| reply to Romney2012
Re: Google will get what it wants The author comes short of calling Apple a monopoly by using the word "monopolistic". Still, this is a flawed premise because there are literally thousands of competing products for its music player and phone business. Locking in customers because *they* enjoy using your product is not monopolistic. Certainly, Apple *does* exclude rivals from its product line and supporting businesses; why the hell shouldn't it? Microsoft doesn't include iTunes support as part of its Zune package.
The Zune is, in many ways, more compelling than the iPod but fails in key areas. Namely, Microsoft falls down in being able to successfully market it as a lifestyle device. Despite the products merits, it wounded compelling features and failed to duplicate the iTunes experience.
"Apple will face a user revolt in the coming years based upon Microsoft, Google and other yet-to-be-formed companies, undercutting their core markets with cheap, stable and open devices."
Doubtful. There are forces beyond Apple and AT&T that do not want open devices. Namely, the entertainment industry. Apple has the option of telling Hollywood to go **ck themselves, or they can appease the entertainment people and get them aboard to assure that the customer has a nice experience as well as a Disneyland like method of spending more money.
As it pertains to the telecommunications industry, sure, go ahead and put Apple up against the wall. Then, line up Motorola, Nokia and LG for playing the same game along with the cell providers themselves. Apple is the first handset to be release in the past 10 years that hasn't had the manufacturer's software replaced or modified to the liking of the carrier.
Certainly, Apple is no saint. Their application approval process is as political as they come, and not very friendly to the people who make the iPhone such an attractive handset. And I do not agree with how the iPhone has limitations upon the use of 3G with respect to certain applications. But the fall-out isn't going to have people throwing their iPhones on Ebay and defecting. It may or may not affect future purchases, but I really doubt it.
The iPhone is three years old and probably is no longer the least restricted smartphone on the market. But it was the first to push a carrier into chilling the hell out and letting the customer do what they want. I agree, still a ways to go, but all of this is probably going to amount to bumpkis defections away from the iPhone nor other Apple products.
Well, with the exception of Apple TV. That thing sucks. |
|
|
|
 MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | said by clickie:Apple is the first handset to be release in the past 10 years that hasn't had the manufacturer's software replaced or modified to the liking of the carrier. As an iPhone owner, I find this laughable. Modification comes in many more forms than outright OS modification. Not allowing applications to work over 3G seems like a pretty serious modification to me. Aside from that, I've owned 2 Windows Mobile phones and aside from crippling GPS, there was no OS modification whatsoever.
And as far as anti-trust, the only reason Apple is able to get away with things Microsoft gets slapped for, is because they have high margin, low-volume products. Of course, the iPod and the iPhone have changed that and the repercussions are starting to be seen. Anyone remember the France iPod lawsuit? I would imagine that is just the start if the iPhone stays exclusively on the AT&T network. |
|
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | reply to clickie
Re: Monopoly...how is what Apple is doing different from what Microsoft did when the FTC slapped it with regulation? |
|
| Different circumstances. |
|
| reply to rradina
said by rradina:Re: Monopoly...how is what Apple is doing different from what Microsoft did when the FTC slapped it with regulation? Holding a 93% market share?
--
Jay: What the @#$% is the internet??? |
|
Reviews:
 ·WOW Internet and..
| reply to Matt
MSFT doesn't get slapped here in the US. It's the EU that doesn't like MSFT and thats only because Google runs their mouth over there and then two weeks later (if that long) you see Google in the news getting their hands slapped for the same damn thing. |
|
| reply to Matt
Aside...aside...aside. That is exactly my point, although I did a poor job of enumerating it. Apple is no saint, and the 3.0 software is crippled. But what I had intended on saying is that it isn't an outright replacement of the phone OS with something that displays a big red V and moves menu buttons around to increase the probability of hitting the data service to incur a $2 data charge for 31kb of data.
Likewise for disabling Bluetooth, disabling file transfer of photos. However, despite its faults, the iPhone is a very big first step in the right direction of getting the carrier's sticky fingers out of the phones.
I don't find a compelling comparison between Microsoft and Apple as it pertains to monopoly in computers. However, I will agree that they might have a difficult time of it in their own App Store. Their control seems to be intended more to protect their and partner profits and less about user experience. Troubling times. |
|
MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | said by clickie:Aside...aside...aside. That is exactly my point, although I did a poor job of enumerating it. Apple is no saint, and the 3.0 software is crippled. But what I had intended on saying is that it isn't an outright replacement of the phone OS with something that displays a big red V and moves menu buttons around to increase the probability of hitting the data service to incur a $2 data charge for 31kb of data. Likewise for disabling Bluetooth, disabling file transfer of photos. However, despite its faults, the iPhone is a very big first step in the right direction of getting the carrier's sticky fingers out of the phones. They don't do this on any smartphones. I've never seen an OS replaced on a BlackBerry nor a Windows Mobile phone. They did do this on the handheld phones (the Verizon BREW software was a terrible offender) but not on their smartphone-type devices ... the ones that would compete with the iPhone that is. |
|
| reply to clickie
said by clickie:The author comes short of calling Apple a monopoly by using the word "monopolistic". Still, this is a flawed premise because there are literally thousands of competing products for its music player and phone business. Locking in customers because *they* enjoy using your product is not monopolistic. Certainly, Apple *does* exclude rivals from its product line and supporting businesses; why the hell shouldn't it? Microsoft doesn't include iTunes support as part of its Zune package. The Zune is, in many ways, more compelling than the iPod but fails in key areas. Namely, Microsoft falls down in being able to successfully market it as a lifestyle device. Despite the products merits, it wounded compelling features and failed to duplicate the iTunes experience. "Apple will face a user revolt in the coming years based upon Microsoft, Google and other yet-to-be-formed companies, undercutting their core markets with cheap, stable and open devices." Doubtful. There are forces beyond Apple and AT&T that do not want open devices. Namely, the entertainment industry. Apple has the option of telling Hollywood to go **ck themselves, or they can appease the entertainment people and get them aboard to assure that the customer has a nice experience as well as a Disneyland like method of spending more money. As it pertains to the telecommunications industry, sure, go ahead and put Apple up against the wall. Then, line up Motorola, Nokia and LG for playing the same game along with the cell providers themselves. Apple is the first handset to be release in the past 10 years that hasn't had the manufacturer's software replaced or modified to the liking of the carrier. Certainly, Apple is no saint. Their application approval process is as political as they come, and not very friendly to the people who make the iPhone such an attractive handset. And I do not agree with how the iPhone has limitations upon the use of 3G with respect to certain applications. But the fall-out isn't going to have people throwing their iPhones on Ebay and defecting. It may or may not affect future purchases, but I really doubt it. The iPhone is three years old and probably is no longer the least restricted smartphone on the market. But it was the first to push a carrier into chilling the hell out and letting the customer do what they want. I agree, still a ways to go, but all of this is probably going to amount to bumpkis defections away from the iPhone nor other Apple products. Well, with the exception of Apple TV. That thing sucks. Um...it's called anti-TRUST litigation for a reason. You don't need to have a monopoly to engage in anti-competitive behavior. As long as you're engaging your market share at one level to leverage your products and degrade your competitors at another level, you are breaking a law. *That* is what Apple has been doing with its iPhone hardware and App store. |
|
| anti-trust? LMAO! The Feds have other things to do than worry about that right now. |
|
