Other Software > Developer's Corner
Apple's App Store Mistake
wraith808:
Speaking as the Devil's Advocate, there is the flip-side of these artificial limits, that being a more stable platform in regards to interoperability and end user experience. Or does that not matter?
Dormouse:
How is control of your own product monopolistic? I say the same thing about MS and Windows. -wraith808 (November 24, 2009, 10:17 AM)
--- End quote ---
A monopoly is when someone has substantial control of a market or a market segment. Control is not simply about market share, it is about market control. Apple has/had substantive control of a number of market segments (eg graphics design).
MS has a number of monopolies including Windows in the general PC market.
Intel has a monopoly of most PC chip markets.
IBM did not have a monopoly of the PC market when it launched the PC (event though it had control of the market for PCs at the time) because there were many alternatives to the PC. It never did develop that monopoly because MS-DOS allowed other manufacturers to compete. It did have a monopoly of the mainframe market.
Google almost has a monopoly of the search market. Probably not quite a monopoly because quite a few competitors are in a position to compete, if only they could develop a better product. Possibly they do have a monopoly on segments of the advertising market (I don't know the way it works well enough to really comment).
Monopolies aren't a bad thing per se. They often arise because someone has a better product or a better business plan. They can be cheaper (at least for a period) because of greater economies of scale. However, there is always the temptation to use their monopolistic control to extract extra profits - and that is the reason most governments have policies and laws to control them (or for a different sort of government to run them themselves). There was certainly a period when Apple was extracting monopolistic profits from their market segments. ATM, they seem mostly to be about extending the area they have control over - the extraction phase comes later.
JavaJones:
"the extraction phase comes later"
Sounds painful! :D
- Oshyan
f0dder:
Speaking as the Devil's Advocate, there is the flip-side of these artificial limits, that being a more stable platform in regards to interoperability and end user experience. Or does that not matter?
-wraith808 (November 24, 2009, 12:52 PM)
--- End quote ---
I see the point in this, but it's not like having a non-closed platform makes it less stable on the hardware it's designed for - just slap on a "no warranty/support if used on 3rd party hardware", and the hackers would be happy.
[Edit - sorry f0dder - I accidentally click Modify instead of Quote - I think I put things back as they were!! ]
JavaJones:
Speaking as the Devil's Advocate, there is the flip-side of these artificial limits, that being a more stable platform in regards to interoperability and end user experience. Or does that not matter?-wraith808 (November 24, 2009, 12:52 PM)
--- End quote ---
I see the point in this, but it's not like having a non-closed platform makes it less stable on the hardware it's designed for - just slap on a "no warranty/support if used on 3rd party hardware", and the hackers would be happy.
-f0dder (November 24, 2009, 02:09 PM)
--- End quote ---
My thoughts exactly. Of course legally that might not still be enough, so there is the possible argument that they avoid more litigation this way. Still I think it's more about control and selling artificially high-margin hardware (since they sell their OS dirt cheap by comparison to Windows) than it is about legal issues or support.
- Oshyan
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version