From: chrisv on 22 Oct 2009 10:41
>On Oct 22, 9:18�am, "Daniel W. Rouse Jr."
>> 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.
>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.
Right. Borland, Quarterdeck, Digital Research, Netscape... None of
them put sufficient R&D into their products. None of them produced
products superior to the Microsoft equivalents. In fact, they were
*so inferior* to the Microsoft products, that they were blown right
out of the market!
From: chrisv on 22 Oct 2009 10:46
>Why would anyone want to? We already have Windows, and it would be
>quite doubtful someone could produce a clone at a cheaper price.
LOL! That's a good one! There's already been things like DRDOS and
Wine that have sort of "cloned" the functionality of M$ products.
Imagine what could be done, if anything near the resources of
Microsoft could be brought to bear on the problem. (Hint: it would
be better, and it would cost less.)
Cripes, look at the trouble OO has getting into the market, despite
being *free*. Is it really THAT much worse than MSO, or is there
"something else" going on, here?
>However, someone someday WILL produce something so superior to Windows
>(and Excel and Word) that people will be willing to migrate over to
From: Hadron on 22 Oct 2009 10:47
chrisv <chrisv(a)nospam.invalid> writes:
> hancock4(a)bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>Why would anyone want to? We already have Windows, and it would be
>>quite doubtful someone could produce a clone at a cheaper price.
> LOL! That's a good one! There's already been things like DRDOS and
> Wine that have sort of "cloned" the functionality of M$ products.
> Imagine what could be done, if anything near the resources of
> Microsoft could be brought to bear on the problem. (Hint: it would
> be better, and it would cost less.)
> Cripes, look at the trouble OO has getting into the market, despite
> being *free*. Is it really THAT much worse than MSO, or is there
> "something else" going on, here?
Like what? It's free to download and install.
>>However, someone someday WILL produce something so superior to Windows
>>(and Excel and Word) that people will be willing to migrate over to
> Simple-minded fool.
Nice signature. Suits you.
From: Brent on 22 Oct 2009 11:56
On 2009-10-22, Daniel W. Rouse Jr. <dwrousejr(a)nethere.comNOSPAM> wrote:
> "gpsman" <gpsman(a)driversmail.com> wrote in message
> On Oct 20, 12:17 pm, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Microsoft leverages market share. Often in unethical ways. This doesn't
>> make it a monopoly.
> No, that is evidence that it is a monopoly, minimized.
> 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?
And motorola once had 100% of cellular phones. Obviously this
'effective' monopoly did not last. No monopoly can last in a free
market. Any time you can find a monopoly you'll find that the government
has done something to make it so or is neglecting what they should be
doing to let it continue.
> * 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.
So what stops those who make the apps from making other versions? If
microsoft is strong arming them they are getting government favor by not
> Once those alternative operating systems can run those exact applications as
> well as or better than Windows can, only then will Windows stop being the
> obvious choice for running popular/powerful applications.
So they have no monopoly.
> It's also very possible for one to build their own system from separate
> components. Buy the motherboard, processor, memory, hard disk drive,
> computer case, etc. and then install whatever OS choice one makes on that
> system. (Very likely, due to massive application support, one would still
> choose Windows.)
> So tell me again how Microsoft has a bona fide monopoly?
I'm arguing it isn't a monopoly and at this point baffled that you are
replying to my text. but I guess it was something gpstroll wrote that
has been snipped?
>> Feel free to describe how microsoft established and has retained this
>> monopoly you claim it has, why there is no competition, and how it
>> cannot be broken by new competition.
> Windows has no competition for its core market, which is by far the
> largest of the entire computer market. Vista sent people running back
> to XP, not the competition.
> * Then that is telling about what's lacking about the competition. They
> simply have not invested the time and effort into making their alternative
> OS that much better than Windows.
I believe I already addressed some of what the competition fails to do.
From: Brent on 22 Oct 2009 12:04
On 2009-10-22, hancock4(a)bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4(a)bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
> 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
Exactly. MS is where IBM used to be. I once worked at a place was
entirely unix (HP and Sun) and Mac. Then it was Sun and MS. Now I
understand it's just MS. Why? MS got better and remained cheaper while
intel based PCs grew in power to do what the Sun machines were doing
even with the overhead of windows.