Where I live (Washingon, DC), food and water is plentiful, health care is so so, and software is relatively cheap. Grossly oversimplifying here, here's where I give credit:
food - unfettered market capitalism means I eat sushi today, Indian tomorrow, and buy oranges at the supermarket for under a dollar
water - most of my water is provided by municipal government; it is extremely cheap and reliable, but tastes funny; because of funny taste, I have to buy water filters (but they're easy to get and cheap, due to unfettered market capitalism)
health care - not sure how well it really works, or where to assign credit or blame
software - I use a lot of good free software (gcc, Perl, emacs, countless utilities) and lots of reasonably cheap commercial software; I am anti-DOJ, but pro-open-source; I think capitalism doesn't inhibit software availability, but it does cause some wasted overall economic utility
Just this statement alone raises interesting questions:
Public opinion is with MS now and will continue to be because people are afraid to question the tenets of capitalism.
Here's a couple thoughts:
1. A lot of people are very content in America and don't question capitalism enough. This is bad. But it's not real bad--some times ignorance is bliss.
2. Most Americans who question capitalism only somewhat rigorously find it hard to come up with something better. I suspect this is somewhat do to lack of imagination, but also somewhat due to the inherent goodness of capitalism and obvious badness of certain alternatives.
3. People who make reasonable critiques of capitalism often are unfairly maligned as cross-the-board Marxists. For example, I've read RMS, and I think he is unfairly portrayed as more extreme than he really is. I think anyone who is not a die-hard capitalist would agree with his implied premise that capitalism is better for some things than others and that software is not exactly where capitalism shines.
A lot of people who oppose the DOJ suit would favor government actions against corporations that pollute the environment, exploit workers, withhold crucial resources from consumers, etc. MS may be unfairly competitive, but they're hardly a threat to civil society.
Your argument may be correct, but you should clarify some points:
1. Are we focusing on the fact that Microsoft has a monopoly in the OS market or browser market?
If it's the OS market you're talking about...
1. First and most obviously, of course, what about IBM, Sun, etc.? Is Microsoft a monopoly or just a market leader?
2. Couldn't you argue that Microsoft is in fact a natural monopoly. Having just one prominent desktop platform benefit consumers tremendously, as well as a lot of software vendors. For example, Netscape only has to write their portal software for one desktop OS to get 95% of the market (although they don't stop there, of course). A restuarant software vendor can write its software for NT only and get lots of sales. Think of all the software that corporations have not had to port, because there is no PepsiSoft operating system.
3. What specific laws has Microsoft broken in the OS arena? It's not illegal to be a monopoly, but it is illegal to violate anti-trust laws. What anti-trust laws are you suggesting they violated?
If you're suggesting that Microsoft has a monopoly in the browser market, I think you're on firmer ground, since they obviously leveraged their OS leadership to undermine a source of profit for Netscape. Of course, before Microsoft, Netscape was a monopoly of sorts. And Netscape charges for their product, but they have never aggressively seeked payment, since they know that their real long-term value is as a portal. The browser monopoly, of course, is another monopoly. Having one major browser platform greatly simplifies the job of webmasters everywhere. That is, having one major browser platform will greatly simplify the job of webmasters everywhere once Microsoft really does have a monopoly with browsers. I am one of the many Netscape users that DOJ seems to think either don't exist or don't matter.
- you can buy other OSes - you can buy game boxes cheaply - you can run your household without MS Money, trust me (or anyone from the pre-computer era) - you can still have a social life without AOL
Business users aren't forced to choose Microsoft either. Any corporation/small business who does not investigate Unix/Mac/IBM alternatives to MS deserves to be abused by Microsoft, although $100 a PC hardly makes a dent in most company's budgets.
Of course, the real cost of buying an OS has very little to do with the nominal price tag, so the whole article was basically irrelevant. Some companies (wrongly or rightly) believe Microsoft has a lower total cost of ownership. The ones that made the wrong gamble on choosing OSes have paid the price and have gone out of business by now. Gosh, free markets are so cruel--you make dumb purchasing decisions and you go out of business.:)
Slashdot Mirror
Where I live (Washingon, DC), food and water is plentiful, health care is so so, and software is relatively cheap. Grossly oversimplifying here, here's where I give credit:
food - unfettered market capitalism means I eat sushi today, Indian tomorrow, and buy oranges at the supermarket for under a dollar
water - most of my water is provided by municipal government; it is extremely cheap and reliable, but tastes funny; because of funny taste, I have to buy water filters (but they're easy to get and cheap, due to unfettered market capitalism)
health care - not sure how well it really works, or where to assign credit or blame
software - I use a lot of good free software (gcc, Perl, emacs, countless utilities) and lots of reasonably cheap commercial software; I am anti-DOJ, but pro-open-source; I think capitalism doesn't inhibit software availability, but it does cause some wasted overall economic utility
Trust me. My roommate just bought a Mac. He didn't buy it on the black market, either. Oh, and it was a laptop too.
Did you know that you can't order a Coke at Pizza Hut?
Just this statement alone raises interesting questions:
Public opinion is with MS now and will continue to be because people are afraid to question the tenets of capitalism.
Here's a couple thoughts:
1. A lot of people are very content in America and don't question capitalism enough. This is bad. But it's not real bad--some times ignorance is bliss.
2. Most Americans who question capitalism only somewhat rigorously find it hard to come up with something better. I suspect this is somewhat do to lack of imagination, but also somewhat due to the inherent goodness of capitalism and obvious badness of certain alternatives.
3. People who make reasonable critiques of capitalism often are unfairly maligned as cross-the-board Marxists. For example, I've read RMS, and I think he is unfairly portrayed as more extreme than he really is. I think anyone who is not a die-hard capitalist would agree with his implied premise that capitalism is better for some things than others and that software is not exactly where capitalism shines.
A lot of people who oppose the DOJ suit would favor government actions against corporations that pollute the environment, exploit workers, withhold crucial resources from consumers, etc. MS may be unfairly competitive, but they're hardly a threat to civil society.
Your argument may be correct, but you should clarify some points:
1. Are we focusing on the fact that Microsoft has a monopoly in the OS market or browser market?
If it's the OS market you're talking about...
1. First and most obviously, of course, what about IBM, Sun, etc.? Is Microsoft a monopoly or just a market leader?
2. Couldn't you argue that Microsoft is in fact a natural monopoly. Having just one prominent desktop platform benefit consumers tremendously, as well as a lot of software vendors. For example, Netscape only has to write their portal software for one desktop OS to get 95% of the market (although they don't stop there, of course). A restuarant software vendor can write its software for NT only and get lots of sales. Think of all the software that corporations have not had to port, because there is no PepsiSoft operating system.
3. What specific laws has Microsoft broken in the OS arena? It's not illegal to be a monopoly, but it is illegal to violate anti-trust laws. What anti-trust laws are you suggesting they violated?
If you're suggesting that Microsoft has a monopoly in the browser market, I think you're on firmer ground, since they obviously leveraged their OS leadership to undermine a source of profit for Netscape. Of course, before Microsoft, Netscape was a monopoly of sorts. And Netscape charges for their product, but they have never aggressively seeked payment, since they know that their real long-term value is as a portal.
The browser monopoly, of course, is another monopoly. Having one major browser platform greatly simplifies the job of webmasters everywhere. That is, having one major browser platform will greatly simplify the job of webmasters everywhere once Microsoft really does have a monopoly with browsers. I am one of the many Netscape users that DOJ seems to think either don't exist or don't matter.
Nobody's being forced to buy Microsoft.
:)
You don't need Microsoft in your home:
- you can buy other OSes
- you can buy game boxes cheaply
- you can run your household without MS Money, trust me (or anyone from the pre-computer era)
- you can still have a social life without AOL
Business users aren't forced to choose Microsoft either. Any corporation/small business who does not investigate Unix/Mac/IBM alternatives to MS deserves to be abused by Microsoft, although $100 a PC hardly makes a dent in most company's budgets.
Of course, the real cost of buying an OS has very little to do with the nominal price tag, so the whole article was basically irrelevant. Some companies (wrongly or rightly) believe Microsoft has a lower total cost of ownership. The ones that made the wrong gamble on choosing OSes have paid the price and have gone out of business by now. Gosh, free markets are so cruel--you make dumb purchasing decisions and you go out of business.