Microsoft screws up again!

[SpencerH]

Theres no "real" doubt that the government attack on the microsoft monopoly is a big bunch of bull. I stuck with netscape over IE for many years until their installations started fooling with my mac OS (which was problematic itself without any help from netscape).

DPII

I dont think you have to be an economist to have a valid opinion in this area (so I'll give you my opinion).

How is it exactly that a monopoly or at least a company with a hegemony over a particular market gives better quality services for cheaper costs without competition to act as incentive for doing those things?

I guess its a tricky point. I would say that MS products have improved and that the value has improved. Others would say that the improvements would be faster with more competition. That may be true, but it could also be a disaster. I work on macs and pc's and despite cross platform improvements (mostly MS products) it can still be a huge pain in the ass. I cant imagine what it would be like with 10's or hundreds of OS. Hardware manufacturers have enough problems with drivers etc for various windows versions. Software, including games, would be a nightmare, it would be like the gaming consoles. You want to play a game you've got to buy a whole new system.

I dont know why MS does what it does, but I'm glad it does. I suspect that the threat of an unforseen development in the computer technology keeps Gates awake at night and that keeps MS performing.

[Asher]

I think SpencerH is right on.

To elaborate on that with my opinion: MS really isn't in a completely safe position (it'd be more fair if the OEM licensing bull**** was made illegal, but let's assume the ruling will). In the computer market, a small no name company can shoot up to fame and prominance in a matter of months. Even if there aren't very many active PC OS competitors for MS, the fear of a "kid in the garage" out doing them with some miraculous innovation keeps them on their toes and keeps improving their products quite consistently. We don't actually need many companies making mainstream OSes -- that would actually be harmful for the computer OS market (it'd be like game consoles, as SpencerH said).

Monopolies like Standard Oil were different. There was a strictly limited known supply of oil and the quality of that oil never really did improve under them.

Computer software is FAR more dynamic.

[Tolls]

"it'd be more fair if the OEM licensing bull**** was made illegal"



That's all I'd like to see out of this.
Breaking them up seems to me to be counter-productive.
The OEM licensing is the thing that holds back some "alternative" OS's...not that I'm saying MS will suddenly see a dramatic shift in market share, though, but at least the playing field will be levelled somewhat.

If they continue to do it then keep slapping them with fines.

[Sikander]

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.

When ATT was broken up into the Baby Bells each Baby Bell was given a region, where it was a monopoly. Thus we traded one megamonopoly for several smaller monopolies. The negative effects were mainly caused by two things.

1) We lost some of the economy of scale that ATT could provide vs the Baby Bells.

2) If ATT really pis$ed off it's customers the political backlash would come from every region of the country, and a reaction by politicians would be assured. When one of the Baby Bells did the same thing it would only pis$ off a small portion of the country, and the political backlash would be hard-pressed to punish the wrongdoer because most legislators were not being pressured by their constituents to take action.

Just because someone is going to do something that seems like it is pro-consumer or pro-business doesn't mean it's true. Look at the (semi) 'deregulation' of the California energy industry. It was definitely perceived at the time as a pro-business policy, and if theory worked as advertised it would be a boon to the consumer as well. By botching the job however the California Democratic Party managed to deregulate the prices that California utilities paid for energy while continuing to limit the prices that the utilities could charge. Add to that the fact that the utilities were forced to sell all of their energy producing facilities and become businesses which solely purchased (at high prices), transmitted and sold (at low prices) energy. The outcome was that Californians got burned, legitimate businesses got burned, elderly investors around the U.S. and the world got burned when their utility stocks became worthless. A few fly by night energy producers made some money. Way to go!

[Urban Ranger]

Echinda,

"The EU hasn't done anything to Microsoft, either, despite having the jurisdiction to do so (they could place all kinds of restrictions on Microsoft in exchange for access to their markets). Ever thought that maybe it is because Microsoft hasn't actually broken any laws that deserve drastic punishment (like a $10,000,000,000 fine)? Or maybe where you're from, what passes for justice doesn't require proof of a substantial law being broken?"

Yes, the EU has not yet done anything to MS, but that doesn't mean they won't. Here's an article for your reading pleasure.


Imran,

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

No they won't. Then again, they won't be able to leverage each other either, which is one of the complaints. The reason why Netscape was killed is MS leveraged its monopoly in the OS market. The structural remedy is suppose to cure that.

"The one thing about the OS market is that it is a natural monopoly."

I don't buy that.

"The average cost if there were two OS's would be higher than for one."

Cost of what and to whom?

"Furthermore, no matter how many OS's there are out there, one will always emerge as #1."

Just because one becomes #1 doesn't mean it will become a monopoly. Besides, the main complaint is not that MS has a monopoly in the OS market, which is legal in the US, but that it leverages this to gain dominance in other markets, which is illegal.

"There is a reason why other OS's, such as OS/2 never caught on. Because the average costs related to it would make it unfeasible."

One of the reasons that MS was found guilty of, illegal business practices to keep other OS'es from competing with Windows.

" Companies can still come in and make a profit, even in a natural monopoly situation, they just can't hope for significant market share."

The problem with a market with a monopoly, "natural" or otherwise, is there are substantial barriers from entry.


Glonk,

" IE is where it is because it IS the best browser out their for the consumer, AND because MS gave it away. No matter how you try to paint it, GIVING STUFF AWAY TO THE CONSUMER DOES NOT HURT THE CONSUMER."

Two things. One, IE isn't exactly free. You are paying the price with Windows outrageously high price tags. How much is a copy of XP Professional at retail? Two, giving stuff to the cosumer can hurt. You see there is this thing called dumping, or predatory pricing, designed to drive the competitors out from the market.

"They're not looking out for the consumer, they're looking out for their bottom line."

Stop frothing at the mouth. How would AOL benefit if IE becomes unbundled?

"In the computer market, a small no name company can shoot up to fame and prominance in a matter of months."

We had that. It was called Netscape. No chance against a monopoly, eh?


SpencerH,

"Theres no "real" doubt that the government attack on the microsoft monopoly is a big bunch of bull."

That's your personal opinion. The original trial judge and the Appellate Court found that MS is guilty.

"I stuck with netscape over IE for many years until their installations started fooling with my mac OS (which was problematic itself without any help from netscape)."

This is called anecdotal evidence. It's like saying smoking is harmless, because your grandpa lived to the ripe old age of 101 even though he smoked two packs a day.

[Tolls]

"No matter how you try to paint it, GIVING STUFF AWAY TO THE CONSUMER DOES NOT HURT THE CONSUMER."

Missed this bit. Yes it does.
We had a newspaper war here a few years ago in which Murdoch got a ticking off for flogging the Times at well below cost (5 or 10p I seem to remember) in an attempt to kill off the Independent. Had he succeeded we would be short of at least one broadsheet...which is not good for the consumer.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

The reason why Netscape was killed is MS leveraged its monopoly in the OS market. The structural remedy is suppose to cure that.

I disagree. As I was trying to point out with my "anecdotal evidence" is that there were supporters of netscape who didnt switch to IE until netscape started bundling other (unwanted) software with its browser.

One of the reasons that MS was found guilty of, illegal business practices to keep other OS'es from competing with Windows.

Microsoft was found guilty of using its position as a monopoly to unfairly compete, not with other OS but with software such as the browsers. The problem with your comment is that the trial judge was about as biased as was possible without failing to have a trial at all. Because of that, his rulings are completely suspect, thats why the appelate court threw out his break-up plan although they couldnt void the whole ruling.

The important point here is whether MS is a monopoly. It's certainly not one in the same way that companies such as AT&T or Standard Oil were. If the question is whether microsoft inhibits product development, I'd still say no. Tell us one product/company that MS has bought out and kept hidden. I cant think of any. Instead, MS buys them out (WebTV for example), or improves their own product with those ideas, something that I've seen with mac OS improvements since the late 80's. Its called good business practices (unless you're MS).

IE isn't exactly free.

You can go to their website right now and download IE6 for free. I've never paid for netscape or IE.

"In the computer market, a small no name company can shoot up to fame and prominance in a matter of months."

We had that. It was called Netscape. No chance against a monopoly, eh?

A major reason why netscape failed to compete with IE was because they failed to stay on the cutting edge.

[- Groucho -]

For those of you who have any lingering doubt about who is driving the "free browser" battle, check out the end-user license agreement that comes with Netscape. It says that Netscape's browser will be offered free of charge until Microsoft stops giving IE away for free. The same provision is not contained in the IE EULA.

Back in the mists of time (1989) when I was working for a University's computer department, Netscape's license stated that it was free for educational purposes, all others had to pay (or have their ISP pay for them like Asher's seems to have). A lot of people took an incredibly broad view of what constituted "education" or just were blissfully ignorant of the fact that they were offside the license.

Urban Ranger:

I don't doubt that the EU courts and/or competition authority will do something. They've shown themselves to be a fairly able wachdogs. I was just objecting to the characterization of US courts as somehow corrupt because they had failed to bring a remedy down against Microsoft yet.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Two things. One, IE isn't exactly free. You are paying the price with Windows outrageously high price tags. How much is a copy of XP Professional at retail? Two, giving stuff to the cosumer can hurt. You see there is this thing called dumping, or predatory pricing, designed to drive the competitors out from the market.

So how do Mac users pay for IE when they download it from the website for free, UR? Telepathy?
Nothing in life is free, stop playing with semantics...

Stop frothing at the mouth. How would AOL benefit if IE becomes unbundled?

Check the EULA for Netscape (as someone else mentioned). It's only free as long as IE is free. AOL wants to sell their browser again, or at least bundle it with their ISP (which would be a near monopoly in itself).

We had that. It was called Netscape. No chance against a monopoly, eh?

Netscape was full of incompetent execs and had a bad business model.
Internet browsers, like file system browsers, became something that was essential for regular computer operation. That's one of the reasons why every OS in existence is bundled with an internet browser now.

This is called anecdotal evidence. It's like saying smoking is harmless, because your grandpa lived to the ripe old age of 101 even though he smoked two packs a day.

Well it seems Mozilla and Opera are still popular.
I find this absolutely amazing, because bundling IE gives people no choice, right?
It totally and completely prevents them from downloading and using Mozilla and Opera if they want...

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Originally posted by Asher
I'm so ****ing sick of arguing this. . .

Well, if that's a fact then why don't you quit?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Cloud9
Well, if that's a fact then why don't you quit?

I'm persistent.

And because I just love shooting UR down. Like in the thread about x86-64, where he's once again conveniently let it slide down off the front pages because once again I've proven him wrong.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Originally posted by Asher
I'm persistent.

And because I just love shooting UR down. Like in the thread about x86-64, where he's once again conveniently let it slide down off the front pages because once again I've proven him wrong.

Whatever. Mr. Know It All.

[Asher]

I don't know it all, I just tend to know a lot about computers.

[Imran Siddiqui]

In the computer market, a small no name company can shoot up to fame and prominance in a matter of months.

You mean... like Microsoft in the 80s?

I don't buy that.

Why not? It seems obvious to me.

Cost of what and to whom?

Average cost to each of the companies, which would lead to a higher price charged to consumers. With a decreasing average cost curve, any competitor would have a much higher price when it entered, meaning that it would fail.

The problem with a market with a monopoly, "natural" or otherwise, is there are substantial barriers from entry.

Monopolies aren't illegal.

Two things. One, IE isn't exactly free. You are paying the price with Windows outrageously high price tags.

Even before IE, the price of Windows was the same as it is now.

Two, giving stuff to the cosumer can hurt. You see there is this thing called dumping, or predatory pricing, designed to drive the competitors out from the market.

IE has 90% of the market, and yet MS still hasn't charged for it. They believe that it is an integral part of the OS, and it seems they really mean it. If they really wanted to preditory price, they would have charged for it by now.

Stop frothing at the mouth. How would AOL benefit if IE becomes unbundled?

Kidding, right? AOL owns Netscape... this isn't that hard.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Originally posted by Asher
I don't know it all, I just tend to know a lot about computers.

Uh huh. I think you just get too carried away with things.