It is disappointing to observe the low level of reasoning reflected
in so many posts on the topic of alleged increased costs to the consumer
to the tune of $1000 for Windows following a break-up of Microsoft.
Point 1. Microsoft acts as a monopoly, therefore market-based reasoning
is misapplied in this case.
It is simplistic to claim that people would not pay $1000 for the Windows
OS. Microsoft would make them pay. The very point
about Microsoft to which many object (though perhaps confusedly in most
cases) is that it acts unfairly. Unfair means using monopolist power
used to gain excess profit. Since, to the end user, "the OS is the
box" Microsoft has pursued a single-minded strategy which boils down to
seizing the main gateway to the PC - the OS - and then using it to extract
excess profit. Their strategy has hardly been a secret: "Microsoft
in your cellular phone and PDA, not to mention oven and refrigerator".
Microsoft already, now, coerces consumers into paying for its bloatware.
In short, Microsoft created a cash cow and is milking it furiously.
On the hardware end prices go down while power and quality increases.
That is closer to a market functioning properly (although the argument
can be made that Intel has used incremental progress in its x86 architecture
to create its own "cash cow"). It is even reasonable to suppose that
the $1000-for-Windows claim is a test "scare" designed to
prepare for the day when Microsoft will make the consumer, literally, pay
for the government's intervention in its monopoly.
Point 2. Whether people "care" about the Microsoft monopoly or not
is besides the point.
Stepping in to limit monopoly power is properly included in the list
of the government's powers, as is stepping in to defend the country, building
highways or putting John Gotti behind bars. In fact, there is an
argument to be made that the OS for Intel or Intel-type machines is a "natural
monopoly" which should be closely regulated by the government.
The speed of innovation and its "virtual" character have outpaced the government's
ability to respond. Intervention is most effective when it is preventative
and the government should have stepped in much sooner. This would
doubtless have prevented the current situation, when Microsoft has illegitimately
used its position to amass wealth which it is using to maintain and gain
additional monopoly positions as well as to fend off government attempts
to intervene. As for the average consumer, their apathy, particularly
in the face of concerted, massive PR organized by Microsoft, is understandable.
"A democracy is a bad way of governing, but there is no better
system of governing."
Slashdot Mirror
It is disappointing to observe the low level of reasoning reflected in so many posts on the topic of alleged increased costs to the consumer to the tune of $1000 for Windows following a break-up of Microsoft.
Point 1. Microsoft acts as a monopoly, therefore market-based reasoning is misapplied in this case.
It is simplistic to claim that people would not pay $1000 for the Windows OS. Microsoft would make them pay . The very point about Microsoft to which many object (though perhaps confusedly in most cases) is that it acts unfairly. Unfair means using monopolist power used to gain excess profit. Since, to the end user, "the OS is the box" Microsoft has pursued a single-minded strategy which boils down to seizing the main gateway to the PC - the OS - and then using it to extract excess profit. Their strategy has hardly been a secret: "Microsoft in your cellular phone and PDA, not to mention oven and refrigerator". Microsoft already, now, coerces consumers into paying for its bloatware. In short, Microsoft created a cash cow and is milking it furiously. On the hardware end prices go down while power and quality increases. That is closer to a market functioning properly (although the argument can be made that Intel has used incremental progress in its x86 architecture to create its own "cash cow"). It is even reasonable to suppose that the $1000-for-Windows claim is a test "scare" designed to prepare for the day when Microsoft will make the consumer, literally, pay for the government's intervention in its monopoly.
Point 2. Whether people "care" about the Microsoft monopoly or not is besides the point.
Stepping in to limit monopoly power is properly included in the list of the government's powers, as is stepping in to defend the country, building highways or putting John Gotti behind bars. In fact, there is an argument to be made that the OS for Intel or Intel-type machines is a "natural monopoly" which should be closely regulated by the government. The speed of innovation and its "virtual" character have outpaced the government's ability to respond. Intervention is most effective when it is preventative and the government should have stepped in much sooner. This would doubtless have prevented the current situation, when Microsoft has illegitimately used its position to amass wealth which it is using to maintain and gain additional monopoly positions as well as to fend off government attempts to intervene. As for the average consumer, their apathy, particularly in the face of concerted, massive PR organized by Microsoft, is understandable.
"A democracy is a bad way of governing, but there is no better system of governing."