Text 4431, 293 rader
Skriven 2005-05-25 20:13:14 av Rich (1:379/45)
Kommentar till text 4422 av RobertB. (1:379/45)
Ärende: Re: Music players and phones
====================================
From: "Rich" <@>
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0351_01C56166.2F573510
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In the Microsoft case apple products were excluded as the definition =
of the relevant market was intentionally narrowed from what you might =
consider the PC market to among other restrictions include only x86 =
processors based systems. Right or wrong, such restrictions appear = "legal"
even though they exclude what you view as alternatives.
Rich
"RobertB." <rb28@nyu.edu> wrote in message =
news:rb28-F45C27.18395025052005@w3.nls.net...
I'm not sure if this is legally correct. However, I would add that =
Apple=20
plays within the "PC" universe and competes with other hardware and=20
software manufacturers. They now have about 3.5% of that market, not=20
enough for a monopoly I would say. Sure, if you want to buy OS X, you=20
have to buy it from Apple, but who says you have to buy OS X? You also =
have to buy Photoshop from Adobe.=20
In article <42935e90@w3.nls.net>, "Rich" <@> wrote:
> I think it only matters within the scope of the market and not =
the size of=20
> the defined market. The size of the market may matter in =
determining who=20
> cares not whether "monopoly power" exists. Consider someone that =
needs or=20
> wants macos, they have only one choice of a provider for the =
computer=20
> system. It may not matter to you but it should matter to that =
person.
>=20
> In regard to your last question, I think not at all.
>=20
> Rich
>=20
> "RobertB." <rb28@nyu.edu> wrote in message=20
> news:rb28-0EEEDD.11410924052005@w3.nls.net...
> That may be so, but there is an also an economic factor that is =
taken=20
> into consideration. A company that monopolizes an industry with =
$100K of=20
> sales per year would hardly be a candidate for monopoly status. =
Also,=20
> unless I'm mistaken, doesn't a monopoly imply a considerable =
amount of=20
> vertical integration? You not only own the coal fields, you own =
the=20
> railroad that transports the coal and the tracks the trains run =
on.=20
>=20
> r.
>=20
> In article <42928de5@w3.nls.net>, "Rich" <@> wrote:
>=20
> > Not true for multiple reasons. One is that percentages don't =
matter. =20
> > Another is that you can play number games and define the =
market=20
> > however=20
> > you wish. During the Microsoft trial the market was defined =
narrowly=20
> > to=20
> > include only single user computers with a video display, =
keyboard, and=20
> > Intel x86 processor so as to exclude computer from apple, =
sun, PDAs,=20
> > servers, and pretty much anything that does not run Windows. =
Do the=20
> > same=20
> > here and you see that apple has 100% of the the market for =
computers=20
> > that=20
> > run macos software. =20
> >=20
> > Rich
> >=20
> > "RobertB." <rb28@nyu.edu> wrote in message=20
> > news:rb28-8DAD7D.16182223052005@w3.nls.net...
> > Apple owns only 3+% of the market for PCs. They can't be a =
monopoly by=20
> > definition.=20
> >=20
> >=20
> > In article <42909834$1@w3.nls.net>, "Geo" <georger@nls.net> =
wrote:
> >=20
> > > "Mike '/m'" <mike@barkto.com> wrote in message
> > > news:ib119159n04nd7q414l4g84l09o643gla6@4ax.com...
> > >=20
> > > > Apple is definitely something with regard to OS/X, but I =
don't=20
> > > > think
> > > > monopoly is the concept.
> > >=20
> > > If you write mac software it's a monopoly, if you are a =
customer then=20
> > > it's
> > > probably just really really proprietary.
> > >=20
> > > Before you argue with the term monopoly, remember the court =
case=20
> > > where=20
> > > apple
> > > sued microsoft for being a lookalike.. They even think like =
a=20
> > > monopoly.
> > >=20
> > > Geo.
> > >=20
> > >
------=_NextPart_000_0351_01C56166.2F573510
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2900.2627" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> In the Microsoft case =
apple products=20
were excluded as the definition of the relevant market was intentionally =
narrowed from what you might consider the PC market to among other =
restrictions=20
include only x86 processors based systems. Right or wrong, such=20
restrictions appear "legal" even though they exclude what you view as=20
alternatives.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Rich</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV>"RobertB." <<A =
href=3D"mailto:rb28@nyu.edu">rb28@nyu.edu</A>> wrote=20
in message <A=20
=
href=3D"news:rb28-F45C27.18395025052005@w3.nls.net">news:rb28-F45C27.1839=
5025052005@w3.nls.net</A>...</DIV>I'm=20
not sure if this is legally correct. However, I would add that Apple =
<BR>plays=20
within the "PC" universe and competes with other hardware and =
<BR>software=20
manufacturers. They now have about 3.5% of that market, not <BR>enough =
for a=20
monopoly I would say. Sure, if you want to buy OS X, you <BR>have to =
buy it=20
from Apple, but who says you have to buy OS X? You also <BR>have to =
buy=20
Photoshop from Adobe. <BR><BR><BR><BR>In article <<A=20
href=3D"mailto:42935e90@w3.nls.net">42935e90@w3.nls.net</A>>, =
"Rich"=20
<@> wrote:<BR><BR>> I think it only matters =
within=20
the scope of the market and not the size of <BR>> =
the=20
defined market. The size of the market may matter in determining who=20
<BR>> cares not whether "monopoly power" =
exists. =20
Consider someone that needs or <BR>> wants macos, =
they=20
have only one choice of a provider for the computer =
<BR>> =20
system. It may not matter to you but it should matter to that=20
person.<BR>> <BR>> In regard to your last =
question, I=20
think not at all.<BR>> <BR>> Rich<BR>> <BR>> =20
"RobertB." <<A href=3D"mailto:rb28@nyu.edu">rb28@nyu.edu</A>> =
wrote in=20
message <BR>> <A=20
=
href=3D"news:rb28-0EEEDD.11410924052005@w3.nls.net">news:rb28-0EEEDD.1141=
0924052005@w3.nls.net</A>...<BR>> =20
That may be so, but there is an also an economic factor that is taken=20
<BR>> into consideration. A company that monopolizes an =
industry with $100K of <BR>> sales per year would =
hardly be a=20
candidate for monopoly status. Also, <BR>> unless I'm =
mistaken,=20
doesn't a monopoly imply a considerable amount of <BR>> =
vertical integration? You not only own the coal fields, you own the=20
<BR>> railroad that transports the coal and the tracks =
the=20
trains run on. <BR>> <BR>> r.<BR>> =
<BR>> =20
In article <<A=20
href=3D"mailto:42928de5@w3.nls.net">42928de5@w3.nls.net</A>>, =
"Rich"=20
<@> wrote:<BR>> <BR>> > =
Not true=20
for multiple reasons. One is that percentages don't =
matter. =20
<BR>> > Another is that you can =
play=20
number games and define the market <BR>> =
> =20
however <BR>> > you wish. =
During the=20
Microsoft trial the market was defined narrowly <BR>> =20
> to <BR>> > =
include=20
only single user computers with a video display, keyboard, and=20
<BR>> > Intel x86 processor so as =
to=20
exclude computer from apple, sun, PDAs, <BR>> =20
> servers, and pretty much anything that does not =
run=20
Windows. Do the <BR>> > same =
<BR>> > here and you see that =
apple has=20
100% of the the market for computers <BR>> =20
> that <BR>> =
> run=20
macos software. <BR>> > <BR>> =
>=20
Rich<BR>> > <BR>> > =
"RobertB."=20
<<A href=3D"mailto:rb28@nyu.edu">rb28@nyu.edu</A>> wrote in =
message=20
<BR>> > <A=20
=
href=3D"news:rb28-8DAD7D.16182223052005@w3.nls.net">news:rb28-8DAD7D.1618=
2223052005@w3.nls.net</A>...<BR>> =20
> Apple owns only 3+% of the market for PCs. They can't =
be a=20
monopoly by <BR>> > definition.=20
<BR>> > <BR>> > =
<BR>> =20
> In article <<A=20
href=3D"mailto:42909834$1@w3.nls.net">42909834$1@w3.nls.net</A>>, =
"Geo"=20
<<A href=3D"mailto:georger@nls.net">georger@nls.net</A>>=20
wrote:<BR>> > <BR>> > =
>=20
"Mike '/m'" <<A =
href=3D"mailto:mike@barkto.com">mike@barkto.com</A>> wrote=20
in message<BR>> > > <A=20
=
href=3D"news:ib119159n04nd7q414l4g84l09o643gla6@4ax.com">news:ib119159n04=
nd7q414l4g84l09o643gla6@4ax.com</A>...<BR>> =20
> > <BR>> > > > =
Apple is=20
definitely something with regard to OS/X, but I don't =
<BR>> =20
> > > think<BR>> > =
>=20
> monopoly is the concept.<BR>> > =
>=20
<BR>> > > If you write mac software =
it's a=20
monopoly, if you are a customer then <BR>> =
> =20
> it's<BR>> > > probably just =
really=20
really proprietary.<BR>> > >=20
<BR>> > > Before you argue with the =
term=20
monopoly, remember the court case <BR>> =
> >=20
where <BR>> > > =
apple<BR>> =20
> > sued microsoft for being a lookalike.. They even =
think=20
like a <BR>> > >=20
monopoly.<BR>> > > =
<BR>> =20
> > Geo.<BR>> > >=20
<BR>> > ></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_0351_01C56166.2F573510--
--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5
* Origin: Barktopia BBS Site http://HarborWebs.com:8081 (1:379/45)
|