I am not going to buy a peice of hardware or software just because it has been endorsed by some obscure celeberties I have never heard of... They won't encourage informed consumers, however they might annoy them.
I'm afraid that if you haven't heard of U2 or Queen Latifah (love 'em or hate 'em), then you hardly qualify as an 'informed customer'. And they definitely aren't marketing to you.
The "Halifax Regional Municipality" (as it prefers to be called) has something like 380 000 people, which is surely enough to support a couple sony stores.
I walk up to you in the street, and make an exact replica of your shoes, then go to my friends house and let him make a copy of my copy of your shoes. I haven't stolen anything from you, but have I done something that the shoe company should be worried about?.. and infact, in this case, should the shoe company sue "Wholesale cobbler goods" where I bought the tools to make my copy of your shoes?
That's a likewise terrible analogy. It would be more like if you walked into a shoe store, saw shoes you liked (or maybe not, you just like having lots of shoes) but didn't want to pay for, and made a copy of them. Then you go to a football game and let 20 000 people instantly make copies of those shoes. Do you think maybe the shoe store owner would have a problem with that?
On the other hand, that doesn't necessarily mean that your shoe-copying tools should be illegal, it just means that the shoe store owner has a right to be pissed off with how you're using them.
Ever wonder why you didn't see Netscape or anything else on a new computer?
Let me ask another question: "Ever wonder why you didn't see Netscape or anything else on a computer a few weeks old?"
Answer: Because no one wanted Netscape.
Let me ask still another question: "Ever wonder why people download Firefox now, despite IE *still* being bundled?"
Answer: Because Firefox is better than IE, in almost every measurable way, and people will switch to things if given a good reason. No one had a reason to switch to Netscape. That's Netscape's failing.
If, as I stated previously, MS had allowed other browsers to be pre-installed by OEM's, I think things would be very different today. Damn MS's Handsome Devils for stopping competition for the furtherance of their own goals in-spite of their customers!
Those OEMs didn't have to agree to the terms of the contracts they signed with MS. They *could* have sacrificed the price breaks MS gave them on Windows in favor of bundling all the great software you say was made by MS competitors. But they didn't do that. In the end, the "guilt" (I don't even like to call it that) lies with the OEMs moreso than Microsoft. Since those OEMs were dealing with the customers directly, one must assume that they thought the customers liked (i.e. would be more willing to purchase) cheaper computers with Windows preinstalled but no netscape more than they would have liked expensive computers with Netscape installed.
So, I think the customers got what they were willing to pay for. But that point will be lost on you.
MS gives them price breaks if they don't bundle any competitors on any of the machines they sell. MS gives them even more price breaks if they don't even mention any competitors. MS wines and dines politicians, and even invokes US politicians to lean on them [en espanol], to get them to toe the MS party line. It's hard to get any closer to the Ground Zero of anti-competitiveness.
I agree about the politician stuff, but as for the rest, I think we're just talking passed each other. All you've said is that microsoft gives price breaks to companies who play ball with them. These companies benefit from this because it allows them to sell more computers, because people like buying cheap things rather than expensive things. I don't know how to spell it out any more clearly than that, but I do not see why that should be against the law. And nothing you've said has convinced me otherwise.
If the OEMs think they can make more money by sacrificing the price breaks MS gives them in favor of "bundling competitors' software in the machines they sell" and "mentioning competitors" then let them. If not, then quit your damn bitching and start your own OEM that caters to like-minded conscientious slashdotters.
Alright, we can agree to disagree about iTunes. Some people in this sprawling thread seem to agree with me, some don't. I'll assume your hacker powers are better than mine, and leave it at that.
The file format changes were for all versions of Office TILL '97. Of course you are well aware of that.
I think that's the lamest comment so far. Of course I am aware of it. I thought you were the one who wasn't. They haven't changed the file formats in 8 years and you're still bitching about it.
"MS word.doc files aren't fully compatible with an old version of Vi I once used in the '80s! Fight the machine!" Yeesh.
Do you happen to own a leather bound signed copy of "Atlas Shrugged"?
No, not Atlas Shrugged. I tried the Fountainhead, but I stopped after the weird rape scene.
Though I am about to read Anarchy, State and Utopia by Robert Nozick, he's a pretty famous free market advocate. Plus I have a big book of articles criticizing him. I'm willing to be convinced that free markets aren't free when a company gets big, I just am not there yet.
And as far as being pedantic goes, I imagine you've grown up thinking that capitalism is a necessary evil that has to be endured because people are assholes by nature. My guess is that you're just pissed off because everyone buys from a company who competes with whatever your darling product du jour is. Well, people aren't all idiots, and I'm going to go out on a limb here and say MS earned much more than it extorted.
Btw, how much money have you donated to charity over the last few years? I bet Bill Gates gave more (I think somewhere in the $billions). Not bad for a rotten college-dropout bastard out to conquer the world. Yeah, you're right, let's dismantle his company because Netscape pretty much went under, and because Dell gets cheap windows licenses in exchange for bundling windows. What a monster.
6. It's bundled with damn near every OEM pc made. 7. OEM's are required to purchase a windows license for every cpu sold as a result of Microsoft extortion tactics.
If they think it's extortion, they should stop preinstalling it and sell the OS separately. Oh wait, I forgot, MS gives them price breaks if they bundle it. Which makes it cheaper. Which makes more people want to buy that OEM's computers. What wretched dog-eat-dog tactics.
You will not convince me unless you show me an MS guy with a gun forcing people to empty their pockets and install windows. Otherwise, they're just giving OEM economic incentives to bundle their crappy OS with the OEMs computers. If the OEMs do that, then criticize them for not having the balls to go against the grain.
Uh, okay. I'm only going to respond to a select few parts of this rant.
The ONLY reason that IE took off like it did was because it was bundled with the OS. Again, people's mentality is what helped here. "Why should I spend the time downloading (at 28.8k for some people, 14.4k or slower for others!) Netscape when this Internet Explorer thing came with the computer?
IE is most *certiantly* not any superior to it's competitors. Know why Netscape had to remain free? Because MS abused the fact that they could send their 'browser' for free with each copy of Windows. That is the ONLY reason IE took off like it did.
Okay, first of all, IE 3 was briefly bundled with the OS too. And what did people use? NETSCAPE! Horrah! I know I did, because IE3 was terrible. And then when I got to use IE4 alongside netscape, I realized, "Hey, this thing isn't a ridiculous slow resource hog! How 'bout that." and So that's what I used. Netscape was never great, and IE4 was when MS over took them.
And you're right, wtf would people on a 14.4 modem bother to download Netscape 4.whatever when IE4, which they already had (and was given out free in order to compete with free netscape, btw), was better anyway! Curse those handsome microsoft devils for making things *too* convenient!
Btw, I never said IE is better than anything at the present moment. And as for you bragging about how you're "typing this from Firefox 0.9.2 right now", I'm typing this in Firefox 0.10.1pr, so I guess that makes my penis bigger than yours. And I've converted about a dozen people to it myself, for the same reasons you did. But that doesn't change the fact that 5+ years ago, IE was better than Netscape.
The problem is that I don't believe many people (if anyone) would have used IE if they had to download it or purchase it.
Not at the present moment maybe, but there was a time when I would have downloaded IE instead of Netscape if I had to. And now I download Firefox instead of using IE, because it's better, and worth my time to do it.
And I'm not sure what made you start ragging on apple accessories. You're right there are counterparts from other vendors. But none of them look quite as cool, and take as little effort.
I do understand why you don't like it, and why you consider leveraging your position to remain in the lead is abusive. I comprehend the backward economic theory that permits the government to punish people for success. I just happen to disagree with you.
Meanwhile, you're starting to whip out the ad hominems, so I'm gonna kick back, relax, and maybe go get a Quiznos sub. Help them bust up Subway's sub selling monopoly.
So while breaking up monopolies may seem unfair, it is needed for the economy to run efficiently.
Well, it seems unfair because it is unfair.
Why would I ever start a successful business if the logical end result is going to be its breakup and demise at the hands of jealous competitors backed by the government?
And as far as keeping the economy running efficiently...how many thousands and thousands of people does Microsoft employ? How much net benefit has their growth and prosperity actually meant for the western world? How much wealth and productivity is Microsoft directly responsible for? A lot. But instead of competing with the giant the way Microsoft has competed with IBM, Commodore, Apple, Netscape, Corel, and whoever else, they try to litigate them into the ground, and keep failing. Good.
Lastly, consumers do have a choice. They've always had choices (Macs, BeOS, OS2, now Linux, and thats just for operating systems). They keep choosing microsoft because
1. It's fairly cheap 2. It's well supported 3. There's lots of software for windows 4. There's a lot of hardware compatibility 5. It's good enough for most people, despite obvious flaws
I'm no troll. I ran BeOS on a PC for about a year. Far more than your 3 days. There is no doubt that is was a fundamentally better OS. It was quick and snappy. At a time when Windows has trouble playing a single movie in a Window, BeOS was playing 6 movies, one on each side of a rotating cube. Remember that one?
Okay, I'm willing to concede the point that as a programmer you were able to get BeOs doing all kinds of crazy stuff. Since I have no knowledge of BeOs beyond my crappy 3 day experience with it, I won't presume to judge any further. Like I said, my computer nerd friend liked it on his Mac, but was unimpressed with the PC edition. Who knows why.
Yes, I run iTunes on Windows as well as OS X. It's identical. The only difference is that the Windows version uses more memory. If you have a low memory PC it'll be sluggish. But most people are fine.
How much ram are we talking about? 512mb isn't enough to play smooth audio? Oh wait, yes it is, if you use winamp or wmp.
I didn't mention Office suites because I didn't disagree with what you said the first time. It's the one area where Microsoft deserved to take a market. However, they did abuse their monopoly once they'd taken the market by changing the file format with every release so that customers had to pay money to upgrade whether they wanted to or not.
It's their file formats to change. Not to mention that Office '97 still opens my Office 2004 files just fine...soo whatever.
You don't understand the concept that abuse of monopolies is a problem. If you don't understand that, none of the details will make sense to you either. Go back to the Sherman act. Go back to monopolies of the past, and find out why they are a problem. Find out why the Sherman act was invented.
Sigh, I'm well aware of the reasoning behind monopoly-breaking legislation. I also think that when it comes to privately owned companies built from the ground up it's stupid, and possibly immoral to tear them down.
Microsoft wasn't granted a government license to construct railroads or build and run the phone lines. They created products people bought. "But Lunix and Opera are sooo coooo!!" Boo friggin hoo.
When you say customers have choice, you lose all credibility.
My Powerbook running itunes, quicktime, and Firefox disagrees with you.
See, here is where you and I will never see eye to eye. It doesn't bug me that MS offers a web browser with their OS. If you are going to try to base a business plan on selling a webbrowser, something that you get for free in the dominant OS, then you'd better friggin make sure people know it's better. Yes, MS has an advantage because they have a popular operating system. So, why doesn't opera make a popular operating system? Why don't they release "Opera Linux" and bundle it there? And if it's so super wicked bad cool, advertise and tell people. I also said I've never seen Opera on a store shelf. How is that Microsoft's fault?
Here's the primary problem. The stuff that is bundled with windows is good enough for most people out of the box. There are superior products out there, but if people are not willing to buy them on the basis of their superiority then Microsoft cannot, and should not be blamed. I bought a mac because I wanted something better. I got it, and I'm happy. I will sing its praises, but if windows is still "good enough" for people, no amount of convincing is going to work. MS is not hurting consumer choice. The consumers have choices, they just choose microsoft because it's what they're accustomed to.
Well, that sentence alone makes me think you are a troll, but I'll respond anyway. I did run BeOS, for about 3 days, until I realized that it blew. A friend of mine had it on his mac and liked it, but always said the PC version sucked balls. I could never figure out the difference, but rest assured, Windows was better. And that is so depressing I think I'm gonna cry...
Apple. The combination of iTunes and Quicktime.
Well, I did say Quicktime runs well on my mac. I don't know if you've ever used iTunes on a PC, but I was messing with it on a P4 2.4ghz machine yesterday and was considerably underwhelmed. I don't suppose *anybody* here will defend realplayer though. At least we're probably in agreement there.
Not true. It ignores all the monopoly abuse that Microsoft indulged in to get where it is.
Well let's look at office suites. MS didn't have a monopoly on office suites. Corel used to make one (do they still? I haven't used it since it sucked so bad it made me puke.) What else was there? It's hard to blame Office's success on exploiting a monopoly when historically you had just one competitor, and that competitor sucked.
We already discussed media players, what about web browsers? Which one did everyone start off with? Netscape. In fact, if you had a memory that reached back more than 5 years you'd remember when everyone was cheering how microsoft missed the Internet boat. "HA HA, netscape and AOL have pwned MS!! They're stuck with that old cd-rom multimedia mantra! It's the web that's the future baby! They're done for!" That is, until ms came out with IE 4, and it blew netscape away. Virtually no one denies that. You mentioned Opera...I'm not sure I've ever seen that on a store shelf. And no, most people probably will not pay for something marginally better than what you get for free. That's not a consequence of monopoly abuse, it's just common sense.
No. It's evidence that a no cost application is something that Microsoft can't cross subsidize to undercut. Opera has been better than IE for years, but costs money, or needs adware.
I never understood why cross subsidization was a problem. If you'd refer to my first post, I made some sarcastic remarks the jist of which was that MS should not be condemned for selling something cheap to consumers who are willing to buy it. "Damn their black souls!" I think I said.
Be happy with your PowerBook, as I am with my Mac. But realise that the superiority of the Mac platform hasn't stopped it from dwindling to 2% of the market. You aren't going to claim that is lack of innovation too, surely?
No, I won't claim it's a lack of innovation. I will claim, however, that when people see a 1.5ghz mac put up against a 3ghz PC that costs less, they aren't eager to buy one. (insert comment about the mhz myth etc.,etc. Normal people don't know the difference). Macs are expensive. What you're paying for, essentially, is a wicked operating system, a cool looking case, and a few badass accessories (Airtunes anyone?). That's not enough for some people, and those people aren't necessarily stupid either. Not to mention there are some people who actually like the Windows interface better...lord knows why.
Good stuff. I'll try it some time. Like I said, MS stuff isn't, you know, great, it's just that up till now there has not been much in the way of good alternatives. I fully applaud the open source guys for all their effort. I just can't bring myself to rail against MS as much as most people 'round here.
That and I think the anti-trust litigation against MS is probably immoral, but that's a debate I don't really want to get into now.
Well, if the customers are being fucked, they should stop buying MS stuff. And if their business partners are being fucked, then they should stop being partners with Microsoft. And as for competitors, which one, exactly makes a better operating system for x86 machines that normal human beings would want to use? And which one makes (ever made) a better office suite? Who makes a better media player? Answer: Nobody (Well, quicktime runs fairly well on my mac). That *does not* mean MS stuff is grandly spectacular, it just means their competitors are more litigious than they are innovative.
Oh, and someone will now say how the competitors remark meant that MS is anticompetitive, using their monopoly to blah blah blah, yadda yadda yadda. "OH NO! MS is selling windows for cheap to vendors who bundle it with their PCs! That makes them cheaper for customers to buy and so they only buy windows PCs!! *AND* they package a (crappy) web browser with the OS!" As Jim Ross might say, "Damn their black souls!"
Firefox is a good example of how if a competitive product is released that people actually have a good reason to use, it will be adopted, even by people without a CS degree. Linux is coming along nicely too, but is definitely not ready for mom's desktop.
One thing I do know is my powerbook has been giving me wet dreams, and MS stormtroopers aren't banging down my door.
You should rent the movie Private Parts. It tells the story of Howard Stern's early career and how he came to be the oft-hated guy he is today. He wasn't always a shock-jock. And if you think the movie is nothing but swearing and boobs, you'd be completely wrong. It's an actual, according-to-Hoyle, legitimate movie, and it gives you an insight into HS that you will not get just by listening to his show. You still probably won't like his show, but at least you'll know why he does what he does.
Slashdot Mirror
I am not going to buy a peice of hardware or software just because it has been endorsed by some obscure celeberties I have never heard of... They won't encourage informed consumers, however they might annoy them.
I'm afraid that if you haven't heard of U2 or Queen Latifah (love 'em or hate 'em), then you hardly qualify as an 'informed customer'. And they definitely aren't marketing to you.
Favorite series: Deep Space 9
Favorite episode: Improbable Cause / The Die is Cast (beats TNG's Best of Both Worlds, imo)
Hopefully you don't call yourself a male.
The "Halifax Regional Municipality" (as it prefers to be called) has something like 380 000 people, which is surely enough to support a couple sony stores.
Everyone wants MS to remove things like CD-burning, Media Player, IE etc because it is anti-competitive and now you WANT THEM to build MORE APPS IN??
Sometimes I read a post like this that is so dead on that I feel like I could mod it up through sheer force of will...
*squints hard*
+5 Insightful'd!
I love it when common sense masquerades as sarcasm.
Indispensible, and this is what I would hope the major MS/Apple/etc. efforts produce. Somehow I doubt it, though.
Isn't Spotlight in the next version of OSX supposed to do something similar?
(I use QS too...it rocks)
Good post. I for one don't copy much music any more from p2p sites. I've been free marketing it up at www.allofmp3.com
$0.01 per mb, with multiple formats and an expansive catalog. Now that's how to sell music, even if it is in Russia.
I walk up to you in the street, and make an exact replica of your shoes, then go to my friends house and let him make a copy of my copy of your shoes. I haven't stolen anything from you, but have I done something that the shoe company should be worried about?
That's a likewise terrible analogy. It would be more like if you walked into a shoe store, saw shoes you liked (or maybe not, you just like having lots of shoes) but didn't want to pay for, and made a copy of them. Then you go to a football game and let 20 000 people instantly make copies of those shoes. Do you think maybe the shoe store owner would have a problem with that?
On the other hand, that doesn't necessarily mean that your shoe-copying tools should be illegal, it just means that the shoe store owner has a right to be pissed off with how you're using them.
you mean "people want things for free" don't you?
That's a great succinct response to "information wants to be free". I'm gonna remember that one.
Ever wonder why you didn't see Netscape or anything else on a new computer?
Let me ask another question: "Ever wonder why you didn't see Netscape or anything else on a computer a few weeks old?"
Answer: Because no one wanted Netscape.
Let me ask still another question: "Ever wonder why people download Firefox now, despite IE *still* being bundled?"
Answer: Because Firefox is better than IE, in almost every measurable way, and people will switch to things if given a good reason. No one had a reason to switch to Netscape. That's Netscape's failing.
If, as I stated previously, MS had allowed other browsers to be pre-installed by OEM's, I think things would be very different today. Damn MS's Handsome Devils for stopping competition for the furtherance of their own goals in-spite of their customers!
Those OEMs didn't have to agree to the terms of the contracts they signed with MS. They *could* have sacrificed the price breaks MS gave them on Windows in favor of bundling all the great software you say was made by MS competitors. But they didn't do that. In the end, the "guilt" (I don't even like to call it that) lies with the OEMs moreso than Microsoft. Since those OEMs were dealing with the customers directly, one must assume that they thought the customers liked (i.e. would be more willing to purchase) cheaper computers with Windows preinstalled but no netscape more than they would have liked expensive computers with Netscape installed.
So, I think the customers got what they were willing to pay for. But that point will be lost on you.
MS gives them price breaks if they don't bundle any competitors on any of the machines they sell. MS gives them even more price breaks if they don't even mention any competitors. MS wines and dines politicians, and even invokes US politicians to lean on them [en espanol], to get them to toe the MS party line. It's hard to get any closer to the Ground Zero of anti-competitiveness.
I agree about the politician stuff, but as for the rest, I think we're just talking passed each other. All you've said is that microsoft gives price breaks to companies who play ball with them. These companies benefit from this because it allows them to sell more computers, because people like buying cheap things rather than expensive things. I don't know how to spell it out any more clearly than that, but I do not see why that should be against the law. And nothing you've said has convinced me otherwise.
If the OEMs think they can make more money by sacrificing the price breaks MS gives them in favor of "bundling competitors' software in the machines they sell" and "mentioning competitors" then let them. If not, then quit your damn bitching and start your own OEM that caters to like-minded conscientious slashdotters.
Alright, we can agree to disagree about iTunes. Some people in this sprawling thread seem to agree with me, some don't. I'll assume your hacker powers are better than mine, and leave it at that.
.doc files aren't fully compatible with an old version of Vi I once used in the '80s! Fight the machine!" Yeesh.
The file format changes were for all versions of Office TILL '97. Of course you are well aware of that.
I think that's the lamest comment so far. Of course I am aware of it. I thought you were the one who wasn't. They haven't changed the file formats in 8 years and you're still bitching about it.
"MS word
Do you happen to own a leather bound signed copy of "Atlas Shrugged"?
No, not Atlas Shrugged. I tried the Fountainhead, but I stopped after the weird rape scene.
Though I am about to read Anarchy, State and Utopia by Robert Nozick, he's a pretty famous free market advocate. Plus I have a big book of articles criticizing him. I'm willing to be convinced that free markets aren't free when a company gets big, I just am not there yet.
And as far as being pedantic goes, I imagine you've grown up thinking that capitalism is a necessary evil that has to be endured because people are assholes by nature. My guess is that you're just pissed off because everyone buys from a company who competes with whatever your darling product du jour is. Well, people aren't all idiots, and I'm going to go out on a limb here and say MS earned much more than it extorted.
Btw, how much money have you donated to charity over the last few years? I bet Bill Gates gave more (I think somewhere in the $billions). Not bad for a rotten college-dropout bastard out to conquer the world. Yeah, you're right, let's dismantle his company because Netscape pretty much went under, and because Dell gets cheap windows licenses in exchange for bundling windows. What a monster.
6. It's bundled with damn near every OEM pc made.
7. OEM's are required to purchase a windows license for every cpu sold as a result of Microsoft extortion tactics.
If they think it's extortion, they should stop preinstalling it and sell the OS separately. Oh wait, I forgot, MS gives them price breaks if they bundle it. Which makes it cheaper. Which makes more people want to buy that OEM's computers. What wretched dog-eat-dog tactics.
You will not convince me unless you show me an MS guy with a gun forcing people to empty their pockets and install windows. Otherwise, they're just giving OEM economic incentives to bundle their crappy OS with the OEMs computers. If the OEMs do that, then criticize them for not having the balls to go against the grain.
Uh, okay. I'm only going to respond to a select few parts of this rant.
The ONLY reason that IE took off like it did was because it was bundled with the OS. Again, people's mentality is what helped here. "Why should I spend the time downloading (at 28.8k for some people, 14.4k or slower for others!) Netscape when this Internet Explorer thing came with the computer?
IE is most *certiantly* not any superior to it's competitors. Know why Netscape had to remain free? Because MS abused the fact that they could send their 'browser' for free with each copy of Windows. That is the ONLY reason IE took off like it did.
Okay, first of all, IE 3 was briefly bundled with the OS too. And what did people use? NETSCAPE! Horrah! I know I did, because IE3 was terrible. And then when I got to use IE4 alongside netscape, I realized, "Hey, this thing isn't a ridiculous slow resource hog! How 'bout that." and So that's what I used. Netscape was never great, and IE4 was when MS over took them.
And you're right, wtf would people on a 14.4 modem bother to download Netscape 4.whatever when IE4, which they already had (and was given out free in order to compete with free netscape, btw), was better anyway! Curse those handsome microsoft devils for making things *too* convenient!
Btw, I never said IE is better than anything at the present moment. And as for you bragging about how you're "typing this from Firefox 0.9.2 right now", I'm typing this in Firefox 0.10.1pr, so I guess that makes my penis bigger than yours. And I've converted about a dozen people to it myself, for the same reasons you did. But that doesn't change the fact that 5+ years ago, IE was better than Netscape.
The problem is that I don't believe many people (if anyone) would have used IE if they had to download it or purchase it.
Not at the present moment maybe, but there was a time when I would have downloaded IE instead of Netscape if I had to. And now I download Firefox instead of using IE, because it's better, and worth my time to do it.
And I'm not sure what made you start ragging on apple accessories. You're right there are counterparts from other vendors. But none of them look quite as cool, and take as little effort.
I do understand why you don't like it, and why you consider leveraging your position to remain in the lead is abusive. I comprehend the backward economic theory that permits the government to punish people for success. I just happen to disagree with you.
Meanwhile, you're starting to whip out the ad hominems, so I'm gonna kick back, relax, and maybe go get a Quiznos sub. Help them bust up Subway's sub selling monopoly.
So while breaking up monopolies may seem unfair, it is needed for the economy to run efficiently.
Well, it seems unfair because it is unfair.
Why would I ever start a successful business if the logical end result is going to be its breakup and demise at the hands of jealous competitors backed by the government?
And as far as keeping the economy running efficiently...how many thousands and thousands of people does Microsoft employ? How much net benefit has their growth and prosperity actually meant for the western world? How much wealth and productivity is Microsoft directly responsible for? A lot. But instead of competing with the giant the way Microsoft has competed with IBM, Commodore, Apple, Netscape, Corel, and whoever else, they try to litigate them into the ground, and keep failing. Good.
Lastly, consumers do have a choice. They've always had choices (Macs, BeOS, OS2, now Linux, and thats just for operating systems). They keep choosing microsoft because
1. It's fairly cheap
2. It's well supported
3. There's lots of software for windows
4. There's a lot of hardware compatibility
5. It's good enough for most people, despite obvious flaws
I'm no troll. I ran BeOS on a PC for about a year. Far more than your 3 days. There is no doubt that is was a fundamentally better OS. It was quick and snappy. At a time when Windows has trouble playing a single movie in a Window, BeOS was playing 6 movies, one on each side of a rotating cube. Remember that one?
Okay, I'm willing to concede the point that as a programmer you were able to get BeOs doing all kinds of crazy stuff. Since I have no knowledge of BeOs beyond my crappy 3 day experience with it, I won't presume to judge any further. Like I said, my computer nerd friend liked it on his Mac, but was unimpressed with the PC edition. Who knows why.
Yes, I run iTunes on Windows as well as OS X. It's identical. The only difference is that the Windows version uses more memory. If you have a low memory PC it'll be sluggish. But most people are fine.
How much ram are we talking about? 512mb isn't enough to play smooth audio? Oh wait, yes it is, if you use winamp or wmp.
I didn't mention Office suites because I didn't disagree with what you said the first time. It's the one area where Microsoft deserved to take a market. However, they did abuse their monopoly once they'd taken the market by changing the file format with every release so that customers had to pay money to upgrade whether they wanted to or not.
It's their file formats to change. Not to mention that Office '97 still opens my Office 2004 files just fine...soo whatever.
You don't understand the concept that abuse of monopolies is a problem. If you don't understand that, none of the details will make sense to you either. Go back to the Sherman act. Go back to monopolies of the past, and find out why they are a problem. Find out why the Sherman act was invented.
Sigh, I'm well aware of the reasoning behind monopoly-breaking legislation. I also think that when it comes to privately owned companies built from the ground up it's stupid, and possibly immoral to tear them down.
Microsoft wasn't granted a government license to construct railroads or build and run the phone lines. They created products people bought. "But Lunix and Opera are sooo coooo!!" Boo friggin hoo.
When you say customers have choice, you lose all credibility.
My Powerbook running itunes, quicktime, and Firefox disagrees with you.
See, here is where you and I will never see eye to eye. It doesn't bug me that MS offers a web browser with their OS. If you are going to try to base a business plan on selling a webbrowser, something that you get for free in the dominant OS, then you'd better friggin make sure people know it's better. Yes, MS has an advantage because they have a popular operating system. So, why doesn't opera make a popular operating system? Why don't they release "Opera Linux" and bundle it there? And if it's so super wicked bad cool, advertise and tell people. I also said I've never seen Opera on a store shelf. How is that Microsoft's fault?
Here's the primary problem. The stuff that is bundled with windows is good enough for most people out of the box. There are superior products out there, but if people are not willing to buy them on the basis of their superiority then Microsoft cannot, and should not be blamed. I bought a mac because I wanted something better. I got it, and I'm happy. I will sing its praises, but if windows is still "good enough" for people, no amount of convincing is going to work. MS is not hurting consumer choice. The consumers have choices, they just choose microsoft because it's what they're accustomed to.
BeOS.
Well, that sentence alone makes me think you are a troll, but I'll respond anyway. I did run BeOS, for about 3 days, until I realized that it blew. A friend of mine had it on his mac and liked it, but always said the PC version sucked balls. I could never figure out the difference, but rest assured, Windows was better. And that is so depressing I think I'm gonna cry...
Apple. The combination of iTunes and Quicktime.
Well, I did say Quicktime runs well on my mac. I don't know if you've ever used iTunes on a PC, but I was messing with it on a P4 2.4ghz machine yesterday and was considerably underwhelmed. I don't suppose *anybody* here will defend realplayer though. At least we're probably in agreement there.
Not true. It ignores all the monopoly abuse that Microsoft indulged in to get where it is.
Well let's look at office suites. MS didn't have a monopoly on office suites. Corel used to make one (do they still? I haven't used it since it sucked so bad it made me puke.) What else was there? It's hard to blame Office's success on exploiting a monopoly when historically you had just one competitor, and that competitor sucked.
We already discussed media players, what about web browsers? Which one did everyone start off with? Netscape. In fact, if you had a memory that reached back more than 5 years you'd remember when everyone was cheering how microsoft missed the Internet boat. "HA HA, netscape and AOL have pwned MS!! They're stuck with that old cd-rom multimedia mantra! It's the web that's the future baby! They're done for!" That is, until ms came out with IE 4, and it blew netscape away. Virtually no one denies that. You mentioned Opera...I'm not sure I've ever seen that on a store shelf. And no, most people probably will not pay for something marginally better than what you get for free. That's not a consequence of monopoly abuse, it's just common sense.
No. It's evidence that a no cost application is something that Microsoft can't cross subsidize to undercut. Opera has been better than IE for years, but costs money, or needs adware.
I never understood why cross subsidization was a problem. If you'd refer to my first post, I made some sarcastic remarks the jist of which was that MS should not be condemned for selling something cheap to consumers who are willing to buy it. "Damn their black souls!" I think I said.
Be happy with your PowerBook, as I am with my Mac. But realise that the superiority of the Mac platform hasn't stopped it from dwindling to 2% of the market. You aren't going to claim that is lack of innovation too, surely?
No, I won't claim it's a lack of innovation. I will claim, however, that when people see a 1.5ghz mac put up against a 3ghz PC that costs less, they aren't eager to buy one. (insert comment about the mhz myth etc.,etc. Normal people don't know the difference). Macs are expensive. What you're paying for, essentially, is a wicked operating system, a cool looking case, and a few badass accessories (Airtunes anyone?). That's not enough for some people, and those people aren't necessarily stupid either. Not to mention there are some people who actually like the Windows interface better...lord knows why.
Good stuff. I'll try it some time. Like I said, MS stuff isn't, you know, great, it's just that up till now there has not been much in the way of good alternatives. I fully applaud the open source guys for all their effort. I just can't bring myself to rail against MS as much as most people 'round here.
That and I think the anti-trust litigation against MS is probably immoral, but that's a debate I don't really want to get into now.
Well, if the customers are being fucked, they should stop buying MS stuff. And if their business partners are being fucked, then they should stop being partners with Microsoft. And as for competitors, which one, exactly makes a better operating system for x86 machines that normal human beings would want to use? And which one makes (ever made) a better office suite? Who makes a better media player? Answer: Nobody (Well, quicktime runs fairly well on my mac). That *does not* mean MS stuff is grandly spectacular, it just means their competitors are more litigious than they are innovative.
Oh, and someone will now say how the competitors remark meant that MS is anticompetitive, using their monopoly to blah blah blah, yadda yadda yadda. "OH NO! MS is selling windows for cheap to vendors who bundle it with their PCs! That makes them cheaper for customers to buy and so they only buy windows PCs!! *AND* they package a (crappy) web browser with the OS!" As Jim Ross might say, "Damn their black souls!"
Firefox is a good example of how if a competitive product is released that people actually have a good reason to use, it will be adopted, even by people without a CS degree. Linux is coming along nicely too, but is definitely not ready for mom's desktop.
One thing I do know is my powerbook has been giving me wet dreams, and MS stormtroopers aren't banging down my door.
You should rent the movie Private Parts. It tells the story of Howard Stern's early career and how he came to be the oft-hated guy he is today. He wasn't always a shock-jock. And if you think the movie is nothing but swearing and boobs, you'd be completely wrong. It's an actual, according-to-Hoyle, legitimate movie, and it gives you an insight into HS that you will not get just by listening to his show. You still probably won't like his show, but at least you'll know why he does what he does.
1 54 686
Check it out:
http://www.allmovie.com/cg/avg.dll?p=avg&sql=1: