Uh, Dell will ship machines pre-installed with Linux.
They call it the "White box program". Just create an image with linux, send it to them, and you can order as many identical copies as you want.
If linux supported all of the latest hardware, particularly in laptops, we'd likely see a Dell linux laptop. The Centrino stuff just got written for linux last week but has been shipping for over a year. Why as a hardware vendor would you want to ship a machine that wouldn't actually work with the software installed on it?
Also, since most existing linux users are savvy enough to do an OS install, a windows pre-install hasn't been a barrier to sales.
Uh, no. Many Slashdot readers are so vehemently anti Microsoft that they forget about the idea of innovating. Maybe that is why Microsoft is still winning?
IF a businesses chooses to standardize on Microsoft, that's its business.
If you buy a brand name laptop and try to get linux working on it, you'd better know how to write drivers or be willing to wait 6 months. Most new laptops come with hardware that isn't currently supported under Linux. As a hardware vendor, Dell wants to sell working hardware. Why would it ship a machine on which some of the hardware wasn't usable?
I use linux and Window, by choice. Nobody has shoved anything down my throat. If a proprietary solution is enough better than the free one, I'll consider it. Otherwise, I prefer free/open solutions. Why can't we let everyone make this simple decision?
Dell sells systems with no OS installed. They throw in Windows with laptops becuase many of their laptops include hardware that is only supported under Windows.
Free market capitalism isn't perfect, it's only the best system yet devised by makind. Government intervention is a trowback to command economies and just doesn't work.
You may be able to identify problems in a free market system, but your solutions are likely plagued with tons of problems that would be more severe yet harder to identify.
Uh, Dell will install an image for you on a machine. They call it their white box program I believe. You can order a $349 "server" from Dell that is a fine desktop machine, and comes w/o an OS.
I just refuted all of the points you made. You may have to call Dell and sign up for the white box program, but if enough people did that they they'd surely make the machine configurations standard.
That just doesn't hold water. WMP can play back other formats, in fact you can install any codec you want on it. It even supports automatic codec installation for many formats.
All office programs support a variety of standard file formats.
Consumers and businesses choose the formats they do because they like the benefits those formats provide. It's about freedom, not about one company or another...
You have it wrong. What you describe are simply network externalities, and such network externalities are a legitimate goal for any company. They are also a huge incentive for other companies to create an alternative.
As you correctly point out, market prices will include the vendor lock-in and the switching costs. Maybe Office currently costs $400 for a license, but switching would take so much time and information gathering that it would cost $500. Office is suddenly a bargain.
The thing to do, rather than get hung up on Microsoft being evil, is to think creatively about how to create real alternatives. Miguel deIcaza is doing this. Few Slashdotters do anything but rant. We need creative thinking not knee-jerk MS stinks whining.
The original case against Microsoft was brought by its competetors. Kind of like if a bunch of amateur athletes took Michael Jordan to court and asked to have his knees broken.
Instead of doing that, they should be training themselves so that they can actually compete. Monopoly lawsuits are really not very scientific, and as someone else on Slashdot pointed out recently, are always more political then they are economic.
Those are all very good points. I use firefox too.
However, to say that we need government intervention because nobody has figured out a way to advertise the many existing alternatives doesn't make sense.
Napster never had any commercials and it was very quickly on tons of PCs.
What happened to the notion of freedom, so rarely espoused or valued on Slashdot, of freedom from government intervention?
How can you believe that Linux is a viable competetor to Microsoft some of the time, yet support government intervention against Microsoft intended to make other competetors viable?
This position, held by most Slashdotters who have commented on this issue, is highly contradictory.
You can easily buy a PC without Windows on it... and if you don't like Microsoft you can use one of the many alternatives. If you are a business owner and want to stream media content, you can choose from one of the many alternatives.
1) People don't choose Microsoft because they have to. 2) People don't choose Microsoft because they're stupid.
People choose Microsoft because it offers benefits that they consider worthwhile, and as Microsoft's success as a business shows, people are willing to pay for these benefits.
So instead of supporting state action to help Microsoft's would be competetors, why not support alternatives that really stand a chance at success? Does anyone really think Sun Microsystems is part of the future?
What about Linux, Ximian, MacOs, etc? There is plenty of competition. In fact, it's odd that I have to mention this on Slashdot, but I use Linux for some stuff that Microsoft doesn't do very well. Also, I bought some PCs from Dell recently w/o any OS installed.
Uh, as I recall RTF has been supported in every version of Word I've used back to version 2.x.
Similarly, all current versions of Office support backward compatible saving to previous versions, as well as exporting to HTML and PNG, etc.
Users choose to use the proprietary formats if they want the special features they provide. If you are OK with a standard format, then use RTF or PNG or HTML. Creating a very useful file format is part of the design of the software, and part of Microsoft's profit seeking goal orientation. It is also in Microsoft's best interest to support open standards such as HTML, RTF, and PNG, which it does. Windows Media format is patented and proprietary, as is GIF and Quicktime.
I still don't think Microsoft has a monopoly. If it does, it sure isn't leveraging it by providing products at $0.
What you are saying is that other, better products would exist if someone could figure out a way to tell all the stupid people how much better they were. You are saying that if someone knew how to properly advertise a better media player, people would pay for it.
How can we blame the lack of creativity of advertisers on Microsoft? C'mon. That's rediculous. It's almost as rediculous as blaming the lack of demand for a better media player on Microsoft. They provide WMP with Windows. Any OS that I've used in the past 10 years has included some way of playing media, and all have been marginal. WMP is the best attempt I've seen yet.
Maybe the EU is just after the $500M in fines? Microsoft is the object of the resentment of some people, just like the WTC was. Why are we cheering when they try to destroy it?
Are you serious? You give too much credit to governments. If Microsoft had a monopoly then the only way to actually exploit it would be to charge tons of money for Microsoft products. This would create huge incentives to market entry, and the monopoly would quickly vanish (this is software we're talking about, not oil rigs, real-estate, and railroad ties). Already, so many alternatives exist the the idea that Microsoft is a monopoly is pretty darn near rediculous.
Microsoft throws in value adds to its customers. How is this different than free floor mats in your car? Shouldn't people who sell custom floor mats be outraged?
What you are asking for is not the facilitation of competition, but the creation of price controls. By forcing Microsoft to stop providing a competetive product to the marketplace by leveraging its distribution channel, you are artificially raising the market price of media players (if the price gets >$0). If the price stays the same, then your worries were unfounded, since Microsoft hadn't actually caused the price to stay at $0.
If you think that price controls and borderline-socialism are EVER anything other than a way to give little handouts to some at the expense of others, then you are sadly mistaken. The EU is giving Sun and Real Networks a shot of steroids, but they have one foot in the grave. This is due to their inability to work together to create something truly competetive with Microsoft's products, not because it isn't possible.
Rather than getting Microsoft out of the way (a company that can create a Media player so strong that few people feel the need to download another one with one hand tied behind its back), we should just let Sun and Real and the other plaintiffs die off and make room for competetors that will be able to legitimately beat Microsoft.
Uh, a free market means minimal government intervention. In my opinion, consumers should be able to voluntarily make a choice. I do, I use WMP, iTunes, and VideoLan for playing media. Each of these cost me $0. There was plenty of competition. I tried a variety of media players and kept the best three that I found. Back when WMP wasn't as good I used Real Player and Winamp, but now with WMP I find both of those alternatives less optimal. Incidentally, I have never paid more than $0 for media playback software, and I don't plan to do so unless the free alternatives (of which there are many) fall short of what is available in non-free versions. As a consumer, I'm pretty happy about the $0 situation...
Why is there no competition? I have managed to install VLC and iTunes on my windows machine without any trouble at all. The price I paid for each of those was $0. Had either of them seemed worth >$0, I would have happily paid the price. The market price for media player software happens to currently be $0. This is the same price as soda refills at most restaurants.
When you show that antitrust action needs to be taken, you need to show actual harm to consumers.
I use linux and Windows, and I use iTunes, VideoLan, and WMP. Where is there a lack of competition? All that I observe is that the market price for media players is $0, which happens to be the price I paid for all three listed above.
Consumers are extremely well off with such prices. I wish other industries (houses, cars, electronics) had such great prices.
Why don't you just write better software? Why cheer for a lawsuit? If Microsoft software is so bad, why doesn't someone create some that is close? What about OSS?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Office support RTF? Can't you buy a PDF writer and use that? What am I missing. If you use.doc you must value some of the added features/functions, since everyone with Office or openoffice can read it.
Slashdot Mirror
If the x% of word documents is worth the price of office, then I don't see what the problem is. If she wanted to she could ask for RTF files.
Uh, Dell will ship machines pre-installed with Linux.
They call it the "White box program". Just create an image with linux, send it to them, and you can order as many identical copies as you want.
If linux supported all of the latest hardware, particularly in laptops, we'd likely see a Dell linux laptop. The Centrino stuff just got written for linux last week but has been shipping for over a year. Why as a hardware vendor would you want to ship a machine that wouldn't actually work with the software installed on it?
Also, since most existing linux users are savvy enough to do an OS install, a windows pre-install hasn't been a barrier to sales.
Uh, no. Many Slashdot readers are so vehemently anti Microsoft that they forget about the idea of innovating. Maybe that is why Microsoft is still winning?
IF a businesses chooses to standardize on Microsoft, that's its business.
If you buy a brand name laptop and try to get linux working on it, you'd better know how to write drivers or be willing to wait 6 months. Most new laptops come with hardware that isn't currently supported under Linux. As a hardware vendor, Dell wants to sell working hardware. Why would it ship a machine on which some of the hardware wasn't usable?
I use linux and Window, by choice. Nobody has shoved anything down my throat. If a proprietary solution is enough better than the free one, I'll consider it. Otherwise, I prefer free/open solutions. Why can't we let everyone make this simple decision?
Dell sells systems with no OS installed. They throw in Windows with laptops becuase many of their laptops include hardware that is only supported under Windows.
Who doesn't have a choice? I use linux and Windows, and I use iTunes, VLC, and WMP for media.
Anyone with an internet connection can easily do the same.
I won't install Real Player, because it infects your PC with annoying popups.
Uh, if Dell, IBM, Gateway, eMachines, or any other PC maker thought it could make money by selling Linux on the desktop, it would.
IBM has plans to do it, but it's a future plan not a present one. Same with Sun.
If it were important enough they'd do it NOW. If it were lucrative enough they'd get investor dollars to do it NOW.
Free market capitalism isn't perfect, it's only the best system yet devised by makind. Government intervention is a trowback to command economies and just doesn't work.
You may be able to identify problems in a free market system, but your solutions are likely plagued with tons of problems that would be more severe yet harder to identify.
Uh, Dell will install an image for you on a machine. They call it their white box program I believe. You can order a $349 "server" from Dell that is a fine desktop machine, and comes w/o an OS.
I just refuted all of the points you made. You may have to call Dell and sign up for the white box program, but if enough people did that they they'd surely make the machine configurations standard.
That just doesn't hold water. WMP can play back other formats, in fact you can install any codec you want on it. It even supports automatic codec installation for many formats.
All office programs support a variety of standard file formats.
Consumers and businesses choose the formats they do because they like the benefits those formats provide. It's about freedom, not about one company or another...
I hope your comment gets modded up, as it's typical of the kind of responses posted by people who support MS bashing and government intervention.
You have it wrong. What you describe are simply network externalities, and such network externalities are a legitimate goal for any company. They are also a huge incentive for other companies to create an alternative.
As you correctly point out, market prices will include the vendor lock-in and the switching costs. Maybe Office currently costs $400 for a license, but switching would take so much time and information gathering that it would cost $500. Office is suddenly a bargain.
The thing to do, rather than get hung up on Microsoft being evil, is to think creatively about how to create real alternatives. Miguel deIcaza is doing this. Few Slashdotters do anything but rant. We need creative thinking not knee-jerk MS stinks whining.
So why subject Microsoft to double jeopardy then?
The original case against Microsoft was brought by its competetors. Kind of like if a bunch of amateur athletes took Michael Jordan to court and asked to have his knees broken.
Instead of doing that, they should be training themselves so that they can actually compete. Monopoly lawsuits are really not very scientific, and as someone else on Slashdot pointed out recently, are always more political then they are economic.
Those are all very good points. I use firefox too.
However, to say that we need government intervention because nobody has figured out a way to advertise the many existing alternatives doesn't make sense.
Napster never had any commercials and it was very quickly on tons of PCs.
What happened to the notion of freedom, so rarely espoused or valued on Slashdot, of freedom from government intervention?
How can you believe that Linux is a viable competetor to Microsoft some of the time, yet support government intervention against Microsoft intended to make other competetors viable?
This position, held by most Slashdotters who have commented on this issue, is highly contradictory.
You can easily buy a PC without Windows on it... and if you don't like Microsoft you can use one of the many alternatives. If you are a business owner and want to stream media content, you can choose from one of the many alternatives.
1) People don't choose Microsoft because they have to.
2) People don't choose Microsoft because they're stupid.
People choose Microsoft because it offers benefits that they consider worthwhile, and as Microsoft's success as a business shows, people are willing to pay for these benefits.
So instead of supporting state action to help Microsoft's would be competetors, why not support alternatives that really stand a chance at success? Does anyone really think Sun Microsystems is part of the future?
What about Linux, Ximian, MacOs, etc? There is plenty of competition. In fact, it's odd that I have to mention this on Slashdot, but I use Linux for some stuff that Microsoft doesn't do very well. Also, I bought some PCs from Dell recently w/o any OS installed.
Uh, as I recall RTF has been supported in every version of Word I've used back to version 2.x.
Similarly, all current versions of Office support backward compatible saving to previous versions, as well as exporting to HTML and PNG, etc.
Users choose to use the proprietary formats if they want the special features they provide. If you are OK with a standard format, then use RTF or PNG or HTML. Creating a very useful file format is part of the design of the software, and part of Microsoft's profit seeking goal orientation. It is also in Microsoft's best interest to support open standards such as HTML, RTF, and PNG, which it does. Windows Media format is patented and proprietary, as is GIF and Quicktime.
I still don't think Microsoft has a monopoly. If it does, it sure isn't leveraging it by providing products at $0.
What you are saying is that other, better products would exist if someone could figure out a way to tell all the stupid people how much better they were. You are saying that if someone knew how to properly advertise a better media player, people would pay for it.
How can we blame the lack of creativity of advertisers on Microsoft? C'mon. That's rediculous. It's almost as rediculous as blaming the lack of demand for a better media player on Microsoft. They provide WMP with Windows. Any OS that I've used in the past 10 years has included some way of playing media, and all have been marginal. WMP is the best attempt I've seen yet.
Maybe the EU is just after the $500M in fines? Microsoft is the object of the resentment of some people, just like the WTC was. Why are we cheering when they try to destroy it?
Are you serious? You give too much credit to governments. If Microsoft had a monopoly then the only way to actually exploit it would be to charge tons of money for Microsoft products. This would create huge incentives to market entry, and the monopoly would quickly vanish (this is software we're talking about, not oil rigs, real-estate, and railroad ties). Already, so many alternatives exist the the idea that Microsoft is a monopoly is pretty darn near rediculous.
Microsoft throws in value adds to its customers. How is this different than free floor mats in your car? Shouldn't people who sell custom floor mats be outraged?
What you are asking for is not the facilitation of competition, but the creation of price controls. By forcing Microsoft to stop providing a competetive product to the marketplace by leveraging its distribution channel, you are artificially raising the market price of media players (if the price gets >$0). If the price stays the same, then your worries were unfounded, since Microsoft hadn't actually caused the price to stay at $0.
If you think that price controls and borderline-socialism are EVER anything other than a way to give little handouts to some at the expense of others, then you are sadly mistaken. The EU is giving Sun and Real Networks a shot of steroids, but they have one foot in the grave. This is due to their inability to work together to create something truly competetive with Microsoft's products, not because it isn't possible.
Rather than getting Microsoft out of the way (a company that can create a Media player so strong that few people feel the need to download another one with one hand tied behind its back), we should just let Sun and Real and the other plaintiffs die off and make room for competetors that will be able to legitimately beat Microsoft.
Uh, a free market means minimal government intervention. In my opinion, consumers should be able to voluntarily make a choice. I do, I use WMP, iTunes, and VideoLan for playing media. Each of these cost me $0. There was plenty of competition. I tried a variety of media players and kept the best three that I found. Back when WMP wasn't as good I used Real Player and Winamp, but now with WMP I find both of those alternatives less optimal. Incidentally, I have never paid more than $0 for media playback software, and I don't plan to do so unless the free alternatives (of which there are many) fall short of what is available in non-free versions. As a consumer, I'm pretty happy about the $0 situation...
Why is there no competition? I have managed to install VLC and iTunes on my windows machine without any trouble at all. The price I paid for each of those was $0. Had either of them seemed worth >$0, I would have happily paid the price. The market price for media player software happens to currently be $0. This is the same price as soda refills at most restaurants.
What is the negative effect of the market dominance acheived by Microsoft?
Who is being harmed by the settlement? And how?
When you show that antitrust action needs to be taken, you need to show actual harm to consumers.
I use linux and Windows, and I use iTunes, VideoLan, and WMP. Where is there a lack of competition? All that I observe is that the market price for media players is $0, which happens to be the price I paid for all three listed above.
Consumers are extremely well off with such prices. I wish other industries (houses, cars, electronics) had such great prices.
Why don't you just write better software? Why cheer for a lawsuit? If Microsoft software is so bad, why doesn't someone create some that is close? What about OSS?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Office support RTF? Can't you buy a PDF writer and use that? What am I missing. If you use .doc you must value some of the added features/functions, since everyone with Office or openoffice can read it.