Someone should sue apple

[gwprod12]

Here we go again. Instead of following what I'm saying, someone is deciding I'm saying something entirely different than what I am, in fact, saying. And then deciding that what they've manifested is wrong. Of course, it's wrong, but you're arguing with yourself.

 

I'm not talking about a "monopoly" I am talking about anti-trust laws. These things are not the same thing, though they are related. Please read up on anti-trust laws before contradicting me

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vendor_lock-in

[supermus]

Monopoly is a far better way of describing the laws to which you refer than anti-trust. The phrase "anti-trust" comes from the Sherman Anti-trust Act, which did not focus entirely on trusts (a very narrow kind of monopoly which does not apply to Apple at all). The term originated with Standard Oil, which was actually a trust of several oil companies operating under one umbrella. Laws against vendor lock-in are designed to combat monopolies, not trusts.

 

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Anti-trust_Act.

 

Interestingly enough, the wikipedia article to which you linked mentions Apple as being accused of vendor lock-in, primarily with regards to iTunes and the iPod, and adds this:

"With a small market share in computer hardware and software, there had not been any regulatory actions taken against Apple for lock-in for much of the company's history".

Not that much legal action is ever taken against vendor lock-in in the U.S., except in extreme cases (Microsoft). However, European courts see things differently. I was focused primarily on the United States, since that is where I live and that is the system with which I am most familiar.

 

Based on what I read in that article, I would say that locking Mac OS to Macs is more an example of vendor lock-out.

 

It also says that "monopolies tend to result when lock-in costs create a market barrier to entry, which may result in antitrust actions from the relevant authorities (the FTC in the US)." Clearly, there is little need for a linguistic distinction between monopolies and violations of anti-trust law.

 

I felt that by putting comments about Apple right next to comments about electricity and telecom monopolies, you were drawing a comparison between the two. Was I incorrect?

[username931]

While we're at it lets sue every console maker for not allowing their games to run on every other console. For instance, we should sue Microsoft to force them to make a PS2 version of Halo.

 

And my cellphone only works with one carrier. Let's make cellphone companies only sell phones that work with every carrier.

 

Gillette razors only use Gillette razor blades! THOSE CAPITALIST BASTARDS!! No wonder they are so expensive! SUE! SUEEEEEEEEE! SUUUEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!

 

Edit: It just occured to me... those bastards at Sony are using the PSP to sell memory sticks! Let's make them support compact flash and SD! SUUUUUUUUUUEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!

 

Edit2: OMG! Quick! Somebody start an online petition!!! We'll show corporate america who's really in charge!!!!!!!!!!

 

haha, don't get anxious. I could give a {censored} about this issue, really. Read the Forum description - I am not seriously advocating this. It is a hypothetical discussion of the legal merits of such a case. Its about anti-trust and copyright laws in the United States. Not about corprate responsibility, greed, or corruption. "Instead of following what I'm saying, someone is deciding I'm saying something entirely different than what I am, in fact, saying. And then deciding that what they've manifested is wrong. Of course, it's wrong, but you're arguing with yourself."

 

Porting XBOX to PS2 is a huge project. Apple's OSX would run on PCs (some drivers may be needed), but they built physical hardware protection. See the difference?

 

And I would like my cell phone to be compatible with multiple carriers. What do you have against compatibility? What purpose does it serve you to suck up to apple's poor business logic?

 

Supermus: Based on what I read in that article, I would say that locking Mac OS to Macs is more an example of vendor lock-out.

 

Funny that you say that cuz its true. Apple has done such a poor job marketing their assets that consumers (meaning average joe users) have no interest in Apple's new Operating system.

 

But apple has a monopoly among users that want OSX, and the CONSUMER's needs are better suited by competition. I know that wikipedia article was a tough read for you, but if you try a little bit harder you can understand the connection.

[gwprod12]

Yeah, um... Apple is both an example of Vendor Lock-in (you're stuck with them for upgrades) AND Vendor Lock-out (you cant get hardware from somewhere else)... the terms are very similar... like Flamable and Inflamable.........

 

Oh, and anti-trust IS a better name for anti-trust laws than monopoly... because the laws are referred to as anti-trust laws, not monopoly laws. (the nomenclature is codefied)

 

So yeah, I think maybe this forum should be "Someone COULD sue Apple". In fact, a few people already are, and have.

[A Nonny Moose]

Here we go again. Instead of following what I'm saying, someone is deciding I'm saying something entirely different than what I am, in fact, saying. And then deciding that what they've manifested is wrong. Of course, it's wrong, but you're arguing with yourself.

 

I'm not talking about a "monopoly" I am talking about anti-trust laws. These things are not the same thing, though they are related. Please read up on anti-trust laws before contradicting me

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vendor_lock-in

 

1. NEVER EVER EVER EVER use Wikipedia. They've been shown to be wrong over 50% of the time.

 

2. While there is a big difference between monopoly and anti-trust, the two cases would be similar. Apple just has to show there is a choice (Windows, Linux) for everything Apple offers (Avid, Adobe, etc). Same thing Microsoft did. Nothing in either case stopped people from exercising their right to choice (you can install Linux on a Mac and not be "locked in" for example).

[gwprod12]

Here we go again.......

 

I havent claimed that Apple is a monopoly, even though everyone and their mother has seen "anti-trust" and assumed that anti-trust means monopoly. It doesnt.

 

Apple uses business practices <EDIT>could be construed to</EDIT> violate anti-competition laws, bundled together as the anti-trust code. Most places in the world call it "anti-competition", the US calls it anti-trust. It's nomenclature.

 

The fact of the matter is, it's unclear whether or not Apple is being anti-competitive. That will require a lawsuit. They do, however, have business practices which are suspect.

 

EDIT 2: Yes, all Apple has to do is show that there are competitor computers which exist which anyone could buy if they want to. In a monopoly case. They dont control enough of the market for there ever to be a case against them charging monopoly. Apple is not engaged in an illegal monopoly, and it is not engaged in illegally monopolistic actions. In no way, shape, or form is Apple a monopoly (at least with computers. They do have monopolistic tendencies in regard to music subscription services)

[bofors]

Apple does design and manufacture their own Logic Boards.

 

I think Apple has turned the design part largely over to Intel and there is no way that Apple actually manufacturers its own boards, it contracts that out to the likes of FoxConn and Asus.

 

Apple's hardware is not stock PC. Not by a long shot. Try holding the T key at startup on your Hackintosh. What happens? Nothing. Try holding the Option/Atl key? What happens? Nothing. Can you NetBoot your Hackintosh? Apply a Fireware password? No, because you don't have a Mac.

 

This is simply a matter of firmware. It can be copied onto EFI motherboards, that is one goal of the MacEFIx86 project.

 

1. NEVER EVER EVER EVER use Wikipedia. They've been shown to be wrong over 50% of the time.

 

What fraction of the time are you wrong?

[gwprod12]

I'm wrong 50% of the time. But i refuse to say which 50%!

 

muah!

 

[A Nonny Moose]

I never said I wasn't wrong. However, I do not believe I am wrong more than 50% of the time and if someone is that wrong, they become an unreliable source of information.

[gwprod12]

I've very rarely found Wikipedia to be even remotely misleading. I wouldnt characterize that as 50%

 

Lets look at it this way. If tomorrow Microsoft decided to build its own computers and limit Windows to being run only on their computers, Microsoft would be hauled into court over it pretty fast.

 

Do you agree, or disagree that that is the case?

 

If you agree, then what's good for the goose (Microsoft) is good for the gander (Apple)

 

I dont see how you could disagree, but that's your option to try.

 

On a side note... when do I advance past Eniac Maniac?

[supermus]

I do not believe that what is good for the goose is necessarily good for the gander. Milking, for instance, would not be good for a gander.

 

If Microsoft tried to limit Windows to being able to run on only their computers, they would be hauled into court indeed, but probably for violating their contracts with Dell, HP, etc. I don't see how Apple refusing to let people install Mac OS on other machines is any different than DVD makers refusing to let people play DVDs in other regions. These are both [bold]unethical[/bold] practices, but I do not believe they are within the bailiwick of anti-competition law. Anti-trust law in the United States is notoriously vague, and generally means whatever the courts (or the President - lousy Teddy Roosevelt) want it to mean. I can see parallels between Apple's hardware/software bundling and Microsoft's bundling of Windows and IE, but I just don't see a court taking action against Apple for it. Even if they brought Apple to court, no court could escape Steve's portable Reality Distortion Field.

[gwprod12]

Now you're just being intellectually dishonest. Why even bother, in that case?