15-05-2002 06:51									#61
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

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).

quote: 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.

	15-05-2002 12:46									#62
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

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 bullshit 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.

	15-05-2002 13:32									#63
	Inflate your Upload Space

"it'd be more fair if the OEM licensing bullshit 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.

	15-05-2002 16:14									#64
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: 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!

	15-05-2002 17:51									#65
	Inflate your Upload Space

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.

	15-05-2002 18:00									#66
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

"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.

	15-05-2002 18:31									#67
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: 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.

quote: 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).

quote: 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.

quote: "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.

	15-05-2002 19:43									#68
	Full PM-box? Change here!

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.

Last edited by - Groucho - on 15-05-2002 at 19:48

	15-05-2002 20:39									#69
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: 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...

quote: 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).

quote: 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.

quote: 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...

	15-05-2002 21:02									#70
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

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

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

	15-05-2002 22:38									#71
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: 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.

	15-05-2002 22:48									#72
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: 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.

	15-05-2002 22:51									#73
	Increase the size of your Attachments

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

	15-05-2002 22:51									#74
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: 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?

quote: I don't buy that.

Why not? It seems obvious to me.

quote: 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.

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

Monopolies aren't illegal.

quote: 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.

quote: 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.

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

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

	15-05-2002 22:53									#75
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: 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.

	15-05-2002 23:04									#76
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Imran:

quote: quote: 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.

Cost in this case would also include time and money cost to consumers and producers of complying with or operating under multiple OS standards.

	16-05-2002 19:24									#77
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

SpencerH,

" 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."

That's fine. The thing is, once MS started giving IE away, users slowly and surely stopped paying for Netscape. That killed the company because it had nothing else to sell, unlike Mincrosoft. Eventually it was bought by AOL, you know that.

"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 Appellate court upheld Jackson's founding of facts, this is of utmost important. It means the Appellate court agreed that MS is guilty, but that's clear as water to any non-biased watcher of the case.

"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."

This is not the only way to "inhibit product development." MS usually uses "bundling" and "embrace, extend, extinguish" to kill competing products and companies. It tried the EEE tack with Sun's Java. Unfortunately for Emperor Bill Sun is not a small fish and slapped MS silly in court. Smaller companies such as Stac Electronics, Digital Research, and Quarterdeck were ruthlessly crushed.

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

This is not that the courts found.


Echinda,

I understand your point now.


Glonk,

"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..."

Mac users may not have to pay for it because Windows users pay with blood and first borns. You still haven't answered my question. How much is a copy of XP Pro retail? Here, it is at 1/3 to 1/2 of what a new computer costs. That is outrageous. That's why IE is "free."

" 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)."

AOL doesn't care. It's readying to switch the browsers they give away from IE-based to Mozilla-based. They had a pilot program with their Compuserve users. Now tell me how AOL benefits again?

"Netscape was full of incompetent execs and had a bad business model."

Even your master, William Gates III, is glad that his lawyers didn't try your crap in court. Show me some evidence, if you have any. Bald assertion doesn't cut it.

"Internet browsers, like file system browsers, became something that was essential for regular computer operation."

What, where, and why?

"Well it seems Mozilla and Opera are still popular."

Oh, so now they are popular. Just not that long ago you asserted that IE had 98% of the browser market. Please, make up your own mind and stop speaking from both sides of your mouth.

"I find this absolutely amazing, because bundling IE gives people no choice, right?"

Theoretically a user can download and use whatever brower that suits his fancy. Unfortunately for you, that's not what happens in real life.

"And because I just love shooting UR down."

Sadly, the ability for such an effort lies beyond your grasp.

"I just tend to know a lot about computers."

You wish


Imran,

"Why not? It seems obvious to me."

"Obvious" isn't a very good argument.

"Average cost to each of the companies, which would lead to a higher price charged to consumers."

What companies? The OS developers? Application developers? Who?

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

You noticed, eh? The big question is why hasn't the price of Windows gone down while hardware has been dropping like a rock.

" 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."

Because Windows users are paying with blood and first borns on Windows licenses. As you so astutely observed, the price of Windows has stayed the same while PCs cost less and are more powerful. Consumers are getting royally ripped off.


AS,

"Cost in this case would also include time and money cost to consumers and producers of complying with or operating under multiple OS standards."

That would be the case if there were one OS, and it was cheap to purchase and maintain. None of these holds for Windows. First of all, there are multiple versions of Windows: 3.x, 9x, NT/2K, and XP. That's 4 (3 if you count XP as part of the NT family) OSes from the same company [Actually Windows 3.x aren't OSes but MS called them as such]. Windows isn't cheap. In fact the licensing fees are getting more expensive. The big whammy is Windows is expensive to maintain, both because of it being unstable and insecure. In the commercial world there's around a PC technician for every 10 PCs. Some companies go with 20 and let the small problems lie. For *nix or Mac you can get away with 1 technican per 100 boxes. Not only that, but because of all the security holes in IE, e-amil viruses have costed millions if not billions in damages.

That's not exactly cheap.

	16-05-2002 19:43									#78
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

UR:

I'm not much of a high-powered computer user, as you are probably aware. But AFAIK, all the programs I use run on 3.x, 9x, NT/2K, and XP, so I count them all as one OS. I was speaking more of needing to maintain / develop for the entire set of Windows OS's you list vs Unix vs Mac. What if there were several other operating systems. Would we be better off? Could the companies earn enough money to continue producing?

But you do raise some valid points. The higher maintenace cost you mention goes to the quality of the product produced by a monopolist vs. that produced under competiton. Also, the family of Windows OSs you mention is also considered to be an example of "versioning", which allows software manufacturers to extract more money from higher end users. People like me, who don't use their computers much, settle for old, cheap OS like 95. Heavier users want new OS and pay more. More $ for MS.

	16-05-2002 20:19									#79
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger The Appellate court upheld Jackson's founding of facts, this is of utmost important. It means the Appellate court agreed that MS is guilty, but that's clear as water to any non-biased watcher of the case.

The appellate court had no choice but to uphold those findings

quote: "A major reason why netscape failed to compete with IE was because they failed to stay on the cutting edge." This is not that the courts found.

Maybe not, but that doesnt make it untrue

quote: The big question is why hasn't the price of Windows gone down while hardware has been dropping like a rock.

Supply and demand. I'm not willing to switch to linux and neither are most people.

quote: The big whammy is Windows is expensive to maintain, both because of it being unstable and insecure. In the commercial world there's around a PC technician for every 10 PCs. Some companies go with 20 and let the small problems lie. For *nix or Mac you can get away with 1 technican per 100 boxes. Not only that, but because of all the security holes in IE, e-amil viruses have costed millions if not billions in damages. That's not exactly cheap.

I havent used a mac with OSX yet, but theres no way any mac OS prior to that was more stable than windows. I was a mac user for 10 years before I even looked at a PC.

	16-05-2002 20:19									#80
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Hang about.
Surely if OSs are a natural monopoly then so are architectures, by the same argument...it costs to develop an OS for different chips, ergo it's best to only have a single chip architecture.

Now, that sounds incredibly fishy to me...

Surely in both cases the presence of competition drives the technology? Isn't this an advantage?

	16-05-2002 20:48									#81
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Adam,

" I'm not much of a high-powered computer user, as you are probably aware. But AFAIK, all the programs I use run on 3.x, 9x, NT/2K, and XP, so I count them all as one OS."

Your programs are that old? Seriously, programs run on 9x may not run not NT/2K, noticably games. Most programs on 3.x do not run on newer versions of Winodws and vice versa. Some do, sure, but it's a dicey thing. XP supposedly run all the 9x and NT programs, but it is still not 100%.

"I was speaking more of needing to maintain / develop for the entire set of Windows OS's you list vs Unix vs Mac."

The thing though is, since the codebase is splintered (using a geek phrase), application developers have extra work to do. Perhaps not as much as a complete port to another OS, but still significant.

"What if there were several other operating systems. Would we be better off? Could the companies earn enough money to continue producing?"

I really don't see operating systems as different from other programs. Virtually for everything else there are two or more companies competing. The same questions apply there. PhotoShop is probably the closest you get to a monopoly, but Paint Shop Pro is alive and kicking. There are at least 5-6 different programs for 3D rendering and animation, same number for CAD, at least three anti-virus programs, and so forth.


SpencerH,

"The appellate court had no choice but to uphold those findings"

Why? MSFT asked the court to throw the entire case out. It didn't.

"Maybe not, but that doesnt make it untrue"

It didn't matter either way. Not only IE was free but it was bundled. Users didn't need to go to the effort to download it. As I said before, revenues slowly dropped to a trickle for Netscape. It didn't have enough to do anything about the situation.

"Supply and demand. I'm not willing to switch to linux and neither are most people."

That doesn't hold, because supply is practically infinite. Unlike traditional goods a publisher loses nothing when he sells a copy of his program. The cost of publishing software is laughably low compared to the retail prices.

"I havent used a mac with OSX yet, but theres no way any mac OS prior to that was more stable than windows. I was a mac user for 10 years before I even looked at a PC."

I have provided support for around 200 Macs, a couple thosand PCs, and around 200 *nix boxen of various flavours. My experience is PCs are the least stable and *nixs the most, given that they are properly configured.

	16-05-2002 21:25									#82
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: 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.

I take it you meant to say "predatory", right? Predatory pricing can be utilized to increase market share, yes, but also to keep it, by creating high entry barriers. But MS needs no such application - IE's raison d'être isn't to kill Netscape, since it's already done that, it's to leverage MS applications in fields where MS does not yet dominate - Windows Media Player and phrase to domain resolving being prime exemples.

As someone already pointed out up-thread, the EU is actaully doing something to stop this - this time - since the lesson MS taught the world at large when they squashed Netscape was actually noticed on this side of the pound. The EU is about to demand MS uncouples WMP from Windows. MS, unsurprisingly, is screaming bloody murder. We'll see how all that turns out.

Did I overdo my argument when I said the reason MS can keep this up - which, admittedly, they do very skillfully - is that the American justice system is crooked? Well, in part. But I recongnize that if MS were, say, a French company, the EU would probably not be as eager to stick it to them. Nevertheless, the US has enough of an it industry I really think it cannot afford to stiffle so much of it just to satisfy one, if very successful, company.

	16-05-2002 22:32									#83
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

I don't see why you people don't like Microsoft. They sell their products at reasonable prices and they work well (hey I've stayed up for weeks on XP). They provide an industry standard, order to chaos you know.

Sure some of their business practices are a little questionable but they're just protecting their interests. We're talking about a company that reached the top by producing software at a competitive price and using lucrative contract arrangements to smush the competition. There is no wrong-doing in that, it's just a little disappointing that their competitors were tooth-less old grannies incapable of offering resistance.

Heck I still prefer Windows over Unix. It's ease of use and vast software library make it an easy pick. Sure there is improvement to be done with Windows, but Microsoft can do it a hell of a lot faster than independent developers.

The government anti-trust suit against Microsoft is nothing but a garbage campaign. Look deep enough and you'll find idiots in the company that say stupid things such as the above story. No company is safe from hiring people who run at the mouth. I'm sure if you were to take any company and inflate it to multinational size that you would easily be able to find several dozen rotten apple employees in the ranks.

	16-05-2002 23:23									#84
	Suffering from ads?

quote: What companies? The OS developers? Application developers? Who?

The OS companies that enter into the market. Their average costs end up being much higher than Microsofts, especially with declining average cost curves in the industry (due to economies of scale).

quote: You noticed, eh? The big question is why hasn't the price of Windows gone down while hardware has been dropping like a rock.

You realize that computer games prices have stayed relatively at the same prices even though hardware has been dropping like a rock? *gasp* Computer game companies are monopolies .

quote: Because Windows users are paying with blood and first borns on Windows licenses. As you so astutely observed, the price of Windows has stayed the same while PCs cost less and are more powerful. Consumers are getting royally ripped off.

Like I said, computer games (and other application software) have stayed the same as well. Just because you despise Microsoft doesn't mean that by keeping their price the same means a damned thing, because it really doesn't. It's a non-issue.

quote: Cost in this case would also include time and money cost to consumers and producers of complying with or operating under multiple OS standards.

Yep... oppertunity costs also would factor into the calculation.

quote: Also, the family of Windows OSs you mention is also considered to be an example of "versioning", which allows software manufacturers to extract more money from higher end users. People like me, who don't use their computers much, settle for old, cheap OS like 95. Heavier users want new OS and pay more. More $ for MS.

Well yeah, smart business practice . They are trying to get all of the consumer surplus they can, by a form of price discrimination. This price discrimination is legal though .

quote: I take it you meant to say "predatory", right? Predatory pricing can be utilized to increase market share, yes, but also to keep it, by creating high entry barriers. But MS needs no such application - IE's raison d'être isn't to kill Netscape, since it's already done that, it's to leverage MS applications in fields where MS does not yet dominate - Windows Media Player and phrase to domain resolving being prime exemples.

This makes little sense. Why would it try to force Netscape out so it can dominate Media Player ?

I mean, it really isn't sending out much of a message, both Quicktime and RealPlayer have free versions as well.... and MS hasn't shown me squat that it will increase the cost of IE or Media Player at all.

	16-05-2002 23:28									#85
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger Mac users may not have to pay for it because Windows users pay with blood and first borns. You still haven't answered my question. How much is a copy of XP Pro retail? Here, it is at 1/3 to 1/2 of what a new computer costs. That is outrageous. That's why IE is "free."

XP Pro is the same price as Win2K Pro, which was the same price as NT4, which was the same price was NT3...

Really, UR, your arguments are getting pathetic.
First it was IE adds additional costs to consumers, now it's that the OS is simply too expensive to begin with.

XP Home is cheaper than OS X by $10 or so, so why aren't you sitting around trolling Apple?

quote: AOL doesn't care. It's readying to switch the browsers they give away from IE-based to Mozilla-based. They had a pilot program with their Compuserve users. Now tell me how AOL benefits again?

Hmm. I understand that, being a communist, you're pretty inept when it comes to business.

If AOL doesn't benefit either way from which browser is used, why the hell do they constantly and continuously lobby the government to force MS to un-bundled IE?

quote: Even your master, William Gates III, is glad that his lawyers didn't try your crap in court. Show me some evidence, if you have any. Bald assertion doesn't cut it.

Look at the salaries and balance sheets.
They were losing money before IE3 even came out.

quote: What, where, and why?

99.9% of computer uses use internet browsers.
If we don't bundle the browser with the computer, they must go out and BUY a copy from a store.

How do you recommend they download Mozilla and Opera without an internet browser, wise guy?

quote: Oh, so now they are popular. Just not that long ago you asserted that IE had 98% of the browser market. Please, make up your own mind and stop speaking from both sides of your mouth.

It is popular. 2% of millions of people is quite a large number, and many people are quite vocal about how much they like it.

The point is, if consumers don't like IE, or simply don't like MS, they can download a bunch of browsers. There are more browsers out NOW than when NS/IE were competiting.

quote: Theoretically a user can download and use whatever brower that suits his fancy. Unfortunately for you, that's not what happens in real life.

Oh? What is stopping people from downloading Opera and Mozilla, then?

I just did a test, and yes, I can download BOTH using IE.

quote: You noticed, eh? The big question is why hasn't the price of Windows gone down while hardware has been dropping like a rock.

Why the hell should it?
Windows is not hardware, UR.

quote: Because Windows users are paying with blood and first borns on Windows licenses. As you so astutely observed, the price of Windows has stayed the same while PCs cost less and are more powerful. Consumers are getting royally ripped off.

Jesus christ, sound the alarms...Apparently $49.99 is the price of UR's first born.

Consumers are getting ripped off considering Windows prices have stayed the same over the past decade? You do know that the real price of Windows has dropped due to inflation anyway, UR? Not that it matters.

Using your logic: Hardware prices have dropped, therefore Windows prices should drop. Windows prices have stayed the same, therefore consumers are being ripped off.

quote: First of all, there are multiple versions of Windows: 3.x, 9x, NT/2K, and XP. That's 4 (3 if you count XP as part of the NT family) OSes from the same company [Actually Windows 3.x aren't OSes but MS called them as such].

Sorry to break this to you, UR, but Win3.x and 9x are not here anymore.

What we've really got are Windows 2000 and XP. That's 2. Windows 2000 is aimed at business servers and whatnot, XP for workstations and desktops.

quote: Windows isn't cheap.

Opinions mean nothing in this type of argument. $50 isn't expensive, IMHO.

quote: both because of it being unstable and insecure.

Is that why Unixes like Solaris have had more security vulnerabilities in 2001 than Windows?

UR, now you're just showing your "Unix is holier than thou" roots. Knock it off.

	16-05-2002 23:35									#86
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Tolls Hang about. Surely if OSs are a natural monopoly then so are architectures, by the same argument...it costs to develop an OS for different chips, ergo it's best to only have a single chip architecture. Now, that sounds incredibly fishy to me... Surely in both cases the presence of competition drives the technology? Isn't this an advantage?

No, not in computers.

1 single chip architecture for PCs is DEFINITELY a good thing. And we have that. It's called x86. Athlons, Pentiums, Cyrixes, etc all run x86 as an architecture.

If we had competing ones (which we WILL in a couple years, mind you -- AMD's x86-64 vs Intel's IA-64), you'll have to download different patches for each architecture, you'll need to buy different software for each architecture, and it'll be a complete hassle to developers to actually make more than one version.

1 chip architecture is a VERY good thing in PCs.

	17-05-2002 00:19									#87
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Asher XP Pro is the same price as Win2K Pro, which was the same price as NT4, which was the same price was NT3... Really, UR, your arguments are getting pathetic. First it was IE adds additional costs to consumers, now it's that the OS is simply too expensive to begin with. XP Home is cheaper than OS X by $10 or so, so why aren't you sitting around trolling Apple?

Liar Liar

	17-05-2002 00:30									#88
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Monopolies, for a limited time, can suppress competition and raise prices. Socialism does the same, but it uses government power to suppress competition.

The lack of competition leads to lack of innovation and to inefficient cost structures.

Thus, for the same reason, both socialism and monopolistic capitalism are to be avoided.

It is a wonder that these truths are not self-evident.

Ned

	17-05-2002 00:46									#89
	Suffering from ads?

Well Asher. If all the stuff that you believe about Microsoft is true then tell us why you believe it.

WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY!!!

Explain yourself!

	17-05-2002 01:06									#90
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Thus, for the same reason, both socialism and monopolistic capitalism are to be avoided.

But in some cases they cannot be avoided. In some industries there is really only room for a monopoly. Think about local phone service or before the satellite boom, local cable.