Apple is looking like what Microsoft was 10 years ago—a Bigfoot that squeezes smaller competitors.
Comment: Yeah, I'm sure Apple misses "those days". You know, like that time they lost $700 million in one quarter.
Funny how people pick on this aspect of business when it comes to Apple, yet blissfully expect it from their competitors. Why is that?
Comment: THE GREAT BUSH DEPRESSION
I follow an economist named Bob Proctor. He has called the top and bottom of every market crash since the 70s correctly.
He perfectly predicted the current meltdown and the picture he paints about what will happen next
is terrifying.He thinks it will be worse then the great depression.
The banks in the U.S. are going under one after the other. Countrywide ,Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch , Fanny and Freddy Mae ,AIG
The government took them over because they are bankrupt. Even with the goverment nationalizing hundreds of billions of dollars in debt the stock market is crashing
the credit markets are frozen and all of us may suffer beyond anything seen in generations
McCain just like Bush " doesn't understand the economy".
That not just my opinion its his own words. Not only does he not understand how to fix it but he does not understand how its been broken.
It is no surprise that he doesn't. The people that make up these securities use quantum mathematical models very few people understand.
Bush and McCain both can take the credit for this mess since they helped deregulate the laws that were protecting us.
Bush's economic advisor Phil Graham wrote the deregulation bill that allowed banks to take huge risks with all of our future.
Now, Phil Graham is the head of McCain's economic policy.He is also McCain's choice for the next secretary of the treasury.
No one in this country can afford for that to happen. The last time Bush met with his economic advisors was in March. He was the last to know somthing was wrong. Phil Graham had the guts to say that we are in a mental recession after he helped create the worst economy meltdown in our lifetime. Check out this link to the truth http://my.barackobama.com/keatingvideo
It will take the best and brightest minds in the world to get us out of this nightmare. As bad as Bush has done, McCain would be
even more destructive because things are in much worse shape. The next president will not inherit a budget surplus like Bush did but a crashing economy and a 11,600,000,000,000 (trillion) dollars deficit. Most of it Bush created and it will take decades to pay it back.
If you do what you have always done then you will get what you have always got.
When it comes to policy Bush and McCain are the same 90 percent of the time.
So why are the polls even close then ?
Mccains team just said they no longer want to talk about the economy.Instead they would like to spend time talking about obama
which means running the biggest smear campaign in history.
They think they can just tell you lies and you wont be smart enough to see through it
Let's teach him we are smarter than that
Stand up and hold them accountable
Bush isn't on the ballot this year but his policies are
Elect Obama Biden 2008
Check out this video of sarah palins interview and ask your self if she understands what she is talking about.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r36Xc0GG4iQ
Comment: THE GREAT BUSH DEPRESSION
I follow an economist named Bob Proctor. He has called the top and bottom of every market crash since the 70s correctly.
He perfectly predicted the current meltdown and the picture he paints about what will happen next
is terrifying.He thinks it will be worse then the great depression.
The banks in the U.S. are going under one after the other. Countrywide ,Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch , Fanny and Freddy Mae ,AIG
The government took them over because they are bankrupt. Even with the goverment nationalizing hundreds of billions of dollars in debt the stock market is crashing
the credit markets are frozen and all of us may suffer beyond anything seen in generations
McCain just like Bush " doesn't understand the economy".
That not just my opinion its his own words. Not only does he not understand how to fix it but he does not understand how its been broken.
It is no surprise that he doesn't. The people that make up these securities use quantum mathematical models very few people understand.
Bush and McCain both can take the credit for this mess since they helped deregulate the laws that were protecting us.
Bush's economic advisor Phil Graham wrote the deregulation bill that allowed banks to take huge risks with all of our future.
Now, Phil Graham is the head of McCain's economic policy.He is also McCain's choice for the next secretary of the treasury.
No one in this country can afford for that to happen. The last time Bush met with his economic advisors was in March. He was the last to know somthing was wrong. Phil Graham had the guts to say that we are in a mental recession after he helped create the worst economy meltdown in our lifetime. Check out this link to the truth http://my.barackobama.com/keatingvideo
It will take the best and brightest minds in the world to get us out of this nightmare. As bad as Bush has done, McCain would be
even more destructive because things are in much worse shape. The next president will not inherit a budget surplus like Bush did but a crashing economy and a 11,600,000,000,000 (trillion) dollars deficit. Most of it Bush created and it will take decades to pay it back.
If you do what you have always done then you will get what you have always got.
When it comes to policy Bush and McCain are the same 90 percent of the time.
So why are the polls even close then ?
Mccains team just said they no longer want to talk about the economy.Instead they would like to spend time talking about obama
which means running the biggest smear campaign in history.
They think they can just tell you lies and you wont be smart enough to see through it
Let's teach him we are smarter than that
Stand up and hold them accountable
Bush isn't on the ballot this year but his policies are
Elect Obama Biden 2008
Check out this video of sarah palins interview and ask your self if she understands what she is talking about.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r36Xc0GG4iQ
Comment: THE GREAT BUSH DEPRESSION
I follow an economist named Bob Proctor. He has called the top and bottom of every market crash since the 70s correctly.
He perfectly predicted the current meltdown and the picture he paints about what will happen next
is terrifying.He thinks it will be worse then the great depression.
The banks in the U.S. are going under one after the other. Countrywide ,Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch , Fanny and Freddy Mae ,AIG
The government took them over because they are bankrupt. Even with the goverment nationalizing hundreds of billions of dollars in debt the stock market is crashing
the credit markets are frozen and all of us may suffer beyond anything seen in generations
McCain just like Bush " doesn't understand the economy".
That not just my opinion its his own words. Not only does he not understand how to fix it but he does not understand how its been broken.
It is no surprise that he doesn't. The people that make up these securities use quantum mathematical models very few people understand.
Bush and McCain both can take the credit for this mess since they helped deregulate the laws that were protecting us.
Bush's economic advisor Phil Graham wrote the deregulation bill that allowed banks to take huge risks with all of our future.
Now, Phil Graham is the head of McCain's economic policy.He is also McCain's choice for the next secretary of the treasury.
No one in this country can afford for that to happen. The last time Bush met with his economic advisors was in March. He was the last to know somthing was wrong. Phil Graham had the guts to say that we are in a mental recession after he helped create the worst economy meltdown in our lifetime. Check out this link to the truth http://my.barackobama.com/keatingvideo
It will take the best and brightest minds in the world to get us out of this nightmare. As bad as Bush has done, McCain would be
even more destructive because things are in much worse shape. The next president will not inherit a budget surplus like Bush did but a crashing economy and a 11,600,000,000,000 (trillion) dollars deficit. Most of it Bush created and it will take decades to pay it back.
If you do what you have always done then you will get what you have always got.
When it comes to policy Bush and McCain are the same 90 percent of the time.
So why are the polls even close then ?
Mccains team just said they no longer want to talk about the economy.Instead they would like to spend time talking about obama
which means running the biggest smear campaign in history.
They think they can just tell you lies and you wont be smart enough to see through it
Let's teach him we are smarter than that
Stand up and hold them accountable
Bush isn't on the ballot this year but his policies are
Elect Obama Biden 2008
Check out this video of sarah palins interview and ask your self if she understands what she is talking about.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r36Xc0GG4iQ
Comment: This is old news for me. I realized Jobs was a monopolist when I first heard it would cost $99 to change your G1/G2 iPod battery and you still wouldn't get your own iPod back. Probably would've realized it earlier (from Apple being the only manufacturer of Mac-compatible computers) if I paid any mind to Apple before then.
Comment: Be that as it may, they seem to have been the only concern that understood how to integrate the entertainment and computer industry and most recently the telephone. They have simplified and enhanced my music experience, my photo exeperience, my web browsing experience and my phone experience exponentially. As for their computers, I don't have to spend my Saturday mornings rebooting my operating system anymore.
Comment: Apple poses no threat to us whatsoever!
http://fakesteveballmer.blogspot.com
Comment: Look! At the end of the day, bar no one everyone is a monopolist. I have to admit I joined IT to make money and not for the goodness of Mankind and charity. I do charity in different ways. The difference between Apple and Microsoft is that Apple really innovates and listens to its users (from a user experience perspective) which is why even during apple's hardest time it still had a bunch of Mac Loyalists. With Microsoft the company never innovated it followed a more "embrace and extend model rather anything else". The only thing I can wish for is that Apple does not loose it's spirit i.e. making hardware and software simple to use and consume. I have worked with Apple computers since the days of the Apple IIe. This is one company that has pushed the envelope of innovation at every sphere. As far as Steve Jobs and Bill gates comparisons go. Steve was not born with a silver spoon in his mouth like Gates and had a more humble beginning than Gates. Which is think is reflected in the way apple designs its technology. Microsoft's leadership has no concept of that.
Comment: "Apple owns popular hardware platforms (iPod, iPhone) and operates the only store that can sell music, movies and software programs for those platforms. Apple sets prices and takes 30 percent of the money." That's not entirely true. Music and movies purchased or obtained elsewhere (Amazon's MP3 store, for example) work fine on the iPods and iPhone. It's partially true for the App Store, but note that Apple does not set prices for 3rd party apps.
Further, there's no such thing as an "iTouch"
Comment: I direct the Institute for Advanced Studies at Aspen. In March of 2007 it become obvious that we had to rid ourselves of the black hole called Windows and try something we had abandoned many years before. We switched to Apple Macs and all I can report is that we are no longer spending over an hour per person per day chasing after the swiss cheese operating system.
Windows was an absolute nightmare compared to OSx 6.0. Perhaps that is why over sixty percent of all new computer sales in the United States belong to Apple. There are millions and will be tens of millions more refugees fleeing the Windows debacle. Bill Gates blew it and should be held accountable but he seems to have achieved the status of a robber baron. He left a clueless man to replace him in retirement. It is a pity Windows could have been a great operating system instead of a great torment.
Now comes Mr. Lyons warning us of an Apple juggernaut and comparing Mr. Jobs to Mr. Gates. If there is one thing Steve Jobs is not it is Bill Gates. I personally pray that he never becomes anything like Bill Gates but I have to acknowledge that Apple needs to be very self critical in its new and well deserved success. Otherwise the bad attitude of superiority which unfortunately does characterize some of its personnel could cause Apple to fall from its lofty position.
Personally I really tire of old Windows diehards ignoring the psychological torture to which Windows users are subjected daily. Apple is currently a breath of fresh air. It will only stay way as long as its ego does not get more in the way.
Comment: I direct the Institute for Advanced Studies at Aspen. In March of 2007 it become obvious that we had to rid ourselves of the black hole called Windows and try something we had abandoned many years before. We switched to Apple Macs and all I can report is that we are no longer spending over an hour per person per day chasing after the swiss cheese operating system.
Windows was an absolute nightmare compared to OSx 6.0. Perhaps that is why over sixty percent of all new computer sales in the United States belong to Apple. There are millions and will be tens of millions more refugees fleeing the Windows debacle. Bill Gates blew it and should be held accountable but he seems to have achieved the status of a robber baron. He left a clueless man to replace him in retirement. It is a pity Windows could have been a great operating system instead of a great torment.
Now comes Mr. Lyons warning us of an Apple juggernaut and comparing Mr. Jobs to Mr. Gates. If there is one thing Steve Jobs is not it is Bill Gates. I personally pray that he never becomes anything like Bill Gates but I have to acknowledge that Apple needs to be very self critical in its new and well deserved success. Otherwise the bad attitude of superiority which unfortunately does characterize some of its personnel could cause Apple to fall from its lofty position.
Personally I really tire of old Windows diehards ignoring the psychological torture to which Windows users are subjected daily. Apple is currently a breath of fresh air. It will only stay way as long as its ego does not get more in the way.
Comment: Daniel - Hello??!! If you don't want to do business with Apple go elsewhere! You can't do that with Microsoft. Thankfully that is changing, and it is why I switched to Mac computers two years ago and am not going back. I use what Apple has put out - Mac, OS X, iPhone, iPod, etc. because I want to, and because they are superior products to what is out there. Vista?? Don't get me started...
Comment: Jeez, there are obviously a few hardcore apple fans here. I like both Microsoft and Apple and can objectively look at both and see the bad and the good. This article simply states the facts, both companies practice monopolistic (I just made a word!) practices when they can get away with it. What's new? Apple is one of many great computers along with a lot of less expensive pc's. Take your pick!
Comment: Your comments on Job's health and the negative spin of your past few articles make it obvious that you have become vindictive. What's the matter, did Jobs hurt your feelings? Get over it and stick to reporting facts.
Comment: Once upon a time I was a computer geek. I could walk into Fry's Electronics and buy everything I needed to build a computer ground up. Motherboards, CPU's, hard drives, they even have blank curcuit boads an advanced geek could build from scratch. All interchangeable, all sold seperately with a wide variety to choose from. Sure, theroetically you could do the same thing with Apple. As long as you bought their products out of their catalog for 3 times the cost. So whose being more monopolistic? Microsoft, a software maker, whose program can be erased from any hard drive in exchange for any other opperating system except Apple's? Not because Microsoft or even the computer parts manufacturers won't allow it, but because Apple won't allow it. I often question this notion that Apple is better than PC. PC is not Microsoft. PC is every computer hardware and software manufacturer on the planet. Your telling me that Apple is better than everyone in every possible interchangeable configuation? Even the companies that make large scale computer IT networking and database infrastructure with a division that makes products found in PC's? I think not.
Apple makes a fine product, but it's marketing department is the real reason behind it's success. When you buy Apple your paying extra for a chic name brand. I mean really... $500 for a headset? What a hustle!
Comment: Daniel Lyons writes "The really scary thing about Apple is that it doesn't just make hit products???it controls entire ecosystems." Then he compares Apple's business practices with Microsoft's monopolistic practices.
What hogwash on so many levels.
As usual, Mr. Lyons gets very few facts correct in his article. I'll not belabor the point by enumerating the differences between Microsoft's illegal, monopolist, anti-trust actions and the smart business, engineering, and customer service strategies that Apple has used. Suffice to say, the biggest difference between Apple and Microsoft is that people buy Microsoft products because they are forced to do so, while they buy Apple products because they like them and they want to own them.
What's "really scary" to me is that Newsweek has hired Daniel Lyons as a tech writer when his track record on tech reporting is clearly spotty, uninformed, and biased. Sadly, his work isn't even entertaining anymore. This article says more about Daniel Lyons and Newsweek than it does about Apple!
Comment: Apple is a huge ruthless corporation. But not the for the pot smoking wanna be artists and hippie liberals who are only too willing to be a slave to Apple just so they can trash 'ordinary' PC owning Americans as being uncool.
Comment: Embrace, extend and extinguish. Worked for Microsoft and now it's working for Apple. It's not enough to have a good business, apparently, now the ethic of Gates and Jobs and their ilk is to destroy anyone in my way. That may be very good position to take for a military campaign but it's poison for customers of consumer electronics. Monopolies are inherently bad for consumers, no matter how cute their little products are.
Comment: My apoloties for my atrocious spelling and grammar. Its very difficult to see this light grey text against a white background while typing.
Comment: Wee acksept.
Comment: As I red this story, my eyes wandered up to the top of the screen and i noticed that there amongst the red Newsweek banner, there sat in all of its glory a blue MSNBC tab. Less than 20 years ago three networks dominated the news media. If you want to do a story on how things are being "gobbled up" or "dominated" perhaps you should examine the industry that you work for and look at how few truly independent news outlets reamin.
Comment: Dan-What are doing? Writing like this is not going to help you. You are using negativity and story tilting to gain attention here. When you were writing as TFSJ you were witty and very spot on, Now you sound like everybody else. You were in such a groove the FSJ that now you should like an ass hat. You will loose your readership one by one with stories like this...unless you are playing to the Micrcrap crowd. Hint dude! Steve is healthy and is not dying, go back to to your groove or risk being just another noise box like the rest.
Comment: Dan-You have lost your groove dude! As FSJ you were in your stride and very cool. With stories like this your faithful leave you person by person. Negativity for attention instead of witty and smart....did part of your brain die or just check out.?You have done such a great job in the past, don't turn into a jerk now. BTW, Steve is fine, perhaps it is time to switch back!
Comment: Why must everyone always break this discussion down into Apple vs Microsoft? The truth is both companies are incredibly evil in their business practices. If you can't see this then you just as bias as the proponent that argues against your position.
There are many things that Apple has done that are unacceptable to me. The most important, though, is the fact that they stole the linux kernel and did not contribute anything back to the open source community. The entire Mac OSX operating system is based on the work of the open source developers. This is heart of the Apple computing experience, and a large part of it was not even developed by Apple. Apple then stole this work and then built a very solid OS on top of it. This is absolutely unacceptable to me and is the main reason why I will never buy an Apple product.
I really don't care what platforms other choose to run. But what does irritate me is when people are unwilling or unable to see that the corporations they support have cutthroat business practices. It is also annoying to me that Apple gets away with this squeaky clean public image simply because they are not under the scrutiny that Microsoft is. Personally, I run Windows XP at work and Fedora Linux at home. I like Windows XP, but I am the first to acknowledge that Microsoft has done some very poor things in the past.
If you are an Apple supporter, please don't get bogged down in the comparison of Apple vs Microsoft. Instead, please judge Apple on the merits of its own business practices, not how its business practices stand up against Microsoft.
Comment: Why must everyone always break this discussion down into Apple vs Microsoft? The truth is both companies are incredibly evil in their business practices. If you can't see this then you just as bias as the proponent that argues against your position.
There are many things that Apple has done that are unacceptable to me. The most important, though, is the fact that they stole the linux kernel and did not contribute anything back to the open source community. The entire Mac OSX operating system is based on the work of the open source developers. This is heart of the Apple computing experience, and a large part of it was not even developed by Apple. Apple then stole this work and then built a very solid OS on top of it. This is absolutely unacceptable to me and is the main reason why I will never buy an Apple product.
I really don't care what platforms other choose to run. But what does irritate me is when people are unwilling or unable to see that the corporations they support have cutthroat business practices. It is also annoying to me that Apple gets away with this squeaky clean public image simply because they are not under the scrutiny that Microsoft is. Personally, I run Windows XP at work and Fedora Linux at home. I like Windows XP, but I am the first to acknowledge that Microsoft has done some very poor things in the past.
If you are an Apple supporter, please don't get bogged down in the comparison of Apple vs Microsoft. Instead, please judge Apple on the merits of its own business practices, not how its business practices stand up against Microsoft.
Comment: Who cares about any of this..?, at least at the consumer level.
For those of that don't own stock in the company, Apple makes a better computer, a better mp3, and a better cell phone..period. You have to pay for that superiority, but it's been my experience that it is well worth it. The rest is irrelevant mumbo jumbo that nobody really cares about. Steve Jobs isn't going to take over America and go socialist... he is just an idea man that was smart enough to control both the hardware and software's QA, which is really the secret to their success. I don't care about Steve Jobs as a man, or if he ever eclipses Bill Gates' wealth.... I just hope he keeps making computers.
Comment: A lot of what Mr. Lyons says is valid, or at least half true, which is the real problem with the piece: some of it is mere innuendo, which makes the valid parts less telling. A little perspective is appropriate, too. If Morgan, which made better cars than Chevrolet in the 1950's, had had GM's advertising muscle, perhaps the UK would still have an automotive industry. Big may not be better, but it certainly has an inherent advantage in presenting itself to the consumer over little. But unless that unpleasant aspect of capitalism can be erased, you have to assume consumers part with their money for partially rational as well as partially irrational reasons: if the original Apple TV was attractive despite its shortcomings, maybe the consumer got over their unwillingness to buy the improved version not only because Apple is big, but because they know other products from Apple worked for them. If it had been Microsoft, after all, they would have simply bought Vudu and stopped producing a device superior to their own.
I have to say, a lot of the article sounds like sour grapes from someone who doesn't like Apple taking Microsoft market share, or creating new markets in which Microsoft competes so abysmally. Is competition good? Of course. Do people get such a warm feeling from Apple products that they're personally insulted when they perform as poorly as other, similar ones (e.g. 3G phones on ATT's miserable network)? Of course they do. Apples sells not only things but a caché. Seems weird in the tech world, but they've made it work. Don't knock them for that.
Comment: This is such a badly written article. Apart from regurgitating every negative press that Apple has experienced over this last year, what other compelling evidence do you offer that they are as bad as Microsoft were in stifling innovation?
Regarding MobileMe, you said, "Apple offered three months of free service to subscribers as a form of appeasement.". How is this even a behaviour of a monopolistic company? If they were, they would tell their customers to, well... sod off.
I agree that the ecosystem Apple has built around its hardware offering is tightly controlled by them. And this gives them tremendous say on how their devices are used and what can be installed. This is true especially with the ipod/itunes offering. It can be argued that that since they have over 80% of the mp3 player market and that they control how the music is bought and loaded onto these devices, it can construed as a monopoly. But surely, you've read of plenty of DRM free websites which offer music that could be loaded onto any mp3 player. If you don't want to use itunes, use Amarok (which is what I use under linux) or WinAmp or any of the multitudes of players which do a real good job at managing your music on the ipod. As a personal preference, I kind of like the ipod/itunes combination I use under Win XP. This combined with itunes_companion widget from Yahoo gives me a really good media player/organiser. And frankly, my four year ipod is still one of the best sounding mp3 players in the market.
Regarding their Macs, with only around 10% of the market share, you'll have to laud their engineering/software efforts that has made them so popular now. You shouldn't grudge their success in putting together the hardware and OSX which has gained so much of mind-share recently. It is a testament to their competitiveness. Maybe when I don't game as often as I do, I'll replace my Dell XPS M1730 with a small Macbook. Hopefully, atleast then, when I buy a laptop, it will come loaded with an OS that I intend to use daily and not something that I would have to format as soon as I open the box. Yes, I didn't want to be stuck in the purgatory that was Vista and was quickly back to XP Pro that Dell helpfully included. Ofcourse, it would have been better if I had a choice of OS for my XPS, but MS being who they are, they can foist that mess onto every new laptop and continue to crow about the tremendous success that is Vista or how misunderstood it is. Codswallop!
If anything, that is a monopoly.
Comment: I don't like certain aspects of Apple domination, on a very tiny level I agree with you. But your article is really badly written because of the facts you gather aren't facts. To say Apple is Microsoft then you're either naive or do not know how Microsoft does business. A tiny example is when it ousted Netscape brutally. Sadly you compare this brutal action with Apple TV phenomenon where fair market competition rules. If people can provide superior quality products cheaper, then they win market competition. If Apple was M$, then perhaps they will go to Vudu and threat them to go out of business. Your writing for MSNbc Network, that explains your biasness. Call that journalism.
Comment: I don't like certain aspects of Apple domination, on a very tiny level I agree with you. But your article is really badly written because of the facts you gather aren't facts. To say Apple is Microsoft then you're either naive or do not know how Microsoft does business. A tiny example is when it ousted Netscape brutally. Sadly you compare this brutal action with Apple TV phenomenon where fair market competition rules. If people can provide superior quality products cheaper, then they win market competition. If Apple was M$, then perhaps they will go to Vudu, threat them and make them out of business. I just realised you're writing for MSNBC network. That explains your biasness in your article. Call that journalism.
Comment: you are wrong
Comment: There is no doubt in my mind that this is the most difficult time for Apple in it's colorful history. No longer the underdog. A force to be reckoned with in the highly competitive and fickle consumer marketplace. It's easy to say, "let's ride the gravy train." I think Steve and the board are smarter than that. They didn't get this far to simply cave in to such rudimentary motivations. They've hit the critical mass that they could only dream about a scant 10 years ago. Now they need to figure out how to sustain the momentum without risking adverse impacts on quality, innovation and choice. I think Apple recalls what made them a niche player in the 80's and for most of the 90s - being overly proprietary and controlling. They've seen it blow up in their faces before and hopefully, there's a lesson learned in their somewhere. I have faith (not blind faith) that they will make the necessary course corrections for their own interests as well as for the folks who buy their products.
Comment: jobs always struck me as not as smart as gates, but more moral. but after you make your first billion, what is the difference?
Comment: @joeldn: Last I checked iPods do not support Ogg Vorbis natively nor does iTunes unless you specifically install the Ogg Vorbis plug-in for Quicktime. If you're going to attack an article for being badly researched you should really research all of your claims.
http://www.apple.com/ipodclassic/specs.html
http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1709
Comment: Another badly-researched hit piece. Let's look at what's misleading and just plain wrong in the article:
The sole example of "just like Microsoft" practices is Vudu, Apple made their box better. Wow, alert the media, Apple improved a product! Clearly that IS monopolistic. I'm sure YOUR company would NEVER try to improve its customer service or products.
MS was convicted of such practices by the DOJ and by the EU and I don't need do the list of vaporware, binding, secret agreements that killed competitors and bound the growing PC industry to one OS: Windows.
The other premise of MS-like behavior is, "operates the only store that can sell music, movies and software programs for those platforms", which is completely inaccurate. Any music I download from anywhere can be played on any iPod, iPhone or Mac. You can even manage your iPods with software other than iTunes. Just type "software that synch with iPod," into Google.
iPods and Macs play WMA, MP3, Ogg Vorbis and just about any other music format there is.
As for controlling iPhone apps, well, duh! The biggest problem I had with instability with the Treo 650 was whenever I downloaded an app that had problems my Treo had problems. Apple's iPhone's big selling point is its reliability and stability. Allowing just any developer to write and sell just any app would be counter to that premise.
The Made for iPod program is voluntary. There are plenty of accessories for iPods and iPhones that work with iPods and iPhones that aren't certified. Other companies do exactly the same thing. Nintendo has a "Nintendo Seal of Quality" that they sell.
That UK ruling was about a phone that is no longer shipped and an ad that no longer plays. No device gives you "all of the internet" without downloading some kind of plug-in or program. Thanks, UK Board for protecting those two morons in Kent who couldn't figure that out.
The writer claims that iPhone won't play Java. It does play javascript and Java can already be run with some adjustments. Look up Java on the iPhone, there are numerous articles about how to do it.
And the Alabama woman who filed the class action suit about connectivity? Testers in Europe, whose jobs are to test such things for companies like Nokia and Motorola tested the iPhone in response to such claims and found that the iPhone's antenna works normally:
http://www.gp.se/gp/jsp/Crosslink.jsp?d=400&a=441105
You can check out Alabama's 3G coverage (which also means it also affects any other AT&T 3G product) here:
http://www.wireless.att.com/coverageviewer/
The MobileMe thing? A legitimate knock. Apple blew the rollout of MM AND the new iPhone. They were victims of their own success and should have phased-in these products better and planned server loads better, but this is monopolistic?
So out of all the "facts" he cites he gets one right and it has NOTHING to do with his central premise of Apple as Monopolist.
Comment: @ Jackolan and pk de cville: You sound like good little Jobs-worshipers. ;)
I'm just glad for someone in the press to start waking up and printing some negative things that just happen to be true about Apple instead of worshiping at the Jobs alter whenever he farts. And I also do own a Mac Mini and it's a nice computer (although built with outdated components) and a nice OS too, but that doesn't blind me to the fact that if Jobs could get the market penetration that Microsoft has he would be even worse than them with being a bully and riding roughshod over everyone else he could.
Comment: "but that doesn't blind me to the fact that if Jobs could get the market penetration that Microsoft has he would be even worse than them with being a bully and riding roughshod over everyone else he could."
If if if if. But they "ain't". At least not yet. Only people buying their products can bring them in this position. If you are so afraid of the whole Apple owning the world, don't buy their stuff. Boycott with your wallet. It's really THAT simple. I myself am happy with its current position, I really don't care about their market share as long as the product delivers what I expect. If suddenly they start acting all "Microsofty," then it's goodbye for me.
God, what would happen to the world if Sony would end up in Microsoft's position? Can you imagine a future where all music is on Minidiscs and/or SACDs that are controlled by Sony? Let's stop everything right here right now. Oh wait. People didn't use them because they were too DRMed or expensive or complicated to use or something. It's all good. Phew. Dodged a bullet there.
Please note that I am not referring to Steve Jobs, but to Apple as a company. Jobs may be the current driving force, but I believe that Apple has enough culture that they can go on without him. And if they don't... well... sad. Windows 7 may be the answer to everything in the end, right?
Comment: What do you mean by "demanding a large chunk of the rewards for product development on Macs"? Is Apple knocking on Adobe's door asking for a chunk of the Photoshop revenue or something? Why would developers put up with that? It's not like the Mac has Windows' market share.
Developing apps for the Mac is not regulated by Apple like the iPhone app development. Furthermore, they are not forcing anyone to develop for the iPhone and then take all the rewards. If you think that Apple having a 30% cut from your sales in exchange for hosting, distribution and marketing is fair, then develop for it. If you think it's unfair, there's always Android and Windows Mobile. Boo hoo!
Maybe later they will open up the AppStore to anyone and everyone, but right now, even with their tight control, some apps still manage to crash iPhones. So imagine what would happen if they wouldn't control the things at all.
Comment: Your really should read the article again. Its not about the ipods, its about the market control.
Apple has a long history of demanding a large chunk of the rewards for product development on Macs, etc. This is the real reason macs are still such a minor player in the PC market. I am just happy we all can see openly the true nature of Apple through their behaviors relating to ipod,iphone, etc.
Comment: "A former lieutenant of Steve Jobs's once told me something surprising about his ex-boss. "Steve is a monopolist at heart," he said. "He's just like Bill Gates. He just hasn't been as successful."
OOOOH. SCARY. We didn't know free enterprise could be THIS EVIL...
Dan, Get Off the street now! Steve Jobs is coming to take over your world. On the other hand, you could go back to writing great copy for Microsoft and SCO... hah hah hah
Comment: Apple's developers vendors are free not to support them if they don't like thier terms. Apple's customers are free to go to dozens of competitors if they don't like living in the Apple "ecosystem". Thia article's use of the term "monopoly" here is completely misapplied. There seem to be a lot of writers who think PC's software, high speed internet, music and movies are somhow all public domain, and should magically be free to all. They seem to deny all these thing have creators and therefore owner who have a right to profit from thier inventions. News flash...it's called an economy.
Comment: I guess you have never heard of open source.
Comment: Wow! After I read this article I have decided I will no longer be reading Newsweek. This person really needs to get a grip on reality, get their facts straight, and well... You know what? I'm not even going to rip apart this article for the numerous lies and misleading information. Ryan Block from Engadget / AOL already did a great job at ripping this apart at www.RyanBlock.com. Good luck Newsweek, you've lost another subscriber!
Comment: Wow! After I read this article I have decided I will no longer be reading Newsweek. This person really needs to get a grip on reality, get their facts straight, and well... You know what? I'm not even going to rip apart this article for the numerous lies and misleading information. Ryan Block from Engadget / AOL already did a great job at ripping this apart at www.RyanBlock.com. Good luck Newsweek, you've lost another subscriber!
Comment: Gaining market share through innovation is not monopoly. So they put out a better product than other companies, then said companies couldn't match. That is pure and simple innovation. That is really far from what Microsoft did in the 90s, which had nothing to do with innovation. If Microsoft were in the 90s what Apple is now, we would have a much better Windows OS and other interesting Microsoft products. However, Microsoft never created something truly breathtaking, just... plain, or worse.
I say let Apple become the new Microsoft (even if they are not behaving like MS), and let's see what MS will do then. They will not just stand by and let market share be swept away from their grasp. Whether they want it or not, they will have to come up with something that will make them relevant again. Hopefully they will do something along the lines of innovation, and not any of the 90s style operations.
Maybe I'm being naive, but this could leave some open space for a third player on the field. The more the merrier, I always say.
Comment: Apple has always been trying to control its own ecosystems for 2 decades - there's nothing new about that, and it doesn't make them like Microsoft is now or used to be. Apple is more successful today than it has been in the past, but most people in the US can still live their lives and operate their businesses without buying a single Apple product. You can't say that about Microsoft ten years ago or now. This may just mean Microsoft has been more successful in forcing itself into Americans' daily lives than Apple has, but that one difference is extremely important. Monopoly behavior only hurts the public when the company that is committing that behavior is a real monopoly.
Comment: "right wing seem to thrive on ignorance, close-mindedness, and intolerance". How hypocritical! That comment itself is ignorant, close-minded, and intolerant.
Comment: "Microsoft controls both the operating system and the applications that run on top of it.."
Simply not true...that's quite the opposite of its strategy to allow developers to be free to create and innovate. The OS maybe, and hello, it is its product, but the applications aspect, not true.
Comment: Wow... what a bunch of whiny mac fanatics here! "Oh no! Please don't say anything bad about oh holy mac and Pope Steve! Blasphemy! How dare you write a technology opinion piece with an opinion!" Spare me... like you people wouldn't hypocritically stand up and cheer at a Microsoft hit piece.
People need to get over operating system zealotry. OSX, Window, and Linux are all good and bad. I use them all and none of them are perfect. I think overall Apple is a great company that produces very good products. But this article makes interesting points about what will happen if they continue to get bigger and bigger? Can they keep it together if (like with Microsoft) most of the people using their products are not Mac fanatics and won't cut Apple slack like they have been cut by the majority of their dedicated user base up to this point? I'm not a Mac fanatic but I own and love my Macbook Pro. When I complained about Applecare customer service last week to my Mac friends, they drank the koolaid and found ways to rationalize how Apple screwing me was okay. Huh?
There are very interesting discussions to be had about how things are evolving in technology with the rise of Google and Apple and many good pieces coming out on the discussion (like the "Evil/Genius" cover article in Wired). Just don't try having these discussions with a "Mac person"...
Comment: Wow... what a bunch of whiny mac fanatics here! "Oh no! Please don't say anything bad about oh holy mac and Pope Steve! Blasphemy! How dare you write a technology opinion piece with an opinion!" Spare me... like you people wouldn't hypocritically stand up and cheer at a Microsoft hit piece.
People need to get over operating system zealotry. OSX, Window, and Linux are all good and bad. I use them all and none of them are perfect. I think overall Apple is a great company that produces very good products. But this article makes interesting points about what will happen if they continue to get bigger and bigger? Can they keep is together if (like with Microsoft) most of the people using their products are Mac fanatics won't cut Apple slack like they have been cut by the majority of their dedicated user base up to this point? I'm not a Mac fanatic but I own and love my Macbook Pro. When I complained about Applecare customer service last week to my Mac friends, they drank the koolaid found ways to rationalize why I was being screwed. Huh?
There are very interesting discussions to be had about how things are evolving in technology with the rise of Google and Apple and many good pieces coming out on the discussion (like the "Evil/Genius" cover article in Wired). Just don't try having these discussions with a "Mac person"...
Comment: Apple is to computers as the Clintons are to politics. Hense you couldn't pay me to own an apple product just like you couldn't pay me to vote for a Clinton. Yet there are still millions of misguided souls out there that love the crap each of these things sell the public. Obviously Newsweek upset a few of these people by writing these articles. I'd like to ask these people exactly how many iPods they have purchased, the correct answer should only be one, but i bet they have the replace them more often then they replace their underwear. Wake up kids. Do you know that i've had the same exact mp3 player in my car for over 10 years now with 30GB of HD space. Quit buying crap just because the kid down the street has it, learn to think for yourself. Apple sux, pass it on!
Comment: I don't believe you - what model MP3 player is that exactly that was available over ten years ago and had 30GB HD ??? For reference, iPods were only released SEVEN years ago, in 2001 and then they had 5GB disks.
Comment: I still have my 30 GB 2G iPod and it still works great! Er, what was that about needing to replace iPods like underwear?
I do agree w/ you about the Clinstones though!
Comment: What model of MP3 player was available more than 10 years ago with a 30GB HD?? iPods only came out 7 years ago in 2001 and had 5GB HD. I very much doubt you could buy a 30GB model of any MP3 player more than 10 years ago. Perhaps you are mistaken or just factually inaccurate?
Comment: So what you are saying is that Apple haters are to computers what the Repugnacants are to politics. That's a very good analogy since the right wing seem to thrive on ignorance, close-mindedness, and intolerance, qualities expressed by many Apple haters on this board.
Folks need to realize that Apple makes inanimate devices. Some of it works beautifully, and some of it has been consigned to the dustbins of history. No need to get worked up over it. I've used Apple and non-Apple devices in the past, and right now, they have superior products to Microsoft or any of the electronic mfrs. In '95, I abandoned the Mac, but in '08 I'm back to using a Mac, because it is more reliable and simpler to use. This reminds me of the redneck arguments over whether Ford or Chivvy made the better car.
Comment: Apple is to computers as the Clintons are to politics. Hense you couldn't pay me to own an apple product just like you couldn't pay me to vote for a Clinton. Yet there are still millions of misguided souls out there that love the crap each of these things sell the public.
Comment: Sounds like the 'Newsweek newbie' wants to make sure he DOESN'T get sneak peeks at new Apple hardware... :)
Comment: This article gets one thing wrong: while Apple may operate the iTunes Store, it is not the only store capable of selling music for the iPod. In fact, there are _many_ other stores out there.
Don't make Apple look more monopolistic than it really is by distorting the truth.
Comment: And of course, neither is the Mac or the iPhone the only available devices in their segments. What Apple has achieved is not the correct definition of a monopoly. Call it an oligopoly if one must, but the point the article's author seems to miss is that consumers have plenty of choices, and many have chosen Apple devices because they are generally more reliable and user-friendly than the competition.
Comment: Steve Jobs has ALWAYS been a monopolist at heart. His life-long ambition is to own every single aspect of computers: the raw materials, the hardware, the OS, the applications, the distribution channels, etc. He had a dream: sand enters one end of a factory, and Apple products come flying out the other end, with Steve/God Jobs in the middle, controlling it all. And the suckers praise him for his hubris and buy his shiny trinkets.
No matter; deteriorating health means he isn't long for this world.
Comment: Steve Jobs has ALWAYS been a monopolist at heart. His life-long ambition is to own every single aspect of computers: the raw materials, the hardware, the OS, the applications, the distribution channels, etc. He had a dream: sand enters one end of a factory, and Apple products come flying out the other end, with Steve/God Jobs in the middle, controlling it all. And the suckers praise him for his hubris and buy his shiny trinkets.
No matter; deteriorating health means he isn't long for this world.
Comment: what are you, and idiot?
Comment: Still angry that Apple shut you out and gave all the news to Time and Forbes. Sad really. Pathetic but sad.
Comment: I need to bring this article to my companies' directors and let them know that they (our company) can't improve our products because that might harm our competitors :) It's a shame the people who bought the September 15th issue had to read this story. Hopefully the rest of the articles are a bit better balanced.
Comment: RE: "A year ago a small company called Vudu was winning rave reviews for its dynamite little box that attaches to the TV and downloads movies from the Internet"
==========================\
You've got it in reverse. Most of the OTHER companies the parasites.
Apple came out with Apple TV first. Vudu came out later, and then Vudu complained when Apple upgraded Apple TV. Apple AWAYS upgrades is products and services. Why should this, or any of the other products & service on which you've commented, be any different?
Apple is one of the very few companies that has a schedule for upgrades and updates on virtually all of its products and services. That's what is so great about Apple: continued refresh and enhancements.
The time when a product or service could stand still is now left to the Stone Age.
You are just another throwback to the communist way of thought that anything capitalist is bad.
Go back home and light your candles and read a good book!
Comment: "A Bigfoot that squeezes smaller competitors"? The writer evidently does not understand Apple's business model that has enabled it to maintain tight control over quality. When Windows 3.0 arrived, I abandoned the Mac because I wanted a wider choice of hardware and software, and lower prices. After 15 years of spending way too much of my free time diagnosing problems with my home PCs and home network, I abandoned Windows last Christmas. I have now had 9 months of trouble-free computing with the Apple Airport Extreme wireless router, and 2 Macs and counting. My plan is to add 2 more Macs to my home before year-end. If Apple needs to act the way it has to ensure quality products and experience, then I'm all for it. The clueless can cling on to MS and their unreliable Wintel machines. I now plan to dump my shares in MS stock as soon as it recovers.
Comment: Thank you! I've never understood the Apple mystique anyway.
Boycott Apple! Microsoft is now the underdog.
Comment: Hopefully that means that Microsoft has evolved
into a company that encourages small businesses
and will help jump start our economy.
Comment: Apple has produced many great products but I don't own a single one. I've always disliked Apple's closed monopolistic attitude. This isn't new and Apple has always operated this way, they just didn't have the market share that MS did so it wasn't as apparent. Apple's hardware was a close proprietary system from the beginning and their software is also tightly controlled. I refuse to buy from Apple until they learn to play with others. Apple fans are so in love and blind they don't realize that Apple is guilty many times over of things they trash MS for. As Apple gains more and more market share their monopolistic ways will become more and more apparent.
Comment: Every businessman is a monopolist at heart. Why else does anyone bother with patents? Apple TV is not (yet) a success. Both it and Vudu are minnows in a market that includes cable, satellite and terrestrial broadcasts, internet and DVD rentals and sales. There is no causal link between between Vudu's and Apple's success in this market at this time. (unlike music players!)
Although Apple controls the ecosystem surrounding its products, it does not try to control the formats of the content you use. Apple uses audio, video and document formats that can be implemented on other platforms without taking a licence from Apple (eg AAC, H264, PDF).
Malware and viruses have made open platforms with internet connections a major risk and liability. Apple is to be commended for handling the installation of apps on iPhone the way it has. You can always write a javascript Web 2.0 app if you don't want to submit your Application to Apple's veto. It's very early yet, and they are tackling a problem which Microsoft has failed to tackle, and is substantially to blame for on its own platform.
Precisely 2 people complained about Apple's UK iPhone ad. It did correctly communicate that iPhone displays all of the web correctly where other cellphones don't. Neither Java nor Flash are part of the web, they are proprietary third party elements displayed via plug-in browser extensions. They are not the Web, even if Flash is common.
Despite all this, you do have a small point - Apple is powerful. They have not, as yet, substantially misused that power, even though it's easy to naively assume they have.
Comment: Dead on. I know too many people who have recently tried to switch to Mac only to get buggy systems, dead screens, software problems, and so on. The more they expand, the more falls through the cracks.
Comment: When it comes to the iPod, the iPhone, and even AppleTV Apple just made a better product and took action to stay ahead of the competition. That's capitalism, at least I thought it was. The iPod had plenty of (terrible) competition and people just gravitated towards the iPod because of the functionality, the features, andcool factor. Same thing with AppleTV; it was plenty of competition right now ... including stiff competition from Microsoft's Xbox 360 Video Store. The story of Vudu isn't a story of Apple attempting to "crush" them. The story of Vudu is the story of a start-up with a good product but no way of competing against the Big Boys; i.e., Microsoft and Apple.
Comment: Oh please!
This is such a hit piece.
Apple was never just a fringe manufacturer. They haveloyal fans because they produce quality.
I am happy that Apple is all over the apps.
It's a concept that deserves more attention: quality control.
PJ, NYC
Comment: Lyons, your hit piece betrays a lack of understanding about how retail stores work. And please, was Apple supposed to develop Vudo's business for them? Their box was more expensive and had other drawbacks, including no way to get videos off to a PC or portable player. Apple is competing fairly. It's not signing exclusive deals to prevent competition as Microsoft did.
Shame on you for using your position to spread misinformation and ridiculous spin against Apple in one breath while you gush all over Microsoft in the next. Remember when Microsoft sent you its expensive Media Center gear and you reviewed with elaborate praise? Was Microsoft not competing against Vudo and Apple TV as well? The difference was that Microsoft was leveraging its PC monopoly. Yet you only had good things to say about the company. And now you're reviling Apple because Vudu can't keep up.
You have scant credibility left. I just googled your name and found you supported Microsoft/SCO for years. WTF.
Comment: Sad to read this kind of opinions, perhaps the writer is earning big bucks so it lakes it ok for him to run down innovative and highly valued corporations which make America great.
Comment: Sad to read this kind of opinions written by someone who is perhaps earning big bucks running down innovative and high valued corporations which make America great,
Comment: Well, you've got three reactions so far, which means that you were read simply because you wrote on Apple. Attack it some more; you might get more readers. Maybe that's what makes Apple monopolistic? :)
Comment: Well, you've got your reactions so far, which means people have read your article for the simple reason that it's about Apple. Would you call that monopolistic?
Comment: Apple is not monopolistic. I suggest you look the word up in the dictionary. They own the iPod. End of story. If you don't like it, then don't buy an iPod. It's not like they license the iPod to other companies and then bully those companies to do what they want. That is what Microsoft did with its operating system.
Comment: I'm afraid the anti-Apple, (and anti-Linux and anti-blogger) position is only to be expected of Daniel Lyons, Mr funny but nasty ???Fake Steve Jobs???.
Amongst the many exaggerations and stretches in this article, one sentence that particularly defies belief is the statement that Apple ???operates the only store that can sell music, movies and software programs for those platforms. Apple sets prices and takes 30 percent of the money.???
Firstly any store such as Amazon or E-music can and do sell music for the iPod/iPhone. It is only the music cartels not allowing Apple to sell all their music DRM-free that maintains a DRM barrier going in the other direction. Likewise DRM-free movies all play fine on Apple???s platforms.
Secondly, the 30% that Apple charges on software sales to cover hosting, advertising, credit-card fees etc for the iPhone is amazingly low in an industry where portals, carriers and gaming console gate-keepers typically take 40-70%. As far as music and movies are concerned, Apple is well-known to only just cover hosting costs with the lion???s share grabbed by the Music Labels and Tinsel-Town.
Lyons is the same guy who relentlessly boosted SCO in its blatantly pro-MS litigation against Linux and Open Source. Here???s what Valleywag and GrokLaw have to say about Lyon???s writing: ???If you read FSJ, and filter out the funnies, you'll see that the topics are pretty much what Microsoft's pushing at any given time???
See: http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20070805195515884
Also: http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2007/08/07/daniel-lyons-fake-steve-jobs-and-the-sco-shill-who-hated-linux/
All-in-all, this article is quite a hit piece.
-Mart
Comment: Typical MSM alarmism. Steve Jobs may be a control freak, and Apple may have the preeminent position in the online music market, but that doesn't equal the breadth or severity of Microsoft's monopolistic behavior a decade ago. Your examples (a single iPhone app developer and... Vulu?) are weak. If you hate or fear Apple, just say so. I'm very disappointed in you, Daniel. Love, Mom
Comment: You fail to mention several pertinent points:
1. Apple had to build its own brick and mortar stores cause no one else could or would sell Apple products effectively. At the time everyone thought it was a HUGE mistake, a la Gateway or Dell stores.
2. Apple had to build its own online store (iTunes Music Store) because, again, no one else would have provided content for iPods and Apple computers. Besides, why would anyone want to be beholden to Real or Microsoft or Napster and their draconian DRM schemes.
3. Speaking of DRM, if it hadn't been for Apple, we would all be stuck with the record companies pipe dream of subscriptions and we certainly wouldn't be burning CDs from our downloaded tracks.
4. The record companies are the ones forcing DRM down our throats which supposedly "locks" us into the iPod. They allow Amazon to sell the same trax as Apple without DRM.
5. Neither Vudo or Apple or anyone else has been winning "rave reviews" for their video download service. They are all mostly hamstrung by the studios and the pipes. You're the first person I've seen that thinks Apple is a success in this area. BTW, Microsoft has been trying to do video downloads for years now too, (webTV, X-Box, etc.) and have screwed up at every turn. Once again, most of these download services DON'T work with Mac, so Apple has to enter the arena or its uses get left out.
6. As far as the app store goes, Apple needs to publish a clear set of guidelines and communicate with its developers. However, once again, Microsoft, Nokia, RIM, Palm, et al, have had years to set up an end-to-end development-marketing-distribution-sales universe for their phones and have failed miserably. They certainly weren't going to bend over backwards to help the iPhone. Apple knew it would have to have a vibrant developer community for the iPhone to take over and NO ONE else would make it happen. So they did it themselves and now MS, T-Mobile, Google, Nokia and everyone else is sucking Apple's exhaust and looking pretty foolish for poo-pooing Apple's entrance into the cell phone market a little over a year ago.
Comment: Wow, this article is pretty wild and downright socialist is its leanings. The largely failed AppleTV as an example made me laugh! It's a HUGE stretch to link MS and it's 'one OS, one application' behavior. Those that recall DrDOS, websites that ONLY work in IE and a slew of other actions would be hard pressed to link MS and Apple. Now if Apple stopped making it's iPod work* on BOTH windows and mac, deliberately caused crashes while web surfing or caused non-existent errors when accessing an iPod with Linux with third party apps you MIGHT have a case. Until then you're stretching the premise to pretty laughable lengths.
(*One notes the ZUNE does not work with MAC)
Comment: Wow, this article is pretty wild and downright socialist is its leanings. The largely failed AppleTV as an example made me laugh! It's a HUGE stretch to link MS and it's 'one OS, one application' behavior. Those that recall DrDOS, websites that ONLY work in IE and a slew of other actions would be hard pressed to link MS and Apple. Now if Apple stopped making it's iPod work* on BOTH windows and mac, deliberately caused crashes while web surfing or caused non-existent errors when accessing an iPod with Linux with third party apps you MIGHT have a case. Until then you're stretching the premise to pretty laughable lengths.
(*One notes the ZUNE does not work with MAC)
Comment: "Apple owns popular hardware platforms (iPod, iPhone) and operates the only store that can sell music, movies and software programs for those platforms."
Nonsense. Almost any music or movies that I can get off the Internet will work on my iPod. The exception is Windows music made to work only on Zune. All the older Windows music and video formats easily convert to run on my iPod and iPone or will work without any conversion at all.
Comment: God forbid a public company try and make money for it's shareholders.
What do you expect Apple to do, not release a product just because another company will go out of business. As it stands Apple is nothing like the Microsoft of the 90's which did things like force OEM's from bundling competing products in it's PC's.
Unlike Apple who, yes is killing other (small compared to Apple) businesses. But it's doing it through innovation. The proof is in your own article... "Apple struck back, introducing a vastly expanded catalog of movie titles, which it started renting, as well as selling. And it came out with a new, cheaper version of the Apple TV box that matched most of Vudu's features. Now Apple is selling or renting more than 50,000 movies a day, and Vudu is laying off staff."
This is what's known in the business as COMPETITION. It's what drives not just businesses forward but the human race forward. It is also the reason why our PC's/Mac's have advanced as fast as it has, how fast do you think the computer your sitting in front of right now would have been if Intel was the only chip company that existed.
Plus the countless mistakes against Apple you made in this article doesn't help either but I'll leave that to others to comment on, because if I had to list all your mistakes I'd be here forever. Little research please next time.
Nas,
Comment: God forbid a public company try and make money for it's shareholders.
What do you expect Apple to do, not release a product just because another company will go out of business. As it stands Apple is nothing like the Microsoft of the 90's which did things like force OEM's from bundling competing products in it's PC's.
Unlike Apple who, yes is killing other (small compared to Apple) businesses. But it's doing it through innovation. The proof is in your own article... "Apple struck back, introducing a vastly expanded catalog of movie titles, which it started renting, as well as selling. And it came out with a new, cheaper version of the Apple TV box that matched most of Vudu's features. Now Apple is selling or renting more than 50,000 movies a day, and Vudu is laying off staff."
This is what's known in the business as COMPETITION. It's what drives not just businesses forward but the human race forward. It is also the reason why our PC's/Mac's have advanced as fast as it has, how fast do you think the computer your sitting in front of right now would have been if Intel was the only chip company that existed.
