PDA

View Full Version : Apple most valuable company in US



eg8r
08-10-2011, 05:50 PM
OK, so I am guessing that since Apple has now become more valuable than Big Oil Exxon everyone will now start hating Apple with equivalent passion. My question is...which political party do they donate the most money? I really have no idea but slightly interested. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

eg8r

LWW
08-10-2011, 05:53 PM
I remember when all the DOS heads declared APPLE to be dead ... pre Jobs return.

LWW
08-10-2011, 05:54 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">OK, so I am guessing that since Apple has now become more valuable than Big Oil Exxon everyone will now start hating Apple with equivalent passion. My question is...which political party do they donate the most money? I really have no idea but slightly interested. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

eg8r </div></div>

APPLE has been a big (D) backer for quite some time.

Qtec
08-11-2011, 12:23 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">OK, so I am guessing that since Apple has now become more valuable than Big Oil Exxon <u>everyone will now start hating Apple with equivalent passion.</u> </div></div>

Why?

Q

LWW
08-11-2011, 05:29 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">OK, so I am guessing that since Apple has now become more valuable than Big Oil Exxon <u>everyone will now start hating Apple with equivalent passion.</u> </div></div>

Why?

Q </div></div>

You don't act dumb do you.

LWW
08-11-2011, 08:24 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">OK, so I am guessing that since Apple has now become more valuable than Big Oil Exxon everyone will now start hating Apple with equivalent passion. My question is...which political party do they donate the most money? I really have no idea but slightly interested. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

eg8r </div></div>
Well (http://www.newsmeat.com/billionaire_political_donations/Steve_Jobs.php) ... he has donated $229K to (D) candidates and $1K to a single (R) candidate.

Saint Albert of Green Acres (http://investor.apple.com/faq.cfm?FaqSetID=6) ... Peace Prize be upon him ... sits on Apple's board.

Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer both usually back (R) candidates. The Clinton regime went after MICROSOFT for including a free browser in their software package, yet gave APPLE a free pass for doing the exact same thing.

Soflasnapper
08-11-2011, 10:48 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Clinton regime went after MICROSOFT for including a free browser in their software package, yet gave APPLE a free pass for doing the exact same thing. </div></div>

When MS had a &gt;93% market share for its operating system, and Apple had &lt;4-6% share, you mean?

Your history, and your language, are more than a little whacked here.

Apple's free browser(s) included with their software package were not THEIR free browser(s), but Netscape Navigator, Cyberdog, and then, wait for it... MS's own Internet Explorer for the Mac.

So, they not only included MORE than one browser, the browsers they included were not their own monopoly software product, but the products of third party companies, including eventually the MS product.

They did not offer their own browser, Safari, until years after the Clinton administration left office, and at first, did NOT supply it as part of the system (it had to be downloaded, whereas MS Internet Explorer continued to be a part of their installed software package), until OS 10.3 included it. Even then, Apple continued to include MS IE as an alternative option.

So, what you say is slightly true, but wholly irrelevant and misleading.

Apple never did what MS did (supply only their own proprietary browser) and had only a tiny fraction of the market, not the near-monopoly position of MS. The pass that the Clinton administration gave Apple was for supplying <u>multiple</u> free browsers with their included software package, browsers that they neither owned nor created.



<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Until 1997, Apple Macintosh computers were shipped with the Netscape Navigator and Cyberdog web browsers only. Internet Explorer for Mac was later included as the default web browser for Mac OS 8.1 and onwards,[5] as part of a five year agreement between Apple and Microsoft. During that time, Microsoft released three major versions of Internet Explorer for Mac that were bundled with Mac OS 8 and Mac OS 9, though Apple continued to include Netscape Navigator as an alternative. Microsoft ultimately released a Mac OS X edition of Internet Explorer for Mac, which was included as the default browser in all Mac OS X releases from Mac OS X DP4[6] until Mac OS X v10.2.[7]</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Safari 1

On January 7, 2003, at Macworld San Francisco, Steve Jobs announced that Apple had developed their own web browser, called Safari. It was based on Apple's internal fork of the KHTML rendering engine, called WebKit.[8] Apple released the first beta version for OS X that day. A number of official and unofficial beta versions followed, until version 1.0 was released on June 23, 2003. Initially only available as a separate download for Mac OS X v10.2, it was included with the Mac OS X v10.3 release on October 24, 2003 as the default browser, with Internet Explorer for Mac included only as an alternative browser. </div></div>

LWW
08-11-2011, 11:52 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Clinton regime went after MICROSOFT for including a free browser in their software package, yet gave APPLE a free pass for doing the exact same thing. </div></div>

When MS had a &gt;93% market share for its operating system, and Apple had &lt;4-6% share, you mean?</div></div>

Irrelevant ... unless your argument is that robbing a little bank is OK but robbing a big one isn't.

As to your historical revisionism ... Apple included Explorer since OS 8.1 in 1997, the same browser that was supposedly unfair for Microsoft to include in Windows.

And your point is ... other than slavishly defending the demokrookk regime ... what exactly?

Soflasnapper
08-11-2011, 01:02 PM
I must sadly note that your responses have become increasingly irrational and ill-founded.

If you are having health issues that affect your thinking, my sympathies.

But I cannot truly imagine that you do not recall the issues with MS putting in their own product (IE) at the expense of other popular browsers, insisting they be the only browsers included in the OEM offerings, in order to crush Netscape's far more popular product.

To recap: MS had an overwhelming monopoly position among non-Mac PCs operating systems (the so-called IBM-compatible desktops and laptops). They got in trouble and legally charged for allegedly using that monopoly position to push THEIR OWN PROPRIETARY SOFTWARE, at the expense of another software company's product. Not only including their own browser, but forbidding even third party manufacturers like Compaq from adding in the Netscape product as their customers had requested. Compaq and others were blackmailed, by MS saying, if you include an already downloaded Netscape browser in the original software bundle, MS will withdraw our license to you to pre-install the OS software.

In the case of Apple, there is no comparison at all during the Clinton years (actually, after it as well), except as to the fact that they included free browser<u>S</u>. Which was NOT the problem, although your insane take implies that was the key problem

The problem was when there was only ONE free browser, and it was owned by the OS software monopolist, and they were crushing a more popular software company's browser by use of their monopoly power. That's what MS did.

For Apple, none of the SEVERAL free browsers included in the pre-loaded software package were owned by them (until 2003's release of Safari, after the Clinton terms expired), while DURING the Clinton years, Apple included BOTH of the two most popular browsers by end user numbers, and one of them was from their hated rival (but sometimes licensor and licensee) MS.

This history shows Apple didn't try to crush MS (OR Netscape) by refusing to put their popular browsers onto their pre-loaded software package, and to pump up their own proprietary browser instead. Because they did neither of those two things (unlike MS's behavior), for among other reasons, that they HAD NO BROWSER THEMSELVES until 3 years after Clinton left office. And, of course, themselves put the IE package (and the Netscape package) right into the provided software installs.

LWW
08-11-2011, 01:12 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">in order to crush Netscape's far more popular product. </div></div>

How did it do this?

By that argument GM is illegally making DELPHI radios standard in GM cars.

Soflasnapper
08-11-2011, 01:41 PM
Whatever.

That's an absurd comparison. Cars are not platforms for 3rd party vendors to supply critical standard items that come with the car. By contrast, a computer can run, by design, any software from whatever source, and much software run has always come from third party sources, not only from the company that made the OS software.

You don't have to agree with the DOJ case against MS to understand MS doing something entirely different from what Apple was doing.

You say, they both supplied free browsers, so they were doing the same thing.

Not exactly, and not at all.

MS supplied their own free browser, and excluded any others, not only as to their own supplied or licensed software package, but also excluded their OEMs from supplying it either. (Whether this had the effect DOJ claimed or not, it is the plain evidence in this situation.)

Apple did not supply just one browser, did not supply their own browser (which hadn't been created yet), and did not restrict either of the two largest browsers from being freely available to their end users (they preinstalled both of them).

Soflasnapper
08-11-2011, 02:26 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Clinton regime went after MICROSOFT for including a free browser in their software package, yet gave APPLE a free pass for doing the exact same thing. </div></div>

When MS had a &gt;93% market share for its operating system, and Apple had &lt;4-6% share, you mean?</div></div>

Irrelevant ... unless your argument is that robbing a little bank is OK but robbing a big one isn't.

As to your historical revisionism ... Apple included Explorer since OS 8.1 in 1997, the same browser that was supposedly unfair for Microsoft to include in Windows.

And your point is ... other than slavishly defending the demokrookk regime ... what exactly? </div></div>

This wasn't as bad an answer as I originally thought.

I take back my snarky reply, as to the snark. It's still wrong, just not blindingly wrong.

It's true, although Apple had a far smaller share of the market, it did have a strong monopoly position on its own platform.

It could have used that monopoly position as to its OS software to try to push its own browser, making it the only one that was included, and excluding the more popular, longer in the marketplace browsers, which had a large base of accustomed users.

If it had done that, regardless of its very small share of the whole PC market, it would have been an abuse of that monopoly position to further the interests of their corporation.

That point wasn't wrong.

But the facts show that didn't happen. They didn't push their own to the exclusion of the others. They didn't even have their own during the timeframe in question (Clinton's terms in office). The free browsers they included were not their own, and the list of the included did not exclude the extremely popular browsers.

eg8r
08-11-2011, 02:46 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Irrelevant ... unless your argument is that robbing a little bank is OK but robbing a big one isn't.
</div></div>I don't understand what you are getting at. You are considering MS bundling IE on equal par as Apple bundling IE? The point is that nearly all OSs came with a browser but only MS offered their own. Everyone else offered third party platforms not their own.

Maybe we are missing what you are trying to prove.

eg8r

eg8r
08-11-2011, 02:52 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But I cannot truly imagine that you do not recall the issues with MS putting in their own product (IE) at the expense of other popular browsers, insisting they be the only browsers included in the OEM offerings, in order to crush Netscape's far more popular product.
</div></div>This definitely was a sad point in our relatively young web based world. I to this day do not understand the problem with an OEM bundling their own software together. Netscape was always easily downloaded and as time marched on this became easier and faster. I think if Netscape would have stopped acting like children and whining about the issue and decided to attack it fairly through advertising and such they would have performed better. IE to this day is still not the best browser available and it is still loaded with the MS OS and people FLOCK to Firefox for every new release.

I do understand your arugment though, MS forced their browser on their users. Apple never forced anything and actually provided the MS browser and other competing browsers for users to make the decision.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This history shows Apple didn't try to crush MS (OR Netscape) by refusing to put their popular browsers onto their pre-loaded software package, and to pump up their own proprietary browser instead. </div></div>Funny how the times have changed now that Apple is trying to crush Samsung's mobile platforms in the courts.

eg8r

eg8r
08-11-2011, 02:56 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">but also excluded their OEMs from supplying it either. (Whether this had the effect DOJ claimed or not, it is the plain evidence in this situation.)
</div></div>This is the main reason why Apple does not have the same problem currently (they now do the same thing) because no one else makes their computers. I honestly believe when MS forced the PC makers to load only IE that was when MS lost the lawsuit. Bundling the browser is perfectly fine and makes plenty of sense but forcing ONLY that browser to be bundled by other companies under the threat of pulling back the software is where they went wrong.

eg8r

eg8r
08-11-2011, 02:58 PM
Everyone hates the guys on top. The dems on this board are proof of it. If someone has more money than you then you immediately hate them and seek out ridiculous articles to prove your point. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

eg8r

eg8r
08-11-2011, 02:59 PM
Pretty interesting. I had no idea.

eg8r

eg8r
08-11-2011, 03:04 PM
It probably would be dead if Jobs did not come back, and if not dead definitely not the company it is now. Now you can see that Apple's mobile platform is starting to impact nearly every consumer electronics industry out there (point and shoot cameras are already starting to notices dips in sales). Could you imagine how many OEMs would be loading iOS if Apple allowed them to bastardize the platform the way Google has allowed the OEMs to bastardize Android? The iPad and MBA are slowing pulling away those MS strongholds.

With the opening of the data center in the Carolinas and the recent release of the Mac Mini (looking to get this for my kids this year for Christmas) we are beginning to see the new direction Apple is headed and lets just say the optical drive industry is not so excited. I am not sure how well that is going to go but time will tell.

eg8r

LWW
08-11-2011, 03:33 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Irrelevant ... unless your argument is that robbing a little bank is OK but robbing a big one isn't.
</div></div>I don't understand what you are getting at. You are considering MS bundling IE on equal par as Apple bundling IE? The point is that nearly all OSs came with a browser but only MS offered their own. Everyone else offered third party platforms not their own.

Maybe we are missing what you are trying to prove.

eg8r </div></div>

The point is that APPLE and MICROSOFT both included a browser, and in fact the same browser.

If NETSCAPE was damaged by one then logic would dictate they were damaged by both.

APPLE backed the (D)'s ... MICROSOFT didn't.

The Clinton regime went after MICROSOFT ... but not APPLE.

Why?

LWW
08-11-2011, 03:35 PM
[quote=eg8r]<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">MS forced their browser on their users.

eg8r </div></div>

How?

LWW
08-11-2011, 03:42 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The free browsers they included were not their own, and the list of the included did not exclude the extremely popular browsers.

</div></div>

What difference does that make?

Many consumer products are made from parts supplied by the product's maker?

Should we sue FORD because they force us to buy a FORD engine in a FORD truck?

Why shouldn't they be forced to give me the option of having an ISUZU engine?

MICROSOFT made the WINDOWS OS ... which I think is junk BTW ... so why should they be deprived of what software is included with that OS?

LWW
08-11-2011, 03:55 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So, what you say is slightly true, but wholly irrelevant and misleading.</div></div>

That's malarkey.

Even following what happened to MICROSOFT ... APPLE decided to include IT'S OWN BROWSER, and seems to have done so because it had cover in DC.

Soflasnapper
08-11-2011, 05:27 PM
I honestly believe when MS forced the PC makers to load only IE that was when MS lost the lawsuit.

Funny history about that.

This company practice was described, and then the MS spokesman asked about it (I think this was in Congressional hearings.) The man stated that MS didn't do that, it wasn't its policy.

The questioner was knowledgeable that they had done this (from testimonial evidence), so asked, 'when did you stop doing it, then?'

Answer was, literally, 'last week,' or 'Monday this week,' something like that. LOL!

Soflasnapper
08-11-2011, 05:31 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Everyone hates the guys on top. The dems on this board are proof of it. If someone has more money than you then you immediately hate them and seek out ridiculous articles to prove your point. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

eg8r </div></div>

I'm a life-long Democrat, among the several other parties I've belonged to. Barbra Streisand has more money than I do, yet I, and the 'dems on this board,' do not (apparently) hate her. It's not about money.

Soflasnapper
08-11-2011, 05:36 PM
The point is that APPLE and MICROSOFT both included a browser, and in fact the same browser.

If NETSCAPE was damaged by one then logic would dictate they were damaged by both.

APPLE backed the (D)'s ... MICROSOFT didn't.

I can't believe you want to continue to beat your dead horse here.

The DIFFERENCE in the situations was that Apple didn't give IE an exclusive, because it ALSO pre-loaded Netscape (and yet a third different browser as well). This allowed the USERS to MAKE THEIR OWN CHOICE, easily and with an identical effort (none).

Another DIFFERENCE was that by giving THEIR OWN browser an EXCLUSIVE, and demanding no one else pre-load Netscape or else, THEY WERE ACTING IN THEIR OWN SELF-INTEREST, by unfairly bullying the marketplace and taking advantage of their monopoly position.

Soflasnapper
08-11-2011, 05:38 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The free browsers they included were not their own, and the list of the included did not exclude the extremely popular browsers.

</div></div>

What difference does that make?

Many consumer products are made from parts supplied by the product's maker?

Should we sue FORD because they force us to buy a FORD engine in a FORD truck?

Why shouldn't they be forced to give me the option of having an ISUZU engine?

MICROSOFT made the WINDOWS OS ... which I think is junk BTW ... so why should they be deprived of what software is included with that OS? </div></div>

A) A dead horse issue. Beat away!

B) Perhaps you have a point. Maybe round up some people in a class action suit and see how your legal theory stands up.

LWW
08-12-2011, 12:49 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Everyone hates the guys on top. The dems on this board are proof of it. If someone has more money than you then you immediately hate them and seek out ridiculous articles to prove your point. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

eg8r </div></div>

I'm a life-long Democrat, among the several other parties I've belonged to. Barbra Streisand has more money than I do, yet I, and the 'dems on this board,' do not (apparently) hate her. It's not about money.

</div></div>

Not when both are members of the hive ... just as the left loves someone as evil as Gyorgy Soros and condemns charitable and creative men like the Koch brothers.

You are correct, it isn't about money with the left ... it's about party ideology.

LWW
08-12-2011, 12:50 AM
Users also had a choice with WINDOWS systems.

Nothing in the MS OS prohibited someone from using another product.

LWW
08-12-2011, 12:51 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The free browsers they included were not their own, and the list of the included did not exclude the extremely popular browsers.

</div></div>

What difference does that make?

Many consumer products are made from parts supplied by the product's maker?

Should we sue FORD because they force us to buy a FORD engine in a FORD truck?

Why shouldn't they be forced to give me the option of having an ISUZU engine?

MICROSOFT made the WINDOWS OS ... which I think is junk BTW ... so why should they be deprived of what software is included with that OS? </div></div>

A) A dead horse issue. Beat away!

B) Perhaps you have a point. Maybe round up some people in a class action suit and see how your legal theory stands up. </div></div>

So you admit the legal concept is flawed.

I agree.

The difference is that I can see that money spent on the right people bought legal protection ... you lack the ability to see that.

eg8r
08-12-2011, 06:01 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The point is that APPLE and MICROSOFT both included a browser, and in fact the same browser.
</div></div>So then in fact you missed sofla's point. It wasn't the fact that a browser was bundled but rather the fact that MS was bundling ONLY their own and not allowing the OEM's to add any additional browsers yet Apple was bundling multiple browsers.

I think at this point the problem is that you are never willing to admit you are wrong. You are as just as bad as gayle about sticking to your failed arguments.

eg8r

eg8r
08-12-2011, 06:03 AM
By bundling only IE and not allowing OEMs to load anything else. Yes the end user could go download what they wanted but the problem was that MS was not allowing it. Once the end user owned the rights to use the s/w they could do what they want. This is what I did because I refused to use IE.

eg8r

eg8r
08-12-2011, 06:03 AM
LOL.

eg8r

eg8r
08-12-2011, 06:04 AM
There are outliers in every sample.

eg8r

DickLeonard
08-12-2011, 07:56 AM
eg8r lww is one deep thinker except he is up to his nose in do do.####

Soflasnapper
08-12-2011, 09:56 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The point is that APPLE and MICROSOFT both included a browser, and in fact the same browser.
</div></div>So then in fact you missed sofla's point. It wasn't the fact that a browser was bundled but rather the fact that MS was bundling ONLY their own and not allowing the OEM's to add any additional browsers yet Apple was bundling multiple browsers.

I think at this point the problem is that you are never willing to admit you are wrong. You are as just as bad as gayle about sticking to your failed arguments.

eg8r </div></div>

Right. There are none so blind as those who refuse to see. I've heard.

We see here the difference between talking points and a sound argument. The talking point used sounds good-- just like MS, Apple even provided a free browser! AND IT WAS THE SAME ONE!! See, they did the same thing. QED. Later, when

When you drill down, the talking point is revealed to hide more than it discloses. And what is hidden makes the talking point null and void, even if it continues to have the form of a valid argument.

LWW
08-12-2011, 04:31 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">By bundling only IE and not allowing OEMs to load anything else. Yes the end user could go download what they wanted but the problem was that MS was not allowing it. Once the end user owned the rights to use the s/w they could do what they want. This is what I did because I refused to use IE.

eg8r </div></div>

And when I buy a FORD they only package it with a FORD starter ... why shouldn't they be prosecuted since they don't package multiple brands of starters?

Sure, I could go get an AUTOZONE starter if I wanted ...

So, what's the difference?

Soflasnapper
08-13-2011, 01:35 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">By bundling only IE and not allowing OEMs to load anything else. Yes the end user could go download what they wanted but the problem was that MS was not allowing it. Once the end user owned the rights to use the s/w they could do what they want. This is what I did because I refused to use IE.

eg8r </div></div>

And when I buy a FORD they only package it with a FORD starter ... why shouldn't they be prosecuted since they don't package multiple brands of starters?

Sure, I could go get an AUTOZONE starter if I wanted ...

So, what's the difference? </div></div>

Dead. Horse.

Neither Ford nor any one auto manufacturer has a monopoly position in the market.

LWW
08-13-2011, 02:59 PM
And MICROSOFT didn't build computers.

What's your point?

The party says APPLE is OK and MS is evil?

Soflasnapper
08-13-2011, 05:52 PM
(Dog chases tail. Hilarity abounds!)

eg8r
08-15-2011, 07:31 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And when I buy a FORD they only package it with a FORD starter </div></div>If you want to use an analogy you better at least make sure it makes sense. Ford makes "some of their own parts" and they build their own cars. MS does not do this. The two business models are completely different.

MS builds the OS and IE however they do not build the computer. The companies that do build the computers were told that if they loaded anything other than IE then they would lose their licensing rights to the OS. Basically MS was crippling the OEMs if they chose to go the route of Apple and offer their consumers multiple browser options.

eg8r

eg8r
08-15-2011, 07:32 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And MICROSOFT didn't build computers.
</div></div>Which is exactly why your analogy did not work.

eg8r