 |
| |
|
|
moomin
|
 |
Moo Like In Moomin
Jul 2000
time: 05:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
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  ?
|
Has my English take a huge plunge lately or is your sentence above an indication of less than careful reading? IE already killed Netscape. As far as MS is concerned Netscape is a non-issue. The reason for bundling IE for "free" these days is to provide a infrastructural veichle to promote other MS solutions in fields where the MS still faces strong competitors - like the WMP. It's not a new MS tactic either - they've been doing it for decades. They used the same ploy with the various Office components way back when there still were Office competitors, they used the same tactics against Novell, they used it against Drivespace...
quote:
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. |
As had Netscape. The fact that it's bundeled with IE and works from the git-go is what makes WMP huge. Can you honstly say you haven't noticed how content providers have started to supply more and more streaming media in WMP formats the last two years or so? I remeber when RA was the de-facto standrad, and nowadays it's almost getting difficult to find any content for it.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
 |
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cloud9
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!  |
What the hell are you on, boy?
I really can't stand it when people like Urban Ranger apply blind hate to companies. He blindly hates MS, anything it does or ever will do, regardless of whether it's a good thing.
He refuses to believe Windows XP is a good desktop OS, while millions of people would happily disagree with him. He constantly posts about Windows flaws in new threads and neglects all of the Mozilla/Unix flaws (which there is certainly no shortage of). He's trying to blindside Apolyton posters by "showing them the way" that Open Source is better than Microsoft, and takes every opportunity given to him to be an ass about it.
Anyone who says anything good, ever, about MS is labeled a Microsoft Apologist by him.
Anyway, I digree.
MS makes many good products. They have some questionable business practices (such as the OEM licensing bullshit) that I would love to see stopped, but much of what they've done os perfectly and completely legal, and as I see it in the best interest of consumers. Get that? The best interest of the consumers. This trial is about the best interests of the competition: AOL/Timewarner and Sun, mostly. They're not out to protect the consumers, as they'd want you to believe, they're out to get MS tied down so they can come in and take over the existing markets and make money.
Only AOL/TW and Sun are run by complete idiots (it looks as though Sun's whole command chain is being reshuffled though -- and AOL's probably will after a $53B quarterly loss).
UR & Co. blames MS for everything. It's an easy out. It doesn't even cross his mind that Netscape may have ****ed up (which they clearly did).
Businesses die out, not all are successful. Netscape is one of those businesses going the way of the dodo, because an internet browser is an essential part of modern PC operation, just like a file system browser.
They actually thought they could get away with charging people money for such a service, and were shown that they couldn't get away with it.
But of course, this is MS' fault. If it wasn't for MS Netscape would still be selling Netscape 4.78 for $39.99 on store shelves. Obviously MS hurts the consumer, accordingly....
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
- Groucho -
|
|
quote:
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mr. Nice Guy
|
 |
"I'm gonna speak softly, but carry a BIG STICK!!!"
Mar 2002
time: 23:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
That's bullshit. Complete bullshit.
Monopolies ARE NOT ILLEGAL in the USA.
Abusing the monopolistic power (ie: exclusionary OEM licensing) is.
|
Dude, I said nothing about monopolies.
quote:
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.
quote:
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.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Mr. Nice Guy
|
|
"I'm gonna speak softly, but carry a BIG STICK!!!"
Mar 2002
time: 23:19
|
|
quote:
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
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:19
|
|
quote:
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? 
quote:
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...
quote:
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.
|
|
| |
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
17-05-2002 01:08
). There is a remedy that the judge over the case is considering, but it is rumored that the judge may consider an even harsher punishment. No matter what happens M$ is going to be prosecuted it seems. Let's just hope that the remedy is fair and just for all. Amen to that. 
|