PDA

View Full Version : Since when did Apple become Microsoft?



Black Mage
March 12th, 2008, 03:45 PM
So I decided I wanted to make some cool music on my Mac, and I thought about GarageBand and how much fun that little program was before. So I start searching through my computer and to my dismay, its no longer there.

So I think w/e, I'll just do download a copy and BAM! Its part of iLife in which they want you to pay for.

And now I'm thinking, what happened to the old Apple? When I use to get AppleWorks, Garageband and other cool apps for free.

Since when did Apple become Microsoft?

billgoldberg
March 12th, 2008, 03:47 PM
Ask Steve.

Apple is becoming worse than microsoft ever was.

tbrminsanity
March 12th, 2008, 03:49 PM
It is sad but true.

Nowdays even M$ is seeing the benifits of FLOSS, but Apple is doing everything in their power to crush it.

Sad... very sad...

n3tfury
March 12th, 2008, 04:44 PM
So I decided I wanted to make some cool music on my Mac, and I thought about GarageBand and how much fun that little program was before. So I start searching through my computer and to my dismay, its no longer there.

So I think w/e, I'll just do download a copy and BAM! Its part of iLife in which they want you to pay for.

And now I'm thinking, what happened to the old Apple? When I use to get AppleWorks, Garageband and other cool apps for free.

Since when did Apple become Microsoft?

i don't get this. you have an Apple product that immediately makes people see $_$ for eyes. basically if you can afford a apple product, you should be able to afford the software.

Black Mage
March 12th, 2008, 04:45 PM
FLOSS???

I'm suprised Apple hasn't started charging for their development tools. Once they do that, it will be Linux all the way.But for priority developing, such as the Iphone they do charge money for the SDK.

So besides Itunes(which would be stupid to charge for that), what else does Apple give away for free now?

Erunno
March 12th, 2008, 04:57 PM
I thought the iLife suite was delivered with every purchase of a Mac computer so you should be able to reinstall it. To be fair, I consider the price for a new version of iLife (79$) to be very reasonable. It's a very attractive application suite with a nice feature set for the novice and intermediate users.

Black Mage
March 12th, 2008, 06:00 PM
http://www.macworld.com/article/59914/2007/09/newms.html

Just for an article like that being on MacWorld may say something.

If you've purchased your songs legally through iTunes, you really are stuck with an Ipod or Iphone for life if you want those songs.

And now with Apple you have to buy ILife and iWork if you want to get useful stuff done on your mac. I doubt average users are going to download Darwin, fink, or MacPorts so they can use other software.

So iTunes really is a monoply on the music industry and may expand to videos, movies etc. Would that just sux, being stuff with one solution.

banjobacon
March 12th, 2008, 06:09 PM
What exactly has Apple done wrong here?

dmitrijledkov
March 12th, 2008, 06:23 PM
Well iLife should be on your OS X restore cd as optional/additional software install.

It is kind of worse than microsoft now, but if not my macbook I would not have ever switched to linux.

Black Mage
March 12th, 2008, 06:27 PM
What exactly has Apple done wrong here?

Technically, nothing at all. It is a business and this is a capatlist nation(if your in the United States).

Its just that is becoming like Microsoft. No more free software, not even boot camp anymore for dual booting your system. You know have to buy Leopard in order to use it.

Basically, like Microsoft, it forces users to buy their propiertary software, if you want to easily do stuff. iPhoto, iDVD, iMovie, and Garage Band use to come included for free(I just noticed all of them were gone on my computer since the Leopard Upgrade) when you purchased a mac. Now you have to purchase them in a package for $79, even if you don't want them all. In addition, AppleWorks use to come for free with mac for word processing and such. Now you have to buy iWork for a word processing, powerpoint, and excel like programs for another $79 which means you really spend $180.

Also their Itunes ha created a monoploy on the music industry. Apple can basically do what it wants when it comes to music sales, and iTunes is expanding to other venues as well. It may have a monopoly with PDA's since the iPhone. If it didn't, it would charge $599 one for(which dropped to $399 and angered a lot of people). If it had competition in that, then they probably would charge $399.

Point being, Apple is not becoming but really is another Microsoft, charging for each solution. The difference is Apple makes its own hardware and software thus making the process seem easier to the home user, "It just works". And Microsoft primarly targets businesses while Apple targets home users, which can be a much larger market.

zmjjmz
March 12th, 2008, 07:04 PM
Apple has been pretty bad, and their vendor lock-in is much higher than MS's.

But there are a few things to remember.

MS also has a DRM'd format for their Zune that's incompatible with other players.
MS charges much more for Microsoft Office.
Apple can 'bundle' those applications because they are removable and when you buy a Mac, Apple can put whatever software they want on it.

On the other hand, the Sticker Shock is pretty bad.
MS didn't do it as much, but what Apple is doing is insane.

banjobacon
March 12th, 2008, 07:14 PM
You're just bitter because you lost your free copy of Garage Band. Apple may be evil in some aspects, but charging you for Garage Band is not evil.

As far as I can tell, iLife is bundled (not free of cost) with Mac purchases. It's not bundled with the OS upgrade, though.

Black Mage
March 12th, 2008, 07:18 PM
You're just bitter because you lost your free copy of Garage Band. Apple may be evil in some aspects, but charging you for Garage Band is not evil.

I know a few people who are even more bitter when their copy of Boot Camp Beta ended when Leopard came out, thus forcing them to buy Leopard to get back to the Windows partition. Thats not evill?(Yes, evil with two L's).

zmjjmz
March 12th, 2008, 07:19 PM
It may not be bundled with the upgrade, but I'd like to point out that unless you removed Garageband beforehand the upgrade should keep Garageband.

banjobacon
March 12th, 2008, 07:31 PM
I know a few people who are even more bitter when their copy of Boot Camp Beta ended when Leopard came out, thus forcing them to buy Leopard to get back to the Windows partition. Thats not evill?(Yes, evil with two L's).

I didn't say Apple wasn't evil. However, calling them evil because you failed to do research and lost your free copy of Garage Band is unfair.

Next time you buy software, or anything, make sure you know what you're buying. Don't be a stupid consumer.

banjobacon
March 12th, 2008, 07:41 PM
Did you bother to go a search for a solution to your problem before your posted here? Here's (http://benrobb.com/2007/12/01/howto-install-ilife-06-on-leopard/) a pretty basic walkthrough on how to install Tiger-bundled applications after your Leopard upgrade.

Black Mage
March 12th, 2008, 07:45 PM
Did you bother to go a search for a solution to your problem before your posted here? Here's (http://benrobb.com/2007/12/01/howto-install-ilife-06-on-leopard/) a pretty basic walkthrough on how to install Tiger-bundled applications after your Leopard upgrade.

Ok, fair enough. Now what about new Apple customers who don't have the advantage of having Tiger from a previous purchase?

This post isn't necessarly focused on me and my experience, but rather Apple and what it is becoming.

banjobacon
March 12th, 2008, 08:00 PM
Ok, fair enough. Now what about new Apple customers who don't have the advantage of having Tiger from a previous purchase?

As I said before, iLife is included with all (or is it most?) Mac purchases. New customers get Garage Band, just like you did.

Black Mage
March 12th, 2008, 08:14 PM
As I said before, iLife is included with all (or is it most?) Mac purchases. New customers get Garage Band, just like you did.

If it comes included, then why is there a "buy now" option even included? Since OS X is only suppose to run on Apple Hardware, meaning you should have bought a mac in order to use the operating system.

Is the included only a trail version?

banjobacon
March 12th, 2008, 08:18 PM
I see nothing on the Apple website that says iLife comes included with every mac.

Click "Buy Now" on your system of choice. On the bottom right, there's a section that says "Included software." Click on the "Applications" link. Ta-da!

Erunno
March 12th, 2008, 09:41 PM
iPhoto, iDVD, iMovie, and Garage Band use to come included for free(I just noticed all of them were gone on my computer since the Leopard Upgrade) when you purchased a mac.

Actually, it still does (at least in Germany/Europe). You get a free copy of iLife with each Mac you buy.


Now you have to buy iWork for a word processing, powerpoint, and excel like programs for another $79 which means you really spend $180.

There are free (beer and libre) alternatives to iWork like NeoOffice or the upcoming OpenOffice 3.0 which will finally feature a Cocoa-based interface. So if you must have iWork because it offers something that the alternatives doesn't there's nothing wrong with Apple charging for that. As commonly known, Apple is a business and not a charity and as long as their is a market for their software they will expect to get paid for it. A sense of entitlement to be supplied with good software by Apple for free is misplaced here.


Also their Itunes ha created a monoploy on the music industry. Apple can basically do what it wants when it comes to music sales, and iTunes is expanding to other venues as well.

Amazon is trying to breach into this market at the moment with allegedly more friendly conditions for labels and artists. Plus, it does not employ any kind of DRM so there's hope that iTunes won't maintain a monopoly on downloadable music forever. If push comes to shove and Apple will become a monopolist who abuses his position I'm sure antitrust authorities both in the US and EU will start to look into this (I think somebody already sued against Apple in this matter).


It may have a monopoly with PDA's since the iPhone. If it didn't, it would charge $599 one for(which dropped to $399 and angered a lot of people). If it had competition in that, then they probably would charge $399.

I very much doubt that the iPhone is even near being a monopoly. From the news I've read the reception was lukewarm in some european countries due to the high price and binding to a specific telecommunications companies. It's actually the responsibility of the competitors at the moment to come up with a product which can rival the iPhone and already some of the bigger companies have announced or presented their own touchscreen phones. Whether it will feature an interface similar to the iPhone's highly acclaimed one remains to be seen.


Point being, Apple is not becoming but really is another Microsoft, charging for each solution. The difference is Apple makes its own hardware and software thus making the process seem easier to the home user, "It just works". And Microsoft primarly targets businesses while Apple targets home users, which can be a much larger market.

Microsoft targets *everything*. It is vital for their survival as a monopolist that they don't allow alternatives to creep up on them. That's why they were so eager to get Windows on both OLPC and EeePC.

Black Mage
March 12th, 2008, 10:52 PM
Actually, it still does (at least in Germany/Europe). You get a free copy of iLife with each Mac you buy.

Now say you get that rare mac virus or you just have to re-install everything because you messed up your computer, wouldn't iLife then be gone and you would be required to buy it? In my case, I had everything iLife has now, but I also had a triple boot on my laptop of OS X, Windows XP, and Ubuntu using rEFIT to boot the partitions since boot camp couldn't do it. When installing Leopard, it screamed "what the hell is this, no I'm reformatting EVERYTHING" so I had to back-up my files and reformat destroying all my partitions.



There are free (beer and libre) alternatives to iWork like NeoOffice or the upcoming OpenOffice 3.0 which will finally feature a Cocoa-based interface. So if you must have iWork because it offers something that the alternatives doesn't there's nothing wrong with Apple charging for that. As commonly known, Apple is a business and not a charity and as long as their is a market for their software they will expect to get paid for it. A sense of entitlement to be supplied with good software by Apple for free is misplaced here.

Average Joe won't know about the alternatives and does not put that much time into trying it. Anyone who says they are average Joe and are using Ubuntu or another version of Linux and are in these forums on a regular basis, you ARE NOT the average Joe. If average Joe knew about the alternatives, Linux would have more users and Mac would have been more popular years ago. Its not like people actually enjoy spending money when they don't have too(if you do, you can always give me some :) ). But I'm not coming down on the fact that its a business, I already said that. I'm just saying its become more like Microsoft because its no longer giving out freebees like AppleWorks anymore.



Amazon is trying to breach into this market at the moment with allegedly more friendly conditions for labels and artists. Plus, it does not employ any kind of DRM so there's hope that iTunes won't maintain a monopoly on downloadable music forever. If push comes to shove and Apple will become a monopolist who abuses his position I'm sure antitrust authorities both in the US and EU will start to look into this (I think somebody already sued against Apple in this matter).

If Amazon wants to break the the music market, it has to find a away onto a different popular MP3 player or use another program besides iTunes. If Amazon uses iTunes or iPod, its won't be causing much of a breach. So first step, get consumers to buy something besides the iPod.




I very much doubt that the iPhone is even near being a monopoly. From the news I've read the reception was lukewarm in some european countries due to the high price and binding to a specific telecommunications companies. It's actually the responsibility of the competitors at the moment to come up with a product which can rival the iPhone and already some of the bigger companies have announced or presented their own touchscreen phones. Whether it will feature an interface similar to the iPhone's highly acclaimed one remains to be seen.


I'm not saying this is true or not but rather my observation and opionon. Apple's target for the iPhone is probably the consumer and not businesses. For the average consumer, the majority uses the basic cell phone. But for PDA's, the ones I've seen the most are iPhones and sidekicks(generally used by teenagers). Occasionaly though I do see BlackBerry and so forth. On the business side, I've seen a ton of BlackBerries but an increasing amount of IPhones since they have the same functionalites as BlackBerries, if not better(at least in looks). Btw, my previous job was an assistant system administrator and my current job is a network administrator, and both of my bosses used iPhones on the jobs. Other employess I've worked with have also switched from BlackBerries to iPhones. So thats why I say Apple has a monopoly with the iPhone because nothing is really like it yet. Personally I think Microsoft should take the same technology the put into developing the Microsft Surface and put that into a PDA. And if Apple has unlocked the iPhone to more carriers, it probably would be a lot more successful. But thats in another year or so.

BTW, funny surface video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZrr7AZ9nCY



Microsoft targets *everything*. It is vital for their survival as a monopolist that they don't allow alternatives to creep up on them. That's why they were so eager to get Windows on both OLPC and EeePC.

As that where I am saying Apple is heading.

jrusso2
March 13th, 2008, 01:02 AM
Its all about freedom of choice. If you don't want to be locked in don't buy Apple or Microsoft Products.

Thats one advantage we have with free software.

Its a personal choice and if you make that choice you really can't complain.

st0n3cutt3r
March 13th, 2008, 03:27 AM
I read that whole "Apple is the new Microsoft" article, and all I can say is "Wow...."

And perhaps end with a bit of sarcasm...

I'll support a loathsome, price gouging, monopolist company and it's evil dictator any day!

Mr. Picklesworth
March 13th, 2008, 03:58 AM
It is sad but true.

Nowdays even M$ is seeing the benifits of FLOSS, but Apple is doing everything in their power to crush it.

Sad... very sad...

Indeed, Apple's interest in helping free software seems to go only as far as their legal obligation, and not much farther. That is really quite baffling when one considers how much they have and will continue to benefit from the free software community. They can't possibly expect this to keep going forever.
It made my blood boil when that engineer at Apple went through the entire Mac OS X stack without a single mention of its very tight FreeBSD roots. They could do well being a tad more gratious for the free work they are being given, which is in large part responsible for digging them out of that particularly deep hole they had ended up in for some time in the 90s, and likely the reason why it was so easy for them to build the iPhone's software anyway. (Proprietary kernels seem typically bad at porting to handhelds...). Okay, I don't expect them to say "this is based on a lot of stuff in FreeBSD. Let's take two minutes of deep thought to thank the kind souls who donated those many lines of code...", but when you're up on stage somewhere saying "look at our great system! Wow, aren't we geniuses? Amazing for such a small team compared to Redmond, eh?", I would expect them to at least show a little bit of modesty in accepting the fact that it is not all theirs.
Similar deal when they talk about Safari / WebKit stuff, again with little to no mention of KHTML.

As for the strange sense of entitlement being touted by the OP and a number of others, I must say I am not on your side... Apple can charge whatever they want for their software; it's your own choice to buy it or not. Let me know when they start forcing you to buy GarageBand, (as can happen with universities + society + grade school + Microsoft in a similar case) or forcing you to delete GarageBand (probably your own fault in this case, and it's probably on the recovery disk), and I will join you in complaining about the great and evil oppressor that is Apple. Until then, I see nothing wrong. (Although that boot camp beta was pretty lame).

I, for one, would happily charge for Windows software if it meant a bit of money for me and a bit of a chance for fun market manipulation. Of course, the change there would be the need to keep it closed source so the conveniently free Linux version could not just be recompiled on Windows and released elsewhere. Personally, I see no wrong in that; it's the creator's own choice. Sometimes open source and free works, but it is not the only way to do things, particularly for end user software.

Atomic Dog
March 13th, 2008, 05:31 AM
I think the annoying thing is people that own Apple have apparentlt no problem forking out money for iWork, iLife, leopard (even though it's about the same as XP SP2 update). Yet these people talk about the greed of MS and how much it sucks.

Hey whatever. Enjoy felatiating Steve Jobs and trying to convert your friends to joining the church of Apple. I swear if Jobs crapped in a box and called it iTurd people would line up to buy it.

If I sound annoyed its because I have 4 Apple users at work that are fanatics...despte the files they often create don't work or look right when the clients get their reports. But its OK, I'm there to "fix" it and get it looking right, or convert it. Sheesh those people are sometimes more annoying than religious fanatics. I have actually heard them say "if the client can't open it, then they should get a Mac" oh yea, nice tude...

Patrick-Ruff
March 13th, 2008, 05:44 AM
I think Apple is mainly afraid of going bankrupt again. I think most of their moves are mainly geared towards gaining success, however, their love for proprietary software may turn into a sort of tyranny. Hopefully not though. I seriously think they're just trying to gain market share here, but the problem is, they may not switch back to a better place.

Black Mage
March 13th, 2008, 01:03 PM
Indeed, Apple's interest in helping free software seems to go only as far as their legal obligation, and not much farther. That is really quite baffling when one considers how much they have and will continue to benefit from the free software community. They can't possibly expect this to keep going forever.
It made my blood boil when that engineer at Apple went through the entire Mac OS X stack without a single mention of its very tight FreeBSD roots. They could do well being a tad more gratious for the free work they are being given, which is in large part responsible for digging them out of that particularly deep hole they had ended up in for some time in the 90s, and likely the reason why it was so easy for them to build the iPhone's software anyway. (Proprietary kernels seem typically bad at porting to handhelds...). Okay, I don't expect them to say "this is based on a lot of stuff in FreeBSD. Let's take two minutes of deep thought to thank the kind souls who donated those many lines of code...", but when you're up on stage somewhere saying "look at our great system! Wow, aren't we geniuses? Amazing for such a small team compared to Redmond, eh?", I would expect them to at least show a little bit of modesty in accepting the fact that it is not all theirs.
Similar deal when they talk about Safari / WebKit stuff, again with little to no mention of KHTML.

As for the strange sense of entitlement being touted by the OP and a number of others, I must say I am not on your side... Apple can charge whatever they want for their software; it's your own choice to buy it or not. Let me know when they start forcing you to buy GarageBand, (as can happen with universities + society + grade school + Microsoft in a similar case) or forcing you to delete GarageBand (probably your own fault in this case, and it's probably on the recovery disk), and I will join you in complaining about the great and evil oppressor that is Apple. Until then, I see nothing wrong. (Although that boot camp beta was pretty lame).

Apple's page on open source: http://www.apple.com/opensource/

This maybe how I just feel about the first paragraph, but I get the sense that Apple is almost taking credit for developing open source and enhancing it, rather than the other way around. In addition to khtml and the Unix/FreeBSD, on Apple should give credit to using open source development such as Apache which it uses as it web server. And what about X Windowing System? So I have to agree with Mr. Picklesworth.

About the entitlement, yes again you are right. Apple has the right to do whatever they want with their software. Directly no one is being forced to buy apple products. But indirectly users who do not have knowledge of solutions are in a way, be forced to buy their products. Almost like people are coerced to use Microsoft at work. Honestly the average user may barely know what an Operating System is. And until recently, the average user really didn't see Apple as an alternative and they still don't see Linux as an alternative, especially when they ask "can I email, web browse and do other basic stuff in Ubuntu?". So without that knowledge of other products such as Open Office, it almost is like being forced to buy into one thing. This is Apple, resistance if futile, you will be assimilated.

Anyway, I am beginning to call Apple the "evill" corporation because I've used it all my life, and I'm just noticing it is becoming more like Microsoft. And it can now because it has a good computer base already. So besides Microsoft having a larger market share and being primarily a software developing company, how does Apple really differ from Microsoft?

Arkenzor
March 13th, 2008, 02:35 PM
Even before I'd started getting interested in open-source, I already didn't really understand how people could claim Apple was more "ethical" (or whatever) than Microsoft. I mean, if Microsoft has a monopolistic behavior, then what about people who actually succeed in having you to buy the computer they made with the OS they sell, then buy their office and multimedia suites, interfacing it with their portable media players, buying your music from their store, and even if you switch to another OS, still depend on their bootloader (alright, that's Microsoft's dream too. But at least they can't do it for now :p).

The fact that you could actually have a complete desktop experience without even knowing about anything but Apple software has always made me go nuts, and it's not getting any better now that they're trying to disguise other people's code as their own.


Ah, did I mention you're also supposed to get technical support through their Apple stores only, and the way the people there will treat you lower than sh*t if you're using anything that's not part of the Comprehensive Apple Suite to Make Your Life Perfect? I've gone there only once, to get my iPod repaired. I swear the guy ended up threatening me so I'd accept that installing rockbox had voided my guarantee, which by the way wasn't true at all.



Well, maybe I've only had particularly bad experiences with Apple...

Erunno
March 13th, 2008, 03:09 PM
And what about X Windowing System?

Mac OS X does not use X but a self-developed technology stack called Quartz. X is only supplied for compatibility reasons.


But indirectly users who do not have knowledge of solutions are in a way, be forced to buy their products. Almost like people are coerced to use Microsoft at work.

This argument is trespassing into the realm of absurdity. If a customer can't inform himself before buying a product one can hardly blaim the manufacturer(s). It is not and has never been the responsibility of a seller to inform the buyer about better alternatives. If someone is too lazy to inform himself about alternatives he deserves to pay every last cent. It's not like there aren't enough means to educate oneself before a purchase.

Plus, companies force their employees to use one operating system because it's a nightmare to support several operating systems, especially when your installations are in the hundreds and thousands. Optimally, you have the same hardware with the same software everywhere but this is an utopia almost no company can afford or simply not feasable. But you're trying to narrow down the different configurations as much as humanly possible and this encompasses the use of one operating system.



So without that knowledge of other products such as Open Office, it almost is like being forced to buy into one thing. This is Apple, resistance if futile, you will be assimilated.

This attitude is so astonishing that I have to repeat myself: You are blaming the manufacturers for the laziness of customers? The mind boggles.


Anyway, I am beginning to call Apple the "evill" corporation because I've used it all my life, and I'm just noticing it is becoming more like Microsoft.

In what way is Apple "evil", that they are a business trying to increase their profit? Is, in your world, every business trying to increase its profilts "evil" by definition? Apple is far, far away from being a monopoly like Microsoft which covers almost all distribution channels so right now people are *willingly* buying their products.

Erunno
March 13th, 2008, 03:15 PM
Hey whatever. Enjoy felatiating Steve Jobs and trying to convert your friends to joining the church of Apple. I swear if Jobs crapped in a box and called it iTurd people would line up to buy it.

Yes, because Linux users are especially known for their fair and balanced views on other companies like "Micro$haft" or Apple which produces "iTurds". Instead of calling names just accept that almost every OS has a subset of users which for some reason exhibit a fanatical devotion to their OS of choice be it Linux, Mac OS X or Windows.

/home
March 13th, 2008, 03:19 PM
Well i've met a lot mac users think linux is better then mac

CostaRica
March 13th, 2008, 03:29 PM
Just asking... Is Sun Microsystems a future threat too? They are buying the biggest FLOSS companies (MySQL, VirtualBox...).

If I understand well, they do not have a true FLOSS philosophy, in the sense of never charging for software but for the services derived. Well, now not even Canonical thinks like that (Landscape).

I respect legal capitalism, but I try to support FLOSS-oriented companies.

Anyone with me?

Erunno
March 13th, 2008, 03:35 PM
If I understand well, they do not have a true FLOSS philosophy, in the sense of never charging for software but for the services derived. Well, now not even Canonical thinks like that (Landscape).

[...]

Anyone with me?



No, because you fail to understand "true" FLOSS philosophy yourself.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html

Black Mage
March 13th, 2008, 04:00 PM
This argument is trespassing into the realm of absurdity. If a customer can't inform himself before buying a product one can hardly blaim the manufacturer(s). It is not and has never been the responsibility of a seller to inform the buyer about better alternatives. If someone is too lazy to inform himself about alternatives he deserves to pay every last cent. It's not like there aren't enough means to educate oneself before a purchase.

In what way is Apple "evil", that they are a business trying to increase their profit? Is, in your world, every business trying to increase its profilts "evil" by definition? Apple is far, far away from being a monopoly like Microsoft which covers almost all distribution channels so right now people are *willingly* buying their products.

Apple is not a monopoly like Microsoft because it has yet the market share to do so. Obviously with iTunes, Apple is has a monopoly and look how it is going. They have control and and don't seem to be in support for other competitors. If iTunes worked with Zoom and other mp3 players, or iPods worked with other programs then Apple wouldn't have a monopoly. Now imagine Apple has the market share, do you think it would be any different from Microsoft?

As for profit, Apple makes it profit when selling over-priced computers. When I took apart an old MacBook Pro, it seemed to have some pretty basic parts: Samsung RAM, Hitachi Hard Drive, Intel Processor. So it seems like when you buy a mac computer, your paying for the design rather than the computer. Not to mention they probably order in bulk from the manufacturers which probably entitles them to step discounts. I'm not saying this article is 100% true, http://www.engadget.com/2005/09/23/your-200-ipod-nano-costs-about-90-to-make/, but if it is, Apple is probably selling their computers then for more than double than what it cost to produce. Apple has every right to make profit, but at what point does it become money hungry.

Alteast with Microsoft if you buy Windows, you can install Windows on almost any hardware, even if you build the computer yourself. If you buy OS X, you then need Apple Hardware to run it on. Even though Microsoft may in stupid clauses such as "you can't run Windows on any computer with more then 2 processors" stop you from doing certain with their software, Apple traps you with just their hardware.

As for the consumers, no it is not the manufacturers responsiblity to inform the customers, but that doesn't mean manufacturers won't use it to their advantage. We, in this forum and Linux users, are not average Joe therefore know about other options. Average Joe probably doesn't even know how to find other solutions. If Apple supported open source, why not let the customer know about OpenOffice instead of iWork? Because Apple is a business, now is that business heading towards Microsoft business model? How do they differ?

CostaRica
March 13th, 2008, 04:42 PM
Something new every day. Thank you, Erunno for the link on selling FLOSS.

Black Mage
March 13th, 2008, 05:12 PM
Now look at it this way, in addition to my last post.

This how the computer budget is spent at my college when I asked,

"Our baseline desktop units sells for $875 each. We currently have what is called a Microsoft Campus Wide license that runs around $90k per year. That agreement cover MS Operating systems for desktop and servers, MS Office, SharePoint and Core CAL’s which are Client Access license. We also purchase for the campus a Symantec Antivirus license that runs around $17k yearly."

Now if someone were to say, "lets get Mac Minis for $599 with acer monitors for $150 to bring down the unit price to $749, and then we buy a license agreement from Apple for less", my school would be saving money, mainly because Apple doesn't have the expensive licenses that Microsoft has. Also if my school college signed a contract and ordered in bulk, the price would probably be below $599. With that said and Apple gained the market share, you honestly don't believe they would become even more life Microsoft? Have the same restrictions and monopoly as it does with iTunes?

n3tfury
March 13th, 2008, 05:57 PM
Yes, because Linux users are especially known for their fair and balanced views on other companies like "Micro$haft" or Apple which produces "iTurds". Instead of calling names just accept that almost every OS has a subset of users which for some reason exhibit a fanatical devotion to their OS of choice be it Linux, Mac OS X or Windows.

^^best of thread.

Erunno
March 14th, 2008, 09:37 AM
They have control and and don't seem to be in support for other competitors. If iTunes worked with Zoom and other mp3 players, or iPods worked with other programs then Apple wouldn't have a monopoly.

Apple has only the obligation to make as much profit as possible while respecting the laws of each country they are active in. I still can't bend my mind to understand your notion that a business should willingly cut their own profits by helping their competitors. That's highly absurd. Don't misunderstand me, I'm also uncomfortable about the strong bundling of iTunes, Mac OS X and the iPod and should Apple ever gain critical mass I'm sure that antitrust authorities will look into this but why Apple should do so on their own as long as they operate inside legal boundries is beyond me.


As for profit, Apple makes it profit when selling over-priced computers.

Well, beside that the very premise is at least partly questionable (check some of the threads in the Mac OS X forum) this business practise is hardly limited to computers. Many people are willing to pay premium prices either for actual or perceived improved quality or simply because a brand is en vouge (e.g. clothes, shoes, handbags, etc). If people are willing to buy them in sufficient amounts so that it is profitable than the manufacturer is doing something right. Apple can slap 5000 Dollar tags on their notebooks as far as I car. I wouldn't buy them then but as long as they find their niche: Good for them.


Not to mention they probably order in bulk from the manufacturers which probably entitles them to step discounts.

Uhm, again: Why singling out Apple? That's a standard practice for about any larger business on this planet.


Apple is probably selling their computers then for more than double than what it cost to produce. Apple has every right to make profit, but at what point does it become money hungry.

Your sense of entitlement is getting ridiculous. Let me repeat it: They have only the obligation to make profit within the respective legal boundries. They can ask for any price they want and as long as customers go along with it. That's neither "evil" nor "money hungry" that's just how pretty much every business on this planet operates. You have no natural right that business should hand down price cuts in production down to the customers.


Alteast with Microsoft if you buy Windows, you can install Windows on almost any hardware, even if you build the computer yourself. If you buy OS X, you then need Apple Hardware to run it on.

That's a business decision and one which Apple is actually entitled to as the creator. Apple is making most of their money with hardware so Mac OS X is the sugar on top. There is no natural law that says that an operating system must be installable on the systems you choose. If you don't like Apple's terms use something else.


But that doesn't mean manufacturers won't use it to their advantage.

Why shouldn't they? Your laziness, your loss.


If Apple supported open source, why not let the customer know about OpenOffice instead of iWork? Because Apple is a business, now is that business heading towards Microsoft business model? How do they differ?

This is starting to get repetitive: Again, the silly notion that it's the duty of the manufecturer to educate the customer about alternatives. And in this case particular case this has the potential to cut into their profits. And why the constant comparison to Microsoft? Apple is working like most business on this plan. If you don't like that system itself I recommend to join one of the many world revolution groups (I recommend Attac, they reject violence).

jespdj
March 14th, 2008, 10:05 AM
For some reason, Apple has a special appeal to many people. It's not just the design of their computers (which is great); they also seem to be so good at marketing their products that it seems to almost become a cult, with Steve Jobs as the charismatic leader. There seems to be a group of people who is brainwashed by Apple in such a way that they automatically start drooling whenever Apple comes out with a new gadget, and they simply must have it, no matter what it costs or that the technical specs are less than what you'd get in a product from another brand.

Look at the MacBook Air, for example. Sure, it looks incredibly sexy, but for the price of the thing you can get a luxury notebook from another brand with much better specs (faster processor, better graphics, bigger harddisk, and a DVD writer).

Or look at the iPhone. It's been anticipated for months, people are talking about it all over the web, everyone wants one. Yet, if you look at it rationally, is it such a great and revolutionary phone? No, it isn't. And it's completely locked down so that Apple can completely control what you can and cannot install on it. (Yes, I know that they released some kind of SDK for it and that Sun is going to make Java work in the iPhone).

Why do Apple and Apple products get such a disproportional amount of attention?

I sometimes go to conferences (about Java) and the MacBook (Pro) is very popular among software developers. But why? Java 6 isn't even out for the Mac yet (yes, I know there's a developer preview, but it's not officially out yet). So a Mac is hardly the ideal platform for Java development. Also, you'd say that developers of open source software would choose an open source OS, and yet there are so many running around with MacBooks.

fatality_uk
March 14th, 2008, 10:39 AM
The thing apple has always excelled at is marketing. The have always promoted the "underdog" image which has worked VERY well. Even though the "Mac" has the market share in certain fields such as DTP, Digital Image editing although that is changing with applications such as http://www.cinepaint.org/ an ace in the hole

Black Mage
March 14th, 2008, 03:46 PM
Apple has only the obligation to make as much profit as possible while respecting the laws of each country they are active in. I still can't bend my mind to understand your notion that a business should willingly cut their own profits by helping their competitors. That's highly absurd. Don't misunderstand me, I'm also uncomfortable about the strong bundling of iTunes, Mac OS X and the iPod and should Apple ever gain critical mass I'm sure that antitrust authorities will look into this but why Apple should do so on their own as long as they operate inside legal boundries is beyond me.



Well, beside that the very premise is at least partly questionable (check some of the threads in the Mac OS X forum) this business practise is hardly limited to computers. Many people are willing to pay premium prices either for actual or perceived improved quality or simply because a brand is en vouge (e.g. clothes, shoes, handbags, etc). If people are willing to buy them in sufficient amounts so that it is profitable than the manufacturer is doing something right. Apple can slap 5000 Dollar tags on their notebooks as far as I car. I wouldn't buy them then but as long as they find their niche: Good for them.



Uhm, again: Why singling out Apple? That's a standard practice for about any larger business on this planet.



Your sense of entitlement is getting ridiculous. Let me repeat it: They have only the obligation to make profit within the respective legal boundries. They can ask for any price they want and as long as customers go along with it. That's neither "evil" nor "money hungry" that's just how pretty much every business on this planet operates. You have no natural right that business should hand down price cuts in production down to the customers.



That's a business decision and one which Apple is actually entitled to as the creator. Apple is making most of their money with hardware so Mac OS X is the sugar on top. There is no natural law that says that an operating system must be installable on the systems you choose. If you don't like Apple's terms use something else.


This is starting to get repetitive: Again, the silly notion that it's the duty of the manufecturer to educate the customer about alternatives. And in this case particular case this has the potential to cut into their profits. And why the constant comparison to Microsoft? Apple is working like most business on this plan. If you don't like that system itself I recommend to join one of the many world revolution groups (I recommend Attac, they reject violence).

I think you misunderstand. I'm not knocking Apple for being a business, I say many times that making a profit is the goal of every business and Apple has more than a right to do so.

Here's a definition of a monopoly: "In Economics, monopoly (also "Pure monopoly") exists when a specific individual or enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it. Monopolies are thus characterized by a lack of economic competition for the good or service that they provide and a lack of viable substitute goods”

But when do businesses just become money hungry and manipluative to be called evil. Currently iTunes is the second largest music retailer next to Wal-Mart. Yes that means they beat Best Buy and every other music retailer in the U.S, and there only growing. Not to mention if you download music legally through iTunes or buy an iPod, your pretty much stuck using an Apple product. If iTunes outsells Wal-Mart, will there really be competition? It already, to an extent, controls the customers and freezes out other competition through DRM, which has had lawsuits and compliants filed against them for it.

Apple maybe becoming a monopoly with itunes, it really is coming down to only a matter of time. So my point is Apple is on that road to becoming mone hungry and manipluative.