And lo on Tue, 12 Feb 2008 14:46:36 -0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did  
spake, saying:

> Phil Cook wrote:
>
>>> No - but selling cars which you know are going to crash at least once  
>>> every 52 days... well, if a company tried to do that, they'd be shut  
>>> down.
>>  No it's subject to the same cost/benefit analysis. If I save $50m from  
>> not installing some widget and worst case scenario is the company  
>> paying total damages of $25m if 'found out' then you don't install the  
>> widget. If people die because of that, then people die.
>
> M$ is the largest and richest corporation ever to have existed in  
> recorded human history. If they wanted to, they could turn out a quality  
> product. It's not like it would cost too much to do it - it wouldn't.  
> They have more than enough money to do it. They just have no motivation.

Which as you pointed out they gained when Firefox started to gain ground  
with regard to IE.

> They have succeeded in convincing the general public that it's "normal"  
> for software to not work properly, and there's no real competition to  
> illustrate the falsehood of this idea. So why bother making a better  
> product when you can just continue ripping people off?

To be fair they've failed to pass the blame on to the faulty/cheating  
device drivers that are more often the cause of the problems, to be unfair  
they should have written an OS that didn't allow faulty/cheating device  
drivers to function.

>>> Well, sure, if there were an alternative, people would run out and buy  
>>> that in their droves. I'm sure M$ would radically rethink their  
>>> strategy if that happened. But it won't.
>>  At which point we recognise the free market system in action when it  
>> comes to monopolies, the company in question doesn't have to create a  
>> better product then their competitors simply a product not bad enough  
>> to encourage people to turn away from it.
>
> Indeed. This is what M$ does best - they create software that is utterly  
> awful, but not *quite* bad enough for mass migration to take place.  
> [Part of this equation is obviously preventing the emergence of anything  
> worth migrating to...]

It's more like swimming by keeping your head just above the water. Sure  
you could flail your arms and lega about to move, but why bother when  
you're doing just fine by doing nothing. The only time you need to exhert  
yourself is if the water rises or something comes along to botehr you.

>>> Apple requires you to buy new hardware, so it's not purely a software  
>>> decision.
>>  Yet everyone loves their monopolistic ways :-)
>
> They make good stuff? ;-)

They make pretty stuff. If Microsoft could control the hardware as tightly  
as Apple I'm sure we'd all be praising the robust nature of Windows and  
not caring about all the products they've integrated into the OS. They had  
a chance with Media Center, but tried to accomodate too many components;  
they had a chance with their Xbox, but made it PC-shaped; and they had a  
chance with the Xbox360, but jumped the gun quality-wise; meh screw them  
they've had their chance.

> If M$ suddenly started making really awsome products, people would like  
> it.

Well yeah and as has been mentioned if Ford started making Rolls Royces at  
'normal' prices then people would like that too.

> What everybody hates is being forced to buy extortionately over-priced  
> crapware because somebody has illegally exterminated all competition.

No-one's forcing you to buy a computer, no-one's forcing you to buy  
Microsoft products

>> At least we've LiveCDs now that helps so much.
>
> BTW, have you ever used a Windows Live CD?

I've yet to be inflicted with the pleasure.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message