Slashdot Mirror
Annual Cost of Microsoft Monopoly: $10 Billion
An anonymous reader writes "Microsoft's deals with major PC vendors lock users out from alternative options, such as Linux. A recent whitepaper calculates that the cost to industry of this Microsoft monopoly is $10 billion per year."
Sadly, you are very correct. I don't see an end to this monopoly anytime soon. Microsoft seems to be held to a completely different set of standards than other companies. It's either their market dominance that scares people, their deep pockets (which are filling other pockets), or a combination of these and more variables.
The really sad part about it all is how Apple gets sued for the Tiger name or for "Apple" in cahoots with iTunes. Intel and AMD are going after each other. These are instances of competetition that is allowed to thrive and it's carrying over to the courts. Then you've got Microsoft getting pissy at Google and suing because Google is getting an ex-Microsoft employee (rumor has it, they're getting quite a few employees actually). And then you've got this monopoly business. This current administration in office doesn't care about Microsoft's anti-competitive practices. Microsoft has to get slapped pretty damn hard to stop...and I just don't think that will happen anytime soon.
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts...for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang
3. businesses are not upgrading from windows 2000.
4. many people find their 8 year old computer working just fine for internet/email/word processing/spreadsheets/tax software.
5. some other ancedotal excuse.
always mosh clockwise
It is called a loss leader.. while illegal in theory it hasn't ever been used to prosecute a business for non-competivite behavior.
Are you drunk, stupid, or joking? A loss leader? You honestly think MS pays all the computer manufacturers to include Windows on their machines and then makes their revenue selling, office or services or something? It is completely untrue. They sell Windows, but have contracts insuring they get paid for every PC sold, not for every PC with Windows. The extra money is for the expense of putting FreeDoS on the machine. They manage to get this ridiculously favorable deal because as a monopoly they have the power to put any PC seller out of business at their whim. Get a clue.
But: every time there's a new study on how "piracy costs the music industry N dollars", where N is the estimated number of piracy incidents times the average suggested retail price of the pirated materials, there is universal outrage. "That's fallacious," we cry, "it assumes that every incident of piracy would have otherwise been a retail purchase at full price!". And we are right to make that claim.
However, here's a study that exercises a similar fallacy, and yet the outrage goes in the other direction. (and yes, I know this doesn't apply to everyone... I'm generalizing).
We can't assume, if the major vendors decided to stop bundling Windows/Office tomorrow, that any significant number of people would happily explore alternative options and be just as satisfied.
We can't assume, had Microsoft gone belly-up nine years ago, that people would have been perfectly content to start figuring out monitor sync rates and which filesystems with which to partition and format their hard drives.
We can't assume that all the unwashed masses would've just gone to Apple; we can't assume they would've been able to afford it; we can't assume Apple's products would've advanced at the rate they have without the pressure of being the "underdog". And since the premise of this "study" (though I am loathe to call it that) is that of the cost of a monopoly, we can't assume Apple (or Linux, or whatever) "winning" the market would've been any better.
Like it or not, Microsoft's presence and market dominance is an inextricable part of computing history. There is no way of even remotely predicting how the last twenty years would have panned out without it. And despite its grandiose claims, the authors of this article don't even seem to have bothered trying.
"incentives to ecourage Dell to keep the FreeDOS price up" I believe that's exactly what Microsoft was supposed to be prohibited from doing under the terms of its anti-trust settlement...Then again, you might also say "a huge stick to beat Dell with unless it keeps the FreeDOS price up"
Probably true... But think about this: You're the IT person for a medium-sized company. You know that Linux is there, and know some stuff about it. You don't use it though.
Now, Microsoft suddenly decides to make it more labor-intensive to keep your systems up to date: You have to verify the license. It's not much, but it would be enough to make you start looking at Linux a little harder, just after your next update round.
Maybe you'll switch, maybe you won't, but you are thinking about it. If you do, you now will show every user in the company that Linux works. They had probably never heard of it. Maybe they'll like it. Maybe even take a look at it at home. Even if you don't, you may talk about it with your boss. Who make look at it, if you make a good enough case.
No one cost in this is enough to force a switch. But every small cost is enough to make switching just that little bit more attractive. And any one switch is one more real-world example, making more switches more likely.
This is how empires fall. Not all at once, but in pieces...
'Sensible' is a curse word.
Perhaps what you need to do is to review the definition of a monopoly.
Your opinion about Apple controling both the hardware and the software of their computers may be valid (I'm not going to argue or agree with you). But calling them a monopoly shows a lack of understanding of the term. They (Apple) haven't prevented you from choosing a competing product through illegal methods or coercion.
"What do you think?" "I think 'What, do you think?!'"
Your #4 is incorrect, and has been for about 50 years now. The "unseen hand" is a useful analogy, but its not entirely consistent with modern economic theory. Read up on anything written in the last 50 years regarding monopolies, and you'll learn that they can exist naturally, and indeed the government, by virtue of its coercive ability, is often the only way to break them. The remainder of your post, derived from this flawed premise, should thus be disregarded.
Oh, and FYI, professors are leftist because they actually study the world. I find it incredible that most people wouldn't ride in an airplane built by a layman, but are perfectly willing to listen to economic theory espoused by people unqualified to do so.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...