Just wondering...
If including Internet Explorer (and other less important software) into its OS cost to Microsoft a lot of money by monopolistic practices, Why Apple is still dancing in one foot if they include a lot of other things like iLife. Is it because what "we" really want is only destroy Microsoft?
Lets face it, if I had a Mac and I where a simple/mortal user with no Free/Libre OpenSource Software knowledge I would use iPhoto instead f-spot, picasa, I the same with iMovie, iDVD and the others, and I feel me proud to have them. I know, these apps are not part of the OS, you can uninstall them, and if you don't have then buy them, but they come with most of Mac Computers, so, why pay for another apps?. Is this or not monopolistic practices?.
Then. Why Apple is still dancing? I'm just wondering.
Lets face it, if I had a Mac and I where a simple/mortal user with no Free/Libre OpenSource Software knowledge I would use iPhoto instead f-spot, picasa, I the same with iMovie, iDVD and the others, and I feel me proud to have them. I know, these apps are not part of the OS, you can uninstall them, and if you don't have then buy them, but they come with most of Mac Computers, so, why pay for another apps?. Is this or not monopolistic practices?.
Then. Why Apple is still dancing? I'm just wondering.
#1 Re: Just wondering...
No, these are not monopolistic practices, for the very simple reason that Apple does not have a monopoly.
You see, the problem with MS it's not that it has a monopoly on operating systems. It's that it abuses that monopoly to try to get monopolies in other markets. Example: They bundle IE with windows, thus killing the market for browsers, thus killing Netscape, thus gaining a monopoly on browsers not because they convinced anyone IE was better but because they abused the windows monopoly to kill competition.
In Apple's case, bundling iPhoto with every mac does not kill the other photo software providers. It could at best kill other photo software for mac providers.