May The Best Mode Win
in [Drive]
|
From: gpsman on 23 Oct 2009 11:55 On Oct 22, 11:54 pm, "Daniel W. Rouse Jr." <dwrous...(a)nethere.comNOSPAM> wrote: > "Hadron" <hadronqu...(a)gmail.com> wrote > > "Daniel W. Rouse Jr." writes: > >> "gpsman" wrote > >> Brent 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. > > > Huh? A minimized monopoly? Minimized evidence of a monopoly. > > And yet you go on to describe how you can > > build your own machines etc etc. That wasn't me, but your point is irrelevant since a builder is unlikely to choose to develop their own OS and if you want a machine that runs the most popular apps you're going to be installing Windows. > Somehow, certain posts from Google > Groups don't generate the usual '>' characters in the reply. Seems worse than that from GG. Some responses have arrived entirely misattributed, as in a reply to one appears to be a reply to another. > >> Windows is installed on 90% of all computers; it owns the market. > > Posted by gpsman. > > > No. The market purchases Windows. But don't install it? I think you must have interpreted installed as pre-installed. > > The "Market" is totally free to > > choose Apple or Linux too. Unless you mean "owns" in the "Ownnzz" type > > meaning ... Whatever. +90% of the market seems to be ownership to me. > >> 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. Seems like evidence of monopoly power. > One of the easiest ways to get a user to switch from > Windows to the alternative OS is for the alternative OS to run those same > apps, either with equal or better performance. What's the other easy way? I think that must be substantially far from easy considering the evidence that that isn't exactly a stroke of genius likely to have been missed by competitive OS developers. > What stops the OEM from outright not choosing to install > Windows? Nothing. Well, that, common sense, an instinct for survival and the licensing agreement. An OEM who wants to sell machines with Windows is required to install Windows on every machine sold, and account for them or risk suffering whatever consequences are stipulated in the agreement for breach of contract. That's monopoly power. > They could sell only Linux machines, only FreeBSD > machines. But if the OEM sells a machine bundled with Windows, that is their > business choice. That makes sense enough for me. Cotton McKnight: I'm being told that Average Joe's does not have enough players and will be forfeiting the championship match. Pepper Brooks: It's a bold strategy, Cotton. Let's see if it pays off for 'em. ----- - gpsman
From: Hadron on 23 Oct 2009 12:00 gpsman <gpsman(a)driversmail.com> writes: > On Oct 22, 11:54 pm, "Daniel W. Rouse Jr." > <dwrous...(a)nethere.comNOSPAM> wrote: >> "Hadron" <hadronqu...(a)gmail.com> wrote >> > "Daniel W. Rouse Jr." writes: >> >> "gpsman" wrote >> >> Brent 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. >> >> > Huh? A minimized monopoly? > > Minimized evidence of a monopoly. > >> > And yet you go on to describe how you can >> > build your own machines etc etc. > > That wasn't me, but your point is irrelevant since a builder is I wasn't replying to you. As should be blatantly obvious form the indentation/quoting and the fact my post was a reply to Rouse. > unlikely to choose to develop their own OS and if you want a machine > that runs the most popular apps you're going to be installing Windows. What are you talking about? A builder is free to install anything he wants. You do realise he CAN choose Linux if he wants? I did. > >> Somehow, certain posts from Google >> Groups don't generate the usual '>' characters in the reply. > > Seems worse than that from GG. Some responses have arrived entirely > misattributed, as in a reply to one appears to be a reply to another. Posting from google is bad :-; > >> >> Windows is installed on 90% of all computers; it owns the market. >> >> Posted by gpsman. >> >> > No. The market purchases Windows. > > But don't install it? I think you must have interpreted installed as > pre-installed. > >> > The "Market" is totally free to >> > choose Apple or Linux too. Unless you mean "owns" in the "Ownnzz" type >> > meaning ... > > Whatever. +90% of the market seems to be ownership to me. > >> >> 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. > > Seems like evidence of monopoly power. It seems like the evidence for a system that runs the people SW want. Other systems run SW they dont want. They make their choice. > >> One of the easiest ways to get a user to switch from >> Windows to the alternative OS is for the alternative OS to run those same >> apps, either with equal or better performance. > > What's the other easy way? > > I think that must be substantially far from easy considering the > evidence that that isn't exactly a stroke of genius likely to have > been missed by competitive OS developers. What "competitive OS developers" do you mean? There is Linux and Apple and thats about it. Apple is doing just fine. > >> What stops the OEM from outright not choosing to install >> Windows? Nothing. > > Well, that, common sense, an instinct for survival and the licensing > agreement. An OEM who wants to sell machines with Windows is required > to install Windows on every machine sold, and account for them or risk > suffering whatever consequences are stipulated in the agreement for > breach of contract. > > That's monopoly power. That's you talking bullshit. Loads of companies have shipped machines with Windows OR Linux. Most of the Linux only ones went bust. > >> They could sell only Linux machines, only FreeBSD >> machines. But if the OEM sells a machine bundled with Windows, that is their >> business choice. That makes sense enough for me. > > Cotton McKnight: I'm being told that Average Joe's does not have > enough players and will be forfeiting the championship match. > > Pepper Brooks: It's a bold strategy, Cotton. Let's see if it pays off > for 'em. > ----- > > - gpsman --
From: hancock4 on 23 Oct 2009 12:10 On Oct 23, 8:03 am, N8N <njna...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > That's what I don't understand. The difference between a Lumina and a > Camry, while significant, is nowhere near as pronounced as the > differences between Windows and *nix. In some cases, the superior > alternative to Windows is *free* so long as you have a working > computer, a high speed internet connection, and a CD-ROM burner. People, especially those upgrading to a new computer, do not have a high speed connector nor a CD burner. As others mentioned, will Linux support commonly run applications? Does it support DOS applications? Many people use a computer at a public library and as such have no choice over anything. As to cars, over the years certain very good makes of cars appeared on the marketplace. But service and support was so hard to come by the car didn't sell, regardless of its superiority.
From: hancock4 on 23 Oct 2009 12:15 On Oct 23, 9:21 am, chrisv <chr...(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: > Even so, it takes the occasional dirty deed to consolidate that > monopoly, as new technologies and threats come-along. The definition of a "dirty deed" in business is wide open to great debate. Did IBM "lie" when it announced its System/360 too early? Did it "lie" when it told customers it had super computers were under development, which in fact they were, but far away from implementation? Tom Watson Jr, president of IBM in those days, wrote in his memoirs he wished he did things differently.
From: hancock4 on 23 Oct 2009 12:21
On Oct 23, 11:31 am, chrisv <chr...(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: > >Question: Word Perfect and Lotus used to have a large user base and > >were almost the 'standard' in industry. What happened that motivated > >companies to spend the money to switch from those to MS-Word and > >Excel? Many people had to convert their doucments or spreadsheets and > >be retrained. > > How about going to OEM's, who had no choice but to buy Microsoft's > operating system, and pressuring them (or "incentifying" them) to > recommend and bundle their office products? I don't believe any OEM offered M/S Office for free, it was an extra cost option, if available at all as an inclusion. Bundling various products as a package instead of selling them a la carte is a very common business procedure. Many customers like the convenience. Only companies under USDOJ pressure are forced to sell a la carte to allow competition for the various modes. Kodak once bundled developing with Kodachrome but was forced to break it out in the U.S. (Buying Koadachrome in the UK included processing and was available at a good price.) > How did they kill Netscape so quickly? Not only did they give IE away > for free, but they placed its icon front and center on the desktop, > and *disallowed* any alternative product being there. I'm not sure putting the icon front and center really makes things different. I myself preferred Netscape, but switched when I found IE did things better. |