Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Who is worse monopoly?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • chrispadfield
    replied
    But if Apple was as successful as Microsoft is today, it would be a lot worse monopoly, if you look at Apple website, they want to be everything at once, they sell computers and operating systems and they won't let anyone else sell their computers and they won't let anyone else make an operating systems for their computers.
    This does seem to be the case, Apple locking itunes to the ipod is a particular case in point. However, the point here is that Apple istn't a monopoly or even near to being a monopoly in any major market they are in - and that is why linking products like they do is so not an abuse of monopoly power - because they don't have any. Don't like your music only being linked to Ipod, then don't buy music from Apple or the Ipod. The difference with microsoft is rather clear - they have a monopoly on their OS (although the monopoly power appears to be weakening a little).

    Leave a comment:


  • Martz
    replied
    Software patents are the worst monopolies which exist, and its seemily only going to get worse.

    Leave a comment:


  • AWS
    replied
    Living through those times was really something. When I look back the leap into the computer age was nothing short of amazing. My first experience with a computer was in 1971, my senoir year of high school. This thing took up the whole computer science lab. You programmed it with punch cards and when you ran them through the machine it read the program and executed it. We had to learn Fortran and basic machine code. To complete the course each team of 3 had to complete an accounting program. We had to automate an inventory program for a fictional car dealership complete with billing, purchasing, loan calculations and the like. Keyboard time was at a minimum. We were late one day for our time and as we were rushing down the hall we dropped the box that had our program in it. Took us a day to get them back in order so we could finish it.
    Man those were the days. I couldn't have grown up during a better time.

    Leave a comment:


  • MGM
    replied
    I'm loving this thread, I've learned plenty of things from reading it, thanks to everyone who posted histories of the various companies mentioned in this thread!

    QDOS eh.... interesting....

    MGM out

    Leave a comment:


  • PeteRoy
    replied
    Originally posted by splooge
    There was a really cool show on PBS called "Revenge of the Nerds" which tells the whole Apple/IBM/Microsoft story and the numerous wrong turns that Apple took.
    You got a little confused, Revenge of the Nerds is a stupid movie.

    Your talking about "The Triumph of the Nerds"

    Leave a comment:


  • AWS
    replied
    Back in 1976 the Altair came into existence. There was no software that could run on it. Steve Balmer saw an article in a mag about this new computer. Bill and Steve contacted the maker and said they had software that would run on the box. They didn't. The company accepted Steves proposal to come and show them what could be done. Steve and Bill created BASIC. Steve went on to the meeting and didn't even know if their BASIC would run on the Altair since they didn't have access to one. It did and MS was born shortly after.
    On early computers that weren't Apple you didn't get an OS. Atari and Commodore you got an interpreter that you programmed in basic to get it to do what you wanted or you bought or traded software with others. I'm sure some remember what it was like in those days. Pre packaged software came in sort of a rom that you plugged into the side the keyboard or on a 5 1/4 floppy.
    Bill and Steve had a way of lying and getting away with it in the early days.

    Leave a comment:


  • Vile
    replied
    Originally posted by splooge
    Apple lost way before that. IBM went straight to Apple and asked them to make an OS that would run on their (new at the time) PC's. Apple said, "Sorry, ain't got time for you."

    IBM then went to Microsoft and asked if they had an OS that would run on their PC's. Microsoft lied and said, "We sure do!" They didn't. They went out and purchased something called QDOS - Quick and Dirty OS - and then came up with the ingenious idea of licensing it to IBM instead of selling it.

    At least, that's how I remember it. There was a really cool show on PBS called "Revenge of the Nerds" which tells the whole Apple/IBM/Microsoft story and the numerous wrong turns that Apple took.
    Other way around actually, Microsoft approached IBM (MS was a tiny company no one had heard of at the time, and IBM was king of the hill)

    The best movie that tells the MS & Apple story is Pirates of Silicon Valley.

    Leave a comment:


  • splooge
    replied
    Originally posted by AWS
    Read Viles reply. There was a time when Apple was working toward an x86 version of OSX. Rumor has it that there is a couple builds floating around internally. When Jobs came back that was the first thing he supposedly put a stop to it. He didn't want his OS running on anything but his hardware. Just think how big a dent Apple could make in the OS market if they released OSX for x86. They could instantly threaten MS at the top of the heap. Something that no other OS can do.
    Apple lost way before that. IBM went straight to Apple and asked them to make an OS that would run on their (new at the time) PC's. Apple said, "Sorry, ain't got time for you."

    IBM then went to Microsoft and asked if they had an OS that would run on their PC's. Microsoft lied and said, "We sure do!" They didn't. They went out and purchased something called QDOS - Quick and Dirty OS - and then came up with the ingenious idea of licensing it to IBM instead of selling it.

    At least, that's how I remember it. There was a really cool show on PBS called "Revenge of the Nerds" which tells the whole Apple/IBM/Microsoft story and the numerous wrong turns that Apple took.

    Leave a comment:


  • cirisme
    replied
    Originally posted by tgillespie
    I would love to run OSX, but I am a very poor college student on a budget that does not include $3000 for a Mac.
    I, too, am too poor to spend $2,000+ on any computer, but the mini Mac is perfect for me because of this.

    Leave a comment:


  • AWS
    replied
    It was also his ego that saved the company as well....
    Read Viles reply. There was a time when Apple was working toward an x86 version of OSX. Rumor has it that there is a couple builds floating around internally. When Jobs came back that was the first thing he supposedly put a stop to it. He didn't want his OS running on anything but his hardware. Just think how big a dent Apple could make in the OS market if they released OSX for x86. They could instantly threaten MS at the top of the heap. Something that no other OS can do.

    Leave a comment:


  • ManagerJosh
    replied
    Originally posted by AWS
    It wasn't Apple as a whole it was Steve Jobs. After his ego almost ruined the company he was removed as Apple CEO in 1985.
    It was also his ego that saved the company as well....

    Leave a comment:


  • Vile
    replied
    Meh. Everyone hypes up Apple, and seems to forget that the only reason they are around is because Microsoft saved them (financially)

    It was obviously a smart move for Microsoft to keep Apple around, but the reality is that MS is the only reason Apple still exists to this day.
    Last edited by Vile; Tue 25 Jan '05, 9:35pm.

    Leave a comment:


  • tgillespie
    replied
    Originally posted by Zachery
    Macs are insanely powerfull and too many people push them aside just because they appear to have "low" figures.

    No one every thought a 1.8ghz processor could match a 2.8 guess what, they do, AMD v P4.

    Apple has the same sort of concept. their ppc processors do more period. they do not need to have the same clock speeds that their x86 counter parts do.

    a good friend of my family has been using mac since 82, and will never, ever, switch to a windows machine, he doesnt even allow me to turn my laptop on at his office. Instead he lets me use his ibook . Mac has a brand loyality that is strong than any of the linux or windows fans could ever hope for.
    I didn't say they didn't have power. I said they have quality hardware that costs lots of quality bucks. The fact that they package everything together forces you to get the best processor with the best mem with the best everything and it all costs way to much. The fact that I can't use my $800 processor to zip through HL2 is unpractical. The fact that I can't use my $600 video card to its full potential is unpractical. The fact that if I want to try out some 3rd party developed software and I can't, is unpractical. The fact that I paid over $300 for cooling and case features that mean absolutely nothing to me, but are required, is unpractical.

    Leave a comment:


  • AWS
    replied
    It wasn't Apple as a whole it was Steve Jobs. After his ego almost ruined the company he was removed as Apple CEO in 1985.

    Leave a comment:


  • PeteRoy
    replied
    Bill Gates is not the reason for Apple not being successful, it's Apple themselves who wanted to control everything and not focus on only one thing.

    All Microsoft does is write software, they used to write software for Macs, PC's and now mostly for their own operating systems.

    Apple wants it all, they want to control all software and hardware which is too much for one company to ask.

    Leave a comment:

widgetinstance 262 (Related Topics) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
Working...
X