Disqus - Latest Comments for relativesanity

Re: Windows 7 dominoes fail

relativesanity — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 07:53:59 -0000

The refresh rate on those new Windows 7 video drivers is abysmal

Re: Honestly, Ballmer, what the frig are you people thinking?

relativesanity — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 13:18:29 -0000

What agency do you work for?

Re: Honestly, Ballmer, what the frig are you people thinking?

relativesanity — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 13:00:22 -0000

Really? All I learned from this ad was that I could bear about 30 seconds of it before vomiting. I certainly learned nothing in the way of release dates, specs, or anything else.

Part of the "appeal" of this ad is that it's so gut-wrenchingly awful that people *can't sit through it*.

However, I'm getting sucked into an argument on the internet, and that's never a smart move. Enjoy advertising 101!

Re: Honestly, Ballmer, what the frig are you people thinking?

relativesanity — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 09:14:22 -0000

By that measure, Vista was a roaring success, judged by the amount of free publicity it received from magazines, web sites, journals, TV shows and radio spots all decrying it as the worst release in Microsoft's history.

Publicity does not equal revenue.

Re: Honestly, Ballmer, what the frig are you people thinking?

relativesanity — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 08:45:43 -0000

Yes, because all that matters to a company is how much it's talked about, not how many units it sells or how much profit it makes.

No publicity is bad publicity, even when it causes people to stop giving you as much money as before.

Wait, what?

Re: In ten years time, will Apple be the new Microsoft - an abusive monopoly?

relativesanity — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 16:52:48 -0000

That's a seriously interesting line of thought which had never occurred to me. Which I suppose is why I'm not a lawyer.

You've given me something new to chew on :)

Re: In ten years time, will Apple be the new Microsoft - an abusive monopoly?

relativesanity — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 15:29:03 -0000

Great responses, and yes you're right, Apple has to actually cause damage.

The thing to remember is that the Microsoft situation (and what made it an abuse of monopoly) was that MS used one monopoly (its OS) to create another (its browser). That was the abuse ruled as "anti-competitive". For the analogy to be accurate, we'd have to say that Apple used its phone platform monopoly to establish another monopoly. Say, for example, it launched its own cellphone carrier company, and made the iPhone ONLY available on that - this would constitute (assuming an iPhone monopoly) anti-competitive behaviour. Simply saying that you've got the biggest show in town and only certain people are allowed in *isn't* anti-competitive. Using that biggest show to instantly demolish the competition in another sector *is*

Remember, having a monopoly isn't illegal. Maintaining it also is not illegal. Using that monopoly to gain unfair advantage over direct competition IS illegal, but even then, it has to accrue damage.

I'm not saying that Apple couldn't turn into the new Microsoft in ten years. I'm also not saying that Steve Jobs might actually sprout wings and be able to cure cancer with his tears. I'm just saying that the current iPhone practices, while exclusionary, are not necessarily evidence that Apple is actually The Beast.

(I also realise that *you're* not saying that either! I just get annoyed when people start flinging the word "monopoly" around like it means *drowning kittens!*)

Re: In ten years time, will Apple be the new Microsoft - an abusive monopoly?

relativesanity — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 06:17:13 -0000

I think we're misunderstanding (as usual) the terms "abusive" and "monopoly". For Apple to lock down it's own platform is absolutely legal, even if it's the only platform in town. What's *abusive* (and what Microsoft did) is if Apple used its hypothetical huge market share to ensure that other extant products could not compete.

The "what if Microsoft locked down its operating system to only allow certified apps to run" argument is a straw man. If Microsoft did that they'd be abusing their monopoly to drive *existing* businesses out of business. If (like the consoles) Microsoft had STARTED with a "certification only" model, there would be no abuse. The market would decide that it liked that model, and they would be under no obligation to change it.

In short, locking down your platform and not letting people in is not illegal. Forcing people who are already in out in order to strengthen your hold on a particular segment of the competitive market is.

In many ways, what Apple is doing now could be seen (from a legal perspective) as an attempt to ensure that it minimises the possibility of abusing the monopoly.

Let's take a direct example - let's say Netscape(!) code a browser for the iPhone. First, it has to be approved. If it's declined by Apple, there's no abuse - Apple is under no obligation to approve anything. Let's say it is approved, however, and gains market share. Suddenly, nobody's using safari on the iPhone, they're all using Netscape.

Now Apple might not like this - they might want everyone to use Safari. So what do they do? They *could* suspend Netscape's certification. THAT would be abuse, and it would be SO PAINFULLY BLATANT that there's no way they could try to schlep it under the door. Or they could do what? Make Safari free and preinstalled? Already did that. So what do we have, by making the certification visible? An enforced fair market for those who get in, or a highly visible and actionable abuse of monopoly.

I'd take that over MS's "anyone can come in, but let's see you try to *prove* that we killed that prize stallion of yours in court" approach. Again, the real model here is the console market, not the PC market.