digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Is Apple in danger of becoming Microsoft?

blogs.cnet.com — Is Apple really that evil company that throws caution to the wind while doing everything it can to turn an even bigger profit? Some think so. And that's why Apple may become the next generation's evil empire. Just don't expect me to agree.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • z0mbie2099, on 12/20/2007, -38/+13Apple has ambitions to, but it's still just too small.
    • Spuy767, on 12/20/2007, -3/+10Ambition has nothing to do with becoming like microsoft. On a side note, it appears that C|Net is once again fishing for click throughs.
      • ShrimpCrackers, on 12/20/2007, -1/+9CNet is also continuing with their generally crappy articles. Microsoft "on the verge of collapse"? Oh please. Bill Gates isn't to Microsoft what Steve Jobs is to Apple.

        Plus, Apple WAS the big bad evil company back in 1986-88. People just generally don't remember anymore. Microsoft used to be the hero being the cheaper alternative that didn't lock you into their hardware and software, which Apple aggressively did. Things just switched positions over the years. When Apple becomes big again, and they are getting there, you'll soon see the same shenanigans (huge bugs in Leopard, bricking iPhones, closing down blogs, suing anything with "i" in front of it, closing bootcamp beta to Tiger users unless they upgrade to Leopard, etc).
    • ZenMojo, on 12/20/2007, -6/+25There's a reason it's small. Their business practices are counter to consumer interest. The iPod used to be proprietary, but when they opened up, its ease of use, functionality, and name recognition inspired rapid growth.

      The iPhone is still proprietary. The iPhone wants you to buy from a certain cell phone carrier. It won't see growth until it follows the iPod's path.

      The Mac is still proprietary. The Mac wants you to use Mac software. Leopard wants you to use Mac Hardware. Until they open it up, they'll keep lagging behind Microsoft and I even see Linux overtaking them easily due to its easy convertibility.

      In short, as long as Apple keeps acting like the monopoly it one day hopes to be, it will never have a large enough share of the market to even compete.
      • wisammy, on 12/20/2007, -25/+1You're dumb. The truth is the opposite of everything your saying. The Iphone is absolutely growing, and apple is on their way to exceeding their 10 million units they're shooting for.

        Macs are better, has down, cost more at first, but retain their resale value, so in 5 years one can sell their used machine for a good chunk of change.

        You would get a mac if you could.

        and you're probably ugly.
        • ryansmith18, on 12/20/2007, -0/+5You obviously disagree with what ZenMojo has to say.....but you didn't bother countering any of his points. You just called him dumb and ugly, and made a very oblivious statement that "the Iphone is absolutely growing."

          Why don't you try countering what he has to say, because honestly, I think he made some pretty solid arguments that I hadn't thought about before.
      • mrsteveman1, on 12/20/2007, -13/+2Apple has significant problems at the moment, some of them make me want to smack them in their collective face for being so ridiculous. Like the idea that visual voicemail and other integrated features require vendor lock in to a carrier. Release a set of standards for carriers to follow, and force them to conform or do without the iPhone, they will look stupid if they don't comply and customers will go fanatical on companies like T-Mobile and demand they make things work.

        Even with that crap, Apple isn't really a monopoly until they start using their position to edge out competition entirely. Even tieing OS X to Mac hardware is not monopolist behavior, they are trying to sell appliances instead of the "me too" jumble of poorly integrated and horribly designed hardware and software that make up the Windows marketplace at the moment. You would never demand that Sony separate the software that runs their TVs from the display itself, and Apple is trying this same model at the moment, which seems to be working.

        If Apple starts moving toward (not away) from formats they invent and lock to their own products, thats monopolist behavior. If they start releasing app after app to edge out companies like Adobe for the Mac platform, and make it hard to use 3rd party stuff, thats monopolist behavior.

        Microsoft does all those things constantly, and Apple isn't even close at the moment because they are in constant competition (the way it should be) and thus neither can afford to play stupid games in most markets.

        Having said that, lets not pretend Linux is going to overtake anything, and lets also not pretend Linux' problems all amount to things like drivers or other "not in my control" type stuff. Linux hasn't overtaken anything on the desktop because it's next to unusable for a large percentage of computer users, even having someone like Dell selling Ubuntu boxes hasn't changed anything because OEMs were never the problem and neither was hardware.

        Yes, i hate everyone equally :D
        • ryansmith18, on 12/20/2007, -1/+3I didn't read anything here. I just dugg you down for writing too much.
        • Smok3y, on 12/20/2007, -0/+2Open television software actually sounds kinda nice, if it were an open standard we'd be able to have pretty themes and custom menus... limited perhaps but nice none the less
    • roodammy44, on 12/20/2007, -0/+3In the markets it's not small it's becoming monopolistic.
      I advise people not to buy ipods so that they don't get dependent on itunes - whose AAC format doesn't work on different players.
      Eventually their practices will become a PR disaster - that will be when a company designs a music player even cooler than apple and noone can easily transfer their music to it.
      • evenson, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1AAC isn't iTunes "format" It's the MPEG group's format and it works just fine on other players. The only thing that doesn't work on other players is the DRM that the industry *forced* Apple to implement in their online store. I think Apple has done everything they can to try and change that mentality.
  • mileswj, on 12/20/2007, -87/+237Mac fanboys still suck.
    • juicebag, on 12/20/2007, -60/+7inb4 you get buried
    • CraigJ, on 12/20/2007, -19/+129all fanboys suck, be they of the Apple, Sony or Microsoft variety...
      • kazamx, on 12/20/2007, -14/+28Your right, but we Linux fan boys are the dogs bollocks
        • CraigJ, on 12/20/2007, -6/+21Sorry, you too...
        • nigh7dagger, on 12/20/2007, -2/+40I have no idea if you just said Linux fanboys were good or bad.
        • lust, on 12/20/2007, -4/+16How is it calling yourself a dogs testicles anything good? Is it some Brit humor Americans don't know about?
        • WhoDoneIt, on 12/20/2007, -4/+6Get used to it. You'll be getting licked even more in the future, dog nuts!
        • Tenoq, on 12/20/2007, -2/+8Not just Brit humour (not humor :P). 'Dogs bollocks' is a phrase I hear around here too (Aus).
        • zcreem, on 12/20/2007, -2/+1The Mutts Nuts, mate.
        • DanAtkinson, on 12/20/2007, -0/+4http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=dog ...
          * of outstanding quality
          * originating from 1950s packaging
          * box, deluxe - dog's bollocks
          * box, standard - bog standard
      • bwdd, on 12/20/2007, -20/+31Mac fanboys are worse than all.
        They're just in denial that they overpayed for a computer.
        • Tenoq, on 12/20/2007, -10/+7*rolls eyes*
        • shadowpr0ph3t, on 12/20/2007, -6/+4still living in the past?
        • cowboy86, on 12/20/2007, -1/+8No. You obviously are by believing you didn't overpay for the ***** you call a computer. A computer with the same computing powers as others shouldn't cost more when mixed with fruit.
          • chesscat, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1I know I didn't overpay. What's the real total cost of ownership when you compare a Mac vs. PC? Most things I've read say the PC.
        • pirloui, on 12/20/2007, -4/+1You understand *****.
        • MadKennyP, on 12/20/2007, -2/+1bwdd also believes anyone who drives a BMW 7 Series has overpaid for an automobile because his 73 Gremlin gets him around just fine.
      • MattBD, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1Definitely. I advocate Linux, but I'm aware that it has flaws and it may not be suitable for everyone. There are plenty of people who I would recommend try it, but equally there are plenty of other people who I wouldn't recommend it for.
        Blind fanboyism just makes people look foolish.
    • mentor972, on 12/20/2007, -31/+15You suck.
    • theuniversal, on 12/20/2007, -6/+11Here's a quote from MS CEO Steve Ballmer: "Looking five, six, seven, 10 years ahead, advertising will become 15%, 20%, 25% of Microsoft’s business. As much as people have bones to pick with advertising, people much prefer an advertising-funded experience to one they pay for.”

      Until Steve Jobs decides to let Apple's core business stagnate while devoting all its resources to chasing after every 'next big thing' that happens in tech, Apple will not be like Microsoft. Repeating 'fanboy' over and over doesn't change the fact that Apple's business is skyrocketing, while Microsoft's is crashing, and there's no reason to think that'll change anytime soon.
      • snugglebear, on 12/20/2007, -4/+8Crashing? You fanboys are on drugs.

        They make millions in profit every year, and almost all new computers normal people buy have vista on them.

        Only a fanboy would say they are crashing.
        • theuniversal, on 12/20/2007, -1/+2MS's stock has barely moved in 6 years and it's growth is below industry average. That's why Ballmer is desperately trying to build an advertising business. Your statement "makes millions in profit" shows you don't have a clue. MS made 4 billion profit just last quarter. But that doesn't change the fact that it is losing market share in its core business and struggling to find new areas of growth. These are well-known facts about MS's current condition. You can't acknowledge them yet I'm the fanboy? Get a ***** grip.
          • seraph582, on 12/20/2007, -2/+2stock movement has nothing to do with anything - holy ***** - are you all there?!
    • ZeRux, on 12/20/2007, -15/+7Linux fanboys are far worse.
      • comradeTJH, on 12/20/2007, -5/+5He got a point there.
      • MattBD, on 12/20/2007, -0/+2I disagree. In my experience, Mac fanboys tend to just go "Get a Mac", whereas Linux fanboys do at least make some effort to point out the advantages. Spouting an advertising slogan does not a convincing argument make.
        As far as I'm concerned OS advocacy is fine, blind fanboyism is out - some OS's simply aren't right for everyone. But there's certainly plenty of people using Windows who might be better off with a different OS.
        • ZeRux, on 12/21/2007, -0/+2But they most particularly hate when somepne else points out disadvantages. A couple of times I wrote comments on digg how some wireless cards don't work Linux and got buried, flamed and insulted by blinded lindiots.
          Besides, Mac is better than Linux...if money is not an issue.
          • MattBD, on 12/21/2007, -0/+2While I disagree with you about which OS is better, I do agree with your point about pointing out disadvantages.
            I'll freely admit Linux has some issues with certain hardware, but that's generally to do with lack of OEM support and no fault of the Linux community. I think we all need to be a bit more mature about our choice of OS, and not go slagging off each other's choices.
    • happyseamonster, on 12/20/2007, -7/+4So does your mother for crack in the back of a '72 caddy but what does that have to with anything?
    • BobOki, on 12/20/2007, -2/+2I agree, as do Microsoft fanboys.... as do ANY fanboys.
      I note that most the commenters here ARE fanboys.
    • pirloui, on 12/20/2007, -4/+1Apple haters suck way more, you have no idea.
      • jabberwolf, on 12/20/2007, -1/+2There are no APPLE HATERS you mactwad... there are only people of mactards praising anything and everything given to them with no thought of their own!!
        There is no reason to hate APPLE for no reason!
        This is all in your head because your such a mac-zombie and mac-sheep.... ;-)-
  • insomniac8400, on 12/20/2007, -27/+8It's going to happen. Their stock has been skyrocketing and that means they are going to be under a ton of pressure to keep the gains and not lose any value. The problem is that the ipod has developed into a device that is a giant touch screen with the entire interface being software. We know from past lawsuits that you can't patent the touch and feel of a OS, so the clones are going to severly hurt apple. Then if drm is dropped by the industry, you can waive goodbye to itunes. When they lose the music market(and they will, no way they can keep it up for another 10 years), they won't have anything to fall back on. The stock will plummet and the company is going to be back where they start in the late 90s with nothing.
    • mrsteveman1, on 12/20/2007, -7/+1DRM was never what held up the iTunes store, it could disappear and people would use iTunes MORE not less.

      You are trying to paint Apple with the Microsoft brush and it doesn't work like that.
      • spyderfreek2k, on 12/20/2007, -0/+7What holds up iTunes is the (to a normal user) need to use itunes to sync their Ipod.
    • Tenoq, on 12/20/2007, -3/+2Fail. See the last quarterly report? Mac sales are increasing at an exponential rate - the growth is still in their core business.
    • BobOki, on 12/20/2007, -1/+1I disagree. iTunes will continue to be the leader in online music/video sales becuase of the ease-of-use.
      • insomniac8400, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1Without drm, how long before something else with cheaper prices that is just as easy to use comes out?
  • KnockoutNerd, on 12/20/2007, -22/+124Imagine what the world would be with Steve Jobs taking the place of Bill Gates, instead of suits and ties in the work place we would all be wearing black turtle necks with the sleeves rolled up and blue jeans. Not a world I want to live in, I like my neck.
    • Divals, on 12/20/2007, -23/+7That would be super awesome. Suits and ties are the devil.
      • SemiSarcastic, on 12/20/2007, -3/+8OOOOH *****! Next thing you know we'll all have to comb our hair for the MAN!
    • kazamx, on 12/20/2007, -4/+78Also the whole world would have the choice of 4 laptops and 4 desktops.
      • schoate09, on 12/20/2007, -3/+61That many? Try 2 laptops, 3 desktops.
      • bwdd, on 12/20/2007, -12/+4Okay. What?
        PC's have more variety than mac's.
        Ever heard of building one?
        • pintomp3, on 12/20/2007, -1/+4building a mac?
          • ShrimpCrackers, on 12/20/2007, -3/+4Its called a Hackintosh. I've got a couple. Yeah I'm too cheap to pay the Apple tax. =/ What do you expect. Tuition costs a bundle.
      • mrsteveman1, on 12/20/2007, -12/+5I'm not so fond of Apple but I'll take functional single models and single names any day over the latest HP superlicious 7500xti with integrated (but optional) label printer. I'm even typing this on an HP laptop and it'll be the last one i own.

        Randomly chosen model numbers and infinitely customizable crap make the entire market diluted and unnecessarily difficult.
        • MrSteamTank, on 12/20/2007, -2/+9Exactly! Just like you I'd much rather have all my computer purchasing decisions be made by a single gigantic company! Long live Omnicorp!
    • gudnbluts, on 12/20/2007, -0/+24"instead of suits and ties in the work place we would all be wearing black turtle necks with the sleeves rolled up"

      All we need is a hollowed out volcano and we can be Bond movie henchmen.
    • banmaster, on 12/20/2007, -6/+50When I first started working for this particular company, I wore a tie to work a few times. No one else did, but I would throw on a loose tie with jeans and tennis shoes, etc... All the people around the office were concerned, and kept asking me *why* I was wearing a tie. "I don't know, just grabbed it out of the closet this morning for a splash of color." Eventually, someone approached me and ask me not to wear a tie anymore. "Why?", I asked. "Well, some of the guys around the office were talking and they think you look like a conformist wearing the tie. No one wears a tie because we are not conformists in this office". Well, I continued to wear the damn tie whenever I wanted, and continued to receive negative feedback.

      Mac users remind me of those office people sometimes. They are so concerned with being non-conformists that they sometimes fail to see the hypocracy of it all.

      - jdaniel284 (a couple of months ago)
      • WernerCD, on 12/20/2007, -2/+13South Park
        7-14: Raisins
        Stan: But if life is only pain, then... what's the point of living?
        Goth 1: Just to make life more miserable for the conformists. [his bang fall over his eye, he jerks his head back]
        Stan: All right, so how do I join you?
        Goth 2: If you wanna be one of the non-conformists, all you have to do is dress just like us and listen to the same music we do.
        Stan: ...'K.

        8-05: You got f'd in the a
        Goth Kid: I'm such a non-conformist, that I'm not going to conform with the rest of you. Okay i'll do it.
        Stan: Great.
        Goth Girl: Whoa, I think we just got put in our place.
        Other Goth Kid: Yeah, we just got goth-served.

        Yeah... I watch too much south park. But I saw the hypocrisy in your post before ya mentioned it and immediately thought of these two quotes.
      • soopafly, on 12/20/2007, -9/+1banmaster = no mind of his own
        -soopafly (just now)
    • Hobbes24, on 12/20/2007, -1/+5i'd have to start drinking starbucks too, and i'm not to keen on coffee
    • offwithyourtv, on 12/20/2007, -1/+8I know quite a few Microsoft employees (it's hard not to when you live in Seattle) and suits and ties are definitely not normal attire there. T-shirts and jeans, tattoos and piercings, and other non-corporate stereotypical attire is strangely normal on the M$ campuses over on the east side.
      • prammy, on 12/20/2007, -0/+9Well if you wear a tie at MS, people assume you are giving a presentation somewhere or are interviewing for a marketing position.
        When I worked at MS, I wore a tie once and too many random people asked me how my interview went.
      • chrismgtis, on 12/20/2007, -1/+2I don't know what Microsoft campus you have been to, but in Charlotte they don't dress like white trash. I go there once every two months for Infragard meetings.
        • offwithyourtv, on 12/20/2007, -0/+2They don't dress like "white trash" here either (which would also be weird since a lot of M$ employees aren't white). People just wear normal clothes as though they were going out to someplace like the mall. Most people don't have multiple visible tattoos and piercings; I was just making a (perhaps poorly worded) point that those that do aren't expected to go out of their way to hide it.

          It's nothing like trashy. People just think you're trying too hard if you've gone formal. See prammy's comment.
    • bazbloke, on 12/20/2007, -0/+5Nobody except the "public facing" types wear a suit or tie at MSFT. In fact anyone wearing a suit is most likely here for an interview.
    • ubergeek09, on 12/23/2007, -0/+1You realize you can wear pajamas to work if you work at Microsoft right? The work environment at Microsoft is very laid back.
  • juicebag, on 12/20/2007, -52/+166They're already pretty monopolistic, not allowing Mac OS on anything but their own systems.
    • dondara, on 12/20/2007, -34/+79Yeah, hoarding that 8% market share is a real ***** monopoly.
      • cbreaker, on 12/20/2007, -5/+388% isn't that small, considering the hundreds of millions of personal computers out there..

        At second glance, you see they have a dominant position on the portable music players, and iTunes downloads only work with Apple software and apple iPods. Their OS, while I like it, is closed and only runs on overpriced (it's good hardware, but it's still overpriced) Apple-only hardware.

        I do believe we'd be a better world if OSX were the dominant player instead of Windows, but it wouldn't be all roses either. Microsoft is a monopolistic company with sub-par software, but they do things that Apple doesn't. Before Windows CE, there was no standard OS that any company could use. You can run all sorts of CE software on almost any CE based PDA or smartphone. They bring standards to industries with NO standards. Unfortunately, they're Microsoft standards, but at least you get to choose what hardware to use. (note: I don't like Windows CE at all. But it DOES work and I can run any CE software on my two PDA's. No lock-in on the hardware..)

        I believe that if Apple manages to gain a more dominant position on the desktop front, it would be bad. But I don't think it'll happen, unless they allow MacOS to run on Dell, HP, and home brew PC's. I run a Hackintosh and it runs fantastic, but I won't let myself become dependant on it because I don't want to be forced to buy a Mac in a few years if or when Hackintoshes don't exist anymore.

        There's no use speculating I guess. We'll have to wait and see what happens!
        • Spuy767, on 12/20/2007, -9/+3Exclusivity does not a monopoly make.
        • djbon2112, on 12/20/2007, -9/+3I'd rather see Linux as the dominant player, not OSX. It's just as bad as Vista in terms of insecurity.
          • evenson, on 12/20/2007, -5/+3No. No it isn't.
          • djbon2112, on 12/20/2007, -2/+3http://news.zdnet.co.uk/security/0,1000000189,3929 ...
          • evenson, on 12/20/2007, -2/+4And linux had more than either. By far. This has nothing to do with the actual security of a particular OS and more to do with the way vulnerabilities are reported and patched in systems with open source components vs. those without.

            This article is using those numbers to come to a dishonest conclusion. But hey - believe what you have to believe.
          • djbon2112, on 12/20/2007, -2/+2I choose to believe fact, not that Apple is infallable. Get off your high horse fanboy.
          • evenson, on 12/20/2007, -4/+1***** you, Sunshine. I'm not a fanboy, and never said they were infallable. What you choose to believe is subjective and up to you. You're clearly uninformed on this point however.
          • CatalystDM, on 12/20/2007, -2/+4Okay well security is all well and good, but that's not the only reason you choose a ***** operating system. I'm sorry, but Usability is huge. Say what you will about Linux, but in no way is it as usable as Windows and definitely not as usable as OS X. The open source movement is fantastic and I want to see it thrive as long as there is still reason to make software, but let's be honest - GIMP isn't as user-friendly as Photoshop, KDE isn't as user-friendly as Aqua or Aero, and there's nothing really out there on Linux that matches up to iTunes or any of the iLife apps. It's great that we have a free, secure alternative, but for the average user, Linux just isn't going to cut it.
          • ilves7, on 12/20/2007, -1/+1security is also dependant on popularity. windows get screwed because hackers/programs target it the most since its the most popular and therfore people put the most effort into finding its holes. I think almost any OS would be in the same position if it became #1
      • ZenMojo, on 12/20/2007, -3/+9So basically the difference between the rebel and the demon is size?
        • ShugNinx21, on 12/20/2007, -0/+7Well yes in a way. The basic difference is perception. If Microsoft only allowed windows to run on it's own special hardware they would be crucified for it. When Apple does it, it's cool.

          Be glad you can purchase a PC from any manufacturer you want in any configuration you want, all with the ability to add and change that configuration easily and inexpensively while being able to install the same Windows OS or Linux OS on it.
        • Tenoq, on 12/20/2007, -0/+2Actually yeah.
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly
      • geardosdotnet, on 12/20/2007, -10/+6How are they a monopoly. People have the choice of buying a computer that runs windows, linux, bsd, or they can buy an apple system that also runs OS X. There are an endless amount of computer configurations and operating systems out there. A monopoly would imply that OS X was the only operating system anyone can use.
        • evenson, on 12/20/2007, -6/+4They're not. These dimwits just don't understand the definition of "monopoly".
        • prammy, on 12/20/2007, -0/+10That would mean Microsoft is not a monopoly either. Since you can obviously buy a system with Linux or a Mac with OS X on it.
          When it comes to computers which can run Mac OS, Apple is indeed a monopoly since you cannot run OS X without a hacked copy of OS X and thereby violating the DMCA. Even though the hardware is almost the same as most other PCs.
          Also being a monopoly is not a bad thing, abusing a monopolistic position is.
        • evenson, on 12/20/2007, -3/+2See what I mean? You're the dimwit who doesn't get it. Tell me. Is SGI a monopoly? It's the only way I can run IRIX. Yeah, they aren't are they? STFU.
      • Vermifax, on 12/20/2007, -1/+4If you had that same 8%, you'd have more money than, Kanye, Jay-Z and 50 cent combined. So, what's your real point?
    • dtt1167, on 12/20/2007, -18/+4thats because if they control the market that can run their OS, they can make ***** code that runs well on one system.
      • smurf22, on 12/20/2007, -7/+2Umm have you ever tried hackintosh? It runs pretty well on a lot of system yet it is the hacked version. Its just easier for them to control what hardware it runs on, and as such eliminate a lot of the issues less knowledgeable users run into.
        • dtt1167, on 12/20/2007, -6/+4OK I digress, Macs have their place, elementary schools and our teachers hands... and maybe a 95 year old woman in a nursing home getting on the web for the first time. they just haven't thrilled me yet
        • ShrimpCrackers, on 12/20/2007, -1/+2No Smurf, a hackintosh needs specific hardware. It is a pain in the butt and will crash often if you select the wrong hardware. Why do you think there are all those notices and forums on specific hardware on the OSX86 website?
    • CraigJ, on 12/20/2007, -6/+24You keep using that word... I don't think it means what you think it means.
    • mdude85, on 12/20/2007, -13/+2Um ... boot camp?
      • minitrollster, on 12/20/2007, -0/+7That is not what he's talking about. At all.
    • evenson, on 12/20/2007, -21/+13Why the ***** are you digging this dolt up? You can't have a monopoly on your own product. Otherwise, every product would be monopoly. You may not like their business model, but that doesn't make it a monopoly.
      • Chirp08, on 12/20/2007, -11/+3why are people digging you down? wtf is wrong with digg anymore. I swear to god you ***** are as bad as the politicians you bitch about, this is exactly the same *****, you digg down anything you dont agree with, regardless of its truth or the facts supporting it. for ***** sake i think the option to digg down comments needs to be removed, its is the equivalent of calling people names on the playground.
        • bludragn0, on 12/20/2007, -0/+6I'm digging you down because I think you're wrong *****. It's not because I know the truth and don't want to believe it.
          mo·nop·o·ly
          n. pl. mo·nop·o·lies
          Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service (Monopolies are characterized by a lack of economic competition for the good or service that they provide and a lack of viable substitute goods.)
          It may be their product, but they've made the ipod synonimous with PMP. The Sansa and Zen can't hold their own against it. Even if it's a qualitiy product, if there isn't competition that can provide a product that has a comparable plethora of accessories (***** for example), then I think it's a monopoly.
        • evenson, on 12/20/2007, -6/+2*****. It doesn't matter what you "think". Mac OS X is an operating system (we're talking about OS's here). Apple does not have a monopoly on operating systems. Period. End of ***** discussion.
        • roodammy44, on 12/20/2007, -0/+3@evenson

          It's not the end of the discussion until we say it is, bitch.

          OK, it's the end.
        • evenson, on 12/20/2007, -1/+3lol... oh right. Boy. You sure showed me.
      • lust, on 12/20/2007, -4/+3I see what your saying. But then what do you say about 3rd party game console developers. If Sony or Microsoft had sole rights for developing games we would not be able to see or play some of the greatest next generation console games. In fact we would only get lack-luster games by those two companies.
        • evenson, on 12/20/2007, -1/+3But, you're talking about titles developed *for* a system, not the system itself. Can you run the xBox 360 system on a Playstaion or vice-versa? No. You can't.

          I really don't know why people are confused about this *****.
    • rpgmaker, on 12/20/2007, -5/+5If Apple reach the position that Microsoft has right now (or even near to it) in what market share is concern, the laws will force Apple to relicense OSX to other computer manufacturers.
    • generalchaos316, on 12/20/2007, -5/+3So Dell, HP, Sony, Compaq, Toshiba, and all the small CTO suppliers are or were monopolies when they were only offering Windows on their machines? Your logic fails to work.
      • kronix2, on 12/20/2007, -0/+6Dell, HP, Sony, Compaq and Toshiba don't artificially prevent other OS's from installing on their machines. Why are so many people incapable of understanding this?

        OSX runs fine on PCs built around Core 2 Duo's and Intel chipsets, but Apple has incorporated DRM into OSX to *prevent* us from installing OSX on non-Apple hardware.

        Do you understand the difference? OSX will install and run perfectly on my machine, but Apple has prevented OSX from installing, to protect their monopoly.
    • kaytrio, on 12/20/2007, -9/+7Apple is a hardware company... ask anyone. That's like saying Panasonic is a monopoly for not licensing their microwave's OS to Frigidare.
      • javaroast, on 12/20/2007, -1/+9No, this is false yet keeps being repeated. Apple is a hardware and software company. They develop and sell both and have sold both for a long, long time.
        • lrdntwnd, on 12/20/2007, -5/+5But Apple has and always will think of itself as a hardware company. The day that thinking changes is the day Apple fails. It was stated long ago (like 20 years, which isn't all that long really, but is in the world of technology) by someone whose name I can't remember that any company that is serious about hardware will write its own software. That's the principle that has driven Apple and Steve Jobs since day one. Just because they write software does not make them a software company. It means they make software. They are a hardware company because they say they're a hardware company. That's all that really matters.
        • redfox2600, on 12/26/2007, -0/+1Apple doesn't develop hardware. They only design the case. The guts of the computer are probably the same thing I have in my windows box.
    • techroach, on 12/20/2007, -11/+5Apple is the most monopolist company in the industry. Wonder why people won't understand that.
  • jonesy827, on 12/20/2007, -28/+20Apple's products are not innovative at all and just use simple things to make them seem amazing. Look past all those and you have an underpowered machine with no good software (with the exception of multimedia, but just install OSX on a PC :D)
    • elfprince13, on 12/20/2007, -14/+6retard. underpowered is hardly the word for a Mac Pro. especially since it outperforms a comparably priced Alienware any day (I realise with Alienware you are buying the name, but the same is true with apple, and besides which, they are the only company that sells prebuilt machines anywhere near the capability of a tricked out Mac Pro).

      Alienware:
      2TB hard drive space
      4 GB RAM
      4 x 4GHz processors
      uber nice audio card.
      uber nice graphics card.
      20-something inch monitor

      Apple:
      3TB Hard drive space
      16GB of ram
      8 x 3GHz
      optical audio out
      ubernice graphics card
      2 x 30" HD monitor

      ^_^
      • elfprince13, on 12/20/2007, -9/+2oh, right, sorry I forgot about you homebrew PC people. good luck finding a 64bit OS with working drivers for that.
        • Tweekster, on 12/20/2007, -5/+1its called netbsd :P
        • snugglebear, on 12/20/2007, -0/+3Its easy as hell to find drivers for 64 bit os's these days.

          It took me the same amount of time to find the 32 bit ones.

          Learn what the ***** you're talking about.
      • pathy, on 12/20/2007, -0/+7Excuse me, I would just like to say - You are a ***** retard.
      • Skorp, on 12/20/2007, -0/+3I have no idea where you came up with "comparably priced". Take a look at what you can get for that kind of money. http://www.armari.co.uk/system.asp?SysID=910

        And for the record, a Radeon X1900 isn't uber nice anymore.
        • evenson, on 12/20/2007, -1/+1Quad AMD Opteron™ 8222 - Dual Core 3.0GHz CPU (1207pin) £8,053.07

          8,000 pounds? That's like $16,000. What are you smoking?
          • Skorp, on 12/20/2007, -0/+3Unfortunately for us Brits, you'd pay something more like $12,000 for that, even with the exchange rate at 2:1. But that's still a lot of money, so let me clarify my position.

            A Mac Pro with 3TB of hard drive space, 16GB worth in FB-DIMMs, two quad core Xeons at 3GHz, and two of those hawt 30" monitors totals at... $17,000. Even if you specify a single 20" screen instead of two huge ones, the total is $14,000. Take a look at the Apple store, it's all there.

            They're nice machines, if you like Mac. But don't ever try to pass them off as good value.
      • kronix2, on 12/20/2007, -0/+5The Alienware rig costs $6500 when fully tricked out (including a 30" Dell monitor), while the Apple rig costs $12,500 with a 30" Apple monitor. That's twice as much - and the Alienware rig would murder the Mac Pro on games. That's irrelevant, though, as you've compared a luxury gaming rig to a professional workstation designed for high-end industrial use.

        You, sir, are a complete and utter idiot.
  • Perigren, on 12/20/2007, -36/+8You know whats the difference though... People actually like apple products even if they are a monopoly. Show me someone who doesnt like the ipod and ill show you someone that has had the ability to like anything taken from them.
    • Bartboy919, on 12/20/2007, -5/+16I don't like the iPod, and I will tell you why. I have owned 4 in all, and every one seemed to get the sad iPod face around the 1 year mark. It seemes like they are made to work for only one year then it goes into eternal sleep.

      I had enough of the ***** when my ipod video bit the dust and I bought a Zune. I've had it since November of 2006 and have not had one freeze up or had to restore the device, and best of all, NO DAMN SCRATCHES.
      • lust, on 12/20/2007, -8/+3So your telling me the Zune is impervious to Scratches? What do you call that Super-mp3-player?
      • spyderfreek2k, on 12/20/2007, -1/+4Its not impervious to them, but the plastic exterior is defiantly scratch resistant.
    • MillionsLivio, on 12/20/2007, -3/+13As a former iPod owner, I have been completely won over by the new Zune 80's. As soon as the new iPod comes out they forget that your iPod even exist, and frankly I'm sick of it. The Zune already has shown backwards compatibility and regardless what you think of Microsoft, any company that does that deserves some respect. You are obviously extremely biased and you are the one that is blind. Microsoft really has been surprising me lately, the 360 is fantastic, and I really like the new Zunes, if anything Microsoft is becoming more consumer friendly and Apple taking their place.
    • mdude85, on 12/20/2007, -1/+12I'll show you someone: The thousands of users over at www.AnythingButIpod.com.

      Are you saying that a monopoly is a good thing if consumers like its products? The dissolution of monopolies is meant to protect not only consumers, but also competitors.
    • evenson, on 12/20/2007, -10/+1They're not a monopoly. See my post above.
    • banmaster, on 12/20/2007, -3/+7I ditched my nano some months back and got a cheap and cheesy creative Zen V Plus and its everything the iPod wasn't.
      No stupid iTunes needed, simply drag/drop is just so good that I can't ever imaging going back to apple's DRM infested 'solution'.
      • Spuy767, on 12/20/2007, -0/+5Funny considering my iPod has exactly 0% DRM'd content on it.
        • ShrimpCrackers, on 12/20/2007, -0/+3Nope, but your iPod, like my iPhone needs iTunes. They aren't allowed to transfer their music off the device without hacks. That's a disadvantage versus the Zen right there.
      • unitedatheism, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1On which then, apple sez: "don't steal music"
        Yeah, right, everybody I know bought 60gb of itunes stuff!
    • nigh7dagger, on 12/20/2007, -0/+5Same with me. I had a 20GB black and white screen iPod but the click wheel stopped working and Apple didn't want to replace it. I got the Halo 3 Zune for the same price a normal iPod would have cost (plus the Zune had stuff pre-loaded). It's worked great, the only exception being when it fell into some water. Even then, though, it was only about 7 days between the time I called their customer support number and when I got a brand new one back in the mail.
      • ilves7, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1did you tell them you dropped it in water or just told it stopped working?
    • WhoDoneIt, on 12/20/2007, -0/+5I even won my ipod and I think it sucks. I would NEVER buy one.
    • XDingoX83, on 12/20/2007, -0/+8I can't stand the Ipod there are hundreds of other MP3 Players out there that are better then the Ipod. It is just brand naming, people think they are cool and hip when they own an Ipod. Creative makes a wonderful little player and the Zune is quite nice also. People just hate the Zune because its Microsoft and the Apple fanboys get butthurt.
    • MattBD, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1I like the iPod, I don't like the software on it and the software you use to sync it. I'd rather use Amarok than iTunes, but as I'm on Last.fm I'm stuck with it. I may try iPodLinux or Rockbox at some point.
  • dvsbastard, on 12/20/2007, -15/+69There is nothing like a good objective, unbiased and neutral article... And that was nothing like it...
  • buddhistMonkey, on 12/20/2007, -36/+6Microsoft was convicted of predatory, monopolistic behavior. Apple wasn't, and likely never will be. This is nothing more than standard-issue c|net Mac-bashing.
    • ZenMojo, on 12/20/2007, -6/+10Because Apple's too small to be a monopoly? Please.
      • ShrimpCrackers, on 12/20/2007, -1/+4Agreed. Although Apple wasn't convicted of a monopoly, we as the consumers left Apple in the 1980's because of their monopolistic practices of tying us into their hardware and software. I frankly didn't like being charged thousands (then) for hardware upgrades and other parts that I could get at a tenth of the price elsewhere. Apple was being retarded. We actually went to Microsoft. So many people did in fact that it toppled Apple and Microsoft became the big giant evil company.
    • dvsbastard, on 12/20/2007, -2/+19Mac Bashing?! Did you even RTFA?!

      "Bill Gates acting as the benchmark for just how bad big business can be"

      "Microsoft is still hated by hard-core tech gurus"

      "Apple is not in any way an evil empire and shouldn't even be thought of in that way"

      "So far, Apple has been able to provide just that. But if it decides to go the way of Microsoft, delivering crap, trust me, Steve Jobs will be the first to know about it."
      • an0nym0uz, on 12/20/2007, -6/+11They already deliver crap, their iPods/iPhones look nice and have a really nice UI and all but are only made to last a year until your warranty expires, Apple products quality wise are definitely not worth the money.
      • buddhistMonkey, on 12/20/2007, -2/+1Yes, I read the article:

        ((( "Is Apple really that awful company that throws caution to the wind while doing everything it can to turn an even bigger profit? Some think so."

        "Sure, some Apple apologists would say Apple just knows better, but others claim that it's just another example of Apple becoming evil."

        "Finally, most Apple haters like to talk about the company's "price gouging," whereby it charges too much for a device that can barely be configured..."

        etc. )))

        Sure, the author refutes most of the charges he leveled against Apple, but that's typical c|net and ZDNet modus operandi. Last week, the Washington Post ran a front-page story recycling false rumors about Barack Obama being a Muslim, and used the exact same tactic as this author:

        ((( "Despite his denials, rumors and e-mails circulating on the Internet continue to allege that Obama (D-Ill.) is a Muslim, a "Muslim plant" in a conspiracy against America, and that, if elected president, he would take the oath of office using a Koran, rather than a Bible..." )))

        Compare that sentence to the ones I quoted above. Here's what I see:

        "Some think so."
        "Sure, some Apple apologists would say..."
        "...most Apple haters like to talk about..."
        "...rumors and e-mails circulating on the Internet continue to allege... "

        Is Obama really a Muslim? Some think so, but of course, we don't.
        Is Apple in danger of becoming Microsoft? Some think so, but of course, we don't.
        Same crap, different shovel.
        • saisumimen, on 12/20/2007, -1/+1Apparently you must've skipped over

          "Bill Gates acting as the benchmark for just how bad big business can be"

          "Microsoft is still hated by hard-core tech gurus"

          "Apple is not in any way an evil empire and shouldn't even be thought of in that way"

          "So far, Apple has been able to provide just that. But if it decides to go the way of Microsoft, delivering crap, trust me, Steve Jobs will be the first to know about it."

          While you were polishing Steve Job's apple.
    • banmaster, on 12/20/2007, -3/+7Just imagine how bad Apple would be if it had the same market share as MS does. They would make MS look like saints!
    • Tweekster, on 12/20/2007, -2/+6apple is the definition of monopoly. It just they are too small to be concerned about
      • buddhistMonkey, on 12/20/2007, -5/+2That's an oxymoron.
        • ShrimpCrackers, on 12/20/2007, -2/+4A monopoly does not have to do with size, but control over the competition in the market.
    • MattBD, on 12/20/2007, -2/+2Actually Apple do behave in quite a monopolistic way. Most notably, when the 6th gen iPods were released, they included a change in the firmware that stopped them working with third party applications such as Amarok. Since there's no iTunes for Linux, that prevented Linux users from syncing their new iPods unless they changed OS. If that's not monopolistic, I don't know what is.
  • norman619, on 12/20/2007, -24/+15Oh no obviously not. Apple isn't like other companies who are in business to actually make money. No way! Friggen idiots. Buried for the normal anti-Microsoft crap AND not understanding that ALL companies are in business to maximize profits. Why would Apple exist if it did not wish to make as much money as it could possibly make? Oh yeah I forgot it's bad to make lots of money.
  • stegre, on 12/20/2007, -16/+9Yes it is! Apple is evil, and thinks it can get away with it in front of the devoted fans gathered trough their good times.
  • failsafex, on 12/20/2007, -15/+74Here come the fanboy's...TAKE COVER!!!
    • Ireland, on 12/20/2007, -3/+7And the haters :P
    • nfxmedia, on 12/20/2007, -1/+6I see more haters than fanboys. These kind of stories bring in more haters. Just look around.
      • pirloui, on 12/20/2007, -1/+1There are so many haters around here it's amazing.. And they hype one another up like a mob gang, ***** gang of sheeps.
    • bludragn0, on 12/20/2007, -3/+3what's a fanboy's dot dot dot look like? Sorry, I'm not familiar with the hip slang you youngsters use these days.
    • shadowpr0ph3t, on 12/20/2007, -0/+4I think the haters have claimed this one.
  • sykotik, on 12/20/2007, -8/+6Does anyone really care? I mean, if I started a company, and became as well known as Apple or Microsoft, I know I'd want it to become as profitable as possible so I could dump my options, walk away, and live a life of luxury.

    My thing is, I don't understand why the people who start these sorts of companies don't do just that. Can we get an article that explains why that is? I'd like to know. Then again, maybe I'm just greedy like that or something, but I mean, come on, don't other people out there have the same feelings?

    Start a company, get it super huge, get super rich, walk away as quick as possible and enjoy a rich, carefree life traveling the world with your family (or friends/loved ones)... anyone else agree?
    • norman619, on 12/20/2007, -1/+4They are the uber achievers. Doing as you said does not appeal to them. There are people who do nothing but buy small companies just starting out or start one of their own, build the company up and when they are a success they sell the company and start over with a new company. It's what they love to do. A life of leisure would be hell to them. Where is the challenge?
      • sykotik, on 12/20/2007, -1/+1Gotcha. I'm a damned slacker basically. Figures.
    • mdude85, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1Anyone who has given his life's work to see a company grow and mature will certainly disagree with you. I mean, do you want your entire career -- aside from your children, the only record you have of living on Earth -- to be widdled down to essentially winning the lottery and walking away with a bunch of money? That's not really how it works. People want to find both financial and personal success in their careers. That is why when they dump their options, walk away, and live a life of luxury, they can say they made a positive impact on the millions of people who benefited from their products or ideas. If you don't care about these things, you're really no different from, say, an African conflict diamond dealer. I mean, as long as you can dump your options, walk away and live a life of luxury, it doesn't matter who gets hurt... right?
      • lust, on 12/20/2007, -1/+1Off the top of my head the founders of Napster and you-tube sold their company, and there probably living the life of riches. Just because you sold the business you started does not mean you've sold your soul to the devil. Tens of Thousands of people sell their business.
      • kurthellis, on 12/20/2007, -0/+0Of course it's not SIMPLY about money... No board room executive would be so crass... not the gentle pioneers of American enterprise that have been so kind and magniloquent. Don't forget ego, and power and status and a wife with big *****.
    • daviddiaz, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1Because their work fulfills them. Steve Jobs doesn't have any stock in Apple, nor does he get a salary. He just does it because he can. Bill Gates still makes money off Microsoft, but it's not like he needs it anyway. I'd probably get bored with a life of leisure. The beauty of it for them is, that if it does get ugly, they can walk away and lose nothing.
      • Tweekster, on 12/20/2007, -1/+1He doesnt have any stock in apple? you sir are a liar
        The only reason he is still inovled with apple is because he has a napolean complex, he hates the fact bill won
        • uslacker, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1Can we get something straight. There is a HUGE difference between being wrong and being a liar. It has to do with intent. Please learn that. The media has been trying to teach us differently for 5 years and they are wrong.
          daviddiaz, may be lying, but I don't know how we can know. He could be ignorant of the facts.
          However, your reasoning leads a little to be desired. You state that the OP is a liar and from that I assume you are implying Jobs has stock in Apple (I believe you are correct). Your next statement you say he is only involved because he holds some type of grudge for not making it as big as Bill. These arguments appear in conflict with one another.
      • Uranium118, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1No salary but multi-million dollars bonus is pretty much the same thing, except you escape taxes or some other obscure business loop-hole.
      • kineticarl, on 12/20/2007, -0/+2according to http://biz.yahoo.com/t/18/4013.html , Jobs holds about 5.5 million shares. His work may fulfill him, but $1 billion in stock is icing on the cake.
    • uslacker, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1(I don't know what Jobs would do, but this sykotik guy is another story - I think I know you from Perk-L).

  • scratt, on 12/20/2007, -10/+5Now that all the fanbois (M$ or Apple) have vented their spleens....

    In a word, yes. It's very very scary. I for one wish Apple could stay as it is now, or better still 18 months ago.
    What is coming in the next 5 years, especially when SJ leaves is of great concern to me.
    • kwr007, on 12/20/2007, -1/+0wait did Steve Jobs say when he is leaving?
      • frostieDude, on 12/20/2007, -0/+3Men age.
        • kwr007, on 12/20/2007, -1/+0well I know that, but I didn't know if he said he was going to step down within the next 5 years or whatever
        • tnoy, on 12/20/2007, -0/+2Jobs has a big enough ego that he'll go out on top just to avoid anyone placing any blame on him when the company's growth slows down.
  • BlueStarr, on 12/20/2007, -10/+2STFU with all the fear mongering!
  • PainToad, on 12/20/2007, -4/+25My main concern is the path Google is going down...last weeks announcement of their own Wikipedia mock-off was the last straw.
    • Twenty5, on 12/20/2007, -1/+5i am getting pretty concerned about Google too...... next thing im afraid will be their own OS
    • alvinrod, on 12/20/2007, -2/+5How is their own version of Wikipedia bad? Isn't competition good? I suppose Google search if ***** evil then as well since it stole all those users away from Yahoo, MSN, and the other search engines from long ago.
  • baalzebub, on 12/20/2007, -10/+21naw, Apple overcharges too much for everything to dominate the market, the PC and commodity OSs like BSD & especially Linux will be dominating the market in the future...
    look at the iphone, ipod, ithis and ithat, you can find comparable items for much less, when you buy apple you are buying a name brand and nothing more...
    • skidooer, on 12/20/2007, -6/+4"you can find comparable items for much less"

      The iPhone and iPod Touch are full fledged UNIX systems that fit in your pocket. I haven't seen anything comparable at any price.
      • snugglebear, on 12/20/2007, -0/+6Unix systems which you can't use.
      • AQUANETA, on 12/20/2007, -0/+6They're locked down.
        It doesnt even remotely resemble unix.
        Unfortunately no one seems to care.
      • Tippis, on 12/20/2007, -0/+5Maybe you should take a look at one of of the bazillions of Linux phones out there...
        • skidooer, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1Linux isn't UNIX. OS X is.
        • dacomputerfreak, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1skipooer- OS X is proprietary, Linux isn't. Linux can run more applications on more devices with more flexibility. We know the difference between Unix and Linux. STFU.
    • pirloui, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1Have you ever heard of Mac OS ?
      You talk out of your ass, sucker.
  • Thinkingbuddy, on 12/20/2007, -8/+17"are we getting the kinds of products we want?" No, with creative advertising apple is making us want the products they have. Early in the article the author said people buy ipods even though there are other mp3 players with twice the features, way to contradict yourself.

    buried as applespam
    • Chirp08, on 12/20/2007, -5/+2twice the features doesn't necessarily equal a better product. A blackberry does a ***** more than my cellphone, doesn't mean my cellphone sucks or isn't adequate for my needs.
      " No, with creative advertising apple is making us want the products they have." replace "apple" with "ANY ***** COMPANY IN THE WORLD" and you discovered what business and marketing is all about..
    • pirloui, on 12/20/2007, -1/+1More features does not equal better.
  • kreatre2007, on 12/20/2007, -17/+25Apple is doing some great things so, naturally there are going to be people who want to scandalize Apple's success. I love my iPod, my iPhone and my MacBook. They are wonderfully engineered products. I don't give a crap if my iTunes purchased music will run on other players and I have no desire to cheapen Mac OS X by hacking it to run on a cheaper PC. Apple has shown how to control the production of both the hardware and the software AND do it in a way that doesn't harm the customer.
    • Thinkingbuddy, on 12/20/2007, -8/+5doesn't harm the customer except costing a few hundred extra dollars
      • soopafly, on 12/20/2007, -4/+3...cause PCs are free?
      • kreatre2007, on 12/20/2007, -3/+4That has never harmed me. I'll gladly pay more to avoid the constant headaches associated with Windows. I've been doing I.T. work for 8 years and my Windows using clients are far less happy with their computers than my Mac using clients. If all you care about is price, you'll get what you paid for.
        • dacomputerfreak, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1And that means there is no value in Linux or BSD? Apple apparently thought highly enough of BSD to use it's source code! Microsoft has used BSD-licensed code in the past too. Proprietary code is proprietary code and if the Mac OS were as popular as Windows, it would be attacked just as much. Proprietary code has historically had more (actively attacked) vulnerabilities and although Mac is based on BSD, that does not change the fact that there's ample proprietary closed source there tainting the OS and making it more vulnerable.
          • kreatre2007, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1I never said anything about about BSD or any other UNIX OS but, there is also nothing wrong with having some closed source technology. Apple returns a lot to the open source community. Unlike Microsoft, Apple does not gobble up technology and then pervert it into something that will only work in Mac OS. Case in point... Apple bought Sound Jam and used it to create iTunes which runs on both Mac OS and Windows. Safari is now available for Windows. Safari was developed from another open source browser.
    • bingobongony, on 12/20/2007, -9/+10Hello, fanboy.
    • iiBeLiEvE, on 12/20/2007, -4/+2You forgot to close your tag.
    • ZenMojo, on 12/20/2007, -8/+16"I love my iPod, my iPhone and my MacBook. They are wonderfully engineered products."
      Translation: I love stuff made by Apple. It makes me feel cool.

      "I don't give a crap if my iTunes purchased music will run on other players and I have no desire to cheapen Mac OS X by hacking it to run on a cheaper PC."
      Translation: Did you hear me? Really cool! AND RICH!

      "Apple has shown how to control the production of both the hardware and the software AND do it in a way that doesn't harm the customer."
      Translation: Really ***** rich! And important!

      Dude, you deserve your own article on Cracked.
      • reticulate, on 12/20/2007, -3/+7Your comment was full of win. Congrats, sir. Have an internet.
    • diabulos, on 12/20/2007, -9/+11"I love my iPod, my iPhone and my MacBook. They are wonderfully engineered products"

      Translation: I am not a discerning individual and prefer to have things spelled out to me in big pretty icons. Also, I think it is cool to pay up to the nose for a close system that can't be upgraded, as value for money is sooooo 1980's'
      • Vermifax, on 12/20/2007, -9/+7"Translation: I am not a discerning individual and prefer to have things spelled out to me in big pretty icons. Also, I think it is cool to pay up to the nose for a close system that can't be upgraded, as value for money is sooooo 1980's'"

        Translation: I'm too much of a raging, gaming teen to properly fit in with the older, professional crowd. My fast-food paycheck got me my rad gaming rig but, know I can't pay my Mom the rent I promised her. I hope I can con my way into college...
      • shadowpr0ph3t, on 12/20/2007, -4/+2"Translation: I am not a discerning individual and prefer to have things spelled out to me in big pretty icons. Also, I think it is cool to pay up to the nose for a close system that can't be upgraded, as value for money is sooooo 1980's'"

        Translation: I'm never used another OS in my life.
    • aznhomig, on 12/20/2007, -3/+3Got any money left for food for yourself after you splurged that much money on Apple goodness?

      Why the hell not, why compromise when I could pay MORE for a lesser product? :)
      • shadowpr0ph3t, on 12/20/2007, -2/+1you fanboys are amazing.
        • dacomputerfreak, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1I'm a fan of getting more for my money. If I buy a $2,000 computer, I want $2,000 worth of performance... not $1,000 of performance and $1,000 of bragging rights. I love the look on Mac owner's faces when they see Linux doing things they can't do while running several times faster for the same price. From what I can see, Mac is for graphic designers / musicians / professionals / computer illiterate people (no offense). I don't hate it- I actually like Mac OS... but I can see it for what it really is. Every OS has it's it's strengths and weaknesses.
          • shadowpr0ph3t, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1Well I'm currently studying Graphic Arts! And as one I can tell you I get things done faster and better using OS X then Windows. Things like icon previews, expose, spaces, etc. The entire way the UI works at giving more screen space instead of crashing it into a window. Maybe that is why it's called windows. I honestly think I got what I payed for. And I honestly don't want to spend my life caring.
    • dacomputerfreak, on 12/20/2007, -1/+5My Hackintosh is a more wonderfully engineered product because I picked out the components and built it myself so it's only what I want. I wouldn't feel bad about wiping the entire hard drive and installing just Linux on it if I got pissed at Apple. I spent less, got more features, and my toys are just as enjoyable and problem free!
      • kronix2, on 12/20/2007, -1/+3Your hackintosh is running an illegally modified version of OSX, stripped of the DRM which ordinarily makes it impossible to install on non-Apple hardware.

        You're defending Apple by CIRCUMVENTING their draconian DRM and breaking their hardware monopoly...do you see something wrong with this? The fact that you need to violate the DMCA by running a hacked version of OSX should be evidence enough that Apple has already gone down the MS route.
        • dacomputerfreak, on 12/20/2007, -2/+1Thanks for the eye-opening revelation, kronix2. You know nothing about why some decide to try Mac on their PC's. I don't need Apple and never give it "real use". I refuse to "get it in the rear" by spending more and getting less for something I'll never give real use. My "Hackintosh" is a product of curiosity, just as I ran (legit) Windows Vista to evaluate/tinker with then replaced it with my OS of choice. OS X may stick around a bit longer than Vista did, but I run OS X about 0.5% of the time and eventually Linux will be the sole OS on it when I get bored of Mac completely (happening quickly). There's a big difference between using something regularly and finding value in it (should probably purchase it at that point) or tinkering with something without regular or needed use (no real use or value). I have good morals and have no problem spending money on something that is worthy of my dollar but an overpriced, underpowered Mac is not one of those things. I don't have "sucker" written on my forehead, Mr. Morality. Furthermore, the toys I refer to above are all legit and run mostly FOSS. You know, kronix2, not everyone is a dirty rotten thief... it's a shame that I had to spell it all out for you.
    • pirloui, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1I'm ready to bet a lot that you didn't pay for your copy of Mac OS X. Easy enough to do cheap when you steal.
      • dacomputerfreak, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1Why should I or anyone else pay for something that sees no actual use? If I used it, I'd buy it and that's the truth! Curiousity is not a good reason to blow money foolishly on a performance impotent Mac. If I wanted an overpriced Linux machine I'd buy a Dell.
    • unitedatheism, on 12/20/2007, -0/+3"Apple has shown how to control the production of both the hardware and the software AND do it in a way that doesn't harm the customer."
      Yeah, try to say that to an iBrick owner...
  • Kicksilver, on 12/20/2007, -5/+2Of course they're here to make money and satisfy their shareholders. But that's what companies do, fortunately!
    • kwr007, on 12/20/2007, -0/+0exactly its a business, they are supposed to make money. If they didn't then they wouldnt be in business.
  • T101, on 12/20/2007, -6/+10Owning an apple has always been kind of counter coulture, now they are the corperation that people like to believe they are not.
    • lust, on 12/20/2007, -3/+4Apple's customer satisfaction is one of the highest in comparison with other companies.
      They provide number of free products (i.e. itunes, quicktime)
      Apple continues to battle media companies to drive the cost of downloads down.

      With this in mind how are they not counter cultural.
      (SUGGESTION: Before you hit submit comment check your spelling first)
      • kronix2, on 12/20/2007, -0/+3iTunes and QuickTime are as free as Windows Media Player, Internet Explorer and the Windows Media platform.

        "Apple continues to battle media companies to drive the cost of downloads down."

        Do you have absolutely no ***** idea what Apple are up to? They charge Europeans and Aussies much more per download than Americans, despite the cost being the same.

        They're not counter-cultural. They're a business which relies on a cult following not realising that they're just another business.
        • dacomputerfreak, on 12/20/2007, -1/+1As far as I know, the download cost issue is out of their hands and not their decision to make. That issue is likely a music industry thing... I could be wrong but it would be worth researching.
        • lust, on 12/21/2007, -1/+1Are you taking currency exchange rates into consideration. The value of the US Dollar is down.
          • kronix2, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1Uh, yes. 99 cents is 50p, but they're sold for 79p here. That's $1.58 per track, for the same music.
      • dacomputerfreak, on 12/20/2007, -0/+2Quicktime is shareware, even on a brand new Mac. It's crippled until you spend more money to appease Steve. Depending on one's definition of "free", that may or may not qualify as a free product.
    • snugglebear, on 12/20/2007, -1/+5How is itunes and quicktime a bonus to have?

      They're a ***** plague to me. Monstorous bloated *****.
  • kHealy, on 12/20/2007, -3/+6On the ringtone subject doesn't it cost $1.99 on most phones for a ringtone. That doesn't even include the song and you don't get to choose what part you want. I hate to sound like Steve Jobs here but that is kinda retarded when people complain about the price. Plus you can make your own ringtones in garageband... That's what I do.
    • banmaster, on 12/20/2007, -1/+6You seem to be forgetting that you've probably already bought the song off iTunes anyway, but you have to pay an EXTRA $2 to use a small snippet of it as a ringtone??
      GTFO
    • ZenMojo, on 12/20/2007, -0/+4Not if I use shareware to create my own ringtones from the mp3 I bought usage rights to. Apple is literally preventing people from using music they bought the rights to. It's like someone buying a picture to hang on their wall and then flickr telling you, "Oh, by the way, you can only hang it in your bedroom because hanging it in your living room means someone might walk past and see it and you only paid to look at it in your home even though it's not limited to such in your license agreement."
      • kHealy, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1That makes sense to me now. That is a little twisted.
      • dacomputerfreak, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1Unfortunately, when one purchases music, they don't really purchase the "music", one purchases a license to the music, restrictions and all.
  • bingobongony, on 12/20/2007, -11/+24Becoming? They have never been any better than Microsoft. They have just been (and continue to be) less successful at it.
    • ElAssoWipo, on 12/20/2007, -0/+4I think they're worst.

      At least with Microsoft you can mostly use the stuff you buy any damn way you want it.

      Just the Ipod is a ***** pain. You need Itunes and you can't get it without quicktime which is basically apple's way to put commercials on your desktop. Then they keep pushing that god damned Itunes store, and you get all kinds of commercials in Itunes. Then quicktime configures itself to open on startup and you can't choose to not do this in the preferences, you have to remove it from the startup list manually in msconfig.

      Everything they make and sell works the same way. The Iphone is already overpriced, it's DRM protected and has exclusive service providers. So you can only use what you buy the way they want you to use it.

      Apple is one of the most aggressive companies I've ever heard of.
      • Vermifax, on 12/20/2007, -1/+1I was reading your comment and I had this hilarious visual of you being in a dark room all week with the curtains drawn. Then Steve Jobs comes in with one of those spray-horns you hear at NFL games and he throws the curtains wide open - letting the room fill with sunshine.

        You feel like you're violated and being intruded upon. I get that.
  • SOS84, on 12/20/2007, -12/+23"But if it decides to go the way of Microsoft, delivering crap..."

    I wonder if the author has actually reviewed any of Apple's products as of late? Apple TV anyone? How about any mouse they have produced in a decade or the fact that Leopard has as many bugs as Vista? How about comparing any IPod to a competitor from Creative? How about the MacBook, you know the portable computer that rolls off the same Asus line as two models from Dell and retails for two hundred dollars more, and you cannot even get a decent graphics adapter for.

    The fact of the matter is, Apple is and has been producing crop for a long time. Pretty much every company does it, but for some reason, nobody takes Apple to task for it.
    • zcreem, on 12/20/2007, -1/+5How dare you state facts, you will upset the customers, making them think and all that.
    • shadowpr0ph3t, on 12/20/2007, -1/+3OS X
    • dacomputerfreak, on 12/20/2007, -1/+1I need to check out some of that crop you speak of next time I find my way into an Apple store!
  • Rabbittt, on 12/20/2007, -8/+6Translation: Don't hate the corporations, hate the fanboys!
  • CatalystDM, on 12/20/2007, -6/+19When people say "it's gonna happen," you should really consider what would actually happen. First of all, Microsoft still has 9x% market share and that probably won't go down too much for a very long time. If you think they're going to become Microsoft in the area of iPods, OOPS, too late. They already have a monopolistic position there and they use Microsoft-like tactics to keep that position (i.e. locking people into iTunes with their pimping of AAC, making it so their ***** only syncs with their software, etc.). I honestly think maybe this article could have been written to more effect in 2003, when the iPod was just getting big. It's kind of absurd to say they're going to "turn into an evil empire" now though, when they already use the same sort of tactics. There's no turning into about it, they've already made that decision.

    That said, they've also done some very ambitious things Microsoft could never hope to do, like creating iTunes Plus, or essentially authorizing people to hack the Apple TV. Apple has shown that, though they may be an "evil empire," they at least have enough tact to not be the evil empire in bed with old media. Above all, that's just plain smart on their part, since it's very clear that old media companies (major record labels, TV networks, etc) are becoming more and more irrelevant as we move forward.

    Overall, this article really brings up nothing new. Apple has already made this choice, the only question is will they be able to break through to Windows users in the amount they would have to breakthrough to become the monopoly Microsoft once was in that market. My guess is no, but we'll see.
    • ZenMojo, on 12/20/2007, -4/+1And yet .wmv isn't usage restricted, nor is it format restricted. Actually, it was one of the earliest formats to open use while Apple was shoving AAC down our throats. Microsoft hasn't been all bad, and to be honest their greatest monopoly offense is closed source/open usage, which is far better than the travesty of the iPod.
      • geminitojanus, on 12/20/2007, -0/+6"Actually, it was one of the earliest formats to open use"
        ..you're kidding, right? You seem to have forgotten about H.120, H.261, MPEG-1, MPEG-2, more than half of MPEG-4, hell even Real beat Microsoft to the punch.

        AAC vs WMV is a stoner fight (hint: one's an audio codec, the other's a video codec).

        Their "greatest monopoly offense", the one they were convicted of, was abusing their monopoly to force Internet Explorer down the throats of everyone buying a copy of Windows, and they've had several other lesser convictions since dealing with bundling their OS with PCs.

        You've shown exactly what's wrong with Digg with your comment, thanks.
        • Chirp08, on 12/20/2007, -3/+3apple:aac::microsoft:wma

          there is no difference, microsoft just doesn't market wma + wmp + zune the way apple markets itunes + aac + ipod. Its the same ***** different name, different marketing.
    • skidooer, on 12/20/2007, -1/+1"Microsoft still has 9x% market share"

      Which market do you speak of? The entire computer market? Home computers? Laptops? Portable media devices? I've heard numbers saying Apple has at least 30% of the home computer market, but obviously has very little presence in the business world.
      • mdude85, on 12/20/2007, -0/+0People can manipulate numbers all day in order to prove a point. Any way you slice the cake, Microsoft has a much, much larger piece. I think the OP is speaking of the entire computer market including home users, laptops, PMPs, and enterprise (business) workstations.

        Either way I think 30% of the home computer market would be an overestimate, though I would not be surprised if Apple had 15-20% of the home laptop computer market, at least among college-age users.
      • CatalystDM, on 12/20/2007, -0/+2The entire computer market, including enterprise stuff. You'd be hard-pressed to find any sort of stat that says they have less than 90% share in the overall market.
    • snugglebear, on 12/20/2007, -1/+4Apple only authorized people to hack the appleTV because it was their only chance to sell the piece of *****.

      Look at their position on the iphone, brick time central.

      Don't you dare have the gall to say they were ambitious with the hacking of the apple tv.
      • CatalystDM, on 12/20/2007, -1/+1It's not gall, it's a fact. They were ambitious. There's plenty of reasons for them to not turn a blind eye to hacking the Apple TV. Do you honestly think content providers will want to put their stuff on the iTMS if they know they're competing with DivX downloads? And if they want to add rentals down the line, they'll need to clear that with content providers too. It has nothing to do with the merit of their product. Look at the way Microsoft is cracking down on people hacking the 360, even those without a Live Gold subscription. Of course media companies don't want people to hack these devices... they don't want to have to compete head to head with Bit Torrent, which is what they're now doing (regardless of whether or not the iTMS has their content, Bit Torrent is now in your living room, which means it's competing with cable/satellite too).
  • deformation, on 12/20/2007, -7/+10Everything but opensource (linux,bsd,solaris..etc) is evil. normal users should only pay for hardware.
    • banmaster, on 12/20/2007, -8/+4So people who put lots of hard work and time into software shouldn't be given a single dime?
      Let me guess, you're NOT a software developer are you!
      • Tweekster, on 12/20/2007, -4/+5let me know when you find one that puts a lot of hard work and time into software
      • deformation, on 12/20/2007, -3/+3"normal users should not bay for software" what part of that you did not understand? software developers still can make money "lots" from selling the software to corp, gov, and buisness track.
        • CatalystDM, on 12/20/2007, -1/+4What about devs who create apps targeted to the normal user? You're saying there's no case in which an app created for the normal user should be non-free? I don't know about that...
  • ZenMojo, on 12/20/2007, -8/+13Apple's practices are clearly monopolistic, from fighting the acquisition of its code for use on non-Apple desktops, to installing DRM on the iPod to block non-Apple audio formats, to locking out all but a limited number of third-party cell services for use on its iPhone. Think of it this way: If Microsoft did it, would I scream and cry? If the answer is yes, then Apple's just as evil, they just really suck at it.
    What happens when Apple gets better at it, though, that's the question to ask yourself. Apple has done nothing to hide its monopolistic practices, they just have a very vocal, very loyal user base constantly writing apologias on a daily basis to defend their activity.
    The funny thing is, the worst thing Microsoft has ever done in the world of monopolization is offering Windows and Microsoft apps at a discount to PC manufacturers and constantly rewriting its office suite code so it cannot be read by third-party competitors. In short, Windows has changed its software code and given it away.
    Apple has changed its hardware and software so that it is incompatible with competing software. So Apple creates a hardware format that doesn't read other software, software formats that don't read other software, and software formats that don't work on other hardware. To be blunt, Apple has created an Apple culture that is only compatible with Apple culture. In short, a monopoly far less damaging but far more fiercely defended than anything Microsoft has bothered. What's the surprise?
    • Tweekster, on 12/20/2007, -0/+3apple would be considered a vertically intergrated monopoly.
      • genericface, on 12/20/2007, -0/+2Tweekster is right, but with the caveat that monopoly != illegal. It's a matter of whether pricing is abused.
    • Chirp08, on 12/20/2007, -5/+3dont bring up the iphone, you do realize that at&t is the one locking out said services, not apple. any service that a 3rd party can provide cheaper than at&t means that at&t is losing potential money.

      saying apple is monopolistic is like saying the makers of the TomTom GPS system is a monopoly because they sell their hardware+software together in a closed format. that doesn't mean its a ***** monopoly you *****.
  • MBHockey, on 12/20/2007, -4/+7Seriously, how many times are we going to hear this _same_ story from a different "journalist"? I mean, really? Doesn't it get old?

    [insert emoticon of beating a dead horse here]
  • an0nym0uz, on 12/20/2007, -10/+4Apple has been worse than Microsoft. Don't get me wrong, Apple has nice stuff, but definitely overcharge big time and their products are way overrated anyway.
  • Flakor, on 12/20/2007, -10/+14The other day I told my friend (an Apple Fanboy) that I was getting a Zune, he told me "What? Thats stupid, its thick and ugly, the Zune store is crap, sharing music is worthless..."

    And I replied "Stupid? As stupid as buying every single model each year even though its basically the same thing over and over again? You guys were using iPods when they were 3X as thick and came in an EGG WHITE! You don't care what the difference is, all you think is that because you own the latest model iPod you are now suddenly above the rest of society. If Apple released a Pile of *****, painted it white, and slapped an Apple logo on it you'd still buy it. Why I want a Zune is because I don't have to buy a new model every year, instead I'll get updates!"

    And don't even get me started on the OS they have, yes its all smooth and cool looking, but for something that is designed for the "Casual" Computer crowd it sure is complicated.

    ***** iMovie
    • Chirp08, on 12/20/2007, -2/+4so what you are saying is you will never upgrade your zune?
    • soopafly, on 12/20/2007, -1/+2...and then...and then?!?!?
    • Flakor, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1and then the conversation ended

      and I laughed
  • MrTito, on 12/20/2007, -3/+7FTA: "Isn't it ironic that those players can do almost twice as much as the iPod and yet, we continue to buy the latter?"

    Uh, no. That's not ironic. That's just the market. I'm tired of this iPod = monopoly argument.
  • cptnspoon, on 12/20/2007, -2/+4Power corrupts...wow, what a newsflash.

    It's called human nature...I think it's been around for a while now.
  • geminitojanus, on 12/20/2007, -4/+20This is the most loaded, replayed, redundant topic posted to Digg, written and posted for no other reason to stir up as much flamebait as possible.

    This is the scum that's turning Digg into a pigsty. People in this article don't even attempt reasoning, they just instantly start into the "Fanboy" lolcats memetic *****.

    Slashdot would have never let an article like this see the light of day. Human beings are capable of realizing when something is utter crap and simply skipping it. Digg however, the automated robot farm it is, lets this crap spill over on the front page every ***** day. And it's pathetic.

    So buried for being yet another scummy article, ridiculously purposeless inflammatory summary and absolutely worthless discussion on the point.
    • an0nym0uz, on 12/20/2007, -5/+2now you sir are just taking this article way too seriously, you sound like you would die for Apple. lol
    • gudnbluts, on 12/20/2007, -3/+1So ... did you like it?
    • MikeFallopian, on 12/20/2007, -3/+1Wow, read the entire article before you get so outraged. FTA: "Apple is not in any way an evil empire and shouldn't even be thought of in that way. Further, Microsoft was never an evil empire, either." OMG FLAMEBAIT!!11!!1
    • celkin, on 12/20/2007, -2/+1So now you're invoking a Digg vs Slashdot flamewar?
    • ashmael, on 12/20/2007, -1/+1"Human beings are capable of realizing when something is utter crap and simply skipping it."

      I would say the vast number of Windows and Mac users invalidate that claim.
  • Vegabondsx, on 12/20/2007, -2/+4Business is Business. There are things that people hate Microsoft for and in turn like Apple and things that people hate Apple for and likewise like Microsoft. I don't think Apple will ever become a "Microsoft". Maybe they'll be big enough to compare, but like Microsoft the extra attention will bring extra light to their unfavorable business practices.

    I don't think one can call OS X a monopoly. Sure OS X can only run on Macs, but that has nothing to do with monopolistic behavior. That's Apple's business model, the whole package, Computer, OS, Software. Microsoft Licenses Windows. Also lets not forget that Apple at one point in time did do the same thing. MacOS used to be available for non-Mac machines. It didn't help them any. Steve even said to Molly Wood in a Q&A that they like their position as a more higher-end more prestigious computer provider rather then being something like DELL.

    Also to comment on cbreaker's comment I would say that PalmOS was a more earlier and better standard as it was available on cheaper devices, had better interoperability (only two types of processors and OS 5 is backwards compatible to 1.) This is debatable if this is still the case though since no new version of Palm OS has been implemented in the last six or so years.
  • demonsnake69, on 12/20/2007, -4/+11I wonder how long until the Apple Defense Force buries this as inaccurate.
  • PocketWatch, on 12/20/2007, -5/+7Buried for sensationalist headline...
  • rye0903, on 12/20/2007, -5/+7this is the reason why i stick with linux
  • SirBotchness, on 12/20/2007, -5/+4got 5 bux says he wrote this on a mac.
  • mdude85, on 12/20/2007, -4/+7It's too bad that Apple fanboys successfully squashed what should have been a very serious discussion about where Apple is headed as a company following the iPhone brick debacle or the scary market share Apple has with iPod. Not much has been said in response to the fact that Apple has almost as much portable music player market share with the iPod line as Microsoft does in the operating system market with Windows.

    Anyway, it's easy to see where Apple's product trends will shift. Anyone who is familiar with the "process of creative destruction" knows that as market share increases (usually toward monopolistic levels, but not always), innovation declines logarithmically. IOW, when Apple has less competition, you can be sure the quality of its products will fall. The only reason Apple is producing such great products is that it nowhere to go but up. Some would say it's difficult to innovate on a product with 90% market share other than to inject it with innovations borrowed from the other 10%.
    • Chirp08, on 12/20/2007, -6/+3the fanboys? I haven't seen an apple fanboy comment yet in this ***** of apple bashing. oh yeah, i forgot, disagreeing with this article makes you an apple fanboy, because its a known fact that apple is evil now. Things like awards for innovation and quality, along with amazing customer service and one of the best warranty programs out there = evil. yeah, my mistake, digg me down for thinking before i posted....
      • mdude85, on 12/20/2007, -0/+2Why are you being so defensive? Are you suggesting that I am a Windows fanboy because I am aware of trends companies make as they reach a monopolistic state? That's a ridiculous assumption. Did I not say in my post that Apple produces great products and that Windows borrows innovations from its competitors? OH! Perhaps in your blind anger you did not read past the first six words.

        Anyone who implies, as you seem to, that a company which makes great products now will always make great products as its market share grows and it shuts out competitors, needs to get his head checked. History tells us it's quite the opposite.
    • soopafly, on 12/20/2007, -4/+2it's always amazing to see how many non Apple users are jumping in these Apple articles and screaming "Fanbois!!! Fanbois!!!" and cry for 5 minutes.
      Welcome to Digg.
      • mdude85, on 12/20/2007, -0/+2Even the most aged Digg users like yourself make the mistake in assuming people like me use a Windows PC when actually I use a Mac and a PC (and often prefer the Mac depending on the project). It's kind of funny how, in an attempt to discredit my comment (which actually is true; perhaps you should read up a little bit about the economics of emergent technologies) your best defense is to "welcome" me to Digg (as if you attain some sort of wisdom after being addicted to this site for a certain period of time) and to proclaim me, in your infinite wisdom, a Windows fanboy!

        It's ironic that the ultimate fanboyism comes in the form of people suggesting that any sort of criticism must come from a fanboy. In the end you will realize that the best and most constructive criticism comes from the people who use the products the most.

        The Internet -- low on rationality but high on hilarity...
  • xtraa, on 12/20/2007, -1/+2Since Apple got so much success and increased its marketshare I have the feeling that the quality of their products is not as good as some years ago.

    If I compare a powerbook with a Macbook, the hardware of the Macbook seems to be much more sensible. Anyone else with slivered borders on a MB here?

  • bpapa, on 12/20/2007, -7/+3I think most people wouldn't be so concerned with MS being "evil" if they didn't already make ***** products.

    Apple makes awesome products and I love giving them my money for the stuff. If they rape and eat babies... oh well.
    • smek2, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1Clasic consumer whore thinking. And i bet you really believe it is your own, free will that makes you desire these "awesome products"
  • DeFex, on 12/20/2007, -3/+6disposable ipods.
    "its only supposed to last one year"
  • dieboldcracy, on 12/20/2007, -6/+3it's all about the goods. The day Apple starts making sub-par products is the day it becomes microsoft.
    • lochness, on 12/20/2007, -0/+2So 2005 it was then....
    • ubergeek09, on 12/23/2007, -0/+1Apple has made sub-par products for some time. Would a good product only last one year, like an iPod?
  • dgh1973, on 12/20/2007, -1/+4I like apple and apple products, let me just get that out of the way first...

    However, I have to think realistically that if Microsoft went away tomorrow and that meant pc vendors could no longer ship windows on their products I think their next course of action would be obvious - ship their pc's with Linux on them instead.

    The only thing that would change that is if Apple opened up OS X to run on pcs. If they don't do that, then they will forever be an "opt in" evil empire, which castrates their malignancy significantly.
    • smek2, on 12/20/2007, -0/+2"they will forever be an "opt in" evil empire, which castrates their malignancy significantly." -- some thought they will be forever PowerPC too. And besides, this "opt-in evil empire" has interesting psychological effects. It spawns fanboys of the worst kind.
  • Raian, on 12/20/2007, -5/+5Apple is the original tech-industry monopoly
  • infiniphunk, on 12/20/2007, -4/+4Buried for the "Now for the truth" crap at the end of the article. Reisinger goes on to talk naively about "evil empires" and how no such things exist. Perhaps he needs some history lessons that would show him how "evil empires" in the past have generally caused lots of bad *****; things that still are sensitive issues today. Comparing M$FT to a baseball team?? Naive. Thinking that we only hate big companies like AT&T and Apple because they make lots of money? Naive.
  • stumper, on 12/20/2007, -5/+10If the control freak running the company doesn't turn it into the most hated company in the world, it's retarded fanboys will...
  • nenitiko, on 12/20/2007, -1/+3I can see some awakening the whole Apple travesty
  • reticulate, on 12/20/2007, -3/+3The problem is that anytime you want to have a serious conversation about the things Apple does wrong, you get your testicles stomped by a posse of fantards.

    I especially love the bit how they hate being generalised, b