In fairness, not long ago similar arguments about Intel could easily be made.
Now, if you want a study in monopolistic practices, Intel is a gem.
AMD's eventual rise to parity hinged on building a better mouse trap.
So, if the operating system market is worth targetting, then perhaps an AMD-type entity will come along and replace MS. Certainly, with the rise of virtualization software, the odds are better than they used to be.
I just think that, long-term, large companies develop major disadvantages and it is the job of smaller firms to exploit those disadvantages.
Look back at Intel vs AMD. Intel banked a lot of money that consumers only cared about XXXX MHz speed, assuming that a piss-poor 2.4 HGz processor was better than a damn good 1.4 GHz processor.
AMD flipped that game on its head by changing the conventions for comparing processors. Consequently, Intel ran into a lot of development trouble while AMD gained market share with a better processor.
Intel has recovered most of the lost ground in processor performance, but they're still looking at their asses wondered what happened and wondering when their stock price will recover.
Had Dell gone AMD, Intel would be nearing death as a company.
Point? The market took care of itself because Intel became lazy and took consumers' intelligence for granted.
If the current market will bare only one dominant operating system, who the hell is the EU to complain?
There arguments to this extent for some time about Nintendo, but eventually competition -- not regulation -- broke the monopoly and now provides us with a fairly diverse market.
Everyone whines about the largest companies in the world. Whether it's Microsoft, Walmart, GM, or Standard Oil, the big "monopoly" of any day will always be the object of contempt while people flock to its products.
If closed practices alone are the standard for whether a company sucks, where's the Apple bashing? Apple's practices, historically, have made MS looked like an Open Source company.
And if you think how you feel about a product or company justifies not using the product, you're sorely mistaken.
The question on any product is and will always be: does the damn thing work?
All things being equal, the average consumer is convinced that Windows does work for their purposes, because the average consumer will just an operating system by whether it can run their $10 card game they just bought off the shelf from Walmart.
Right now, the US has done nothing to provide a "this is and that isn't" definition of pornography because outside the internet it's easy to just make people hide indecent art, also, in a gallery.
With the overt publicness of the internet, the US government will finally have to tell one website it has "art" and tell another that it has "porn".
For once, the US government would be required to grow up and actually do some governing.
Which means, the law dies in numerous rewrites in committee, but stays alive long enough that every Rep can run a line like "Representative Johnson Long fought to protect our kids from internet predators by supporting the Don't Let PCs Molest Kids Act of 2006" in all their commercials. The commercial will feature a kid with a hat sitting at a Tandy with his mom's arm over his shoulder. You will lose brain cells watching it.
Besides, I'm sure Rick Santorum's secret male partner will get a laugh out of his supporting the bill.
I didn't say as much that it rid the world of corrupt politicians.
It's a little idealistic to even suppose that will ever come to happen, since it is human nature for many to be corrupt and seek the means of using power.
But, the internet makes it a lot harder for the bastards to keep the public in the dark.
And, the internet supplies much smaller entites greater access to a larger audience.
The days of assuming that you're in the clear if you get the NYT and the three major networks to swallow a lie are over.
And, let's not forget, we're still in the infancy of the internet. 36% of the U.S. market remains to be converted. An older generation will die off never knowing what the internet could have done.
We're still settling standards for how we even build websites, and we're still discovering new social mechanisms.
How long ago was MMO a pipe dream? How long ago was the internet really just Yahoo, Google, IMDB? How long ago was it just an email system for academics and the military and a few Usenet groups?
There's a long upside to the internet, and the smarter politicians are deeply worried that upside may change their playing field.
And the smartest politicians are helping it happen.
Unfortunately, smart isn't the same as uncorruptible.
But, the game has changed.
Historically, free societies have been controlled very easily because the means of mass producing propoganda were easily centered in the hands of a few elites.
Basically, the same people who sold you your thoughts every day were the ones who bought your government every day.
The internet has blown the hinges off this system.
Now, you have small fries all over the world projecting power and strength well beyond what the system has determined is their right.
One blog, backed by a good mind, can destroy a politician. And the bastards are scared.
This sort of arbitrary exercise of authority is exactly what people do when they're scared.
The system is trying to get a handle on the internet, before the internet becomes big enough and strong to end their control of the means of production of propoganda.
Unfortunately, that boat has already sailed.
It's hard being a pol.
Remember, Bill Gates is also the guy who said computers would never need more than 640 kb of RAM.
So . . . let's not treat him like he's a visionary.
On the upside, it is nice to see the world's largest 'Nix-driven company (Google) lie up for a fight with MS.
Slashdot Mirror
Geez.
And where's the gossip? A little American Idol news, huh?
And if I can't find Jenny from health class online, why would I ever use your website?
Oh, and air the damn thing it out! This site is gonna take two months to stop smelling of man stink anyhow!
For that matter, empty the trash, wash some dishes, and let the cat in.
The Europeans have been snippy about this forever. Worse, the Brits are under the misapprehension that they're not European.
We've had to put a couple Brits down because they turned feral when the subject came up.
The parked domains are practically worthless properties anyhow.
Whatver MS did for GoDaddy has to look nice on the balance sheet compared to the piss-poor performance of properties that would be better off deleted.
Hmmm... right over there is my MySQL book.
Use technology to unclutter. Ditch some of the books.
Hmmm . . . Drudge Report and Craigslist . . . Flash websites.
Just a loose thought that fell out of my head.
In fairness, not long ago similar arguments about Intel could easily be made. Now, if you want a study in monopolistic practices, Intel is a gem. AMD's eventual rise to parity hinged on building a better mouse trap. So, if the operating system market is worth targetting, then perhaps an AMD-type entity will come along and replace MS. Certainly, with the rise of virtualization software, the odds are better than they used to be. I just think that, long-term, large companies develop major disadvantages and it is the job of smaller firms to exploit those disadvantages. Look back at Intel vs AMD. Intel banked a lot of money that consumers only cared about XXXX MHz speed, assuming that a piss-poor 2.4 HGz processor was better than a damn good 1.4 GHz processor. AMD flipped that game on its head by changing the conventions for comparing processors. Consequently, Intel ran into a lot of development trouble while AMD gained market share with a better processor. Intel has recovered most of the lost ground in processor performance, but they're still looking at their asses wondered what happened and wondering when their stock price will recover. Had Dell gone AMD, Intel would be nearing death as a company. Point? The market took care of itself because Intel became lazy and took consumers' intelligence for granted.
If the current market will bare only one dominant operating system, who the hell is the EU to complain? There arguments to this extent for some time about Nintendo, but eventually competition -- not regulation -- broke the monopoly and now provides us with a fairly diverse market. Everyone whines about the largest companies in the world. Whether it's Microsoft, Walmart, GM, or Standard Oil, the big "monopoly" of any day will always be the object of contempt while people flock to its products. If closed practices alone are the standard for whether a company sucks, where's the Apple bashing? Apple's practices, historically, have made MS looked like an Open Source company. And if you think how you feel about a product or company justifies not using the product, you're sorely mistaken. The question on any product is and will always be: does the damn thing work? All things being equal, the average consumer is convinced that Windows does work for their purposes, because the average consumer will just an operating system by whether it can run their $10 card game they just bought off the shelf from Walmart.
Right now, the US has done nothing to provide a "this is and that isn't" definition of pornography because outside the internet it's easy to just make people hide indecent art, also, in a gallery. With the overt publicness of the internet, the US government will finally have to tell one website it has "art" and tell another that it has "porn". For once, the US government would be required to grow up and actually do some governing. Which means, the law dies in numerous rewrites in committee, but stays alive long enough that every Rep can run a line like "Representative Johnson Long fought to protect our kids from internet predators by supporting the Don't Let PCs Molest Kids Act of 2006" in all their commercials. The commercial will feature a kid with a hat sitting at a Tandy with his mom's arm over his shoulder. You will lose brain cells watching it. Besides, I'm sure Rick Santorum's secret male partner will get a laugh out of his supporting the bill.
Put a bitch in heat on Titan, and I guarantee a dog will stud Titan into being a giant kennel in no time. Life is incredibly persistent.
I didn't say as much that it rid the world of corrupt politicians. It's a little idealistic to even suppose that will ever come to happen, since it is human nature for many to be corrupt and seek the means of using power. But, the internet makes it a lot harder for the bastards to keep the public in the dark. And, the internet supplies much smaller entites greater access to a larger audience. The days of assuming that you're in the clear if you get the NYT and the three major networks to swallow a lie are over. And, let's not forget, we're still in the infancy of the internet. 36% of the U.S. market remains to be converted. An older generation will die off never knowing what the internet could have done. We're still settling standards for how we even build websites, and we're still discovering new social mechanisms. How long ago was MMO a pipe dream? How long ago was the internet really just Yahoo, Google, IMDB? How long ago was it just an email system for academics and the military and a few Usenet groups? There's a long upside to the internet, and the smarter politicians are deeply worried that upside may change their playing field. And the smartest politicians are helping it happen. Unfortunately, smart isn't the same as uncorruptible. But, the game has changed.
Historically, free societies have been controlled very easily because the means of mass producing propoganda were easily centered in the hands of a few elites. Basically, the same people who sold you your thoughts every day were the ones who bought your government every day. The internet has blown the hinges off this system. Now, you have small fries all over the world projecting power and strength well beyond what the system has determined is their right. One blog, backed by a good mind, can destroy a politician. And the bastards are scared. This sort of arbitrary exercise of authority is exactly what people do when they're scared. The system is trying to get a handle on the internet, before the internet becomes big enough and strong to end their control of the means of production of propoganda. Unfortunately, that boat has already sailed. It's hard being a pol.
Remember, Bill Gates is also the guy who said computers would never need more than 640 kb of RAM. So . . . let's not treat him like he's a visionary. On the upside, it is nice to see the world's largest 'Nix-driven company (Google) lie up for a fight with MS.