"
Big business, as you put it, doesn't function as a single unit. Each one has a profit motive, and each one has a series of competitors. They all have customers. Without customers, who can go to one of their competitors, deciding to use their products or services, 'big business' which you falsely qualify as a single conspiratory unit would be little business. Or, more likely, out of business. See? It even happens on wall street. You can take your consipiracy theories else where.
"
Wouldn't this arguement, according to standard/. logic, mean that Microsoft should be pushed back to being only a minor player in the market?
This is more or less why prices have risen so much over the past few years.
It isn't a lack of supply, it is that most of the supply is not getting to refineries - it is being held by speculators who are not relaeasing all their stock because they think the price will rise more.
So the supply (in terms of what actually gets onto the market) is restricted because people simply aren't selling it.
Why do they have a right to some money, just because they've spent time promoting an album?
They surely have a right to only the amount that the market is willing to pay. If they are doing work that no-one (or rather, less and less people) wants to pay for then that seems like a basic example of free market economics - the more flexible operators in a market will suceed better.
Having invested in the promotion of a band doesn't mean that a company have added any useful value to that band in the system we have now. Or at least, if it does add value, that value is significantly add variance with the the cost of the product - a cost that is more or less dictated by the record companies.
Hi, sorry but that just isn't true. Lots of companies, such as the one I work for, do use Office specifically to use Office.
In an industry like ours where documents are a product the document become part of a supply chain - if every other part of the supply chain is using MS Office then it is useless to say that a Linux equivalent can do the same stuff,l because if it isn't compatible with the Office docs we can't use it.
They only time your comment is true is when one is the only user of one's documents, otherwise it is very often more important to have a compatibilty between users than it is to have high level functionality.
What about the millions of small businesses who have a legitimate product to sell in a competitive market? Fedex and UPS would be at the top of Google's list if their page was nothing but a white sheet with their phone number in the corner, but small company must genuinely worry about every little increase in the page ranking.
This isn't a criticism of the paretn comment - in fact I think they have a good point - but how is it that so much effort in these discussions is spent on again and again iterating the reasons why Windows isn't as good as other systems.
Surely its a given amongst a community like this that Windows is a technically inferior system - I'm a full time Windows user and I agree with the arguements for its inferiority, while simultaneously acceptingly that on a practical level Windows is a functionally more useful system.
But surely we could turn our minds to better things than remarking on things that we all essentially agree on.
I suppose the difference is that Sony or Google aren't in monopoly positions - their products could easily be usurped and beaten by a decent competitor.
Whereas Microsoft are in a different position - if a decent competitor came along (clearly I'm not a nix user) it would be crippled by the market share arguement - i.e. why should any user switch to a different OS when Windows has a >90% share of the market and all software runs on Windows but not necessarily on anything else.
Because of this all MS has to do is make sure that its OS'es are roughly backwards compatible and people will buy them.
Slashdot Mirror
" Big business, as you put it, doesn't function as a single unit. Each one has a profit motive, and each one has a series of competitors. They all have customers. Without customers, who can go to one of their competitors, deciding to use their products or services, 'big business' which you falsely qualify as a single conspiratory unit would be little business. Or, more likely, out of business. See? It even happens on wall street. You can take your consipiracy theories else where. "
/. logic, mean that Microsoft should be pushed back to being only a minor player in the market?
Wouldn't this arguement, according to standard
This is more or less why prices have risen so much over the past few years. It isn't a lack of supply, it is that most of the supply is not getting to refineries - it is being held by speculators who are not relaeasing all their stock because they think the price will rise more. So the supply (in terms of what actually gets onto the market) is restricted because people simply aren't selling it.
Why do they have a right to some money, just because they've spent time promoting an album? They surely have a right to only the amount that the market is willing to pay. If they are doing work that no-one (or rather, less and less people) wants to pay for then that seems like a basic example of free market economics - the more flexible operators in a market will suceed better. Having invested in the promotion of a band doesn't mean that a company have added any useful value to that band in the system we have now. Or at least, if it does add value, that value is significantly add variance with the the cost of the product - a cost that is more or less dictated by the record companies.
Hi, sorry but that just isn't true. Lots of companies, such as the one I work for, do use Office specifically to use Office. In an industry like ours where documents are a product the document become part of a supply chain - if every other part of the supply chain is using MS Office then it is useless to say that a Linux equivalent can do the same stuff,l because if it isn't compatible with the Office docs we can't use it. They only time your comment is true is when one is the only user of one's documents, otherwise it is very often more important to have a compatibilty between users than it is to have high level functionality.
What about the millions of small businesses who have a legitimate product to sell in a competitive market? Fedex and UPS would be at the top of Google's list if their page was nothing but a white sheet with their phone number in the corner, but small company must genuinely worry about every little increase in the page ranking.
This isn't a criticism of the paretn comment - in fact I think they have a good point - but how is it that so much effort in these discussions is spent on again and again iterating the reasons why Windows isn't as good as other systems. Surely its a given amongst a community like this that Windows is a technically inferior system - I'm a full time Windows user and I agree with the arguements for its inferiority, while simultaneously acceptingly that on a practical level Windows is a functionally more useful system. But surely we could turn our minds to better things than remarking on things that we all essentially agree on.
I suppose the difference is that Sony or Google aren't in monopoly positions - their products could easily be usurped and beaten by a decent competitor. Whereas Microsoft are in a different position - if a decent competitor came along (clearly I'm not a nix user) it would be crippled by the market share arguement - i.e. why should any user switch to a different OS when Windows has a >90% share of the market and all software runs on Windows but not necessarily on anything else. Because of this all MS has to do is make sure that its OS'es are roughly backwards compatible and people will buy them.