|
 |
> I'm not sure how many of these are actually *illegal*, but they don't
> command respect.
AFAIK only #1 is illegal in most cases. The rest are all normal business
practices, but for some reason, probably because it's in the news a lot and
MS must be evil, people think it's wrong. Do you also think Coca-Cola is
wrong for banning pubs and restaurants from selling Pepsi? Or Ford for
banning its dealers from selling other cars? Or Walls for banning other
makes of ice-cream in its freezer units?
> In summary, Microsoft's dominant market position exists because they
> carefully and systematically prevent consumers from having any choice.
That doesn't make sense at all, to get to their dominant market position it
must have been because of something they did in the past, when people were
all going out to buy DOS or Windows 3.1 or whatever. I suspect it was just
because at the time they had the "best" product, Linux was probably too
complicated and Amigas and Macs were probably too expensive and inflexible
(hardware-wise). Don't blame MS that nobody could provide any decent
competition back then.
> ...but mostly I hate them because they charge extortionate prices for a
> product which isn't actually very good. :-P
TBH, when you compare the complexity of Windows with other software, the
price seems perfectly acceptable to me, in fact it seems quite a bargain.
>> I assume that also if Google (or any other company) manages to get the
>> majority of the desktop OS market then they will also be deemed to be
>> acting illegally by including a browser, media player, minesweeper or
>> whatever?
>
> No idea.
I would hope so. And also I would hope that if the Windows market share
dropped, it would then be legal again for them to include a browser and
media player, and to cease having to share their secrets with competitors.
> Last time I checked, Google doesn't have a desktop OS...
But they seem one of the most likely candidates at the moment to have any
significant impact on Windows sales...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
