Comments on: Judge presses for more from Microsoft

Federal judge presiding over Microsoft's antitrust case wants the company to cough up more details on how various parts of Windows work together, according to a wire report.

[Seaspray0]

What? A program written by a company that is tighly integrated with a web service? You mean like itunes?

[freemarket--2008]

Boo hoo...

[amarkj]

Haha exactly like iTunes!

[BogusBasin]

Once again, for those that just can't seem to wrap their minds around this: Apple is not a Monopoly. Microsoft is. Like it or not, our laws are applied differently to companies that maintain a monopoly. Especially those that maintain their monopoly time and time again through the use of predatory practices. Do not compare Apple to Microsoft. At least not at this time. When Apple is found to legally maintain a monopoly, and that may indeed happen, you can apply the same laws that have been so weakly enforced on Microsoft. Until then, stop showing your ignorance by comparing the two very different situations.

[Vegaman_Dan]

Monopoly: iPod. iPhone. iTunes. iPhoto. iChat. - the list keeps going on and on and on. Monopolies are not uncommon in the industry. Punishing companies for it varies greatly from company to company though.

[someguy999]

Apple's iPod and iTunes is not a Monopoly? What world are you living on?

[The_Decider]

There is a difference between a legal monopoly and an illegal monopoly. iTunes is the former and Windows is the latter. The difference is how that monopoly was obtained.

[BogusBasin]

Apple's iPod and iTunes is not LEGALLY a monopoly. I don't have the specific numbers, but I believe their market share is around 75%. What percent market share does MS Windows hold? My only point is, until Apple's iPod and iTunes are LEGALLY found to maintain a monopoly, you cannot expect that they be held to the same laws as MS. That could happen at some point. At that time, I would expect them to comply with the laws that govern monopolistic companies. I would expect our government to hold them accountable to comply with those laws. I hope they would do a better job of enforcing compliance than they have done with MS.

[exmsft]

iTunes, as of last month, was the largest music reseller in the United States. They are the largest music device manufacturer. If they are not technically a monopoly in both markets today, they will be by year end.

[aka_tripleB]

No good will come out of, as you say, "legally" finding iPod and iTunes a monopoly. If they weren't a monopoly, we would have to deal with the RIAA and MPAA monopoly. So unfortunately(?), Apple is the lesser of the two evils.

[Commander_Spock]

Re: "The judge presiding over Microsoft's antitrust case said Tuesday that the company must release details on how different parts of Windows work together..." Why not apply the same "pressure" in the case of OS/2?

[t8]

coz OS/2 Wart is a dead duck and no one cares about it. It died in the 90s. Since then we have Linux as an alternative OS.

[Commander_Spock]

Hi "t8", A few weeks some IBMers echoed that OS/2 was very much alive in certain parts in Europe; and, in any case do ya really think that we can take the chance with our "vote" (come November); and, "your" cash in a Windows environment at the banks with all of those Windows codes easily available!!!

[Vegaman_Dan]

OS2 being available makes it clear there can be no monopoly. People are free to choose OS2 at any time they want to.... they just don't want to. It helps to make a product people actually want.

[Commander_Spock]

Hi "Vegaman_Dan"! Who ever said that it was all about Windows anyway? Are those on the "Redmond Campus" preparing to duck or what!!! Take a look and see what is coming: (link attached): http://www.editgrid.com/ ; also, http://www.gnome.org/projects/gnumeric/doc/chapter-welcome.shtml . So, tell us - are you able to still stand on your feet after you have had a look? :-D :-D :-D

[someguy999]

they're not legally a monopoly becuase of people with blinders on. When you're company's biggest deal at the WWDC is that they finally openned up and let people create apps for their phones... you're closed and attempting to secure your position.

A march 2007 survey from Macenstein said 90% of online downloaded music was through iTunes... how is that not a monopoly? In addition 84% of the $ spent on MP3 players was on iPods? that's not a monopoly?

The only real reason why they haven't been held to the same level is becuase they don't have as deep a pockets. So since you got started on how Apple isn't trying to be anti-competitive... why is it against their license to install their OS on non-Apple OEM hardware?

let's just say Apple got big, would that practice still be "good" or let's use google's term "not evil"... come on.. .when I have to burn my music to a CD because of their practices in itunes preventing me from using it on another player...

Lastly, its not about whether MS is a monopoly, fine they are and we all know it, its about holding everyone to the same standard!

[Neville Bartos]

I don't think you quite understand what you're talking about.

An example of monopolising is when Microsoft fail to publish certain documentation regarding the operating system which all software developers have access to, so everyone is on a level playing field when making software to run on the platform. One particular example was IE taking advantage of certain methods within Windows that weren't published so other developers could use when writing their own browser, such as Firefox. This essentially gave IE an unfair advantage, aka a monopoly.

And if you think just because a particular product or service has 90%+ market share it automatically makes them some sort of monopoly, you are dead wrong.

Give me one example how Apple has monopolised the digital music market? They haven't. And the fact that certain music purchased from the iTunes store is DRM'ed has absolutely nothing to do with it. It doesn't give Apple an unfair advantage over anyone else, such as Microsoft. Microsoft can build an mp3 player and software just the same as Apple can. The difference is, can they do it as well?

You also suggest that Apple not licensing their OS is some how a monopoly as well? Please explain.

[technewsjunkie]

iPod and itunes are not a monopoly because there are many other viable options, unlike Operating Systems and MS Office and Internet Explorer. There are many options other than iTunes and iPod.

[aka_tripleB]

We better hope Apple never becomes dominate in the OS arena. They will end up much worse than Microsoft ever was. You get virtually no choice for hardware. At least you got to chose what went into a Windows machine. And it's more likely that you'll get to keep your hardware longer, because venders will keep rolling out drivers as long as there is enough demand for it. Or you have the choice to swap out the device for a new one. Much better than being forced to shell out for a new machine, when what you have will still work.

[Commander_Spock]

Oh Yeah! Have Microsoft "release details on how different parts of Windows work together" and have hackers all over the world wreak havoc (have field days) with people's bank accounts, personal data, voting machines.... Wow!

[t8]

And discover stolen code too. Oh that is why the documentation takes so long, they need to rewrite stolen code and ideas first and deliver them as patches.

[Commander_Spock]

Re: "And discover stolen code too". One thing that we have to remember and understand is that Microsoft purchased the rights to the "internals" of the "gizmo" before they started to saturate the market with Windows (after) outwitting IBM and customers alike. But; when all is said and done... Code Base OS/2 (Windows) will always be Code-Base OS/2 (Windows)!

[Commander_Spock]

Oh Yeah! Have Microsoft "release details on how different parts of Windows work together" and have hackers all over the world wreak havoc (have field days) with people's bank accounts, personal data, voting machines.... Wow!

[Sir Geek]

The reason is that you can STILL purchase a fully functional NON-iPOD mp3 player. You aren't being forced to use iTunes with the NON-iPOD (try buying a laptop to run Linux on and not pay the windows tax).

You have other alternatives, the fact people aren't using them doesn't make them not-exist.

[zboot]

You can purchase a fully functional non-microsoft computer. . . or operating system. . . or both. As far as I know, there are alternatives to that. Whether or not you pay a "windows tax" is up to you.

[Vegaman_Dan]

Only iPods will synch with iTunes. That makes it a monopoly right there alone. But that's not a bad thing mind you. If everything could connect and work with everything else, there wouldn't really be much reason for competition or improvement.

[BogusBasin]

Okay, you switched gears on me. I thought you were talking about iPod and iTunes. Now you are talking about iPhone and the applications that get created for it. Your argument is that they are a monopoly because they "finally" opened up the iPhone to third party developers. The phone has only been out for a year. They haven't jumped into open developement because they want to prevent people from having a security problem with their phones. Do you really want to have to install anti-virus subscription on your phone too? Now let's get back on topic. iPod and iTunes. Just because people choose to buy their music from iTunes, just because people choose to buy an iPod; does that make them a monopoly? Can I buy another player? Can I buy my music at another online music retailer? Yes, and yes. If the average consumer can easily buy a different player and easily purchase music from a different retailer, a monopoly that hurts the consumer does not exist and the company should not be regulated. If the average consumer can not easily purchase a PC that does not have MS Windows installed, if the average consumer can not easily purchase a word processor that can be compatible with other businesses paying hundreds of dollars to MS, if the average consumer cannot easily use a standards-based web browser instead of a MS browser to view their bank account, then MS is a monopoly that hurts consumers and should be regulated. If you disagree and you think Apple is a monopoly and should be regulated. Take it up in court. The law, not you, decides if a LEGAL monopoly exists. Only the law can decide who has to obide by monopoly regulations and who does not. Sorry.

[ethana2]

Commander_Spock: We should move everyone over to Ubuntu until the exploits settle down ;)

[Commander_Spock]

Agreed. But, please do not forget that there is OS/2 also. ;-) !

[BogusBasin]

"So since you got started on how Apple isn't trying to be anti-competitive... why is it against their license to install their OS on non-Apple OEM hardware?"

For the record, I never said Apple isn't trying to be anti-competitive. If you can quote me saying that, I will eat my keyboard. So try to stay on topic. We were talking iTunes and iPod. Now you are bringing up the Mac computer. Wow, you are all over the place on this. I will try to keep up with your attention deficit disorder though. Apple is competitive. They are competing. They are doing quite well too. Other people ARE free to compete. We are still talking about the Mac computer right now Mr. ADD? What makes you think Apple should have to allow their OS to be installed on non-Apple OEM hardware? I am very interested in your reasoning. Just because MS licensed their OS? That means Apple should have to? They make their OS to work perfectly with their hardware. It does not matter to me or to Apple if you don't like it. Because you have a CHOICE. Buy an OS that is generic to run on thousands of possible configurations by any vendor. Or buy an OS that is tailor made to run on specific hardware. If Apple licensed their OS to non-Apple OEM hardware manufacturers, it would be like Vista. We all know how great that is!

[cattrangv]

This guy sure have a lot of time...argue non-sense thing, Apple is not Monopoly, can you even thinking???

[Neville Bartos]

For those who suggest iTunes is a monopoly, do yourself a favour and go do some research on "monopoly" in the business world.

Apple's iTunes & iPod does not make it unfair for any willing competitors in the market. Sure iTunes has a massive market share, but it's because right now they're doing it better then anyone else. Sony, Microsoft, amongst everyone else, are all on the same playing field as Apple, they just don't have the product to match.

If anything, Apple's iTunes & iPod has only done wonders for the market as a whole. Whether you own an iPod or not, we all get to enjoy the digital music market Apple has helped explode, while many competitors working hard to come up with the next best thing trying desperately to win your piece of the cake.

[The_Decider]

Email clients and image managers are not and will never be a OS component.

[paulej]

While somebody who does not know well enough might classify Microsoft as a monopoly, the fact is that you can buy a computer today that is not running Windows and you can run most, if not all, of the application you need on it. Your choices include Apple and several flavors of Linux. Further, there is a huge potential threat to the whole personal computer business if Google and Sun have their way. So, why do people insist on calling Microsoft a "monopoly" and continuing to apply pressure? They have been successful, but it is not as if people do not have a choice today or that Microsoft's business is protected from competitive threat.

[andyt13]

I seem recall reading that being a monopoly isn't illegal it's when a monopoly wields it's power unfairly, or words to that effect, that it is actubg illegally.

[Bill_A]

You actually can buy a Mac laptop without paying for a copy of Windows. I would rather have MIcrosoft writing the operating system with stablity and interoperability in mine (which are MY concerns and BENEFIT the consumer), rather than have a judge and competitors write it so that Real player can have their "adware" player or so that hackers can get in. If programmers had any REAL interest in following Microsoft documentation, why are so many apps not Vista compatible? Because they ignored protocols and guidlines and did what they jolly well pleased, which were poor programming practices.

I buy windows because I want to, not because of the market share. If I wanted a Mac or a Linux laptop, I'd surely get one. Leave the programming to the programmers.

[kalinga007]

Remember, this is a CONVICTED monopolist. We are talking about the slap on the wrist of a punishment here, and then the DoJ negotiating even that! How would you feel if your house was burgled and the judge told the convict the punishment is that he should not do it again, and allow his activities to be monitored, and the convict argues he should not be monitored when he's planning the next burglary or when executing it?

[Commander_Spock]

Simple solutions: Change all your "LOCKS" to "Burglar Proof OS/2 (and/or Linux) ones!