Will OSX ever replace Windows?

[schmintan]

;-)

 

[MisterMe]

Microsoft is in various shades of trouble - the massive fines it faced in Europe for instance (over $600m) related to the bundling of a media player with the OS, and making it difficult for rival companies to make interoperable servers.

You blithely ignore context. Microsoft's trouble over bundled media players follows from its having been found to have illegally abused its monopoly power. If that finding did not exist, then its handling of Windows Media Player would not be an issue.

... I can't see how Apple would escape when Microsoft have been dragged through the courts time and again.

What you can or cannot see is not the test. The test is whether or not Apple has abused its monopoly power. If its operating system runs only on its own hardware, then its operating system cannot be a subject to antitrust investigation even if Apple acquires a monopoly position.

If Microsoft announced tomorrow, that to run Windows you must buy a Microsoft manufactured PC, the company would find itself in dozens of lawsuits by week's end. If Apple had a 90% market share, why would it be any different?

If Microsoft removes its OS from the general computer market and restricts it to its own computers, then it would be in the clear. If Microsoft sells its own computers while continuing to sell its OS to other hardware manufacturers, then you would be correct.

 

[clevin]

You blithely ignore context. Microsoft's trouble over bundled media players follows from its having been found to have illegally abused its monopoly power.

whatever u say, always remember apple has much more bundle/control over its personal computer products than MS, so if you think M$'s current degree of bundle/control is illegal, ...........

 

[whooleytoo]

You blithely ignore context. Microsoft's trouble over bundled media players follows from its having been found to have illegally abused its monopoly power. If that finding did not exist, then its handling of Windows Media Player would not be an issue.

Microsoft's bundling of the media player was the abuse of monopoly power. They were abusing their dominant position in the OS market to stifle competition in the media player market.

Personally, I thought the EU ruling was quite harsh and unrealistic, but nevertheless it stands; why would Apple's case be any different?

If Microsoft removes its OS from the general computer market and restricts it to its own computers, then it would be in the clear. If Microsoft sells its own computers while continuing to sell its OS to other hardware manufacturers, then you would be correct.

Why the distinction?

In the music market, the EU vultures were already circling over Apple for its iTMS and iPod being a closed system. That's Apple-provided music only playing on an Apple-made player. Very much like an Microsoft-provided OS only running on an Microsoft-made PC.

You could consider it consumer lock-in, or consider it abuse of a monopoly position in one market (the OS) to gain a stranglehold in another (PC hardware). It's not an open and shut case, but Microsoft (or Apple, if the market situation were reversed) would be far from in the clear.

 

[MisterMe]

whatever u say, always remember apple has much more bundle/control over its personal computer products than MS, so if you think M$'s current degree of bundle/control is illegal, ...........

Apple and Microsoft's situation have a fundamental difference. Apple makes the whole widget. As such, it is free to do with its widget what it wants. Microsoft does not make the whole widget. As such, it must obey a different legal standard. It cannot leverage its monopoly position in operating systems to improve its position in other software categories.

Microsoft's bundling of the media player was the abuse of monopoly power.

In the EU. The US case was much more expansive. The EU could be more focused because it had the advantage of the US Court's findings.

Personally, I thought the EU ruling was quite harsh and unrealistic, but nevertheless it stands; why would Apple's case be any different?

Ah, the truth at last. A Microsoft apologist. The EU ruling was neither harsh nor unrealistic. If anything, it was mild. In the US case, Microsoft perpetrated frauds on the court. In the EU, Microsoft relented only at the 11th hour to comply with the judgment. This is a company that obeys the law only as a last resort and sometimes not even then. Such an unremorseful law-breaker must be held to account for its illegal behavior.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

LOL never will happen. Apple has no hope of breaking 10% market share with their current model. Apple does not have the production power to make enough computers and for proof of this apple is time and time again been struggling to keep up with current demand at less than 5% market share much less get any where near 10%,

Also if they had 90% market share then what M$ dealing with right now would be nothing compared to the legal trouble apple would be in. Just look at the iPod iTMS. There is already a lot of legal trouble apple having to deal with their and on their close system hardware for their computers it would be even worse and yes it would be a huge abuse of power because they would not let competitor break in.

Apple will break what ever tries to move it. They did it to Real they will do it to any one. Do not paint a pretty picture of apple. If anything Apple behaves 10 times as badly as M$ just with a small market share they are not dealing with legal issue. Apple has a history of breaking competitors software and not letting others try to get in.

 

[whooleytoo]

Ah, the truth at last. A Microsoft apologist. The EU ruling was neither harsh nor unrealistic. If anything, it was mild. In the US case, Microsoft perpetrated frauds on the court. In the EU, Microsoft relented only at the 11th hour to comply with the judgment. This is a company that obeys the law only as a last resort and sometimes not even then. Such an unremorseful law-breaker must be held to account for its illegal behavior.

Please, don't jump to silly, unfounded conclusions.

I regard Microsoft as a poster child for the argument that industry needs regulation, if left unchecked some company in every segment will eventually steamroller their way to the top by any and all means at their disposal.

That said, I disagreed with the media player decision. OS developers, regardless of the OS share, should be free to incorporate extra functionality (media players, web browsers etc.) so as to provide an integrated, compatible solution. Much as I dislike Microsoft, I don't think forcing them to release an OS without a media player is a positive, constructive move.

 

[schmintan]

I don't think forcing them to release an OS without a media player is a positive, constructive move.

I agree totally here. who says what should and should not be included in an OS? what if, all of a sudden someone filed against microsoft for including the control pannel, just because their company wrote similar control pannel software and wanted to get into the market. this would mean windows would not have a control pannel included. im sure you could download for free but thats not right. i know this is a hypothetical suituation, but it is just to explain a point.i also think windows should be allowed include a virus scanner. if people want something else, then let them go get something else.