64 replies to this topic

[General_Cartman]

A Nonny Moose, on Sep 27 2009, 03:15 AM, said:

Yeah 10% is a monopoly...

So will have no trouble listing the other firms that supply OSX then? I'll be waiting.

[A Nonny Moose]

General_Cartman, on Sep 28 2009, 10:44 AM, said:

So will have no trouble listing the other firms that supply OSX then? I'll be waiting.

Only if you have no trouble saying why Linux is a craptacular failure compared to the dominance of Windows (which Apple falls under the same boat comparing it to Windows dominance).

Licensing OS X will make it into a craptacular failure...like Linux is compared to the absolute dominance of Windows.

Now with that in mind...

1. Apple is a monopoly

Boy it does look that way, doesn't it? I mean, the only way to use the Mac OS is to buy a computer from Apple. Well, wait, Apple isn't the only computer company you can buy from. You can buy from Dell, HP, etc. The only issue with that is you have to use Windows. Or Linux. But you can use Linux on a Mac too. Fact is there are lots of choices for your computing usage, and Apple represents just one of many many choices. It also represents one OS out of many many choices. And all of those choices are pretty viable choices.

Apple isn't preventing you from exercising your right to choice when it comes to what brand of computer you're using. You have a right to choose to use whatever brand of computer you want. You also have the right to choose whatever OS you want to use, even if those choices are limited by certain factors. Apple isn't forcing you to use their OS or buy their computers.

Now for a more acerbic option...

Apple should license their OS for every box!

Ahhh, another daily thread favorite. Seriously, you need to remove your feeding tube if you post this. Apple is a HARDWARE COMPANY with software components. In order to turn a profit as a software company, Apple has to either raise the user base to Microsoft proportions (which won't happen) or raise prices (which raises supply and lowers demand).

Your retard suggestion will most likely bankrupt Apple, so let's just stop.

[General_Cartman]

A Nonny Moose, on Sep 29 2009, 12:17 PM, said:

Only if you have no trouble saying why Linux is a craptacular failure compared to the dominance of Windows (which Apple falls under the same boat comparing it to Windows dominance).

Application support (can't get MS office for Linux), (until recently) complicated installation process, too many distros, lack of marketing. Next.

A Nonny Moose, on Sep 29 2009, 12:17 PM, said:

In order to turn a profit as a software company, Apple has to either raise the user base to Microsoft proportions (which won't happen) or raise prices (which raises supply and lowers demand).

Your retard suggestion will most likely bankrupt Apple, so let's just stop.

I'll repeat.  As Apple is the only supplier of OSX, we aren't talking about a competitive market.  In a competitive market, an increase in demand causes the price of a good to rise, which encourages more firms to produce and that is why supply increases.  Apple raising the price of their OS will not increase the supply of the OS as APPLE IS THE ONLY SUPPLIER OF OSX.  I'll say it again, you fail at economics.

[A Nonny Moose]

General_Cartman, on Sep 29 2009, 09:58 AM, said:

I'll repeat.  As Apple is the only supplier of OSX, we aren't talking about a competitive market.

I'll repeat.  You have CHOICES when it comes to what OS you can use: OS X, Windows, or Linux (you just don't get this part, do you?).  Apple is only 10% of that market.  10% doesn't make a monopoly.  10% doesn't make monopoly power.  10% is nothing more than a flea biting the neck of the other 90%.

Quote

In a competitive market, an increase in demand causes the price of a good to rise, which encourages more firms to produce and that is why supply increases.

In a market with CHOICES (which the OS market has), raising the price of something will increase the supply because the demand for other cheaper CHOICES will go up relative to the price increase of said item.  This in turn creates the surplus for the item which had the price raised.  Since we live in a market of CHOICES, guess what happens?

Quote

Apple raising the price of their OS will not increase the supply of the OS as APPLE IS THE ONLY SUPPLIER OF OSX.  I'll say it again, you fail at economics.

Microsoft raising the price of their OS will not increase the supple of the OS as MICROSOFT IS THE ONLY SUPPLIER OF WINDOWS.  I'll say it again, you fail at economics.  See what I did there?

[General_Cartman]

A Nonny Moose, on Sep 30 2009, 12:48 PM, said:

I'll repeat.  You have CHOICES when it comes to what OS you can use: OS X, Windows, or Linux (you just don't get this part, do you?).  Apple is only 10% of that market.  10% doesn't make a monopoly.  10% doesn't make monopoly power.  10% is nothing more than a flea biting the neck of the other 90%.



In a market with CHOICES (which the OS market has), raising the price of something will increase the supply because the demand for other cheaper CHOICES will go up relative to the price increase of said item.  This in turn creates the surplus for the item which had the price raised.  Since we live in a market of CHOICES, guess what happens?



Microsoft raising the price of their OS will not increase the supple of the OS as MICROSOFT IS THE ONLY SUPPLIER OF WINDOWS.  I'll say it again, you fail at economics.  See what I did there?

Look I'm sick of arguing this with you. For it to be a perfectly competitive market the two goods have to be perfect substitutes.  OSX and Windows are not perfect substitutes as you can't run Windows programs on a Mac and visa versa. AMD and Intel, for example are perfect substitutes as for all intents and purposes they are identical. Everything you can do on an Intel CPU you can do on an AMD one.  The market structure operating systems fall under would be monopolistic competition, which if you look at the demand and supply graphs resembles more of a monopoly situation, albeit with a more elastic demand (and therefore, marginal revenue) curve.

Also, you are making a common mistake 1st year economics students make. An increasing surplus doesn't equal increased supply. If I produce 4 units, and 4 are consumed the quantity supplied is 4.  If I produce 4 units and 3 are consumed, the quantity supplied is still 4.  If anything, this surplus will be added to the inventory and in the next production period supply will be cut.  I'm not saying any more. I tutor economics an university and I'm sick of arguing such elementary economics issues with you.  And yes, Microsoft raising the price on their OS will not increase the supply of the OS. So for once, you are correct.

[MadGhost]

Quote

QUOTE(RedDrag0n)
A Nonny Moose was right on the money.

�Demoralize the enemy from within by surprise, terror, sabotage, assassination. This is the war of the future.�

It's horrible to quote this scum

[mikecwest]

To all who think apple is a monopoly because they sell OSX only for Macs....


Does this make Toyota a monoply because they only sell Radios for Toyotas?

[Scottapotamas]

Quote

Everything you can do on an Intel CPU you can do on an AMD one.

Unless you want to run vanillia OSX...  

[A Nonny Moose]

mikecwest, on Oct 1 2009, 12:57 PM, said:

To all who think apple is a monopoly because they sell OSX only for Macs....


Does this make Toyota a monoply because they only sell Radios for Toyotas?

Apparently so!

And yes, OS X and Windows are rather nice substitutes for each other.  So is Linux.  Just because you can't run iLife on Windows doesn't mean they aren't equal.

[Haney]

A Nonny Moose, on Oct 3 2009, 01:21 AM, said:

Apparently so!

And yes, OS X and Windows are rather nice substitutes for each other. So is Linux. Just because you can't run iLife on Windows doesn't mean they aren't equal.

- "Rather nice" substitutes don't meet the definition of "perfect" substitutes, which is what the theory of supply and demand requires.

- Raising price doesn't increase supply of a monopolistic item (with monopolistic defined in economic terms, not legal terms)

- And yes, in economic terms because you can't perfectly substitute OSX/Windows/Linux, it really does mean that they're not equal.

You really shouldn't tell others to take a class when you are so far off base.

M.R.

(MS Economics)

[A Nonny Moose]

Just because you can't run iLife on Windows doesn't mean they aren't
substitutes.  Period.  End of Discussion.  

The rest is splitting hairs regarding what is "perfect" and what isn't.

[Haney]

A Nonny Moose, on Oct 3 2009, 06:46 PM, said:

Just because you can't run iLife on Windows doesn't mean they aren't
substitutes. Period. End of Discussion.

The rest is splitting hairs regarding what is "perfect" and what isn't.

Exactly!  After all of this back and forth with General Cartman, I'm glad you finally see his point that they are substitutes, and not equals as you were previously arguing.



M.R.

[A Nonny Moose]

Haney, on Oct 4 2009, 01:03 PM, said:

Exactly!  After all of this back and forth with General Cartman, I'm glad you finally see his point that they are substitutes, and not equals as you were previously arguing.



M.R.

Except that substitutes in economics generally implies they are equal in terms of how they are consumed...

[General_Cartman]

A Nonny Moose, on Oct 5 2009, 12:47 PM, said:

Except that substitutes in economics generally implies they are equal in terms of how they are consumed...

No it doesn't.  It all depends on the utility attached to each substitute by the consumer, and their budget.

[LonelyTV]

Since when did Apple stop selling OS X for use on PCs? Aren't the machines they build PCs? Even when they were using Power PC processors they were still PCs. Apple really has soiled that acronym with their deceptive marketing.

[tbar]

So, the question WAS "Should Apple Sell OS X For Use On A PC?"
From my point of view? Yes, of course. I love the idea of being able to buy cheap open market PC hardware and run a premium OS like leopard on it. Obviously from Apple's viewpoint it makes no sense because they are all about hardware when it comes to PC's and selling you their OS to run on a cheap open market box kind of defeats that purpose doesn't it? Not only that, why would they want to open Pandora's box like Microsoft did and let every fly by night hardware supplier willing to pay the licensing fees start writing bug ridden code for their OS? That's one of the reasons OS X is more stable than MS Windows. That and it's based on UNIX code, not some kludged collection of undercooked spaghetti.
What I think you might see if Apple's PC market share continues to rise is a significant enough price drop due to volume sales making it easier to justify buying a Mac. The real hurdle Apple faces is can it withstand the growth without losing control and become just another mediocre corporation with no heart or vision? Don't know about the rest of you but I've seen some recent indications of that trend. I'm personally in favor of open source software and letting the owner of the hardware decide what code THEY want to run. My 2 cents, that's all. If it doesn't match your opinion that's OK. We're all individuals and that just adds to the diversity and flavor of the mix. Beating each other over the head repeatedly in an attempt to convince everyone that only your interpretation is valid frequently leads to making oneself look foolish. Again, my 2 cents.

[curlyboy]

In answer to the ? Should Apple Sell OS X For Use On A PC ?    they have been since day 1   lol   all apple machines are is pc`s

[Cerberus73]

Apple could still have control of the os, and the hardware it runs on, by producing quarterly or bi - annual hardware compatability lists much like the ones found online for current hackintoshes, but slimmed down, and unlike the trial and error and patching that goes on at the moment to get it to run, it would be straightforward and just work, say maybe support a dozen or so motherboards, same with graphics cards, wireless etc, and offer os X at a premium price for generic hardware, ie the current price of $29 for real macs, and a more expensive one for generic PC hardware from there HCL lists, say for around $150, this would ensure the hardware mixes were supported, that the prices were lower, and types of system apple dont built could be had for us users whom want a mid tower somewhere between a mac pro and a imac.

Hell they could even colaborate with mainboard manufacturers to produce boards with an apple approved EFI on it, and charge a little more for the board, say an extra $25 on top of the same model BIOS only board, and cream off profit from a mix of osx pricing for these boards, and licensing fees for the EFI code. market penetration would easily double, people would have more choice of the type of system to run os X on top.

Sure people like us users on these forums get a kick from making it run on hardware it was never designed to operate on, but for joe bloggs on the street a official licenced for os X line of hardware would give them the re-assurance that they could buy hardware to ensure a smooth experience or a pre built system from the likes of dell, hp, lenovo etc that were made to work out of the box with no patching required.

Apples claim that it would be solely responsable for support is wrong, in any pre-built system with windows the onus is on the manufacturer to provide support for windows issues on there hardware, apple could do the same therefore negating the argument that it would be a support nightmare. they could also market special applecare packages for these users as an extra layer of comfort, and another revenue stream.

People will always buy Apple made hardware, because it looks better, or is percieved to be more stable etc, i doubt very much that sales of mac hardware would slump, if anything people would try the cheaper alternative, learn to love os X and the next time go for a proper Apple model, much like the mac mini was designed to do... but to be honest has not had the impact in doing so, being to underpowered for all but the most basic of tasks.

[Headrush69]

Cerberus73, on Nov 4 2009, 04:26 AM, said:

Apples claim that it would be solely responsable for support is wrong, in any pre-built system with windows the onus is on the manufacturer to provide support for windows issues on there hardware, apple could do the same therefore negating the argument that it would be a support nightmare. they could also market special applecare packages for these users as an extra layer of comfort, and another revenue stream.

Total fallacy. If a driver causes a BSOD on Windows, the majority of the population blames Windows, not the driver.
The same thing would happen on OSX and any problems from people trying it for the first time would reflect poorly on OS X.

Cerberus73, on Nov 4 2009, 04:26 AM, said:

People will always buy Apple made hardware, because it looks better, or is percieved to be more stable etc, i doubt very much that sales of mac hardware would slump, if anything people would try the cheaper alternative, learn to love os X and the next time go for a proper Apple model, much like the mac mini was designed to do... but to be honest has not had the impact in doing so, being to underpowered for all but the most basic of tasks.

Highly doubt it. For the most part consumers aren't usually very smart or not very educated when it comes to technical differences and then tend to only focus on the price and very "abstract/marketing" numbers. When I say abstract numbers, I mean things like a screen size or cpu speed. We know because 2 LCDs are both 15.1" doesn't mean then are equal or that 2 CPUs listed at the same speed can be quite different. Design of computers can only get you so far and eventually you would see hardware sales drastically drop. (At least at their current pricing levels and at drastically lower levels, when does Apple stop being an innovator and just not another box maker like Dell? )

OS X would also have to deal with massive piracy. I know the great utopian idea is that Apple users are good citizens and buy a legal copy of OS X but in practice it would likely be no different than with Windows which we know is pirated at an incredibly high volume.

[pdave54]

I hope it never happens
the main point that I agree with is, if apple try to write a system for more architecture, more programmers, end up with a buggy OS like Widows. Would it lead to registration keys, activation??
I do purchase the OS's from apple & am a long time Mac user. I went hackintosh because I am retired and cannot afford a new Mac nor even a used machine because of the premium prices used macs demand, which may say something about the quality of Apple hardware.
Not even going to try to comment of the econimics