Look at your arguments, people use the products, but they're not good products. The world runs on Excel, sure, but the world doesn't run on Excel because it's an exceptional quality tool. It runs on Excel because that came bundled with the computer they bought, or some combination that could include.

1. The Excel file is 20+ years ago.
2. Started as an Excel file, quick and dirty by one guy, as a placeholder.
3. Everyone is too lazy, stupid, or unable to port it to a DB.
4. Rare, Excel is the right fit and the right tool.

Power BI, it's analytics for people who have to make pretty pictures, and as you said: “That's not bad.:”. It's not bad, but it's not good, it's analytics for people who don't understand analytics. Visio, again it's not good at what it does, and you even said it doesn't have to exist as a standalone. However, I'll still point out that it's not compatible with anything. If I make a diagram in LibreOffice Draw, an ODG file, I can't open it in Visio. If they bring Visio into PowerPoint, then they'd still have to include ODG support, among other formats.

I don't want to argue about Outlook, I hate it, and it's not compatible with other operating systems, which is a major headache. Outlook also looses its setting constantly, set it up with a Gmail account, and randomly it will lose the ability to connect, it's a known bug going back years. That's important because if they collapse Calendar into Outlook, now Calendar is unusable if you're not on Windows, and even if you are, probably unusable randomly. Let's leave Calendar as its own tool, what does it do that's good enough to justify as a stand around calendar application? ToDo has the same problem, it's not a good ToDo application, and it's rather annoying, but build it into Outlook, and now it's unusable. I'll be fair that I don't actually like many if any ToDo style applications, I think they all mostly suck.

What else? You've basically agreed that the tools exists, they're used, but they're not good or great. That's my argument, the tools aren't good enough to warrant the gold metal status they keep inheriting. If Office 365 was released in the last 5 years, and had nothing before it, would it be good enough to dominate the Office Application market? I don't think so.

Microsoft Office isn't a decent platform, none of its tools stand out for quality, and most are just gimmicks.

Take Microsoft Project, what is it? It's not a project management tool, it's not a requirement management tool, it's not a task management tool, so seriously, what is it?

Look at Power BI, it's analytics for people who don't understand analytics, and stripped of all useful data inspection tools.

Should we talk about Visio? The flow chart / diagram / drawing tool that isn't compatible with anything, and isn't a good at any of those tasks!

Should I start listing the tools that are terrible? (Apart from those listed above): Forms, Calendar, Engage, Sway, Steam, ToDo, Whiteboard, Bookings, I'll stop.

Great, Microsoft is going to partially unbundle Teams, which oddly enough is a bad communication platform. Office use have some respect, in that when you needed an Office suite, you generally would pick it, but now? I can't think of a single reason other than compatibility, and pre-installed, to run Office. It's amazing, we've gone from different tools for different jobs, to collected tools for different jobs, jumped to single platforms for all your jobs, and now we're back to different tools for different jobs.

On the last count, Unix and Unix like systems run ~85% of all computing environments. If 8.5 / 10 environments are going to be Unix or Unix like, then you have an absolutely solid stance for demanding Unix / Linux support.

School, you don't have to use their software, I don't know why you think that would be the case. If the school wants you to use program X they need to provide it, period. Now, you fairly said the school did provide X and Y for you, so fair enough, but if they want you to use T, U, and V, then either they provide them, or they fuck off.

When I had to run Matlab, the school was told they either buy the Linux license for it, or I'll run Octave. I ran Octave. When the school demanded I use MS Office, they got a big old fuck off and I used LibreOffice. One professor got her panties twisted over the fact she couldn't open an ODF document, while, that's her fault, not mine. She also got mad repeatedly that I would sign my documents with PGP, and send her the signed version. She tried to fail me, until I pointed out the large block of text about accountability in the school guidelines. By signing the documents I created a source of trust, and either she had to propose a better solution, or deal with it, she dealt with it. That was actually a hilarious situation, because the school couldn't force me to violate myself, or the guidelines, so the school's overeager language and terms, created the problem, and the solution.

That same language about accountability, is why I refused to run Windows, MS Office, and all various platforms that were, and are still, digital molestation all stars. If your professor tells you to jump off a cliff, do you do it? A school or workplace can't force you to violate yourself, running platforms that do that violation is no different. Realistically, how much of a headache do you cause people? The file format is different? They have to install an extra application or two? It's not that much of a disruption.

This week, I've had Microsoft and Atlassian join Jitsi calls, after I outright refused to use Zoom and Teams. Last week, I had a large company hold a meeting on Jitsi, because I refuse to use Zoom. The week before I had the company board meeting over Jitsi, again, I don't run Zoom. You don't need black magic or to be the “My Pillow” guy to have standards.

There was one software in my Telecommunications Engineering class that was specialized, and couldn't be substituted. I don't remember the name of it, and it was closed tighter than a nun's nasty. It only ran on Windows, and you required like 4 licenses to load it. In that one case, the school was forced to provide the computers, and the licenses. It had no alternatives, it did something very specific with telecommunication simulation. That was, and still is, the only package I have ever given ground to out of force, since grade 7. In grade 8 I forced my primary school to put a computer running Linux in the classroom, that was in 2000. Seriously, you don't have to bend over and take it. I have my work place provide a phone just so I can run Slack on my off hours!

I'm also in IT, Development, and Engineering.

I was at university ~10 years ago, and back then we had a laundry list of required applications. Only a couple had reasonable stand ins, Octave for Matlab for instance. The rest were closed off garbage, and from day one I refused to use most of them. I got a ton of push back from professors, but bleep them, I'm paying, so I'm controlling the allowed platforms. I wouldn't change my mind today, and there's still plenty of software I refuse to run, Windows being on that list.

I've filed two Privacy Complaints this year against my daughters schools for the use of invasive and violating software. All of their classes have since changed platforms, packages, or provided off-line alternatives. You can have a backbone, especially when you're in the driver's seat.

Try it, if a company sends you a Teams or Zoom meeting, just state outright you'll meet using Jitsi, or nothing. Every single company will change platforms to keep you happy. Refuse to use MS Office or Google Docs, and only provide Open Document formats, again, they'll make do.

Going back to my original point from my last reply, when are you forced to use Apple, outside of it being provided? I was doing ESCROW review yesterday, and provided a company with a build system that only runs on GNU/Linux. They pushed back demanding a Windows variant, ~20 hours later, they've accepted the version I provided.

Unless you can point out where you're forced, outright, to use a platform not provided, then I fail to see your point. If your school wants to give you a notebook, preloaded and pre-licensed, fine, providing you get it for free.

Apples and Oranges are absolutely two different things. Apple has a monopoly, I'm not arguing that, I'm arguing the fact Apple is signalled out unfairly. Microsoft absolutely has a monopoly, so why aren't they held to the same standard? Google also has a monopoly with products like Google Classroom, but again, they're not on trial. This should be a general antitrust.

Part of making this a general antitrust should be a move to force openness, be that Open Source, Open Audit, Open Deployment, and just openness. If everything is open, the choice if you use Teams or Google Classroom is up to you. Don't like Teams? (I hate it), great, get the code, fork it, and now you can still talk to Teams clients and servers, without having to use Teams itself.

9X% of people will never do that, but it gives the option, and then you can always point out it's not really a monopoly. It won't be a monopoly because you can change the product causing the lock, and still operate with the original product, be that, Teams, iOS, iMessage, or anything else. The profits can still be healthy and massive, a lot of people will just use the product as is, without the change.

No, you don't get to use defective metaphors, but nice try. Apples and Oranges are both fruits, and the issue at hand is about fruit, not Apples or Oranges. It does need examples and reasons because the entirety of the issue is a monopoly from a closed ecosystem, and close ecosystems exist in many areas. Apple might be more closed than Microsoft, but that doesn't Microsoft isn't guilty.

If the question is about sugar content in fruit, both Apples and Oranges have sugar. Sometimes Apples have a higher sugar content, and sometimes Oranges have a higher sugar content. Both have sugar, so you can't ignore the Oranges because your bag as a couple that are tart, or because you only brought a bag of Apples to trial.

In a very real sense, Microsoft is far more guilty than Apple over having a monopoly stance, without a defending reason. Apple is an intentional close ecosystem, and they've never claimed otherwise, but Microsoft acts like they're open, but prevents any meaningful openness.

Since it seems we'll never agree, have a pleasant week / Easter!.

You haven't given a single valid reason why my examples aren't the same, either give defendable reasons, or this conversation is over.

Have a very pleasant week / Easter (the first time Jesus was given a chocolate bunny) :)

We'll probably never agree, but I just don't see how you're forced to use an Apple product.

If you're in a situation where your work requires it, then your work needs to provide it, so that doesn't count. If you need the product for school, just tell the school to go bleep itself, pick the open source option and continue on. When it comes to personal choice, well that's personal, again, you can pick GNU/Linux, Solaris, GNU/Solaris, FreeBSD, Haiku, GNU/Hurd, or if you have no standards Windows. Even if you do need macOS for some one off reason, run it in a VM as a “Hackintosh”, which gets around the platform lock.

The other area you'll run into is Wearables / Mobile, but again, all the same reasons apply, and you still have choice. Can you come up with a way where you're forced to use the Apple ecosystem, you have no choice, and it's at a person expense / detriment? If you're running into compatibility issues, because someone else uses the Apple ecosystem, just force them to save as compatible formats, or, force them to use compatible platforms. Where I work, most people use MS Office, I do not. I force people to save as Open Document formats, and in some cases run LibreOffice outright.

I think all the reasons you can come up with, will apply to other company, and their software stacks, hen Microsoft is just as guilty as Apple.

Yes, they are, you can't make the one argument without the other. If Apple is a monopoly from having a closed ecosystem, then any company who makes software which isn't open, is equally in the same state.

Microsoft refusing to allow MS Office to run on Linux, is not functionally different from Apple not allow X, Y and Z from running. If you don't understand why these are the same, then you're too closed-minded. If Apple is a monopoly because they're a closed ecosystem, then Microsoft, or any large company, is equally a monopoly for producing closed locked off software.

Call me what ever you want, your failure to realize the parallels is the issue here. That's why I said if you want to go down this road, you need to mandate an open audit, and open source mandate. When you go open, you remove the walls that cause the closed off nature of everything. To be fair, that's the right approach, everything should be mandated to be open source, and open audit. The only reasons to hide your source code:

1. You're doing something illegal.
2. You're doing some underhanded.
3. You're ashamed of the work.
4. You know it can't pass any form of quality control.

To be fair, I said:

Should force right to repair be a thing? Maybe, I can certainly see the benefit, but at the same time very few people are going to be able to preform a repair, even with the tools and know how. Force it, but most people aren't going to care enough to repair their devices, so it's a non-started.

Do they platform lock people? Yes, of course they do, but Apple has always been a closed ecosystem, and that's a large draw for the Apple crowd. No one is forced to use the products, and because it's a choice, it makes the argument towards a monopoly rather hard to defend. Microsoft doesn't allow compatibility, so are they next? Why focus on Apple? Tons of other companies are just as bad if not worse, and at least Apple is honest they're a closed / locked platform, for decades.

I fully understand the stupid shell game the governments are trying to play, you're trying to redirect, except your redirects are useless. Apple is a closed ecosystem, if Apple is forced to open everything up, then every company who closes everything down, must, without restriction, do the same. That's why Microsoft would have to, without argument, release versions of Teams and Office for Linux, or any other example of a closed off software platform.

Your core business isn't development, but it's 2024, so part of your business is development. It's no longer responsible to ignore the internet, desktop, tablet and mobile platforms, and then cry when you run into compatibility issues. It's great you paid a company to write you an application, probably 1/2 assed, using some shortcut IDE that generates iOS, Android and Web versions using React. Now you have to maintain that application, and that means effectively have in house help that can maintain it.

It's great, you're a restaurant that specializes in Ethiopian food, but if you want a decent electronic customer experience, apart from a great chef, servers, house management, you need someone with Development / IT skills. In 1995, you could get away with a shitty electronic experience, in 2024, hell in 2015, you had better be staffed to stay ahead.

If you want your apple friend to use a decent chat service, they can do that! You don't have to use outdated and old technology, which should only be used as a fallback. For instance, install Wire: https://wire.com/en/app-downlo..., does the Wire experience on Android, Desktop, the Web, or iOS function differently to a meaningful and breaking level? No, it doesn't.

The ecosystem is designed to work together, that's the selling point, and that's been the selling point for decades. If you honestly want to call that out, call it out for all the companies that do the same BS. Microsoft is a worse offender than Apple, because Microsoft lies about it, and intentionally misleads people. Try to install an official version of Skype, Teams or Microsoft Office onto GNU/Linux. When you can't, or you can't install a working version, go into the community forums and ask for help. You'll notice something, no one will admit they intentionally broke the applications to prevent you from using them on Linux. Does Apple do that? No, because Apple doesn't have to lie, Apple has a closed ecosystem, which you willingly, knowingly and with full intention enter into.

This means when your iPhone or iWatch doesn't play nice with Fedora Linux, Apple doesn't have to pretend to care, or give a shit, because you're the idiot not them. I don't like Apple, and I'll defend this behaviour, because they've never claimed to be an open ecosystem, and always point out they want to be as closed off as a nuns nasty.

Okay, but you're pointing out the real issue, the applications suck and don't work! Developers are generally lazy, and don't want to spend the time to build a robust framework to handle X conditions or operating environments.

The fact the iPhone could tank, is enough of a reason it's not a monopoly. Apple sells a lifestyle ecosystem, and they've always been upfront and clear on that, so the fact governments want to bust that ecosystem, isn't Apple's fault. Apple has never claimed to be the “Open for everyone and everything” ecosystem, so why are they being forced to open up? What honest aspect of Apple is anticompetitive? They don't stop you from changing to other platforms, they don't intentionally break compatibility with other platforms, and you're not forced to use their platforms.

There's enough competitiveness between phones, desktop OSes, wearables, tables, and such devices, so this is just a witch hunt. I don't like Apple, I don't like their products or their platforms, but that aside, they aren't doing anything underhanded or evil.