May The Best Mode Win
in [Drive]
|
From: gpsman on 19 Oct 2009 11:23 On Oct 19, 9:00 am, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > Explain how a monopoly or cartel can endure without government > intervention on behalf of the monopoly or cartel. Microsoft. ----- - gpsman
From: hancock4 on 19 Oct 2009 11:30 On Oct 18, 11:34 am, "Dave C." <no...(a)nohow.never> wrote: > The U.S. dollar is internationally ridiculed right now. It is no longer > the international standard currency. I don't know what the replacement > is going to be, but the dollar has been FIRED already...the replacement > for the dollar has not been "hired" yet. But interviews are in > progress. No. Presently the US dollar IS still the international standard currency. When it ceases to become that this country will feel it hard, especially since the US is so dependent on imports for so many products and services.
From: hancock4 on 19 Oct 2009 11:34 On Oct 18, 11:55 pm, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > I am unconviced that JIT is more than shuffling numbers around so it > looks like a savings so someone gets a promotion. The burden is just > shifted to reduce part cost later. That is correct. In the short run it looks good on the purchaser's balance sheet because the supplier is forced to eat the costs to stay in business. But in the long term the supplier will either raise its prices or go out of business. There is no such thing as a free lunch. While it is obviously important for businesses to get "the most bang for the buck" in their suppliers and labor force, there also is something to be said for loyalty and long term relationships. Some businesses like to change vendors and even their employees periodically just to "shake things up". But loyalty is a two way street and 'shaking things up' can lead to a lot of waste on splattered on walls.
From: Brent on 19 Oct 2009 12:36 On 2009-10-19, Larry Sheldon <lfsheldon(a)gmail.com> wrote: > gpsman wrote: >> On Oct 19, 9:00 am, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>> Explain how a monopoly or cartel can endure without government >>> intervention on behalf of the monopoly or cartel. >> >> Microsoft. > > > > Ha ha. I get it! (for those scoring at home gpsman is being sarcastic.) You give him too much credit. I'll wager he thinks microsoft is a monopoly because of the anti-trust charges and large market share. For the benefit of gpstroll I'll explain it... Microsoft like walmart became a target because of being large, profitable, and lacking paid political protection. Political types can smell money and they will attack to get it. What's the use of running a protection racket if the threats are never carried out on those who aren't paying? That explains the anti-trust action. Once microsoft started paying protection it pretty much just went away. Microsoft is and has never been a monopoly. It has engaged in various questionable business practices by leveraging that market share. It got that market share because it a) got the business from IBM for an OS. b) businesses wanted to stick with IBM. c) Apple (and others) used their OSes as a way to sell their hardware. The current MacOS comes from NeXTSTEP which was odd in that it ran on NeXT, Sun, Hp, and intel PC hardware. Mac's hardware is now largely based on standard intel PC hardware. If MacOS were offered for Intel machines in general their OS market share would grow. However their hardware sales would fall like a stone. Apple wants to retain their hardware business even if it's just becoming standard stuff in stylish packaging.
From: pbj on 19 Oct 2009 13:30
On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 16:36:10 +0000, Brent wrote: > On 2009-10-19, Larry Sheldon <lfsheldon(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> gpsman wrote: >>> On Oct 19, 9:00 am, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> Explain how a monopoly or cartel can endure without government >>>> intervention on behalf of the monopoly or cartel. >>> >>> Microsoft. >> >> >> >> Ha ha. I get it! (for those scoring at home gpsman is being >> sarcastic.) > > You give him too much credit. I'll wager he thinks microsoft is a > monopoly because of the anti-trust charges and large market share. > > For the benefit of gpstroll I'll explain it... Microsoft like walmart > became a target because of being large, profitable, and lacking paid > political protection. Political types can smell money and they will > attack to get it. What's the use of running a protection racket if the > threats are never carried out on those who aren't paying? That explains > the anti-trust action. Once microsoft started paying protection it > pretty much just went away. > > Microsoft is and has never been a monopoly. It has engaged in various > questionable business practices by leveraging that market share. It got > that market share because it a) got the business from IBM for an OS. b) > businesses wanted to stick with IBM. c) Apple (and others) used their > OSes as a way to sell their hardware. > > The current MacOS comes from NeXTSTEP which was odd in that it ran on > NeXT, Sun, Hp, and intel PC hardware. Mac's hardware is now largely > based on standard intel PC hardware. If MacOS were offered for Intel > machines in general their OS market share would grow. However their > hardware sales would fall like a stone. Apple wants to retain their > hardware business even if it's just becoming standard stuff in stylish > packaging. Hoo, boy. I just gotta x-post this one to COLA. Have fun, guys, and don't get blood on the carpet. :-) |