Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:I've noticed this too (Score 1) 601

I rarely answer the phone anymore. I let it go to voicemail, it gets converted to text, then I can read it quickly and have a record.
If the voicemail just says "Please call me", I send them an email asking "What is it that you need?".
If people want to get in touch with me, the best way is email. If they don't like that, then BONUS, I don't have to talk to them.

Comment Re:Surprise! (Score 1) 244

I agree that "windows-compatible" computers will take a variety of operating systems. There has always been that freedom of choice. Thank you for making my point. I wish the court would have ceded that point, also.

This was a discussion about Apple. The comment that I originally replied to implied that Apple was the new Microsoft, or at least would be when they had more market share. Why would I talk about BIC? Or GM? Or Boeing? This was about Apple and Microsoft. And if I object to a monopoly, do I really have to list every single other monopoly, too? That's insane. If you can't see the difference between Apple and BIC, then you are insane.

How do you know that I only mentioned GM once somewhere else? I complain about GM, and other, abuses all the time. All of my discussions do not take place on Slashdot.

If I could only sign checks with a BIC pen, then yes I would have a problem with BIC. As it is, I can select a variety of different pens from a variety of different vendors and use them all with the same paper. I don't have a problem with that.

And, really, you're holding up a mirror? I'm rubber, you're glue? Please.

Apple is already as abusive as, or more than, Microsoft. They don't need anything else to achieve that.

Comment Re:Surprise! (Score 1) 244

I do complain about GM, just not in a thread about Apple's abusive behavior.

Are you really asserting that Apple's behavior is not abusive because you could theoritcally "jail break" a phone to try to install a different operating system? And you call me delusional?

I was aware that there were idiots on Slashdot, but you really take the cake.

Truth is irrelevant? That's a good one.

I don't think you are stupid because you disagree with me. I think you are stupid because you think I am stupid because I disagree with you.

Comment Re:Surprise! (Score 1) 244

The narrow market definition is self-referential because Apple controls both the hardware and software. You could say "Apple A4/A5 compatible", but is that really any different? "Intel-compatible" is a meaningful term, since many vendors provide x86 hardware to consumers. How many vendors provide Apple A4/A5 hardware to consumers? The arbitrary market that was defined in the Microsoft case was my biggest problem with the case. They did not define the market as "desktop computers". That would have had too many viable competitors. They narrowed the market to where they believed there were no viable competitors. If the market had been "desktop computers", then Microsoft could have displayed a variety of Mac users that used their operating systems, entertainment programs, business productivity suites, and other applications using systems that were easily available to everyone. That would have damaged the case, so they drew the market more narrowly.

You are correct that Toshiba has a monopoly on "Toshiba laptops", if you draw the market that narrowly. But Toshiba produces the hardware, not the software. The software runs on a variety of "compatible" laptops. You can buy a laptop from HP and install the exact same software on it as you would on the Toshiba. Toshiba does not prevent you from doing that. This exact situation happened a few years ago when my girlfriend started going to college. I had an HP laptop they she used occasionally for games, or typing up letters and resumes, or surfing the web, etc. When she started classes, we went to Best Buy and she picked out a Toshiba Satellite. After we brought it home, I installed software and set it up so that she had exactly the same things on the Toshiba that she had on the HP (from a software perspective). Can I do the same thing with iPad/iOS? Can I buy an iPad and easily run Android? Can I buy a Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 (certainly not down under) and easily run iOS? I can't do that because Apple ties the products together.

And now we have everyone's favorite; a car analogy! Yes, Goodyear does, in fact, have a monopoly on "Goodyear tires". But not on "passenger vehicle tires", or on "P225/60R16 tires". I can buy my vehicle with Goodyear tires and easily replace those with Bridgestone tires. Or have Goodyear on the front and Michelin on the rear. There are many brands within the tire market, because the companies build to a standard specification. If Goodyear bought Toyota and produced a proprietary tire that only worked on Toyotas, and Toyotas could only use those tires, that would be seen as creating a barrier to participation in the tire market for other tire vendors. They would no longer be participating in a broader "passenger vehicle tire" market, they would have drawn a narrower market and monopolized it.

Last week I took my girlfriend to see "Dr. Horrible's Sing Along Blog Live", performed by a local theater company. She had never seen "Dr. Horrible", so I went to download it on my Xoom so she could watch it. I, of course, could not install iTunes on my Xoom and could not purchase anything from the iTunes store without having iTunes installed. So I went to my Windows machine, installed iTunes, and purchased the HD version. Which I cannot watch on my Xoom. I could watch it on an iPad, but not on a Xoom.

I am not trying to excuse Microsoft at all. I have no vested interest in Microsoft. I am not a stockholder. Like many other companies, Microsoft has engaged in abusive and anti-competitive behavior. I'm just pointing out what I believe to be serious hypocrisy. Microsoft was never able to exert the level of control that Apple does. But Microsoft was taken to court, and initially ordered to be split up, for the same behavior as other companies. If it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander. If we're going to say that you can't tie products together, then damnit you shouldn't be allowed to tie products together. I believe in the separation between the hardware market and the software market. I believe that separation creates a more competitive market that benefits the consumers.

You know what people ask me when they see my Xoom? "Is that an iPad?" When I say that, no, it's a Xoom, it's an Android they say "Oh, so it's like an iPad." Ancecdotal, certainly, but I believe that it represents a very popular perspective. The same thing happened with portable music devices and the iPod. The popularity of the iPod, and then iTunes, and then the iPad demonstrates a very strong tie between Apple products. Having a popular product, or even having the only product, is not wrong or illegal. Leveraging that popularity into control is wrong, even if it's not illegal.

Apple has a large market share. Apple leverages that share to disadvantage competitors. Apple does not need anything else to be the "new Microsoft". They've been worse than Microsoft for a long time.

Comment Re:Surprise! (Score 1) 244

I never implied that at all. My point was that Microsoft was dominant in a narrowly defined market (Intel-compatible personal computers). Not all computers, just the Intel-compatible ones. That's what the findings of facts said. And they had less than 100% market share. If we similarly define a market of "iPad compatible tablets", not all tablets, just the iPad-compatible ones, then Apple has 100% of that market. There can be no question that they have a monopoly in that narrowly defined market, regardless of the reasonable definition used for "monopoly". Even if we don't narrowly define the market, Apple is still dominant in the entire tablet market.

Whether I believe Microsoft had a monopoly doesn't matter much, since my opinion doesn't really matter. The opinion of the court matters, and they said that Microsoft had a monopoly. I find it hard to believe that a monopoly exists when there is freedom of choice to select alternatives to the "monopolist's" product. Dominance, most certainly. But again, my definition of monopoly isn't really important. And we can certainly argue whether there truly were viable alternatives; but I think that is a separate discussion from the one concerning Apple.

If Microsoft was a monopoly, how can Apple not be? And Apple has demonstrated behavior that is far more restrictive and abusive than Microsoft's. Why does Apple get away with this behavior when Microsoft is constantly and vehemently blasted for the same thing? Even your reaction to a minor part of my discussion shows the vehemence toward Microsoft. I fully acknowledge that Microsoft was dominant, but you ripped me a new one because I didn't feel that it was a "monopoly". Are you as vehemently angry about Apple's monopoly?

Comment Re:Surprise! (Score 1) 244

Yes, I disagree with the court. Courts are imperfect and they sometimes get it wrong. There's no need for you to be a liar, though. I never claimed that "monopoly" means "100%". You claim that I don't comprehend much, but at least I don't lie.

Apple's behavior is just as abusive as, or more than, Microsoft's. Your childish ranting doesn't change that at all.

Comment Re:Surprise! (Score 1) 244

The judge was most certainly refutable. The higher court overturned his remedy and sent it back. A different judge developed the actual remedy.

I find it interesting that you have enough information to determine that I am "batshit insane". It shouldn't surprise me, seeing as how you have confidence in our court system.

Go ahead and rant though, instead of presenting valid arguments and participating in a reasoned discussion.

The original point about Apple still stands.

Comment Re:Surprise! (Score 1) 244

A biased court claimed "monopoly". Judges even called the judge biased. But who gives a shit? Apple is doing the exact same thing. The stronger the case is that Microsoft was a "monopoly", the stronger the case for Apple being a "monopoly".

I find your confidence in court decisions deeply disturbing. Just because a judge says something does not make it true. Review the facts and make your own conclusion. I did. And I believe that the court was wrong. But it doesn't matter. Nothing materially changed as a result of the court case anyway.

Comment Re:Surprise! (Score 1) 244

Do I need to draw you a picture? Use crayons? Maybe you work with icons better than words?

Yes, the court held that Microsoft had a "monopoly". If they had not found this, how could I possibly say that there was a false claim of "monopoly"? We clearly disagree on this issue. I personally experienced the application and operating system environment of the time. I ran several different operating systems at that time. I do not agree that Microsoft held a "monopoly", as I always felt free to choose alternative operating systems. But this whole aspect of the discussion is irrelevant. The point stands that Apple's behavior is similar, and actually far more restrictive and abusive, than Microsoft's. If Microsoft were a "monopoly", then Apple is, too.

The reason that I put the word "crime" in quotation marks is that Microsoft exhibited the same behavior as many other companies. The reason that Microsoft ended up in court is that Microsoft was successful. More people chose Microsoft products than chose other products, at least for a narrowly defined market (Intel-compatible personal computers). The market for "iPad compatible tablets" is 100% controlled by Apple. They have a monopoly in every sense of the word. Apple artificially creates barriers to entry, and leverages their dominance to influence the market (such as iTunes).

Slashdot Top Deals

Just go with the flow control, roll with the crunches, and, when you get a prompt, type like hell.