"If you're going to compare OpenOffice to MS Office, please remember that OO is free whereas MS Office is not free unless you are using a very restrictive MS License or are so used to not paying for your MS software, that you are using it illegally anyway."
Is this an excuse? Is OpenOffice an inferior product and that is why it costs less? Remember for AT-HOME DESKTOP users illegal or legal is not the issue, it's competetion. Paying for XP/Office is insanity, every copy I have ever seen is a copy. While it may be 'immoral' it doesn't preclude that OpenOffice must still compete, in the users mind, against a free product.
Saying normal users should switch to free is redundant. For most at-home users XP was:
1. Pre-installed
2. Pirated/installed from a burn
I have never seen a legitimate XP disc. Price isn't the attractice comparative advantage for desktop users, use that angle for businesses.
Oi, you don't need to attack each point to get the jist, so I'll boil it down:
For Grandma and Grandpa Windows simply WORKS. They can one-click install everything they want, they don't need to go hunt through forums or command lines, and can get burned copies of all the software they need. Linux may be infinitely more stable, but if you can't get it to do what you want all the stability in the world doesn't matter. It may as well be a rock, literally.
Unless you can meet XP's user friendliness it will NEVER be ready for the desktop.
Assuming XP was already installed, I'm sure most people would have little trouble with Norton or Spybot. However using the command line? People tend to freak out when there's no 'Next' button.
Chuggin' along is all well and good, but an efficient OS is no good if you can't use it. As I said, security and stability will always play 2nd fiddle to basic, practical, SIMPLE usage.
This is classic causation error. People that use Linux computers dont need tech support as much as people with Windows computers, therefore Windows is bad.
It's flawed logic because people with Linux computers are BY DEFAULT computer savvy. Think about what I said: If you gave Grandma Mandrake would she be more or less frustrated than with a computer that had Norton+Spybot+XP?
Can grandma use it? Are programs and drivers simple to install? If not, it's back to the drawing board fellas.
One of the major problems with any Linux distro is the designers (nerds) make it for themselves. XP isn't dominant because of a monopoly, it's dominant because it's so damn easy for even the most inept of users. People could care less about security holes, instability, support-a-coroporate-monolith, if it means they can actually get their computer to do what they want it to.
You can be a Linux elitist all you want, but don't blame Microsoft for the Open Source's failure to create a product for the MAJORITY of desktop users (read: computer illiterates).
Re:Lets hope that the result is progress
on
Google v. Microsoft
·
· Score: 1
[bunch of examples about products that were only slightly better than their competitors, or were not marketed well]
It's not just about making a better product, it's about making a SIGNIFICANTLY better product that is MARKETED well. History is full of examples of failed products that were wonderfully useful but were not advertised well.
Capitalism is not about the better product. It is about who is most effective at selling the product. My original point stands. When you control the operating system, you have a HUGE advantage because you control the gateway to your competitor's product. You have the power for your product to succeed and sink your competitor, perhaps more power than any previous company in history.
Powerful companies have more money with which to invest in new products and their advertising. However for the most part their leverage ends there. Yet, due to the wonderful nature of capitalism, even the little guys have a chance by convincing others to invest in their product. Even a very powerful company, without the aid of legislation, is vulnerable to another company besting them with a better product and better marketing. However the 2 MUST go hand in hand or they WILL fail.
90% of the population who don't understand how the web works, pressing the Search button on their browser is the only option
Then it's up to Google to convine "90%" of the population of their existence and superiority. If they don't they will die, regardless of a superior market. MS are not invincible and despite claims of 'monopoly' have a host of failed products.
Re:Lets hope that the result is progress
on
Google v. Microsoft
·
· Score: 1
"What does efficiency or quality of service got to do with anything? This is America. It's not about the better product. It's about who wins."
Whether you choose to believe it the company with the better product that is effectively communicated wins. Take a look at Wal-Mart, pdfs, Oracle databases, the Ford 'monopoly' that was ousted by GM, A&P grocers (another 'monopoly' that was ousted), etc.
You can believe whatever liberals tell you but use a little common sense and objectivity please.
Re:Lets hope that the result is progress
on
Google v. Microsoft
·
· Score: 1
"Monopolies are _bad_. But the only Monopolies I've seen recently are government supported(Original AT&T), or occurred due to collusion among disparate companies (Music CD Prices)."
Don't forget the US Postal service. Oh you're my new best friend too:)
Re:Lets hope that the result is progress
on
Google v. Microsoft
·
· Score: 1
Ahh yes, we all know how innovate our communists cousins the USSR and Cuba are right? Right??? Oh wait nevermind.
Re:Lets hope that the result is progress
on
Google v. Microsoft
·
· Score: 1
Wow. Everything I wanted to say only you did it better. Thanks for saving me some time.
Re:I have just one problem with the MS will win th
on
Google v. Microsoft
·
· Score: 1
Finally, someone who gets it. Microsoft beats their competeitors not through some illusory 'monopoly', but by either releasing a better product, better marketing, or their competetitor's make a mistake.
This is why Oracle, pdfs, Apache, ICQ, AIM, etc. still exist. These are good companies with good products. And they all have a significant competetive advantages.
Make no mistake, if Google dies it will not be because of monopoly. As soon as you stop believing this lie and analyzing the market with an unbiased eye you will realize this.
Re:Somehow everyone assumes that MS techology will
on
Google v. Microsoft
·
· Score: 1
Yup. Make no mistake. There is no 'monopoly' here. If Google dies it will be because MS had a better product, better advertising, or Google made a mistake.
Netscape because they couldn't win them over on quality...like some posters have suggested.
How was IE better? I HATED Netscape, ugly slow app, really stupid.
MS couldn't compete with Netscape so they completely gave their browser away
Because nothing shows the true villainy of greed when people GIVE away stuff. Please. Everyone thought they were gonna jack up the price when Netscape died. They didn't, and never will.
Netscape would have been fine if they just released a SIGNIFICANTLY superior browser (ala Opera or Mozilla). It didn't need to be bundled if people wanted to use it. But nobody did, because it sucked. Thus Netscape died, and good riddance.
You watch this little war. If MSN starts winning it's because they advertised better, have a better product, or Google does something stupid. No exceptions.
Re:Google as a business competitor
on
Google v. Microsoft
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
"Microsoft faces a tough competitor in Google - one that's not likely to make the same kind of mistakes its predecessors did."
Ahh someone who gets it. Most of the competetion that have come and gone were ousted because Microsoft legitimately had a better product for their end users (read: not nerds). People liked the simplicty and the GUIs, and could care less about security holes. It happened to Netscape.
Google is going to be just fine. As long as they don't make the infamous 'monopoly' excuse and stick to making a good search engine they will are going to succeed. Monopoly has nothing to do with market share and everything to do with the number of alternatives. And Google is one tough alternative.
2007: Millions of people who were perfectly happy with Google are now incredible pissed off with inferior search results and switch to alternate browsers. Microsoft loses more goodwill as they once again see that all the claims of 'monopoly' were erroneous and merely excuses from shitty competetitors.
Re:Netscape lost to Standards not Quality
on
Google v. Microsoft
·
· Score: 1
Netscape was deeply inferior, especially to the maymen who know nothing of standards. It was slow to boot up, had an ugly interface and a poor mail client.
Even if they did have a better client, it was only marginally better. I'm sure if people actually liked Netscape siginificantly more they would have continued to use it. But Netscape was stupid, they screamed monopoly, and their browser failed. Good riddance.
Use monopoly to force MSN on people? What the hell are you talking about. So long as there are alternatives a monopoly can't exist. All they can do is use market share, which is infinitely different from monopoly.
It was just simply too difficult for her. So I had no choice but to installed Windows for her.
For whatever reason most anti-MS Linux zealots ignore this fact. It is far easier to cry monopoly then it is to look at your target markets and compare them with the products they have. Security holes vs. ease-of-use...
For the girlfriends of the world I think the choice is obvious , especially when the security holes are less so.
Netscape used to have 90% of the browser market share until IE starting coming around. How did they lose this market share? One argument is that people simply used the default browser IE. While this is true it does not absolve Netscape of their failures as a business.
Netscape simply didn't make a browser with a SIGNIFICANT competetive advantage. I am sure if Netscape had a browser on par with the calibre of Firebird/Opera they would have trumped MS. But they didn't. They screamed monopoly, and all that belly aching accomplished nothing. This, combing with a lack of advertising and poor product development, killed them.
Google is in a good position since they clearly have a better product. Providing they can transmit this competetive advantage to their target markets they will be just fine. That's right Google, you may actually have to ADVERTISE.
MS's strength hasn't been in monopoly but never overestimating the intelligence of their target market. In any case any competetition is good competetion. If MS truly does make a better search engine I will be the first to use it.
Oh come on. Google will be sitting pretty as long as they don't make mistakes. Netscape didn't die because of monopoly, they died because they didn't make a significantly superior browser (ie. Firebird or Opera. Admit it, if Netscape had originally had a browser of that calibre nobody would have continued using IE)
Whatdya mean not ready for the desktop!? Of course it's ready. It HAS to be! I mean the reason people use XP is because of a monopoly, not because Linux isn't 'ready'. Right?! RIGHT!? It's taken awhile for me to build my house of cards and I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't knock it down.
Jeez.
I feel your pain. It's unfortunate how many people make grandiose economic statements without knowing any economics. It's a good thing people don't do the same regarding heart surgery.
Slashdot Mirror
"If you're going to compare OpenOffice to MS Office, please remember that OO is free whereas MS Office is not free unless you are using a very restrictive MS License or are so used to not paying for your MS software, that you are using it illegally anyway." Is this an excuse? Is OpenOffice an inferior product and that is why it costs less? Remember for AT-HOME DESKTOP users illegal or legal is not the issue, it's competetion. Paying for XP/Office is insanity, every copy I have ever seen is a copy. While it may be 'immoral' it doesn't preclude that OpenOffice must still compete, in the users mind, against a free product.
Saying normal users should switch to free is redundant. For most at-home users XP was: 1. Pre-installed 2. Pirated/installed from a burn I have never seen a legitimate XP disc. Price isn't the attractice comparative advantage for desktop users, use that angle for businesses.
Oi, you don't need to attack each point to get the jist, so I'll boil it down:
For Grandma and Grandpa Windows simply WORKS. They can one-click install everything they want, they don't need to go hunt through forums or command lines, and can get burned copies of all the software they need. Linux may be infinitely more stable, but if you can't get it to do what you want all the stability in the world doesn't matter. It may as well be a rock, literally.
Unless you can meet XP's user friendliness it will NEVER be ready for the desktop.
Assuming XP was already installed, I'm sure most people would have little trouble with Norton or Spybot. However using the command line? People tend to freak out when there's no 'Next' button.
Chuggin' along is all well and good, but an efficient OS is no good if you can't use it. As I said, security and stability will always play 2nd fiddle to basic, practical, SIMPLE usage.
This is classic causation error. People that use Linux computers dont need tech support as much as people with Windows computers, therefore Windows is bad.
It's flawed logic because people with Linux computers are BY DEFAULT computer savvy. Think about what I said: If you gave Grandma Mandrake would she be more or less frustrated than with a computer that had Norton+Spybot+XP?
Can grandma use it? Are programs and drivers simple to install? If not, it's back to the drawing board fellas.
One of the major problems with any Linux distro is the designers (nerds) make it for themselves. XP isn't dominant because of a monopoly, it's dominant because it's so damn easy for even the most inept of users. People could care less about security holes, instability, support-a-coroporate-monolith, if it means they can actually get their computer to do what they want it to.
You can be a Linux elitist all you want, but don't blame Microsoft for the Open Source's failure to create a product for the MAJORITY of desktop users (read: computer illiterates).
[bunch of examples about products that were only slightly better than their competitors, or were not marketed well]
It's not just about making a better product, it's about making a SIGNIFICANTLY better product that is MARKETED well. History is full of examples of failed products that were wonderfully useful but were not advertised well.
Capitalism is not about the better product. It is about who is most effective at selling the product. My original point stands. When you control the operating system, you have a HUGE advantage because you control the gateway to your competitor's product. You have the power for your product to succeed and sink your competitor, perhaps more power than any previous company in history.
Powerful companies have more money with which to invest in new products and their advertising. However for the most part their leverage ends there. Yet, due to the wonderful nature of capitalism, even the little guys have a chance by convincing others to invest in their product. Even a very powerful company, without the aid of legislation, is vulnerable to another company besting them with a better product and better marketing. However the 2 MUST go hand in hand or they WILL fail.
90% of the population who don't understand how the web works, pressing the Search button on their browser is the only option
Then it's up to Google to convine "90%" of the population of their existence and superiority. If they don't they will die, regardless of a superior market. MS are not invincible and despite claims of 'monopoly' have a host of failed products.
"What does efficiency or quality of service got to do with anything? This is America. It's not about the better product. It's about who wins."
Whether you choose to believe it the company with the better product that is effectively communicated wins. Take a look at Wal-Mart, pdfs, Oracle databases, the Ford 'monopoly' that was ousted by GM, A&P grocers (another 'monopoly' that was ousted), etc.
You can believe whatever liberals tell you but use a little common sense and objectivity please.
"Monopolies are _bad_. But the only Monopolies I've seen recently are government supported(Original AT&T), or occurred due to collusion among disparate companies (Music CD Prices)."
:)
Don't forget the US Postal service. Oh you're my new best friend too
Ahh yes, we all know how innovate our communists cousins the USSR and Cuba are right? Right??? Oh wait nevermind.
Wow. Everything I wanted to say only you did it better. Thanks for saving me some time.
Finally, someone who gets it. Microsoft beats their competeitors not through some illusory 'monopoly', but by either releasing a better product, better marketing, or their competetitor's make a mistake.
This is why Oracle, pdfs, Apache, ICQ, AIM, etc. still exist. These are good companies with good products. And they all have a significant competetive advantages.
Make no mistake, if Google dies it will not be because of monopoly. As soon as you stop believing this lie and analyzing the market with an unbiased eye you will realize this.
Yup. Make no mistake. There is no 'monopoly' here. If Google dies it will be because MS had a better product, better advertising, or Google made a mistake.
Netscape because they couldn't win them over on quality...like some posters have suggested.
How was IE better? I HATED Netscape, ugly slow app, really stupid.
MS couldn't compete with Netscape so they completely gave their browser away
Because nothing shows the true villainy of greed when people GIVE away stuff. Please. Everyone thought they were gonna jack up the price when Netscape died. They didn't, and never will.
Netscape would have been fine if they just released a SIGNIFICANTLY superior browser (ala Opera or Mozilla). It didn't need to be bundled if people wanted to use it. But nobody did, because it sucked. Thus Netscape died, and good riddance.
You watch this little war. If MSN starts winning it's because they advertised better, have a better product, or Google does something stupid. No exceptions.
"Microsoft faces a tough competitor in Google - one that's not likely to make the same kind of mistakes its predecessors did."
Ahh someone who gets it. Most of the competetion that have come and gone were ousted because Microsoft legitimately had a better product for their end users (read: not nerds). People liked the simplicty and the GUIs, and could care less about security holes. It happened to Netscape.
Google is going to be just fine. As long as they don't make the infamous 'monopoly' excuse and stick to making a good search engine they will are going to succeed. Monopoly has nothing to do with market share and everything to do with the number of alternatives. And Google is one tough alternative.
2007: Millions of people who were perfectly happy with Google are now incredible pissed off with inferior search results and switch to alternate browsers. Microsoft loses more goodwill as they once again see that all the claims of 'monopoly' were erroneous and merely excuses from shitty competetitors.
Netscape was deeply inferior, especially to the maymen who know nothing of standards. It was slow to boot up, had an ugly interface and a poor mail client.
Even if they did have a better client, it was only marginally better. I'm sure if people actually liked Netscape siginificantly more they would have continued to use it. But Netscape was stupid, they screamed monopoly, and their browser failed. Good riddance.
Use monopoly to force MSN on people? What the hell are you talking about. So long as there are alternatives a monopoly can't exist. All they can do is use market share, which is infinitely different from monopoly.
It was just simply too difficult for her. So I had no choice but to installed Windows for her.
For whatever reason most anti-MS Linux zealots ignore this fact. It is far easier to cry monopoly then it is to look at your target markets and compare them with the products they have. Security holes vs. ease-of-use...
For the girlfriends of the world I think the choice is obvious , especially when the security holes are less so.
iTunes provides nothing of value to me. Considered my bottlecaps forwarded.
Netscape used to have 90% of the browser market share until IE starting coming around. How did they lose this market share? One argument is that people simply used the default browser IE. While this is true it does not absolve Netscape of their failures as a business.
Netscape simply didn't make a browser with a SIGNIFICANT competetive advantage. I am sure if Netscape had a browser on par with the calibre of Firebird/Opera they would have trumped MS. But they didn't. They screamed monopoly, and all that belly aching accomplished nothing. This, combing with a lack of advertising and poor product development, killed them.
Google is in a good position since they clearly have a better product. Providing they can transmit this competetive advantage to their target markets they will be just fine. That's right Google, you may actually have to ADVERTISE.
MS's strength hasn't been in monopoly but never overestimating the intelligence of their target market.
In any case any competetition is good competetion. If MS truly does make a better search engine I will be the first to use it.
Sounds to me like blaming gun manufacturers for homicides. But it feels so much more appropriate when Microsoft does it eh?
Oh come on. Google will be sitting pretty as long as they don't make mistakes. Netscape didn't die because of monopoly, they died because they didn't make a significantly superior browser (ie. Firebird or Opera. Admit it, if Netscape had originally had a browser of that calibre nobody would have continued using IE)
As soon as Linux is ready for the desktop
Whatdya mean not ready for the desktop!? Of course it's ready. It HAS to be! I mean the reason people use XP is because of a monopoly, not because Linux isn't 'ready'. Right?! RIGHT!? It's taken awhile for me to build my house of cards and I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't knock it down.
'oi -1 flamebait, I can see it now'
Jeez.
I feel your pain. It's unfortunate how many people make grandiose economic statements without knowing any economics. It's a good thing people don't do the same regarding heart surgery.