PDA

View Full Version : Apple accused of cheating over G5 benchmarks


thinKer3D
07-06-2003, 02:11 AM
so what's new?

"Benchmark results cited by Apple at the launch of its Power Mac G5 desktops yesterday have already come under fire for seeming to not only tweak the Mac test system to improve its performance beyond anything an ordinary user might experience, but..."

click below to read on

http://www.theregister.com/content/39/31405.html

altered
07-06-2003, 04:47 AM
www.theregister.com :rolleyes:

rocarpen
07-06-2003, 05:41 AM
Nice, dude. You're our hook-up for news that's 2 weeks old.

Jeez, get with the program. Any computer with a 2GHZ FSB, dual 2GHZ G5's, DDR 400 RAM, Serial ATA and PCIX slots is gonna friggin' haul ass.

This premature blubbering from PC zealots is tired. As a multi-platform man, I wish all this pissing and moaning about benchmarks would just cease until the comps actually ship.

Thanks.

mark_wilkins
07-06-2003, 06:57 AM
The arguments against Apple's SpecFP 2000 benchmark results, in particular, are OK as far as they go, but it's worth noting that sustained memory bandwidth on these machines (which that benchmark, in particular, doesn't test) is going to be VERY high. Of course, expect the Xeon systems to catch up in short order, but I suspect that's going to be the ace in the hole for these machines.

Incidentally, graphics work is generally memory bandwidth sensitive, so I suspect the payoff will be huge for people doing what we do.

-- Mark

ages
07-06-2003, 05:46 PM
Apple was proven right...
The reason why some intel pc ppl said otherwise stating apple used a compiler that was based on GCC (linux compiler).
Now because Intel has their own special compiler (pc doubters refer to the scores from this compiler) it would not be fair to use that compiler cause it isnt a neutral compiler for other platforms, its intel bias, thus the benchmark has no parity.
If Apple wanted to cheat they could have used the special optimised compiler by IBM which have shown to give 30% higher scores. GCC is platform friendly.

get over it and get back to work! :D

raz-0
07-07-2003, 12:49 AM
apple was not proven right.

First of all, you are comparing linux on intel vs OSX on the g5 hardware. If you are talking walk down to the store and buy it for CG, odds are the appropriate comparison is OSX on G5 and win2k or XP pro on intel or athlon. had they run linux on both platforms configur3ed as identically as posible, that would ahve been great for getting as honest a hardware comparison as possible.

Instead, what we got was the comparison of a linux x86 intel system with a bad config, and OSX on a g5 with specia memory register settings and a specail malloc library you will NOT be using when you go and buy one of these things. The bad part is not so much that the PC is being put in a bad light, you can go look at others benchmarks out there to compare, or run them yourselves and compare. However, they are benching a system on their end that IS NOT WHAT THEY WILL SELL YOU!.

That's the real problem.

Personally, I would like to see a bunch of benches run with a stock g5, a stock p4 without HT, stock p4 with HT, stock athlon XP, stock single opteron, stock athlon64, stock dual g5, stock dual xeon rig, stock dual athlon rig, and stock dual opteron rig.

By stock, I mean standard config out the door. OSX on one, 2k or xp on the other as most people would buy them. Let the 64 bit ones run a 64bit os, and test them with 32 bit software and anything pertinant/available in 64bit flavor.

Then to make it interesting, I'd like them all to have a similar linux distro put on with drivers as close to possible for their video and sound, and then run another set of benchmarks.

I'm sure eventually we will get that, but not form apple's marketing department.

mark_wilkins
07-07-2003, 04:18 AM
Most of the benchmarks they quoted (on which the G5 did fine, btw) were application software that was not specially-compiled for the test. Only the SpecFP benchmark was compiled specifically for the purpose.

OSX on a g5 with specia memory register settings and a specail malloc library

These are equally available to all developers on the G5 platform. As the testing company pointed out, though, they may not be suitable choices for every application.

Anyway, standardized benchmarks are always affected by choice of libraries, choice of hardware configuration, whatever. No matter what the choices, a reasonable argument could be made that they weren't equivalent scenarios.

Even if the dual 2GHz G5 is 20% behind the dual Xeon 3.06 GHz under conditions most favorable to the Xeon, the G5's superior memory bandwidth will help it out in many application-level tests and leave everyone arguing regardless. And, I promise you, nobody's likely to be happy with any results that would come from such a test. :D

-- Mark

mark_wilkins
07-07-2003, 11:02 AM
The memory read bypass settings reportedly will be on by default in the shipping systems, but are not in the prototypes. Incidentally, this statement appears to confirm that all these settings will be available as options to people using these computers:

http://apple.slashdot.org/apple/03/06/24/2154256.shtml?tid=126&tid=181

However, once again I think application-specific benchmarks are the way to go... :D

-- Mark

Thalaxis
07-07-2003, 05:59 PM
Originally posted by ages
Apple was proven right...
The reason why some intel pc ppl said otherwise stating apple used a compiler that was based on GCC (linux compiler).
Now because Intel has their own special compiler (pc doubters refer to the scores from this compiler) it would not be fair to use that compiler cause it isnt a neutral compiler for other platforms, its intel bias, thus the benchmark has no parity.
If Apple wanted to cheat they could have used the special optimised compiler by IBM which have shown to give 30% higher scores. GCC is platform friendly.

get over it and get back to work! :D

The biggest flaw in that argument is that Apple chose the compiler suites that are known for their poor performance on the P4. They didn't use the most commonly used production compilers (Intel's and Microsoft's), both of which outperform the ones that they did use quite handily.

On top of that, they reported Quake framerates that were only around 60% of what dozens of hardware reviewers everywhere obtained with the same Dell machine that Apple used.

The compiler used for Intel's official SPEC scores is, by the way, used in production (e.g. Oracle).

What it amounts to is putting lead weights on the competitor's
horse's feet, and then claiming that your horse is faster because he can outrun the one with lead weights on his feet. The reality is that:

a) the G5 isn't as fast as the competition
b) that really doesn't have to matter
c) it's a huge improvement over the joke that is the current flagship

Still, the fact that the marketing is remarkably bad, it's still a good machine, and though I think that it's not at all close to being a a viable "personal computer" (too expensive by far), I think it's priced in the right range to be a competitive workstation offering,
and with a good feature set to go with it.

paultheplumber
07-07-2003, 09:08 PM
Oh my goodness! Breaking news!

The *fastest* machine is dependant on the task you are performing, the application you are using, and how it has been optimized! Shocking! Call the press!

Wait... where have I heard that before....

:)

raz-0
07-07-2003, 10:41 PM
some more info http://members.cox.net/craig.hunter/g5/

he likes to claim the g5 is faster, but his definitioon of faster means megaflops per mhz rather than actual performance. At least compared to some of the tests. a p4 2ghz comes awfully damn close in single processor tests, or beats it.

Do a dollar for dollar comparison, and that won't look so nice as you plop a dual athlon with better FP performance and even cheaper price, or a 3.06 gig intel, or a dual xeon, or a lot of things.

On the upside, it doesn't seem he is using a tweaked system on either side of the equation, but something fairly off the shelf.

Also compares G4s.

ages
07-08-2003, 06:37 AM
Apple used the sam GCC compiler made for all platforms, if they used a specific x86 intel P4 compiler it wouldnt be fair.
Just like Apple could have easily used their IBM 970 compiler and got a faster 30% speed increase, but this wouldnt be right cause intel doesnt have altivec nor 64 bit.

Apple was proven to not be cheating, in a few web pages like slash dot and source forge.

GCC is a compiler made for all platforms,
these guys did the test and not apple -
veritest (http://www.veritest.com/)
Its a bit like how pc users say even apples quake 3 benches are false, stating they have seen above 400's on pc tests, but dont take into consideration those pc q3 tests were with sound off.

ages
07-08-2003, 06:40 AM
Single cpu results, no dual support.

BiTMAP
07-08-2003, 07:11 AM
Apples have their place, they are machines with constant massive powerflow while the AMD/Intel CPU's are for quick bursts of power. I can't afford a dual 3ghz G5, so i'll wait and get a dual 3ghz XEON or maybe just a 2ghz, since frig thats prolly more then enough for me.

Thalaxis
07-08-2003, 03:02 PM
Originally posted by ages
Apple used the sam GCC compiler made for all platforms, if they used a specific x86 intel P4 compiler it wouldnt be fair.
Just like Apple could have easily used their IBM 970 compiler and got a faster 30% speed increase, but this wouldnt be right cause intel doesnt have altivec nor 64 bit.


So you're saying that comparing two real-world situations is not fair? Most commercial software for x86 is compiled with compilers that deliver far better performance than GCC on the P4. So how is using a better compiler for the P4 than GCC cheating?


Apple was proven to not be cheating, in a few web pages like slash dot and source forge.


No, the evidence is clear: Apple hobbled the P4 massively in order to make an unnecessary lie seem true.

Thalaxis
07-08-2003, 03:03 PM
Originally posted by BiTMAP
Apples have their place, they are machines with constant massive powerflow while the AMD/Intel CPU's are for quick bursts of power.

Where did you dredge up that nonsense?

MattClary
07-08-2003, 03:42 PM
LOL

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=620&ncid=620&e=1&u=/nf/20030707/bs_nf/21857

raz-0
07-08-2003, 09:08 PM
Originally posted by BiTMAP
Apples have their place, they are machines with constant massive powerflow while the AMD/Intel CPU's are for quick bursts of power. I can't afford a dual 3ghz G5, so i'll wait and get a dual 3ghz XEON or maybe just a 2ghz, since frig thats prolly more then enough for me.

well the dual 2.4Ghz are a nice price performance point still. But ou have to stop smoking the crack. Don't ever repeat that constant power/burst of power thing, you'll seem much smarter having never uttered it.

not directely BiTMAP realted:

As for a fair benchmark. If you are talking value to the end user, which is what 90% of the world reading up on comparisons cares about, you want real product on the OS you are going to use.

SO for example, tests with maya, combustion, UT2003, aftereffecs, photoshop, illustrator, etc. will be what people want to see, and they will want to see them running on off the shelf systems out of the box. If you think these will be compiled with less than the optimal compiler on both sides, you have your head up your ass. Then you look at dollar for dollar what you get. Existing pipeline and infrastructure will make a difference too. For people who have been sticking to an all mac pipeline regardless of cost and speed penalties, the G5 will be a godsend.

Now for the other 10%, who are a really serious geeks who care about wheather architecture A is better than architecture B at a fundamental design level. Ideally, you have the same OS on both, which would leave us with flavors of linux once they get it ported to the new G5 platform. Then ideally, you have the optimised IBM compiler and the optimised intel compiler compile the kernel and use it to do all the packages you are going to test with. Then you just run your tests and collect the numbers.

apparantly, apple also pulled tricks with hyperthreading on the p4. They turned it on fro single proc tests, which unless there has been a kernal update I missed (entirelypossible), is bad for performance under linux. They also turned the hyperthreading off for the multiprocessor tests, which hardly seems fair. On top of using questionable register settings and malloc libraries for the
test. Additionally, they also used a relaxed IEEE math library when compiling for the g5. In case you are unaware, IEEE math libraries are dealing with floating poitn computations, exactly where apple is claiming the largest G5 improvements. relaxed floating point precision could be a VERY bad thing in something like a GI calculating raytracing renderer. Which means two things. Either you'll have broken renderers that the benchmarks are relavent for, or the renderer developers will use an optimized compiler with the correct libraries and the benchmark is useless and misleading.

Now if you want to see the g5 scores with the tweaked library put up along other specFP scores form the spec database go here.
http://www.amdzone.com/articleview.cfm?articleid=1296&page=2

You will notice their p4 and xeon don't look quite right, and that compared to the opteron systems they get a royal asswhupping. in both integer and floating-point performance.

If you look into people performing the benchmarks on non-hobbled p4s, you find that you are comparing a $1000 system to a $2000+ system and getting better integer performance out of the $1000 system. This may seem pointless, but if you recall, all the photoshop speed you get from teh old g4 system is based on taking advantage of altivec and the fast INTEGER performance. So that puts up a big red flag on what kind of real world speed benefit you will get in photoshop without adobe doing a new release that is optimized differently. The same red falag goes up for anything optimized to take advante of the g4's robust integer performance.

Another consideration from a purely practical standpoint for things like 3d are the video cards and drivers available. THe high end is the ATI 9800, no professional cards, and who knows what the drivers will be like? That is problem you can't fix even if you don't care about money.

The g5 is a big improvement, but apple should really be more honest about it's performance. What you have is a competitive machine with all the computers that you are going to walk into a compus or best buy and find for sale. The main difference is that the g5 is brand new, and the current p4s and athlons are reaching the end of their lifecycle. If you like macs, and you have the cash, there is plenty of reason to be lookign forward to the g5. However, if you are building a high end top-dolalr workstation, there apple just lied their asses off to you in a very big way. If you ahve a mac pipeline, the g5 is sexy, but I'd be concerned about performance resulting from going to a CPU strong in integer performance to one strong in FP performance. But it'd be aminor concern. If you have some macs in your pipeline you were thinking of ditching, I'd still consider ditching them. If you have an x86 pipeline, You should really be looking at opteron (or possibly itanium2) rather than a g5 and the resultant cost of switching platforms for your whole pipeline.

Oh, and someone else's well formed treatise on the subject of the new G5 and apples spin-dcotoring.

http://www.haxial.com/spls-soapbox/apple-powermac-G5/

mark_wilkins
07-08-2003, 09:27 PM
but I'd be concerned about performance resulting from going to a CPU strong in integer performance to one strong in FP performance.

I don't know what you're talking about: the G4 didn't have particularly strong integer performance, and the G5 is certainly no worse -- the FP performance has just gotten better.

Anyway, some of the things Apple did in those benchmarks are questionable, others make perfect sense (like enabling processor features that will be enabled by default at shipping time.) It certainly falls short of flat-out manipulation of the benchmark, otherwise they could pick and choose compilers (like IBM's) and produce stronger results.

Regardless, the results of all these benchmarks (Apple's and others') put together puts the 2 GHz dual G5 at rough parity with a 2.66 dual Xeon for processor-bound applications and a 3.0 dual Xeon for memory and disk-bound applications, and that's pretty solid. It certainly puts the machine in the same price/performance zone as mainstream (Dell, etc.) boxes from the competition, particularly for things like 3D rendering, which are largely memory- and disk-bound.

Just for the record, before this discussion gets me labeled a Mac zealot, I run both Windows and Mac OS at home and was considering a 3.06 GHz Xeon when I decided to go with the G5 instead. Probably my next machine will be a Windows box, but I've been shopping around enough to know that the dual 2 GHz G5 is a very reasonable value, assuming it ships on time.

Someone mentioned that the next OS release would possibly support pro graphics cards -- I have no idea whether that's true, and like I said earlier I think that's the platform's biggest weakness at the moment.

Incidentally, as to the question of Premiere being discontinued for the Mac, Premiere has been lagging behind FCP for a while and FCP has basically taken over that market on the Mac. I don't think it's a huge blow to the platform to lose Premiere, though I could imagine a few installations with cross-platform Premiere dependencies going all-Windows as a result.

-- Mark

Thalaxis
07-08-2003, 09:33 PM
Originally posted by mark_wilkins
I don't know what you're talking about: the G4 didn't have particularly strong integer performance, and the G5 is certainly no worse -- the FP performance has just gotten better.


Actually, the G4 had excellent integer performance thanks to altivec, which provided some low-latency SIMD integer operations.


Anyway, some of the things Apple did in those benchmarks are questionable, others make perfect sense (like enabling processor features that will be enabled by default at shipping time.) It certainly falls short of flat-out manipulation of the benchmark, otherwise they could pick and choose compilers (like IBM's) and produce stronger results.
[/q]

Actually, what they did was exactly flat-out manipulation of several benchmarks.

The saddest thing about it, however, is that it wasn't even necessary, and rather than repeat the reasons, I'll just refer you back to your own post :)

[b]
Incidentally, as to the question of Premiere being discontinued for the Mac, Premiere has been lagging behind FCP for a while and FCP has basically taken over that market on the Mac. I don't think it's a huge blow to the platform to lose Premiere, though I could imagine a few installations with cross-platform Premiere dependencies going all-Windows as a result.


That's just what you'd expect in a situation where a company with a proprietary solution has a controlling vertical monopoly and a vested interested in hindering competition from ISV's like Adobe.

mark_wilkins
07-08-2003, 10:03 PM
Actually, the G4 had excellent integer performance thanks to altivec, which provided some low-latency SIMD integer operations.

OK, but AltiVec integer performance doesn't help typical applications, very few applications are suitable for it, and there's a strong incentive NOT to implement it in software because it breaks G3 compatibility or requires a separate implementation. At best, it helps with vectorizable algorithms like some data compression stuff.

More to the point, the G5 AltiVec implementation includes all the same integer features as the G4's.

Actually, what they did was exactly flat-out manipulation of several benchmarks.

I find their response on this issue plausible enough to assume that they were not simply manipulating the benchmark to their benefit but instead trying to achieve a definition of fairness that was both reasonably flattering to them and that they thought a reader might accept. And i've never seen ANY benchmark from ANY computer manufacturer that didn't at least go that far. :D

That's just what you'd expect in a situation where a company with a proprietary solution has a controlling vertical monopoly and a vested interested in hindering competition from ISV's like Adobe.

Apple doesn't have a controlling monopoly on anything, given that Macs are sufficiently interoperable with Windows or Linux PCs (in terms of peripherals, file formats, and availability of cross-platform applications) to make changing platforms a reasonable option for companies to consider.

I don't like it much when Microsoft does this stuff either, but before taking that analogy too far (which I've seen people do) the big difference is that Microsoft has monopoly power that Apple doesn't have.

Anyway, the big problem with Premiere in the Mac market is that their product was weak, not that Apple ran them out. Trust me, I have owned and used both Premiere and FCP on the Mac, and there's nothing Apple's done with FCP that Adobe couldn't do if they'd really wanted to or had the vision.

-- Mark

beaker
07-09-2003, 12:42 AM
Originally posted by raz-0
SO for example, tests with maya, combustion, UT2003, aftereffecs, photoshop, illustrator, etc. will be what people want to see, and they will want to see them running on off the shelf systems out of the box. If you think these will be compiled with less than the optimal compiler on both sides, you have your head up your ass.
Have to dissagree here. Not everyone uses the most effecient compiler. If they did, then they would only use the Intel compiler on X86. Which is not true because a large percentage of software on the windows platform is compiled with M$ Visual C++. Easily over 50%. Even A/w uses GCC to compile maya on Linux(and MC V++ on windows). They only use the Intel compiler for the dynamics parts of Maya. Also, in addition, if people use the intel compiler there isn't exactly optimizations for AMD or could you even compile for AMD 64 bit processors, which would mean that in order for a company to produce the most optimal compiler they would have to use multiple compilers for everything which not everyone can or is willing to do.

beaker
07-09-2003, 12:57 AM
Originally posted by Thalaxis
That's just what you'd expect in a situation where a company with a proprietary solution has a controlling vertical monopoly and a vested interested in hindering competition from ISV's like Adobe.
I strongly disagree with this. I think Apple improved the video editing industry alot more than it hurt it. The video editing industry was pretty abismal before FCP came around. No one had any competition so no one was innovating. Avid and Adobe shame on them became extremely lazy with there products over the last 7-8 years. Premeire sucked ass and had so many bugs and holes that people bitched and complained about but many Adobe blindly ignored and would not even agnowledge their existance. Avid was becomming stagnant too. Look how much they have improved in the last two years simply because of FCP competition. Avid Xpress 1.0(2.0 sucked too) again, another big stagnant piece of Poo. Avid Xpress DV 3.0+3.5 added all the competing features to go up against FCP. Both companies keep on trying to out do each other with each release. Were seeing Synphony/Media Composer/DS features added to DV Xpress, life couldn't be better.

I don't think people could be any happier about what this competition between software packages has resulted in. Avid is doing better now then they ever have, they have been loosing money for 6-8 years strait, now all of a sudden they are a profitable company. I'm not saying Apple is the reason why, but they certainly did help to de-stagnate the pool.

Competition Rules! It only makes life better for us the consumer.

------------------------------
Forgot to add: I don't think Apple would have bought FCP from Macromedia in the first place if Premiere and Avid's products weren't allready starting to suck really bad. I think it was a necessity. Products were going in the shitter, and they had to do something about it.

raz-0
07-09-2003, 01:03 AM
Originally posted by beaker
Have to dissagree here. Not everyone uses the most effecient compiler. If they did, then they would only use the Intel compiler on X86. Which is not true because a large percentage of software on the windows platform is compiled with M$ Visual C++. Easily over 50%. Even A/w uses GCC to compile maya on Linux(and MC V++ on windows). They only use the Intel compiler for the dynamics parts of Maya. Also, in addition, if people use the intel compiler there isn't exactly optimizations for AMD or could you even compile for AMD 64 bit processors, which would mean that in order for a company to produce the most optimal compiler they would have to use multiple compilers for everything which not everyone can or is willing to do.

Yes, but after so many revisions, and key partnering with intel, MS VC++ is pretty optimized. It is largely ahead of the game compared to GCC for x86. GCC has at it's underpinnings cross platform compatibility. Which is good, but leaves a lot to ask in terms of push the button and get decently optimized code type of performance.

I think an increadibly fair comparison would be to buy an off the shelf mac and an off the shelf PC from a GOOD supplier. And then run the apps I suggested and any others you can find that are pertinent. I'm sure this will happen soon after the G5s hit the street. Which is likely half the reason for Apple fiddling around and doing things in a questionable manner. They will get an assload of free publicity and some comprehensive benchmarking off of this.

I just hope that it doesn't go as badly as when they made similar claims about the G3.

Thalaxis
07-09-2003, 02:30 AM
Originally posted by mark_wilkins
OK, but AltiVec integer performance doesn't help typical applications, very few applications are suitable for it, and there's a strong incentive NOT to implement it in software because it breaks G3 compatibility or requires a separate implementation. At best, it helps with vectorizable algorithms like some data compression stuff.

More to the point, the G5 AltiVec implementation includes all the same integer features as the G4's.


True on both counts. The biggest limitation of altivec is that it's a SIMD engine, not a general purpose floating point engine.


I find their response on this issue plausible enough to assume that they were not simply manipulating the benchmark to their benefit but instead trying to achieve a definition of fairness that was both reasonably flattering to them and that they thought a reader might accept. And i've never seen ANY benchmark from ANY computer manufacturer that didn't at least go that far. :D


How's that? The configuration 90% of the buyers of that P4 would use would blow the doors off of the configuration that Apple used. That's not fairness, that's tying a lead ball to the feet of the competitor's runner, and then drawing attention to it.


Apple doesn't have a controlling monopoly on anything, given that Macs are sufficiently interoperable with Windows or Linux PCs (in terms of peripherals, file formats, and availability of cross-platform applications) to make changing platforms a reasonable option for companies to consider.


That's not true. Remember MSIE and Netscape?


I don't like it much when Microsoft does this stuff either, but before taking that analogy too far (which I've seen people do) the big difference is that Microsoft has monopoly power that Apple doesn't have.


A lot of poeple think that... but Apple owns both the (proprietary)
platform, and the competition. They have total control over both,
which puts anyone trying to compete with those applications at
Apple's mercy.

Thalaxis
07-09-2003, 02:34 AM
Originally posted by beaker
I strongly disagree with this. I think Apple improved the video editing industry alot more than it hurt it.

That's not the point. The point is that anyone who wants to
compete against Shake, Chalice and FCP on OSX is competing
with Apple, who owns the hardware and the proprietary OS. That
means that Apple has them by the short and curlies unless they
go after the bigger markets of Linux and Windows, where they
get to compete with each other on even ground, since MS doesn't
own any of their competitors.

mark_wilkins
07-09-2003, 02:45 AM
Monopoly power, at least in the antitrust sense (which is the way the term is used when Microsoft comes up), refers to a wide continuum of situations that companies may find themselves in.

Monopoly power applies to a particular market, for example. Certainly Apple (like all owners of intellectual property protected by copyright or patent) have a legally protected monopoly on Apple computers and software.

However, Microsoft was not merely found by the courts to have monopoly power on Microsoft software and PCs designed to run it -- they were found to have meaningful monopoly power over the entire personal computer market. If Microsoft takes a stand against a particular manufacturer, for example, they can affect the ability of that manufacturer to offer certain kinds of products for all platforms, not just their own.

Apple has no such monopoly power over PCs in general, and their monopoly power over their own patented inventions and copyrighted software has different status under antitrust law than Microsoft's broader monopoly power over the whole industry (which springs from their huge market share.)

Note that I'm not saying that particular uses of Apple's specific force in their own market are *right*, but they're definitely subject to a different legal standard because they don't have an overwhelming market share advantage in the personal computer market (including all hardware and OS platforms.)

-- Mark

Thalaxis
07-09-2003, 03:11 AM
Originally posted by mark_wilkins

Note that I'm not saying that particular uses of Apple's specific force in their own market are *right*, but they're definitely subject to a different legal standard because they don't have an overwhelming market share advantage in the personal computer market (including all hardware and OS platforms.)


That's why I used the term "vertical monopoly". I don't see why you are debating the point, since in your last post you just described Apple as being a vertical monopoly.

The point, however, is different. The problem with Apple's being a vertical monopoly has no impact on the PC market in general, that's true. The point is that it's not good for anyone who wants to compete on Apple's home turf, because Apple now has both a vested interest in and the power to hurt them.

They, however, have an option where they can compete in an effectively open market.

mark_wilkins
07-09-2003, 03:20 AM
All I'm debating is the unstated implication that Apple is somehow engaging in behavior closely analogous to what Microsoft has been accused of under antitrust laws. It is NOT analogous because Microsoft's monopoly power extends far beyond the scope of any such power Apple has, and because of the resulting impact on the consumer (who, if they don't like the results of Apple's tactics, can always switch platforms, but often cannot reasonably switch platforms the other way when they don't like Microsoft's tactics.)

-- Mark

beaker
07-09-2003, 04:05 AM
Since Avid and Media 100 are still shipping their products, showing good market numbers and doing a good job competing against FCP. AE and Combustion doing just fine against Shake. I don't see where the vertical monopoly is at all? If Apple had forced everyone off the playing field and made everyone's products incompatible, then that would be different.

Avid just announced a whole boatload of new products and expanded apon many others(Synphony, Mojo, DNA, Media Composer Adreneline, etc...). They certainly wouldn't be doing this if Apple had closed everything down with FCP. Digidesign certainly isnt stepping down because of apple's audio products either.

Adobe is just used to being the only game in town, and now someone else is playing on their turf so, they are going home. They had it so easy before, and now they have to compete, boo hoo.

thinKer3D
07-09-2003, 03:18 PM
For what it's worth, Apple is a company that's been known to shoot itself in the foot all the time.

Bottom line?

AMD and Intel are the highest players in the processor market with AMD ahead with Opteron and Athlon64. IBM's processor design isn't capable of beating these two for sometime. Therefore Apple G5 quoted as "worlds fastest machine" is false misleading and will continue to keep apple at 1.9% market share!

Apples "all out" attitude to control hardware, software and purposesly discontinuing products on competing platforms will not help but hurt apple and it's users.

Apple needs to draw major inspiration from AMD.

At the end history tells all!

Thalaxis
07-09-2003, 03:55 PM
Originally posted by mark_wilkins
All I'm debating is the unstated implication that Apple is somehow engaging in behavior closely analogous to what Microsoft has been accused of under antitrust laws. It is NOT analogous because Microsoft's monopoly power extends far beyond the scope of any such power Apple has, and because of the resulting impact on the consumer (who, if they don't like the results of Apple's tactics, can always switch platforms, but often cannot reasonably switch platforms the other way when they don't like Microsoft's tactics.)

-- Mark

Now I understand. In all honesty, I did not intend to make that implication.

Thalaxis
07-09-2003, 04:00 PM
Originally posted by beaker
Since Avid and Media 100 are still shipping their products, showing good market numbers and doing a good job competing against FCP. AE and Combustion doing just fine against Shake. I don't see where the vertical monopoly is at all?

That it exists is plainly obvious, simply by definition.

Your post supports a different assertion, which is that they are not abusing it.

THAT is the big question. They have done so in the past, it remains to be seen whether or not they will do so again.

CGTalk Moderation
01-15-2006, 03:00 PM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.