 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> Making a superior product is just one way to do that, there are lots
>>> of opportunities to make money without having the superior product.
>>
>> Such as...?
>
> Making an inferior product that you can sell for a lower price.
> Building up a brand image so that you can charge more for the same
> quality products.
> Placing your selling points in better locations than your competitors.
> Advertising more than your competitors.
> Buying your competitors.
> Providing better customer support than your competitors.
All of those still constitute doing *something* "better". (Except buying
your competitors...) It may not be the product itself which is superior,
but there has to be something better.
Unless you illegally prevent other companies from competing, that is...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> All of those still constitute doing *something* "better". (Except buying
> your competitors...) It may not be the product itself which is superior,
> but there has to be something better.
Sure, I was just pointing out that your *product* doesn't necessarily have
to be superior for you to appear a "better" option to your customers.
> Unless you illegally prevent other companies from competing, that is...
What exactly has MS done that is illegal? It seems to me their "crimes" (in
the eyes of the EU) are not sharing enough source code with competitors,
including their browser software with their OS, and including a media player
with their OS. If that's the worst they've done, then sorry but they don't
lose my respect for that.
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?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Unless you illegally prevent other companies from competing, that is...
I assume that if it's on top of some form of linux that there isn't really
any lock-in, other than MS stuff not being linux friendly.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> What exactly has MS done that is illegal? It seems to me their "crimes"
> (in the eyes of the EU) are not sharing enough source code with
> competitors, including their browser software with their OS, and
> including a media player with their OS. If that's the worst they've
> done, then sorry but they don't lose my respect for that.
1. Stealing other people's code and passing it off as their own.
2. Deliberately subverting open standards to force vendor lock-in.
3. Forcing PC manufacturers to not to distribute anyone else's OS.
4. Lobbying for a ban on selling PC hardware without an OS.
5. Releasing software for free just to put people out of business.
6. Announcing vapourware just to put people out of business.
7. Threatening highly dubious legal action just to put people out of
business.
I'm not sure how many of these are actually *illegal*, but they don't
command respect.
In summary, Microsoft's dominant market position exists because they
carefully and systematically prevent consumers from having any choice.
...but mostly I hate them because they charge extortionate prices for a
product which isn't actually very good. :-P
> 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.
Last time I checked, Google doesn't have a desktop OS...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
>
> 1. Stealing other people's code and passing it off as their own.
>
> 2. Deliberately subverting open standards to force vendor lock-in.
>
> 3. Forcing PC manufacturers to not to distribute anyone else's OS.
>
> 4. Lobbying for a ban on selling PC hardware without an OS.
>
> 5. Releasing software for free just to put people out of business.
>
> 6. Announcing vapourware just to put people out of business.
>
> 7. Threatening highly dubious legal action just to put people out of
> business.
>
Yes, but apart from that what has M$ ever done that has caused your lack
of respect for them. :-D ;-)
John
--
"Eppur si muove" - Galileo Galilei
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
>
> The article states "Google is going for Microsoft's financial jugular
> with this move". Erm, no, not really, no. This is aimed at netbooks; why
> would M$ care about that? It's not where they make their money. Perhaps
> it's where they might *like* to make money some day, but currently every
> single netbook I've seen is running Linux anyway. (Unsurprising, given
> that the whole point of a netbook is to be as cheap and nasty as
> possible, and Linux is free...)
>
Perhaps six months ago, I stumbled across one Linux netbook in a Best Buy, and
the sales clerk was telling folks not to get it. Recently, I've scoured all
the electronics stores in two different cities. I have not even seen a single
netbook with Linux.
I think KDE4, which ruins user's experience expectations, may have been designed
for ultra-low processor power netbooks, but will probably do more to scare
people away from Linux outright.
Google to the rescue...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
gregjohn wrote:
> Perhaps six months ago, I stumbled across one Linux netbook in a Best Buy, and
> the sales clerk was telling folks not to get it. Recently, I've scoured all
> the electronics stores in two different cities. I have not even seen a single
> netbook with Linux.
Really? Interesting... I have yet to see a single netbook that doesn't
come with Linux.
> I think KDE4, which ruins user's experience expectations, may have been designed
> for ultra-low processor power netbooks, but will probably do more to scare
> people away from Linux outright.
>
> Google to the rescue...
Heh, well, we'll see... ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> Do you also
> think Coca-Cola is wrong for banning pubs and restaurants from selling
> Pepsi?
Yes. (It's news to me that they can legally do this...)
> Or Ford for banning its dealers from selling other cars?
That's not quite the same thing.
Windows is slightly unusual in that it's a product that goes with
another product (but the other product is useless without it - or some
other manufacturer's equivilent). The only analogy I can come up with is
Goodyear ordering Ford not to sell cars that have tires that aren't
Goodyear, and then trying to ban the sale of cars without tires.
[Admittedly, a rather lame analogy.]
>> 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.
According to the history books, the story goes that IBM wanted an OS,
Gate's mum knew somebody at IBM, so Gates stole an OS off one of his
mates and made it work on the IBM PC. IBM PCs became popular for some
reason, and the rest is history.
> 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.
I doubt that was the reason.
>> ...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 wasn't referring only to Windows; M$ make other products as well.
(Most notably Office, but also things like VisualStudio, IIS, Exchange,
SQL Server, etc.) Other people manage to make similar products which
work significantly better, and for a fraction of the money that M$ has
available for investment. It's just that for M$, it's cheaper to cheat
the system than to design a better product.
> 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.
It's news to me that Microsoft does have to share their secrets.
>> 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...
Sure. The only other possibility I see is Apple, and they won't.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 07/09/09 07:08, Invisible wrote:
>> Do you also think Coca-Cola is wrong for banning pubs and restaurants
>> from selling Pepsi?
>
> Yes. (It's news to me that they can legally do this...)
Both Pepsi and Coca Cola do this in the US. They offer a nice rate if
the business signs an exclusive contract. It really, really sucks.
--
Hangover: The wrath of grapes.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
