[Am-info] New Apple store near Beantown

[Erick Andrews]

On Fri, 14 Dec 2001 14:28:12 +0000, John Poltorak wrote:

>On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 09:04:35AM -0500, Erick Andrews wrote:
>> It's nice to see even a little more competition to M$ even though
>> very small.   Actually, this new retail store is not near any Microsoft
>> facilities, here in the People Republic of Cambridge, but I know that
>> it is right across the street from Lotus' headquarters.
>> 
>> For all you Mac folks, here's the item...
>
>
>I hate to see people perpetuating this myth... Apple is not a Microsoft 
>competitor. Apple is a hardware company. To suggest that Apple is a 
>competitor dilutes the case that Microsoft has a 100% monopoly on the 
>desktop, and you get stupid commentators saying that you are not forced to  
>use Windows 'cos you can always buy a Mac'. Until MacOS runs on Intel it  
>cannot be described as something which provides any real choice to using 
>Windows. 

Macintosh does not run a "Windows" operating system, so I don't understand 
your point, legally, in your last sentence above.  I'm sure you know that.

Apple is not just a "hardware company".  Microsoft, as far as I've ever 
understood, did not write the Macintosh operating systems for the Motorola 
cpu's found in Apple's hardware.  Once upon a time, Apple was closer to 
Unix and academia before Windows came along.

To be sure, application software like M$ Office and "Lookout Express" 
are being shoved down the throats of new Mac buyers, but correct me if 
I've forgotten, there are other Mac choices for these apps, too.  Less and less 
now of an ideal choice, but no worse than IBM's half hearted support of
my preferred OS:  Warp.

Although many of us refer to "PC's" as Intel platforms (usually to mean MS
OS's  these days), and Mac's as a distinctly different platform, most users in 
the world don't know or care that much unless faced with fair choices.  
Microsoft does NOT have a *100%* monopoly on the "fat client" desktop, 
but it does *have* a monopoly damned close to it.  Still an illegal one.

They are all desktop computers setup for the personal use of one user.

I prefer to call them fat clients, more so now with mainstream networking 
capability, but what the lawyers and judges accept lately is another story.  
Judge Jackson became enlightened about this and understands the law
and came to understand the need for more choice -- and wrote a very long 
document called "Findings of Fact".

Over simplifying "100%" monopoly here, "hardware company" there,
PC, Desktop, and Macintosh somewhere else...may be useful as a
limited introduction on the issues to those less informed...but I want
more credibility and influence with those who should be more 
technically and legally savvy of the industry:  to act against Microsoft.

I don't want to sound like I'm preaching to the choir, but now consider 
this:  many, many "hardware" manufacturers today have become virtual
Microsoft companies.  Too many new PC products [sic] must be hacked
by developers and users of OS's other than Windows to get them to work. 
Kind of similar to Apple's position today, but the other shoe.

>To all intents and purposes you are tied in to buying Windows when 
>you buy a PC even though it is not required for using the PC. This is 
>something which must be drilled home so that it eventually gets through 
>to the general public. 

No argument here.  The slimey blob expands and oozes along.  Those 
who need the most drilling are the new judges and fearful prosecutors.

-- 
Erick Andrews