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."
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.
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.
ACHere'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
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
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.