Wal-Mart Online Music Store -- WMA, $0.88 for every song

[St Leo]

Originally posted by Asher
DRM is seamless to people. You can still burn it, you can still transfer it to your MP3 players.

Not all players support WMA and ACC.

[Agathon]

I forgot to say that anyone who buys music or other cultural items from Wal Mart should be shot.

[Asher]

Originally posted by St Leo
Blah blah blah. Doc/xls/ppt undocumented. Vast troves of documents will become unopenable once Microsoft goes out of business and hardware capable of running current applications becomes hard to come by.

Debunked: Office Documents can be opened by OpenOffice, not to mention the new feature in Office 2003 to save Office Docs as XML so that ANY application can read the contents.

Recent patent on their ripoff of SVG/XUL.

Debunked: How does this prohibit the free flow of information?

A truly thorough DRM scheme would be used by RIAA/MPAA to squelch independent competitors.

Debunked: Hypothetical, unsubstantiated crap.

Recent patent on FAT. NTFS still undocumented.

Debunked: How does this prohibit the free flow of information? Are you aware of Samba? Are you aware that Linux can read/write FAT and NTFS? NTFS is undocument -- so what exactly is this: http://www.ntfs.com/

I guess the fact that IE doesn't understand HTML, CSS, Javascript, or PNG can't count because anyone can install a browser.

Debunked: IE can't understand any of those? Just what the hell are you smoking?

[Asher]

Originally posted by St Leo
Not all players support WMA and ACC.

Name one modern MP3 player that doesn't support one or the other.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Asher
I'm of the camp that believes if Microsoft was truly a monopoly, there would be no Linux and there would be no Apple. I'm always continually perplexed by morons who chant about how everyone should switch to Linux -- clearly implying a choice -- while at the same time claiming Microsoft is a monopoly, leaving no room for choice.

Well, if a monopoly implies that there are absolutely and irremediably no other choices, then there has never been any monopoly in history. Very surprising from you, to use theoretical concepts such as 'monopoly' in a discussion about the real world.

Now spare me the BS and tell me 90% market share is not a monopoly.

Server OSes SOLD.

Then you were obviously being dodging the argument at the time, which was "more people use Linux" and certainly not "more people pay for it".

I was speaking about the actual applications which distribute the information -- the HTTP Servers (which run on both Windows and *nix). Apache is far and away the #1 HTTP server.

These are not OSes, then? Which would again be dodging the point, if it was the case.

Did you miss the very obvious part telling you to not bother with theory and high-level crap?

I suspect you are missing the point about structuralist theories that have been extremely efficient in describing human behavior. Market consolidation + means of communication = threat to free flow of information. Why don't you take a semester off and get a clue about social sciences? If you are to use facts and only facts, how could you even prove that something is a threat - a threat is not a 'fact' per se, it's a deduction from analysis of the facts.

Isn't control of 90% of desktops, and rising market share in many other sectors, reason enough for you to infer about the future course of events that a corporation would take? Corporations are predictable. Their aim is profit. They'll do anything that is profitable.

The reason everyone keeps going back to those in anti-MS arguments is they have nothing else. They're relegated to "what-ifs", which is hardly substance for a real argument.

Yeah, what-if capitalism tends towards consolidation, what if Microsoft had a 40 billions $ war chest, and what if they didn't give a **** about free flow of information. So many what-ifs, I'm bewildered.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Well, if a monopoly implies that there are absolutely and irremediably no other choices, then there has never been any monopoly in history. Very surprising from you, to use theoretical concepts such as 'monopoly' in a discussion about the real world.

Now spare me the BS and tell me 90% market share is not a monopoly.

Monopolies historically have been concepts that cover scarce resources. For example Rockefeller. Or even Bell.

Computer OSes can be changed in a manner of half an hour, either for free or for cost of buying another one.

This is not the case with a true monopoly such as a company which controls ~90% of all oil wells, or controls the vast majority of telephone lines in a region.

The point of PCs is explicit choice. No one is being forced to use Windows. Indeed, there are at least two other readily available alternatives anyone can choose: Apple and Linux.

That's why I don't consider Windows a monopoly. Anyone can change between them with ease. People choose to keep running Windows, which gives them 90%+ marketshare, but that doesn't mean they're being forced to use it as a monopoly implies.

Then you were obviously being dodging the argument at the time, which was "more people use Linux" and certainly not "more people pay for it".

More people use Windows -- true.
Most web servers are on Apache and not IIS -- true.

What is the problem?

Isn't control of 90% of desktops, and rising market share in many other sectors, reason enough for you to infer about the future course of events that a corporation would take?

I have no idea how this substantiates your claim. Wanna explain how this says Microsoft is a threat to the free flow of information?

Yeah, what-if capitalism tends towards consolidation, what if Microsoft had a 40 billions $ war chest, and what if they didn't give a **** about free flow of information. So many what-ifs, I'm bewildered.

So many what-ifs, so little actual factual arguments based in reality.

What is with the philosophers and their fundamental ineptitude when dealing with the real world? I'm utterly baffled why they're supposed to be such great thinkers when the little things are simply incomprehensible to them...

By the way, it's a $53B war chest, not $40B. $40B was soooo 2003.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Asher

Monopolies historically have been concepts that cover scarce resources. For example Rockefeller. Or even Bell.

Computer OSes can be changed in a manner of half an hour, either for free or for cost of buying another one.

That computer OSes change the dynamics of the problem does not mean they solve it. There are other difficulties associated with it: user illiterateness, sub-software compatibility, and the threat to stop selling the OS at all to manufacturers who don't bundle it with each and every computer.

More people use Windows -- true.
Most web servers are on Apache and not IIS -- true.

What is the problem?

Apache has to run on an OS, right?

I have no idea how this substantiates your claim. Wanna explain how this says Microsoft is a threat to the free flow of information?

It's the closest one to doing so. I never said they are anywhere near it. Don't forget, my point is: monopolies are bad. Microsoft is on its way to becoming one, and a huge piece of it. Therefore, it is a threat. How much, exactly? I don't know. Something is sure: they must be stopped. If your claim is that they can't go farther, or will be stopped if they do, then we are agreed: we have to stay vigilant, and ultimately, rely on the government to contain them if the market can't.

What is with the philosophers and their fundamental ineptitude when dealing with the real world? I'm utterly baffled why they're supposed to be such great thinkers when the little things are simply incomprehensible to them...

The problem would be how YOU deal with statements and can't get a clue of how each term relates between them and to the real world.

[Q Classic]

apache generally runs off of bsd, *nix, or a flavor of linux, not as often on windows.

[Fake Boris]

Ahhhh.

Then, that would mean those who use Windows also use MS HTTP software?

[Imran Siddiqui]

They're making money.

Doing so in the face of an anticompetitive monopoly which has engaged in illegal acts to drive its competitors out of business is a reasonable achievement.

Well, without the 'anticompetitive monopoly' (an Apple user complaing about an 'anticompetitive' company ) bailing them out, Apple might have bit the big one a few years back.

--

And as the Microsoft = monopoly thing, the OS market is a natural monopoly. Without an OS with a large market share, the computer industry really is a non-entity. A standard OS was the precursor to a computing boom.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
That computer OSes change the dynamics of the problem does not mean they solve it. There are other difficulties associated with it: user illiterateness, sub-software compatibility, and the threat to stop selling the OS at all to manufacturers who don't bundle it with each and every computer.

User illiterateness and sub-software compatibility are not Microsoft's fault, and are the fault of users and developers respectively. The latter was a disgusting business policy that is no longer used at MS.

Apache has to run on an OS, right?

Yes, but I don't see what the point of bringing this up is. Are you saying you think it's possible that Microsoft will somehow hack the OS to intercept all Apache calls and alter what it sends?...

It's the closest one to doing so. I never said they are anywhere near it. Don't forget, my point is: monopolies are bad. Microsoft is on its way to becoming one, and a huge piece of it. Therefore, it is a threat. How much, exactly? I don't know. Something is sure: they must be stopped.

Let me summarize your excellent argument:
Monopolies are bad.
Microsoft may be a monopoly.
Therefore, it is a threat.
Therefore, it must be stopped.

How can I argue with such an eloquent argument, backed by such incredible evidence and logic, and completely void of any arbitrary, blanket statements and calls to arms?

The problem would be how YOU deal with statements and can't get a clue of how each term relates between them and to the real world.

No, no, no. The problem is you hide behind your theories and philosophies and don't seem to understand how they impact the real world.

You still have no evidence to back up your assertions aside from "what-ifs" and "theories". I'm sorry, that doesn't cut it in the real world.

If Microsoft is a monopoly, you need to establish WHY they force everyone to use it. You need to say why it's no different from somebody controlling 90% of the physical oil wells, or controlling 90% of the phonelines.

You haven't done that. You've consistently avoided it. In fact, you haven't presented anything that can constitute a good argument. It's philosophical ramblings and theoretical conspiracies.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
And as the Microsoft = monopoly thing, the OS market is a natural monopoly. Without an OS with a large market share, the computer industry really is a non-entity. A standard OS was the precursor to a computing boom.

NOOOOOOO! not YOU, again!

Seriously, now that the computer boom is over, we may ask that OSes be more strictly regulated. It sounds like to me they've won the VHS vs Beta battle, and that they're preparing to imbed crap like DRM in their 'tapes'.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Asher
Let me summarize your excellent argument:
Monopolies are bad.
Microsoft may be a monopoly.
Therefore, it is a threat.
Therefore, it must be stopped.

How can I argue with such an eloquent argument, backed by such incredible evidence and logic, and completely void of any arbitrary, blanket statements and calls to arms?

Microsoft is already a monopoly in some markets. It is trying to establish itself in all other markets. It is being relatively succesful - at least, it's by far the most succesful softwre company to date. Prove this wrong.

Now, I think we must act before it gets monopolies in an even larger number of markets.

BTW, a monopoly is not about forcing people to use your products, it's only a state of things. No one cares if it's not Microsoft's fault. The end result, and the power they gained from it, remains the same.

[Asher]

It's curious how FakeBoris and StLeo whine about Windows and Office being proprietary as the core of their argument.

Evidently, they are not aware that the successor to Win32 (what Windows uses today) is called .NET. .NET is a virtual machine like Java. Microsoft has written .NET runtimes for OS X and *nix. Microsoft has standardized .NET and a new language it developed, C#, with the ISO. Other companies, such as Ximian/Novell, are developing .NET runtimes and compilers.

Programs developed for .NET can run on any OS with a .NET runtime. This includes OS X, Linux, and Windows.

This is anti-competitive?

How about the new Office XML formats. Office 2003 can save all documents as .XML files, rather than .DOC, .PPT, etc. The .XML schemas are public and stored in the very file, anyone in any program that supports XML can access the data stored in these files.

This is anti-competitive?

Both of these obstruct the free flow of information? Might want to explain that to me.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
BTW, a monopoly is not about forcing people to use your products, it's only a state of things. No one cares if it's not Microsoft's fault. The end result, and the power they gained from it, remains the same.

By the way, at what point does a company get a monopoly? When it reaches 70% marketshare or so?