As to apple, I don't use them any longer, nor would I buy an iPod, I think it's way over priced for what it does (I am not their target demographic anyway, I get by quite fine with a cheap FM portable radio). I used to be an apple fanboy from the late 80s to the late 90s, but not now. Too expensive for what they do.
Now that's a really weird thing to say, considering Macs have been as cheap as they are now...
Windows ME really is a fucking piece of shit. For a few years I worked at an independent PC service and sales outlet that was a licensed Microsoft dealer, and we noticed that the frequency and severity of Windows problems were on the rise as Microsoft introduced Win98 (as if Win95 wasn't bad enough) and later Win2K and WinME.
So the number of problems increases in line with the number of users ? Who'da thunk it ?
There is not a free market, therefore I am not free to choose operating systems as I see fit.
Yes, you are.
There is a significant cost to switching to Linux, a cost that Microsoft is committed to increasing whenever possible.
There is also a significant cost in switching from Linux to Windows, if you wanted to do that.
The "cost" of switching to Linux has nothing to do with the "monopoly" of Windows, it has to do with all the other expenses that occur when you switch platforms, regardless of what they both are.
You've completely misinterpreted what I wrote. When IBM introduced OS2, they did not make it so Windows would not run. They easily could have.
This is nonsensical. It's like saying "OS X doesn't run Linux".
They also could have taken action against the cloners when they first appeared, but were prohibited by antitrust law. Go ahead and read up on it, there are several books.
On the contrary, they couldn't "take any action" against cloners, because the one part of the IBM PC that wasn't built from off the shelf parts (the BIOS) was reverse-engineered using a completely legal clean-room process. There was, quite literally, nothing IBM could do - legally or otherwise.
Nope. Bundles are fine for any products where the users have other options for both or all the products bundled. You can sell soap bundled with televisions. No one has a monopoly on either, so you're in the clear. What you can't do is bundle with a monopolized product, because then users can't choose to avoid your bundle and the market cannot make efficient decisions.
Except this "XPS generator" isn't being "bundled" with Windows, it's *part of* Windows.
Saying OS functionality is "bundled" with OSes is like saying engines are "bundled" with cars.
MS can improve Windows in any way that is not moving an existing market with an unfair advantage.
Which means - if you're going to define every little piece of software as having its own "market" - that they can't improve Windows.
Bundling IE is illegal. They can, however, sell IE separately and let OEMs bundle IE or Firefox or Opera as they choose. Alternately, they can bundle IE with Windows and also bundle every other browser that anyone asks for including Firefox and Opera. You'll note how neither of the legal options give users incentives to use an inferior product based upon the fact that they bought Windows?
Neither Firefox nor Opera provide the functionality IE does, that Windows uses.
I shall also point out here that your argument essentially denies Microsoft the ability to use good software development practices (ie: modularity and reusable code) because any functionality that they might create which is implemented as a shared library, which is also sold by third parties, would be considered an antitrust violation.
In the case of IE, MS bundled it with Windows. You'll have a hard time finding a customer who thinks IE is the best product out there, [...]
OTOH, if you go back to ca. 1997-98, you would find *many* people who thought IE was the best product out there.
[...] especially when you don't take into account the artificial barriers of MS only Websites and corrupted standards.
This sounds suspiciously like you consider any advantage gained via trade secrets to be "artificial barriers".
IE still does not implement CSS and XHTML standards from the mid 90s that every other browser manufacturer had no problem throwing together. Why should MS add them? Everyone is going to use IE anyway as it came on their computer and they don't even know there are other options.
For this to support your argument, you would have to show that a) consumer demand existed for those features and b) no other alternative existed that implemented them.
That's not the market MS sells into. MS does not sell "computers running some OS." They sell OS's. People who purchase OS's are primarily OEMs and they have no reasonable alternative that won't put them out of business.
This is not Microsoft's fault. Ergo, punishing them (and their customers) for it is both unproductive and unethical.
So your argument is that almost every economist on the planet and all the courts have arbitrarily defined MS's market in a giant conspiracy against them, instead of you being clueless as to what their market is?
No, my argument is that based on what's *actually* happening as opposed to what *should* be happening (if Microsoft is a monopoly), then they *aren't* a monopoly for any relevant "market definitions".
If you were made CEO of Dell tomorrow what OS would you buy to pre-install that would not get you removed from your position in a matter of days?
That would depend on who I was trying to sell the machines to. Dell sells a lot of computers to a lot of difference people.
All major OEMs that don't develop their own OS ship with Windows. Since in house OS's are, by definition, not part of the market MS... owns it. That means they are legally obligated to let Dell choose if they want Windows + Adobe Acrobat or Windows + MS XPS generator with no incentives towards the latter which are made possible by the fact that they are the ones selling Windows.
Except it's not "Window + MS XPS generator", it's "Windows". What functionality "Windows" has is - and should be - up to Microsoft.
Once you venture outside the academic definition of what an "Operating System" is (and pretty much everyone except academics and Slashbots does) then what comes as part of that "OS" is wholely and solely the domain of the OS developer.
Microsoft do not sell a kernel upon which vendors can then patch on their own GUI, API, etc. They sell a *platform* for either end users to buy, or resellers to buy and bundled with hardware and any third party standalone software they choose. What comes as part of that base platform is not something anyone except Microsoft should be able to decide.
Umm, we're talking available software, not Windows software.
What's the difference ?
Apple makes and sells an x86 OS without a mac. You can buy it at the Apple store.
No, you can't. You might be able to in the future, but you most certainly cannot right now. The only way to get a copy of OS X is to buy an intel-based Macintosh.
Added to that, Apple *specifically require* that you only run their OS on their hardware for it to be legally licensed.
Look a monopoly is a economic entity and dominates a market. Products don't matter, just markets. MS is the only one selling desktop OS's and making a profit.
This is not the market consumers shop in.
Apple sells computer systems. That is a separate market.
Please make your mind up. A second ago you were saying Apple sell "desktop x86 OSes".
If you fire a handgun have you committed murder? It would depend entirely on their effect upon the market. Anything with more than about 70% of sales in a market is subject to investigation. Assuming Microsoft has less than 70% of the PC market, they'd be in the clear. If they had more, it would depend upon how they effected that market.
But, by definition, Microsoft would then be the only producer of Windows PCs and identical to Apple with their Macintoshes. If you were going to try and argue Microsoft could be a monopoly of such a market, you would have to similarly argue Apple are a monopoly right now.
I see. Would you care to inform all us what market MS is in and who their competitors are? Who sells the same thing as MS?
What people buy is a more valid benchmark to use. People buy Windows PCs. People buy Macs (because they run OS X). People buy Linux PCs (because they run Linux). Etc. The defining aspect here is the OS - the hardware is basically irrelevant.
Microsoft are in the same market as the alternatives consumers look at to make their decision.
You have it backwards. Because each of these retailers is selling a bundle, the individual components do not matter. For example, say there is a car manufacturer, that goes away from the norm and starts to use electric engines. Does that mean they are no longer in the car market?
By the argument you are presenting, however, they *would* now be a monopoly of the "electric-engined car market" (assuming no other manufacturer did the same thing).
No, because they are functionally equivalent and are still competing with other car manufacturers. The OS is one component of a computer system, just like an engine is one component of a car. Since they sell cars and very few people just buy engines (just as very few people buy their OS separate from their computer) the market is defined in those terms. There is a separate market for engines, but assuming a company makes their own engines instead of buying them elsewhere, they are not in the engine market (no sales = no market entry).
The problem with your analogy is that there *are* functionally equivalent alternatives to Windows PCs and there *are* functionally equivalent alternatives to Windows.
We're not assigning blame for MS having a monopoly, we're establishing that it is true. No one buys anything but windows to pre-install, ergo Windows has monopolized this market. Note, monopolizing a market is perfectly legal, by itself. MS just can't abuse that monopoly once they have it to gain an unfair advantage in another market, like portable document tools.
Ie: Microsoft cannot respond to consumer demand to improve their product in line with their competitors...
Here's the problem with your reasoning. If, as you state, Microsoft are a monopoly, then people only buy Windows because, quite literally, they have no other alternatives to consider. However, this is not what actually happens. People _do_ consider alternatives - at the very least, a Mac, in some cases Linux.
Again, your reasoning may well be theoretically sound, but it d
They can make any functionality they want. They can sell any functionality they want. They just can't force their customers to buy one set of functions if they buy their monopolized set.
So, like I said, they can't add any functionality to Windows that already exists elsewhere, because that would be "forcing" consumers to buy it, even thought it is included at no cost and consumers are free to choose platforms other than Windows.
Can you please stop contradicting yourself ?
Dell can sell Windows with all the functions OS X has all purchased just from MS. MS just can't force them to do so, if some other company has a better product and they'd rather use that.
Good thing they don't then, right ? Dell can sell any OS they want with their hardware (and do).
Picture it this way. You sell bread.
Your analogy is broken brcause bread and electricity have absolutely nothing in common with each other. Heck, one is a good and the other is a service.
Now suppose instead of bread, you make portable document creation tools. You make the best tools at the cheapest price. MS decided they are going to take over your market by bundling portable document creation tools with their OS. You go out of business and consumer gets an inferior product. It is the same thing and it is illegal for the same reason.
Your analogy is broken because Microsoft *aren't* trying to take over the "portable document creation tools market" (WTF !?) with their basic, bundled tools.
Added to that, it's not a given that "portable document creation" and "operating systems" are disjoint markets.
The consumer gets the cheapest, best product as determined by the market, not whatever MS gives them.
No, they don't. They have to pay *extra money* to get their "portable document creation software" instead of getting it for free.
This is assuming, of course, that all the functionality consumers want is provided by the bundled functionality. If it isn't, then consumers will buy additional software and the whole discussion is moot.
Hold your horses, you just added a completely new element here. No one said anything about examples or analogies that were wrong in that they portray an unlikely event as inevitable.
Seems to me that falls into the bounds of "ridiculously unrealistic".
That is completely new. Obviously a flawed analogy will improperly show a concept. That is not what we're talking about. We're talking about examples and analogies that correctly illustrate a concept. If you can demonstrate the analogy is incorrect (untrue) or that the analogy does not match up to the situation for which it is analogous then obviously it is a poor argument. You can't however, assume all analogies are wrong or to not apply. You have to show how they are wrong conceptually or how they do not map.
Your analogies are wrong because they are not supported by evidence or reasoning.
They don't have to disappear, they just have to lose share in the market, despite being a better choice. That does not mean they cease to exist.
If they are a better choice, they won't lose their market.
You may have inferred that, but I did not imply it.
You most certainly *did* imply it. Indeed, you *specifically stated* it. From your post:
"Now MS's PDF creation tools are the only one available."
This is what generally happens.
No, it does not. Otherwise, by your logic, Windows would not have improved in the last decade, since Microsoft - supposedly with no competition - has had no incentive to improve their product.
MS has no motivation to add any functionality if they own the majority of the market and by owning it they can introduce lock-in factors (proprietary formats, etc.)
Nevertheless, *they do* improve them. Thus, your argument is wrong, e
Yes. When MS bundled the TCP/IP stack they were not yet a monopoly. There was no existing market for GUIs, CLIs, or basic text editors when MS included them and there is not really one now, either. For it to be a monopolistic abuse, they have to be taking over an existing, healthy market and they have to be leveraging their monopoly to do it.
Right. So you're basically saying Microsoft can no longer compete by giving their product features that their customers want and their competitors have and will have to source that functionality either from third party tools or by migrating to the competing platforms.
How does the consumer benefit here, again ?
Examples and analogies do not have to be realistic.
Yes they do, otherwise they are meaningless. An analogy or example that portrays a highly unlike scenario as "inevitable" is, at best, useless and, at worst, deliberately misleading.
If you'd like to address why my above explanation prejudged MS or why it is an unrealistic example, I'm all ears.
You assert Microsoft will enter $SOFTWARE market with a limited-functionality, bundled tool and because of that, $ESTABLISHED_PLAYERS with comprehensively more functional tools will disappear from that market (unlikely scenario #1). Further, you then imply that *all* competitors in $SOFTWARE will disappear, leaving Microsoft as the sole provider of $SOFTWARE functionality (unlikely scenario #2). Finally, you claim that despite demand for $NEW_FUNCTIONALITY, Microsoft will not implement it, (unlikely scenario #2) nor will $NEW_COMPETITOR appear to meet the needs of those demanding it (unlikely scenario #4).
Your example is unrealistic because it describes a chain of events that matches neither historical anecdote nor reasoned conclusion (how could a market with as incredibly low a barrier to entry as software *not* spawn new competitors ?). It is, to be blunt, sensationalist scare-mongering.
If you read the explanation of the market given in the ruling you'd see it was an attempt to define application compatibility, a barrier between the markets.
Which is exactly why it's so dumb, because it basically declares anyone selling a single-sourced OS to be a monopoly.
Ie: "Windows is a monopoly because nothing else runs Windows applications". The rationale there is breathtakingly anti-innovation (essentially saying "if you come up with some cool new product, you have to let everyone else know how to make copies of it, or you're a monopoly"), but it's certainly see how somewhere like the EU, with such strong socialist leanings, would come up with it.
Also, Apple no longer makes PPC operating systems, they make x86 operating systems, [...]
Apple do not make x86 OSes, they make Macintoshes. You cannot buy a Mac without OS X. Further, OS X is not licensed to run on anything else except a Mac, Apple make no effort to try and make it work on non-Apple hardware, and in the future are almost certainly going to programmatically try and stop it from running on non-Apple hardware.
[...] but their share of the market is small enough so that it does not alter the fact that MS has monopoly power in the market.
Microsoft and Apple do not compete in the same market. At least according to the people who ruled Microsoft a monopoly. No, not even now that Macs have little x86 hearts beating inside them has that changed, because Apple still aren't selling x86 OSes.
Finally, you'll note this case is in the EU, where they were found guilty of having a monopoly on "Desktop Operating Systems" not x86 operating systems.
Which is even more ludicrous, considering Macs have *always* been a viable alternative to Windows, in addition to the other platforms that have come and gone over the years. As the Mac zealots like to remind everyone, there's nothing you can do on Windows you can't do on a Mac.
We're not talking about what you can get to run on your computer. Monopolies are about markets. Apple does not sell operating systems and make any money doing so. Sure they sell a few upgrades, but the money involved is so tiny compared to the total market as to be insignificant. Mostly they sell complete systems, the same as Dell, Lenovo, and Gateway. That is the market they are part of, not OS's.
Which is a very handy definition to use when you're a lawyer chasing after a big evil company...
But it doesn't change the fact that *conumsers* consider their options to be "Macs" or "Windows" (or, back in the day "Amiga", "OS/2", etc). To *consumers*, Apple and Microsoft *are* competitors. The PCs sold by Dell et al are irrelevant commodities that come along with Windows. People "buy a Dell" or "buy an IBM", but they do it to get *Windows*, not the hardware.
(Question: If Microsoft bought, say, Dell, Compaq/HP's PC business, Lenovo, etc - basically the big name PC manufacturers and stopped licensing Windows to whitebox resellers, would you still consider them a monopoly ?)
That is because you're missing the fact that monopolies are defined by markets, not products.
On the contrary, I'm *acutely* aware of the markets involved, which is why I argue the market definitions used were ridiculous and unrealistic, and specifically crafted to ensure that *only* Microsoft would fit them (in the timeframe of the case), despite their relevance to actual consumer purchasing habits being sketchy at best.
Apple sells computer systems and makes money. If you don't want an Apple you can get a Dell or a Gateway and they compete with each other based upon price and quality.
If you could buy a Mac without OS X, or run OS X on non-Apple hardware, you'd have a very good point [0]. Dell, et al *would* be comparable to Apple as just plain old computer resellers bundling together hardware and software.
But you can't and they're not. Apple is your gateway to OS X, Dell and co. are your gateway to Wind
Nope. I would be largely satisfied with Microsoft if they opened up all their APIs fully, thus allowing any application vendor to compete equally with their applications division.
The "secret API" argument was tired and broken when it was first made. It has not gotten any more convincing over time, nor has anyone ever managed to come up with any "secret APIs" that conferred an unfair advantage to Microsoft.
Easily accessible? Maybe. Functionally equivalent? Not a chance, and Microsoft does their best to ensure that this remains the case.
Really ? What does Windows do that other platforms cannot ? What (abstract) functionality is _only_ available on Windows ?
Note that "run Windows programs" is not an argument. Unless you want to take the position that vendors should be declared monopolists of their own products if those products cannot be easily duplicated by others.
While that sounds just fine in theory, in practice it just doesn't work--once someone has obtained a monopoly, it is no longer in their interests to do what is best for consumers, so these laws were created to protect competition, and, by doing so, protect consumers from inferior products at higher prices.
I have yet to see any suggestions here (or elsewhere) that will have any result other than [Windows] consumers being saddled with a less functional piece of software than they might otherwise have been, and having to spend more money than they otherwise would to achieve a "normal" level of functionality, with Microsoft *legally barred* from delivering what they want.
In short, I'm not seeing any suggestions here that are going to do anything to help the consumer in the short term and will be of questionable benefit to them at best, in the long term.
Hence my comment about "destroying the village to save it". They want to destroy the OS marketplace (presumably so it can be rebuilt from scratch the way they want - ie: "save it").
There is - and always has been - at least one alternative to a computer running Windows (or DOS). Macs, OS/2, Amigas, DRDOS, etc.
You claim a company with 90-95% of the market is not a monopoly.
No, I claim a company delivering a product in a market with at least one alternative (many would argue several) is not a monopoly.
I've never seen anyone seriously claim otherwise. Microsoft's own lawyers could have trivially short-circuited the entire anti-trust thing by proving they're not a monopoly. For some reason you've got evidence that escaped them.
Well, it's pretty hard to avoid being ruled a monopoly when the game is so stacked against you. When someone has the ability to arbitrarily define the "market" to anything they please, they can make anyone look like a monopoly.
Show it.
The only thing Microsoft has a monopoly on is a platform for running Windows applications, and there's no way any rational person would claim *that* is reasonable grounds for being considered a monopoly.
Sure it does. Basically, people want to "restore the balance" in the OS market by stopping Microsoft from delivering the product its customers want and forcing those customers to expend more money than they would otherwise have to by either sourcing (basic) functionality from third parties or switching to other platforms.
In other words, they want to destroy the market for Windows by crippling its ability to deliver functionality on par with its alternatives.
If they hadn't made those laws, we would likely be living now in the United States of Standard Oil, ruled by the First Rockefeller Dynasty.
Maybe so, but this is a completely different world, Microsoft isn't Standard Oil, oil isn't software and there are numerous easily accessible alternatives to Windows.
Just because you don't like the laws doesn't change the fact that we're not just a bunch of geeks applying hypocritical double standards to companies we like and companies we hate--it's the law, and many of us believe it's a good law.
Uh, seems to me I'm interested in ensuring the same standards are applied to everyone.
Of course, since you know better than the law-makers in most countries we should accept your hyperbole over their reasoned and democratic arguments...
I have never claimed any expertise in law.
I simply fail to see how any benefit is delivered to consumers by stopping Microsoft from implementing functionality that a) they want and b) other platforms are free to, thus forcing them to either a) spend additional attaining that functionality from a third party or b) spend even more money switching to a different platform.
Added to that - on a more personal level - I don't want to have my desktop platform of choice crippled, forcing me to expend money, time and effort to reach levels of functionality that I should quite reasonably be able to get by default, just so a bunch of whiny software developers can avoid actually having to improve *their* products.
Indeed. A textbook example of the benefits of modular software. It's not difficult at all to see why everyone else followed on to do the same thing.
Do you still maintain that IE is gone?
I never said IE was gone, I told you how to do the same thing you do on OS X by deleting Safari.
Here's an example for you to try on OS X after deleting Safari. Fire up the Help Viewer or Mail.app. Notice that the former still works and the latter can open HTML emails. This is because they both use WebCore, which is OS X's equivalent to IE.
IE is not - and hasn't been since ca. 1996 - just a web browser application.
Note also, of course, that even if you don't delete IE's front end, there is nothing to stop you using an alternative browser - and never has been.
Anyone who maintains that "Apple has a monopoly" in the world of operating systems is either trolling or does not understand what a monoply is at a deep and fundamental level.
Microsoft were found guilty of being a monopoly in the market for "desktop OSes for x86 CPUs".
Ignoring for a second both a) how ridiculous a market definition that is and b) that there has always been at least one alternative OS in it, if you swap "PPC" for "x86", it is extremely difficult to see how Apple could not also be considered a monopoly.
You replied to a poster pointing out that Apple is just as bad as Microsoft with:
Not true. You can easily find Linux variants for PPC, as well as BeOS and (I think) AmigaOS and NeXTStep.
(FYI, there is no version of NeXTSTEP for PPC, unless you want to count the early OS X betas and/or OS X itself).
My point is, if that you consider Linux, BeOS, AmigaOS and NeXT to be "alternatives" to OS X on PPC, then by comparison non-Windows OSes on x86 are ridiculously prevalent and commonly substituted.
In Fact, if I had enough capitol, I would design a whole new breed of computers, from the CPU up. One that wasn't tied to bios, chipsets, dos, irq, dma.... inherited from the days of "640k should be enough for anyone". Clean Slate Computers(r)(tm).
No you wouldn't, because you know that you would get more benefit from the money by throwing it onto a campfire than building a product only a tiny handful of people would care about.
Slashdot Mirror
Pleased to meet you. I'm a Systems Administrator (mostly Linux machines). I own an iBook, a Mac Mini (albeit running Windows MCE) and several PCs.
I use Windows on my desktop (both at home and at work) because I want to, not because I have to.
That should, of course, be "never been as cheap as they are now".
Now that's a really weird thing to say, considering Macs have been as cheap as they are now...
So the number of problems increases in line with the number of users ? Who'da thunk it ?
Yes, you are.
There is a significant cost to switching to Linux, a cost that Microsoft is committed to increasing whenever possible.
There is also a significant cost in switching from Linux to Windows, if you wanted to do that.
The "cost" of switching to Linux has nothing to do with the "monopoly" of Windows, it has to do with all the other expenses that occur when you switch platforms, regardless of what they both are.
This is nonsensical. It's like saying "OS X doesn't run Linux".
They also could have taken action against the cloners when they first appeared, but were prohibited by antitrust law. Go ahead and read up on it, there are several books.
On the contrary, they couldn't "take any action" against cloners, because the one part of the IBM PC that wasn't built from off the shelf parts (the BIOS) was reverse-engineered using a completely legal clean-room process. There was, quite literally, nothing IBM could do - legally or otherwise.
Except this "XPS generator" isn't being "bundled" with Windows, it's *part of* Windows.
Saying OS functionality is "bundled" with OSes is like saying engines are "bundled" with cars.
MS can improve Windows in any way that is not moving an existing market with an unfair advantage.
Which means - if you're going to define every little piece of software as having its own "market" - that they can't improve Windows.
Bundling IE is illegal. They can, however, sell IE separately and let OEMs bundle IE or Firefox or Opera as they choose. Alternately, they can bundle IE with Windows and also bundle every other browser that anyone asks for including Firefox and Opera. You'll note how neither of the legal options give users incentives to use an inferior product based upon the fact that they bought Windows?
Neither Firefox nor Opera provide the functionality IE does, that Windows uses.
I shall also point out here that your argument essentially denies Microsoft the ability to use good software development practices (ie: modularity and reusable code) because any functionality that they might create which is implemented as a shared library, which is also sold by third parties, would be considered an antitrust violation.
In the case of IE, MS bundled it with Windows. You'll have a hard time finding a customer who thinks IE is the best product out there, [...]
OTOH, if you go back to ca. 1997-98, you would find *many* people who thought IE was the best product out there.
[...] especially when you don't take into account the artificial barriers of MS only Websites and corrupted standards.
This sounds suspiciously like you consider any advantage gained via trade secrets to be "artificial barriers".
IE still does not implement CSS and XHTML standards from the mid 90s that every other browser manufacturer had no problem throwing together. Why should MS add them? Everyone is going to use IE anyway as it came on their computer and they don't even know there are other options.
For this to support your argument, you would have to show that a) consumer demand existed for those features and b) no other alternative existed that implemented them.
This is not Microsoft's fault. Ergo, punishing them (and their customers) for it is both unproductive and unethical.
So your argument is that almost every economist on the planet and all the courts have arbitrarily defined MS's market in a giant conspiracy against them, instead of you being clueless as to what their market is?
No, my argument is that based on what's *actually* happening as opposed to what *should* be happening (if Microsoft is a monopoly), then they *aren't* a monopoly for any relevant "market definitions".
If you were made CEO of Dell tomorrow what OS would you buy to pre-install that would not get you removed from your position in a matter of days?
That would depend on who I was trying to sell the machines to. Dell sells a lot of computers to a lot of difference people.
All major OEMs that don't develop their own OS ship with Windows. Since in house OS's are, by definition, not part of the market MS... owns it. That means they are legally obligated to let Dell choose if they want Windows + Adobe Acrobat or Windows + MS XPS generator with no incentives towards the latter which are made possible by the fact that they are the ones selling Windows.
Except it's not "Window + MS XPS generator", it's "Windows". What functionality "Windows" has is - and should be - up to Microsoft.
Once you venture outside the academic definition of what an "Operating System" is (and pretty much everyone except academics and Slashbots does) then what comes as part of that "OS" is wholely and solely the domain of the OS developer.
Microsoft do not sell a kernel upon which vendors can then patch on their own GUI, API, etc. They sell a *platform* for either end users to buy, or resellers to buy and bundled with hardware and any third party standalone software they choose. What comes as part of that base platform is not something anyone except Microsoft should be able to decide.
What's the difference ?
Apple makes and sells an x86 OS without a mac. You can buy it at the Apple store.
No, you can't. You might be able to in the future, but you most certainly cannot right now. The only way to get a copy of OS X is to buy an intel-based Macintosh.
Added to that, Apple *specifically require* that you only run their OS on their hardware for it to be legally licensed.
Look a monopoly is a economic entity and dominates a market. Products don't matter, just markets. MS is the only one selling desktop OS's and making a profit.
This is not the market consumers shop in.
Apple sells computer systems. That is a separate market.
Please make your mind up. A second ago you were saying Apple sell "desktop x86 OSes".
If you fire a handgun have you committed murder? It would depend entirely on their effect upon the market. Anything with more than about 70% of sales in a market is subject to investigation. Assuming Microsoft has less than 70% of the PC market, they'd be in the clear. If they had more, it would depend upon how they effected that market.
But, by definition, Microsoft would then be the only producer of Windows PCs and identical to Apple with their Macintoshes. If you were going to try and argue Microsoft could be a monopoly of such a market, you would have to similarly argue Apple are a monopoly right now.
I see. Would you care to inform all us what market MS is in and who their competitors are? Who sells the same thing as MS?
What people buy is a more valid benchmark to use. People buy Windows PCs. People buy Macs (because they run OS X). People buy Linux PCs (because they run Linux). Etc. The defining aspect here is the OS - the hardware is basically irrelevant.
Microsoft are in the same market as the alternatives consumers look at to make their decision.
You have it backwards. Because each of these retailers is selling a bundle, the individual components do not matter. For example, say there is a car manufacturer, that goes away from the norm and starts to use electric engines. Does that mean they are no longer in the car market?
By the argument you are presenting, however, they *would* now be a monopoly of the "electric-engined car market" (assuming no other manufacturer did the same thing).
No, because they are functionally equivalent and are still competing with other car manufacturers. The OS is one component of a computer system, just like an engine is one component of a car. Since they sell cars and very few people just buy engines (just as very few people buy their OS separate from their computer) the market is defined in those terms. There is a separate market for engines, but assuming a company makes their own engines instead of buying them elsewhere, they are not in the engine market (no sales = no market entry).
The problem with your analogy is that there *are* functionally equivalent alternatives to Windows PCs and there *are* functionally equivalent alternatives to Windows.
We're not assigning blame for MS having a monopoly, we're establishing that it is true. No one buys anything but windows to pre-install, ergo Windows has monopolized this market. Note, monopolizing a market is perfectly legal, by itself. MS just can't abuse that monopoly once they have it to gain an unfair advantage in another market, like portable document tools.
Ie: Microsoft cannot respond to consumer demand to improve their product in line with their competitors...
Here's the problem with your reasoning. If, as you state, Microsoft are a monopoly, then people only buy Windows because, quite literally, they have no other alternatives to consider. However, this is not what actually happens. People _do_ consider alternatives - at the very least, a Mac, in some cases Linux.
Again, your reasoning may well be theoretically sound, but it d
So, like I said, they can't add any functionality to Windows that already exists elsewhere, because that would be "forcing" consumers to buy it, even thought it is included at no cost and consumers are free to choose platforms other than Windows.
Can you please stop contradicting yourself ?
Dell can sell Windows with all the functions OS X has all purchased just from MS. MS just can't force them to do so, if some other company has a better product and they'd rather use that.
Good thing they don't then, right ? Dell can sell any OS they want with their hardware (and do).
Picture it this way. You sell bread.
Your analogy is broken brcause bread and electricity have absolutely nothing in common with each other. Heck, one is a good and the other is a service.
Now suppose instead of bread, you make portable document creation tools. You make the best tools at the cheapest price. MS decided they are going to take over your market by bundling portable document creation tools with their OS. You go out of business and consumer gets an inferior product. It is the same thing and it is illegal for the same reason.
Your analogy is broken because Microsoft *aren't* trying to take over the "portable document creation tools market" (WTF !?) with their basic, bundled tools.
Added to that, it's not a given that "portable document creation" and "operating systems" are disjoint markets.
The consumer gets the cheapest, best product as determined by the market, not whatever MS gives them.
No, they don't. They have to pay *extra money* to get their "portable document creation software" instead of getting it for free.
This is assuming, of course, that all the functionality consumers want is provided by the bundled functionality. If it isn't, then consumers will buy additional software and the whole discussion is moot.
Hold your horses, you just added a completely new element here. No one said anything about examples or analogies that were wrong in that they portray an unlikely event as inevitable.
Seems to me that falls into the bounds of "ridiculously unrealistic".
That is completely new. Obviously a flawed analogy will improperly show a concept. That is not what we're talking about. We're talking about examples and analogies that correctly illustrate a concept. If you can demonstrate the analogy is incorrect (untrue) or that the analogy does not match up to the situation for which it is analogous then obviously it is a poor argument. You can't however, assume all analogies are wrong or to not apply. You have to show how they are wrong conceptually or how they do not map.
Your analogies are wrong because they are not supported by evidence or reasoning.
They don't have to disappear, they just have to lose share in the market, despite being a better choice. That does not mean they cease to exist.
If they are a better choice, they won't lose their market.
You may have inferred that, but I did not imply it.
You most certainly *did* imply it. Indeed, you *specifically stated* it. From your post:
This is what generally happens.
No, it does not. Otherwise, by your logic, Windows would not have improved in the last decade, since Microsoft - supposedly with no competition - has had no incentive to improve their product.
MS has no motivation to add any functionality if they own the majority of the market and by owning it they can introduce lock-in factors (proprietary formats, etc.)
Nevertheless, *they do* improve them. Thus, your argument is wrong, e
It most certainly does matter. You cannot claim a company is participating in a market when it *explicitly* says it is not.
If someone sells shovels with a license prohibiting you from using them for anything other than decoration, they are still in the shovel market.
Shovels are not software.
No, they don't. You cannot (legally) use OS X without Apple hardware. (Heck, you can't even buy OS X for Intel Macs on its own.)
Right. So you're basically saying Microsoft can no longer compete by giving their product features that their customers want and their competitors have and will have to source that functionality either from third party tools or by migrating to the competing platforms.
How does the consumer benefit here, again ?
Examples and analogies do not have to be realistic.
Yes they do, otherwise they are meaningless. An analogy or example that portrays a highly unlike scenario as "inevitable" is, at best, useless and, at worst, deliberately misleading.
If you'd like to address why my above explanation prejudged MS or why it is an unrealistic example, I'm all ears.
You assert Microsoft will enter $SOFTWARE market with a limited-functionality, bundled tool and because of that, $ESTABLISHED_PLAYERS with comprehensively more functional tools will disappear from that market (unlikely scenario #1). Further, you then imply that *all* competitors in $SOFTWARE will disappear, leaving Microsoft as the sole provider of $SOFTWARE functionality (unlikely scenario #2). Finally, you claim that despite demand for $NEW_FUNCTIONALITY, Microsoft will not implement it, (unlikely scenario #2) nor will $NEW_COMPETITOR appear to meet the needs of those demanding it (unlikely scenario #4).
Your example is unrealistic because it describes a chain of events that matches neither historical anecdote nor reasoned conclusion (how could a market with as incredibly low a barrier to entry as software *not* spawn new competitors ?). It is, to be blunt, sensationalist scare-mongering.
Which is exactly why it's so dumb, because it basically declares anyone selling a single-sourced OS to be a monopoly.
Ie: "Windows is a monopoly because nothing else runs Windows applications". The rationale there is breathtakingly anti-innovation (essentially saying "if you come up with some cool new product, you have to let everyone else know how to make copies of it, or you're a monopoly"), but it's certainly see how somewhere like the EU, with such strong socialist leanings, would come up with it.
Also, Apple no longer makes PPC operating systems, they make x86 operating systems, [...]
Apple do not make x86 OSes, they make Macintoshes. You cannot buy a Mac without OS X. Further, OS X is not licensed to run on anything else except a Mac, Apple make no effort to try and make it work on non-Apple hardware, and in the future are almost certainly going to programmatically try and stop it from running on non-Apple hardware.
[...] but their share of the market is small enough so that it does not alter the fact that MS has monopoly power in the market.
Microsoft and Apple do not compete in the same market. At least according to the people who ruled Microsoft a monopoly. No, not even now that Macs have little x86 hearts beating inside them has that changed, because Apple still aren't selling x86 OSes.
Finally, you'll note this case is in the EU, where they were found guilty of having a monopoly on "Desktop Operating Systems" not x86 operating systems.
Which is even more ludicrous, considering Macs have *always* been a viable alternative to Windows, in addition to the other platforms that have come and gone over the years. As the Mac zealots like to remind everyone, there's nothing you can do on Windows you can't do on a Mac.
We're not talking about what you can get to run on your computer. Monopolies are about markets. Apple does not sell operating systems and make any money doing so. Sure they sell a few upgrades, but the money involved is so tiny compared to the total market as to be insignificant. Mostly they sell complete systems, the same as Dell, Lenovo, and Gateway. That is the market they are part of, not OS's.
Which is a very handy definition to use when you're a lawyer chasing after a big evil company...
But it doesn't change the fact that *conumsers* consider their options to be "Macs" or "Windows" (or, back in the day "Amiga", "OS/2", etc). To *consumers*, Apple and Microsoft *are* competitors. The PCs sold by Dell et al are irrelevant commodities that come along with Windows. People "buy a Dell" or "buy an IBM", but they do it to get *Windows*, not the hardware.
(Question: If Microsoft bought, say, Dell, Compaq/HP's PC business, Lenovo, etc - basically the big name PC manufacturers and stopped licensing Windows to whitebox resellers, would you still consider them a monopoly ?)
That is because you're missing the fact that monopolies are defined by markets, not products.
On the contrary, I'm *acutely* aware of the markets involved, which is why I argue the market definitions used were ridiculous and unrealistic, and specifically crafted to ensure that *only* Microsoft would fit them (in the timeframe of the case), despite their relevance to actual consumer purchasing habits being sketchy at best.
Apple sells computer systems and makes money. If you don't want an Apple you can get a Dell or a Gateway and they compete with each other based upon price and quality.
If you could buy a Mac without OS X, or run OS X on non-Apple hardware, you'd have a very good point [0]. Dell, et al *would* be comparable to Apple as just plain old computer resellers bundling together hardware and software.
But you can't and they're not. Apple is your gateway to OS X, Dell and co. are your gateway to Wind
The "secret API" argument was tired and broken when it was first made. It has not gotten any more convincing over time, nor has anyone ever managed to come up with any "secret APIs" that conferred an unfair advantage to Microsoft.
Easily accessible? Maybe. Functionally equivalent? Not a chance, and Microsoft does their best to ensure that this remains the case.
Really ? What does Windows do that other platforms cannot ? What (abstract) functionality is _only_ available on Windows ?
Note that "run Windows programs" is not an argument. Unless you want to take the position that vendors should be declared monopolists of their own products if those products cannot be easily duplicated by others.
While that sounds just fine in theory, in practice it just doesn't work--once someone has obtained a monopoly, it is no longer in their interests to do what is best for consumers, so these laws were created to protect competition, and, by doing so, protect consumers from inferior products at higher prices.
I have yet to see any suggestions here (or elsewhere) that will have any result other than [Windows] consumers being saddled with a less functional piece of software than they might otherwise have been, and having to spend more money than they otherwise would to achieve a "normal" level of functionality, with Microsoft *legally barred* from delivering what they want.
In short, I'm not seeing any suggestions here that are going to do anything to help the consumer in the short term and will be of questionable benefit to them at best, in the long term.
Hence my comment about "destroying the village to save it". They want to destroy the OS marketplace (presumably so it can be rebuilt from scratch the way they want - ie: "save it").
There is - and always has been - at least one alternative to a computer running Windows (or DOS). Macs, OS/2, Amigas, DRDOS, etc.
You claim a company with 90-95% of the market is not a monopoly.
No, I claim a company delivering a product in a market with at least one alternative (many would argue several) is not a monopoly.
I've never seen anyone seriously claim otherwise. Microsoft's own lawyers could have trivially short-circuited the entire anti-trust thing by proving they're not a monopoly. For some reason you've got evidence that escaped them.
Well, it's pretty hard to avoid being ruled a monopoly when the game is so stacked against you. When someone has the ability to arbitrarily define the "market" to anything they please, they can make anyone look like a monopoly.
Show it.
The only thing Microsoft has a monopoly on is a platform for running Windows applications, and there's no way any rational person would claim *that* is reasonable grounds for being considered a monopoly.
Sure it does. Basically, people want to "restore the balance" in the OS market by stopping Microsoft from delivering the product its customers want and forcing those customers to expend more money than they would otherwise have to by either sourcing (basic) functionality from third parties or switching to other platforms.
In other words, they want to destroy the market for Windows by crippling its ability to deliver functionality on par with its alternatives.
If they hadn't made those laws, we would likely be living now in the United States of Standard Oil, ruled by the First Rockefeller Dynasty.
Maybe so, but this is a completely different world, Microsoft isn't Standard Oil, oil isn't software and there are numerous easily accessible alternatives to Windows.
Just because you don't like the laws doesn't change the fact that we're not just a bunch of geeks applying hypocritical double standards to companies we like and companies we hate--it's the law, and many of us believe it's a good law.
Uh, seems to me I'm interested in ensuring the same standards are applied to everyone.
I have never claimed any expertise in law.
I simply fail to see how any benefit is delivered to consumers by stopping Microsoft from implementing functionality that a) they want and b) other platforms are free to, thus forcing them to either a) spend additional attaining that functionality from a third party or b) spend even more money switching to a different platform.
Added to that - on a more personal level - I don't want to have my desktop platform of choice crippled, forcing me to expend money, time and effort to reach levels of functionality that I should quite reasonably be able to get by default, just so a bunch of whiny software developers can avoid actually having to improve *their* products.
Indeed. A textbook example of the benefits of modular software. It's not difficult at all to see why everyone else followed on to do the same thing.
Do you still maintain that IE is gone?
I never said IE was gone, I told you how to do the same thing you do on OS X by deleting Safari.
Here's an example for you to try on OS X after deleting Safari. Fire up the Help Viewer or Mail.app. Notice that the former still works and the latter can open HTML emails. This is because they both use WebCore, which is OS X's equivalent to IE.
IE is not - and hasn't been since ca. 1996 - just a web browser application.
Note also, of course, that even if you don't delete IE's front end, there is nothing to stop you using an alternative browser - and never has been.
Microsoft were found guilty of being a monopoly in the market for "desktop OSes for x86 CPUs".
Ignoring for a second both a) how ridiculous a market definition that is and b) that there has always been at least one alternative OS in it, if you swap "PPC" for "x86", it is extremely difficult to see how Apple could not also be considered a monopoly.
I'm well aware of the law. I just disagree with it (especially in this instance).
(FYI, there is no version of NeXTSTEP for PPC, unless you want to count the early OS X betas and/or OS X itself).
My point is, if that you consider Linux, BeOS, AmigaOS and NeXT to be "alternatives" to OS X on PPC, then by comparison non-Windows OSes on x86 are ridiculously prevalent and commonly substituted.
Well, if you call pointing out your circular reasoning "going out of my way" then yes, I suppose I am...
Why?
Because your argument is stupid.
Well, when you're not the one making the decisions, what the choices are (or aren't), is irrelevant.
No you wouldn't, because you know that you would get more benefit from the money by throwing it onto a campfire than building a product only a tiny handful of people would care about.