| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Microsoft's goalsMicrosoft's goalsPosted Jan 11, 2008 22:56 UTC (Fri) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091)In reply to: Microsoft's goals by pr1268 Parent article: Why Microsoft Must Control One Laptop Per Child (Technocrat.net) It is interesting that you should mention portable media players, where there is a virtual monopoly by Apple's iPod, as one where there is consumer choice. The truth of the matter is, most people want an iPod even if other companies offer more features and more openness. Indeed, if you want to look at a company which is really crazy to control your digital lifestyle, you don't have to look much further. Apple's computers are locked down, Apple's OS is proprietary and controlled and also locked down, Apple's players are remarkably closed. And Apple is crazy about controlling their market; their price-fixing strategies are legendary. (All products are sold at the recommended price point, never any lower.) And yet few people complain about their tactics, not even staunch believers in market choice. My point is that, if Microsoft tried to reach the degree of control that Apple has, the screams would be heard in the stratosphere. The same is true for many other companies (Sony, TiVo, Nokia). So there is more to it than just control.
(Log in to post comments)
Apple is more evil than Microsoft Posted Jan 12, 2008 2:43 UTC (Sat) by pr1268 (subscriber, #24648) [Link] Oh, don't get me started! Apple is easily twice as evil as Microsoft in regards to vendor lock-in and DRM. As this article by Mike Elgan at PCWorld suggests, Microsoft didn't deserve as big a firestorm of criticism for their predatory tactics over the years when one compares them to Apple. In fact, I was almost ready to feel a tiny amount of sympathy for Microsoft after reading that article (of course, my blood was starting to boil by then). But, Microsoft has its 93% market share to Apple's 5% (I'm totally guessing those numbers right now), so MS gets more anti-monopoly fingers pointed at them. Deal is, Apple isn't trying to hack the OLPC XO into booting OS X Leopard.
Apple is more evil than Microsoft Posted Jan 12, 2008 15:25 UTC (Sat) by jeff@uclinux.org (guest, #8024) [Link] WSJ ArticleFrom 2005, while this was still on the drawing board... "Steve Jobs, Apple Computer Inc.'s chief executive, offered to provide free copies of the company's operating system, OS X, for the machine, according to Seymour Papert, a professor emeritus at MIT who is one of the initiative's founders. "We declined because it's not open source," says Dr. Papert, noting the designers want an operating system that can be tinkered with. An Apple spokesman declined to comment."
Apple is vile, but Microsoft is dangerous Posted Jan 12, 2008 19:24 UTC (Sat) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] Apple is the most vile company in IT. No competition. Microsoft is not even close. It's the only company I know which can demand your soul in exchange to single song - quite literally (read the 20th item of the license and think about implications). But thankfully it only controls small part of the market - and I've avoided it so far (I don't have iPod or iPhone and while Mac looks good I've avoided it like a plague - exactly because I want to control my own destiny, not have Apple or Microsoft as it's master). Apple's recent expansion is quite worrysome, but it just has no degree of control Microsoft enjoys today: music and movies are downloadable for free and iTunes will never be able to compete with that, but it's hard to avoid .DOC and .XLS file nowadays. So while Apple is the most vile and repulsive company Microsoft is still the most dangerous one...
Apple is vile, but Microsoft is dangerous Posted Jan 13, 2008 1:02 UTC (Sun) by pr1268 (subscriber, #24648) [Link] One would think that such "omnipotence" clauses (as I call them) would be legally unenforceable with an unconscionability defense. Or, at least I personally hope such clauses get snuffed out by the courts! =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= IANAL, and I just learned that "unconscionability" is both (1) a legal term and (2) incorrectly reported as a misspelling by Firefox 2.0.0.11. :-)
|
|
||||||||||||