Write them a letter, use another website, get an emulator, use a computer at school, etc. Of course it sucks, but governments shouldn't be influencing the market, consumers should. So make you stand rather than asking someone else to do it for you.
But really this is just one example out of a multitude of website that work perfectly under Mozilla. The only sites that give me problems are Microsoft.com, and buymusic.com, neither of which I ever visit.
If you want to talk slavery, then you better really know that issue. Slavery was practiced, and IS practiced by many countries around the world. The US did not invent it but simply adopted a common custom. They were also one of the biggest reasons for its global undoing.
But slavery didn't make them prosperous. Shouldn't places like Uganda and Angola, which still practice slavery, be rolling in cash?
Everyone likes to make analogies that corporations are engaging in 'neo-slavery', which is preposterous. The crucial difference is choice. When people are given a variety of options, they choose the one with the highest benefit and the lowest cost. Often times this does mean working for corporations, but it doesn't make them slaves.
I used Linux as an example of open source as it really is the microcosm of the entire movement.
If all Microsoft software vaporized tomorrow you would be a fool if you believed all those.doc files that are now unreadable, all those Operations Management people who use VBA and Solver with excel wouldn't be panicking. They would be. I can virtually guarantee a recession while people slowly convert to other software. And I'm not convinced all the 'other software' wuold even be as effective as Microsoft's. Case in point:
http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/index.php? showtopic=62727
You're only part right. Marketing consists primarily of the 4 Ps: Price, promotion, place, and PRODUCT. All these 4 items must be congruent and accounted for if you want success in business. For example, Firefox fails to do promotion and their usage rates show this. MS doesn't need to promote their browser because Firefox isn't a threat. As soon as Firefox's market share gets to appreciable levels you can bet they will start cranking out the promotion. Why do you think they're promoting their networks/database solutions?
Users determine what user-friendly is. Go ahead. Do you think my Grandma could use Debian? Even Mandrake? Not without considerable pains. At least she knows how to close pop-ups, I doubt she could write her own driver. That's great you know lots of people using Linux. I know of one personally, and he's a compsci major. The rest are too skeptical or don't even know it exists. This is Linux's failure to promote their products. Everything isn't Microsoft's fault.
Good closing remark. 'Fan-boy' has become a great insult for forums, akin to 'troll' and 'flamer'. Forunately it's an unbased claim: I'm using Opera as I write this. Although it seems clear you're quite the Linux 'fanboy' no?
A more accurate comparison would be "it would be no different if Fords, General Motors, Toyato, Honda, Mercedes, Volkswagon, Saab, etc. went down the tube". And you bet your balls it would cause chaos. You are only picking one brand, but you need to pick the brand(s) that have 95% market share. And when that happens, people will be very unhappy. And I was referring to if all MS software was vaporized. Seems like a laudable goal, but the consequences would be unimagineable.
These things must happen naturally, or disaster will strike every time. Governments have little place in how millions of consumers make their individual decisions in the market.
Every bit of legislation always accomplishes one thing: Limiting our freedom.
Your right to life and liberty means you can't kill anyone.
Your right to unreasonable search and seizure means you can't go and steal from someone.
The idea is to make a set of rights that are sensible and protect us without trampling our freedoms excessively.
The difference between governments and corporations is choice. When a government says 'you can't kill your fellow man', you had better obey or you'll go to jail. Governments have a monopoly on law, you can't go to another government without leaving the state. But when a corporation charges you too much for a product, you don't have to buy it, you have choice. There's your difference.
It seems you concede that yes indeedy, it is perfectly feasible that XP is not a bad operating system, and certainly more useful to Joe Blows than Linux. But let's look at IE:
1. Did Microsoft put in buggy code to make certain pages not render right under different browsers? Sure. But obviously since 99.9% of websites work just fine under FireFox/Opera the problem isn't as ubiquitous as you assert. Webmasters are often geeks who don't buy into the whole Microsoft scheme. Furthermore, the reason people don't use Firefox isn't because of standards, but because Firefox doesn't spend a dime on marketing. And that's nobodies fault but theirs. A good product is useless if no one knows about it.
2. This OEM argument comes up time and time again and I always end up saying the same thing. It will be far easier for me to refer you to a discussion from another slashdotter:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=98128&threshol d=1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&cid=8392483
See under 'Second point'
3. Yes that claim is bogus, but so what? They shouldn't be forced to remove it anyway. if you read that whole thread you'll read why getting rid of bundling is stupid for EVERYONE, especially consumers.
Open Source maybe the future, but don't force it upon people, especially when it's clearly not ready. Let the market decide. People said the same thing about Henry Ford the 'monopolist' and look at the innovation today. Even the most entrenched monopolies can be uprooted.
Market forces had everything to do with their rise to power. Here's an example of when a company DOESN'T use market forces to rise:
1. American sugar farmers lobby the government to prevent cheaper sugar from entering the country. They succeed, and everyone must pay 3 times the price for price for sugar.
2. The US Postal Service makes it illegal to send mail to post boxes for under $0.50.
These require government intervention. Windows 3.1 was a landmark, and don't think for a second that Bill and Palmer didn't work their asses off to at least get where they were. They didn't start off a 'monopoly', they had to make smart product AND marketing decisions. Too frequently do companies do one or the other.
What about Windows 3.1? Windows 95? Their only SEVERE debacle was Windows ME, which truly was an atrocity. Now if they were a REAL monopoly they would sit back and laugh and sit on Windows ME. But they couldn't. Why? Because MS has competetitors (which by default makes them not a monopoly). If they still sat on Windows ME to this day I have no doubt they would have lost considerable market share.
Right on the money. Most litigation against large corporations are to protect competetitors that make inferior products. Tariffs, anti-trust laws, protectionist policies, patents-- need I go on?
Umm, isn't legislating against 'monopolies' a breach of rights (to free trade for instance)? Businesses should be able to do what they want, how the hell do you think the US got to be the richest country in the world? It wasn't just because of a war that happened 50 years ago.
Corporations have become the new scapegoats for our failures as businesses and consumers.
How the hell did this get modded up? It's just the same Linux-zealot credo we've been hearing over and over again. There's nothing interesting about it!
There are fundamental and legetimate reasons why MS has gotten to where they are and why they still remain; not least of which is Linux's failure to make an O/S as user-friendly as XP and to market their products effectively.
Make no mistake, if Microsoft were to disappear tomorrow it would throw the entire world into chaos. These things need to happen gradually through normal market forces.
THanks for the discussion, I'm learning quite a bit to be honest.
Okay let's leave Apple alone then. They don't run on x86 so as far as OEMs are concerned they don't really play a factor.
I'll try to get to the meat of your propositions:
1. Do away with bundling. I think the parent of my post mentioned why this wouldn't be a good idea. You didn't actually reply to any of my concerns for the average user. Rather you seemed more concerned with breaking up the 'monopoly' more than anything. But let's look at such a proposition:
Clearly Joe-User requires a browser, email programs, basic firewalls, media players, instant messaging, etc. These all come bundled, much to their convenience. I argue that its up to the competetitors to demonstrate why their products are signifncatly better. This is why Winamp, Adobe, ICQ/AIM/Yahoo, Zonealarm do so well. Firefox is slowly creeping along, but that is mostly due to their perpetual identity crisis and lack of consumer knowledge. Both of these are Firefox's problems, not Microsofts.
But let's see what happens when we do away with the bundling. How do we do this exactly? Don't ship XP with network support? With a media player? With a web browser? Isn't that going to be a pain for someone not so knowledgable with computers?
"Ahh but I never said not to put ANY of that stuff on that computer, just not MS stuff."
Well this doesn't make sense either. Should we have 3 separate browsers on each Windows machine? Or how about just Firefox? But that really wouldn't be fair to IE would it.
How about an extra CD that includes all these extra? It wouldn't make a bit of difference. Newbie users would gleefully install it putting them back where they started. Geeks would ignore it altogether and get their own programs, which they would have done anyway if it came pre-installed. Net effect: 0
The same would occur if uninstall options were forced to be included.
2. Get rid of licensing agreements. Once again a noble proposition but how will this work? Should MS be forced to charge $300 per O/S instead of $100 per O/S? I can tell you right now that would piss off a whole ton of users who have to pay $200 more for their computers. Would this give Linux a chance to compete? Not really. There is no net change once again. During the agreements vendors had a choice to charge $100 for only MS stuff, or $300 for MS stuff as well as some Linux stuff. So what's the difference?
"No no, that's not what I meant. They should be forced to charge $100 per O/S regardless what the vendor says or does."
Even though that is terribly Draconian, let's look at it anyway. Now, would THIS make Linux compete? No, they'd be worse off. Now instead of competing against a $300 O/S, they'd be competing against a $100 O/S. It's feasible they may notice while purchasing their Dell that selecting the Linux option will save them $100 on their computer. And maybe when they get it home they won't be frustrated with it and want a refund.
If I didn't cover any of your conceptualized propositions I'd be willing to hear them to see if they have merit, but I can't find any policy that would have any appreciable effect. Like you said it's a big question, and I don't think it has an answer, other than time, and lots of it.
Back to Linux being a catch-22.
1. "People like what they are used to". Definitely, but they will switch if the substitute is massively better. Does Linux and it's applications meet this criteria? That really depends on the user. For geeks, yes. For Joes, no.
2. "Linux requires heavy-weight vendors to ship their computers with their distros, but MS agreements impede this." Dell isn't willing to charge $200 more to 95% customers just so the 5% of their customers who actually want Linux will have the convenience of not having to format their Windows boxes into Linux ones. It doesn't make sense. And any attempts to disturb these agreements won't really suffice. It's up to Linux to make a great user-friendly O/S, with a suite of app
What a fantastic post. Congrats to you and the mods who modded this up. Too companies people treat MS as a universal scapegoat of their own shortcomings as a business.
About Cisco: I'm not familiar with the suit. However I am familiar with A&P Grocers, anther supposed monopoly in the 1930s. They too had litigation against them. However it wasn't litigation that ruined them, it was failing to respond to market trends.
About Apple: Earlier you said Apple could have won the desktop market if they bargained with manufacturers, and now you are saying this is false?
"Apple wasn't riding the move of the industry from proprietary hardware to commoditized hardware."
Dell and HP are customers that must be catered too as well. Apple's failure to do this is Apple's problem, not Microsoft's. Apple could have recruited their own vendor.
And the most important part of all: Vendors need Windows. What!? No they don't! Windows sucks, doesn't it? I mean isn't that what Slashdot is about? The truth is Windows does not such as bad as they say. You claim there are not enough applications avaiable for Linux ( I disagree, but it only furthers my point) and that vendors need Windows. Therefore are Microsoft doing them a favor by discounting their products? So what exactly are you proposing? Making people use Linux? Preventing people from using Windows? But lots of people love Windows. By destroying these 'sweetheart' deals it will drive up the price of the computer much to the ire of the consumer.
I'll say it again: All it takes to dethrone MS is to make a nice, user-friendly Operating system supported with basic applications that people will want. You can bet that Dell would dump Microsoft in a second if this was provided and more importantly, communicated. Then their profit margins would skyrocket since they wouldn't pay any licensing fees. But they don't. Why? Because Linux is not ready for the desktop, and that is no one's fault but Linux. Am I wrong?
Yes, I conceded they are not a true monopoly. I then spent an entire paragraph determining what kind of power is granted by mere market dominance. I argue that the power they wield is miniscule in comparison to a true monopoly. Anti-trust laws are fradulent and meant to appease poor competetitors.
And yes I did describe the 'anti-competetive' behavior, except it's not anti-competetive at all. Isn't offering a lower price anti-competetive? Clearly its objective is to shut out competition. The answer is no, it's wonderful, beautiful, free market capitalism in full effect.
In the OEM case, Dell would happily dump MS if another product came around that catered to consumer tastes. But that hasn't happened yet, shame on you Mandrake!
user friendliness is crucial, but you are right, it only needs to go so far. It just needs to be better than the competetitors and then you can stop. However I don't see what's so wrong about going to computer vendors, and offering them discounts if they solely distribute MS stuff. Couldn't Apple have done the same thing? Couldn't these vendors have told MS to stick it? Couldn't vendors take neither road and offer Linux, which doesn't cost them a dime? Of course they could. But they don't, and it has nothing to do with monopoly accusations.
First off you are right, I ignore the monopoly because it doesn't exist in economic terms, just according to judges. That said:
Okay saying that the office propritary format needs to die, and saying that Office needs to die are too different ball games. Should they be forced to use more general standards? Let's look at it.
Say Microsoft stays belligerent and refuses to open up the standard. Does this mean someone else can't create another standard? No. Market entry isn't the problem. Market adoption is. So how do you get people to adopt a standard? Once again: make a GOOD standard and market it well and people will flock to it. This is how pdfs spread so rapidly.
So is OpenOffice's big problem not being able to read.doc files? Yes, it is. For that, people will have to use Office XP, no question. But OpenOffice doesn't need to be able to read.docs to compete, they can simply make a better program. Then people will start creating documents that follow standards. So how do you convince people to even START creating documents with OpenOffice? You make a much better product and market it well. Does OpenOffice do both these things well? I would argue they do not. It's unfortunate they don't have the funds to market but that is the permanent drawback of a free system.
I'm sorry but people do care, STRONLGY. Just give Grandma debian for a week and she'll be begging to fork over $200 for XP.
User Friendliness is all the difference in the world. It is Linux's greatest failure that they will probably continue to make. Nice GUIs are only the first step. The ultimate litmus test is if Grandma can use it with all the ease of XP. I guarantee she'll be ultimately frustrated.
People think that the 'fairest' way to improve competition is by crippling competetitors. It makes absolutely no sense. You say that the office monopoly needs to die. A laudable goal, and I agree whole heartedly. But how 'should' it die? Should we make a law saying people can't use Office XP? You could, but all those people who depend on Office will be in a great deal of trouble. OpenOffice is a good alternative, but they are poor marketers. And who should foot the bill to generate awareness? That onos is solely on OpenOffice.
Regarding OEMs, this is taken from a post I made regarding someone with the same point:
Second point: Let's talk OEMs. From what I know, computer vendors get a 70% discount on MS products if they solely ship MS products. That's a good deal. But is it 'unfair'? Once again let's take a look:
Let's say you are the manager at Dell. You can choose to only ship cpus with XP at $100 per head, or ship different computers, but any cpus that have XP will cost $300. Which do you choose? This is a trade-off with obvious pros and cons. For most managers, they stick with Microsoft. Why? Because it makes no sense to ship other operating systems that very few people want when it causes your best product to go up $200.
Now, why doesn't anyone want other operating systems? Let's look at the competetion for IBM machines: Linux and BSD, really. And who does Dell commonly ship too? Certainly not geeks, their borderline insulting advertisements show this. So all the non-geeks, also known as 99% of the population, want an operating system that is nice and user-friendly. And what falls into this category? Windows XP.
So as a manager at Dell, you COULD tell MS to take their deal and shove it, and only have Linux boxes. But you would hardly sell a single computer. Why? Because you neglected 99% of the market.
Until Linux stops catering to geeks, and starts catering to average Joes, MS will continue to dominate.
You gave a very accurate description of why people use XP. It should really become your sig. But don't forget that XP is far more user friendly than even Mandrake. That is a reality that must be overcome by the Linux community. If Linux can't do this, than crippling MS so a poorer product can compete is simply wrong.
You are correct. By using Linux you will be foregoing lots of software available to Windows only. Does this mean we should make a law preventing people from using Windows, or forcing companies to make Linux software as well? Of course not. So what's the solution? The short answer is there is no catch all solution. Yes Windows has a ton of software. But so does Linux. Other than games, Linux has a comparable product to any software avaiable for Windows. Email, browsers, instant messaging, firewalls, server software, networking, etc. So all that other software isn't necessary for SOME users. And as more people uptake Linux, more companies will make software for it. If you don't believe this can happen, take a look at DVDs. A DVD player is only as good as the DVDs available for it, and DVDs are only useful if you have a DVD player. Seems like a catch-22 and yet look at them today.
No, it's not enough to make a better 'mousetrap', you have to market it well. This means managing the 4Ps of marketing: Price, promotion, place, and product.
I had a lengthy discussion with someone ofyour like-mind here. If you care to read it:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=98128&threshol d=1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&pid=8383931#8384 048
First point: It's clear they are economically not a monopoly, I think we agree there. The question is does market dominance grant anywhere near the power that a true monopoly does? Let's look at it.
A true monopoly is the only provider of a good or service. Even monopolies can't charge whatever they want and expect people to pay it. A higher price will result in lower quanitities sold. However, if businesses really need operating systems (and they really need operating systems) they will be willing to pay very high rates for it. If there's only one O/S around, then businesses will have no choice but to pay their rates or do without.
Now here's where Linux comes in. Now companies have a third option: pay Microsoft, do without, or use Linux. That's competeition. As a result people that previously would have done without can use Linux. That is the fundamental difference between a true monopoly and simply having market dominance, and it is a huge difference.
So what does market dominance offer? Well in marketing, an O/S is something complicated to use. Having to learn a new one takes time, and time is money. Microsoft knows this. So long as Linux remains non-user friendly (and XP is inifintely more friendly that Mandrake) people will feel less inclined to switch over. This explains why they can charge so much for their product that it SEEMS monopolostic, but in reality its the competetitors that have failed to make a decent product for their target market, or have failed to communicate to said market.
Market dominance also goes hand in hand with having lots of cash. This allows them to have start up capital to do things like pour millions of dollars into a browser. Netscape couldn't compete with that. Should anything be done about it? Absolutely not. This is known as the 'infant industry argument and it is fallacious. Why? Because in the capitalist system, individuals invest in companies that seem likely to produce good products and compete well. This happens everyday. However Netscape simply had a browser that wasn't as good as IE. Who would invest in that?
Second point: Let's talk OEMs. From what I know, computer vendors get a 70% discount on MS products if they solely ship MS products. That's a good deal. But is it 'unfair'? Once again let's take a look:
Let's say you are the manager at Dell. You can choose to only ship cpus with XP at $100 per head, or ship different computers, but any cpus that have XP will cost $300. Which do you choose? This is a trade-off with obvious pros and cons. For most managers, they stick with Microsoft. Why? Because it makes no sense to ship other operating systems that very few people want when it causes your best product to go up $200. Now, why doesn't anyone want other operating systems? Let's look at the competetion for IBM machines: Linux and BSD, really. And who does Dell commonly ship too? Certainly not geeks, their borderline insulting advertisements show this. So all the non-geeks, also known as 99% of the population, want an operating system that is nice and user-friendly. And what falls into this category? Windows XP.
So as a manager at Dell, you COULD tell MS to take their deal and shove it, and only have Linux boxes. But you would hardly sell a single computer. Why? Because you neglected 99% of the market.
Until Linux stops catering to geeks, and starts catering to average Joes, MS will continue to cominate.
Whew! please note I almost always combine 'make a better product and market it well' in a given sentence, if I failed to do this I apologize. History is awash with products that were superior but were marketed poorly
Yes Business does contain a lot of factors, competition certainly being one. This does not explain why the Linux community has failed to make a product as user friendly as XP. Stability is meaningless without functionality. They may as well be using a cinder block to do word processing.
Betamax was not significantly better. Although it was implied, marketing
Without having read those textbooks, I can't critique the case studies. Nevertheless do what I did: ask your professor if Microsoft is an economic monopoly, and if they say yes, question them about why it dffers from the standard definition: A sole provider of a good or service.
You're right. What people like and what they actually get are different. Your SUV comparison was a classic exmaple of unlimited wants and limited resources. In such a case consumers must make trade-offs. Therefore, in a free market system, what people like or want isn't what they get. It should be up to the consumers to make the necessary trade-offs to determine what they want.
To suggest government should make decisions for consumers, or even to 'correct' false ones is audacious and ridicules the consumer.
I am honestly shocked you made a comparison between a fascist dictatorship 50 years ago and Microsoft.
Lots of people like Bush, Wal-Mart, hamburgers Why not throw out the whole system of choice, clearly that would be better, right? Wouldn't 9 million Jews agree?
The key difference is control. Hitler used governmental control to spread propaganda, and naysayers were executed. Microsoft can spread propaganda, but thousands of bloggers across the net can say otherwise and back up their claims. Additionally people can stop using MS whenever they want, not so with Hitler.
I'll address the only valid point in the whole argument, that is that Microsoft offers discounts to vendors that offer only their product.
Let's imagine you are Dell computers and you have to opportunity to either pay $300 to preload the O/S and be able to offer other O/Ss, or solely provide Microsoft products at $100. But clearly they can say "Fuck Microsoft, I'm not playing this game. Hello Mandrake, BSD, FreeBSD, etc."
No manager in his right mind would do this. Why? Because there are no other O/Ss that are better than XP FOR THE AVERAGE USER. Could Grandma use Mandrake? SuSE? BSD? The answer is of course no. As soon as a COMPETETIVE O/S is developed these OEMs will drop Microsoft in a heartbeat. Now it will cost them $0 to ship a pre-loaded cpu rather than $300. So long as the Linux community fails to do meet this demand Microsoft will remain in power. THERE'S your competetion.
Slashdot Mirror
This is true, and what laws has Microsoft passed in thei favor? The only one I can think of the DMCA, but that applies to all software companies.
Write them a letter, use another website, get an emulator, use a computer at school, etc. Of course it sucks, but governments shouldn't be influencing the market, consumers should. So make you stand rather than asking someone else to do it for you.
But really this is just one example out of a multitude of website that work perfectly under Mozilla. The only sites that give me problems are Microsoft.com, and buymusic.com, neither of which I ever visit.
If you want to talk slavery, then you better really know that issue. Slavery was practiced, and IS practiced by many countries around the world. The US did not invent it but simply adopted a common custom. They were also one of the biggest reasons for its global undoing.
But slavery didn't make them prosperous. Shouldn't places like Uganda and Angola, which still practice slavery, be rolling in cash?
Everyone likes to make analogies that corporations are engaging in 'neo-slavery', which is preposterous. The crucial difference is choice. When people are given a variety of options, they choose the one with the highest benefit and the lowest cost. Often times this does mean working for corporations, but it doesn't make them slaves.
I used Linux as an example of open source as it really is the microcosm of the entire movement.
.doc files that are now unreadable, all those Operations Management people who use VBA and Solver with excel wouldn't be panicking. They would be. I can virtually guarantee a recession while people slowly convert to other software. And I'm not convinced all the 'other software' wuold even be as effective as Microsoft's. Case in point:? showtopic=62727
If all Microsoft software vaporized tomorrow you would be a fool if you believed all those
http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/index.php
You're only part right. Marketing consists primarily of the 4 Ps: Price, promotion, place, and PRODUCT. All these 4 items must be congruent and accounted for if you want success in business. For example, Firefox fails to do promotion and their usage rates show this. MS doesn't need to promote their browser because Firefox isn't a threat. As soon as Firefox's market share gets to appreciable levels you can bet they will start cranking out the promotion. Why do you think they're promoting their networks/database solutions?
Users determine what user-friendly is. Go ahead. Do you think my Grandma could use Debian? Even Mandrake? Not without considerable pains. At least she knows how to close pop-ups, I doubt she could write her own driver.
That's great you know lots of people using Linux. I know of one personally, and he's a compsci major. The rest are too skeptical or don't even know it exists. This is Linux's failure to promote their products. Everything isn't Microsoft's fault.
Good closing remark. 'Fan-boy' has become a great insult for forums, akin to 'troll' and 'flamer'. Forunately it's an unbased claim: I'm using Opera as I write this. Although it seems clear you're quite the Linux 'fanboy' no?
A more accurate comparison would be "it would be no different if Fords, General Motors, Toyato, Honda, Mercedes, Volkswagon, Saab, etc. went down the tube". And you bet your balls it would cause chaos. You are only picking one brand, but you need to pick the brand(s) that have 95% market share. And when that happens, people will be very unhappy. And I was referring to if all MS software was vaporized. Seems like a laudable goal, but the consequences would be unimagineable.
These things must happen naturally, or disaster will strike every time. Governments have little place in how millions of consumers make their individual decisions in the market.
Every bit of legislation always accomplishes one thing: Limiting our freedom.
Your right to life and liberty means you can't kill anyone.
Your right to unreasonable search and seizure means you can't go and steal from someone.
The idea is to make a set of rights that are sensible and protect us without trampling our freedoms excessively.
The difference between governments and corporations is choice. When a government says 'you can't kill your fellow man', you had better obey or you'll go to jail. Governments have a monopoly on law, you can't go to another government without leaving the state. But when a corporation charges you too much for a product, you don't have to buy it, you have choice. There's your difference.
It seems you concede that yes indeedy, it is perfectly feasible that XP is not a bad operating system, and certainly more useful to Joe Blows than Linux. But let's look at IE:
l d=1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&cid=8392483
1. Did Microsoft put in buggy code to make certain pages not render right under different browsers? Sure. But obviously since 99.9% of websites work just fine under FireFox/Opera the problem isn't as ubiquitous as you assert. Webmasters are often geeks who don't buy into the whole Microsoft scheme.
Furthermore, the reason people don't use Firefox isn't because of standards, but because Firefox doesn't spend a dime on marketing. And that's nobodies fault but theirs. A good product is useless if no one knows about it.
2. This OEM argument comes up time and time again and I always end up saying the same thing. It will be far easier for me to refer you to a discussion from another slashdotter:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=98128&thresho
See under 'Second point'
3. Yes that claim is bogus, but so what? They shouldn't be forced to remove it anyway. if you read that whole thread you'll read why getting rid of bundling is stupid for EVERYONE, especially consumers.
Open Source maybe the future, but don't force it upon people, especially when it's clearly not ready. Let the market decide. People said the same thing about Henry Ford the 'monopolist' and look at the innovation today. Even the most entrenched monopolies can be uprooted.
Market forces had everything to do with their rise to power. Here's an example of when a company DOESN'T use market forces to rise:
1. American sugar farmers lobby the government to prevent cheaper sugar from entering the country. They succeed, and everyone must pay 3 times the price for price for sugar.
2. The US Postal Service makes it illegal to send mail to post boxes for under $0.50.
These require government intervention. Windows 3.1 was a landmark, and don't think for a second that Bill and Palmer didn't work their asses off to at least get where they were. They didn't start off a 'monopoly', they had to make smart product AND marketing decisions. Too frequently do companies do one or the other.
What about Windows 3.1? Windows 95? Their only SEVERE debacle was Windows ME, which truly was an atrocity. Now if they were a REAL monopoly they would sit back and laugh and sit on Windows ME. But they couldn't. Why? Because MS has competetitors (which by default makes them not a monopoly). If they still sat on Windows ME to this day I have no doubt they would have lost considerable market share.
Right on the money. Most litigation against large corporations are to protect competetitors that make inferior products. Tariffs, anti-trust laws, protectionist policies, patents-- need I go on?
Umm, isn't legislating against 'monopolies' a breach of rights (to free trade for instance)? Businesses should be able to do what they want, how the hell do you think the US got to be the richest country in the world? It wasn't just because of a war that happened 50 years ago.
Corporations have become the new scapegoats for our failures as businesses and consumers.
How the hell did this get modded up? It's just the same Linux-zealot credo we've been hearing over and over again. There's nothing interesting about it!
There are fundamental and legetimate reasons why MS has gotten to where they are and why they still remain; not least of which is Linux's failure to make an O/S as user-friendly as XP and to market their products effectively.
Make no mistake, if Microsoft were to disappear tomorrow it would throw the entire world into chaos. These things need to happen gradually through normal market forces.
THanks for the discussion, I'm learning quite a bit to be honest.
Okay let's leave Apple alone then. They don't run on x86 so as far as OEMs are concerned they don't really play a factor.
I'll try to get to the meat of your propositions:
1. Do away with bundling. I think the parent of my post mentioned why this wouldn't be a good idea. You didn't actually reply to any of my concerns for the average user. Rather you seemed more concerned with breaking up the 'monopoly' more than anything. But let's look at such a proposition:
Clearly Joe-User requires a browser, email programs, basic firewalls, media players, instant messaging, etc. These all come bundled, much to their convenience. I argue that its up to the competetitors to demonstrate why their products are signifncatly better. This is why Winamp, Adobe, ICQ/AIM/Yahoo, Zonealarm do so well. Firefox is slowly creeping along, but that is mostly due to their perpetual identity crisis and lack of consumer knowledge. Both of these are Firefox's problems, not Microsofts.
But let's see what happens when we do away with the bundling. How do we do this exactly? Don't ship XP with network support? With a media player? With a web browser? Isn't that going to be a pain for someone not so knowledgable with computers?
"Ahh but I never said not to put ANY of that stuff on that computer, just not MS stuff."
Well this doesn't make sense either. Should we have 3 separate browsers on each Windows machine? Or how about just Firefox? But that really wouldn't be fair to IE would it.
How about an extra CD that includes all these extra? It wouldn't make a bit of difference. Newbie users would gleefully install it putting them back where they started. Geeks would ignore it altogether and get their own programs, which they would have done anyway if it came pre-installed. Net effect: 0
The same would occur if uninstall options were forced to be included.
2. Get rid of licensing agreements. Once again a noble proposition but how will this work? Should MS be forced to charge $300 per O/S instead of $100 per O/S? I can tell you right now that would piss off a whole ton of users who have to pay $200 more for their computers. Would this give Linux a chance to compete? Not really. There is no net change once again. During the agreements vendors had a choice to charge $100 for only MS stuff, or $300 for MS stuff as well as some Linux stuff. So what's the difference?
"No no, that's not what I meant. They should be forced to charge $100 per O/S regardless what the vendor says or does."
Even though that is terribly Draconian, let's look at it anyway. Now, would THIS make Linux compete? No, they'd be worse off. Now instead of competing against a $300 O/S, they'd be competing against a $100 O/S. It's feasible they may notice while purchasing their Dell that selecting the Linux option will save them $100 on their computer. And maybe when they get it home they won't be frustrated with it and want a refund.
If I didn't cover any of your conceptualized propositions I'd be willing to hear them to see if they have merit, but I can't find any policy that would have any appreciable effect. Like you said it's a big question, and I don't think it has an answer, other than time, and lots of it.
Back to Linux being a catch-22.
1. "People like what they are used to". Definitely, but they will switch if the substitute is massively better. Does Linux and it's applications meet this criteria? That really depends on the user. For geeks, yes. For Joes, no.
2. "Linux requires heavy-weight vendors to ship their computers with their distros, but MS agreements impede this." Dell isn't willing to charge $200 more to 95% customers just so the 5% of their customers who actually want Linux will have the convenience of not having to format their Windows boxes into Linux ones. It doesn't make sense. And any attempts to disturb these agreements won't really suffice. It's up to Linux to make a great user-friendly O/S, with a suite of app
What a fantastic post. Congrats to you and the mods who modded this up. Too companies people treat MS as a universal scapegoat of their own shortcomings as a business.
About Cisco: I'm not familiar with the suit. However I am familiar with A&P Grocers, anther supposed monopoly in the 1930s. They too had litigation against them. However it wasn't litigation that ruined them, it was failing to respond to market trends.
About Apple: Earlier you said Apple could have won the desktop market if they bargained with manufacturers, and now you are saying this is false?
"Apple wasn't riding the move of the industry from proprietary hardware to commoditized hardware."
Dell and HP are customers that must be catered too as well. Apple's failure to do this is Apple's problem, not Microsoft's. Apple could have recruited their own vendor.
And the most important part of all: Vendors need Windows. What!? No they don't! Windows sucks, doesn't it? I mean isn't that what Slashdot is about? The truth is Windows does not such as bad as they say. You claim there are not enough applications avaiable for Linux ( I disagree, but it only furthers my point) and that vendors need Windows. Therefore are Microsoft doing them a favor by discounting their products?
So what exactly are you proposing? Making people use Linux? Preventing people from using Windows? But lots of people love Windows. By destroying these 'sweetheart' deals it will drive up the price of the computer much to the ire of the consumer.
I'll say it again: All it takes to dethrone MS is to make a nice, user-friendly Operating system supported with basic applications that people will want. You can bet that Dell would dump Microsoft in a second if this was provided and more importantly, communicated. Then their profit margins would skyrocket since they wouldn't pay any licensing fees. But they don't. Why? Because Linux is not ready for the desktop, and that is no one's fault but Linux. Am I wrong?
Yes, I conceded they are not a true monopoly. I then spent an entire paragraph determining what kind of power is granted by mere market dominance. I argue that the power they wield is miniscule in comparison to a true monopoly. Anti-trust laws are fradulent and meant to appease poor competetitors.
And yes I did describe the 'anti-competetive' behavior, except it's not anti-competetive at all. Isn't offering a lower price anti-competetive? Clearly its objective is to shut out competition. The answer is no, it's wonderful, beautiful, free market capitalism in full effect.
In the OEM case, Dell would happily dump MS if another product came around that catered to consumer tastes. But that hasn't happened yet, shame on you Mandrake!
user friendliness is crucial, but you are right, it only needs to go so far. It just needs to be better than the competetitors and then you can stop. However I don't see what's so wrong about going to computer vendors, and offering them discounts if they solely distribute MS stuff. Couldn't Apple have done the same thing? Couldn't these vendors have told MS to stick it? Couldn't vendors take neither road and offer Linux, which doesn't cost them a dime? Of course they could. But they don't, and it has nothing to do with monopoly accusations.
First off you are right, I ignore the monopoly because it doesn't exist in economic terms, just according to judges. That said:
.doc files? Yes, it is. For that, people will have to use Office XP, no question. But OpenOffice doesn't need to be able to read .docs to compete, they can simply make a better program. Then people will start creating documents that follow standards. So how do you convince people to even START creating documents with OpenOffice? You make a much better product and market it well. Does OpenOffice do both these things well? I would argue they do not. It's unfortunate they don't have the funds to market but that is the permanent drawback of a free system.
Okay saying that the office propritary format needs to die, and saying that Office needs to die are too different ball games. Should they be forced to use more general standards? Let's look at it.
Say Microsoft stays belligerent and refuses to open up the standard. Does this mean someone else can't create another standard? No. Market entry isn't the problem. Market adoption is. So how do you get people to adopt a standard? Once again: make a GOOD standard and market it well and people will flock to it. This is how pdfs spread so rapidly.
So is OpenOffice's big problem not being able to read
I'm sorry but people do care, STRONLGY. Just give Grandma debian for a week and she'll be begging to fork over $200 for XP.
User Friendliness is all the difference in the world. It is Linux's greatest failure that they will probably continue to make. Nice GUIs are only the first step. The ultimate litmus test is if Grandma can use it with all the ease of XP. I guarantee she'll be ultimately frustrated.
People think that the 'fairest' way to improve competition is by crippling competetitors. It makes absolutely no sense. You say that the office monopoly needs to die. A laudable goal, and I agree whole heartedly. But how 'should' it die? Should we make a law saying people can't use Office XP? You could, but all those people who depend on Office will be in a great deal of trouble. OpenOffice is a good alternative, but they are poor marketers. And who should foot the bill to generate awareness? That onos is solely on OpenOffice.
Regarding OEMs, this is taken from a post I made regarding someone with the same point:
Second point: Let's talk OEMs. From what I know, computer vendors get a 70% discount on MS products if they solely ship MS products. That's a good deal. But is it 'unfair'? Once again let's take a look:
Let's say you are the manager at Dell. You can choose to only ship cpus with XP at $100 per head, or ship different computers, but any cpus that have XP will cost $300. Which do you choose? This is a trade-off with obvious pros and cons. For most managers, they stick with Microsoft. Why? Because it makes no sense to ship other operating systems that very few people want when it causes your best product to go up $200.
Now, why doesn't anyone want other operating systems? Let's look at the competetion for IBM machines: Linux and BSD, really. And who does Dell commonly ship too? Certainly not geeks, their borderline insulting advertisements show this. So all the non-geeks, also known as 99% of the population, want an operating system that is nice and user-friendly. And what falls into this category? Windows XP.
So as a manager at Dell, you COULD tell MS to take their deal and shove it, and only have Linux boxes. But you would hardly sell a single computer. Why? Because you neglected 99% of the market.
Until Linux stops catering to geeks, and starts catering to average Joes, MS will continue to dominate.
You gave a very accurate description of why people use XP. It should really become your sig. But don't forget that XP is far more user friendly than even Mandrake. That is a reality that must be overcome by the Linux community. If Linux can't do this, than crippling MS so a poorer product can compete is simply wrong.
You are correct. By using Linux you will be foregoing lots of software available to Windows only. Does this mean we should make a law preventing people from using Windows, or forcing companies to make Linux software as well? Of course not. So what's the solution? The short answer is there is no catch all solution. Yes Windows has a ton of software. But so does Linux. Other than games, Linux has a comparable product to any software avaiable for Windows. Email, browsers, instant messaging, firewalls, server software, networking, etc. So all that other software isn't necessary for SOME users. And as more people uptake Linux, more companies will make software for it. If you don't believe this can happen, take a look at DVDs. A DVD player is only as good as the DVDs available for it, and DVDs are only useful if you have a DVD player. Seems like a catch-22 and yet look at them today.
l d=1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&pid=8383931#8384 048
No, it's not enough to make a better 'mousetrap', you have to market it well. This means managing the 4Ps of marketing: Price, promotion, place, and product.
I had a lengthy discussion with someone ofyour like-mind here. If you care to read it:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=98128&thresho
First point: It's clear they are economically not a monopoly, I think we agree there. The question is does market dominance grant anywhere near the power that a true monopoly does? Let's look at it.
A true monopoly is the only provider of a good or service. Even monopolies can't charge whatever they want and expect people to pay it. A higher price will result in lower quanitities sold. However, if businesses really need operating systems (and they really need operating systems) they will be willing to pay very high rates for it. If there's only one O/S around, then businesses will have no choice but to pay their rates or do without.
Now here's where Linux comes in. Now companies have a third option: pay Microsoft, do without, or use Linux. That's competeition. As a result people that previously would have done without can use Linux. That is the fundamental difference between a true monopoly and simply having market dominance, and it is a huge difference.
So what does market dominance offer? Well in marketing, an O/S is something complicated to use. Having to learn a new one takes time, and time is money. Microsoft knows this. So long as Linux remains non-user friendly (and XP is inifintely more friendly that Mandrake) people will feel less inclined to switch over. This explains why they can charge so much for their product that it SEEMS monopolostic, but in reality its the competetitors that have failed to make a decent product for their target market, or have failed to communicate to said market.
Market dominance also goes hand in hand with having lots of cash. This allows them to have start up capital to do things like pour millions of dollars into a browser. Netscape couldn't compete with that. Should anything be done about it? Absolutely not. This is known as the 'infant industry argument and it is fallacious. Why? Because in the capitalist system, individuals invest in companies that seem likely to produce good products and compete well. This happens everyday. However Netscape simply had a browser that wasn't as good as IE. Who would invest in that?
Second point: Let's talk OEMs. From what I know, computer vendors get a 70% discount on MS products if they solely ship MS products. That's a good deal. But is it 'unfair'? Once again let's take a look:
Let's say you are the manager at Dell. You can choose to only ship cpus with XP at $100 per head, or ship different computers, but any cpus that have XP will cost $300. Which do you choose? This is a trade-off with obvious pros and cons. For most managers, they stick with Microsoft. Why? Because it makes no sense to ship other operating systems that very few people want when it causes your best product to go up $200. Now, why doesn't anyone want other operating systems? Let's look at the competetion for IBM machines: Linux and BSD, really. And who does Dell commonly ship too? Certainly not geeks, their borderline insulting advertisements show this. So all the non-geeks, also known as 99% of the population, want an operating system that is nice and user-friendly. And what falls into this category? Windows XP.
So as a manager at Dell, you COULD tell MS to take their deal and shove it, and only have Linux boxes. But you would hardly sell a single computer. Why? Because you neglected 99% of the market.
Until Linux stops catering to geeks, and starts catering to average Joes, MS will continue to cominate.
Whew! please note I almost always combine 'make a better product and market it well' in a given sentence, if I failed to do this I apologize. History is awash with products that were superior but were marketed poorly
Yes Business does contain a lot of factors, competition certainly being one. This does not explain why the Linux community has failed to make a product as user friendly as XP. Stability is meaningless without functionality. They may as well be using a cinder block to do word processing.
Betamax was not significantly better. Although it was implied, marketing
Without having read those textbooks, I can't critique the case studies. Nevertheless do what I did: ask your professor if Microsoft is an economic monopoly, and if they say yes, question them about why it dffers from the standard definition: A sole provider of a good or service.
You're right. What people like and what they actually get are different. Your SUV comparison was a classic exmaple of unlimited wants and limited resources. In such a case consumers must make trade-offs. Therefore, in a free market system, what people like or want isn't what they get. It should be up to the consumers to make the necessary trade-offs to determine what they want. To suggest government should make decisions for consumers, or even to 'correct' false ones is audacious and ridicules the consumer.
I am honestly shocked you made a comparison between a fascist dictatorship 50 years ago and Microsoft.
Lots of people like Bush, Wal-Mart, hamburgers Why not throw out the whole system of choice, clearly that would be better, right? Wouldn't 9 million Jews agree?
The key difference is control. Hitler used governmental control to spread propaganda, and naysayers were executed. Microsoft can spread propaganda, but thousands of bloggers across the net can say otherwise and back up their claims. Additionally people can stop using MS whenever they want, not so with Hitler.
I'll address the only valid point in the whole argument, that is that Microsoft offers discounts to vendors that offer only their product.
Let's imagine you are Dell computers and you have to opportunity to either pay $300 to preload the O/S and be able to offer other O/Ss, or solely provide Microsoft products at $100. But clearly they can say "Fuck Microsoft, I'm not playing this game. Hello Mandrake, BSD, FreeBSD, etc."
No manager in his right mind would do this. Why? Because there are no other O/Ss that are better than XP FOR THE AVERAGE USER. Could Grandma use Mandrake? SuSE? BSD? The answer is of course no. As soon as a COMPETETIVE O/S is developed these OEMs will drop Microsoft in a heartbeat. Now it will cost them $0 to ship a pre-loaded cpu rather than $300. So long as the Linux community fails to do meet this demand Microsoft will remain in power. THERE'S your competetion.