Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

It does not matter how vast of a market share something has; if there is an alternative the product with the largest control of the market is still not a monopolized product.

Ford has the #1 selling truck in America (and that is fact) but Ford does not have a monopoly on trucks. You are still free to buy a Toyota or Chevy or GMC or Jeep or Hummer or Nissan.

Windows might have the vast majority of the market share but you are still free to buy an Apple and if you want a non-Mac PC you don't have to keep the Windows OS on it. If you buy it pre-made just erase the drives and put your OS of choice on it; if you are building it from scratch you save a step in not having to erase the drive as OEM and Retail drives come blank.

M$ is not a monopoly. There are alternatives to their softwares and OS's. As long as alternatives remain M$ is not a monopoly.

Calling M$ a monopoly because they have a larger market share would be like calling Dairy Queen a monopoly. I'm pretty sure they are the most well known and probably best selling ice cream parlor franchise in the world but there are alternatives like Coldstone or Ben&Jerrys or any other ice cream parlor franchise that exists.

Ah thanks for the heads up dogma and Fateweaver. MS also have been undercutting some of their competitors to secure sales and nowadays I think Dells come with Linux installed; stuff that wouldn't really happen 10 or so years ago.

On the topic of Apple, anyone been following their rumored tablet PC? Its supposed to revolutionize the industry even though Apple hasn't confirmed the project - it'll make relatively new ideas like Kindle seem obsolete . As much as I loathe what the Mac image stands for; Apple still makes awesome and incredibly innovative products like the Ipod, Iphone, and soon the tablet PC. I wonder if they'll ever try a video game console

Green Blow Fly wrote:I agree with what Cane has put forward. Apple has placed themselves in a niche market. It's obvious because only an Apple machine can run an Apple OS, which is the exact opposite philosophy that Bill Gates took when he negotiated with IBM to develop their OS back in the 1980s. By placing yourself in a niche market you are going for a certain percentage of the market rather than the whole shooting match so to speak.

A niche market is a market that is defined by very specific demands. When Alienware was an independent company, they catered to a niche market (high-performance gaming computers). Apple is not targeted in that manner as they offer commercial solutions, as well as robust home support. The fact that they rely on proprietary technology is a a matter of business strategy, not market demand.

Dell comes with Windows installed.

G

On the topic of Apple, anyone been following their rumored tablet PC? Its supposed to revolutionize the industry even though Apple hasn't confirmed the project - it'll make relatively new ideas like Kindle seem obsolete .

As the rumored apple tablet is not an e-ink display and would likely not possess a battery life in the double digits it doesn't compete particularly well with the kindle as an ebook reader. Especially not at 3 times the price as the rumors suggest a thousand dollar price tag. These same rumors have been swirling for years now though. However they are a bit more substantial than they have been in the past and they are rumored to be revealing the device soon.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dell comes with Windows installed.

Doritoes come with Doritoes inside.

dogma wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:I agree with what Cane has put forward. Apple has placed themselves in a niche market. It's obvious because only an Apple machine can run an Apple OS, which is the exact opposite philosophy that Bill Gates took when he negotiated with IBM to develop their OS back in the 1980s. By placing yourself in a niche market you are going for a certain percentage of the market rather than the whole shooting match so to speak.

A niche market is a market that is defined by very specific demands. When Alienware was an independent company, they catered to a niche market (high-performance gaming computers). Apple is not targeted in that manner as they offer commercial solutions, as well as robust home support. The fact that they rely on proprietary technology is a a matter of business strategy, not market demand.

if you look at the expense alone for an Apple it's quite apparent they are intended for a specific market not a general market.

G

Sorry if my post was muddy, Dell definitely still has Windows installed but they've got Linux versions as well: http://www.dell.com/content/topics/segtopic.aspx/ubuntu?c=us&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs&dgc=IR&cid=11973&lid=471885

Sorry if my post was muddy, Dell definitely still has Windows installed but they've got Linux versions as well:

It wasn't muddy at all, he was rather successfully trolling.

No I'm not trolling. You however definitely are.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:
if you look at the expense alone for an Apple it's quite apparent they are intended for a specific market not a general market.

The same is true of any new PC. Businesses don't purchase bleeding edge units, and neither do most users. The fact that Apple products cost more than PC products has no bearing on the fact that they are targeted at the same consumers.

Green Blow Fly wrote:if you look at the expense alone for an Apple it's quite apparent they are intended for a specific market not a general market.

G

Anyone who buys a laptop around here can buy the Macbook. People opt not to because it doesn't serve their needs. They used to be over-priced, but now the premium on the macbook is for the aluminum shell, which is why you can buy the policarbonate one for 800$.

People who claim Apple is "niche-market" because of the price tag are probably compensating for something.

What is the specific market for people who want a Macbook?

Also, since it is clear where this thread is headed, I'll go with Dogma. Monopoly, by it's origins, means "sole seller". Which is obviously not the case. There are plenty of alternatives to Windows, people prefer not to use them because they are comfortable using Windows, which can be a pretty reliable OS for day to day use and abuse for the unsavvy.

The MacBook is their low end pc and does not compete versus notebooks from other companies. You are comparing apples to oranges. Nice try though.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:The MacBook is their low end pc and does not compete versus notebooks from other companies. You are comparing apples to oranges. Nice try though.

G

The Mac Book is priced almost exactly in line with other Core 2 Duo products (that are produced by major vendors) that also feature a 13" screen, and comparable amounts of memory.

There are a lot better ways to spend $800. I mean it's not like $800 is chump change.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:The MacBook is their low end pc and does not compete versus notebooks from other companies. You are comparing apples to oranges. Nice try though.

G

What do you want to compare then? I thought we were talking about hardware, pure and simple. Your logic throughout the conversations was that they were directing themselves at a market segment, now you tell me I can't apply that logic to the 13" Macbook because it is their "low end pc"? By your logic, once again, if it didn't fit in the "market segment", then I assume they wouldn't sell it. Brand name is all to easy to ruin.

The Macbook range is probably Apple's biggest share in the computer market.

They are focusing on just a segment of hte market. The $800 version of the MacBook is their entry level notebook. I remember my iBook, it was great but my MacBook Pro I have now is a lot more powerful.

G

GBF is losing me.

I think he's at a loss in expressing is thoughts. I just chimed in on the thread because I disagreed with most of what he said vs. Shuma and Dogma. Also because I think it's interesting to compare the OS, obviously there are advantages/disadvantages, some lighter than others, but each serves it's purpose. Sometimes I just don't understand the hate/fanboyism, etc. (not that I saw much of that in this thread, though).

It is obvious to me that MS has a monopoly on the market, the low end MacBook does not dispell that either. Consider electric utilities as an example. They were deregulated in the 1980s. Still you as a consumer have no choice who you buy from. Of course you do have a choice when it comes to your OS but in reality if you can't afford an Apple you will more than likely go the MS route as it's the easiest route and most accessible. Bill Gates had the vision and drive to create a monopoly while Steve Jobs always intended to focus on a niche market and there is nothing wrong with that either. I prefer Apple because I think they are much more user friendly and much less prone to the myriad of problems that plague Microsoft.

There is a very interesting movie entitled Pirates of the Silicon Valley that tells the story of Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. I recommend it to anyone interested in comparing the two companies. Supposedly Jobs thought himself an avatar of a God and Gates dropped out of Havard as a freshman because he found it boring. There is also a book by Gates I read that was quite interesting as well. I still remember when you could call and ask for tech support without having to pay. Of course all of that has changed and before we know it there will be another super version of the MS OS available.

G

G

It is not so obvious to the anti-trust board as if they felt the same as you MS would not be allowed to do what it does with it's OS. As long as there are alternatives M$ is not considered by those whose opinion on the matter is important, ie the anti-trust board, to be a monopoly.

Again, so long as you have a choice of OS' M$ does not monopolize on the market. IF M$ through dirty dealings and shady buyouts became the sole OS provider than they'd be a monopoly but that will never happen as the anti-trust board will NEVER allow M$ to take over Apple and the dozens of linux distros and Sun systems.

So no, M$ is not a monopoly, not by anti-trust or dictionary definitions.

MS sells it's operating system, Apple bundles it with it's OS, but everyone's free to download and use Linux. And frankly, if you don't want to pay for Windows you don't have to - there are plenty of Linux distros out there. It's not like people don't have a choice, and monopolies are all about lack of choice.

The myriad of problems with Windows has more often to do with user misuse, user abuse, user ignorance, and the variety of systems Windows has to work on. Whereas Apple only has a set number of systems, Microsoft has to work on various different hardware levels and ensuring compatibility is also up to hardware makers (Asus, Nvidia, etc). I've had some problems with Windows running computers because I a) messed with one or other configuration, b) tried to install new hardware onto the MB, c) ignored Windows' warnings and installed software that I shouldn't or d) opened a suspicious email and brainlessly clicked on the link (this one actually never happened, but it's another common happening).

Matter of factly, did you know that most of the Driver problems in Vista were caused by external companies who didn't properly support their product, thus earning Microsoft a bad rep when the ones at fault were actually the 3rd parties?

There are multiple complaints about Mac OS, only there isn't as much a vocal group as in the Windows part because of the sheer difference in users.

BTW, thanks for the heads up on the documentary. I'll probably be getting it.

Ł edited for double post ł

G

MacNewsDaily doesn't show up on google. Mac daily news does. This is the closest I could find to what you describe. It's a Nokia Market analyst spin doctoring and being pretty stupid about it.

Louven reports, "'Technically, the Nokia phones were much better than the iPhone,' said Carolina Milanesi, the market researcher Gartner. 'But were too complicated to use.' In the coming years, ease of use will decide success and failure, said Vanjoki."

Louven reports, "Still, Vanjoki expects that, in the end, Apple will amount to little importance in the market. 'The development of mobile phones will be similar in PCs,' predicts the chief strategist. 'Even with the Mac, Apple has attracted much attention at first, but they have still remained a niche manufacturer. That will be in mobile phones as well.'"

http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/23194/


A niche manufacturer with two of the most successful products in (cell) history and a 50+% market share in the smartphone market (the fastest growing divide of cell phones). At least post links GBF when you demand we listen to experts from a company thats been failing at it's primary market for years and hires idiots to do its "expert" market talk.

It's hard to post links with my iPhone. Sorry.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:It's hard to post links with my iPhone. Sorry.

G

You can just copy paste.

Green Blow Fly wrote:
There is an excellent discussion over at MacNewsDaily dated November 2009 by a leading Nokia strategic expert explaining why Apple targets niche markets, "NICHE markets that work!" in his own words.

Apply manufactures several products which target niche markets. Their personal computers are not among that number.

Green Blow Fly wrote:
There is also an excellent article on www.justice.gov that lists out a myriad of reasons why Microsoft enjoys the position of holding a monopoly on the OS market. As pointed out there is no other company that in a short time could fill the role that Microsoft has designed for itself.

As I said, the defining characteristic of a monopoly is its capacity to influence the ability of competitors to enter a given market. In order to have a monopoly, Microsoft must be able to prevent other operating systems from being offered. They have proven unable to do so. If monopoly status were determined by mere market share, then you would be correct.

dogma do you really believe that:

Apple plans or wants to overtake MS in the control of OS sold in the US?

That if they did they are in a position to actually do so?

G

Of course they want to overtake MS in the control of OS sold in the US. Why would they not? Afraid of earning more?

Well then I recommend you speak to their shareholders and convince them to allow their OS to run on non Mac machines.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:dogma do you really believe that:

Apple plans or wants to overtake MS in the control of OS sold in the US?

That if they did they are in a position to actually do so?

G

No, but that has nothing to do with catering to a niche market. Simply because you do not plan to dominate a market it does not follow that you do not plan to hold a certain share of it.

What niche do Apple's computers fill?