Microsoft's Monopoly

[Oninuva]

Why don't you tell that to the 20% using Linux and Macintosh? We like what we're doing, but because of Microsoft, it is harder.

There is just not enough money to be made in other platforms to make their software cross platform.

And with Apple "cheating" their iPhone customers out of the data plan, it's a decision by AT&T not Apple... :nuts:

 

[Jesus4Lyf]

Mac is more of a monopoly.
...
Microsoft does not force anybody to make products compatible for MicrosoftOS.
...
Which reminds me of how bigger of a monopoly Apple is. Their 'products' (files, etc.) are only compatible with other apple products. Meaning, you need to use a specific Apple product to view/edit/open another Apple product.

Then you are not interpreting the post correctly. The post is about Microsoft stopping cross platform development.

I can't run iPhone apps on my stock standard phone, I'm sure if I had a blackberry I probably couldn't run iPhone apps either. Although, I seem to be able to run most apps I'd run on windows on this Ubuntu machine that I'm using right now; why does Apple do this to me? Microsoft doesn't. (Of course, those last two lines are stupidity - it's the authors of the application that chose the platform to develop it for, not the authors of the platform itself.)

However, this is a way that it can be stopped, as long as people are willing to listen!

Businesses will listen to any practical (ie. clearly profitable) idea. When your user base matters (ie. will churn out more profits than the dev time costs to make software cross-platform) it will be done.

Now, before you continue on and reply to this, figure out if you're arguing that

• cross-platform development is beneficial (because that is irrelevant to Microsoft as we've proven); or
• you're just having another bitch about "why can't people write all their software to suit me and the minority platform I choose to run?"

From the mouth of a Java dev who believes in cross-platform applications.

Please note that if this thread is truly about cross-platform, I'd like to see more people discussing why iPhones are locked down to apps which you have to purchase through a store from developers who (as my understanding goes) have to purchase a license to develop them, instead of being able to run anything we want. If you want a target to hate on for making cross-platform dev difficult, try Apple. Microsoft is just the first audience commercial businesses will target since they have the largest user base, and make their operating systems fairly quick to develop for.

Edit:
Software can be:

• Cheap to purchase
• Efficient to run
• Cross-platform

Pick 2. But you can't have all 3. Yet.

 

[tom_mai78101]

I'd stick to Microsoft for these reasons:

1. They are one of the companies that "does" the standards.
2. Their products are multi-cross platform. You can run other operating systems in Windows.
3. Large audience.
4. The most compatible operating system.
5. There's no difference even if we make our programs cross-platform. The only thing that's preventing us is the profit and time.
6. Most console emulators can run under Windows. Some are specific to XP still.

 

[tooltiperror]

Jesus, you pretty much summed up what I'm trying to say in parts of your post, not sure how to respond, but hopefully we move towards more cross platform software. This is not a bitch, but as soon as people to start to call it one it looks more and more like one...


>>I'd stick to Microsoft for these reasons:
Did you read the thread? This has nothing to do with anything, and I clearly addressed in the original post in the very first paragraph as well as two more times through out the post the problem with this argument.

 

[Lyerae]

I'd stick to Microsoft for these reasons:

1. They are one of the companies that "does" the standards.
2. Their products are multi-cross platform. You can run other operating systems in Windows.
3. Large audience.
4. The most compatible operating system.
5. There's no difference even if we make our programs cross-platform. The only thing that's preventing us is the profit and time.
6. Most console emulators can run under Windows. Some are specific to XP still.

1. No they don't. They make up their own and try to push them on everyone.
2. I don't even know how to describe how pointless this one is.
3. Really? That's only because most people either A) Don't know a damn about computers to consider the fact there's more to them than Facebook.
4. Only due to #3.
5. What? Are you kidding?
6. This one makes no sense.


Just going to say now:
I've been using Windows for over 10 years.
I also support open-source, cross-platform software.

 

[NightShade]

Making cross platform programs doesn't make any sense for the developer, as it just takes more time for not a huge profit. Most people won't do something that means more work, so not for profit programs won't either.
It sucks but it's not going to change too fast. I was under the impression that people are making more and more programs cross platform compatible though.

>1. They are one of the companies that "does" the standards.
I always though of microsoft as the one who screwed the rules, as there were pages before that could only be opened by IE. The horror.

 

[tooltiperror]

Exactly, NightShade, microsoft sucks.

It sucks but it's not going to change too fast. I was under the impression that people are making more and more programs cross platform compatible though.

People are starting to make things cross platform. And as they do, more people will switch. And then more developers will switch. And then more will make cross platform things. And the cycle begins again.

 

[Lyerae]

Making cross platform programs doesn't make any sense for the developer, as it just takes more time for not a huge profit. Most people won't do something that means more work, so not for profit programs won't either.

Oh, so there's no sense in maintaining Firefox? Chrome? GIMP? Skype? Python, Java, hell, even C/C++?

 

[Whitesock]

I could care less if it was a monopoly at this point, as we have laws limiting monopolies in the US and if someone comes up with something better than we can just switch to that.

So far I haven't seen any real abuses by them that affect me. Now Apple... there are some major abuses of power there and they don't recieve my support because of that.

 

[ElderKingpin]

people dont switch because not everyone is techno savvy. I think that is what you are missing. Nobody wants to waste their precious time to switch sometimes. People stay on IE even though it is garbage compared to some browsers because they dont know about other browsers or whatever, not even browsers other things too.

if you see this chart here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Web_browser_usage_share.svg
You can see that the IE share is starting to dwindle (it used to be at 65%+ when chrome came out) because people are noticing that the other is more efficient.

If microsoft wasnt efficient, people wouldnt be using it. It has a monopoly for a reason

 

[tooltiperror]

Apple does support Windows though, which you can't say in reverse. A lot of Apple software has PC versions.

 

[esb]

And vice versa.
You're saying not to support Microsoft because individual developers don't make their software compatible with multiple Operating systems.
I say not to support Apple because in foreign factories (where iPhones are made) their workers suicide.

Both 'problems' aren't related to the core company (Microsoft/Apple) and both are useless arguements.

Developers make most software compatible with Microsoft because most users use that. Until most users use apple, until then will there be more Cross-Platforming.

Why are we going in circles about this subject? What is the subject?

 

[Oninuva]

Apple does support Windows though, which you can't say in reverse. A lot of Apple software has PC versions.

A lot of PC software has Mac versions..

 

[Lyerae]

> If microsoft wasnt efficient, people wouldnt be using it.

Ever heard of Windows Vista? (Yeah, I went there.)

 

[Miz]

Clicked Submit instead of Preview on Accident. So I just reposted.

How could Apple be considered a monopoly at all? Other than with Media players, it holds less than 10% of the computer market.

Apple can be considered a monopoly because it makes all of its own hardware with its own software. PC sells its OS to Hardware makers like Dell making it less of a monopoly because it doesn't control the entire system of production. While Apple controls the Hardware Production, Software Production, etc. An Example would be this; Name one other company that is listed on the back of the I-Pod.

Likewise Microsoft has a larger audience because of its targeted audience. PC's and Microsoft aim for Cheap and Mass Produced Computers. While as; Apple and Linux and other OS service a specialized group, most of the time professionals.

This can be shown when you see the two goals that the Companies have. Apples claim to be for professionals or tech Hobbyist , while PC has always aimed for the Common Man's Computer, which is why a PC is so cheaper then a Mac. As well, you don't need to have as much technical knowledge of the system, as well as programs, to know how to work a PC.

It is because they have a goal to be the "Common Man's Computer" it is why PC's have a larger audience, thus developers target PC Users because Capitalism is similar to democracy in the matter that majority wins in the end.

You mention, programs like Internet Explorer and how this makes Microsoft a Monopoly, but once again tis down to goals; they are not for Internet Hobbyist. Its for people who just want to go on the internet occasionally or those who are new to the Internet. Yet you can't really call IE a monopoly now days like you could a decade ago because FireFox beats it Statistically.

If Microsoft was true monopoly like it was in the old days. You wouldn't see any Apple Products, and you certainly wouldn't see programs like Firefox beating Internet Explorer. (Firefox would have be destroyed with some evil tactics like they did with the Netscape in Netscape VS Internet Explorer)

> If microsoft wasnt efficient, people wouldnt be using it.

Ever heard of Windows Vista? (Yeah, I went there.)

That's like saying Mac has never made one Bad OS in its history. (Which is hard to prove because mainly an opinion)
Ironically (Don't take this too seriously now), the Funny thing about Vista though it was made in essence to copy Mac's Systems and Design and it hurt Microsoft. So you kind of backtracked your own argument there.

In my comments.
"I will never own a Mac. It's not so much that I'm a PC loyalist. I'm not. It's that I'm not stylish enough to own one. " - Maddox (Best Page in the Universe Blog)

 

[Slapshot136]

you mean that people like windows because it has features that linux and mac OS don't, and that they are willing to pay money to buy it? is it really that surprising? - that's capitalism, do you have a better alternative? socialism?

and either way, windows is pretty well-documented such that it encourages developers to write programs for it, while linux support is scattered and changes depending on the distro, and mac development support is next to non-existant,

and besides that, that's just an OS, you realize that microsoft as a whole is worth less then apple as a whole, right?

the above means that apple has more resources for encouraging people to make applications for macs, or even making more apps themselves, yet they don't - why? because they like being a relatively low market share of computers, since it protects them from their flaws (like security flaws - their security by obscurity wouldn't work very well if they out-sold windows)

It makes it harder for the other 10-20% to use computers, and this number is growing.

so then the problem is going away as the % of windows users is decreasing, right?

I would say that apple makes it harder to use computers because of crap like itunes and ipads - seriously, remind me who is choosing to not support flash and make most sites on the internet not work properly again?

 

[Lyerae]

while linux support is scattered and changes depending on the distro

Actually, a lot if the systems are common among Linux distros.
I could pick up, for instance, Finnix, or maybe openSUSE, and could learn it fairly quickly.
This may be due to the fact I use Ubuntu, but still.

Also, last I read, Ubuntu has over 1 million desktop-based installations, and has LOADS of documentation.

:thup:

 

[esb]

Miz couldn't have said it better.

And some 'statistics':
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp
We see Mac/Linux steadily growing over the months/years.

 

[tooltiperror]

I would say that apple makes it harder to use computers because of crap like itunes and ipads - seriously, remind me who is choosing to not support flash and make most sites on the internet not work properly again?

My best bet is that Jobs is still holding a grudge against Flash for dropping support back around Mac OS 3.

 

[Vestras]

I can say that as developer making cross platform applications isn't worth it. If I want to have my application support Windows, Mac and Linux, I have to write 3 different versions of the app, because they all use different stdlibs. (If not using java)
You can pretty much blame this on all of the OS's. You could say "Windows should use the same stdlibs as Mac and Linux", "Mac should use the same stdlibs as Windows and Linux", etc. It doesn't matter. The point is that creating cross platform applications isn't worth it, and if you were a professional developer like some people here, you would understand my point.

Also, Mac is a bigger monopoly than Microsoft. Not saying that because I'm a Microsoft fanboy, but because it is. Let's take Apple TV as an example; in order to synchronize my stuff with it, I have to use iTunes. If I don't like iTunes? Too bad. The Apple TV only supports Apple video/music formats. No other. If I have music or movies in other formats, I have to convert them myself.

It's a matter of preference. I like Microsoft, therefore I will say that Apple is a monopoly. You like Apple, therefore you will say that Microsoft is a monopoly. That's how it is.