From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

On 2/23/26 4:07 PM, -hh wrote:

Windows is a monopoly but so is macOS, any proprietary OS is a
monopoly because it's impossible to 100% make a compatible system, >>>>>> Wine has done a good job of trying to do that, but it comes up
short inevitably because it will never keep the pace with M$
itself.-a GNU/ Linux, OTOH, is compatible with other Unix-like
systems.

Unfortunately, that isn't the definition of a monopoly.

Monopolies:

* Exclusive Control: company controls a good or service in a
specific market, typically with no close substitutes.

* Market Power (similar to "deep moat"): has significantly
influence market prices, & limiting competitor entry.

* Market Share:-a having very large share (often over 50%) is
generally considered to have monopoly power.

Of these, Windows comes the closest, but being a monopoly isn't
illegal in of itself: it is to exploit that monopoly power for
undue gain.

The first example fits Apple, though.-a Apple has created a closed
platform despite its dependence on the Unix core, where you
literally have to buy hardware they produce to use the software,
that is definitely a type of monopoly, because the fans are so
loathe to make any other choice.

Not so, because those customers can still choose Windows.-a Or Linux.
This is where the "close substitute" standard applies.

And yet the success of Apple, despite their price gouging, tells
another story.-a The Mac fans are not easily turned to another choice.
If anything, Apple continues to gain market share, in fact.-a They are
a small monopoly, but definitely a type of one.

The business term you're looking for is called "deep moat".

<https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/05/economicmoat.asp>

Note that one way that an enterprise creates a moat is through the legal patent process.

With software, the proprietary platforms are too unique, even
considering how abstractly similar they are to the other choices, to not
be considered a monopoly, but that doesn't necessarily mean they'd be
illegal, because at the end of the day, what would really matter is
whether Apple is exploiting their monopoly - in my view they are, price gouging specifically, but it's not egregious *enough* to warrant me
regulating them, it borders on that, but they've played the game
cleverly enough that I would just let the Mac fans get overcharged,
since at the end of the day it's their choice to be.

Look at automobiles for an example:-a GM can't manufacture a Mustang
because that IP is owned by Ford, but their Firebird/Camaro is a
close substitute.-a Likewise, Ford can't manufacture a Firebird/Camaro.

I would suggest that while there is a comparison to be made there, the
differences between the GM and Ford models are not nearly as great, as
between Winblows and macOS.

Will the alternator from a Mustang work as-is in a Firebird?

No, but it's kind of splitting hairs to worry about that degree of
comparison, in this context. The real issue would come with one
manufacturer exploiting their popularity by price gouging, which unlike
with Apple is highly improbable.

Windows not only has that definition in effect, but the one of
having majority of the market.

Not so for the first part, since if Apple is Ford, they're GM, so the
Mustang is their "close substitute" alternative.

Not really, because the reason people choose Winblows is the library
of software.-a It's what keeps it on top, percentage of users-wise.
macOS is only a viable alternative if one is satisfied with its apps.

So does using Imperial dimensions instead of Metric create a monopoly
which preferentially treats domestic automobiles over Japan/Europe?

That is not even remotely a valid comparison.

For the latter part of market majority, that's why I said that
Windows comes close.-a However, merely having majority marketshare in
of itself is not sufficient:-a it also needs to be demonstrated that
having that majority has given them significant pricing power leverage.

It's not quite an illegal monopoly, right.-a The issue when the feds
went after them was about bundling software, especially Internet
Explorer.

Which suffices.

The reason I would disagree is that M$ for all its faults had a point
with IE being an OS component, the thought was that they made it such as
a deliberate attempt to get browser market share, but there were
legitimate features to integrate with the OS, ultimately it didn't stop
anyone from installing another browser. However, to the extent they did tricks to make IE get set as default, they were bordering on the kind of monopolistic exploitation that would indicate regulating them, but they
were willing to back down from that.

If it were not for GNU and Linus Torvalds, there would literally be
no other choice that wasn't commercial. This is why...

Where do the standards have any commercial-vs-nonprofit requirement?

Not suggesting that, but just that Linux does give M$ and Apple a
little cover, because there is a fairly viable alternative that is
offered in a non-proprietary context.-a Otherwise, it'd be a duopoly
that would probably invite regulation, though this is of course not a
likely outcome, since there would logically be someone somewhere who'd
come up with what GNU/Linux ended up being.

That's probably more Google's Android/Chrome than it is Linux.

I disagree, mobile OSes aren't comparable to desktop OSes, nor is Chrome
OS a full desktop OS. I've always seen Chromebooks as an
appliance-grade PC, worth less than nothing to me, I wouldn't even buy
one for a 10 year-old if I had one in my family, I couldn't punish them
that way.
--
Joel W. Crump
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

On 2/23/26 2:30 PM, Joel W. Crump wrote:

On 2/23/26 4:07 PM, -hh wrote:

Windows is a monopoly but so is macOS, any proprietary OS is a
monopoly because it's impossible to 100% make a compatible
system, Wine has done a good job of trying to do that, but it
comes up short inevitably because it will never keep the pace
with M$ itself.-a GNU/ Linux, OTOH, is compatible with other Unix- >>>>>>> like systems.

Unfortunately, that isn't the definition of a monopoly.

Monopolies:

* Exclusive Control: company controls a good or service in a
specific market, typically with no close substitutes.

* Market Power (similar to "deep moat"): has significantly
influence market prices, & limiting competitor entry.

* Market Share:-a having very large share (often over 50%) is
generally considered to have monopoly power.

Of these, Windows comes the closest, but being a monopoly isn't
illegal in of itself: it is to exploit that monopoly power for
undue gain.

The first example fits Apple, though.-a Apple has created a closed
platform despite its dependence on the Unix core, where you
literally have to buy hardware they produce to use the software,
that is definitely a type of monopoly, because the fans are so
loathe to make any other choice.

Not so, because those customers can still choose Windows.-a Or Linux. >>>> This is where the "close substitute" standard applies.

And yet the success of Apple, despite their price gouging, tells
another story.-a The Mac fans are not easily turned to another choice.
If anything, Apple continues to gain market share, in fact.-a They are
a small monopoly, but definitely a type of one.

The business term you're looking for is called "deep moat".

<https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/05/economicmoat.asp>

Note that one way that an enterprise creates a moat is through the
legal patent process.

With software, the proprietary platforms are too unique, even
considering how abstractly similar they are to the other choices, to not
be considered a monopoly, but that doesn't necessarily mean they'd be illegal, because at the end of the day, what would really matter is
whether Apple is exploiting their monopoly - in my view they are, price gouging specifically, but it's not egregious *enough* to warrant me regulating them, it borders on that, but they've played the game
cleverly enough that I would just let the Mac fans get overcharged,
since at the end of the day it's their choice to be.

Look at automobiles for an example:-a GM can't manufacture a Mustang
because that IP is owned by Ford, but their Firebird/Camaro is a
close substitute.-a Likewise, Ford can't manufacture a Firebird/Camaro. >>>

I would suggest that while there is a comparison to be made there,
the differences between the GM and Ford models are not nearly as
great, as between Winblows and macOS.

Will the alternator from a Mustang work as-is in a Firebird?

No, but it's kind of splitting hairs to worry about that degree of comparison, in this context.-a The real issue would come with one manufacturer exploiting their popularity by price gouging, which unlike
with Apple is highly improbable.

Windows not only has that definition in effect, but the one of
having majority of the market.

Not so for the first part, since if Apple is Ford, they're GM, so
the Mustang is their "close substitute" alternative.

Not really, because the reason people choose Winblows is the library
of software.-a It's what keeps it on top, percentage of users-wise.
macOS is only a viable alternative if one is satisfied with its apps.

So does using Imperial dimensions instead of Metric create a monopoly
which preferentially treats domestic automobiles over Japan/Europe?

That is not even remotely a valid comparison.

For the latter part of market majority, that's why I said that
Windows comes close.-a However, merely having majority marketshare in >>>> of itself is not sufficient:-a it also needs to be demonstrated that
having that majority has given them significant pricing power leverage. >>>

It's not quite an illegal monopoly, right.-a The issue when the feds
went after them was about bundling software, especially Internet
Explorer.

Which suffices.

The reason I would disagree is that M$ for all its faults had a point
with IE being an OS component, the thought was that they made it such as
a deliberate attempt to get browser market share, but there were
legitimate features to integrate with the OS, ultimately it didn't stop anyone from installing another browser.-a However, to the extent they did tricks to make IE get set as default, they were bordering on the kind of monopolistic exploitation that would indicate regulating them, but they
were willing to back down from that.

If it were not for GNU and Linus Torvalds, there would literally be >>>>> no other choice that wasn't commercial. This is why...

Where do the standards have any commercial-vs-nonprofit requirement?

Not suggesting that, but just that Linux does give M$ and Apple a
little cover, because there is a fairly viable alternative that is
offered in a non-proprietary context.-a Otherwise, it'd be a duopoly
that would probably invite regulation, though this is of course not a
likely outcome, since there would logically be someone somewhere
who'd come up with what GNU/Linux ended up being.

That's probably more Google's Android/Chrome than it is Linux.

I disagree, mobile OSes aren't comparable to desktop OSes, nor is Chrome
OS a full desktop OS.-a I've always seen Chromebooks as an appliance-
grade PC, worth less than nothing to me, I wouldn't even buy one for a
10 year-old if I had one in my family, I couldn't punish them that way.

Nobody stopped any company from creating a tightly integrated phone,
computer and tablet ecosystem with operating systems taking advantage of
each devices unique features. So far Apple is the only company that has succeeded in the marketplace. Google is the closest behind. Linux is
nowhere close.
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 19:33:07 -0700, Tom Elam wrote:

Nobody stopped any company from creating a tightly integrated phone,
computer and tablet ecosystem with operating systems taking
advantage of each devices unique features. So far Apple is the only
company that has succeeded in the marketplace. Google is the closest
behind. Linux is nowhere close.

Google builds its platform on Linux.

Both Google and Apple have products in all three of the market
segments you mention, but Linux is also widely present elsewhere, even
if you count consumer-only products (e.g. the Steam Deck).

You claim ApplerCOs product line is rCLtightly integratedrCY, yet I
mentioned elsewhere the problems a user had doing something as
seemingly simple as moving raw-format photos from their Iphone to a
Macintosh.
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

On 2/23/26 16:30, Joel W. Crump wrote:

On 2/23/26 4:07 PM, -hh wrote:

Windows is a monopoly but so is macOS, any proprietary OS is a
monopoly because it's impossible to 100% make a compatible
system, Wine has done a good job of trying to do that, but it
comes up short inevitably because it will never keep the pace
with M$ itself.-a GNU/ Linux, OTOH, is compatible with other Unix- >>>>>>> like systems.

Unfortunately, that isn't the definition of a monopoly.

Monopolies:

* Exclusive Control: company controls a good or service in a
specific market, typically with no close substitutes.

* Market Power (similar to "deep moat"): has significantly
influence market prices, & limiting competitor entry.

* Market Share:-a having very large share (often over 50%) is
generally considered to have monopoly power.

Of these, Windows comes the closest, but being a monopoly isn't
illegal in of itself: it is to exploit that monopoly power for
undue gain.

The first example fits Apple, though.-a Apple has created a closed
platform despite its dependence on the Unix core, where you
literally have to buy hardware they produce to use the software,
that is definitely a type of monopoly, because the fans are so
loathe to make any other choice.

Not so, because those customers can still choose Windows.-a Or Linux. >>>> This is where the "close substitute" standard applies.

And yet the success of Apple, despite their price gouging, tells
another story.-a The Mac fans are not easily turned to another choice.
If anything, Apple continues to gain market share, in fact.-a They are
a small monopoly, but definitely a type of one.

The business term you're looking for is called "deep moat".

<https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/05/economicmoat.asp>

Note that one way that an enterprise creates a moat is through the
legal patent process.

With software, the proprietary platforms are too unique, even
considering how abstractly similar they are to the other choices, to not
be considered a monopoly, but that doesn't necessarily mean they'd be illegal, because at the end of the day, what would really matter is
whether Apple is exploiting their monopoly - in my view they are, price gouging specifically, but it's not egregious *enough* to warrant me regulating them, it borders on that, but they've played the game
cleverly enough that I would just let the Mac fans get overcharged,
since at the end of the day it's their choice to be.

Seems like your opinion is "everything is always a monopoly".

Problem with that for software is that even though the computer
platforms are unique, they still have hundreds(+) of software companies writing Apps for those platforms, often supporting multiple "unique"
operating systems - - one example being Adobe (Acrobat, Photoshop, etc).

Look at automobiles for an example:-a GM can't manufacture a Mustang
because that IP is owned by Ford, but their Firebird/Camaro is a
close substitute.-a Likewise, Ford can't manufacture a Firebird/Camaro. >>>

I would suggest that while there is a comparison to be made there,
the differences between the GM and Ford models are not nearly as
great, as between Winblows and macOS.

Will the alternator from a Mustang work as-is in a Firebird?

No, but it's kind of splitting hairs to worry about that degree of comparison, in this context.

Not at all: just like software, the "wrong alternator" can't just be installed and run on their competitor's product.

The real issue would come with one manufacturer exploiting their
popularity by price gouging, which unlike with Apple is highly improbable.

You're way too focused on cost & your perception of what you claim is
price gouging. Costs versus production scale are quite nonlinear at
both ends: a asymptotic (to variable costs) limit at the high end, and
a very steep hook up (fixed costs divided by zero) at the low end.

FWIW, your position sounds much more like personal envy, than actually
being a compelling principled argument on illegal monopoly power.

Windows not only has that definition in effect, but the one of
having majority of the market.

Not so for the first part, since if Apple is Ford, they're GM, so
the Mustang is their "close substitute" alternative.

Not really, because the reason people choose Winblows is the library
of software.-a It's what keeps it on top, percentage of users-wise.
macOS is only a viable alternative if one is satisfied with its apps.

So does using Imperial dimensions instead of Metric create a monopoly
which preferentially treats domestic automobiles over Japan/Europe?

That is not even remotely a valid comparison.

Then set aside the automotive analogy and use something else.

For example, the history of PC interfaces, for who used what when and
which ones became successful in the marketplace: ST-506, ST-412, ESDI,
SCSI, IEEE-488, IDE/ATA, Ultra ATA, SATA-I, II, III, SAS, NVMe, M.2,
PCI/e/-H, etc.

The broad history is technological improvements which were expensive.
Some died out, but some succeeded to become a more broad industry
standard, with growth in volumes allowing for reduced unit costs, and backwards-compatible incremental improvements.

For the latter part of market majority, that's why I said that
Windows comes close.-a However, merely having majority marketshare in >>>> of itself is not sufficient:-a it also needs to be demonstrated that
having that majority has given them significant pricing power leverage. >>>

It's not quite an illegal monopoly, right.-a The issue when the feds
went after them was about bundling software, especially Internet
Explorer.

Which suffices.

The reason I would disagree is that M$ for all its faults had a point
with IE being an OS component, the thought was that they made it such as
a deliberate attempt to get browser market share, but there were
legitimate features to integrate with the OS, ultimately it didn't stop anyone from installing another browser.-a However, to the extent they did tricks to make IE get set as default, they were bordering on the kind of monopolistic exploitation that would indicate regulating them, but they
were willing to back down from that.

Willing to back down = because it was illegal use of monopoly power.

If it were not for GNU and Linus Torvalds, there would literally be >>>>> no other choice that wasn't commercial. This is why...

Where do the standards have any commercial-vs-nonprofit requirement?

Not suggesting that, but just that Linux does give M$ and Apple a
little cover, because there is a fairly viable alternative that is
offered in a non-proprietary context.-a Otherwise, it'd be a duopoly
that would probably invite regulation, though this is of course not a
likely outcome, since there would logically be someone somewhere
who'd come up with what GNU/Linux ended up being.

That's probably more Google's Android/Chrome than it is Linux.

I disagree, mobile OSes aren't comparable to desktop OSes, nor is Chrome
OS a full desktop OS.-a I've always seen Chromebooks as an appliance-
grade PC, worth less than nothing to me, I wouldn't even buy one for a
10 year-old if I had one in my family, I couldn't punish them that way.

No, for it goes back to the "close substitutes" standard: each time
that someone checks their email on a smartphone, or browses the web or whatever .. is proof that those devices are substitutes for a desktop.


-hh

--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

On 2/24/2026 6:55 AM, -hh wrote:

Windows is a monopoly but so is macOS, any proprietary OS is a >>>>>>>> monopoly because it's impossible to 100% make a compatible
system, Wine has done a good job of trying to do that, but it >>>>>>>> comes up short inevitably because it will never keep the pace >>>>>>>> with M$ itself.-a GNU/ Linux, OTOH, is compatible with other
Unix- like systems.

Unfortunately, that isn't the definition of a monopoly.

Monopolies:

* Exclusive Control: company controls a good or service in a
specific market, typically with no close substitutes.

* Market Power (similar to "deep moat"): has significantly
influence market prices, & limiting competitor entry.

* Market Share:-a having very large share (often over 50%) is
generally considered to have monopoly power.

Of these, Windows comes the closest, but being a monopoly isn't >>>>>>> illegal in of itself: it is to exploit that monopoly power for
undue gain.

The first example fits Apple, though.-a Apple has created a closed >>>>>> platform despite its dependence on the Unix core, where you
literally have to buy hardware they produce to use the software,
that is definitely a type of monopoly, because the fans are so
loathe to make any other choice.

Not so, because those customers can still choose Windows.-a Or
Linux. This is where the "close substitute" standard applies.

And yet the success of Apple, despite their price gouging, tells
another story.-a The Mac fans are not easily turned to another
choice. If anything, Apple continues to gain market share, in fact.
They are a small monopoly, but definitely a type of one.

The business term you're looking for is called "deep moat".

<https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/05/economicmoat.asp>

Note that one way that an enterprise creates a moat is through the
legal patent process.

With software, the proprietary platforms are too unique, even
considering how abstractly similar they are to the other choices, to
not be considered a monopoly, but that doesn't necessarily mean they'd
be illegal, because at the end of the day, what would really matter is
whether Apple is exploiting their monopoly - in my view they are,
price gouging specifically, but it's not egregious *enough* to warrant
me regulating them, it borders on that, but they've played the game
cleverly enough that I would just let the Mac fans get overcharged,
since at the end of the day it's their choice to be.

Seems like your opinion is "everything is always a monopoly".

Because it's such an essential part of modern life, yes. The personal computer/smartphone is huge.

Problem with that for software is that even though the computer
platforms are unique, they still have hundreds(+) of software companies writing Apps for those platforms, often supporting multiple "unique" operating systems - - one example being Adobe (Acrobat, Photoshop, etc).

Indeed, the monopoly isn't on the entirety of a functioning system, but
on the access to the hardware and basic software.

The real issue would come with one manufacturer exploiting their
popularity by price gouging, which unlike with Apple is highly
improbable.

You're way too focused on cost & your perception of what you claim is
price gouging.-a Costs versus production scale are quite nonlinear at
both ends:-a a asymptotic (to variable costs) limit at the high end, and
a very steep hook up (fixed costs divided by zero) at the low end.

FWIW, your position sounds much more like personal envy, than actually
being a compelling principled argument on illegal monopoly power.

I understand the logic of the $200 for half of a 512 GB SSD, that you're paying for more than just the part itself, you're paying for having a
Mac with big storage. But it is gouging, objectively, my entire
computer was under $200 and has 512 GB. It's a steep upgrade price,
that many people would need to choose. The 256 GB model is offered just
to have a phony base cost, that few people would actually settle for.

For the latter part of market majority, that's why I said that
Windows comes close.-a However, merely having majority marketshare
in of itself is not sufficient:-a it also needs to be demonstrated
that having that majority has given them significant pricing power
leverage.

It's not quite an illegal monopoly, right.-a The issue when the feds
went after them was about bundling software, especially Internet
Explorer.

Which suffices.

The reason I would disagree is that M$ for all its faults had a point
with IE being an OS component, the thought was that they made it such
as a deliberate attempt to get browser market share, but there were
legitimate features to integrate with the OS, ultimately it didn't
stop anyone from installing another browser.-a However, to the extent
they did tricks to make IE get set as default, they were bordering on
the kind of monopolistic exploitation that would indicate regulating
them, but they were willing to back down from that.

Willing to back down = because it was illegal use of monopoly power.

I know, but it was trivial to correct, ultimately.

If it were not for GNU and Linus Torvalds, there would literally
be no other choice that wasn't commercial. This is why...

Where do the standards have any commercial-vs-nonprofit requirement?

Not suggesting that, but just that Linux does give M$ and Apple a
little cover, because there is a fairly viable alternative that is
offered in a non-proprietary context.-a Otherwise, it'd be a duopoly
that would probably invite regulation, though this is of course not
a likely outcome, since there would logically be someone somewhere
who'd come up with what GNU/Linux ended up being.

That's probably more Google's Android/Chrome than it is Linux.

I disagree, mobile OSes aren't comparable to desktop OSes, nor is
Chrome OS a full desktop OS.-a I've always seen Chromebooks as an
appliance- grade PC, worth less than nothing to me, I wouldn't even
buy one for a 10 year-old if I had one in my family, I couldn't punish
them that way.

No, for it goes back to the "close substitutes" standard:-a each time
that someone checks their email on a smartphone, or browses the web or whatever .. is proof that those devices are substitutes for a desktop.

A smartphone is close to being a PC in what it can do, but not in how
the operating system functions relative to the apps. That's a
substantial difference.
--
Joel W. Crump
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

On 2/23/26 7:46 PM, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:

On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 19:33:07 -0700, Tom Elam wrote:

Nobody stopped any company from creating a tightly integrated phone,
computer and tablet ecosystem with operating systems taking
advantage of each devices unique features. So far Apple is the only
company that has succeeded in the marketplace. Google is the closest
behind. Linux is nowhere close.

Google builds its platform on Linux.

Both Google and Apple have products in all three of the market
segments you mention, but Linux is also widely present elsewhere, even
if you count consumer-only products (e.g. the Steam Deck).

You claim ApplerCOs product line is rCLtightly integratedrCY, yet I
mentioned elsewhere the problems a user had doing something as
seemingly simple as moving raw-format photos from their Iphone to a Macintosh.

Never said the word "perfectly".
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

On 2/24/26 07:44, Joel W. Crump wrote:

On 2/24/2026 6:55 AM, -hh wrote:

Windows is a monopoly but so is macOS, any proprietary OS is a >>>>>>>>> monopoly because it's impossible to 100% make a compatible
system, Wine has done a good job of trying to do that, but it >>>>>>>>> comes up short inevitably because it will never keep the pace >>>>>>>>> with M$ itself.-a GNU/ Linux, OTOH, is compatible with other >>>>>>>>> Unix- like systems.

Unfortunately, that isn't the definition of a monopoly.

Monopolies:

* Exclusive Control: company controls a good or service in a
specific market, typically with no close substitutes.

* Market Power (similar to "deep moat"): has significantly
influence market prices, & limiting competitor entry.

* Market Share:-a having very large share (often over 50%) is >>>>>>>> generally considered to have monopoly power.

Of these, Windows comes the closest, but being a monopoly isn't >>>>>>>> illegal in of itself: it is to exploit that monopoly power for >>>>>>>> undue gain.

The first example fits Apple, though.-a Apple has created a closed >>>>>>> platform despite its dependence on the Unix core, where you
literally have to buy hardware they produce to use the software, >>>>>>> that is definitely a type of monopoly, because the fans are so
loathe to make any other choice.

Not so, because those customers can still choose Windows.-a Or
Linux. This is where the "close substitute" standard applies.

And yet the success of Apple, despite their price gouging, tells
another story.-a The Mac fans are not easily turned to another
choice. If anything, Apple continues to gain market share, in fact. >>>>> They are a small monopoly, but definitely a type of one.

The business term you're looking for is called "deep moat".

<https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/05/economicmoat.asp>

Note that one way that an enterprise creates a moat is through the
legal patent process.

With software, the proprietary platforms are too unique, even
considering how abstractly similar they are to the other choices, to
not be considered a monopoly, but that doesn't necessarily mean
they'd be illegal, because at the end of the day, what would really
matter is whether Apple is exploiting their monopoly - in my view
they are, price gouging specifically, but it's not egregious *enough*
to warrant me regulating them, it borders on that, but they've played
the game cleverly enough that I would just let the Mac fans get
overcharged, since at the end of the day it's their choice to be.

Seems like your opinion is "everything is always a monopoly".

Because it's such an essential part of modern life, yes.-a The personal computer/smartphone is huge.

To which there are multiple competing products/ecosystems, thus, not any illegal use of monopoly power, even if the latter exists.

Problem with that for software is that even though the computer
platforms are unique, they still have hundreds(+) of software
companies writing Apps for those platforms, often supporting multiple
"unique" operating systems - - one example being Adobe (Acrobat,
Photoshop, etc).

Indeed, the monopoly isn't on the entirety of a functioning system,
but on the access to the hardware and basic software.

You're stretching to force it to suit your personal opinion.

The real issue would come with one manufacturer exploiting their
popularity by price gouging, which unlike with Apple is highly
improbable.

You're way too focused on cost & your perception of what you claim is
price gouging.-a Costs versus production scale are quite nonlinear at
both ends:-a a asymptotic (to variable costs) limit at the high end,
and a very steep hook up (fixed costs divided by zero) at the low end.

FWIW, your position sounds much more like personal envy, than actually
being a compelling principled argument on illegal monopoly power.

I understand the logic of the $200 for half of a 512 GB SSD, that you're paying for more than just the part itself, you're paying for having a
Mac with big storage.-a But it is gouging, objectively, my entire
computer was under $200 and has 512 GB.-a It's a steep upgrade price,
that many people would need to choose.

No you don't understand the logic.

For example, when a HVAC blower motor on Automobile A is $100, when
Automobile B's cost is $300, do you hold the same opinion that B's
higher price can only be due to B's price gouging?

The 256 GB model is offered just to have a phony base cost,
that few people would actually settle for.

When did "starting at" prices become unique to just this one company?
Haven't you noticed prices which end in ".99" for decades?

For the latter part of market majority, that's why I said that
Windows comes close.-a However, merely having majority marketshare >>>>>> in of itself is not sufficient:-a it also needs to be demonstrated >>>>>> that having that majority has given them significant pricing power >>>>>> leverage.

It's not quite an illegal monopoly, right.-a The issue when the feds >>>>> went after them was about bundling software, especially Internet
Explorer.

Which suffices.

The reason I would disagree is that M$ for all its faults had a point
with IE being an OS component, the thought was that they made it such
as a deliberate attempt to get browser market share, but there were
legitimate features to integrate with the OS, ultimately it didn't
stop anyone from installing another browser.-a However, to the extent
they did tricks to make IE get set as default, they were bordering on
the kind of monopolistic exploitation that would indicate regulating
them, but they were willing to back down from that.

Willing to back down = because it was illegal use of monopoly power.

I know, but it was trivial to correct, ultimately.

Because that illustrates that the "necessity" of integration with the OS wasn't as profoundly deep as MS had tried to claim. Now looking back
with years of retrospect, it is even more clearly so.

If it were not for GNU and Linus Torvalds, there would literally >>>>>>> be no other choice that wasn't commercial. This is why...

Where do the standards have any commercial-vs-nonprofit requirement? >>>>>

Not suggesting that, but just that Linux does give M$ and Apple a
little cover, because there is a fairly viable alternative that is
offered in a non-proprietary context.-a Otherwise, it'd be a duopoly >>>>> that would probably invite regulation, though this is of course not >>>>> a likely outcome, since there would logically be someone somewhere
who'd come up with what GNU/Linux ended up being.

That's probably more Google's Android/Chrome than it is Linux.

I disagree, mobile OSes aren't comparable to desktop OSes, nor is
Chrome OS a full desktop OS.-a I've always seen Chromebooks as an
appliance- grade PC, worth less than nothing to me, I wouldn't even
buy one for a 10 year-old if I had one in my family, I couldn't
punish them that way.

No, for it goes back to the "close substitutes" standard:-a each time
that someone checks their email on a smartphone, or browses the web or
whatever .. is proof that those devices are substitutes for a desktop.

A smartphone is close to being a PC in what it can do, but not in how
the operating system functions relative to the apps.-a That's a
substantial difference.

Its different for pedantic techhies, but not for users, as they're focus
is on completing tasks. So it is "check email" without concern for how
it technically gets executed behind the UI.


-hh

--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 07:24:51 -0700, Tom Elam wrote:

On 2/23/26 7:46 PM, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:

You claim ApplerCOs product line is rCLtightly integratedrCY, yet I
mentioned elsewhere the problems a user had doing something as
seemingly simple as moving raw-format photos from their Iphone to a
Macintosh.

Never said the word "perfectly".

Maybe take out the word rCLtightlyrCY as well?

I can remember, back when my mum had an Ipod, the only way to transfer
music from the device back to a PC was to use Linux. ApplerCOs Itunes
could only do the transfer one way, in the opposite direction.

Has that been fixed yet?
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

On 2/24/26 15:31, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:

On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 07:24:51 -0700, Tom Elam wrote:

On 2/23/26 7:46 PM, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:

You claim ApplerCOs product line is rCLtightly integratedrCY, yet I
mentioned elsewhere the problems a user had doing something as
seemingly simple as moving raw-format photos from their Iphone to a
Macintosh.

Never said the word "perfectly".

Maybe take out the word rCLtightlyrCY as well?

I can remember, back when my mum had an Ipod, the only way to transfer
music from the device back to a PC was to use Linux. ApplerCOs Itunes
could only do the transfer one way, in the opposite direction.

Has that been fixed yet?

Just how was she able to get a song onto an iPod in the first place,
without it originating from her PC?

Because iPods never had WiFi or Bluetooth: their inputs were limited to
the 30-pin cable interface. It wasn't until the iPod's replacement, the
2007 iPod Touch, that there was WiFi, for which one could notionally
purchase & download songs via iTunes - but these were linked to your
iTunes account, so it would synch onto your PC with the iTunes account.

-hh
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 20:31:06 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:

I can remember, back when my mum had an Ipod, the only way to transfer
music from the device back to a PC was to use Linux. ApplerCOs Itunes
could only do the transfer one way, in the opposite direction.

For kicks I plugged my iPod Shuffle into the Ubuntu box. It comes up with 'Contains music' and a button for RythmBox. I can play the songs and there
is an option to copy or delete but I can't copy to it.

My boss handed them out at Christmas one year and the only way I could get music onto it was the iTunes app on Windows. What a piece of crap that
was.
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 16:29:29 -0500, -hh wrote:

Because iPods never had WiFi or Bluetooth: their inputs were limited to
the 30-pin cable interface. It wasn't until the iPod's replacement, the
2007 iPod Touch, that there was WiFi, for which one could notionally
purchase & download songs via iTunes - but these were linked to your
iTunes account, so it would synch onto your PC with the iTunes account.

The Shuffle only has an all purpose 3.5mm jack. To load it I had to
install the iTunes app on Windows since there isn't a Linux version. Even
then I had to import the existing mp3s into the iTunes directory,
duplicating them, before I could load them.

It was a handy little player but compared to the usual mp3 player that
comes up as a normal mass storage device it was a PITA.
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 20:31:06 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:

On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 07:24:51 -0700, Tom Elam wrote:

On 2/23/26 7:46 PM, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:

You claim ApplerCOs product line is rCLtightly integratedrCY, yet I
mentioned elsewhere the problems a user had doing something as
seemingly simple as moving raw-format photos from their Iphone to a
Macintosh.

Never said the word "perfectly".

Maybe take out the word rCLtightlyrCY as well?

I can remember, back when my mum had an Ipod, the only way to transfer
music from the device back to a PC was to use Linux. ApplerCOs Itunes
could only do the transfer one way, in the opposite direction.

Has that been fixed yet?

You could get the songs back from the iPod, but you needed special
software to do it. Yes, even at the time, Apple was warning us that they
had no interest in giving users any kind of control over their own
hardware.
--
CrudeSausage
John 14:6
Isaiah 48:16
Pop_OS!
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

On 3/2/2026 5:20 PM, RonB wrote:

On 2026-03-02, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

On 2026-02-27 16:01, RonB wrote:

On 2026-02-27, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

On 2026-02-27 04:48, Joel W. Crump wrote:

The upgrade to 512 GB [...] only changes the *size* of the *SSD*.
You're still paying>>>>> for the original SSD that you no longer

get!-a It's gouging, you are

defending that, because you are a fanboy beyond belief.

The product is valued AS a whole.

To you, maybe. To me Apple overprices the parts *in* the computer.

OK... ...and so what?

Others look at the total price of the PRODUCT and decide whether it has
sufficient value at that price.

I understand. It's a choice they make. Doesn't change the fact that Apple is price gouging though.

The claim that the 512 GB drive is more advanced than the 256 GB one is
merely reflecting its larger-sized nature. It doesn't explain $200 more
in overall device price. Alan is clearly defending price gouging.
--
Joel W. Crump
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

On 2026-03-02, Joel W. Crump <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:

On 3/2/2026 5:20 PM, RonB wrote:

On 2026-03-02, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

On 2026-02-27 16:01, RonB wrote:

On 2026-02-27, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

On 2026-02-27 04:48, Joel W. Crump wrote:

The upgrade to 512 GB [...] only changes the *size* of the *SSD*.
You're still paying>>>>> for the original SSD that you no longer get!-a It's gouging, you are
defending that, because you are a fanboy beyond belief.

The product is valued AS a whole.

To you, maybe. To me Apple overprices the parts *in* the computer.

OK... ...and so what?

Others look at the total price of the PRODUCT and decide whether it has
sufficient value at that price.

I understand. It's a choice they make. Doesn't change the fact that Apple is >> price gouging though.

The claim that the 512 GB drive is more advanced than the 256 GB one is merely reflecting its larger-sized nature. It doesn't explain $200 more
in overall device price. Alan is clearly defending price gouging.

Apple's marketing strategy is brilliant and actually studied in University
as a model of success.

They depend upon creating unique, no matter how small, products and developing brand loyalty that some consumers are willing to pay for.
Part of this is relying on emotions to entice potential consumers to
purchase their products.

You will hear Apple aficionados mention "overall value for the money" constantly and for good reason because Apple's market strategy includes
pushing the value of an entire ecosystem ie:the walled garden as an
advantage to buying into their products.

Apple's support structure is also A+++ and a benchmark for other competitors
to strive for.
they literally bend over backwards to have a happy customer.

At the various price points Apple is not going to attract the consumer
looking for the lowest priced computer that will connect to the net
and do the basics anymore than Jaguar is going to attract buyers who are extreme hagglers.
It's a similar market strategy.

Personally looking back at all Apple has been the first to come out with
as far as new types of technology and devices, for example the iPod,
I give them a lot of credit.

As long as you have the cash and don't mind the Apple walled garden and of course the applications you require are available for Apple, I see it
as a good choice simply for the overall ecosystem.
Personally speaking, I'm old school and prefer control over my computer
and devices.
But that's me and people like me are sadly a dying off breed.
--

pothead

"How many liberals does it take to change a light bulb?
None, theyrCOre too busy changing their gender."

"WhatrCOs the hardest part about being a Liberal?
Telling your gender neutral parental units that yourCOre straight."
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

On 2026-03-02 14:29, Joel W. Crump wrote:

On 3/2/2026 5:20 PM, RonB wrote:

On 2026-03-02, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

On 2026-02-27 16:01, RonB wrote:

On 2026-02-27, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

On 2026-02-27 04:48, Joel W. Crump wrote:

The upgrade to 512 GB [...] only changes the *size* of the *SSD*.
You're still paying>>>>> for the original SSD that you no longer get!-a It's gouging, you are
defending that, because you are a fanboy beyond belief.

The product is valued AS a whole.

To you, maybe. To me Apple overprices the parts *in* the computer.

OK... ...and so what?

Others look at the total price of the PRODUCT and decide whether it has
sufficient value at that price.

I understand. It's a choice they make. Doesn't change the fact that
Apple is
price gouging though.

The claim that the 512 GB drive is more advanced than the 256 GB one is merely reflecting its larger-sized nature.

Literally no one has made that claim.

It doesn't explain $200 more
in overall device price.-a Alan is clearly defending price gouging.

Nope.

I'm defending the right of a BUSINESS to set prices that it thinks will
make it the most PROFIT.

No business sells you a computer for just the cost of the components;
not even the cost of the components plus the cost of assembly.

EVERY company marks up those costs to make a PROFIT.

Does Apple mark up some components more?

Yes.

Does that make it "gouging"?

No.
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

On 3/2/2026 9:19 PM, Alan wrote:

On 2026-03-02 14:29, Joel W. Crump wrote:

On 3/2/2026 5:20 PM, RonB wrote:

On 2026-03-02, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

On 2026-02-27 16:01, RonB wrote:

On 2026-02-27, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

On 2026-02-27 04:48, Joel W. Crump wrote:

The upgrade to 512 GB [...] only changes the *size* of the *SSD*.

You're still paying>>>>> for the original SSD that you no

longer get!-a It's gouging, you are

defending that, because you are a fanboy beyond belief.

The product is valued AS a whole.

To you, maybe. To me Apple overprices the parts *in* the computer.

OK... ...and so what?

Others look at the total price of the PRODUCT and decide whether it has >>>> sufficient value at that price.

I understand. It's a choice they make. Doesn't change the fact that
Apple is
price gouging though.

The claim that the 512 GB drive is more advanced than the 256 GB one
is merely reflecting its larger-sized nature.

Literally no one has made that claim.

It was asserted that the 512 GB has two banks of memory cells, making it
not just twice the size of the basic model's SSD, but having an advanced interface. However, since $200 is the price to replace the 256 GB
drive, that makes the total amount out of the $800 price *more than*
$200. There exists no 512 GB SSD worth that much.

It doesn't explain $200 more in overall device price.-a Alan is clearly
defending price gouging.

Nope.

I'm defending the right of a BUSINESS to set prices that it thinks will
make it the most PROFIT.

No business sells you a computer for just the cost of the components;
not even the cost of the components plus the cost of assembly.

EVERY company marks up those costs to make a PROFIT.

Does Apple mark up some components more?

Yes.

Does that make it "gouging"?

No.

Then switch to Windows, you clearly don't value macOS enough to put up
with the crap software for it.
--
Joel W. Crump
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

On 2026-03-02 19:36, Joel W. Crump wrote:

On 3/2/2026 9:19 PM, Alan wrote:

On 2026-03-02 14:29, Joel W. Crump wrote:

On 3/2/2026 5:20 PM, RonB wrote:

On 2026-03-02, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

On 2026-02-27 16:01, RonB wrote:

On 2026-02-27, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

On 2026-02-27 04:48, Joel W. Crump wrote:

The upgrade to 512 GB [...] only changes the *size* of the *SSD*.

You're still paying>>>>> for the original SSD that you no

longer get!-a It's gouging, you are

defending that, because you are a fanboy beyond belief.

The product is valued AS a whole.

To you, maybe. To me Apple overprices the parts *in* the computer.

OK... ...and so what?

Others look at the total price of the PRODUCT and decide whether it >>>>> has
sufficient value at that price.

I understand. It's a choice they make. Doesn't change the fact that
Apple is
price gouging though.

The claim that the 512 GB drive is more advanced than the 256 GB one
is merely reflecting its larger-sized nature.

Literally no one has made that claim.

It was asserted that the 512 GB has two banks of memory cells, making it
not just twice the size of the basic model's SSD, but having an advanced interface.-a However, since $200 is the price to replace the 256 GB
drive, that makes the total amount out of the $800 price *more than*
$200.-a There exists no 512 GB SSD worth that much.

That's some fine bullshit math there...

It doesn't explain $200 more in overall device price.-a Alan is
clearly defending price gouging.

Nope.

I'm defending the right of a BUSINESS to set prices that it thinks
will make it the most PROFIT.

No business sells you a computer for just the cost of the components;
not even the cost of the components plus the cost of assembly.

EVERY company marks up those costs to make a PROFIT.

Does Apple mark up some components more?

Yes.

Does that make it "gouging"?

No.

Then switch to Windows, you clearly don't value macOS enough to put up
with the crap software for it.

You've yet to give a single example of anything that you think is
supposedly "crapware"...

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2