Microsoft screws up again!

[Asher]

Originally posted by Cloud9
And you think there's something wrong with that?

OH HELL YES.

It is NOT the government's job, or duty, to put unfair restrictions on companies just because the competitors were crying and stomping and throwing a tantrum.

The government is to ensure a FAIR market for competition.

IMHO, all the government should do is forbid MS from making exclusionary OEM licenses.

Other than that, MS has done nothing illegal as I see it. And the current judge appears to be agreeing with me, judging by her reaction to the State's insistence that IE is an inherent evil that killed Netscape.

Putting artificial, unfair restrictions to tie down MS while boosting Sun/Netscape is completely and totally wrong. That is NOT the government's job. Make things fair, not unfair.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

With a new PC, of course! And what do you pay for it? $199.99. EXPENSIVE!!!

You are nutty aren't you? XP Home is $89.

Prove it.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Cloud9
Prove it.

That's a common sense thing.

You know why MS has those exclusionary OEM licensing things?

Because if the OEMs agree to always ship Windows on PCs, they pay something small like $40-$50 to put Windows on all their PCs, but are restricted in what they can do with it. I think they should remove that restriction.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Cloud9
Prove it.

Amazon's selling it for $149 for the full version.

A local retailer (FireStorm -- www.firestorm.ab.ca) sells WinXP Home Full for $168CDN, or $104US.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Asher already did... it is an upgrade version (down to $49 through upgrades). That ($89) is also the discounted price that MS charges OEMs.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Originally posted by Asher

OH HELL YES.

It is NOT the government's job, or duty, to put unfair restrictions on companies just because the competitors were crying and stomping and throwing a tantrum.

The government is to ensure a FAIR market for competition.

IMHO, all the government should do is forbid MS from making exclusionary OEM licenses.

Other than that, MS has done nothing illegal as I see it. And the current judge appears to be agreeing with me, judging by her reaction to the State's insistence that IE is an inherent evil that killed Netscape.

Putting artificial, unfair restrictions to tie down MS while boosting Sun/Netscape is completely and totally wrong. That is NOT the government's job. Make things fair, not unfair.

Well, it's quite obvious that M$ has a stranglehold on the industry. So obviously something is very wrong with the way M$ does business. And something more should be done than just restrict their OEM licenses.

Now I'm going to see the new Star Wars movie. Be back late tonight. . .

[- Groucho -]

Originally posted by Asher

Funny you mention that:
THERE IS NO UPGRADE VERSION OF MAC OS X. Apple forces EVERY SINGLE MAC OS 8/9 user to buy a new, full complete version. Why doesn't anyone troll about that?!

And 98% of PCs buying Windows in the store buy the UPGRADE EDITION. Most computers already ship with existing installations.

Think about it before you post next time.

Actually, the prices are pretty comparable between OS X and Windows XP if you look at it one way. There is only one version of OS X and it sells for $119. Windows XP Home Edition Upgrade sells for $89 and, after a $50 mail-in rebate, Windows XP Pro Edition Upgrade sells for $139. So OS X falls pretty much in the middle of the range of XP prices. But since it is a full featured OS, is it really fair to compare it to the Home Edition of XP? That is a real question, not rhetoric. Being a Mac owner I'm not really sure what the difference is between XP Home and Pro.

But on the main point - I'm with Asher - stop Microsoft's predatory behaviour, but don't break it up.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Cloud9
Well, it's quite obvious that M$ has a stranglehold on the industry. So obviously something is very wrong with the way M$ does business. And something more should be done than just restrict their OEM licenses.

That's bull****. Complete bull****.

Monopolies ARE NOT ILLEGAL in the USA.
Abusing the monopolistic power (ie: exclusionary OEM licensing) is.

MS has a monopoly because the OS market is essentially a natural monopoly. Developers pick one main OS and develop for it, rather than raising EVERYONE's cost by developing for many OSes (not to mention buggier software accordingly).

You want to punish MS for being a monopoly (which is wrong, that's not illegal), and I want to punish MS for abusing monopolistic powers (which is correct, as that is illegal).

See the difference?

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Originally posted by Asher

That's bull****. Complete bull****.

Monopolies ARE NOT ILLEGAL in the USA.
Abusing the monopolistic power (ie: exclusionary OEM licensing) is.

Dude, I said nothing about monopolies.

MS has a monopoly because the OS market is essentially a natural monopoly. Developers pick one main OS and develop for it, rather than raising EVERYONE's cost by developing for many OSes (not to mention buggier software accordingly).

This will all change very soon. With .NET, companies will only need to develop applications for .NET, and those applications will run on all platforms and all operating systems that support .NET. This means that companies that make applications for .NET will only need to make one product that will be compatible with all OS's that support .NET. Doesn't sound expensive to me, or buggy for that matter.

You want to punish MS for being a monopoly (which is wrong, that's not illegal), and I want to punish MS for abusing monopolistic powers (which is correct, as that is illegal).

See the difference?

Again, I said nothing about monopolies.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Cloud9
Dude, I said nothing about monopolies.

So what does that have to do with the trial?

This will all change very soon. With .NET, companies will only need to develop applications for .NET, and those applications will run on all platforms and all operating systems that support .NET. This means that companies that make applications for .NET will only need to make one product that will be compatible with all OS's that support .NET. Doesn't sound expensive to me, or buggy for that matter.

Exactly, so what is your point really?

Again, I said nothing about monopolies.

You do realize that the trial is about being a monopoly, right?

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Originally posted by Asher
So what does that have to do with the trial?

Absolutely nothing.

Exactly, so what is your point really?

My point is that Microsoft is going to lose a lot of market share in operating systems because of .NET. This will spill more money into other companies that make operatings systems such as Apple, MandrakeSoft, and RedHat, which in turn will give them the financial power to manfacture very superior operating systems--operating systems that will compete better with Windows. I don't think Microsoft even realizes this. But my predictions is that in the end of it all Microsoft will control probably about 50% of the OS market and other companies will control the other 50%. This would actually be a good thing for consumers. It will drive innovation at a faster pace and reduce prices.

You do realize that the trial is about being a monopoly, right?

No, it is not.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Cloud9
My point is that Microsoft is going to lose a lot of market share in operating systems because of .NET. This will spill more money into other companies that make operatings systems such as Apple, MandrakeSoft, and RedHat, which in turn will give them the financial power to manfacture very superior operating systems--operating systems that will compete better with Windows. I don't think Microsoft even realizes this.

You're a dense boy.

MS knows what it's doing with .NET. Why would they spend time and money developing a business model that will cost them revenue?

Don't be so quick to label things, it appears you don't know the whole story.

Somebody should call the most successful company in the world and tell them that a college student knows more about their plan and how it'll generate revenue than they do.

No, it is not.

Just what do you think the trial is about?
MS has already been established as a monopoly that abused its powers in court, and it's now in the penalty phase.

How can you even say this isn't about a monopoly?

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Originally posted by Asher

You're a dense boy.

MS knows what it's doing with .NET. Why would they spend time and money developing a business model that will cost them revenue?

Don't be so quick to label things, it appears you don't know the whole story.

Somebody should call the most successful company in the world and tell them that a college student knows more about their plan and how it'll generate revenue than they do.


Just what do you think the trial is about?
MS has already been established as a monopoly that abused its powers in court, and it's now in the penalty phase.

How can you even say this isn't about a monopoly?

A monopoly that abused it powers, yes. That's what the trial is about.

You see Microsoft has robbed it's competitors of their money in the past. Take Netscape for example. By offering IE for free they forced Netscape to offer their browser for free, which caused Netscape to almost go bankrupt. If Microsoft did not offer their browser for free, but for a reasonable price, then Netscape could have competed better because it would not have been forced to offer it's browser for free to compete better with IE, and that means they would have made more money and would've been able to put more money into Netscape which would have resulted in a superior product which would have competed better with IE.

It has been shown time and time again that Microsoft uses it's financial power more than anything else to bully it's competitors. Over the years, it has put billions of dollars worth of cash into just about every part of it's business. And it's makes sense because Microsoft, is in fact, the world's richest company, and it's chairman, is in fact, the world's richest man. And how did this behometh company and it's chairman get so rich. By doing anything it could, including using illegal business practices to protect it's monopoly in operating systems and in Office Software(the bulk of Microsoft's financial power), which cheated it's competitors out of their share of the market, which lost them billions of dollars in profits and they weren't able to put out superior products as a result. Nor were they able to effectively market them. I call it ruthless economics.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Cloud9
You see Microsoft has robbed it's competitors of their money in the past. Take Netscape for example. By offering IE for free they forced Netscape to offer their browser for free, which caused Netscape to almost go bankrupt.

That's business.

Can MS sue Sony for cutting the price of the PS2 to $199, causing them to reduce the price for the Xbox to $199 too?

If Microsoft did not offer their browser for free, but for a reasonable price, then Netscape could have competed better because it would not have been forced to offer it's browser for free to compete better with IE, and that means they would have made more money and would've been able to put more money into Netscape which would have resulted in a superior product which would have competed better with IE.

I've said it before, I've said it again.
There is no reason at all people should be forced to pay for a basic tool such as an internet browser.
It's such a basic, and common, functionality that it should be bundled with the OS like A File Manager. If consumers don't like it, they're more than welcome to download and install new browsers.

Netscape died because it didn't offer anything special, it didn't innovate, in fact the quality quickly went down the tube in comparison to MS' offerings.

Netscape was not behaving like a business, they were too busy crying for mercy instead of competing.

AOL has had a huge install base forever, and they STILL use IE to this day. What does that say about their confidence of Netscape's products?

Just NOW they're starting to switch...

It has been shown time and time again that Microsoft uses it's financial power more than anything else to bully it's competitors. Over the years, it has put billions of dollars worth of cash into just about every part of it's business. And it's makes sense because Microsoft, is in fact, the world's richest company, and it's chairman, is in fact, the world's richest man. And how did this behometh company and it's chairman get so rich. By doing anything it could, including using illegal business practices to protect it's monopoly in operating systems and in Office Software(the bulk of Microsoft's financial power), which cheated it's competitors out of their share of the market, which lost them billions of dollars in profits and they weren't able to put out superior products as a result. Nor were they able to effectively market them. I call it ruthless economics.

I call it capitalism.
What do you suggest we do? Do we "help" the consumer by restricting how much money companies can put into R&D? Do we "help" the consumer by restricting which products they get for free as part of an operating system, instead forcing them to buy them in stores?

I can see what you're trying to say, but I'm not sure if you understand that this happens all the time in all economic sectors. Some companies can't play the same game as richer competitors, they don't develop products as fast or as well as the richer competitors, and they eventually bite the dust or disappear into a minor player.

It, in no way, does it help consumers to unbundle IE or restrict MS' spending.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Originally posted by Asher

That's business.

You know Asher, you may know a lot about computers, but I don't think you know anything about business.

Go ahead. Try and start one. I can see it now. Asher having to go through his company's own antitrust trial. How stressful can that be?