You DO know the SAME argument applies to MSFT and Intel, yes?
You DO know that's nonsense, yes? Just ask Netscape and AMD.
I would suggest you read up on antitrust law and I would note the FIRST sentence of the page "Antitrust laws are federal and state statutes to protect trade and commerce from unlawful restraints, price discrimination, price fixing, and monopolies.
I suggest YOU find where Apple is remotely close to violating any part of anti-trust law, because so far you haven't come remotely close.
Now if Apple can set the terms a competitor, in this case Amazon, gets access to music I'd like to hear you explain how exactly that doesn't fall under antitrust?
Because this Concern is over Amazon trying to offer exclusive tracks. Fighting product exclusivity translates to having a monopoly on said product on what planet?
Not really. To convict a company on anti-trust laws, it's not enough to have large marketshare - you have to be dominating a market to the detriment of consumers (not merely your competitors). Apple doesn't have a monopoly on MP3 players - nothing stops you from buying another company's product and enjoying the same music at comparable or lesser prices. And Apple doesn't have anything close to a majority marketshare of the smartphone market, much less the cellular market in general.
The only thing Apple has a "monopoly" on is selling it's own products - but that's the same for any other company with trademarked products. Only Sony can sell Playstation consoles. Only Ford can sell Mustangs. And so on....
Yeah, because the damned thing was huge. I also like how the anti-Apple fanboys are convieniently skating by two out of three of his points, and only focusing on the screen size:
a ~3.5" touch display at 320x480 and a very good web browser
A simple Google search would have revealed that Palm devices have run 320x480 screens since 2002.
...a simple look at your own like shows a smartphone without a multitouch screen. It's nothing more than a Palm PDA repackaged into a flip phone, Grafiti writing area and all.
And if you think that every apple product sells like hotcakes, you're missing quite a few.
But your counter-list isn't hot sauce either, and for most of it you have to go back 10 years or more.
iTV ( that useless thing that isn't quite an Xbox 360 )
No such product. However, the Apple TV was the top selling product on the Apple Store when it was introduced, and sales have increased over previous quarters.
eMac ( like a rehashed iMac, but long after laptops made them irrelevant )
Which was...only sold to schools for most of it's run. So yes, quite shocking that it was never a big seller.
Pippin ( that useless computer / video game console that wasn't quite a Playstation )
1995.
20th anniversary macintosh
1997. And it was never intended to be.
Mac Cube
2000. And it's done just fine in it's reincarnation as the Mac Mini.
Mac TV
1993.
Quicktake
1994.
Newton ( a PDA before PDA's existed ). eMate ( a netbook based upon Newton before netbooks existed )
Every trademarked product is a "monopoly". Only Ford can make Mustangs. Only Sony can make Playstation game consoles.
Apple never had a monopoly on mp3 players, nor a monopoly on buying music online. There's nothing stopping anyone from having a similar experience with the same music for equal or lesser prices.
Uhhh...You DO know that Apple owns over 90% of the HDD based PMPs and more than 70% of ALL PMPs, yes?
You DO know that a large marketshare does not a monopoly make, right? Nothing stops you from having a similar experience with the same music for lower prices. Or haven't you ever seen the anti-Apple fanboys bitch about how many cheaper mp3 players are available?
A good prosecutor could have a field day with Apple's marketing tactics in music, books, hardware and software sales. Probably the app store, too. No doubt they are smart enough to settle, but who knows what DoJ might demand. If they decide to go to court, anything can happen.
Slight problem with that: Apple doesn't have a monopoly on anything, so there wont be any prosecutors having a field day with them, no matter how good they are.
Nothing stops people from buying the same songs they can get through iTunes from other sellers at comparable prices. And as the Apple-haters keep pointing out, there are plenty of cheaper mp3 players available. So you should be able to have a similar experience listening to the same songs for less money.
Because it's NON-laissez-faire policies that prevent:
1. BP from being fully financially liable for the costs of this disaster 2. Individuals being held criminally accountable for corporate behavoir
1. Upper management tells middle management to follow the rules 2....but also sets goals that can't be met unless middle management breaks said rules 3. When shit happens, blame middle management for not following the rules 4. In fact, sue the fuck out of the middle management yourself for defaming the company and costing the owners revenue
Conservatives should be forced to live in Norway for five years before they start mouthing off on how private business is always superior to the public sector. Norway has a nationalized oil industry, and is far safer than ours as they don't cut corners so the CEO's stock goes up by a quarter of a point.
Oh, and the highly paid, union protected, pension equipped employee was an excellent multitasker. He was able to both play solitaire during the entire meeting and give his full attention to the important business of doing his job. If you were wondering why one of the world's biggest cities is approaching total failure, there's a few reasons for you.
Whatever it takes to repeat lame Republican talking points.
Point is, don't dress up military installations to look like civilian infrastructure, it's bad.
Don't let your own country commit real war crimes like torture, and then you can start complaining about rules of engagement and flags when it's an attack on a military vessel.
Of course, Israel (unlike Hezbollah) limited itself to launch sites
Do you think I was peaking hypothetically about doctors houses shelled by the IDF, schools bombed by the IDF (after telling civilians to use it for shelter) and bombing clearly marked U.N. vehicles? Israel has launched attacks on Gaza, Lebanon, and Egypt. Whereas Iran hasn't attacked one of it's neighbors in 200 years.
Everyone gets ONE chance to totally submit to muslim authority, anyone who doesn't immediately takes that option gets killed, or tortured and killed if they can do it (the actually "preferred way" to do it is crucifixion in sharia).
You do realise all press in that war were only allowed to go where Hezbollah took them and that all their reports were vetted right?
You realize that's a little hard to enforce when a country is having the shit bombed out of it, right? And it's not like the IDF doesn't have a track record of blowing the shit out of everything in sight - doctors houses, schools where they just ordered Gazans to take refuge, clearly marked U.N. vehicles...
Slashdot Mirror
You DO know that's nonsense, yes? Just ask Netscape and AMD.
I suggest YOU find where Apple is remotely close to violating any part of anti-trust law, because so far you haven't come remotely close.
Because this Concern is over Amazon trying to offer exclusive tracks. Fighting product exclusivity translates to having a monopoly on said product on what planet?
The law is highly subjective.
Not really. To convict a company on anti-trust laws, it's not enough to have large marketshare - you have to be dominating a market to the detriment of consumers (not merely your competitors). Apple doesn't have a monopoly on MP3 players - nothing stops you from buying another company's product and enjoying the same music at comparable or lesser prices. And Apple doesn't have anything close to a majority marketshare of the smartphone market, much less the cellular market in general.
The only thing Apple has a "monopoly" on is selling it's own products - but that's the same for any other company with trademarked products. Only Sony can sell Playstation consoles. Only Ford can sell Mustangs. And so on....
Seriously stupid straw man. Seriously.
Exceptional hand waving.
Yeah, because the damned thing was huge. I also like how the anti-Apple fanboys are convieniently skating by two out of three of his points, and only focusing on the screen size:
Oh, and he also said "and a very good web browser". Do tell us how wonderful the web browser was on that Sony Clie.
Weak. Sauce. He said AFAIK, and...
A simple Google search would have revealed that Palm devices have run 320x480 screens since 2002.
...a simple look at your own like shows a smartphone without a multitouch screen. It's nothing more than a Palm PDA repackaged into a flip phone, Grafiti writing area and all.
Except that LG demo'ed a large screen touch phone months before Apple did.
So what? Apple was developing their iPhone at the same time - LG was just the first to show off their vaporware.
Other than being the forth item on his list, of course.
And if you think that every apple product sells like hotcakes, you're missing quite a few.
But your counter-list isn't hot sauce either, and for most of it you have to go back 10 years or more.
No such product. However, the Apple TV was the top selling product on the Apple Store when it was introduced, and sales have increased over previous quarters.
Which was...only sold to schools for most of it's run. So yes, quite shocking that it was never a big seller.
1995.
1997. And it was never intended to be.
2000. And it's done just fine in it's reincarnation as the Mac Mini.
1993.
1994.
1998.
2004. Finally, a crappy product that wasn't from the Paleozoic Age!
Every trademarked product is a "monopoly". Only Ford can make Mustangs. Only Sony can make Playstation game consoles.
Apple never had a monopoly on mp3 players, nor a monopoly on buying music online. There's nothing stopping anyone from having a similar experience with the same music for equal or lesser prices.
You DO know that a large marketshare does not a monopoly make, right? Nothing stops you from having a similar experience with the same music for lower prices. Or haven't you ever seen the anti-Apple fanboys bitch about how many cheaper mp3 players are available?
Slight problem with that: Apple doesn't have a monopoly on anything, so there wont be any prosecutors having a field day with them, no matter how good they are.
Because Apple doesn't have a monopoly on any part of the computer market. Microsoft does, and monopolies play under a different set of rules.
You might want to relocate your head first, or that will be doubly painful and messy.
Large market share != monopoly.
Nothing stops people from buying the same songs they can get through iTunes from other sellers at comparable prices. And as the Apple-haters keep pointing out, there are plenty of cheaper mp3 players available. So you should be able to have a similar experience listening to the same songs for less money.
Except of course that we're getting the equivalent of an Exxon Valdez every week.
1. Upper management tells middle management to follow the rules ...but also sets goals that can't be met unless middle management breaks said rules
2.
3. When shit happens, blame middle management for not following the rules
4. In fact, sue the fuck out of the middle management yourself for defaming the company and costing the owners revenue
Conservatives should be forced to live in Norway for five years before they start mouthing off on how private business is always superior to the public sector. Norway has a nationalized oil industry, and is far safer than ours as they don't cut corners so the CEO's stock goes up by a quarter of a point.
Then the company can go right ahead and spend the next 20 years paying for all the costs.
You will pay when BP subsequently raises the cost of it's product.
Not in a competitive market, you wont.
That's outrageous
More like poutrage.
Who spends that much on an obsolete Mac that undoubtedly has a worn out battery and can't even run the latest version of OSX?
When I visit my parents, I'll check her 9 year old G4 laptop and see if there are any new Leopard updates for it. Early obsolescence my ass.
Whatever it takes to repeat lame Republican talking points.
Point is, don't dress up military installations to look like civilian infrastructure, it's bad.
Don't let your own country commit real war crimes like torture, and then you can start complaining about rules of engagement and flags when it's an attack on a military vessel.
Of course, Israel (unlike Hezbollah) limited itself to launch sites
Do you think I was peaking hypothetically about doctors houses shelled by the IDF, schools bombed by the IDF (after telling civilians to use it for shelter) and bombing clearly marked U.N. vehicles? Israel has launched attacks on Gaza, Lebanon, and Egypt. Whereas Iran hasn't attacked one of it's neighbors in 200 years.
Everyone gets ONE chance to totally submit to muslim authority, anyone who doesn't immediately takes that option gets killed, or tortured and killed if they can do it (the actually "preferred way" to do it is crucifixion in sharia).
A load of xeonophobic crap.
You do realise all press in that war were only allowed to go where Hezbollah took them and that all their reports were vetted right?
You realize that's a little hard to enforce when a country is having the shit bombed out of it, right? And it's not like the IDF doesn't have a track record of blowing the shit out of everything in sight - doctors houses, schools where they just ordered Gazans to take refuge, clearly marked U.N. vehicles...
Not if the guy pressing the button is from Liberia. Keep trying....