Apple has a distinct advantage in that it can define the complete user experience, where as Microsoft in the past could not due to the fact that they relied on OEMs to create the user experience. The Surface is the first challenge to that.

There are a couple things that Microsoft is attempting to resolve.

The one issue that Microsoft seems to run into is that too many hardware manufacturers fail to build a reference standard device.  Microsoft designed and is building its reference standard for the Windows 8 RT and Windows 8 Pro tablets.  It doesn't mean others can't build better, more powerful devices, or even less expensive ones.  It just means Microsoft is defining the bast RT and Pro tablets. 

The other issue that Microsoft is dealing with is bloatware.  How many computing experiences are mismanaged by bloatware?  From rootkits, to malware, to broken software.  OEMs tend to install crap that creates a negative experience.  There are a plethora of applications and utilities that OEMs include that are redundant and offer users inconsistent experiences.  Microsoft is challenging that by delivering an experience free of bloatware. 

By offering consumers an unadulterated experience, Microsoft is able to offer consumers the definitive Windows 8 tablet experience. 

Mike do you know what a monopoly is?  I don't get how Microsoft developing hardware that uses its software would be a monopoly when there are/would still be OEMs that are capable of licensing the OS and installing it on their hardware?  Not to mention, Apple, to my knowledge has never been hit with a single monopoly charge for being the sole source for its OS.

Would it necessarily be good business?  Possibly not.  It might hurt them in the long-run, but we'll see I suppose.  However it isn't a monopoly.  There are other alternatives, namely Linux and OEMs have the same opportunity to do what Microsoft is doing.  What got Microsoft into trouble in the 1990's is that they previously had used their market position to pressure OEMs into using Windows and or Internet Explorer as the default/installed browser. 

Their position in the market allowed them to push competitors out of the market.  Not by competing against them, but by forcing the hand of OEMs to ensure
that Windows and Internet Explorer were on desktops.  Even if Microsoft stopped licensing Windows to OEMs, it wouldn't be a monopoly because there are still alternatives to Windows available on the market.

Yes, I know what a monopoly is. And I will admit that because I was posting on my iPad that I tried to write the message in brief and may have not fully explained myself. In fact, what I was referring to was monopolistic business practices, better known as "antitrust."  

Calling Microsoft a monopoly is so 1999 -- https://www.google.com/search?q=microsoft+monopoly&rlz=1C1RNAN_enUS474US483&aq=f&sugexp=chrome,mod=9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

(Although Bill Gates was testifying last year (2011) in a 2004 Novell Monopoly lawsuit -- that's on the first page of that search listing.)

But I imagine if it tried to control software and hardware, those charges would come up again.  No one brings charges against Apple because while it might be highly profitable, it is still niche on the computer side.  This would be especially true if they tried to make you buy their hardware to use their software -- which is the market leader in word processing, spreadsheets, and presentations (the three most common business functions).

Also, if history is a guide, European regulators would be much stronger in their opposition to such actions than their US counterparts.

Mike from Morgantown

Antitrust is what a government does, not a charge levied against a business.  Again, I don't see monopolistic behavior if Microsoft builds its own hardware.  As long as the hardware business isn't unfairly advantaged (i.e. the software is licensed the same internally as it is with OEMs), than I don't see how it is anti-competitive.   

OK. They will face antitrust charges.  That was what I was trying to say. Stop playing semantics. What I was trying to say before was that I meant to say "antitrust" instead of "monopoly."

As for Microsoft, it has a long history of being seen as being on the wrong side of these laws.

Companies tend to be the most successful when they focus on their core competencies ... When you start to develop a business that is in an area outside of your core competencies you're (mostly) setting yourself up for initial failure at great expense; if you're willing to spend the money to develop the expertise you may eventually be successful, if you don't go bankrupt or poison the well first.

So by your understanding Apple are the largest most monopolistic company ever to grace the world?????

Usually Microsoft makes amazing hw products.

Zune and Zune HD
Xbox 1 and Xbox 360 slim
I own 2 MS mouses and they are awesome

So i dont think Surface will be a problem.

Some would certainly say so.

We're stretching things, Mike.  Your long history is essentially a few charges of anti-competitive behavior during the late 1990's.  Yes, two charges one in Europe and one in the US lasted through until the last and current decade, but the reality is the behavior for which they charged and either found guilty of or acquitted of were from the early 1990's.

If Microsoft was a monopoly in it's endeavor with tablets, there would be no Google Android or Apple tablets.  Microsoft would have forced them out of the market by buying up the people making the devices or the supplies making the components.  That's a monopoly. 

The only manufacturer that Microsoft is possibly in threat of taking over is Nokia.  Hardly a threat of to either Google or Apple.

As for anti-competitive practices, manufacturing your own hardware and using your own software, is not anti-competitive.  Microsoft is under no legal, moral, or ethical obligation to provide an OS for OEM use.  There have been at least two OS's so far that Microsoft has not released for OEM use, that of the Xbox and Xbox 360 OSs. 

I'm not suggesting that regulators couldn't or shouldn't watch what transpires closely to make sure they don't engage in anti-competitive behavior, just that making an OS and using it on your own hardware is not illegal.  If it was, Apple would have been a monopoly a long time ago. 

There was a time, not that long ago (within my lifetime) that every computer had their own OS.  Most computers even had their own version of BASIC.  Some variations of computers, either the same model or from one model to the next had incompatible OSs.  You're trying to suggest to me that all those other companies went out of business, with the exception of Apple, because they were anti-competitive and monopolistic.  They weren't. 

You're also attempting to suggest that Google, by offering the Nexus line of phones, is engaging in anti-competitive and or monopolistic behavior, which again they are not.  The market for Android is extremely vibrant and Google's competitors actually fair better in the market than Google does.

You've made a statement with absolutely no basis in fact or reality. 

By the way, the primary anti-competitive behavior both the US government and the European Union charged Microsoft with was tying.  The inclusion of Internet Explorer in Windows.  In the US that argument was thrown out, though other anti-competitive behavior that applied to pricing was still upheld.  Basically Microsoft forced OEMs such as Dell and HP to buy a license for Windows for every PC they built regardless of what OS was installed on it.  In Europe, the major difference was that the tying claim was carried forcing Microsoft to provide the ability to include other web browsers.

None of Microsoft's past behavior is relative to manufacturing the hardware and software.  Again, I'm not saying that they couldn't engage in anti-competitive behavior, I'm just saying manufacturing both the hardware and software isn't anti-competitive.  To engage in anti-competitive behavior, they would have to force other OEMs out of the same market by exclusion (e.g. compel Foxconn not to work with an OEM) or price their hardware below margin. 

You are entitled to your opinion, but just because it's Microsoft doing it doesn't make it monopolistic.  Especially not when Microsoft's competitors are engaging in the very same business practice.