 |
| |
|
|
moomin
|
 |
Moo Like In Moomin
Jul 2000
time: 05:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
quote:
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.
|
Not quite. Intel and AMD went thru' the courts real good before Intel finally realized they didn't do their legal homework way back when, and couldn't stop AMD. Also, Intel obviously didn't have the political clout to simply splat AMD. Let's see how much competition there will ever be should Intel manage to make their Itanium architecture industry standard.
MS has a much better position in this respect. They've covered their posteriors so well no one can touch them - and as a result, they've developed a monopoly, which should get them split if the US court system was honest. Their monopoly has absolutely noting to do with natural monopolies, unless you want to postulate that they've suddenly become a government arm. And even I wouldn't go that far...
quote:
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. |
quote:
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.
|
But you have yet to explain why you hold this curious notion of the OS market being a natural monopoly. In the face of standardized APIs, it really wouldn't matter. In fact, there's no reason to beleive corporations wouldn't do what they try to do everywhere else - ensure that there are always several different possible suppliers of whatever good or service they're acquiring.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Imran Siddiqui
|
 |
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:19
|
|
quote:
Not quite. Intel and AMD went thru' the courts real good before Intel finally realized they didn't do their legal homework way back when, and couldn't stop AMD. Also, Intel obviously didn't have the political clout to simply splat AMD. |
And the courts dismissed the case, IIRC.
quote:
But you have yet to explain why you hold this curious notion of the OS market being a natural monopoly. |
Because it is. The average costs in introducing another OS into the market, would result in a lower quatity and much higher prices. In this market, the consumer would definetly go more for the lower price commodity, solidifying the OS's hold.
The OS market is a natural monopoly, and one of the reasons is through history. 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. There is only room, really for one OS on a mass market scale, and that has been shown.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mr. Nice Guy
|
 |
"I'm gonna speak softly, but carry a BIG STICK!!!"
Mar 2002
time: 23:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Um... how does local cable companies = Baby Bells?
And according to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, they can gobble local cable companies. |
Maybe so. My insight on AT&T was wrong then. But M$ is still big and bad and something serious needs to be done about it.
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Because it is. The average costs in introducing another OS into the market, would result in a lower quatity and much higher prices. In this market, the consumer would definetly go more for the lower price commodity, solidifying the OS's hold.
The OS market is a natural monopoly, and one of the reasons is through history. 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. There is only room, really for one OS on a mass market scale, and that has been shown. |
There is NO SUCH THING as a natural monopoly, as anything can happen, but there is a such thing as a legally established monopoly. 'Nuff said.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
moomin
|
|
Moo Like In Moomin
Jul 2000
time: 05:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
quote:
But you have yet to explain why you hold this curious notion of the OS market being a natural monopoly. |
Because it is. The average costs in introducing another OS into the market, would result in a lower quatity and much higher prices. In this market, the consumer would definetly go more for the lower price commodity, solidifying the OS's hold.
The OS market is a natural monopoly, and one of the reasons is through history. 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. There is only room, really for one OS on a mass market scale, and that has been shown.
|
First, I really don't think you understand how the lack of standardized APIs affect the industry. The only APIs that exist to provide a standard are MSs, so their OS gets to dominate. But if that weren't the case there's simply no way choosing a OS for how much alike it is to what your neighbour has would be an consideration, any more than it is so when buying cars.
In fact, let me compare those two industries. The current situation is very much as if MS owned all highways and could squash anyone who wanted to build cars in court. Then, of course, only MS could build cars, and it would seem a natural monopoly. But since the roads can accomodate vechicles from pretty much any manufacturer - they're open APIs, open infrastructure in this respect - different car makers can carve out niches for themselves. You'll note not everyone drives a Yugo.
And there is simply no intrinsic difference between these markets.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Imran Siddiqui
|
|
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:19
|
|
quote:
There is NO SUCH THING as a natural monopoly, as anything can happen, but there is a such thing as a legally established monopoly. 'Nuff said. |
 Take a basic economics class and then come back and talk to me.
quote:
In fact, let me compare those two industries. The current situation is very much as if MS owned all highways and could squash anyone who wanted to build cars in court. Then, of course, only MS could build cars, and it would seem a natural monopoly. But since the roads can accomodate vechicles from pretty much any manufacturer - they're open APIs, open infrastructure in this respect - different car makers can carve out niches for themselves. You'll note not everyone drives a Yugo. |
How is this a valid analogy? Roads are a natural monopoly, and the government decided that it should own them, rather than a private industry.
Look, I'm not saying MS is wonderful, but breaking them up wouldn't solve anything, OS's are a natural monopoly for the tech we have now. A PROPER remedy would be to force MS to allow other APIs into the system. But I don't see how you can say, at the present time, that OS's aren't natural monopoly market. Any entering OS wouldn't be able to really compete. You have Linux for those that are disatisfied, and look at the market share it has... almost nothing... and it isn't going to rocket up anytime soon.
Basically make them allow any car to traverse its roads, if we want to use your analogy.... but the roads are a natural monopoly.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
moomin
|
|
Moo Like In Moomin
Jul 2000
time: 05:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
How is this a valid analogy?
|
It's somewhat stretched, admittedly. Mostly because it doesn't take into account how the current situation came to be, and also because it disregards the difference in speed between depolyment of new road and new computing technology.
But the core is pretty sound. I propose the government own the essential APIs, since a state monopoly is less damaging than a private one. I'd like a competent body, like the IEEE, to administer it. Would it slow things down? Somewhat. But then the Athlon XP 2000+ I'm sitting in front of just now is build around old 80386 APIs, so there is comfortable room to grow within most specs. And I'm still convinced the net benefit to just about everybody would be enormous.
I want my BMW, dammit!
quote:
Look, I'm not saying MS is wonderful, but breaking them up wouldn't solve anything, OS's are a natural monopoly for the tech we have now.
|
That's were we disagree. I see no intrinsic properties of technology or utilization of same that sets the OS business apart from most other. I see a very specific historic development, and admitteldy, an enormous savvy and skill - not always honest - on MSs part, but that's about it. And I don't believe the situation would even be especially hard to rectify if you could just get the courts and the gub'mint to understand what this is all about - another part where my analoy breaks down is that everyone understands roads and few people - among those who decide, anyway - understand computing technology.
But we've really taken this as far as we're likely to go, so let's just agree to disagree, shall we?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
 |
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:19
|
|
I'm so ****ing sick of arguing this so I'm just going to sum up my part:
Microsoft being broken up would be horrible for everyone. Horrible for the competition, horrible for the consumers, and horrible for anyone with the idea that the government shouldn't **** around with businesses on the side of the underdogs and help them out by forcing the big "invisible hand" into becoming a "fat Albert smackdown".
More MS == More money for MS Shareholders. A breakup for MS would only give BillG more money.
Despite what some people here seem to think, breaking up MS into Office and Applications won't solve a damn thing. Office isn't big because of "hidden" APIs in Windows. Give me a ****ING break. What's so outrageous you have to question the sanity of people who proclaim that.
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. It may hurt the competition -- but this is CAPITALISM. You snooze, you lose. Internet browsers have begun to move away from being standalone applications the consumer has to pay extra for to standard-issue browsers much like the Windows Filemanager.
The vast majority of people who post around in this thread have no ****ing clue what they're saying, or the ramifications of their suggestions. They're just prancing around saying "MS IS BIG AND BAD BREAK THEM UP W00T". 
Now, in order to salvage this farce of the trial they should focus mostly on material like this article suggested, or the OEM-licensing stuff.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:19.
Apolyton Time is 00:19. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
15-05-2002 02:58
I guess that is the closest I'll ever come to having someone admit they lost an argument on 'Poly. I feel all tingly.
) In the case of AT&T is it not true that the "baby Bells" stayed as monopolies in their given regions initially considering that none of the Bells were competing in shared space? And when new companies came in, they had to lay down an initial infrastructure, which the original AT&T already had... does this not complicate processes?
.
|