Just because media player is removed from the install it doesn't mean a 'better' one will take its place. Microsoft's competetitors in this market (Winamp, foobar, Quintesssential) have horrible marketing. If it is removed they will simply advertise it and we'll be back where we started, except with a bunch of pissed off customers who can't get their CD's to play off their fresh new Dell PC.
WMP9's dominance hasn't little to do with the fact that it comes with the computer, and a whole lot to do with poor marketing by its competetitors. Why do you think the iTunes app is doing so well? Microsoft's actions do not exempt their competetitor's from poor BUSINESS decisions, not necessarily software ones.
You're playing semantics games with the term "monopoly," and then arguing that the legal definition is wrong. Microsoft was convicted of abusing monopolistic power, and that's exactly what they did and continue to do.
It's not jsut semantics because, as I said before, the difference in being the sole provider of a good or service and simple having 95% market share is huge. I hate to give you economics lesson but here:
http://malroy.econ.ox.ac.uk/ccw/pdf/micpre9.pdf
as opposed to a competetive market:
http://malroy.econ.ox.ac.uk/ccw/pdf/micpre8.pdf
Ah, so all those corporations that want to be able to interoperate with others aren't really forced into buying Microsoft Office licenses?
Of course not. They aren't forced to do anything so long as alternatives, such as Open Office, exist in the free market. I'm not saying Microsoft doesn't try and reign in their customers through their software, but there are a host of other reasons extraneous to this fact why MS rose to dominance. Their restrictive software has even driven away customers, such as yourself no doubt.
"By that definition, Bell wasn't a monopoly as long as I tied two Dixie cups together and charged people to use it."
A monopoly must be the sole provider of a good or service with no other substitues. 2 dixie cups is not a substitute to a telephone. The Bell monopoly you refer to is a natural monopoly, such as your local cable and power companies. However Mandrake IS a substitute to XP.
"95% market domination makes them an effective monopoly, or at least a very good approximation of one."
Read the pdf on monopolies. They can restrict output to drive up price. Microsoft can not do this arbitrarily without a concommitant loss in profit, and, necessarily, market share. Furthermore the measure of a monopoly is how many competetitors it has, not how much market share it has. As I said, market dominance and monopoly are 2 different creatures that grant powers different powers entirely.
Anti-trust laws are very hard to dodge for companies. Overcharging means exploiting monpoly, undercharging means predatory pricing, charging market price means collusion, etc. If MS is evil for anything it's lobbying for unjust laws, and commiting fraud.
Step back and look at the open source world, and ASK yourself why it hasn't taken hold (yet). There's a LOT more to it then hand-waving arguments of MS's 'exploitation'.
Furthermore look at the current software world and ask what MS 'controls' currently. Servers and databases are run by Apache and Oracle respectively. That leaves desktops, namely XP. Is there a a good alternative to XP? Mandrake is the only possible candidate but even that most computer-illiterates would struggle with. Appeal to the tastes of computer-idiots and you may then, and only then, topple the Gates empire.
The legal definition and the economic definition are not congruent. Economically, a monopoly is the sole provider of a good or service. Because they have competitors, they can in no way be considered
The legal definition uses words like 'control' and 'market share'. These also grant power, but nothing compared to a true economic monopoly. Take a course or read a book on the powers of true monopolies, don't linux zealots and website propaganda lead you astray.
That is correct. They are not a monopoly, but they certainly have absolute control over what they can and do charge for Windows. However don't confuse market dominance and monopoly, they are too different creatures with a different set of powers granted to each.
What is Microsoft's hitlist and how did they bully them? Anyone have a good link?
And how can they be a monopoly when apple, linux, unix all exist.
This is exactly my point. They are not an economic monopoly. The law may accuse them of such, but such a law (like many others that have come before it) would be unjust.
No, the law is quite clear. You cannot leverage dominant marketshare in one sector to attain dominant marketshare in another. This is what Microsoft did and continues to do.
Microsoft does break laws, cooking the books, fraud, and a slough of others. However accusing them of being a monopoly is simply false.
Uh huh, sure. Real legal scholar we've got here. Then pray tell, what is a monopoly, if not a single company controlling an entire sector of the market? I think I'll trust the three courts that heard that case over your word.
The legal definition of a monopoly is completly erroenous and allows consumers who 'think' they have no control over the products they buy to blame it on some corporation. As I was saying, they were convicted under a vague law. Even rich people have rights, as unfortunate as that may seem.
A monopoly is the sole provider of a good or service. Microsoft does not fall under this category, at least so long as other desktops and office suites exist.
That is the economic definition, and for all intents and purposes the only one that matters when it comes to controling the market. Market dominance gives you other kinds of power, but not the awesome control a true monopoly gives you. So long as competition exists Microsoft must always watch their back.
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell111299.asp
Microsoft (aka his company) was convicted of operating as an illegal monopoly. They broke the law, knowingly and willingly, and they continue to do so.
They broke laws that were vague and unjust to begin with. I could go on a rant about how a monopoly has nothing to do with how much market share one has or any tactics used to gain said market share, but just take my word for it: They're not an economic monopoly under any circumstances.
It's not so much about who's "right" and who's "wrong", it's about how we can blame people who've come across lots of money, regardless of whatever misgivings they have (haven't) commited.
You still get junk because the companies that sent you that used marketing data to determine that your chances of following up on their ads are reasonable enough to offset the cost of the stamp.
It's 1000 times more reasonable then your chances of following up on spam, that much is certain. It's just costs vs. benefits, as are most economic decisions.
Wdinows being installed on 90% of cpus is a convenient excuse but an excuse nonetheless. This is Microsoft's competetive advantage: Not having to worry about buying an O/S, it's already included. Until Linux PRESENTS consumers with a product that has a SIGNIFICANT competetive advantage they will happily continue using XP.
Microsoft's success is based on 2 things:
1. Good marketing. Linux has always been horendous at this. A good product is useless if no one knows about it
2. Meeting the needs of the customer. Linux-zealots can argue till they're blue in the face about this but Tom Dick and Harry find Excel and Word to meet all the requirements they need. Until Linux PRESENTS them with a product that has a SIGNIFICANT competetive advantage they will happily continue using XP. Mandrake is for geeks, not laymen. Fix this and you'll have a case.
They are a 'convicted monopolist' by an erroneous law full of vagueries. For all intents and purposes, true economic power comes from being the sole provider of a good or service
All the market dominance/market share and evil deeds is irrelevent if this criteria is not met. Market dominance allows some power in the marketplace but not NEARLY the power a TRUE economic monopoly grants.
The measure of a monopoly is not "How many people use it", but "How many alternatives are there?"
The hooking argument is simply silly. Is Ghana supposed to set the pace of the Linux movement? Angola? Mali? They do not have the economic or political power to create this change. The bar is set by developed nations, not by third world countries. It would idiocy for them to adopt software that goes against the grain of prosperous nations who are potentially their customers.
Quite simply an economic monopoly is the only provider of a good or service. If this SOLE criterion is not met the argument is over. Period.
Monopoly has nothing to do with market dominance, 'mean' tactics, 'anti-competetive strategies' or whatever the rhetoric of the day is.
This may seem an argument of semantics but TRUE economic power comes from having no competitors. Such is simply not the case with Microsoft, making all monopoly claims null and void. Yes, market dominance gives you a good deal of power, but it is nothing compared to the total exclusion of all competitors.
And if you're wondering the legal definition is incorrect, as any good economist will tell you.
For a third world country the choice is between "free software or no free software". It's an obvious choice unless a Linux representative steps in and says "free GOOD software or free CRAPPY software". Marketing has never been Linux's strong point, and they will suffer because of it.
Don't expect third world countries to be the one's to lead the Linux revolutions, that is purely idiotic. The first world countries always set the standards, it would be suicide for developing nations to go against the grain.
Geeks unequivocally will tell you XP software is entirely worthless because they use [insert Linux distro here] and it has so many [insert tons of benefits here]. But this doesn't preclude the fact that:
1. Linux is virtually not marketed, Tom Dick and Harry havent' even heard of thing
2. Not ready for the desktop. It's NOT simple enough regardless of what Mandrake people will tell you. Simple for geeks, but not to grandma, and that's what matters.
This is why computer systems that are used almost solely by geeks (databases and servers) are run by Oracle and Linux, NOT Microsoft.
Sorry for the double post, I'm new to HTML forum posting:/
Geeks unequivocally will tell you XP software is entirely software because they use [insert Linux distro here] and it has so many [insert tons of benefits here].
But this doesn't reclude the fact that:
1. Linux is virtually not marketed, Tom Dick and Harry havent' even heard of thing
2. Not ready for the desktop. It's NOT simply enough regardless of what Mandrake people will tell you. Simple for geeks, but not to grandma, and that's what matters.
This is why computer systems that are used almost solely by geeks (databases and servers) are run by Oracle and Linux, NOT Microsoft.
Dont' forget the 0.000002% of the population that actually buys into these schemes.
There's always going to be guys who will do anything for their pricks.
Slashdot Mirror
Just because media player is removed from the install it doesn't mean a 'better' one will take its place. Microsoft's competetitors in this market (Winamp, foobar, Quintesssential) have horrible marketing. If it is removed they will simply advertise it and we'll be back where we started, except with a bunch of pissed off customers who can't get their CD's to play off their fresh new Dell PC.
WMP9's dominance hasn't little to do with the fact that it comes with the computer, and a whole lot to do with poor marketing by its competetitors. Why do you think the iTunes app is doing so well? Microsoft's actions do not exempt their competetitor's from poor BUSINESS decisions, not necessarily software ones.
You're playing semantics games with the term "monopoly," and then arguing that the legal definition is wrong. Microsoft was convicted of abusing monopolistic power, and that's exactly what they did and continue to do.
It's not jsut semantics because, as I said before, the difference in being the sole provider of a good or service and simple having 95% market share is huge. I hate to give you economics lesson but here:
http://malroy.econ.ox.ac.uk/ccw/pdf/micpre9.pdf
as opposed to a competetive market:
http://malroy.econ.ox.ac.uk/ccw/pdf/micpre8.pdf
Ah, so all those corporations that want to be able to interoperate with others aren't really forced into buying Microsoft Office licenses?
Of course not. They aren't forced to do anything so long as alternatives, such as Open Office, exist in the free market. I'm not saying Microsoft doesn't try and reign in their customers through their software, but there are a host of other reasons extraneous to this fact why MS rose to dominance. Their restrictive software has even driven away customers, such as yourself no doubt.
"By that definition, Bell wasn't a monopoly as long as I tied two Dixie cups together and charged people to use it."
A monopoly must be the sole provider of a good or service with no other substitues. 2 dixie cups is not a substitute to a telephone. The Bell monopoly you refer to is a natural monopoly, such as your local cable and power companies. However Mandrake IS a substitute to XP.
"95% market domination makes them an effective monopoly, or at least a very good approximation of one."
Read the pdf on monopolies. They can restrict output to drive up price. Microsoft can not do this arbitrarily without a concommitant loss in profit, and, necessarily, market share. Furthermore the measure of a monopoly is how many competetitors it has, not how much market share it has. As I said, market dominance and monopoly are 2 different creatures that grant powers different powers entirely.
Anti-trust laws are very hard to dodge for companies. Overcharging means exploiting monpoly, undercharging means predatory pricing, charging market price means collusion, etc. If MS is evil for anything it's lobbying for unjust laws, and commiting fraud.
Step back and look at the open source world, and ASK yourself why it hasn't taken hold (yet). There's a LOT more to it then hand-waving arguments of MS's 'exploitation'.
Furthermore look at the current software world and ask what MS 'controls' currently. Servers and databases are run by Apache and Oracle respectively. That leaves desktops, namely XP. Is there a a good alternative to XP? Mandrake is the only possible candidate but even that most computer-illiterates would struggle with. Appeal to the tastes of computer-idiots and you may then, and only then, topple the Gates empire.
The legal definition and the economic definition are not congruent. Economically, a monopoly is the sole provider of a good or service. Because they have competitors, they can in no way be considered
The legal definition uses words like 'control' and 'market share'. These also grant power, but nothing compared to a true economic monopoly. Take a course or read a book on the powers of true monopolies, don't linux zealots and website propaganda lead you astray.
That is correct. They are not a monopoly, but they certainly have absolute control over what they can and do charge for Windows. However don't confuse market dominance and monopoly, they are too different creatures with a different set of powers granted to each.
What is Microsoft's hitlist and how did they bully them? Anyone have a good link?
No, the law is quite clear. You cannot leverage dominant marketshare in one sector to attain dominant marketshare in another. This is what Microsoft did and continues to do.
9 .asp
Microsoft does break laws, cooking the books, fraud, and a slough of others. However accusing them of being a monopoly is simply false.
Uh huh, sure. Real legal scholar we've got here. Then pray tell, what is a monopoly, if not a single company controlling an entire sector of the market? I think I'll trust the three courts that heard that case over your word.
The legal definition of a monopoly is completly erroenous and allows consumers who 'think' they have no control over the products they buy to blame it on some corporation. As I was saying, they were convicted under a vague law. Even rich people have rights, as unfortunate as that may seem.
A monopoly is the sole provider of a good or service. Microsoft does not fall under this category, at least so long as other desktops and office suites exist.
That is the economic definition, and for all intents and purposes the only one that matters when it comes to controling the market. Market dominance gives you other kinds of power, but not the awesome control a true monopoly gives you.
So long as competition exists Microsoft must always watch their back.
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell11129
They broke laws that were vague and unjust to begin with. I could go on a rant about how a monopoly has nothing to do with how much market share one has or any tactics used to gain said market share, but just take my word for it: They're not an economic monopoly under any circumstances.
It's not so much about who's "right" and who's "wrong", it's about how we can blame people who've come across lots of money, regardless of whatever misgivings they have (haven't) commited.
You still get junk because the companies that sent you that used marketing data to determine that your chances of following up on their ads are reasonable enough to offset the cost of the stamp.
It's 1000 times more reasonable then your chances of following up on spam, that much is certain. It's just costs vs. benefits, as are most economic decisions.
Wdinows being installed on 90% of cpus is a convenient excuse but an excuse nonetheless. This is Microsoft's competetive advantage: Not having to worry about buying an O/S, it's already included.
Until Linux PRESENTS consumers with a product that has a SIGNIFICANT competetive advantage they will happily continue using XP.
Microsoft's success is based on 2 things:
1. Good marketing. Linux has always been horendous at this. A good product is useless if no one knows about it
2. Meeting the needs of the customer. Linux-zealots can argue till they're blue in the face about this but Tom Dick and Harry find Excel and Word to meet all the requirements they need. Until Linux PRESENTS them with a product that has a SIGNIFICANT competetive advantage they will happily continue using XP.
Mandrake is for geeks, not laymen. Fix this and you'll have a case.
They are a 'convicted monopolist' by an erroneous law full of vagueries. For all intents and purposes, true economic power comes from being the sole provider of a good or service
All the market dominance/market share and evil deeds is irrelevent if this criteria is not met. Market dominance allows some power in the marketplace but not NEARLY the power a TRUE economic monopoly grants.
The measure of a monopoly is not "How many people use it", but "How many alternatives are there?"
The hooking argument is simply silly.
Is Ghana supposed to set the pace of the Linux movement? Angola? Mali? They do not have the economic or political power to create this change. The bar is set by developed nations, not by third world countries. It would idiocy for them to adopt software that goes against the grain of prosperous nations who are potentially their customers.
Quite simply an economic monopoly is the only provider of a good or service. If this SOLE criterion is not met the argument is over. Period.
Monopoly has nothing to do with market dominance, 'mean' tactics, 'anti-competetive strategies' or whatever the rhetoric of the day is.
This may seem an argument of semantics but TRUE economic power comes from having no competitors. Such is simply not the case with Microsoft, making all monopoly claims null and void. Yes, market dominance gives you a good deal of power, but it is nothing compared to the total exclusion of all competitors.
And if you're wondering the legal definition is incorrect, as any good economist will tell you.
For a third world country the choice is between "free software or no free software". It's an obvious choice unless a Linux representative steps in and says "free GOOD software or free CRAPPY software". Marketing has never been Linux's strong point, and they will suffer because of it.
Don't expect third world countries to be the one's to lead the Linux revolutions, that is purely idiotic. The first world countries always set the standards, it would be suicide for developing nations to go against the grain.
Geeks unequivocally will tell you XP software is entirely worthless because they use [insert Linux distro here] and it has so many [insert tons of benefits here]. But this doesn't preclude the fact that:
:/
1. Linux is virtually not marketed, Tom Dick and Harry havent' even heard of thing
2. Not ready for the desktop. It's NOT simple enough regardless of what Mandrake people will tell you. Simple for geeks, but not to grandma, and that's what matters.
This is why computer systems that are used almost solely by geeks (databases and servers) are run by Oracle and Linux, NOT Microsoft. Sorry for the double post, I'm new to HTML forum posting
Geeks unequivocally will tell you XP software is entirely software because they use [insert Linux distro here] and it has so many [insert tons of benefits here]. But this doesn't reclude the fact that: 1. Linux is virtually not marketed, Tom Dick and Harry havent' even heard of thing 2. Not ready for the desktop. It's NOT simply enough regardless of what Mandrake people will tell you. Simple for geeks, but not to grandma, and that's what matters. This is why computer systems that are used almost solely by geeks (databases and servers) are run by Oracle and Linux, NOT Microsoft.
Ever since they loaded up on the flash ads I stopped visiting.
Dont' forget the 0.000002% of the population that actually buys into these schemes. There's always going to be guys who will do anything for their pricks.