1118: "Microsoft"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

edison trent
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 10:00 pm UTC

Re: 1118: "Microsoft"

Postby edison trent » Mon Oct 08, 2012 10:04 pm UTC

jpk wrote:

Since they're going technical, we might as well go crude...


Nice reference... 8-)

J Thomas
Everyone's a jerk. You. Me. This Jerk.^
Posts: 1190
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2011 3:18 pm UTC

Re: 1118: "Microsoft"

Postby J Thomas » Mon Oct 08, 2012 10:47 pm UTC

kurkosdr wrote:....
But Microsoft's real evil was doc, xls and ppt. The reason governments won't touch on that is becquse it would mean they would have to go after the other closed defacto standards, like DVD-Video and iTunes, which would mean going after DRM...


I don't get it. If governments were to do something about doc, xls, and ppt, you seem to be saying that they would then have to do something about iTunes etc also. Why would they have to do that? To be consistent?

Do they have a great record on consistency so far?
The Law of Fives is true. I see it everywhere I look for it.

Silarnon
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 11:12 pm UTC

Re: 1118: "Microsoft"

Postby Silarnon » Mon Oct 08, 2012 11:17 pm UTC

I never understood the furor over bundling IE with Windows. What was actually wrong with that? Everyone acts like it took away consumer choice, when in fact you could use IE to then download Mozilla or Chrome or whatever and use those instead.

Just because something is there doesn't mean you have to use it. What is the big deal?

JetstreamGW
Posts: 40
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2011 5:22 am UTC

Re: 1118: "Microsoft"

Postby JetstreamGW » Tue Oct 09, 2012 4:35 am UTC

sardia wrote:
JetstreamGW wrote:Of course the difference (regarding Facebook and Apple anyway) is their consistent failure to REALLY corner the market. I can't speak to Google but he's probably right about them.


Either way, Facebook is hated as much as it's loved and Apple is starting to revert to its usual niche market as other products begin to compete.

Lol, Apple is raping the US smartphone market, and the tablet market doesn't exist. There is only the ipad market as it sits atop the skulls of other tablets.


That's true except for the part where it's entirely false and short-sighted.

Apple's business practices ensure that they'll never control a market indefinitely. They refuse to open their platform, and keep a tight lock on every single piece of software they own. They don't work with developers and require a stringent review of anything released on their platform... By contrast, Microsoft and Google are both perfectly willing to sell things to whoever has the money. Apple's been losing marketshare in the Tablet, Smartphone and portable digital media device markets for the last couple years. They practically INVENTED all of these markets, and they're doing the same thing they did in the PC market: Slowly choke themselves out of it.

collegestudent22
Posts: 256
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 5:36 am UTC

Re: 1118: "Microsoft"

Postby collegestudent22 » Tue Oct 09, 2012 5:47 am UTC

Salt wrote:
collegestudent22 wrote:lack of a restrictive monopoly in any of its products or services--the market was wide open for anyone to enter and indeed there were four or five competing operating systems out there (many of which still exist in some form in the market)


Right, that's why every nearly damn PC OEM bundles Windows and basically cow-tow to MS demands. So there were other OS ... but none of them viable for the masses because 90% of all software is written for Windows!


The market was explicitly defined in the legal proceedings to ignore PowerPC-based Apple computers. Some monopoly there. PC makers bundle Windows because people prefer Windows to the alternatives, at least for now (and then). They tried putting Linux on some of them, and people didn't really buy them.

Nope, MS still has a monopoly - in two markets in fact OS and Office software.


Some monopoly. One can get around it by buying their own hardware and installing a free OS. On Windows, you can install and use various free "Office software". How can one have a monopoly when the consumer has such easy access to alternatives? Do you also support the similar action against the cereal manufacturers for "brand proliferation" in making many kinds of cereal?

And the scary result of it "driving Netscape out of business" with its bundled web browser is gasp! A highly competitive market for free browsers, including not only IE, but Chrome, Firefox, Opera, Safari (for a time), and many more! This evil must be expunged!


I would like to see you say that when the company you build with your blood and sweat crashes to the ground because MS bundled your bread and butter product into their OS (effectively forcing users to buy their version of the product; What you think developing IE is free?) and start strong-arming your customers (OEMs ... etc.) to stop buying from you.


Market competition is rough. And no one was "strong-armed" into not using it - not only could OEM producers, if they wished, install the software themselves, the end consumer could download it himself, to the point where in 1998, under this "monopoly restriction", there were still (according to Netscape) 100 million downloads of their browser software. There existed an alternative between "free" and "$50" for a browser, and it is nonsense to go after anyone for choosing the "free" one. The chimera of the "monopoly" of bundling a free browser was that MS would then jack up the price because of their monopoly. That has proven to be decidedly false - their action didn't result in a browser monopoly, nor were they able to start charging for IE at all.

Anti-trust is the only law under which you can be charged for either a) undercutting prices, b) price-gouging, or c) price collusion. No matter what price you charge, you are technically violating the anti-trust law. In which case, it isn't so much a "law" as a political tool to gain votes and attack enemies. Anti-trust should be repealed. (PDF) And perhaps some reading up on monopoly is in order.

User avatar
Max™
Posts: 1792
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 4:21 am UTC
Location: mu

Re: 1118: "Microsoft"

Postby Max™ » Tue Oct 09, 2012 7:45 am UTC

collegestudent22 wrote:The market was explicitly defined in the legal proceedings to ignore PowerPC-based Apple computers. Some monopoly there. PC makers bundle Windows because people prefer Windows to the alternatives, at least for now (and then). They tried putting Linux on some of them, and people didn't really buy them.

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2001/10/23/13219/110

http://www.itworld.com/small-business/7 ... osoft-lies

It's not quite as simple as that. In cases where an OEM could install linux without losing their windows license, yes, that is a failing of linux advertising and so forth to give people a reason to boot a system and go "oh good, linux" instead of "what the hell happened to windows" as they did for the most part.

That doesn't even account for a tiny fraction of the real reason other OSes never had a chance with the OEMs that sold windows.

From the first link:
Substantial evidence for the OEM allegations is offered by the case of the PC manufacturer Hitachi, which is also cited by Hacker:

In the 1998-1999 timeframe, ready to prime the pump with its desktop offering, Be offered BeOS for free to any major computer manufacturer willing to preinstall BeOS on machines alongside Windows. Although few in the Be community ever knew about the discussions, Gassée says that Be was engaged in enthusiastic discussions with Dell, Compaq, Micron, and Hitachi. Taken together, preinstallation arrangements with vendors of this magnitude could have had a major impact on the future of Be and BeOS. But of the four, only Hitachi actually shipped a machine with BeOS pre-installed. The rest apparently backed off after a closer reading of the fine print in their Microsoft Windows License agreements. Hitachi did ship a line of machines (the Flora Prius) with BeOS preinstalled, but made changes to the bootloader -- rendering BeOS invisible to the consumer -- before shipping. Apparently, Hitachi received a little visit from Microsoft just before shipping the Flora Prius, and were reminded of the terms of the license.

Be was forced to post detailed instructions on their web site explaining to customers how to unhide their hidden BeOS partitions. It is likely that most Flora Prius owners never even saw the BeOS installations to which they were entitled. [Emphasis Hacker]

These instructions are posted on a webpage by BeOS [6]. Excerpts:

Your Hitachi FLORA Prius PC has multiple operating systems installed on it - BeOS and Windows 98. From the factory, however, only Windows will boot without extra input and system configuration by the end-user. This document discusses how to boot between the multiple operating systems which are already installed on your computer.

(...)

The boot manager included with the BeOS is named Bootman. Since your FLORA Prius does not come with Bootman already installed and configured, step #3 will show you how to do it.

In other words, Hitachi deliberately removed the boot manager provided by BeOS, which would have allowed easy access to both BeOS and Windows, from its series of FLORA PCs. There is hardly any other reason imaginable for this besides the Microsoft OEM contracts, given that BeOS functions without problems on the Prius once "unhidden".



Because losing the OEM license would practically kill the manufacturer's Windows line of business, I respect his desire to remain anonymous. However, it should be easy for the European Commission to examine the contracts of OEMs for the presence of anti-competitive clauses. The evidence that suggests that such clauses exist is as substantial as it can get without an OEM committing suicide by releasing parts of their contract:

The OEM allegations are supported by the findings in United States vs. Microsoft, specifically the findings regarding the coercion of OEM manufacturers not to change the web-browser. However, the findings regarding the installation of another OS are only vague with regard to "modifications of the boot-up sequence" (which is necessary in order to install another OS), and a lot of relevant material is redacted from the transcripts.
Jean-Louis Gassée has directly claimed the presence of coercive OEM contracts and would likely be willing to testify on the subject before the European Commission.
Hitachi has indirectly proven Gassée's point by hiding BeOS in the only case where it was installed alongside Windows.
A German PC manufacturer I found directly confirmed the allegations.

It is evident from these facts that the European Commission has to investigate Microsoft's OEM relationships, as the relevance of the question is paramount for competition in the OS market. No operating system will ever be able to compete with Microsoft Windows on the desktop market as long as OEMs cannot legally install it besides Windows without losing their license.


Et cetera...
mu

tensa_zangetsu
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2012 8:02 am UTC

Re: 1118: "Microsoft"

Postby tensa_zangetsu » Tue Oct 09, 2012 8:07 am UTC

Ahem. Windows 8. Secure Boot. ARM. That is all.

ks_physicist
Posts: 230
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 10:09 am UTC

Re: 1118: "Microsoft"

Postby ks_physicist » Tue Oct 09, 2012 8:18 am UTC

The environment is much different.

For one thing, if Google, Apple, Microsoft, and Facebook are all doing this thing, then it isn't really a monopoly. Oligopoly maybe.

And none of the above seem to be using multiple linked markets with the specific aim of eliminating competitors from the market. The only one even seeming to approach that point that worries me is Facebook, and I think it won't succeed.

Microsoft in the 90's was trying to eliminate choices. The current competitors (including Microsoft) seem to be more about succeeding in the open/free market.

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 3077
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1118: "Microsoft"

Postby orthogon » Tue Oct 09, 2012 8:28 am UTC

Salt wrote:[...] and basically cow-tow to MS demands.

Anybody else have a mental picture of a bovine hitched to the back of a pickup truck? Maybe one with bull-bars on the front? Sorry, couldn't resist.
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

Whatev
Posts: 16
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 12:48 am UTC

Re: 1118: "Microsoft"

Postby Whatev » Tue Oct 09, 2012 8:55 am UTC

Max™ wrote:
collegestudent22 wrote:The market was explicitly defined in the legal proceedings to ignore PowerPC-based Apple computers. Some monopoly there. PC makers bundle Windows because people prefer Windows to the alternatives, at least for now (and then). They tried putting Linux on some of them, and people didn't really buy them.

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2001/10/23/13219/110

http://www.itworld.com/small-business/7 ... osoft-lies

It's not quite as simple as that. In cases where an OEM could install linux without losing their windows license, yes, that is a failing of linux advertising and so forth to give people a reason to boot a system and go "oh good, linux" instead of "what the hell happened to windows" as they did for the most part.

That doesn't even account for a tiny fraction of the real reason other OSes never had a chance with the OEMs that sold windows.

Et cetera...


Given that this is illegal, shouldn't this, ipso facto, make a large number of other things including:

-console exclusives
-exclusive deals between soda companies and restaurant chains
-exclusive recording and broadcasting contracts
-nearly all athletic contracts

also illegal?

charonme
Posts: 141
Joined: Sun May 18, 2008 11:18 am UTC

Re: 1118: "Microsoft"

Postby charonme » Tue Oct 09, 2012 9:39 am UTC

fecebook


also, monopoly = coercive grant of exclusive privilege by the government, in the case of microsoft it would be the IP system

bothunter
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 8:20 am UTC

Re: 1118: "Microsoft"

Postby bothunter » Tue Oct 09, 2012 10:15 am UTC

I was kind of hoping they would just take the browser out of the operating system. You have a shiny new system. Now what are you going to do with it? Check your email? Search Google? Hahaha. Have fun with that!

RoboJ1M
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2012 11:15 am UTC

Re: 1118: "Microsoft"

Postby RoboJ1M » Tue Oct 09, 2012 11:17 am UTC

FA£EBOOK

BOOYAH!! 8D

Kit.
Posts: 1117
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:14 pm UTC

Re: 1118: "Microsoft"

Postby Kit. » Tue Oct 09, 2012 11:59 am UTC

bothunter wrote:I was kind of hoping they would just take the browser out of the operating system. You have a shiny new system. Now what are you going to do with it? Check your email? Search Google? Hahaha. Have fun with that!

Code: Select all

yum install firefox

User avatar
Max™
Posts: 1792
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 4:21 am UTC
Location: mu

Re: 1118: "Microsoft"

Postby Max™ » Tue Oct 09, 2012 12:00 pm UTC

Whatev wrote:
Max™ wrote:
collegestudent22 wrote:The market was explicitly defined in the legal proceedings to ignore PowerPC-based Apple computers. Some monopoly there. PC makers bundle Windows because people prefer Windows to the alternatives, at least for now (and then). They tried putting Linux on some of them, and people didn't really buy them.

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2001/10/23/13219/110

http://www.itworld.com/small-business/7 ... osoft-lies

It's not quite as simple as that. In cases where an OEM could install linux without losing their windows license, yes, that is a failing of linux advertising and so forth to give people a reason to boot a system and go "oh good, linux" instead of "what the hell happened to windows" as they did for the most part.

That doesn't even account for a tiny fraction of the real reason other OSes never had a chance with the OEMs that sold windows.

Et cetera...


Given that this is illegal, shouldn't this, ipso facto, make a large number of other things including:

-console exclusives
-exclusive deals between soda companies and restaurant chains
-exclusive recording and broadcasting contracts
-nearly all athletic contracts

also illegal?

Can a company which sells a product which is bundled/included in another product force the second company to sell only products with the first companies bundles/software/etc?

If another company made a game system and wanted to have Sony or MS games on their system, could Sony or MS require that they not sell games from the other companies for those systems?

Could they go further and require it not be obvious that you can play games other than Sony/MS licensed copies?


There are two levels here, MS would not allow a system which was openly dual-booted from the OEM, and MS would not abide by OEM manufacturers selling systems with a non-Windows OS installed. Sure, MS had a contract to that effect, and a non-disclosure clause, does that somehow make it ok?


You make Whatev Brand widgets, I make Max Brand widget software, I'll give you a license to sell Whatev Brand widgets with Max Brand software, but I won't allow you to sell widgets with any software besides my own without revoking your license, though such software clearly exists and offers a viable alternative.

Is that ok?
mu

FixMyIgnorance
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2011 5:02 pm UTC

Re: 1118: "Microsoft"

Postby FixMyIgnorance » Tue Oct 09, 2012 1:19 pm UTC

Can someone explain exactly what MS, Google, Facebook, and Apple are "guilty" of in this case?

Is it fair to compare these companies? Microsoft tried to unfairly corner the market, but why is it unfair? Is it also fair for Apple/Google to buy up a bunch of silly patents? Did they try to unfairly corner the market? Why is Facebook guilty of the same thing, if at all? I thought they were just the "best" because everyone was on it. This surely isn't the same as "Well everyone uses Windows so why buy a Mac if I can't use any of the X Y Z software?"

J Thomas
Everyone's a jerk. You. Me. This Jerk.^
Posts: 1190
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2011 3:18 pm UTC

Re: 1118: "Microsoft"

Postby J Thomas » Tue Oct 09, 2012 4:52 pm UTC

FixMyIgnorance wrote:Can someone explain exactly what MS, Google, Facebook, and Apple are "guilty" of in this case?

Is it fair to compare these companies? Microsoft tried to unfairly corner the market, but why is it unfair?


Competing goals. We want to have workable alternatives, because when one corporation has a stranglehold on an important market we're stuck with whatever they do. But also we want things to be interoperable. If you don't like your gas company then there can't be a competitor unless the competitor can lay his own gas lines etc, which is absurd. So natural gas companies are natural monopolies and we have to put up with it, but we don't want to put up with it when we don't have to.

In the early days of personal computing there was too much anarchy. Every company made its own special hardware and software companies chose which ones to build software for. It was a mess. The IBM PC was welcomed because everybody believed they would be the winner and they created a standard. IBM did not wind up enforcing patents on hardware so that nobody could make PC hardware except IBM and people who paid for the right to sell PC-compatible hardware at the prices IBM set. Instead we wound up with actual standards, and anybody who met the standards could make PC hardware, and they competed to see who could invent the next generation hardware and try to get it made the new standard. And application software had plenty of competing companies making stuff and trying to market it. There were problems with data files among those, you couldn't read WordPerfect files with competing word processors etc. But there was a market for software that would convert among them. For operating systems, the glue that connected software to hardware, there was only MicroSoft. If somebody wanted to compete with Microsoft, they had the problem that parts manufacturers built drivers for MS OSes because that's where the market was, and software companies build apps for MS OSes because that's where the market was. And customers bought MS because that's what the hardware and software needed. MS would have to get very bad before any competitor would have a chance. So pleasant to be the one in the middle who can collect tolls from everybody who passes....

But over time MS did get that bad. They sold apps that were guaranteed to work better than any competitor's apps, because the OS was carefully gimmicked to make it be that way. They made new versions that were deliberately designed to be incompatible with their own products, so corporate buyers would be forced to upgrade. Everybody else is upgrading and if you don't, you can't read the documents your suppliers and customers send you.... The newest apps ran only on the newest OSes, so you had to upgrade OS and apps both. It still wasn't as bad as the previous anarchy, but it kept getting worse. It was almost as if PCs were getting Multiple Sclerosis (MS).

But the internet allowed an end run around MS. Since the hardware kept getting faster, and the internet kept getting faster, it didn't matter that software got slower faster than hardware got faster. I don't have a copy of Microsoft Word on my computer, but if somebody sends me a Word document I can read it and edit it on Google (provided it doesn't do anything too arcane), and it feels like I'm getting the same performance I'd get using Word on my own computer -- but I don't have to wait for Word to load. All I need is an OS that handles my files and provides a decent browser, and isn't too subject to viruses etc, and my OS worries are over. Is it absurd that I would handle my software problems over the net, and get performance as good as on my home machine? Yes. I blame MS. Will Google become the sort of bottleneck that MS was? Maybe. To the extent that we depend on published standards that anyone can choose to meet, they don't have to be. To the extent that Google or Facebook etc *become* the standard and get to charge for it, we'll probably regret it.

Is it also fair for Apple/Google to buy up a bunch of silly patents? Did they try to unfairly corner the market? Why is Facebook guilty of the same thing, if at all? I thought they were just the "best" because everyone was on it. This surely isn't the same as "Well everyone uses Windows so why buy a Mac if I can't use any of the X Y Z software?"


tldr; Providing services that people want is in general good. When the service is "I let you communicate with people you want to communicate with, and all of you have to go through me because everybody else is going through me so everybody has to pay me for my captive market" that is likely to lead to trouble.
The Law of Fives is true. I see it everywhere I look for it.

limecat
Posts: 41
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 5:43 pm UTC

Re: 1118: "Microsoft"

Postby limecat » Tue Oct 09, 2012 5:10 pm UTC

not-sure-if-trolling.jpg

Google and Facebook's markets have pretty low barriers to entry, which is a pretty big factor when considering whether antitrust litigation needs to be started. The issue with Microsoft was that they were a de-facto monopoly, and were leveraging one industry they dominated to dominate another, which is illegal. Google isnt doing that, Facebook isnt doing that, and AFAIK Apple isnt doing that.

Plus, as I said, there are minimal barriers to entry to 2 of the 3 of them, and in Facebook's case claiming they have "lots of power" is a bit ridiculous-- you could have said the same about myspace a few years back, and we see where they are now. Their ability to leverage one market to control another is pretty minimal.

Generally a fan of XKCD, but this was kind of a lame strawman, and I dont really find strawmen to be that funny. The amount of "power" microsoft had was never the issue, it was their abuse of it.

Edit: Also, to claim Apple has "lots of power" while Microsoft is still around (and still has a much greater market share) is a bit ridiculous. I mean, if youre going to make a joke, theres no reason to mention Apple in place of Microsoft, who CONTINUES to do potentially abusive things (WinRT / SecureBoot).

JJH
Posts: 19
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 8:26 am UTC

Re: 1118: "Microsoft"

Postby JJH » Tue Oct 09, 2012 6:18 pm UTC

Silarnon wrote:I never understood the furor over bundling IE with Windows. What was actually wrong with that? Everyone acts like it took away consumer choice, when in fact you could use IE to then download Mozilla or Chrome or whatever and use those instead.

Just because something is there doesn't mean you have to use it. What is the big deal?


Yeah, IE came bundled with my laptop and the only thing I’ve used it was to get firefox. Now IE just sits there and does nothing.

Crosshair
Posts: 33
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 11:45 am UTC

Re: 1118: "Microsoft"

Postby Crosshair » Wed Oct 10, 2012 1:57 am UTC

Salt wrote:Right, that's why every nearly damn PC OEM bundles Windows and basically cow-tow to MS demands.


Which is why those same PC OEMs weren't able to put Microsoft in a sleeper hold and demand the ability to continue selling computers with XP after Vista came out.

Salt wrote:So there were other OS ... but none of them viable for the masses because 90% of all software is written for Windows!


Or because people by and large aren't that dissatisfied with Windows.

Salt wrote:They didn't need the government. They managed to do it themselves via vendor lock-in.

That was the vendors choice. They could have bought Windows licenses from 3rd parties if they didn't like the terms. Buying direct from Microsoft was the cheapest option and the microscopic market that doesn't want windows is too small to be worth servicing for those firms.

Microsoft had no monopoly. Never has.


Salt wrote:Nope, MS still has a monopoly - in two markets in fact OS and Office software. They are about to get a third one in video games if their main competitor there, Sony, folds.


You clearly have no idea what a monopoly is. A company being successful and dominant in a particular market does not make them a monopoly. If that was true than the 12 person inmate telephone company I work for is a monopoly since we control virtually the entire inmate telephone business in our home state.

Having special government legal and regulatory breaks that create barriers to entry are what makes a monopoly.

Salt wrote:MS is still as big of a threat as ever. It was fortunate for us that Gates decide to retire and his successor, while as ruthless and mercenary as him, is not quite as sharp and has let the competition run right pass them leaving them to playing catch up.


In other words you are admitting that Microsoft is not a monopoly since their smaller competitors have been easily outflanking them left and right once the founder that had the market insight to outmaneuver IBM in the 80's retired. Hmmm, no government protections, no regulatory breaks. looks like MS is just as vulnerable as any business.

And the scary result of it "driving Netscape out of business" with its bundled web browser is gasp! A highly competitive market for free browsers, including not only IE, but Chrome, Firefox, Opera, Safari (for a time), and many more! This evil must be expunged!


Salt wrote:I would like to see you say that when the company you build with your blood and sweat crashes to the ground because MS bundled your bread and butter product into their OS (effectively forcing users to buy their version of the product; What you think developing IE is free?) and start strong-arming your customers (OEMs ... etc.) to stop buying from you.


Guess what kiddo, life aint fair. If your product can't compete you are going to go out of business. Complaining about MS bundling IE is like an aftermarket tire and shock companies complaining about Ford selling its cars with a set of tires and shock absorbers. IE was good enough for the vast majority of people. I used both back in the day, Netscape was not enough of an improvement to be worth paying for.

The small company I work for has to compete with companies 10 times our size that can pay 6 figure signing bonuses to counties. Guess what? We dominate in the areas we service because we offer a far superior product, not just a "It works a little better here and there" product, which Netscape unfortunately was.

meh
Posts: 13
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:17 am UTC

Re: 1118: "Microsoft"

Postby meh » Wed Oct 10, 2012 3:05 am UTC

warmachine wrote:Wake me when it's impractical or difficult for...a user to use a rival, comprehensive search engine. Wake me when a tech company spends half a billion dollars developing and marketing something with no hope of revenue, even as a loss leader for other products, and its board doesn't fire the CEO. Wake me when a tech company orders a major manufacturer and partner to stop bundling a particular product or have its profit margins destroyed.


Apple's new Maps? Heh.

The numbers aren't as big, for sure.

meh
Posts: 13
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:17 am UTC

Re: 1118: "Microsoft"

Postby meh » Wed Oct 10, 2012 3:07 am UTC

Don Calvus wrote:
BAReFOOt wrote:Post-marxists of the Frankfurt School call this "false needs". Hartmut Rosa wrote a book called "Alienation and Acceleration" which I highly recommend (not only because I translated it in French, but because it is a very good little book about the acceleration of the way of life and the way it alienates individuals. It also puts all this digital revolution into perspective).


Wow, I have to say this is the first time I've heard the Frankfurt School cited in a non-philosophy-related online conversation. I'm delighted! Seriously!

ijuin
Posts: 1107
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 6:02 pm UTC

Re: 1118: "Microsoft"

Postby ijuin » Wed Oct 10, 2012 6:48 am UTC

Crosshair wrote:Guess what kiddo, life aint fair. If your product can't compete you are going to go out of business. Complaining about MS bundling IE is like an aftermarket tire and shock companies complaining about Ford selling its cars with a set of tires and shock absorbers. IE was good enough for the vast majority of people. I used both back in the day, Netscape was not enough of an improvement to be worth paying for.

I think that a more apt analogy would be Ford declaring that any car dealer who tries to sell a Ford car with non-Ford tires and shocks on it will be banned from selling Ford cars any more.

orthogon wrote:
Salt wrote:[...] and basically cow-tow to MS demands.

Anybody else have a mental picture of a bovine hitched to the back of a pickup truck? Maybe one with bull-bars on the front? Sorry, couldn't resist.

"Kowtow" is more properly pronounced with both syllables rhyming with "row" (as in rowboat). It is a transliteration of a Japanese word that might be better rendered as "kohtoh". It is composed of the kanji "koh", meaning "to descend/make low" and "toh". meaning a person's head. Thus, "kohtoh" literally means to bring your head as low as possible, as in the "kissing-the-dirt" sort of bowing to the ground. In feudal Japan, bowing like this was a gesture of unconditional submission to the person (or deity) for whom one was bowing, as contrasted against the bend-at-the-waist standing bow used in greeting.

Whatev
Posts: 16
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 12:48 am UTC

Re: 1118: "Microsoft"

Postby Whatev » Wed Oct 10, 2012 11:06 am UTC

Max™ wrote:
Whatev wrote:
Max™ wrote:
collegestudent22 wrote:The market was explicitly defined in the legal proceedings to ignore PowerPC-based Apple computers. Some monopoly there. PC makers bundle Windows because people prefer Windows to the alternatives, at least for now (and then). They tried putting Linux on some of them, and people didn't really buy them.

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2001/10/23/13219/110

http://www.itworld.com/small-business/7 ... osoft-lies

It's not quite as simple as that. In cases where an OEM could install linux without losing their windows license, yes, that is a failing of linux advertising and so forth to give people a reason to boot a system and go "oh good, linux" instead of "what the hell happened to windows" as they did for the most part.

That doesn't even account for a tiny fraction of the real reason other OSes never had a chance with the OEMs that sold windows.

Et cetera...


Given that this is illegal, shouldn't this, ipso facto, make a large number of other things including:

-console exclusives
-exclusive deals between soda companies and restaurant chains
-exclusive recording and broadcasting contracts
-nearly all athletic contracts

also illegal?

Can a company which sells a product which is bundled/included in another product force the second company to sell only products with the first companies bundles/software/etc?

If another company made a game system and wanted to have Sony or MS games on their system, could Sony or MS require that they not sell games from the other companies for those systems?

Could they go further and require it not be obvious that you can play games other than Sony/MS licensed copies?


There are two levels here, MS would not allow a system which was openly dual-booted from the OEM, and MS would not abide by OEM manufacturers selling systems with a non-Windows OS installed. Sure, MS had a contract to that effect, and a non-disclosure clause, does that somehow make it ok?


You make Whatev Brand widgets, I make Max Brand widget software, I'll give you a license to sell Whatev Brand widgets with Max Brand software, but I won't allow you to sell widgets with any software besides my own without revoking your license, though such software clearly exists and offers a viable alternative.

Is that ok?


I don't think you've answered my question.

J Thomas
Everyone's a jerk. You. Me. This Jerk.^
Posts: 1190
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2011 3:18 pm UTC

Re: 1118: "Microsoft"

Postby J Thomas » Wed Oct 10, 2012 12:07 pm UTC

Crosshair wrote:
Salt wrote:So there were other OS ... but none of them viable for the masses because 90% of all software is written for Windows!


Or because people by and large aren't that dissatisfied with Windows.


Mostly, consumers have no idea what's possible. They choose among the choices that are being sold.
"I'm elite, I can afford the best. Apple."
"I'll buy what everybody else is buying. Microsoft."
"I'm geeky, I don't want what everybody else has. Linux."
In the commercial world, it's "I'll buy what the employees are already trained to use. Microsoft."

In each case, after the decision is made what to get, everybody then must learn how to use what they've got. And they do, regardless of the time and heartache involved. Without direct comparisons they seldom see whether somebody else has it a lot easier. If they do see that they might possibly switch among the established choices.

What's possible, that's very much worth doing but which has not been done well? I don't know. You don't know either. But your imagination is so crippled that you are satisfied with Windows. Pathetic.

Salt wrote:They didn't need the government. They managed to do it themselves via vendor lock-in.

That was the vendors choice. They could have bought Windows licenses from 3rd parties if they didn't like the terms. Buying direct from Microsoft was the cheapest option and the microscopic market that doesn't want windows is too small to be worth servicing for those firms.


Yes. That is the problem. This is a technology where the nation and the world need to get fast improvements. But somehow we have set up a system where the rate of improvement is driven by clueless customers. Market success is not much driven by innovation, and in some areas it should be.

One possibility -- when a single company dominates a technology which is important, split it into 2 to 7 companies that each get full rights to the intellectual property, patents, etc. The stockholders are protected because they get stock in each company. The daughter companies then compete. They can compete on price. They can compete on technological innovation. But for something like an OS, they will also want a large degree of standardization. To arrange that, they can agree on public standards to describe interfaces to application software etc. Anybody with the necessary skills can then use the same standards to design software that can run on all the variant OSes, or for that matter to design OSes that the software will run on. If there are seven Microsofts competing to give you better operating systems, chances are you can get a better OS than when there's only one that dominates the market.

Microsoft had no monopoly. Never has.


Salt wrote:Nope, MS still has a monopoly - in two markets in fact OS and Office software. They are about to get a third one in video games if their main competitor there, Sony, folds.


You clearly have no idea what a monopoly is. A company being successful and dominant in a particular market does not make them a monopoly. If that was true than the 12 person inmate telephone company I work for is a monopoly since we control virtually the entire inmate telephone business in our home state.

Having special government legal and regulatory breaks that create barriers to entry are what makes a monopoly.


I don't care about special definitions for monopoly. I care about companies that get into a position to slow innovation in important fields. If the inmate telephone business in Vermont turns into some sort of backwater, who really cares? Likely not even the inmates. We can focus our attention on the examples where it matters.

Salt wrote:I would like to see you say that when the company you build with your blood and sweat crashes to the ground because MS bundled your bread and butter product into their OS (effectively forcing users to buy their version of the product; What you think developing IE is free?) and start strong-arming your customers (OEMs ... etc.) to stop buying from you.


Guess what kiddo, life aint fair. If your product can't compete you are going to go out of business. Complaining about MS bundling IE is like an aftermarket tire and shock companies complaining about Ford selling its cars with a set of tires and shock absorbers. IE was good enough for the vast majority of people. I used both back in the day, Netscape was not enough of an improvement to be worth paying for.


We can put effort into making it fairer if we want to. I want a lot of effort toward making the technology we need to innovate, more innovative. When one corporation gets in the way of that, break it into smaller pieces and let the pieces compete. This is not a punishment for doing something illegal, it's only a small innovation designed to improve the economy. On the other hand, we can allow single companies to dominate in domains where we don't mind stagnation.

The small company I work for has to compete with companies 10 times our size that can pay 6 figure signing bonuses to counties. Guess what? We dominate in the areas we service because we offer a far superior product, not just a "It works a little better here and there" product, which Netscape unfortunately was.


Everybody who's temporarily successful thinks they have a far superior product. But perhaps companies that can afford to pay 6-figure signing bonuses to counties do not in fact think that those counties are worth 6-figure signing bonuses. There are lots of ways it can go. The particular people in each county who get to make the choice, may have a surprisingly limited concept of what they want in an inmate telephone system. Sometimes a little booze and a classy whore make a lot more difference than a 6-figure signing bonus that goes to the county.

Now suppose they're honest, and there is a person that those decision-makers trust. And he tells them what a good inmate phone system should do, and it just happens that what he tells them precisely matches what you do. Then you are in a very good position indeed! You become the standard that your competitors are judged by!

Nice work when you can get it.
The Law of Fives is true. I see it everywhere I look for it.

rmsgrey
Posts: 3631
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1118: "Microsoft"

Postby rmsgrey » Wed Oct 10, 2012 12:34 pm UTC

J Thomas wrote:One possibility -- when a single company dominates a technology which is important, split it into 2 to 7 companies that each get full rights to the intellectual property, patents, etc. The stockholders are protected because they get stock in each company. The daughter companies then compete. They can compete on price. They can compete on technological innovation. But for something like an OS, they will also want a large degree of standardization. To arrange that, they can agree on public standards to describe interfaces to application software etc. Anybody with the necessary skills can then use the same standards to design software that can run on all the variant OSes, or for that matter to design OSes that the software will run on. If there are seven Microsofts competing to give you better operating systems, chances are you can get a better OS than when there's only one that dominates the market.


So what you're saying is that I now need to have (at least) seven times as many (virtual) machines/OSes to test my new software on rather than just checking it runs on recent and semi-recent Windows systems?

J Thomas
Everyone's a jerk. You. Me. This Jerk.^
Posts: 1190
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2011 3:18 pm UTC

Re: 1118: "Microsoft"

Postby J Thomas » Wed Oct 10, 2012 1:12 pm UTC

rmsgrey wrote:
J Thomas wrote:One possibility -- when a single company dominates a technology which is important, split it into 2 to 7 companies that each get full rights to the intellectual property, patents, etc. The stockholders are protected because they get stock in each company. The daughter companies then compete. They can compete on price. They can compete on technological innovation. But for something like an OS, they will also want a large degree of standardization. To arrange that, they can agree on public standards to describe interfaces to application software etc. Anybody with the necessary skills can then use the same standards to design software that can run on all the variant OSes, or for that matter to design OSes that the software will run on. If there are seven Microsofts competing to give you better operating systems, chances are you can get a better OS than when there's only one that dominates the market.


So what you're saying is that I now need to have (at least) seven times as many (virtual) machines/OSes to test my new software on rather than just checking it runs on recent and semi-recent Windows systems?


If you want to test that your software runs on all Windows systems, sure. Or you can test it on one and advertise that it works right on that one. Or you can program to the specs (test on a system that as far as possible meets the standard and does nothing more, for everything that isn't too dependent on speed). Then when there's an error on some version of Windows, there is an error either in your standardizing test or in that version of Windows. My guess is that it would be less trouble than creating a product that runs correctly on all versions of Unix.

Of course some of the Windows companies will make bad decisions or marketing mis-steps and lose market share to the point you can ignore them.

I'm concerned that a standardization system might also slow innovation -- but as you point out people want it desperately. People want to use a single standard system so much that they put up with ugly monopoly practices for it. If we can achieve that with multiple corporations which are to some extent prevented from damaging the product for their own benefit, that's a plus.

My own experience with a standards effort might not be representative. There would be some computer-language behavior that people wanted to standardize, but there would already be two or three different versions in common use. People could not agree which ones to throw out. And then some smart person would look at the different approaches and come up with the more fundamental tools they had in common. And they would agree to standardize those tools. The argument was that any of the common-practice behaviors could be implemented using those tools, so users could have whichever one they wanted, and the standard had something people could agree on. This happened repeatedly, until it became a system. In practice, each time the result was a fourth system which was some ways more transparent than any of the others, and a lot of users just used that.
The Law of Fives is true. I see it everywhere I look for it.

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 3077
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1118: "Microsoft"

Postby orthogon » Wed Oct 10, 2012 1:29 pm UTC

ijuin wrote:
orthogon wrote:
Salt wrote:[...] and basically cow-tow to MS demands.

Anybody else have a mental picture of a bovine hitched to the back of a pickup truck? Maybe one with bull-bars on the front? Sorry, couldn't resist.

"Kowtow" is more properly pronounced with both syllables rhyming with "row" (as in rowboat). It is a transliteration of a Japanese word that might be better rendered as "kohtoh". It is composed of the kanji "koh", meaning "to descend/make low" and "toh". meaning a person's head. Thus, "kohtoh" literally means to bring your head as low as possible, as in the "kissing-the-dirt" sort of bowing to the ground. In feudal Japan, bowing like this was a gesture of unconditional submission to the person (or deity) for whom one was bowing, as contrasted against the bend-at-the-waist standing bow used in greeting.



I had assumed it was Chinese, and the internets seem to agree with me. Presumably the Japanese word came from Chinese, and the Japanese kōtō uses the "on-yomi" (Chinese readings) of the characters.
Having said that, there seems (according to Google) to be more than one spelling / pronunciation in Mandarin (磕頭=kētóu and 叩頭=kòutóu). My Chambers dictionary gives "k`o t`ou", which looks like Wade-Giles to me. I have only an occasional hobby interest in such things and only know about 20 characters so if there is a scholar of Chinese on the forum I'd welcome an explanation!
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

rmsgrey
Posts: 3631
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1118: "Microsoft"

Postby rmsgrey » Wed Oct 10, 2012 1:31 pm UTC

J Thomas wrote:My own experience with a standards effort might not be representative. There would be some computer-language behavior that people wanted to standardize, but there would already be two or three different versions in common use. People could not agree which ones to throw out. And then some smart person would look at the different approaches and come up with the more fundamental tools they had in common. And they would agree to standardize those tools. The argument was that any of the common-practice behaviors could be implemented using those tools, so users could have whichever one they wanted, and the standard had something people could agree on. This happened repeatedly, until it became a system. In practice, each time the result was a fourth system which was some ways more transparent than any of the others, and a lot of users just used that.

It's not unusual...

Image

J Thomas
Everyone's a jerk. You. Me. This Jerk.^
Posts: 1190
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2011 3:18 pm UTC

Re: 1118: "Microsoft"

Postby J Thomas » Wed Oct 10, 2012 2:04 pm UTC

rmsgrey wrote:
J Thomas wrote:My own experience with a standards effort might not be representative. There would be some computer-language behavior that people wanted to standardize, but there would already be two or three different versions in common use. People could not agree which ones to throw out. And then some smart person would look at the different approaches and come up with the more fundamental tools they had in common. And they would agree to standardize those tools. The argument was that any of the common-practice behaviors could be implemented using those tools, so users could have whichever one they wanted, and the standard had something people could agree on. This happened repeatedly, until it became a system. In practice, each time the result was a fourth system which was some ways more transparent than any of the others, and a lot of users just used that.

It's not unusual...

Image


Sure. but the new one was more transparent, and it got implemented widely. It isn't a big deal to reveal some of the machinery you use to create your tools, so lots of developers agreed to it. A standard that's implemented widely is better than three standards that are each implemented in, say, 40%, 35%, and 25% of cases.

Also, it seems to me that when smart people look at multiple systems and abstract out what they have in common, plus the specific tools needed to create their idiosyncrasies, the result tends to be clearer and simpler than any of the originals. To the extent I'm right, this is a good thing.

It bothers me, though, that once you define a standard you can't make fundamental improvements unless they are invisible to the standard. So for example if you define an OS filesystem standard, you are telling people how to use the filesystem. Make an improved way they can use it, on one system, and their code won't port unless you can get the improvement added to the standard and everybody else does it too. You can improve speed. You can improve reliability. You can improve repairability. You can improve resistance to viruses and trojans etc. Only things that the standard doesn't notice.

Filesystems are crippled databases, designed for small systems with limited resources. MicroSoft has been shockingly lax at improving their filesystems to fit the reality that resources are no longer that limited. If they had the skill to do that, and if they chose to, they could release a vastly improved filesystem in a new version of Windows, and their users would accept it without a whole lot of complaint. If it had to pass through a standards process first, how long would it take?

It's like the old dilemma of the corrupt dictator versus the bumbling republic. An absolute dictator could achieve fantastic efficient improvements if he wanted to, at least in theory. Somehow in practice he doesn't. Instead he wastes his time stopping people from doing things that he imagines might threaten his position. Meanwhile a republic dithers and does nothing much. I prefer the republic and I want to believe theories that say it works better on average. And yet no matter how much I want to believe that, I can't get past my doubts that maybe something entirely different is needed....
The Law of Fives is true. I see it everywhere I look for it.

User avatar
Max™
Posts: 1792
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 4:21 am UTC
Location: mu

Re: 1118: "Microsoft"

Postby Max™ » Wed Oct 10, 2012 6:32 pm UTC

Whatev wrote:
Spoiler:
Max™ wrote:
Whatev wrote:
Max™ wrote:
collegestudent22 wrote:The market was explicitly defined in the legal proceedings to ignore PowerPC-based Apple computers. Some monopoly there. PC makers bundle Windows because people prefer Windows to the alternatives, at least for now (and then). They tried putting Linux on some of them, and people didn't really buy them.

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2001/10/23/13219/110

http://www.itworld.com/small-business/7 ... osoft-lies

It's not quite as simple as that. In cases where an OEM could install linux without losing their windows license, yes, that is a failing of linux advertising and so forth to give people a reason to boot a system and go "oh good, linux" instead of "what the hell happened to windows" as they did for the most part.

That doesn't even account for a tiny fraction of the real reason other OSes never had a chance with the OEMs that sold windows.

Et cetera...


Given that this is illegal, shouldn't this, ipso facto, make a large number of other things including:

-console exclusives
-exclusive deals between soda companies and restaurant chains
-exclusive recording and broadcasting contracts
-nearly all athletic contracts

also illegal?

Can a company which sells a product which is bundled/included in another product force the second company to sell only products with the first companies bundles/software/etc?

If another company made a game system and wanted to have Sony or MS games on their system, could Sony or MS require that they not sell games from the other companies for those systems?

Could they go further and require it not be obvious that you can play games other than Sony/MS licensed copies?


There are two levels here, MS would not allow a system which was openly dual-booted from the OEM, and MS would not abide by OEM manufacturers selling systems with a non-Windows OS installed. Sure, MS had a contract to that effect, and a non-disclosure clause, does that somehow make it ok?


You make Whatev Brand widgets, I make Max Brand widget software, I'll give you a license to sell Whatev Brand widgets with Max Brand software, but I won't allow you to sell widgets with any software besides my own without revoking your license, though such software clearly exists and offers a viable alternative.

Is that ok?


I don't think you've answered my question.

I know, because your question was asked about something unrelated to the post you quoted, so I tried to explain why your examples aren't really related to what I brought up.
mu

SirMustacha
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Feb 29, 2012 6:15 am UTC

Re: 1118: "Microsoft"

Postby SirMustacha » Wed Oct 10, 2012 7:52 pm UTC

I mustache you a question.

1. Microsoft bundles IE; allegedly inserts code in Windows that sabotages Netscape installations making Netscape "suck" more than usual. This is never proven. (LOL if true, but most likely just a stupid conspiracy theory).
2. Apple bundles Safari/Mail/iMessage/iPod in iOS; and shamelessly needs to approve every single app before it can be sold on the app store, preventing competing apps from even being INSTALLED.

Who is worse?

1. Microsoft disallows OEMs from pre-installing any OS except Windows on their computers.
2. Apple disallows OEMs AND end users from installing OS X on any computer that's not made by Apple.

Who is worse?

Squirrelyrobot
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 7:30 pm UTC

Re: 1118: "Microsoft"

Postby Squirrelyrobot » Wed Oct 10, 2012 8:04 pm UTC

I think Randall is trolling us. There's no way he's turned into a Microsoft apologist is there?

Facebook, Apple, and Google


What do all of these companies have in common? None are monopolies, and none would exist today if anti-trust action hadn't been taken by the US and Europe. Microsoft's aggressive moves to extend their desktop monopoly into other markets, especially THE INTERNET, were already stunting the growth of technology, and it would have gotten much worse. Most of the futuristic tech we enjoy today was only possible because Microsoft's stranglehold on computing was broken - moreso by non-capitalist competition than the government's intervention.

The anti-trust action in the US was pretty pathetic, but it at least scared Microsoft into behaving for a while, opening opportunities for others. If Google weren't so incredibly effective at search, people would not have kept jumping through MS' hoops to use it over MSN/Bing. If it weren't for people devoting their time to free software like Linux and Mozilla, then Microsoft would still have a total monopoly on computer OSes and web browsers. If users and developers didn't shun Silverlight in favor of Flash (and now, increasingly HTML 5), then the modern internet could still have become Windows-only.

Microsoft broke capitalism and the government failed to fix it. We're only starting to see REAL competition in correlated markets (browser, smartphone, docs, etc.) after a decade of extremely hard work by OSS fans and a couple stupidly(from a corporate profit perspective)-beneficent companies to open up the marketplace.

Just because there's some real competition these days and some serious progress in the tech industry doesn't mean we're out of the woods yet. Microsoft still owns more than 90% of desktop computers. It's hardly time to start making light of the damage Microsoft has done to the industry, or worse yet, start pretending that any other company in the sector has anything remotely resembling Microsoft's monopoly power or abuse of it.

Vertices
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2011 8:35 pm UTC

Re: 1118: "Microsoft"

Postby Vertices » Wed Oct 10, 2012 8:48 pm UTC

J Thomas wrote:It's like the old dilemma of the corrupt dictator versus the bumbling republic. (snip)


I smell Godwin's law in the distance.

J Thomas wrote:One possibility -- when a single company dominates a technology which is important, split it into 2 to 7 companies that each get full rights to the intellectual property, patents, etc. The stockholders are protected because they get stock in each company.


When as a stock holder, each of the sevenths of my investments is trying to commit fratricide, the word "protected" doesn't exactly come to mind. Just because a competitor goes under (or is bought), doesn't mean the surviving companies' stock will increase in value to absorb what was lost (and even if it did, we'd eventually end back on square one). Not that I think that companies being controlled by the stock market is necessarily a healthy thing.

In a more practical perspective, some technologies require a big company with a healthy bank account and massive infrastructure in order to get ambitious projects done. Imagine breaking up Boeing in order to develop 7 different versions of the 787. We'd never see any of them completed in our lifetimes (at least not with the current certification requirements).

J Thomas
Everyone's a jerk. You. Me. This Jerk.^
Posts: 1190
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2011 3:18 pm UTC

Re: 1118: "Microsoft"

Postby J Thomas » Wed Oct 10, 2012 10:07 pm UTC

Vertices wrote:
J Thomas wrote:One possibility -- when a single company dominates a technology which is important, split it into 2 to 7 companies that each get full rights to the intellectual property, patents, etc. The stockholders are protected because they get stock in each company.


When as a stock holder, each of the sevenths of my investments is trying to commit fratricide, the word "protected" doesn't exactly come to mind.


;)

Just because a competitor goes under (or is bought), doesn't mean the surviving companies' stock will increase in value to absorb what was lost (and even if it did, we'd eventually end back on square one). Not that I think that companies being controlled by the stock market is necessarily a healthy thing.


Sure. But just because your company managed to maneuver itself into a spot where it controlled an essential resource and nobody could compete with it, shouldn't guarantee that it can keep that spot. If it has to compete with its sisters, that's not such a bad compromise.

In a more practical perspective, some technologies require a big company with a healthy bank account and massive infrastructure in order to get ambitious projects done. Imagine breaking up Boeing in order to develop 7 different versions of the 787. We'd never see any of them completed in our lifetimes (at least not with the current certification requirements).


My stand is, if a technology is so expensive that we can only afford one massive company producing one main design, then in fact we can't afford it. Do without until we can do it cheap enough to have multiple designs and multiple companies.
The Law of Fives is true. I see it everywhere I look for it.

User avatar
Max™
Posts: 1792
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 4:21 am UTC
Location: mu

Re: 1118: "Microsoft"

Postby Max™ » Wed Oct 10, 2012 10:07 pm UTC

SirMustacha wrote:1. Microsoft disallows OEMs from pre-installing any OS except Windows on their computers.
2. Apple disallows OEMs AND end users from installing OS X on any computer that's not made by Apple.

Who is worse?

Apple distributes their own hardware, if Microsoft refused to allow non-Windows OSes on Surface systems or whatever, that's fine. If someone tried to argue Microsoft had to sell Surface systems with linux or whatever on them, I would side with Microsoft. Their hardware, their choice.

When Microsoft tells other companies that assemble systems that if they want to keep their license to sell Windows installed on their systems they can't:

1. Sell dual-booted systems which openly show they are dual-booted (it was allowed to sell systems with another OS installed as long as the bootloader was not obvious about it, and end users had to go online to figure out how to access the other OS) with Windows and a non-Windows OS.

2. Sell systems with a non-Windows OS as the only one installed on that system.

I find it difficult to support the claim that it is acceptable.


Strictly speaking I could put OS X on this system (which I built myself) but I'm not a normal end-user, so I could see how it may seem otherwise to most who don't know about hackintoshes, but that isn't my point.


HP or Compaq or whatnot sell computers, let's assume they don't specifically write operating systems for said computers, and they approach Apple about a license to sell systems with OS X pre-installed. Apple says "Ok, but you can't sell any system that has OS X on it in a dual-boot configuration, and you can't sell any systems with any OS except OS X", is that ok?

Is it ok because Apple doesn't control most of the OS market?

Is it ok if Apple did this to stifle competition?
mu

Arariel
Posts: 404
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2010 2:32 am UTC

Re: 1118: "Microsoft"

Postby Arariel » Thu Oct 11, 2012 12:26 am UTC

Crosshair wrote:You clearly have no idea what a monopoly is. A company being successful and dominant in a particular market does not make them a monopoly. If that was true than the 12 person inmate telephone company I work for is a monopoly since we control virtually the entire inmate telephone business in our home state.

Having special government legal and regulatory breaks that create barriers to entry are what makes a monopoly.


Yes, and copyrights totally aren't government legal and regulatory breaks that create barriers to entry.

I'm sorry, but you're apparently the one who has absolutely no clue what a monopoly is.
Let's go through the monopoly checklist:

  • Profit maximiser (agents in competitive markets make no economic profit in the long run): Check.
  • Price maker (as opposed to price taker in competitive markets): Check.
  • High barriers to entry (can be be government/legal - e.g. utilities and patents/copyrights, economic - e.g. control of natural resources as in De Beers or the network effect, or anticompetitive actions - e.g. De Beers): Check. The OS market has high barriers to entry in the form of governmental/legal barriers through copyright, economic barriers in the network effect, and anticompetitive actions committed by Microsoft (for example, OEMs are changed even for computers they sell without Windows).
  • Single seller: By definition, copyrights grant a monopoly (any company with copyrights and patents are monopolies in this trivial manner). But we're talking about Microsoft having a monopoly in the OS market here (or more precisely, the desktop OS market). Slightly trickier; some definitions of monopoly account for single suppliers, others for dominance or overwhelming dominance or others along those lines. However, I'll point out U.S. Steel historically had a market share of around 70%, De Beers controlled about 85%, and Standard Oil controlled about 90%. Generally, a Herfindahl Index of 10000 is defined as a 'pure monopoly', but outside of small localities, that's not possible (the only company that would come close would probably be the old AT&T before they were split up in the 80s, and I doubt even they had an HHI of 10000). Since Microsoft has historically had market shares ranging from 90-95%, larger than most of the companies we historically have considered monopolies, check.
  • Price discrimination: Check (Windows Home Edition, Student Edition, Business/Enterprise Edition, etc.)

SirMustacha wrote:I mustache you a question.

1. Microsoft bundles IE; allegedly inserts code in Windows that sabotages Netscape installations making Netscape "suck" more than usual. This is never proven. (LOL if true, but most likely just a stupid conspiracy theory).
2. Apple bundles Safari/Mail/iMessage/iPod in iOS; and shamelessly needs to approve every single app before it can be sold on the app store, preventing competing apps from even being INSTALLED

Who is worse?


The difference, I believe, would be that Microsoft's attempt was a deliberately anti-competitive one designed to drive out a competitor that succeeded, while Crapple's (woe on me for being an apologist for them) has had negligible effect on competition.

1. Microsoft disallows OEMs from pre-installing any OS except Windows on their computers.
2. Apple disallows OEMs AND end users from installing OS X on any computer that's not made by Apple.

Who is worse?


Of course, size is an issue in these cases, but for the legalities of end-user Hackintoshes (I may only wonder and shudder at the reasons why anyone would desire such a horror) is a grey area. The PsyStar suit was a dick move, though...

They are two different anticompetitive methods, though. The first one is anticompetitive through exclusive contract, while the second one is anticompetitive through tying. Who's worse really depends on what you think is worse. I'd probably say the MS instance is worse solely because it's much larger in scale than Crapple's, though.

Max™ wrote:Apple distributes their own hardware, if Microsoft refused to allow non-Windows OSes on Surface systems or whatever, that's fine. If someone tried to argue Microsoft had to sell Surface systems with linux or whatever on them, I would side with Microsoft. Their hardware, their choice.

SirMustapha appears to be talking about Crapple's refusal to allow Hackintoshes, which may or may not be illegal (DMCA?) for the end user, and so far, are illegal for OEMs (see PsyStar).

ijuin
Posts: 1107
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 6:02 pm UTC

Re: 1118: "Microsoft"

Postby ijuin » Thu Oct 11, 2012 4:14 am UTC

orthogon wrote:
ijuin wrote:
orthogon wrote:
Salt wrote:[...] and basically cow-tow to MS demands.

Anybody else have a mental picture of a bovine hitched to the back of a pickup truck? Maybe one with bull-bars on the front? Sorry, couldn't resist.

"Kowtow" is more properly pronounced with both syllables rhyming with "row" (as in rowboat). It is a transliteration of a Japanese word that might be better rendered as "kohtoh". It is composed of the kanji "koh", meaning "to descend/make low" and "toh". meaning a person's head. Thus, "kohtoh" literally means to bring your head as low as possible, as in the "kissing-the-dirt" sort of bowing to the ground. In feudal Japan, bowing like this was a gesture of unconditional submission to the person (or deity) for whom one was bowing, as contrasted against the bend-at-the-waist standing bow used in greeting.



I had assumed it was Chinese, and the internets seem to agree with me. Presumably the Japanese word came from Chinese, and the Japanese kōtō uses the "on-yomi" (Chinese readings) of the characters.
Having said that, there seems (according to Google) to be more than one spelling / pronunciation in Mandarin (磕頭=kētóu and 叩頭=kòutóu). My Chambers dictionary gives "k`o t`ou", which looks like Wade-Giles to me. I have only an occasional hobby interest in such things and only know about 20 characters so if there is a scholar of Chinese on the forum I'd welcome an explanation!

My degree is in Japanese Linguistics, so that is where I got the etymology from.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5444
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1118: "Microsoft"

Postby Pfhorrest » Thu Oct 11, 2012 4:54 am UTC

SirMustacha wrote:I mustache you a question.

Arariel wrote:SirMustapha appears to be talking about...

This is not the Sir you're looking for.

Move along.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
Darvince
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 1:59 am UTC
Location: Some weird alternate reality

Re: 1118: "Microsoft"

Postby Darvince » Thu Oct 11, 2012 5:02 am UTC

I mustache you why things are so punny around here.


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 46 guests