Fri Jul 07, 2006 11:23 am

Guest I think the main issue there was the Apple did not disclose the fact that OS X would phone home. This on the other hand is currently just rumor, but if it is true, people would be aware of it ahead of time and thus be able to make a choice. Which is not to say the widget scan thing is a big deal (because it's not), but I am pointing out the difference to you.

Also, I don't think the people working on this music player would have much to contribute to the Windows team working on Vista. Perhaps they should put all the XBox and Office and MSN people on Vista too. I'm sure managing a development team of 50000 people (most of whom are not qualified to work on the Windows kernel) would speed things up a whole lot!

Fri Jul 07, 2006 9:58 pm

Guest wrote:

While I enjoy my iPod Video, and my wife enjoys her Nano, and my kids like their shuffles (but would clearly rather have Nanos), I would like to see credible competition to Apples dominance in the portable music arena. ... Personally, I don't begrudge either Apple's or Microsoft's particular market domance, and I own multiple products of both companies. I tend to buy products that offer the greatest value/performance regradless of the company/brand/product.

There are two major differences between MS's dominance of the PC OS market and Apple's dominance of the music player market:

1. Size and scope. MS has something like 93-95% of the PC market. Apple has maybe 70-75% of the music player market. That may not look like much difference, but look at it the other way around: non-MS OSes make up only 5-7% of the OS market, while non-Apple music players make up 25-30% of that market. Thus, the music player market is 3.5-6 times as competitive as the OS market.

2. How it happened. A federal court found that MS was an illegal monopoly. Being a monopoly, much less "dominating" some market, is not, in itself, illegal. MS was found to be an illegal monopoly because they used illegal tactics (intimidation, kickbacks, etc.) to obtain that monopoly. They also programmed Windows to make it difficult--nearly impossible for the average user--to make any browser other than Internet Explorer the default browser. (The EU decision is even broader-ranging.) Please detail exactly what illegal tactics Apple used to make it dominant in the music player market. ---waiting--- Gee, I guess you can't, 'cause they didn't. (Don't refer to iTMS: that's not part of the music player market.)

As to whether Apple is "greedy," perhaps you can find a basic business text. Every business is in business to make a profit. A business becomes "greedy" IMHO when it exploits human weakness (e.g., the illegal drug industry), lies to the public and government (e.g., tobacco industry, oil industry), manipulates prices and stock values (e.g., Enron, Worldcom), colludes with cronies in government to screw the taxpayer (e.g., Halliburton), plays fast and loose with accepted accounting standards (Enron, again), and so on. Setting a price that people are willing to pay is not being "greedy."

You wrote that you buy products that offer the greatest value/performance. If one includes the "coolness" value (a lot of people do), then that is exactly how the iPod came to dominate the music player market, despite its higher price. There already IS competition for the iPod, yet that competition doesn't do well, despite usually having lower prices.

FWIW, price competition does not foster or encourage innovation. Look at Dell and Gateway as good examples. Innovation is seldom found at the lower price levels, simply because innovation costs money. Those who compete primarily on price cannot afford innovation (and, often, skimp on support). There's precious little innovation coming out of GM and Ford, these days. Instead, it comes from the companies like Toyota and Honda that charge higher prices.

Sat Jul 08, 2006 12:12 pm

	Intruder wrote:
	I would not include Halliburton in that list until you truly understand how government contracting and IDIQ contracts work. There has already been a discussion on that in the politics forum. The rest, however, I would agree with.

Oh, I understand how government contracting works. I spent 22 years as an officer in the US Air Force, much of it in RDTE--research, development, test, and evaluation. I was the primary technical manager for several contracts. I graduated from the Program Manager Course at the Defense Systems Management College. It is that knowledge that leads me to understand even more clearly how Halliburton screwed over the taxpayer. IDIQ--Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity--does not excuse overcharging, charging for products and services not delivered, product and services that don't meet standards, etc. Apparently, the Army's procurement review process agreed.

Sat Jul 15, 2006 1:52 pm

	Intruder wrote:
	I would not include Halliburton in that list until you truly understand how government contracting and IDIQ contracts work.

The Army has decided to not renew (pick up the next year's option) on the Halliburton contract in Iraq.

"Government audits turned up more than $1 billion in questionable costs."

The actual number is at least $1.8 billion, according to other reports. They also allegedly used contaminated, untreated river water to provide showers for the troops.

The Army "official" (who has to be VERY politic and careful about what he says or he'll lose his job) did say that KBR had done a good job, given the circumstances and that the contract is being spread out to multiple contractors. I've been in a similar situation. That's usually bureaucrateese for, "We want out of this @#($*#@ contract!" You know that the contractor is crooked and/or doing a poor job, but you have to avoid both legal actions against the government and the wrath of the DoD muckety-mucks and the Congresspeople on the contractor's donation list.