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."
Until the penalties outweigh the revenue, what's going to make MS stop? This 300lb gorilla is going to keep stomping on the little people (Linux, FreeBSD and otherS) unless something changes. In addition... Even if this didn't exist MS still has a stranglehold on the software available for personal computers, everything from Games to Applications. That's the next hurdle.
"Simplify, simplify, simplify!" Thoreau
Poor apple topic sandwiched between two microsoft topics...
I predict apple juice.
Hmmm witty sig or funny sig? Maybe elitest techy sig!
I pity the thimble that lands there!
10
20 Print "Balls To That"
The pressure from Microsoft on OEMs is very, very well know. Would it be tolerated in any other industry? Absolutely not, but there's a tendency from people to think that that's just the way things are when it comes to computers unfortunately.
I calculated that numbers pulled out of asses cost the industry $98.2 billion last year!
Beep beep.
The vendors laugh and a hush falls over the Redmond conference table. "Fine," replies Bill, calmly stroking the cat before deftly returning his pinky to his lips, "One hundred Beeeellion dollars!"
"Shit," reply the executives.
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
RTFWP. They figured out what it costs Australia, and they have numbers from Microsoft saying that Australia is 2% of MS's income.
They extrapolate, based on their figure of $200 million in savings, which is 2% of $10 billion.
In reality, in any given year, Microsoft makes $40 billion. Does it really seem ridiculous that 10 of that might be from their monopoly? It seems sensible to me. The WP points out that in buying a computer, that it used to be (ala early - mid 90s) that the hardware was about 85% of the cost, and the software 15%. Now, hardware costs have plummeted, whereas software prices have gone up. Now when you buy a computer, about 65% of the price is hardware, and 35% is software. Good points, if you ask me.
libertarianswag.com
Let me begin by saying I don't like Microsoft products. I think it's an evil, opportunistic company that is likely funded by Nazi gold, but....
Microsoft itself is not the real culprit here. If the cost to the industry is really 10 billion, then the threshold for establishing a monopoly should be met. The problem is no real enforcement of the Sherman Act or any of the other federal "calls to arms" against monopoly.
Like it or not, in capitalist society the message sent to business is to be as nasty as profitable and permitted. As long as consumers keep buying (maybe because they feel like they don't have a choice, and there is some argument there) and the government doesn't enforce its own laws (which is probably why consumers feel they have no choice), Microsoft can't be blamed overmuch.
In short (too late!), the problem isn't really the 300 lb. gorilla. It's just doing what gorillas do. The problem is the federal prosecutor with the tranq gun taking a nap.
ACDear Universities, Think Tanks, Consulting Agencies, and all other interested parties:
I would like to apply for the job of "Guy that pulls numbers out of his ass". I feel that my ability to pull numbers out of my ass qualifies me as an excellent candidate for this position. To demonstrate, please allow me to give some examples:
$4.3 Billion
$350k per year
$20.34 for every person in the United States
Please note how I was effortlessly able to adjust the meanings of the ass-pulled numbers by adding descriptive phrases, while still distancing the numbers from any real facts or statistics. I realize that it takes more than pulling numbers out of my ass to succeed in todays competitive white paper/consulting/propoganda market, and feel that I can be a great benefit to your company.
Here's a blantant example of how Microsoft has everyone in their pocket:
Dell Dimension 2400 w/ Windows XP = $299
Same PC w/ FreeDOS = $319
Now someone tell me how Microsoft prices Windows XP $20 cheaper than the same PC with a free operating system.
More
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
Maybe the MCSE's shouldn't have put their careers in the hand of one company, then? If MS collapses, and the MCSE's are all out of jobs - well, it's their problem for making a poor career choice. Maybe they should have seen the trend and prepared by learning about it.
Software development, however, will not be affected. There's not much different when you're coding C++ for Windows or Linux. Or Java. Or Perl. Or [insert language here].
There's not much different in using those computers, either. Thunderbird is similar in look and feel to Outlook, OpenOffice.org is similar to MS Office, and Firefox is well, Firefox, and a great number of Windows users are already running it.
I'd like a big mac, a large fries, and a bullshit statistic to go, please.
The Blaster Master Fighting for Truth, Justice, and Evil Pie since 1979
...and costs $1 trillion in virus/trojan/spam/malware costs because of homogenity.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
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.
Some things never change. The Slashdot crowd is still playing the blame game, working on the assumption that if Windows didn't have a large monopoly, Linux usage would be more widespread.
Still ignoring the fact that the vast majority of people just don't want to use Linux even if given a choice, because it still has serious usability issues that show no signs of being solved. Mostly because even though it is "one OS" it still suffers from the fragmentation that killed UNIX as a viable platform. Instead of kernel/system call fragmentation, it is fragmentation of desktops (KDE, Gnome, etc) and services (different print systems, different X servers, different window managers, each with slightly incompatible ways to cut & paste, etc).
Not to mention how much easier it is for developers to develop for Windows due to the fact that you don't have to worry about a billion different differences between distros, libc versions, kernel branches, etc.
But go ahead and keep blaming Microsoft's business practices... why stop now? It is easier than trying to actually compete for users.
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...