Is Google Hypocritical About Microsoft?

[swansont]

They're "powerful computers" -- but only Apple gets to decide who can write software for them.

 

And nobody seems to have a problem with that concept.

 

And this is the year 2007.

 

No. Really.

 

Don't like it? You can go and buy another cellphone from someone else. Hey, it only works on AT&T! Don't like it? Go with some other brand of cellphone, and sign up with some other carrier. Hey, it's really expensive! Don't want to pay that much? You can get ones that are free. Apple doesn't have a monopoly. There is a wide array of choice.

 

This came up in another thread, anyway. One take was that outside applications would have pushed back the launch date, so it may happen in the future.

[bascule]

They're "powerful computers" -- but only Apple gets to decide who can write software for them.

 

And nobody seems to have a problem with that concept.

 

And this is the year 2007.

 

No. Really.

 

There was really only one thing that was in Apple's hands in this regard. Apple tried to make XQuery/XSLT-based applications available (i.e. Dashboard widgets) and couldn't get it certified. As a mobile device the software it runs must be certified for use on mobile networks.

 

They went to Safari/AJAX as the least common denominator.

 

What's noticeably missing missing from the iPhone is J2ME. This has been the standard route for allowing 3rd party developers access to your platform, and has been used quite successfully for some years.

 

I don't know why Apple decided against including J2ME on the iPhone. Perhaps porting it to Cocoa like they did J2SE was too difficult an undertaking. As things stand it's a noticeably absent feature.

 

But regardless, because of software certification requirements no cell phone is an open platform. The closest you'll get are sandboxed 3rd party apps in a certified runtime.

 

My expectation is we'll see J2ME on the iPhone in the near future.

[Pangloss]

Surely you mean "only Apple gets to decide who can SELL software for them"?

 

No, I mean only select companies are being allowed to write applications for the iPhone. They MAY change that later (as bascule discusses above), but at the moment developers are only allowed to write applications through the web browser, which of course means no icon on the desktop, no access when not connected, responsiveness issues, etc.

 

Because, you know, it's a bad idea to let those evil "third parties" write software for an operating system. I can't imagine why we would want to allow anyone to do that. That's what people are saying. And yet if Microsoft were to do that with Windows CE, hell would hath no fury like this industry scorned.

 

But hey, why stop there, by this logic Microsoft should close Windows Vista. Why not? People might write bad software! Horrors! And hey, everyone's connected to the Internet, so people can just write applications for Vista that run through the web browser............

 

 

Don't like it? You can go and buy another cellphone from someone else. Hey' date=' it only works on AT&T! Don't like it? Go with some other brand of cellphone, and sign up with some other carrier. Hey, it's really expensive! Don't want to pay that much? You can get ones that are free. Apple doesn't have a monopoly. There is a wide array of choice.

[/quote']

 

Don't like Windows? You can go buy an operating system from someone else. Hey, it doesn't run Windows software! Don't like it? Go with some other brand of operating system. Hey, it's really expensive! Don't want to pay that much? You can get one that's free. Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly. There is a wide array of choice.

 

Odd, I don't hear anybody making that argument, Swansont. But the logic is identical.

 

-----------------

 

I'm gonna see some acknowledgement on this, from more people than just 1veedo. I really am. You'll get it eventually. The point isn't that Apple is doing anything horribly wrong, but that it's hypocritical to only pay attention to questionable market practices when they're undertaken by Microsoft. Microsoft was not magically born with vast, overwhelming market share. They acquired it, and they did so at least in part through some of the same practices we're discussing here, and those same practices were remonstrated when Microsoft did them.

 

All I'm suggesting is that there's a double standard here.

[swansont]

Don't like Windows? You can go buy an operating system from someone else. Hey, it doesn't run Windows software! Don't like it? Go with some other brand of operating system. Hey, it's really expensive! Don't want to pay that much? You can get one that's free. Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly. There is a wide array of choice.

 

Odd, I don't hear anybody making that argument, Swansont. But the logic is identical.

 

Because it's a stupid argument. Microsoft does have a monopoly. The logical process may be the same, but the facts aren't. That's why nobody is making it. Well, almost nobody.

 

When Apple has a monopoly in the cellphone market, and still has closed off the iphone to developers, I'll agree with you.

[swansont]

I'm gonna see some acknowledgement on this, from more people than just 1veedo. I really am. You'll get it eventually. The point isn't that Apple is doing anything horribly wrong, but that it's hypocritical to only pay attention to questionable market practices when they're undertaken by Microsoft. Microsoft was not magically born with vast, overwhelming market share. They acquired it, and they did so at least in part through some of the same practices we're discussing here, and those same practices were remonstrated when Microsoft did them.

 

All I'm suggesting is that there's a double standard here.

 

Yes, there is. The Sherman Antitrust act of 1890 and subsequent legislation. Monopolies are treated differently and have restrictions on their behavior.

[Pangloss]

Ok, then was it legal when Microsoft did it when they WEREN'T a monopoly?

 

And either way, isn't that a pretty obvious conflict? If it was okay when Microsoft did it when they weren't a monopoly, why would that be ok? If monopolies are so evil, shouldn't we prevent them from occuring in the first place, instead of only lamenting them after the fact? (And if it wasn't okay when Microsoft did it when they weren't a monopoly, then why is it ok for Apple to do it when they're not a monopoly?)

 

You wanna keep painting yourself into logical corners it's fine by me, but I'm disappointed that you feel the need to resort to "it's a stupid argument and nobody is making it". That's pretty weak. Still, I don't take it personally; I have little respect for most computer industry observers most of the time. Especially since most of the time they turn out to be wrong.

 

Funny thing is, sometimes they're right.

[1veedo]

Ok, then was it legal when Microsoft did it when they WEREN'T a monopoly?

You might want to look at the actual laws instead of asking us.

And either way, isn't that a pretty obvious conflict? If it was okay when Microsoft did it when they weren't a monopoly, why would that be ok?

Economics 101. I assume you took this class in college? There are doublestandards in a capitalist economic system as monopolies are about the only thing that can destroy it. Capitalism works through competition not monopolization. As long as you don't have monopolies the invisible hand keeps things running smoothly.

If monopolies are so evil, shouldn't we prevent them from occuring in the first place, instead of only lamenting them after the fact?

Yes to both. We should try to prevent them and deal with them once they become a monopoly. This is why the top two companies in an industry are rarely allowed to merge -- it risks a monopoly in the future. However two smaller companies are usually allowed to merge.

[swansont]

You wanna keep painting yourself into logical corners it's fine by me, but I'm disappointed that you feel the need to resort to "it's a stupid argument and nobody is making it". That's pretty weak. Still, I don't take it personally;

 

It's what the law states (to the best of my understanding, anyway). As I'm sure you realize, since it involves politics and the legal system, logic might not always enter into it.

 

Building an argument on the premise that Microsoft isn't a monopoly is fatally flawed from the outset. It doesn't require any more effort at dismissal than pointing that out.

[swansont]

Yes to both. We should try to prevent them and deal with them once they become a monopoly. This is why the top two companies in an industry are rarely allowed to merge -- it risks a monopoly in the future. However two smaller companies are usually allowed to merge.

 

Except there's a problem with artificially preventing monopolies to form, if they are from growth rather than acquisition. What do we do, tell people that only 50% or 67% (or whatever threshold you want to put in place) of the computers in the US can run Windows? That limits consumer choice just as much as (or perhaps more than) some of the disallowed monopolistic practices. Some people do want to run Windows (though it continually boggles my mind) and would be prevented from doing so if their market were artificially limited.

[1veedo]

I was referring more to direct actions that could lead to a monopoly, eg the top two companies in an industry merging together. The government wont allow this, although they will allow two smaller companies to merge.

 

I agree though that we shouldn't be, how you say in a more general sense, preventing monopolies to form. Because that means essentially preventing companies from providing good competition with other companies.

[Pangloss]

Building an argument on the premise that Microsoft isn't a monopoly is fatally flawed from the outset. It doesn't require any more effort at dismissal than pointing that out.

 

That's not true, and I don't appreciate being misrepresented. I responded (in Post #56) with a completely different argument, absolutely unrelated to Microsoft. To reiterate, you declared Apple to be innocent of an unfair trade practice because they aren't a monopoly. If the purpose of declaring something to be an unfair trade practice is to prevent the development of a monopoly, then it obviously has to apply to a company that is not yet a monopoly. Therefore your reasoning is flawed.

 

I also asked you if the exact same actions were legal when Microsoft committed them before they became a monopoly. You haven't answered that question either.

 

Well, except for calling me stupid. Even though you're the one who said:

 

When Apple has a monopoly in the cellphone market, and still has closed off the iphone to developers, I'll agree with you.

 

Hmm, yeah, ok we'll just wait around for that. Obviously we wouldn't want to do anything to hurt those poor innocent (politically correct) companies.

 

(chuckle) Gotta love it when people make your arguments for you.

[swansont]

That's not true, and I don't appreciate being misrepresented. I responded (in Post #56) with a completely different argument, absolutely unrelated to Microsoft.

 

That's irrelevant, since the exchange in question was in post #53, where you did base your statement on Microsoft not having a monopoly. Or does "Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly." mean something else?

 

To reiterate, you declared Apple to be innocent of an unfair trade practice because they aren't a monopoly. If the purpose of declaring something to be an unfair trade practice is to prevent the development of a monopoly, then it obviously has to apply to a company that is not yet a monopoly. Therefore your reasoning is flawed.

 

I never said the purpose of declaring something to be an unfair trade practice is to prevent the development of a monopoly. So your point is moot.

 

I also asked you if the exact same actions were legal when Microsoft committed them before they became a monopoly. You haven't answered that question either.

 

I thought 1veedo covered this. I had already pointed you toward antitrust laws, and actually addressed this back in post #48.

 

Well, except for calling me stupid.

 

Except I didn't call you stupid. I called your argument stupid, and explained why I thought it so.

[1veedo]

That's not true, and I don't appreciate being misrepresented. I responded (in Post #56) with a completely different argument, absolutely unrelated to Microsoft. To reiterate, you declared Apple to be innocent of an unfair trade practice because they aren't a monopoly. If the purpose of declaring something to be an unfair trade practice is to prevent the development of a monopoly, then it obviously has to apply to a company that is not yet a monopoly. Therefore your reasoning is flawed.

Pangloss, seriously. Did you even take economics in college? So much of what you're posting can be addressed directly with elementary concepts in economics, and nothing more. We have the same circumstances here with Athlon and Intel. Athlon is criticizing Intel for monopolizing the industry but I can guarantee you that if they could switch places (as far as market shares are concerned), they'd do so in a heartbeat. It is every company's intention to work at their own best self-interest, which means greater market share. Always -- nothing else matters but the bottom line. Some people call this unethical, others call it capitalism.

 

That's why I always found the McDonalds lawsuits biased. In order to prove that McDonald's intentionally wanted people to be fat the two girls had to prove that McDonalds intended everyone to eat every single meal of the day, every day of the week, at McDonalds. Well it doesn't take an economics major to tell you that this would be McDonalds intent were it possible. What restaurant wouldn't want people eating every meal, every day of the week with them?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_hand

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

What restaurant wouldn't want people eating every meal, every day of the week with them?

One that wants its future employees to fit through the front door?

[swansont]

It is every company's intention to work at their own best self-interest, which means greater market share. Always -- nothing else matters but the bottom line. Some people call this unethical, others call it capitalism.

 

However, the bottom line isn't always driven by market share, since one has to worry about margins. Depending (as I brought up earlier) on how you define what the market is. The high-margin, high-end market for widgets may behave differently than the low-end, and any given company may find that competing in either subset doesn't make them any money.

 

Anyway, the point that this is economics (among other things) should be underscored. This has been a discussion of factual things, not opinions, (at least from my point of view) which is why I find some of the contrary comments puzzling.

[Pangloss]

(shrug) I think I've made my point. You're more than welcome to remain puzzled.

[Sayonara]

When the movie of this thread is listed on IMDB, Google will be there as "uncredited cameo".