Have you tried Game of Thrones by George R.R. Martin? That and the two subsequent books rocked my socks...this coming from someone who could never get passed the first 100 pages of Eye of the World. I mean come on, "Mountains of Dhoom"? That's just not trying very hard.
The parent was talking about MS's sometime practice of charging OEMs retail prices for Windows if they sell machines with non-microsoft software installed. Normally a vendor who sells computers with windows installed gets a discount on windows licenses from Microsoft, but if they were to install Mozilla or another competing product on the machine then MS charges the vendor full price for Windows, the cost of which gets passed on to the consumer. The theory is that this is anticompetitive since it unfairly punishes computer vendors who wish to install and sell non-ms software, and that they will be driven out of the market because they will have to charge more for computers than other companies who sell computers with MS software exclusively.
I'm not actually sure if this is still a practice of MS's (I assume it is), or even which software they're concerned with anymore. But all it really amounts to is Microsoft giving companies economic incentives to sell their software instead of someone else's. Any computer seller who thinks that they can make more money bundling computers with mozilla and realplayer and corel office is still free to do so, they'll just have to bite the bullet by paying retail prices for windows and hope they can make up for it by demonstrating to consumers that they're selling a superior product worth paying more for.
So for my part I don't really see why people get their panties in a bunch over MS's practices--at least in this instance. If you don't want to sell what they're giving you, sell something else. Plus, like you said, any old joe blow can download firefox if they want; if people want to punish themselves by continuing to use IE, then tough tits for them. That's not Microsoft's problem.
Yeah, except that if Mozilla is better than IE then they can advertise it as such and people will be willing to pay more for a system with it preinstalled. That is the essence of consumer choice: You buy what you want to; of course, *gasp*, you might end up paying more for better things. If people don't find having Firefox preinstalled is worth paying retail price for windows, then that still is not Microsoft's problem. It's the consumer's problem for being willing to settle for less. Boo friggin hoo for them.
Consider: Microsoft has an obviously inferior product. Microsoft has not even bothered working to improve this product in years (since version 6.0). Yet, Microsoft retains 95% market share.
Well, here at least we're in partial agreement, though I would like to point out that IE has not always been obviously inferior. There's a reason why people who never considered installing Mozilla are now installing Firefox: Mozilla is a clunky memory hog. But, like you say, Firefox makes IE look like trash.
Microsoft has no incentive to compete. As long as they bundle IE with Windows, IE will retain a market share of over 90% of Windows users (which themselves account for over 90% of all desktops).
Well, that's really the issue isn't it: Once someone makes a browser good enough such that IE, bundled or not, looks so shitty by comparison that users download the new one, only then does MS have an incentive to improve their product. The fact that something else is better does not negate the possibility that IE might be "good enough-ware" for most people. Again, it's not MS's fault that users find its inferior built-in browser to be "good enough". The point is that once that ceases to be the case, then they *will* lose their 90% market share, regardless of whether IE is bundled with windows. If it doesn't suck bad enough for people to bother to change, then tough tits for Mozilla. Having a browser come with windows is a convenience for many people; that's part of what they pay for when they buy Windows in the first place.
If Microsoft were not permitted to bundle IE with Windows, they'd actually have to create a quality product if they wanted market share. Then, competitors would also have to improve the quality of their products, etc. What we'd end up with is much better web browsers all around. Isn't that something we want?
Well, we already have better browsers than IE. I'm using one right now. If there were more people like me then MS would have to improve their browser. Again, let me stress, it is not Microsoft's fault that people are sometimes willing to use products inferior to the alternatives simply because they are slightly more convenient. If users want better browsers, they should go use them. If they don't, then of course it limits the demand for new browsers. Again, tough tits for Mozilla and Firefox; no one has a god given right for consumers to want their products. If people still want IE over Firefox, well that's lucky for MS, but not unethical.
You can't just blame it all on lazy users. Most users don't know why Firefox is a better browser, or how they can get ahold of it. You can say it is up to Mozilla to educate the users... but why should Microsoft not have to do the same? It's unfair to force Mozilla and Opera to fight for their market share while Microsoft just gets it by default.
It's not unfair at all. The fact that something has wide initial distribution does not make the competition unfair. If you're competing for the hearts and minds of users part of the battle is getting them to switch from what they're already using. Let's put it this way: if Microsoft was bundling internet explorer 3 with Windows instead of IE6, don't you think people would seek out the alternatives? In fact, when Microsoft *did* bundle IE3 people *did* seek out the alternatives. I know I'd have rather eaten dirt then traded Netscape for IE back in the day. Microsoft doesn't get its market share by default; the only reason they have any share of the browser market at all is because people are still willing to use their browser. Complain to those people, not to Microsoft.
As far as Mozilla having to go the extra mile and educate the users goes, I can almost see your point. But like I said before, no one has a god-given right to consumer demand, and if people are satisfied with what they pay for when they buy windows, then tough tits once more for the alternatives.
The capitalist system can't work as long as one company
MS board room: "I have a great idea: let's let our market share slip down to 50% by letting our products stagnate! Then people won't be able to say we're a monopoly any more (since we won't be)! What great business geniuses we are!"/. guys: Psha, just because half of all people don't use IE doesn't mean that it's still not a monopoly! Those trickerous fiends! They've pulled the wool over the public's eyes yet again!
I think it's far more plausible that MS is just utterly lazy.
Well, Firefox has small (though growing) user penetration partly because it's only existed for what, a year? and wasn't superior to IE till probably v0.8. (the windows version was pretty crashy till then).
But you seem to have missed *my* point, which is that regardless of whether Microsoft bundles IE with windows, IE still blows, and there are better options available. If people can't be bothered to seek them out either they are:
1. Actually *satisfied* with IE as it is, in which case there is no reason to exhort them to try alternatives.
2. They are too lazy to try the alternatives, which is not, after all, Microsoft's fault or their problem. It's the competition's job to convince them to switch, not Microsoft's. People don't always immediately gravitate to new and better products. That's a hazzard of trying to penetrate any established market--you might fail. Consumer demand is a fickle thing.
MS should be allowed to bundle all the cheesy, buggy crap they want. If people are too lazy to switch to obviously better alternatives, then it's their loss. Microsoft might be banking on lackadaisical users, but I'm not sure that makes them unethical. It does, however, leave them open to be conquered by better products that impress people enough to try them out. Firefox is pretty damn close.
Ya, and look how well that's working out. The U.S. government just warned people not to use IE because it blows. If people were so constrained by MS's exploitation of the browser market, they'd be totally screwed. Fortunately, no one is forced to use IE. And if people want to ignore the constant security warnings, and continue to use a browser that blows, then that's their own problem; That alone does not reflect on Microsoft's business ethics. It reflects poorly on the the people who still use their web browser.
Seriously, how hard is it to go to www.mozilla.org/firefox and hit the "download" link?
Yeah, except that the fact that people are downloading and using Mozilla, Firefox etc. is, in fact, a complete refutation of the notion that Microsoft is a monopoly (at least in terms of web browsers). I should hope that any judge with a brain would be so convinced.
No, I think the simpsons featured it first, in that episode where grandpa gets his drivers license and falls in love with that old woman who ditches him.
"So sit back, relax, and watch our revue! In Soviet Union, revue watches you!"
Yeah Firefox.9rc okay I guess, except it broke all my extensions. Goddamn, half the reason I used it was because there was a mouse gestures plugin, and now it won't even let me reinstall it. Thanks guys. Bravo.
Five years ago, three years ago, like hell you could. You can barely do it now, and that's partly due to Microsoft being under close watch in the US for anticompetitive behaviour. Good luck doing it outside of small mom-and-pop shops, or that hidden page on HPs site or whatever.
Um, I live within walking distance of *at least* three computer stores that will sell you a PC with no OS installed at all. Not to mention the university store that sells Macs. My point is that to say it is hard to get a PC without windows installed is just absolutely fasle. At least in here little ol' Halifax, NS.
Actually, I thought there were a lot of German guys who helped the US build those first atomic bombs...oh, and let's not forget the ones who stayed in Germany and *tried* to make one.
Luckily the Americans invented "saving Europe from itself" as well.
Just admit it; you took a freebie, something which has advantaged you, and you didn't pay for it.
Yeah and I bet he and his parents paid absolutely no taxes at all. What a bunch of ungrateful leeches.
That's the problem with socialists, they steal your money at the point of the gun and when they give some of it back they act like they did you a favor. Yeesh.
That's wrong. Find me a quote where any French, German, Russian or any other official said "Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction". The whole reason the UN issued the final resolution calling for Saddam to cooperate with weapons inspectors was because everyone believed Iraq *did* have WMD. There are lots of ways to argue that the war was wrong (there is a difference between disarmament and invasion), but saying that no one really believed Saddam had WMD in the first place is wrong.
Instead of reading these bullshit 9th grade reading level fantasy novels why don't you try reading some books on economics, history and philosophy?>
Heheh, I was in the middle of reading Game of Thrones for a second time when I saw the slashdot review today...
Last month I received my B.A. (with honours) in Philosophy (my minor was History)...I was the top first class honours grad in my major, and won a prize for writing the best honours essay. In september i'm going back for my masters.
Take it from me: Game of Thrones rocks your socks.
If you don't believe me, you can kiss my Willard Van Orman Quine/James M. McPherson-reading ass.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm all for taking time to get it right, but the guy looks like he might have a heart attack any day: http://www.georgerrmartin.com/images/gm-cub.jpg
I just don't want GRRM to die before the damn story is completed.
Have you tried Game of Thrones by George R.R. Martin? That and the two subsequent books rocked my socks...this coming from someone who could never get passed the first 100 pages of Eye of the World. I mean come on, "Mountains of Dhoom"? That's just not trying very hard.
It doesn't, which is why I don't understand why people bitch about MS's business practices.
The parent was talking about MS's sometime practice of charging OEMs retail prices for Windows if they sell machines with non-microsoft software installed. Normally a vendor who sells computers with windows installed gets a discount on windows licenses from Microsoft, but if they were to install Mozilla or another competing product on the machine then MS charges the vendor full price for Windows, the cost of which gets passed on to the consumer. The theory is that this is anticompetitive since it unfairly punishes computer vendors who wish to install and sell non-ms software, and that they will be driven out of the market because they will have to charge more for computers than other companies who sell computers with MS software exclusively.
I'm not actually sure if this is still a practice of MS's (I assume it is), or even which software they're concerned with anymore. But all it really amounts to is Microsoft giving companies economic incentives to sell their software instead of someone else's. Any computer seller who thinks that they can make more money bundling computers with mozilla and realplayer and corel office is still free to do so, they'll just have to bite the bullet by paying retail prices for windows and hope they can make up for it by demonstrating to consumers that they're selling a superior product worth paying more for.
So for my part I don't really see why people get their panties in a bunch over MS's practices--at least in this instance. If you don't want to sell what they're giving you, sell something else. Plus, like you said, any old joe blow can download firefox if they want; if people want to punish themselves by continuing to use IE, then tough tits for them. That's not Microsoft's problem.
Yeah, except that if Mozilla is better than IE then they can advertise it as such and people will be willing to pay more for a system with it preinstalled. That is the essence of consumer choice: You buy what you want to; of course, *gasp*, you might end up paying more for better things. If people don't find having Firefox preinstalled is worth paying retail price for windows, then that still is not Microsoft's problem. It's the consumer's problem for being willing to settle for less. Boo friggin hoo for them.
Consider: Microsoft has an obviously inferior product. Microsoft has not even bothered working to improve this product in years (since version 6.0). Yet, Microsoft retains 95% market share.
Well, here at least we're in partial agreement, though I would like to point out that IE has not always been obviously inferior. There's a reason why people who never considered installing Mozilla are now installing Firefox: Mozilla is a clunky memory hog. But, like you say, Firefox makes IE look like trash.
Microsoft has no incentive to compete. As long as they bundle IE with Windows, IE will retain a market share of over 90% of Windows users (which themselves account for over 90% of all desktops).
Well, that's really the issue isn't it: Once someone makes a browser good enough such that IE, bundled or not, looks so shitty by comparison that users download the new one, only then does MS have an incentive to improve their product. The fact that something else is better does not negate the possibility that IE might be "good enough-ware" for most people. Again, it's not MS's fault that users find its inferior built-in browser to be "good enough". The point is that once that ceases to be the case, then they *will* lose their 90% market share, regardless of whether IE is bundled with windows. If it doesn't suck bad enough for people to bother to change, then tough tits for Mozilla. Having a browser come with windows is a convenience for many people; that's part of what they pay for when they buy Windows in the first place.
If Microsoft were not permitted to bundle IE with Windows, they'd actually have to create a quality product if they wanted market share. Then, competitors would also have to improve the quality of their products, etc. What we'd end up with is much better web browsers all around. Isn't that something we want?
Well, we already have better browsers than IE. I'm using one right now. If there were more people like me then MS would have to improve their browser. Again, let me stress, it is not Microsoft's fault that people are sometimes willing to use products inferior to the alternatives simply because they are slightly more convenient. If users want better browsers, they should go use them. If they don't, then of course it limits the demand for new browsers. Again, tough tits for Mozilla and Firefox; no one has a god given right for consumers to want their products. If people still want IE over Firefox, well that's lucky for MS, but not unethical.
You can't just blame it all on lazy users. Most users don't know why Firefox is a better browser, or how they can get ahold of it. You can say it is up to Mozilla to educate the users... but why should Microsoft not have to do the same? It's unfair to force Mozilla and Opera to fight for their market share while Microsoft just gets it by default.
It's not unfair at all. The fact that something has wide initial distribution does not make the competition unfair. If you're competing for the hearts and minds of users part of the battle is getting them to switch from what they're already using. Let's put it this way: if Microsoft was bundling internet explorer 3 with Windows instead of IE6, don't you think people would seek out the alternatives? In fact, when Microsoft *did* bundle IE3 people *did* seek out the alternatives. I know I'd have rather eaten dirt then traded Netscape for IE back in the day. Microsoft doesn't get its market share by default; the only reason they have any share of the browser market at all is because people are still willing to use their browser. Complain to those people, not to Microsoft.
As far as Mozilla having to go the extra mile and educate the users goes, I can almost see your point. But like I said before, no one has a god-given right to consumer demand, and if people are satisfied with what they pay for when they buy windows, then tough tits once more for the alternatives.
The capitalist system can't work as long as one company
So, the scenario is like this?
/. guys: Psha, just because half of all people don't use IE doesn't mean that it's still not a monopoly! Those trickerous fiends! They've pulled the wool over the public's eyes yet again!
MS board room: "I have a great idea: let's let our market share slip down to 50% by letting our products stagnate! Then people won't be able to say we're a monopoly any more (since we won't be)! What great business geniuses we are!"
I think it's far more plausible that MS is just utterly lazy.
Well, Firefox has small (though growing) user penetration partly because it's only existed for what, a year? and wasn't superior to IE till probably v0.8. (the windows version was pretty crashy till then).
But you seem to have missed *my* point, which is that regardless of whether Microsoft bundles IE with windows, IE still blows, and there are better options available. If people can't be bothered to seek them out either they are:
1. Actually *satisfied* with IE as it is, in which case there is no reason to exhort them to try alternatives.
2. They are too lazy to try the alternatives, which is not, after all, Microsoft's fault or their problem. It's the competition's job to convince them to switch, not Microsoft's. People don't always immediately gravitate to new and better products. That's a hazzard of trying to penetrate any established market--you might fail.
Consumer demand is a fickle thing.
MS should be allowed to bundle all the cheesy, buggy crap they want. If people are too lazy to switch to obviously better alternatives, then it's their loss. Microsoft might be banking on lackadaisical users, but I'm not sure that makes them unethical. It does, however, leave them open to be conquered by better products that impress people enough to try them out. Firefox is pretty damn close.
Ya, and look how well that's working out. The U.S. government just warned people not to use IE because it blows. If people were so constrained by MS's exploitation of the browser market, they'd be totally screwed. Fortunately, no one is forced to use IE. And if people want to ignore the constant security warnings, and continue to use a browser that blows, then that's their own problem; That alone does not reflect on Microsoft's business ethics. It reflects poorly on the the people who still use their web browser.
Seriously, how hard is it to go to www.mozilla.org/firefox and hit the "download" link?
Yeah, except that the fact that people are downloading and using Mozilla, Firefox etc. is, in fact, a complete refutation of the notion that Microsoft is a monopoly (at least in terms of web browsers). I should hope that any judge with a brain would be so convinced.
No, I think the simpsons featured it first, in that episode where grandpa gets his drivers license and falls in love with that old woman who ditches him.
"So sit back, relax, and watch our revue! In Soviet Union, revue watches you!"
Family Guy did it a couple years later I think.
But it was an '80s thing before either of them.
But first you'd need a scan using an adaptive subspace echogram.
Yeah Firefox .9rc okay I guess, except it broke all my extensions. Goddamn, half the reason I used it was because there was a mouse gestures plugin, and now it won't even let me reinstall it. Thanks guys. Bravo.
But just imagine if it did! Think of how vividly realistic the @ symbol would look with today's technology!
OH NO! PCs with Windows installed are cheap!!! Head for the hills!!
You should have bought an iBook.
You can easily buy a PC without Windows on it
Easily?
Easily???
Five years ago, three years ago, like hell you could. You can barely do it now, and that's partly due to Microsoft being under close watch in the US for anticompetitive behaviour. Good luck doing it outside of small mom-and-pop shops, or that hidden page on HPs site or whatever.
Um, I live within walking distance of *at least* three computer stores that will sell you a PC with no OS installed at all. Not to mention the university store that sells Macs. My point is that to say it is hard to get a PC without windows installed is just absolutely fasle. At least in here little ol' Halifax, NS.
--Ryan T
Yeah but MS isn't a trust....
Actually, I thought there were a lot of German guys who helped the US build those first atomic bombs...oh, and let's not forget the ones who stayed in Germany and *tried* to make one.
Luckily the Americans invented "saving Europe from itself" as well.
Just admit it; you took a freebie, something which has advantaged you, and you didn't pay for it.
Yeah and I bet he and his parents paid absolutely no taxes at all. What a bunch of ungrateful leeches.
That's the problem with socialists, they steal your money at the point of the gun and when they give some of it back they act like they did you a favor. Yeesh.
Maybe I'm just sleepy, but I broke a funny fuse when I read that.
--Ryan T
That's wrong. Find me a quote where any French, German, Russian or any other official said "Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction". The whole reason the UN issued the final resolution calling for Saddam to cooperate with weapons inspectors was because everyone believed Iraq *did* have WMD. There are lots of ways to argue that the war was wrong (there is a difference between disarmament and invasion), but saying that no one really believed Saddam had WMD in the first place is wrong.
--RMT
...we could have a true altruistic society; one where everyone worked for the good of the community instead of themselves.
Or a society where a few people worked in order to support lazy assed jackasses.
--RMT
My kingdom for some mod points!
Thats even better than the original post. My kingdom for some mod points.
Instead of reading these bullshit 9th grade reading level fantasy novels why don't you try reading some books on economics, history and philosophy?>
Heheh, I was in the middle of reading Game of Thrones for a second time when I saw the slashdot review today...
Last month I received my B.A. (with honours) in Philosophy (my minor was History)...I was the top first class honours grad in my major, and won a prize for writing the best honours essay. In september i'm going back for my masters.
Take it from me: Game of Thrones rocks your socks.
If you don't believe me, you can kiss my Willard Van Orman Quine/James M. McPherson-reading ass.