Bottom line: You can't always rely on consumers to make the right choice. Even if you could, it would still be essential to make sure that they always *have* a choice.
Hmmmmm... who should I trust to make the right decision for me?
I guess it comes down to wondering whether or not MS is a monopoly. I'm going to argue that they aren't. If they were a TRUE monopoly, competitors would not exist. There is only one situation in which a monopoly can exist, with government support (eg. USPS).
The point is once again, you can deny it and twist it until you're blue in the face, but Microsoft is where they are because of some luck and some good business moves. When they stop fulfilling customer's needs/desires they will fade. It might not be quick, but it'll happen. Should they be penalized for succeeding?
I don't know that this can be resolved as there are basically two camps here: Those who support anti-trust law and those who don't.
No, things do work that way. Over time people will show their preference through their use of money. If they don't want MS products they will not buy them.
MS is the dominant player because:
a) There isn't that great of a demand for an alternative among the masses. Most people believe Windows is good enough.
b) Open source software, the only decent challenger at this time, is flawed when it comes to using it as a business model.
It goes against my better judgement to take issue with your statement, but my education in free market systems brings to light one question:
If people don't like Microsoft and their products, why are they in business?
I believe totally and completely in free markets and that the consumer wins in such situations. If you agree with this line of thinking, Microsoft must be doing something correctly in order to stay in business. They must be providing something of significant worth to the consumer otherwise people would fail to purchase their product and thus put them out of business. It's this simple. You can confuse the subject to make things look better from an anti-microsoft view, but that's not the issue. The issue is that if MS didn't provide something people want, they would cease to exist.
I think that we all, myself included, fail to realize some times that MS is providing what most people want, most of the time.
-JAB
BTW: I don't user Windows for much of anything and hate it with a passion. This is just food for thought.
As the broadband providers join and merge more than we've seen so far, I think we're going to see all sorts of problems. Mainly because the internet was not designed to consist of primarily two peered networks. The infrastructure of the internet is based on having many autonomous networks which peer with eachother allowing for multiple routes through different providers to any given host.
This is, however, assuming that everyone moves to broadband, which I don't see happening any time soon. Most of the/. crowd loves their broadband, but I work for an ISP which provides almost exclusively dial-up access and we haven't lost many customers to broadband. The reason, people are cheap. They don't want to pay $50/month to check their e-mail.
I think we're heading towards some problems, but they're still off in the distance.
--
GUIs are like diapers, everyone grows out of them at some point.
If you were the five-hundred pound gorilla, wouldn't you throw your weight around too? This is what MS likes to call innovation. I'm not sure that using brute force really qualifies as an innovation, though.
The problem with the callback is that it is not very difficult to have phone calls forwarded. I could see companies opening with the sole purpose of call forwarding. I bet they would offer Nevada numbers for some reason.
Slashdot Mirror
Isn't open source about freedom to do what you wish with software/computers? Good or bad, this would go against that.
-JAB
Bottom line: You can't always rely on consumers to make the right choice. Even if you could, it would still be essential to make sure that they always *have* a choice.
Hmmmmm... who should I trust to make the right decision for me?
I guess it comes down to wondering whether or not MS is a monopoly. I'm going to argue that they aren't. If they were a TRUE monopoly, competitors would not exist. There is only one situation in which a monopoly can exist, with government support (eg. USPS).
The point is once again, you can deny it and twist it until you're blue in the face, but Microsoft is where they are because of some luck and some good business moves. When they stop fulfilling customer's needs/desires they will fade. It might not be quick, but it'll happen. Should they be penalized for succeeding?
I don't know that this can be resolved as there are basically two camps here: Those who support anti-trust law and those who don't.
-JAB
No, things do work that way. Over time people will show their preference through their use of money. If they don't want MS products they will not buy them.
MS is the dominant player because:
a) There isn't that great of a demand for an alternative among the masses. Most people believe Windows is good enough.
b) Open source software, the only decent challenger at this time, is flawed when it comes to using it as a business model.
enough said.
-JAB
It goes against my better judgement to take issue with your statement, but my education in free market systems brings to light one question:
If people don't like Microsoft and their products, why are they in business?
I believe totally and completely in free markets and that the consumer wins in such situations. If you agree with this line of thinking, Microsoft must be doing something correctly in order to stay in business. They must be providing something of significant worth to the consumer otherwise people would fail to purchase their product and thus put them out of business. It's this simple. You can confuse the subject to make things look better from an anti-microsoft view, but that's not the issue. The issue is that if MS didn't provide something people want, they would cease to exist.
I think that we all, myself included, fail to realize some times that MS is providing what most people want, most of the time.
-JAB
BTW: I don't user Windows for much of anything and hate it with a passion. This is just food for thought.
As the broadband providers join and merge more than we've seen so far, I think we're going to see all sorts of problems. Mainly because the internet was not designed to consist of primarily two peered networks. The infrastructure of the internet is based on having many autonomous networks which peer with eachother allowing for multiple routes through different providers to any given host.
/. crowd loves their broadband, but I work for an ISP which provides almost exclusively dial-up access and we haven't lost many customers to broadband. The reason, people are cheap. They don't want to pay $50/month to check their e-mail.
This is, however, assuming that everyone moves to broadband, which I don't see happening any time soon. Most of the
I think we're heading towards some problems, but they're still off in the distance.
--
GUIs are like diapers, everyone grows out of them at some point.
If you were the five-hundred pound gorilla, wouldn't you throw your weight around too? This is what MS likes to call innovation. I'm not sure that using brute force really qualifies as an innovation, though.
The problem with the callback is that it is not very difficult to have phone calls forwarded. I could see companies opening with the sole purpose of call forwarding. I bet they would offer Nevada numbers for some reason.