Microsoft screws up again!

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I think splitting MS in two would result in higher prices and NO benefits to consumers.

Actually, a remedy like this would increase competition which would lower prices and drive innovation. This because the competing companies would be working harder to give consumers the best products and services for the best prices.

[Dom Pedro II]

So then monopolies are beneficial to the economy? Rather UNfree-market, isn't it?

[Sovereign]

I disagree, Imran.

Several super-huge comanies might provide cheaper prices, and cheaper services. That much can be true.

But, if there are only a few mega companies like Microsoft around, we have no competition.

That means, slower technology and product growth.

You see, competition produces better and better products every year. The same goes for technology.

No wonder our computing software has stangated in the last few years, because of monopolies. With computer hardware, there is good competition, therefore, we have 100 GB and 1.5 GHZ computers now, thanks to companies using innovation to "1-up" each other.


So, monopolies = bad and stangant growth. Competition = good and technology/product boom.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Cloud9


Actually, a remedy like this would increase competition which would lower prices and drive innovation. This because the competing companies would be working harder to give consumers the best products and services for the best prices.

When they broke AT&T up we got higher prices and worse service. Monopolies aren't the evil things the capitalist pigs say they are.

[- Groucho -]

Sorry to rain on your rant, Moomin, but I'm not American. You really should work on nailing down your facts before you go off. Like the famous McDonald's coffee cup - the punitive damages actually awarded by the court were approx. $480,000, not $10,000,000 (click here for the whole story).

And the EU hasn't done anything to Microsoft because they are concerned about trade tensions? Are you sure? Because they had no problems scuttling a 50 billion euro aviation merger between two American companies (GE and Honeywell) last summer that had been approved by American competition authorities. That's right, they told two American companies that they couldn't merge without suffering sanctions in the EU. Doesn't sound like a competition administration that has sold its soul to economic realpolitik as you suggest.

As for your allegations that Microsoft "owns" the US federal courts and US federal politicians... huh? How about some proof? If you've got what passes for an education in Sweden you might realize that even in the EU national laws require proof of corruption prior to conviction.

But, hey, what would I know. I'm just being "all defensive".

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Originally posted by Sava
When they broke AT&T up we got higher prices and worse service. Monopolies aren't the evil things the capitalist pigs say they are.

Wrong. When the government broke up AT&T we got lower prices and better service. But then AT&T started gobbling up everything again and prices and went up and service went down. Makes you wonder if they'll reopen another antitrust trial against AT&T soon.

[SpencerH]

An email memo to Bill Gates is not evidence of anything. Gates has already effectively countered the previous "incriminating" emails by showing that they were taken out of context. If there's no email back saying go ahead and no evidence that anything was done its just so much electronic paper. The states case is crap.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Cloud9


Wrong. When the government broke up AT&T we got lower prices and better service. But then AT&T started gobbling up everything again and prices and went up and service went down. Makes you wonder if they'll reopen another antitrust trial against AT&T soon.

Just what was it that AT&T gobbled up?

In any case AT&T was a government sanctioned monopoly (as were the railroads) as opposed to a virtual monopoly brought about by good business.

[Sovereign]

Seriously, Bill Gates is just trying to save and cover his butt. He's a Ferengi capitalist.

We aren't a free market if huge companies gobble everything up, not allowing the small companies to have any leeway or inspirations.

Heck, some small companies may have innoative ideas that will improve living standards, but get mashed and bashed into the ground by huge ones, just so that the huge companies can claim credit.


How sad. Makes me wish for the SMAC's Human Hive or something with regulated economy.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Actually, a remedy like this would increase competition which would lower prices and drive innovation. This because the competing companies would be working harder to give consumers the best products and services for the best prices.

How? An OS company and an applications company would still be monopolies in their respective market... they wouldn't compete against each other at all.

Wrong. When the government broke up AT&T we got lower prices and better service. But then AT&T started gobbling up everything again and prices and went up and service went down. Makes you wonder if they'll reopen another antitrust trial against AT&T soon.

Actually you are wrong... WAAAY wrong. AT&T hasn't gobbled ANY Bells up... they are merely merging with each other. AT&T is forbidden from going into local service and they haven't broken that.

And yes, after it was broken up there was higher prices and worse service. That was the only way the Bells could survive, since they did not have the economies of scale that Ma Bell had.

Several super-huge comanies might provide cheaper prices, and cheaper services. That much can be true.

But, if there are only a few mega companies like Microsoft around, we have no competition.

That means, slower technology and product growth.

You see, competition produces better and better products every year. The same goes for technology.

Depends on the market... competition in the OS market would be devestating. The one thing about the OS market is that it is a natural monopoly. The average cost if there were two OS's would be higher than for one. Furthermore, no matter how many OS's there are out there, one will always emerge as #1. Why? Because companies want an OS standard... one that is the main OS, so they don't have to write applications for like 15 different OS's.

[moomin]

Imran, I was gonna use the Intel/AMD exemple, but Soverign beat me to it. Do you honestly believe you could buy a 1.5 GHz chip for peanuts today if AMD had not come along and taken a big bite of complacent Intel a$$?

I understand your teleco deregulation turned out some strange results, but that's mostly because American taxpayers poured a lot of cash into old Bell. Now those who actually use the services pay for them, and that ain't half bad. In Europe, telecome prices have dopped noticeably after the deregulation - and service is as good as ever. In fact, being several countries, we have good opportunites to measure this - the totally deregulated teleco market in Scandinavia is cheap and upholds excellent service quality, the semi-monopoly in France is by far the lousiest in Western Europe and is pretty darn expensive too boot.

So, I'd say yes - I believe everybody except for Bill's ego would profit if they cut MS down to size.

[moomin]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Because companies want an OS standard... one that is the main OS, so they don't have to write applications for like 15 different OS's.

Well, Imran, as a software shop manager let me tell you this is plain wrong. What we want are standardized, open APIs. MS hasn't exactly been forthcoming in this respect.

When I develop and deploy MRI scan software I don't give a flying funk 'bout whether MS also provides an web browser, a chat application or an office package.

[- Groucho -]

Originally posted by Cloud9
Wrong. When the government broke up AT&T we got lower prices and better service. But then AT&T started gobbling up everything again and prices and went up and service went down. Makes you wonder if they'll reopen another antitrust trial against AT&T soon.

There is no chance of that. If AT&T is succesful in selling its cable unit, on its current valuation it will be worth about $5 a share (about $17 B), it will be losing money and it will have focused its business on a market segment where everybody is going bankrupt. Check out this article for all the sorry details.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Actually you are wrong... WAAAY wrong. AT&T hasn't gobbled ANY Bells up... they are merely merging with each other. AT&T is forbidden from going into local service and they haven't broken that.

Actually, they have broken it. They have gobbled up many of the local cable companies.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Do you honestly believe you could buy a 1.5 GHz chip for peanuts today if AMD had not come along and taken a big bite of complacent Intel a$$?

And that was done through the market, yes? Thanks for proving my point.

Well, Imran, as a software shop manager let me tell you this is plain wrong. What we want are standardized, open APIs. MS hasn't exactly been forthcoming in this respect.

When I develop and deploy MRI scan software I don't give a flying funk 'bout whether MS also provides an web browser, a chat application or an office package.

Economically speaking, MS would still be a monopoly with competition. Companies pick ONE OS company in a natural monopoly market. And then you have it feed upon itself. Application designers make stuff for MS, and therefore MS is bought by more people, and thus applications make more stuff for MS.

OS business is one of those natural monopolies that even if you broke up MS, they'd STILL have an OS monopoly.