May The Best Mode Win
in [Drive]
|
From: Brent on 22 Oct 2009 15:21 On 2009-10-22, RonB <ronb02NOSPAM(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Brent wrote: > >> 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. > > Linux and UNIX are still strong in the server market -- and Linux is > getting stronger every year. But you're right about Sun sticking with > their old hardware for too long -- though their OS was solid. If you > think that Microsoft is unable to bring pressure into the marketplace > (which has nothing to do with merit of the product) then you're living > in a fool's paradise. Considering I stated the exact opposite why make that last comment? However their ability to leverage it has limits. If they started charging a $3000 a license with a minimum buy of 100 licenses they would lose their 90% market share in an extremely short period of time.
From: chrisv on 22 Oct 2009 15:33 Brent wrote: >chrisv <chrisv(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: >> >> I suppose you think an "example" of something that happened "proves" >> that "that's how it's done" in all cases. > >It's SOP for the government. Nonsense, and irrelevant in any case. >Try paying attention to the world around >you some time. "Things sometime happen" does not equal "things always happen", logic boy. >> You're not worth the time to read you posts. > >Good, then I won't see any more from you. More bad logic from you. What a "surprise".
From: RonB on 22 Oct 2009 15:35 Brent wrote: > On 2009-10-22, RonB <ronb02NOSPAM(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> Brent wrote: >> >>> 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. >> Linux and UNIX are still strong in the server market -- and Linux is >> getting stronger every year. But you're right about Sun sticking with >> their old hardware for too long -- though their OS was solid. If you >> think that Microsoft is unable to bring pressure into the marketplace >> (which has nothing to do with merit of the product) then you're living >> in a fool's paradise. > > Considering I stated the exact opposite why make that last comment? > However their ability to leverage it has limits. If they started > charging a $3000 a license with a minimum buy of 100 licenses they would > lose their 90% market share in an extremely short period of time. It's hard to keep tract of a thread that has gone on this long. Sorry. IT also works on inertia -- even if the price of Windows jumped much higher, they would stick with "what they know" as long as possible. It should also be noted that Microsoft has 90% of the desktop market, not the server market. -- RonB "There's a story there...somewhere"
From: chrisv on 22 Oct 2009 15:35 gpsman wrote: > "Daniel W. Rouse Jr." wrote: >> >> So tell me again how Microsoft has a bona fide monopoly? I am not disputing they have a >> dominant market share, but they don't have _all_ the market, so it simply >> can't be the true definition of a monopoly. > >First you must understand that a monopoly does not cease to exist upon >the sale of the first alternative unit, regardless of its comparative >utility or the "true" definition of economists. > >Insisting that there can be no lesser degrees of monopoly is >childishly simplistic and just plain silly. > >"Monopoly" is measured in the real world marketplace and courts as >"monopoly power" and a full 100% of a market is nowhere near necessary >to attain that power. > >What company dominates any global market to anywhere near the extent >of Windows? > >> * 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. > >What's "better" is relative and subjective. Other OSs are often >touted as superior, and even free, and MS continues to enjoy monopoly >power. > >"Time and effort" equals "money", and that task obviously requires a >lot of it, with no guarantee of a single cent of ROI. > >Great product and inferior marketing or just a lack of market >acceptance spells struggle, if not doom. > >Smart money looks elsewhere other than taking on the 800 pound >gorilla, which, of course, severely limits competitive efforts. > >That's the power of a monopoly. Good post. You said it better than I could.
From: chrisv on 22 Oct 2009 15:43
gpsman wrote in <12fdab1a-eceb-4459-965f-7232fa79cb3c(a)e18g2000vbe.googlegroups.com> >I expect the silence to be deafening. Well, in this (excellent) post, you used *far* too many big words for the "Brent" cretin to even understand your points. |