Re: 64-bit G5?

From: Tayss (tayss_temp_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 10/12/03 

Date: 12 Oct 2003 07:51:08 -0700

raffael@mediaone.net (Raffael Cavallaro) wrote:
> No, we are not in agreement here, because you wrote:
> "they've got a lot of dependencies that can hurt when things go bad."
> Your statement is only true if MSFT can enforce network effects that
> benefit MSFT. My point is that Apple's network dependencies are fewer
> than you represent, and less enforceable by MSFT than they were 5
> years ago.

I don't only assume MSFT has network effects. Unix and the Java
platform have them. Apple has moved to minimize these effects. But
porting even a Java program takes a bit of effort that could be better
allocated elsewhere for two versions, especially if the app is impure
or you hit an odd bug. I use unix often, but rarely install/admin it;
yet I suspect it is still painful to move a GUI program from Linux to
Darwin.

Also there are defacto network effects on the Windows platform. No
Kazaa -- which is a killer app. Apple's answer is basically iTunes.
Perhaps something like Neo /might/ interop, but you're depending on
the goodwill of a company with incentives to break compatibility with
parasitic software. (They recently invoked the DMCA against the
"parasitic" Kazaa Lite's Google listings.)

Developers have every reason to question whether Apple's 3%
marketshare is worth catering to. Perhaps that 3% is more price
insensitive, but then again they paid a lot of their cash for their
Macs + Office.

Jobs claimed recently that while more marketshare would be nice, it
would be a mistake to move for it quickly and lose profit.
http://www.macdailynews.com/comments.php?id=P1813_0_1_0
It links to an Independent.co.uk interview/analysis, which now costs
money.

Further, their actions against loyal companies is another factor of
that calculation developers must make:
* Karelia (whose utility they clearly ripped off)
* Adobe (Apple competes with video editing software)
* Omnigroup (Safari competes with its browser)
Since Apple is still executing on its strategies, they are perceived
as more likely to compete against its developers, relative to the size
of their 3rd party base.

Also, Microsoft bought Connectix, which was long considered the
likeliest chance to interop with Windows.

Still, I believe we're agreeing violently. My main disagreement is
your perception we disagree.

> It's not. My position is that Apple is much more immune to MSFT
> specific network effects than Apple was in the recent past. Moreover,
> learning to live in the shadow of a rogue MSFT has taught Apple how to
> work around network effects and achieve even *better* interoperability
> than MSFT has.

"Much more immune." "Work around network effects and achieve *better*
interoperability." You say these sentences; you claim there are no
network effects but then you say these things that explicitly assume
the existence of network effects that Apple struggles against.

In fact, it is a non sequitur to say that Apple is achieving better
interop than Microsoft. We have been assuming that Microsoft's enemy
is interop, and your statement is inconsistent with that. It is
dangerous for Apple software not to reproduce bugs.

Further, you probably assume the US judicial system has more power
than it does. Roosevelt had power to pimpslap the Supreme Court when
they acted against his New Deal. While he spent political capital to
do it, the Supremes would have been destroyed had they remained
stubborn. Further, on the case where automotive companies like GM
bought up the efficient US light rail after WWII and wrecked them to
force demand of automobiles/busses, the courts fined them $500, and
each executive $1. Guilt is irrelevant if it is not enforced.

I've been in an argumentative mood for the last few days. Best to end
it now and get back to important things... After all, I can throw a
rock in Silicon Valley and hit a company that's more vindictive,
cattier and less successful than MSFT. Gabriel covers some of this in
_Patterns of Software_. So there's probably little point to arguments
where both sides implicitly assume Microsoft is some boogieman.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: 64-bit G5?
    ... It's not a game where MSFT makes all the moves. ... No, we are not in agreement here, because you wrote: ... Your statement is only true if MSFT can enforce network effects that ... My position is that Apple is much more immune to MSFT ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)
  • Re: Why doesnt MSFT buy Apple?
    ... the Apple stuff as their toy division and slap the MSFT logo on ... toy division much like the uber successful Xbox. ... Come on MSFT. ... Apple's market cap -- $102 Billion ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Why doesnt MSFT buy Apple?
    ... the Apple stuff as their toy division and slap the MSFT logo on ... toy division much like the uber successful Xbox. ... Come on MSFT. ... Apple's market cap -- $102 Billion ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Why doesnt MSFT buy Apple?
    ... the Apple stuff as their toy division and slap the MSFT logo on ... toy division much like the uber successful Xbox. ... Come on MSFT. ... Apple has a market cap of 105 billion. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Why doesnt MSFT buy Apple?
    ... the Apple stuff as their toy division and slap the MSFT logo on ... toy division much like the uber successful Xbox. ... Come on MSFT. ... Apple's market cap -- $102 Billion ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)