Microsoft vs. Apple: Monopolist vs. Innovator 40 comments

> Even at that rate it is technically possible to be judged a monopoly. British Airways got nailed with something like 30+% domestic marketshare. They were doing travel agent loyalty programs with rebates and other incentives to squeeze the then-growing Virgin out of the domestic market. They had the cash to do it, and Virgin didn't.

Sure, but that's monopolistic strategy they got nailed for.

Show me where Apple has strong-armed anyone who sells their products with "loyalty" programs and lopsided incentives designed to squeeze out their competition.

Let's see, "Apple forces retailers to only stock Apple products". Nope. Not that I've ever heard.

"Apple drops prices to selected retailers to undercut competition". Nope. Apple's prices are notorious. (Worth it, IMO, but nevertheless they make no secret of them.)

Maybe I missed the headline you're thinking of...

> Apple is acting in an anticompetitive manner against Psystar, trying to not allow competition. Yes, I know the judge denied that. But their monopoly is a legal one based on the limited granted copyright monopoly Apple has on OS X (the extent of said monopoly still to be decided)

There is no such thing as having a "monopoly" on your own trademarked product. Simple as that.

"Monopoly" applies to a marketplace. A company may act in an anti-competitive manner, in a given marketplace. But it's not their own product that's at issue, it's the position of the company in the marketplace and how they act about it.

If I invent and trademark a "Dayglored Widget", and defend my trademark (something I have to do to keep it, ya know), am I a "monopoly" because I'm the only manufacturer?

If I sue someone who -- illegally, in defiance of my legally binding license -- makes work-alike widgets that copy trademarked features of mine, am I a monopoly because I defend my legally-protected product?

This is silly. Really.

> Selling the part but still trying to keep others from making competing products is anticompetitive.

I see where we disagree. Let me try to explain.

Microsoft does not manufacture "computer systems". They make software. Part of a system, but only half.

Dell and other PC hardware vendors do not manufacture "computer systems". They make hardware. Part of a system, but only half.

Show me a Dell computer that consists of Dell hardware integrated with a Dell operating system. Ain't none that I know of.

Show me a Microsoft computer that consists of Microsoft hardware integrated with Windows. Ain't none that I know of.

Apple manufactures SYSTEMS, consisting of hardware integrated with software. They make SYSTEMS. They do not sell their software for use with other manufacturer's hardware, and while they ALLOW -- under certain circumstances -- Mac owners to put other software on the Apple hardware, they NEVER sell the hardware without the software. They sell SYSTEMS.

When will the Psystar apologists realize that Psystar is not making a competing product (a system) -- they are making an illegal copyright-infringing piece of hardware and encouraging Mac-heads to violate the terms of the OS-X EULA (which states you may not install OS-X on non-Apple hardware).

The reason that restriction is legal is simply that Apple manufactures and sells SYSTEMS and they have the right to require that the SYSTEM not be broken up in pieces.

There's lots of precedent for that. Analogies with Windows and PC hardware are fallacious and nothing more.

. They do not sell their software for use with other manufacturer's hardware

There's the kicker -- they sell their software independently of the hardware. They are both a software and a hardware manufacturer.

while they ALLOW -- under certain circumstances -- Mac owners to put other software on the Apple hardware

That is the equivalent of saying while Ford will allow -- under certain circumstances -- owners to put non-Ford gasoline (if Ford sold gasoline) in Ford cars. Ford doesn't allow anything, and Apple shouldn't be able to either. You bought the hardware, it's yours, period.

When will the Psystar apologists realize that Psystar is not making a competing product (a system) -- they are making an illegal copyright-infringing piece of hardware and encouraging Mac-heads to violate the terms of the OS-X EULA

Here is where we disagree. Psystar is paying for each copy of OS X. The first question is the EULA. I don't think that should be enforceable because it stretches copyright beyond its intent. I believe Apple has the right to prevent you from making and distributing multiple copies of OS X off the disk you bought -- that's right in with copyright. But I can't agree with them having the power to say what you can and can't install it on. You bought it, it's yours, you install it wherever you want. Just don't distribute copies.

The second is the DMCA. I believe this is an extremely clear case of the interoperability exemption, since they are trying to get OS X to operate with standard PC hardware.

Here I run up against the problem of principle vs. practical. I do NOT want Psystar diluting the OS X market with unsupported machines that have no quality engineering in them (they may be decent by PC standards, but that's a lower standard). History with Microsoft shows people will blame Apple for any of Psystar's screw-ups. But the principles of original copyright intent and being against copyright abuse override that.

Read up on the difference between trademark, patent and copyright, and then get back to me.

I didn't say Apple is doing it. I said Apple isn't insulated from anti-trust law just because they don't have a large marketshare. I went on to give an example of what Apple could do to get nailed despite having a small marketshare.

"Apple forces retailers to only stock Apple products". Nope. Not that I've ever heard.

They used to. I know a small PC retailer who was looking to sell Macs some years back before the Apple Stores and Macs in Best Buy, and he said their requirements were draconian, to include only selling Macs. He couldn't make enough money around here selling only Macs so he gave up on the idea.

> Read up on the difference between trademark, patent and copyright, and then get back to me.

Yeah, got me there. I wrote that comment while trying to do two other things, one of which apparently allocated all my brain cycles. I seem to have gotten into writing "trademark" over and over, when I meant something else... sorry about that.

> There's the kicker -- they sell their software independently of the hardware. They are both a software and a hardware manufacturer.

I'm unaware of them selling OS-X except for use on Mac computers which came with it (or upgrade from OS9). The fact that they also sell iTunes and Safari and whatnot for Windows means zilch in this instance, since the limitation is about installing OS-X on non-Apple hardware.

> That is the equivalent of saying while Ford will allow -- under certain circumstances -- owners to put non-Ford gasoline (if Ford sold gasoline) in Ford cars. Ford doesn't allow anything, and Apple shouldn't be able to either. You bought the hardware, it's yours, period.

I agree that if you buy Apple's hardware, it's yours to load with whatever you want. Indeed, I've got an old PPC MacMini that I put Fedora Core 10 on -- not a VM, right on the hardware. I've got a newer Intel Mini that is BootCamped with XP alongside Leopard. (These are in addition to perhaps a dozen VMware VMs of you-name-it.)

The limitation is on the software. OS-X is for use on Mac hardware with certain design characteristics that are (as far as I know) copyrighted by Apple as part of that hardware design.

I don't see why people expect Apple to give up exclusivity on OS-X. They're primarily a hardware company, and are interested in selling hardware. Sure, OS-X is pretty cool, and I like that it's BSD Unix under the hood. But really, Apple is about the SYSTEM and the user experience. They do that by integrating the hardware and software.

Running OS-X on PC-quality hardware might seem reasonable to a user, but allowing it would be beyond insane for Apple, for the support headaches and bad press alone. Nevermind that they would lose a chunk of their market for their SYSTEMS and hardware.

> I can't agree with them having the power to say what you can and can't install it on. You bought it, it's yours, you install it wherever you want.

I likewise believe that if I buy a piece of software, I should be able to install it on anything I want.

BUT -- and this is a BIG BUT -- I should take all responsibility for the problems I encounter, and not blame Apple, who is not going to support it, and who makes no claim of operability on my random hardware.

And we both know that that won't happen -- users will complain about OS-X not doing this or that on the Psystar, or acting up on their homebrew crap machine, and Apple will suffer even if they don't have to formally provide support.

Back in 1978 or so, I got a copy of a cassette tape of Microsoft 8K BASIC for the 6502, and I cobbed it up to work on my homebrew 6502 system (originally based on a KIM-1, later a wirewrap of my own design). When I had problems, did I call Bill Gates and complain? Hell no, it was a matter of honor to get it working myself!

That ethic is nearly gone, what's left is mostly over in Linux-land, and we both know that most of the Psystar owners are going to piss and moan about OS-X, and blame Apple for their troubles, instead of stepping up and fixing them themselves. They want the right to run the software on hardware it wasn't designed for, they can bloody well figure out how to support it themselves. I have absolutely no sympathy for them.

Hence my siding with Apple on this one, despite the fact that I agree that if I buy the software it's mine to do with as I please.

I'm unaware of them selling OS-X except for use on Mac computers

You can walk into any Mac store and buy a copy, or order online. Psystar sells their computers with full, purchased copies of OS X.

The limitation is on the software. OS-X is for use on Mac hardware with certain design characteristics that are (as far as I know) copyrighted by Apple as part of that hardware design.

On a desktop Mac the only special hardware in this regard is the EFI, and that was designed by a consortium led by Intel for use in any system. Otherwise, Apple uses DRM to try to prevent installation.

Running OS-X on PC-quality hardware might seem reasonable to a user, but allowing it would be beyond insane for Apple, for the support headaches and bad press alone.

That is my main worry, but it is a practical one, not a principle one. I refuse to bend on the rights of users and the limitations of copyright monopoly power just because I like Apple. I do think Apple should defend its trademarks as vigorously as possible so there is no confusion in the public's mind that Psystar systems are not a supported platform for OS X.

And I don't care if another company digs into Mac sales because no company has a right to make a profit, only a right to the opportunity. That's competition, and that's good for us.

I think the whole “intellectual property” thing got people used to lumping the three together mentally instead of thinking of them as different concepts with different laws and effects.