May The Best Mode Win
in [Drive]
|
From: chrisv on 22 Oct 2009 08:49 Brent wrote: >Sounds like you've just agreed that government interference is required. Why agree to something that is false? You sound like the government is some magical force, that can do things more effectively than the tricky, scheming, businessman cannot do (under the right circumstances, of course). It could be argued that "passing laws" can be *less* effective than some of the methods of the businessman.
From: hancock4 on 22 Oct 2009 10:07 On Oct 22, 1:57 am, gpsman <gps...(a)driversmail.com> wrote: > The stranglehold MS exerts on that core market is essentially > impossible to penetrate due to basic human nature; resistance to > change and the cost of change (even the cost of contemplating change), > perceived cost/benefit ratio, ease of use, the ability of Windows to > satisfy the needs of 90% of computer owners, its near universal > popularity and thus familiarity, and its technical support base. Not > many users need to look far for someone who can fix whatever they > managed to screw up. Like it or not, this is a highly accurate summary of M/S and the computer marketplace. It's exactly the same as when IBM dominated the computer marketplace years ago. But times change and things change. One day someone new will come along with something better, worth (or perceived to be worth) making a change for and M/S Windows will cease its dominant position. Likewise for Word and Excel. I'm surprised no one is talking about (or complaining about) Oracle, which has a great deal of marketplace power. > That was easy. Here, you try just a couple: > Feel free to describe how and why "such things are decided on a > political basis", why then they bother with the facade of filing suit > and involving a lot of unnecessary co-conspirators, and your source. While generally the above is not true, there have been a few situations where the government did take action based on political/ ideological reasons. A lot of people in government hated AT&T simply because it was so big, despite the fact it was very tightly regulated and evolving with the times. (That is, many changes that are credited to Divesture were gonna happen at the same time anyway regardless of Divesture.) The AT&T haters, along with external selfish interests who wanted to 'cream-skim', pushed for the litigation against AT&T. Likewise with IBM. Note that IBM stuck it out and _won_ in court.
From: hancock4 on 22 Oct 2009 10:15 On Oct 22, 7:37 am, Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstr...(a)launchmodem.com> wrote: > Let's be blunt. No one is foolish enough to dare to produce and market a > Windows clone. Why would anyone want to? We already have Windows, and it would be quite doubtful someone could produce a clone at a cheaper price. However, someone someday WILL produce something so superior to Windows (and Excel and Word) that people will be willing to migrate over to it. Note that IBM supposedly had the computer market locked up "nobody ever got fired buying IBM". But other technologies came along that were perceived to be superior and customers chose to dump their trusted IBM mainframe and go to something else, often at great expense.
From: chrisv on 22 Oct 2009 10:19 Larrybud wrote: >> "Monopoly power in the market" DOES NOT EQUAL "complete, 100% >> inability to obtain an alternative" > >So in your world, Mono <> 1 Simpleton.
From: hancock4 on 22 Oct 2009 10:27
On Oct 22, 9:18 am, "Daniel W. Rouse Jr." <dwrous...(a)nethere.comNOSPAM> wrote: > Windows is installed on 90% of all computers; it owns the market. > Windows is the standard by which others are judged; is it "better" > than Windows? I don't know the statistics, but we have to be careful when we say "90% of all computers". Computers come in different sizes and the bigger ones do not necessarily use Windows. Many computers out there work as servers and as such don't they use a Sun or Oracle operating system? Mainframes, which today have enormous computer power, of course do not use Windows at all. In terms of raw count there aren't that many mainframes, but in terms of horsepower, they represent a huge number of desktops. There is also the issue of economies of scale. Many "personal computers" today are used as basically dumb terminals and probably don't even need Windows. But distribution economies make it simpler to include it. It's just like heaters in automobiles, which are standard equipment in cars. I'm sure plenty of places have no need for a car heater but they have one anyway. (Fifty years ago a heater in a car was an option.) > * Windows is installed on that large of a percentage of computers because of > the _applications_ it can run. For example: can MacOS, or Linux, or FreeBSD > run Microsoft Office 2007? Sure, there are equivalents (OpenOffice) but > that's not the point... if the alternative OS cannot run that _exact_ > application then Windows is the obvious choice. Excellent point. > So tell me again how Microsoft has a bona fide monopoly? As I understand US anti-trust law, merely having this kind of market share is enough basis to get the Justice Dept after you, regardless of how the market share is acquired. IBM was in the same position as M/S years ago and DOJ went after it. IBM won, though previously it did modify some of its marketing policies, such as unbundling. > I tend to think a lot of the crying of "monopoly" is from entities that > haven't invested sufficient research and development in their products, and > then fail to properly compete with Microsoft's offerings. Bingo! That exactly was MCI's position when it went against AT&T. It had nothing better to offer; it just wanted the highly profitable cream. But someday someone will come along with something better. |