how they please.

There is absolutely no Monopoly there...They develop something and are just supposed to give it to the world? Think about that for a minute. Ford develops a new transmission and they are supposed to give it to all the other car manufactures so they can use it also? That's not how business works.

Free market is just that, a free market and Apple can sell whatever they want however they want and you are free to buy it or buy something else.

I think you need to look up what the word, "monopoly" means.

Very well said...they have developed the operating system and the computers...it's a complete system they are selling. I think it's great that consumers have an option to choose different platforms.

As far as Windows and Microsoft goes...I may have a different opinion that some people. They have also put tons of money and research into developing a great operating system. I like Windows really. Works great for me. They do hold a huge share of the market but that's not just Microsoft doing that. Many companies don't put as much effort into developing drivers and stuff that is compatible with alternative operating systems. Could Dell start selling computers with Linux installed...of course they could. The problem is...95% of people have never used Linux and they will be hesitant to buy a computer with it. As you can see...it's not just Microsoft trying to get all the market, people make Microsoft get the majority of the market. It's a household name and people are familiar with it.

The world almost runs on Windows

There really is not a monopoly with anything...if there was...then we would have issues and all our computers would be alike

 

[Motoxrdude]

It is not a monopoly it is a platform, just like Sun computers. Sun, also just like Apple, designs their systems from the ground up, only uses set parts and all their computers run Solaris.

Apple's competition is both Sun and the PC companies. If anything Apple brings balance to a PC dominated market. What if MS owned 99% of all markets with computers?

You wouldn't have any reason to buy anything else over anything in particular because no matter what, your hardware can only increase marginal performance if they are all running the same software.

If Apple gained market share, then guess what, someone else would pop up and create another computer company to compete, thus would drive the price of Apple down to compete and some people who wanted more of a bargain would go elsewhere.

Really, what you should look at is what Microsoft has done over the past 10 years. They have acquired 1000s of companies, buying their products and shelving them to stop the competition. Who benefits from that? Not the end user or the consumer, only Microsoft benefits from that.

Free market is just that, a free market and Apple can sell whatever they want however they want and you are free to buy it or buy something else.

I think you need to look up what the word, "monopoly" means.

I think you need to reread his original post. He said IF apple had a monopoly.

o and if microsoft was a monopoly, hardware would still accelerate because of hardware manufactures competing against each other.

 

[whatwoob]

It is not a monopoly it is a platform, just like Sun computers. Sun, also just like Apple, designs their systems from the ground up, only uses set parts and all their computers run Solaris.

Apple's competition is both Sun and the PC companies. If anything Apple brings balance to a PC dominated market. What if MS owned 99% of all markets with computers?

You wouldn't have any reason to buy anything else over anything in particular because no matter what, your hardware can only increase marginal performance if they are all running the same software.

If Apple gained market share, then guess what, someone else would pop up and create another computer company to compete, thus would drive the price of Apple down to compete and some people who wanted more of a bargain would go elsewhere.

Really, what you should look at is what Microsoft has done over the past 10 years. They have acquired 1000s of companies, buying their products and shelving them to stop the competition. Who benefits from that? Not the end user or the consumer, only Microsoft benefits from that.

Free market is just that, a free market and Apple can sell whatever they want however they want and you are free to buy it or buy something else.

I think you need to look up what the word, "monopoly" means.

I didn't say Apple had a monopoly. I said "if they had a monopoly".

 

[tlarkin]

I think you need to reread his original post. He said IF apple had a monopoly.

o and if microsoft was a monopoly, hardware would still accelerate because of hardware manufactures competing against each other.

Not really, because you can only go as fast and as efficient as the OS allows for. So, you would be very limited in that scope. I mean if you really want to compare the extremes, look at Ubuntu versus Windows. Ubuntu still fits on one CD, so the install is under 700MB. That means it leaves a smaller finger print on your hard drive, is more streamlined and doesn't have half the bloat that MS has.

Now, you put Ubuntu on a desktop or laptop and then also put say Windows XP, or Vista and dual boot it. I guarantee the Ubuntu will run a lot faster. I will even go as far as you can then take two identical computers, but on the windows box put a faster processor and more RAM and then see how it performs compared to the Linux box. I bet even with the added hardware it doesn't perform better.

I am just trying to say if windows were on every computer you would be very limited performance wise because if you look at Windows right now, it doesn't even support all the features or take advantage of all the hardware inside most computers. I have a quad core processor in my Windows box and I know it doesn't take full advantage of it.

 

[Motoxrdude]

Not really, because you can only go as fast and as efficient as the OS allows for. So, you would be very limited in that scope. I mean if you really want to compare the extremes, look at Ubuntu versus Windows. Ubuntu still fits on one CD, so the install is under 700MB. That means it leaves a smaller finger print on your hard drive, is more streamlined and doesn't have half the bloat that MS has.

Now, you put Ubuntu on a desktop or laptop and then also put say Windows XP, or Vista and dual boot it. I guarantee the Ubuntu will run a lot faster. I will even go as far as you can then take two identical computers, but on the windows box put a faster processor and more RAM and then see how it performs compared to the Linux box. I bet even with the added hardware it doesn't perform better.

I am just trying to say if windows were on every computer you would be very limited performance wise because if you look at Windows right now, it doesn't even support all the features or take advantage of all the hardware inside most computers. I have a quad core processor in my Windows box and I know it doesn't take full advantage of it.

yeah i see what your saying. i'm sure hardware development would stop but it could slow down, but it's hard to say.