An interesting question

[slave]

I have a question.  If Apple controlled 95% of the desktop computer market share, and Microsoft controlled 5%, would you be on Apple's side or Microsoft's?  Also, which company do you believe would be the worse monopoly?  Microsoft wasn't always a monopoly, you know.  Apple used to have a pretty big market share.

[choasforages]

another good question. it depends, on whether that if apple had 95% if they would abuse the computer market such as microsoft does currently. currently apple is doing a good job with there open source initative, however since the fact that apple sells its own hardware. one of the reasons that they sell there hard ware is  becuase macos is ppc based and there is only one other company which sells consumer based ppc products that i know of
terrasoftsolutions
 however if apple had 95 percent of the market they would probably cease to sell as much of there own hardware. and yes microsoft wasn't always a monopoly, ibm let them wiggle out from there controll

[voidmain]

I don't believe it would have any bearing on how I felt toward either company.  I would still use Linux primarily and M$ software would still suck.

[Master of Reality]

I'm pretty sure that if MS had 5% market share that it would be gone within minutes.

[slave]

Well, MS used to have 5 percent a long time ago.

[Master of Reality]

About a couple days after they first started they became more than five percent. Especially after a little treason and a couple millions dollars inherited.
here is a little story:
When I was a wee lad i had 2 cents, i used that 2 cents to buy an apple. Well, i shined that apple all day and at the end of the day i sold it for 5 cents. The next day I bought two apples, shined them all day... then my grandparents died and i inherited a million dollars.

[markdcc]

Market share is irrelevant, Apple didn't abuse it's market share to shut out healthy competition.  If apple had stolen windows from M$ and forced people to use their software, then they would be the ones in federal court now.

[slave]

If people didn't like Windows then they wouldn't use it.  No one is "forcing" anyone to use Windows, to use IE, or to use MSN.  People who say that are full of horse shit.

[choasforages]

no, most people just don't know better, they don't know that a better option is out there, or they just don't want to learn

[IvoryTower]

User: That's a pretty open-ended question...and there are a number of answers, but the following should pretty much put an end to your deliberations:

If Apple bought/stole their way to the top as M$ has, then Apple would suck arse as M$ now does.

If Apple had fairly won the market share from its competitors, maintained their superiority by offering products people really wanted to own, and allowed/inspired innovation in the marketplace, then Apple would be well worth supporting.

Personally, I support Apple because I find their products worth the money. My experiences with them have been nothing but positive...maybe my case is unique. However, even if my loyalty to Apple suddenly evaporated like so many OC'd P4s, I'd find it difficult to back a company convicted of commiting a felony...not to mention innumerable other crimes, and their abiltiy/willingness to squelch true innovation, while supplanting it with their own mutilated version and claiming originality. As an artist, those actions are hard to swallow.

My distaste (distrust) for M$ runs deeply...and because of that I'd champion nearly any anti-M$ cause...despite their allegiance to Apple (unless of course that cause happened to be more corrupt than M$).

[voidmain]

I am starting to think that XP Luser is the best thing that's happened to the Microsoft Eradication Society. Either he is very smart and spews his drivel to spark very good anti-M$ discussion, or he is one dumb cluck that can't get all his ducks in a row. Hmmm.... I mean not one person has ever agreed with him on anything. I honestly believe he must be the former. An anti-M$ genius in disguise.

[choasforages]

and he seems to know far too much about *NIX then the average home user.

edit,
besides how does he know that nautlilus is absolute sheet, and konquerer is considered better then most. other then reading or playing with it. you have a good point void

[ June 14, 2002: Message edited by: choasforages ]

[Calum]

yes well whatever his opinions, they are not the reason that i despise his posts.

The reason i despise XP Loser so much is that he fills up otherwise sensible threads with inflammatory garbage that make the forums difficult to read.

If he's going to do that, he should start his own topics, and stick to the non-technical threads.

Re: Apple, if Apple had a large market share and M$ had a small one, then they would be two different companies. How did Apple get to be so big in this example? Why did M$ stay so small? are you saying that they tried all their dirty tricks tactics in this fictional world, and they never worked? or are you saying that the hypothetical Microsoft are nice guys and Apple are the bastards?

This is not a good question, it is not intelligent, it contains too many variables to be seriously considered and it wastes people's time.

[ June 14, 2002: Message edited by: Calum ]

[psyjax]

Aww comeon Calum. I think some of the posts generated by this thread are rather interesting, as a matter of fact I would say this is one of the first XP Luser post's that is not inflamatory but rather seeking to see what others opinions are.

My opinion is simply that monopolie's of any kind are not good. And even if Apple had monopoly status, and they were the most benevolent company in the universe, they should still be broken up or restructure themselves.

Monopolie's are bad for the economy and the consumer no matter who has them.

[The Czar]

Perhaps if MS had only 5% of the market share, they'd be scared straight and try to produce worthwhile programs for people to buy    . Just a thought.

You're right, people aren't forced to use Winders, but let me tell you a little story. Way back when, in the Dirty Days Of DOS, people discovered that they could copy programs from disk to disk. This wasn't a huge revelation, and there was really no way to stop it either. Back then, there were no product keys and no product activation to stand in your way. So, people borrowed MS DOS from their friends and copied it onto their computer. Then a few years later, Windows came out, in all its glory **chokes on own sarcasm**. So, these people that borrowed DOS a few years ago, if they had the system resources, decided to borrow Windows from a friend. This continued on until these users couldn't use their old 386's any more and decided to get a shiny, new computer. They toddled off to the computer store and low and behold, what did they buy? A Windows based PC. Why? Because that's what they were used to.

The moral of the story: People aren't forced to use Windows, but, MS would be dead in the water if it wasn't for Piracy. People won't pay MS' retail price for their software, but they will steal it, and they will accept it bundled from the OEM.