Microsoft vs Apple

It was once argued that Microsoft possessed an unfair stronghold on the technological market.I always found this to funny and hypocritical of a government based in capitalism. Though it was considered an issue in the past its very clear that the modern day market conditions are seemly shaped after the very issues Microsoft was persecuted for. Microsoft’s idea to supply Internet Explorer with its operating system years ago speaks virtue to its innovative nature. The Macintosh operating system now comes with The “Safari” web browser, yet it is not cited as an unfair advantage.

Aside from supplying a web browser, Apple also supplies its very popular Iphone exclusively to AT&T and more recently Verizon. While this can be seen as giving AT&T a competitive edge, there has be no legal opposition from competing wireless phone service providers. That may be as a result of there being a competitive nature that was absent at the time of the persecution of Microsoft. The Microsoft case seemed to present the ethical question of should there be a sense of equal progression amongst companies in the same industry or should there be freedom to use the resources made available to all of them in order to make advances? Despite the fact the Iphone was offered exclusively to AT&T, there was no interjection on the part of competing wireless phone carriers, they instead introduced their own respective phones that could compete and rival the technology of the iphone.

Apple also released the mp3 industry leading iPod, but its strong market presence is also met with competition from mp3 players created by Microsoft and plethora of other companies. Was the Microsoft case, a case of its competitors lacking the motivation to take the necessary steps to compete? The answer is impossible to know but given Microsoft’s continued industry leading success years after the case and the current industry positions of those who filed the suits, the answer does lean more towards yes than no.