Microsoft to Offer $3 Software to Developing Nations

[zacdl]

The package includes (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6571139.stm)Windows XP Starter Edition, Microsoft Office Home and Student 2007, as well as other educational software

And who thinks Microsoft is still totally evil?

[LstOfTheBrunnenG]

They admit in the article it's about business, not philanthropy.

[markt435]

And who thinks Microsoft is still totally evil?

I'm waiting for the "others" to come in and say they are and that open source is still free.

3.....

2.....

1.......

EDIT: I forgot to say....as if Gates doesn't donate enough of his money anyway.

[LhasaCM]

That's still more than pirated versions of Vista cost on the street in China...but at least it's competitive. :)

[duby229]

Its still not a proper solution... Its a bandaid that I am paying for. and not the person who gets the product.

[zacdl]

It's great from a business standpoint... yes.

But it's also great for governments and educational systems to do it the legal way for cheap.

Gates has given more to charity than anyone else. He's even said he plans to give away all of his fortune by the time he dies. And yet he is still evil (or so... the Others would say).

Its still not a proper solution... Its a bandaid that I am paying for. and not the person who gets the product.
I think it is a desperation move. China has already said they they are considering a mandated boycott of MS products. Now if this happens a good chunk of the money they make is suddenly gone..... They are trying to save their own asses with my money.
And here come the Others :)

[duby229]

You can stereotype me all you want, but why cant I buy it for 3 dollars? eh? Like I siad it is not a solution it is a bandaid that I am paying for.

[markt435]

You can stereotype me all you want, but why cant I buy it for 3 dollars? eh? Like I siad it is not a solution it is a bandaid that I am paying for.

Because you're not poor and in a developing country.

EDIT: We pay the price because we can afford it. They cannot. It goes the same with the OLPC's. We will be paying extra for them if we want one. Seems to be a pretty simple concept to me.

[MrWizard6600]

yeah, unknown to most Gates is actually a really nice guy. Hes trying to vaccinate the entire of Africa from ... uh... cant remember, and has pored truck loads of money into aids research.

Don't get me wrong, I've driven by his house in Bellevue, Its massive, (although very well hidden).

[general]

Gates has given away plenty of money. He has done things in a very pro-MS way though. Just remember, Microsoft didn't come to be the runaway success it is by acting perfectly competitively. They are a convicted monopoly remember. All those billions did come from somewhere and you don't see any other top fortune company with that high of a profit margin. I don't think that Microsoft is totally evil, but there are plenty of companies who have tried to compete with the monopoly who might bed to differ with my opinion.

[LhasaCM]

EDIT: We pay the price because we can afford it. They cannot. It goes the same with the OLPC's. We will be paying extra for them if we want one. Seems to be a pretty simple concept to me.

Correct - that same goes for a lot of medicines/drugs. Developing countries get to pay a price closer to marginal cost since that is their maximum willingness/ability to pay. Richer countries face higher prices as the company tries to recoup the developmental/fixed costs involved in the product, because we have a higher willingness and ability to pay.

[Monkey34]

Did I mention I'm the President of Monkey Nation? We are pretty poor, and under-developed. I'll take 100 copies. I have a "friend" in the USA that you can ship them to. I promise he will forward them to me here in Monkey Nation.;)

[odoe]

The more they can get their software integrated to the masses the better for them. It's the same is giving it away to college students or schools.

Of course I'd like to think it's of the goodness of their heart, but come on.

[duby229]

I think it is a desperation move. China has already said they they are considering a mandated boycott of MS products. Now if this happens a good chunk of the money they make is suddenly gone..... They are trying to save their own asses with my money.

[MajorDomo]

In underdeveloped countries, $3 can be the equivalent of what we pay here in the States....and many, if not most of the greatest philanthropists have been 'evil' businessmen, so Gates is in good company.

[k1pp3r]

I think it is a desperation move. China has already said they they are considering a mandated boycott of MS products. Now if this happens a good chunk of the money they make is suddenly gone..... They are trying to save their own asses with my money.

Hasn't China started to develop their own OS?

[markt435]

I think it is a desperation move. China has already said they they are considering a mandated boycott of MS products. Now if this happens a good chunk of the money they make is suddenly gone..... They are trying to save their own asses with my money.

uh...the OS is made here, by American employees. If you don't feel like supporting them then don't. And I highly doubt they're making a good chunk of money from China or anywhere else if they're gonna sell their software at such a huge loss when you factor in how much employee's are paid and how much time that was put into making the product. Not to mention how rampant piracy is in the Asian markets.

From the other ventures they have (i.e. Gaming Division, Office Division, even Hardware) they can afford the loss. This was a decision to hopefully open up a new market for them and make money elsewhere. Any other business would jump at the chance.

And save their asses with your money? No one forced you to by their products. I dunno about you, but if they decided to screw their employees over and give huge bonuses to the higher-ups, I'd be a little more pissed off about that than the decision to sell software at such a discounted price. Dare I say, have a little sympathy for those who can't afford what we can.

[GORANKAR]

It is a business decision.. That is all.. Perhaps an attempt to see if a give away price can curb piracy, then slowly ramp up the prices to something more profitable over time, once people are used to actually buying legit?? Maybe it's to get emerging markets used to MS products.. People tend to stick to what they are used.. It's called brand loyalty.. If $3 is all the market will bear, then $3 is what a product is sold for.. Any number of business reasons to do this..

Europe, USA, Canada, and other first world countries "subsidize" the rest of the world in just about everything from pesticides to medicines to electronics.. While I don't like it, we have been doing this for decades.. We just now noticing because MS is doing it as well?? wtf!

[Darundal]

Still evil. All they are trying to do is match the price point for linux there (free, legally) and for the millions of copies of pirated windows (free, illegally). However, they are still at a disadvantage. I don't think they will accomplish all that much. I believe that the average income in China is somewhere around $1500-$2000 dollars. $3 out of that doesn't seem to be all that much, however, considering that someone working minimum wage in a year in the US makes around $12,000 to $15,000 (way to lazy to do teh simple math), that $3 dollars in comparison to the $1500-$2000 is still way to much for what is at most a luxury item of minimal unique utility (e-mail, net, word processing, etc...). Plus, most people in China run pirated software anyway, and are accustomed to paying nothing or next to nothing for it. Here in the US, it took a lawsuit to change the culture from one of copy everything to one of pay for it. A lawsuit that was well publicized within the community it affected. Considering how nothing or next to nothing (if I remember correctly, about $1 for a pirated copy) is less then they are used to paying, I just can't see this working.

[markt435]

How does MS = evil when you had companies like Enron and Adelphia screwing their own employees over? You guys are amazing. This whole evil empire bullshit is so old.

[zacdl]

Plus, most people in China run pirated software anyway, and are accustomed to paying nothing or next to nothing for it.

100% true, which is exactly why Microsoft is doing this. I saw some stat about the number of pirated copies vs. legit, and it is astonishing. It's safe to say "pretty much everyone is doing it".

Offering it cheap= gets more legit software on the streets.

Benifits in every way.

[ne1wantaride]

US min Wage is 10,712 before tax under federal minimum wage guidelines.

[duby229]

uh...the OS is made here, by American employees. If you don't feel like supporting them then don't. And I highly doubt they're making a good chunk of money from China or anywhere else if they're gonna sell their software at such a huge loss when you factor in how much employee's are paid and how much time that was put into making the product. Not to mention how rampant piracy is in the Asian markets.

From the other ventures they have (i.e. Gaming Division, Office Division, even Hardware) they can afford the loss. This was a decision to hopefully open up a new market for them and make money elsewhere. Any other business would jump at the chance.

And save their asses with your money? No one forced you to by their products. I dunno about you, but if they decided to screw their employees over and give huge bonuses to the higher-ups, I'd be a little more pissed off about that than the decision to sell software at such a discounted price. Dare I say, have a little sympathy for those who can't afford what we can.

You dont look at MS quarterly reports do you? Well, all I can say is that the way they do it is fucked up. Its hard to interpret, its hard to tell if a division lost money or not, and it is hard to tell where the money is coming from...

However a few people --MUCH-- smarter then me have looked at the data MS provides and determined that the ONLY division that is making a profit is the OS division, and almost half of that comes from China. And China is talking about a mandatory boycott.....

Now to find out that they are selling it for three dollars a piece.... hhhmmmm Sounds like desperation to me.

[Oooska]

However a few people --MUCH-- smarter then me have looked at the data MS provides and determined that the ONLY division that is making a profit is the OS division, and almost half of that comes from China.

Got any sources for that? Last I heard, Microsoft sold 244 legitimate copies of Windows Vista in China. No, not 24,400. Not 2,440. 244 (http://vista.blorge.com/2007/04/19/vista-does-not-go-over-well-in-china-blame-the-pirates/). If half of Microsoft's income is coming from China, they would've been screwed a long time ago.

Oh, and the XBox 360 is the current leader in the (now) current generation of consoles. You can't possibly tell me that division has lost money as well.

[markt435]

Got any sources for that? Last I heard, Microsoft sold 244 legitimate copies of Windows Vista in China. No, not 24,400. Not 2,440. 244 (http://vista.blorge.com/2007/04/19/vista-does-not-go-over-well-in-china-blame-the-pirates/). If half of Microsoft's income is coming from China, they would've been screwed a long time ago.

Oh, and the XBox 360 is the current leader in the (now) current generation of consoles. You can't possibly tell me that division has lost money as well.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/ITFacts/?p=12409

Not to mention Office 03 was the top selling piece of software last year lol

While the most significant increases were seen in business and system utilities software, which posted respective dollar sales increases of 10% and 3% over 2005, the most significant losses were in operating system and finance software, which experienced respective dollar declines of 30% and 8% over the same time period.

[Frobozz]

The saying of "it's only worth what you can sell it for" pops into my head. To me anyways, it seems like price games like this will only make people question the value of the product.

Given it is a special deal with a govt and I would assume that most large VLK arrangements have some aspect of negotiation to them, but still... Windows + Office + Student = $3?

on a side note though, it's always interesting to watch companies try to take advantage of education systems in general. Aside from the monetary aspects of moving a bunch of units, you also have the opportunity to influence future customers. Seemed to keep some air in Apple's sails and still does I'm sure. I would imagine to the suits it's kindofa scary thought to have generations of users growing up natively on linux.

[zacdl]

Its hard to interpret, its hard to tell if a division lost money or not, and it is hard to tell where the money is coming from...
What on earth do you expect from a company as huge as Microsoft? This isn't a locally owned business we are talking about.

determined that the ONLY division that is making a profit is the OS division, and almost half of that comes from China. And China is talking about a mandatory boycott.....
Now to find out that they are selling it for three dollars a piece.... hhhmmmm Sounds like desperation to me.

Got any sources for that? Last I heard, Microsoft sold 244 legitimate copies of Windows Vista in China. No, not 24,400. Not 2,440. 244 (http://vista.blorge.com/2007/04/19/vista-does-not-go-over-well-in-china-blame-the-pirates/). If half of Microsoft's income is coming from China, they would've been screwed a long time ago.
You beat me to it :)
If this isn't proof that duby is pure anti-Microsoft, reguardless of what the real data says... I don't know what is.
Another article worth looking at is this one (http://www.newlaunches.com/archives/only_244_copies_of_genuine_windows_vista_sold_in_china.php). It even has pictures of the pirated copies that are so rampant over in China.

Oh, and the XBox 360 is the current leader in the (now) current generation of consoles. You can't possibly tell me that division has lost money as well.
He could... he just couldn't come up with any real evidence to back it up though (Just like the "China is MS main source of income with OS".

[duby229]

He could... he just couldn't come up with any real evidence to back it up though (Just like the "China is MS main source of income with OS".

That is not exactly what I said, but thanks for pointing out that I was wrong. I went back to look up the actual margins, turns out that it isnt exclusively China, but rather the whole of Asia.

Maybe I should rephrase what I said.... Almost half of the profit that MS makes in its OS division comes from Asia... I was wrong when I said China exclusively, however China is in fact a large chunk of Asia, and MS does have alot of income from them..

It was a mistake I made, I'd like to say sorry, and thank you for pointing it out.

[eeyrjmr]

you do realise that they are only doing this to compete with the durt-cheap linux-laptop (retails at $100).

this $3 for a MS operating system has the requirement that the school's buy the computers, yet the cost of minimum spec PC is around $200, plus it is XP-starter which iirc limits you to 3 running programs (and the likes of A/V count as a running program).

Nice idea and all, but as a method to stop the spread of the cheap linux-based laptops (which was designed with such markets from scratch) no hope

[MrGuvernment]

i doubt MS has that much income from China when something like %90+ of software running in China is pirated last i had heard.

I am sure they make some cash from all the legit buinsess, but i would think it pales in comparison to North America / Europe.

Just my thoughts though.

[markt435]

you do realise that they are only doing this to compete with the durt-cheap linux-laptop (retails at $100).

this $3 for a MS operating system has the requirement that the school's buy the computers, yet the cost of minimum spec PC is around $200, plus it is XP-starter which iirc limits you to 3 running programs (and the likes of A/V count as a running program).

Nice idea and all, but as a method to stop the spread of the cheap linux-based laptops (which was designed with such markets from scratch) no hope

so is that evil or a business decision any other company would do if they have competition in a market? i can assure you its not evil.

[zacdl]

I went back to look up the actual margins, turns out that it isnt exclusively China, but rather the whole of Asia.
Oh yea, and where did you look that up at???

however China is in fact a large chunk of Asia, and MS does have alot of income from them..
Can nothing penetrate through your head? You said you were wrong, but then go and say the same exact thing once more...


you do realise that they are only doing this to compete with the durt-cheap linux-laptop (retails at $100).

You are pretty mistaken. That laptop is not for the general population, and is ONLY for education in underdeveloped countries (For instance, most everyone in Europe and the US will be unable to get one). It's going to work off funding... Contributers in the US and other countries end up buying them for those that need it in other countries.
Plus, Linux is not going to the the OS of choice. In fact, they haven't even selected an OS.
They have eliminated both Windows and Linux due to the fact they are both too bloated- and are not sure what else is a possibility (I think right now they are going to write a *Nix based system theirselves).

That aside, I don't think Microsoft wants to compete with the OLPC campain. In reality, Microsoft has basically no competition from *nix systems, and that laptop is a long ways coming...
I think more accurate would be the statement: "Microsoft is doing this to compete with the dirt-cheap pirated copies of Windows".

[LhasaCM]

Plus, Linux is not going to the the OS of choice. In fact, they haven't even selected an OS.
They have eliminated both Windows and Linux due to the fact they are both too bloated- and are not sure what else is a possibility (I think right now they are going to write a *Nix based system theirselves).

Actually, the OS has been chosen. According to their website (http://www.laptop.org/en/laptop/software/specs.shtml), the OLPC OS will be a modified version of Red Hat's Fedora Core 6 version (kernel's basically the same, but a lot of "fluff" has been stripped out). Still not final, but any enterprising user can download the current stable version to try out themselves...

[LhasaCM]

Got any sources for that? Last I heard, Microsoft sold 244 legitimate copies of Windows Vista in China. No, not 24,400. Not 2,440. 244 (http://vista.blorge.com/2007/04/19/vista-does-not-go-over-well-in-china-blame-the-pirates/).

Actually - Microsoft has already refuted that claim (see http://news.com.com/8301-10784_3-9711004-7.html)

Oh, and the XBox 360 is the current leader in the (now) current generation of consoles. You can't possibly tell me that division has lost money as well.

The most recent MS financial statement shows the "Entertainment and Devices" division with a small loss in the most recent quarter. (http://www.microsoft.com/msft/earnings/FY07/earn_rel_q2_07.mspx). Now, that includes the XBox 360 as well as the Zune, so the story isn't quite that clear.

[LhasaCM]

That aside, I don't think Microsoft wants to compete with the OLPC campain. In reality, Microsoft has basically no competition from *nix systems, and that laptop is a long ways coming...
I think more accurate would be the statement: "Microsoft is doing this to compete with the dirt-cheap pirated copies of Windows".

The entire initiative (Microsoft Unlimited Potential) is most definitely in line with the OLPC campaign. From the information page about the $3 software package(http://www.microsoft.com/emerging/transformingeducation/MicrosoftStudentInnovationSuite.mspx)

As a part of Microsoft Unlimited Potential, and as an extension of the Microsoft Partners in Learning program (PiL), we are offering software licenses for the Microsoft Student Innovation Suite at a special discounted rate exclusively for governments wishing to provide PCs to students, and subject to specific conditions.

Note - the $3 is only available to governments expressly for the use on PCs purchased by the government to provide to students. It is not to sell on the open market, so it cannot compete directly with pirated copies of software, except where it prevents governments from using pirated copies.

[jimmyb]

The most recent MS financial statement shows the "Entertainment and Devices" division with a small loss in the most recent quarter. (http://www.microsoft.com/msft/earnings/FY07/earn_rel_q2_07.mspx). Now, that includes the XBox 360 as well as the Zune, so the story isn't quite that clear.
It's certainly not unusual for "Entertainment and Devices" to operate a loss. In fact I thought it was common knowledge that the xbox division was heavily subsidized by their more profitable ones, like Office and Windows.

Not that I'm complaining. As someone who gets their OSes for free (either because they are, or because I'm given them free), and as someone who uses enjoys xboxing from time to time, the subsidization that I'm not paying for is terrific.

[duby229]

Take it with more then just a grain of salt please, but at least one other person agrees with me.....

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=39087

[Catweazle]

Take it with more then just a grain of salt please, but at least one other person agrees with me.....

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=39087
Quoting Charlie Demerjian's stuff in support of your claims doesn't do much for credibility. Matter of fact Charlie, always the 'sensationalist', has of late gone so far into the anti-MS hatred and distortion that he misrepresents information in every piece he writes. He's a gutter journalist and paid to be so, and quoting him as a reference usually only make a person look quite silly.

Take the story you've quoted. "Microsoft admits Vista failure" he proclaims. But on what basis? Why, Dell has made comment that they will still make XP available as an optional alternative for a limited range of its PCs. A small proportion of Dell's customers want Linux and/or OpenOffice bundled. An even smaller proportion of (predominately small business) customers want XP because they are not yet ready to migrate to Vista. Hardly an admission of failure by Microsoft, is it? Not in anybody's mind but those of Charlie and his jibbering audience of fans.


As regards this scheme of Microsoft's to promote their products to new and emerging markets? Seriously, people, what IS the problem here? Making a product or product range freely (or nearly free) available with a view to capturing a new customer base which will be a body of paying customrs later on is hardly anything new. It happens in developed countries too. How many software programs have you seen which started off as freeware and then became commercial product later on. Not much different to what we're seeing here, is it?

I personally use (and pay for) Everest because it's the best product of its type. Used it when the thing was freeware, and didn't hesitate to pay for it when it became commercial. Best diagnostic program in existence, and one of the first things I install on any PC. I'm far from the only customer whose loyalty has been secured in this fashion, too.

Difference here is that MS is using an already commercial product, and adopting this promotional model in places where markets don't actually exist yet. Fair enough, too, and the only reason anybody could have for complaint would be pettiness and jealousy! People in those developing economies won't be getting the stuff for free forever after! they'll become paying customers somewhere down the track!

[markt435]

it never does much for credibility if you quoting the Inq for ANYTHING regardless of what topic it is. i dunno why ppl still read it...sigh

[duby229]

Like I said, "Take it with more then just a grain of salt please"......

[Martyr]

i dont see how this is a problem. these people will get it pirated if ms offers it at the normal price. minds well make a few bucks and have them using secure and legit versions.

[CptFalcon]

How does MS = evil when you had companies like Enron and Adelphia screwing their own employees over? You guys are amazing. This whole evil empire bullshit is so old.

QFAT! (Quoted for ABSOLUTE TRUTH!)

[zacdl]

I agree with that quote as well...

Like I've said before, there is always going to be someone griping about the big guy. The big guy is always going to be evil.

But Microsoft has been urging China to crack down on piracy (it really is a big problem. It isn't just Microsoft... piracy is a big problem over there). They slowly have been. I think I read somewhere that piracy has gotten 50% better or something like that (although 50% of next-to-nothing is still next-to-nothing).
Microsoft does have a valid claim about it too- China's government does squat about the problem.

I think they are hoping to push out the cheap packages in order to cut back on the big amounts of piracy, and with that government's aid, people might be more urged to do just that.

[LhasaCM]

I think I read somewhere that piracy has gotten 50% better or something like that (although 50% of next-to-nothing is still next-to-nothing).
Microsoft does have a valid claim about it too- China's government does squat about the problem.

Since people tend to dislike "I think I read somewhere"...this might be what you read... ;)

http://news.com.com/Microsoft+2007+China+sales+to+rise+20+percent/2100-1016_3-6174762.html?tag=item

Microsoft has made inroads with Lenovo and Founder (the two big Chinese PC makers) to make sure legal copies of Windows are sold with PCs, which is helping things somewhat. And the 50% figure quoted is the number of PCs sold with a legal copy of Windows installed.

I think they are hoping to push out the cheap packages in order to cut back on the big amounts of piracy, and with that government's aid, people might be more urged to do just that.

Once again - the $3 software is not directly aimed at wiping out or supplanting pirated copies of software - it's aimed at the same market the OLPC program is: young people/education. It will not be available to most people in the market - it is only to the government for use on a government-provided PC to young students.

[zacdl]

Whatever reason (and you may be right, I'm not saying you're wrong), I think it's a good thing Microsoft is willing to sell at $3 for the folks that really can't spend the money on a real copy (hence why piracy is so rampant over there).

[jimmyb]

How does MS = evil when you had companies like Enron and Adelphia screwing their own employees over?
While I don't believe MS is evil, this statement is a totally fallacious argument. The evilness of Enron, or any other company, has nothing to do with the evilness MS. They are independent properties.

[markt435]

While I don't believe MS is evil, this statement is a totally fallacious argument. The evilness of Enron, or any other company, has nothing to do with the evilness MS. They are independent properties.

But whats the evilness of MS? Just because they dominate the market? Give me an answer that makes sense and I'll agree with you.

[markt435]

Like I said, "Take it with more then just a grain of salt please"......

i dumped the salt when i took it. :D

[jimmyb]

But whats the evilness of MS? Just because they dominate the market? Give me an answer that makes sense and I'll agree with you.
I don't think they are necessarily evil. I just wanted to point out that comparing them to Enron as a proof of their "not-evilness" is an entirely fallacious argument.

What Enron did has nothing to do with what MS does (evil or not).

[markt435]

Calling them evil is a generalizing statement is it not?

[jimmyb]

It's a statement about whether they have chronically and knowingly committed unethical acts. If they have they are evil, if they haven't then they aren't. That has nothing to do with with Enron.

I think what you mean to say is regardless of what MS is, they are less evil than Enron.

[markt435]

I think what you mean to say is regardless of what MS is, they are less evil than Enron.

Yeah. Pretty much. lol

[duby229]

Less evil then Enron still allows for some pretty nasty shit.

Seeing as How MS is a convicted monopolist, and proven by the Europeans to --still-- be pulling the same crap today.That along with the ripoff they are forcing down the Chinese throats that I am paying for......

[EVIL-SCOTSMAN]

Hasn't China started to develop their own OS?

yup, its called pirated copies of Vista :D

[CptFalcon]

Less evil then Enron still allows for some pretty nasty shit.

Seeing as How MS is a convicted monopolist, and proven by the Europeans to --still-- be pulling the same crap today.That along with the ripoff they are forcing down the Chinese throats that I am paying for......

Haven't they ever heard of Linux or Mac?

[eeyrjmr]

duby229 uses Gentoo iirc

[eeyrjmr]

so is that evil or a business decision any other company would do if they have competition in a market? i can assure you its not evil.

never said they were, I was just stating they are doing this as a long-term investement.
the OLPC was:


inexpensive laptop computer intended to be distributed to children around the world, especially to those in developing countries, to provide them with access to knowledge and modern forms of education

Now MS have come out with this deal only available to educational establisments in developing world, it can only be interpreted as a business decision as opose to "for the greater good".
Get people use to MS stuff early they are more likely to stick with it since other things are alien/hard/different.
My background was Amiga-->Solaris I hardly touch windows and when I eventially did I didn't like how things were done.
simply business sense by MS... I mean they are a business out to make money and to make money you have to spend money




You are pretty mistaken. That laptop is not for the general population, and is ONLY for education in underdeveloped countries (For instance, most everyone in Europe and the US will be unable to get one). It's going to work off funding... Contributers in the US and other countries end up buying them for those that need it in other countries.
Plus, Linux is not going to the the OS of choice. In fact, they haven't even selected an OS.
They have eliminated both Windows and Linux due to the fact they are both too bloated- and are not sure what else is a possibility (I think right now they are going to write a *Nix based system theirselves).

That aside, I don't think Microsoft wants to compete with the OLPC campain. In reality, Microsoft has basically no competition from *nix systems, and that laptop is a long ways coming...
I think more accurate would be the statement: "Microsoft is doing this to compete with the dirt-cheap pirated copies of Windows".

O RLY!!!!

So the Operating System (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OLPC#Software) isn't going to be linux?

And WTF linux is bloated!!! that has to be the single biggest piece of FUD from a Vista-boy I have ever heard!
I have debian-Etch running on a 133MHz,32Meg or RAM computer no problems....
Linux can be a "bloated" or as skimpy as you want it

[zacdl]

Less evil then Enron still allows for some pretty nasty shit.
Seeing as How MS is a convicted monopolist, and proven by the Europeans to --still-- be pulling the same crap today.That along with the ripoff they are forcing down the Chinese throats that I am paying for......
Yea... MS is a convicted monopolist and is guilty of it :rolleyes:
I guess that's why we have Linux out there right? Or Mac?

Windows is too good for anything else to take over. Linux has survived largely based on its cost. Mac has survived... well, because Microsoft keeps bailing them out.

I think at this point in time the only thing that could take Windows over is some sort of Web OS, but you would still need an OS to get to the Web one, so either way... Windows will still be here.

I say this with all bias aside, nobody has really offered anything as functional as Windows (you know it's true). Linux has a ways to go before being as easy to use as Windows for the general public. Macs are too restrictive (and expensive).

And WTF linux is bloated!!! that has to be the single biggest piece of FUD from a Vista-boy I have ever heard!
It was the OLPC that announced that- not me.
I tend to agree though- when you get right down to it, even Linux has crap that's bloated.
That's why they really have no other option than to write their own OS (As I said, probably based on *nix).

[eeyrjmr]

It was the OLPC that announced that- not me.
I tend to agree though- when you get right down to it, even Linux has crap that's bloated.
That's why they really have no other option than to write their own OS (As I said, probably based on *nix).

so you say that the OLPC were the ones that said "linux is bloated" yet they are now using linux (can you cite such a statement?)

anyway the whole point of OLPC is for it to be cheap, IF they were to develope an OS from scratch not only would it delay it but the cost would sky-rocket. Even Apple wern't stupid enough to write an OS from scratch as it is basically BSD with custom UI.

So again please explain why linux is Bloated, cause as far as I can tell your definition of bloated != my definition because linux is far from being bloated

[zacdl]

so you say that the OLPC were the ones that said "linux is bloated" yet they are now using linux (can you cite such a statement?)

anyway the whole point of OLPC is for it to be cheap, IF they were to develope an OS from scratch not only would it delay it but the cost would sky-rocket. Even Apple wern't stupid enough to write an OS from scratch as it is basically BSD with custom UI.

So again please explain why linux is Bloated, cause as far as I can tell your definition of bloated != my definition because linux is far from being bloated

After your first sentance I actually looked the article up.

After reading the rest of your post, and you still griping at me trying to tell me Linux isn't the least bit bloated, and still assuming I'm the one that initially said this, I think I shan't post it. You're smart enough (I hope) to use a search engine.
You have to be one heck of a fan-boy to blatantly say Linux isn't bloated. Compared to Windows, no... it isn't. By itself, man, you have some serious bias there.

[odoe]

This isn't a linux thread. If you guys want to discuss that, make a new thread in the linux forum.

[markt435]

Less evil then Enron still allows for some pretty nasty shit.

Seeing as How MS is a convicted monopolist, and proven by the Europeans to --still-- be pulling the same crap today.That along with the ripoff they are forcing down the Chinese throats that I am paying for......

And now Apple is gonna get sued for iTunes + iPod in the EU...

The case against MS was a joke and you know it. Barely anything has changed save for a utility that allows for you to hide programs that come bundled with the OS. The freedom of choice has ALWAYS been there. To me, a monopoly is COMPLETE control of a market. They don't have complete control. They have a large majority but its not complete control.

Forcing? No. :rolleyes:

The MS hatred is amazing...lol. Don't you guys have anything better to do? Like....hate on EA for awhile? Or maybe Blizzard for making WoW? Or maybe hate on Google for becoming so big and now seems to be trying to gain a monopoly of online advertising. Or...lets hate on Adobe for having such a big bad monopoly on digital imaging and media. :rolleyes:

[zacdl]

To me, a monopoly is COMPLETE control of a market. They don't have complete control.
What surprises me, is people ignore Apple.
Apple has TOTAL control over their market. Both hardware AND software. Yet nobody calls them out on it.

Or maybe hate on Google for becoming so big and now seems to be trying to gain a monopoly of online advertising.
I already do ;)
The whole "do no evil" thing became redundant along time ago.

[markt435]

Exactly...you don't see the gov going after Apple to put in a utility to hide programs bundled with the OS do you? Uh oh...the iPod took over the MP3 player market. Why isn't the gov going after them to allow iTunes to work with any other MP3 player? Oh yeah...since there are a ton more MP3 players on the market and you can still buy cd's. :rolleyes:

[eeyrjmr]

Exactly...you don't see the gov going after Apple to put in a utility to hide programs bundled with the OS do you? Uh oh...the iPod took over the MP3 player market. Why isn't the gov going after them to allow iTunes to work with any other MP3 player? :rolleyes:

they are :rolleyes: THAT is what the EU case is about and is also why Apple has started selling non-DRM tunes on iTunes, thus allowing iTunes to work with other players...

its not a full solution and apple needs to open iTunes to other players as the EU wants since the EU's issue with such things is inter-operability, something iTunes doesn't provide (consumer locking and all that jazz.. my main gripe with DRM in its present implementation, that an security by obscurity)

But apple as a hardware/software vender is a bit different. They are a hardware vendor, MS isn't. You don't see the monopoly ppl jumping up and down for MS blood about getting a different OS to run on the Xbox do you?.

[markt435]

Oh i know they are lol. thats what i posted a few posts up.

[jimmyb]

Guys, being a monopoly isn't illegal. They may have some non-ideal effects (ie/ under conventional economic theory they produce a lower quantity of goods at a higher price), but they're not inherently illegal.

There are things that monopolies can do that are illegal, like leveraging their monopoly in one market to enter another. MS was found to be doing this with regard to Netscape. I'm not really familiar with the details of the case, but this was the ruling.

But yeah, there is nothing illegal about being a monopolist per se.

[duby229]

Ah yeah there is..... Have you ever looked at some of the antitrust cases in the past?

In addition to a whole freaking ton of case law there is also the Sherman Act which prohibits monopolies, and also later on the Clayton Act clarified some issues with the Sherman Act... Then a little later the Robinson-Patman Act cleaned it up further and and made it specifically clear what a monopoly is and isnt....

Under the terms of the Robinson-Patman Act, MS is in fact a monopoly, which the Sherman, and Clayton Acts make illegal.... Period end of story... For some damn reason our government refuses to do anything about it... I suspect payoff is involved.

[markt435]

Ah yeah there is..... Have you ever looked at some of the antitrust cases in the past?

In addition to a whole freaking ton of case law there is also the Sherman Act which prohibits monopolies, and also later on the Clayton Act clarified some issues with the Sherman Act... Then a little later the Robinson-Patman Act cleaned it up further and and made it specifically clear what a monopoly is and isnt....

Under the terms of the Robinson-Patman Act, MS is in fact a monopoly, which the Sherman, and Clayton Acts make illegal.... Period end of story... For some damn reason our government refuses to do anything about it... I suspect payoff is involved.

or the fact the government uses MS software EVERYWHERE....don't bite the hand that feeds. ;) :rolleyes: :p <----- those three need to combine into one. can we get a crazy face kyle? lol

[eeyrjmr]

Guys, being a monopoly isn't illegal. They may have some non-ideal effects (ie/ under conventional economic theory they produce a lower quantity of goods at a higher price), but they're not inherently illegal.

There are things that monopolies can do that are illegal, like leveraging their monopoly in one market to enter another. MS was found to be doing this with regard to Netscape. I'm not really familiar with the details of the case, but this was the ruling.

But yeah, there is nothing illegal about being a monopolist per se.

err no, being a monopoly isn't illegal.
What is tho depends on how you got there and how you stay there

Take ARM for instance... they have a monopoly in their field depending on your source anywhere between 95% and 99% yet they keep getting grants from the DTI and Europe

Why? because they innovate and provide products second to none!, sure people have come along to try to take a piece of the market but each time the market has decided and stuck with ARM.

HOWEVER... in the MS's case there is clear proof that they are beinging in anti-competitive behaviors to stay as a monopoly.

in the emerging internet times when Netscape was sent out with all ISP disk's what did MS do? integrate a browser into the operating system, thus allowing ISP's to not ship a browser...

Media players... integrated into the operating system

These two things have no need to be integrated into the system to the extent where they cannot actually be removed and since that stifled the competition MS were found guilty

now with the SMB protocol MS have been found they have nothing innotavive (after a case of anti-competitiveness was raised) thus their defence against opening has been IPR (load of cods-wallop) and every time the EU ups the fine to punish MS, they release what they want and not what the EU wants

EU wants documented infomation on the SMB/CIFS networking protocol
MS provides source-code + list of those not allowed it AND a licence fee for those vetted as allowed.

EU fines MS and again asks for documented infomation on the SMB/CIFS networking protocol
MS ignores

EU fines MS and again asks for documented infomation on the SMB/CIFS networking
MS release a massive (overly complicated document) and again says list of those not allowed it AND a licence fee for those vetted as allowed.

EU seriously concidering saying MS's arrogance on the matter calls for the best punishment and releasing the documentation to the public archives

[jimmyb]

Ah yeah there is..... Have you ever looked at some of the antitrust cases in the past?

This is absolutely incorrect.

While it is not illegal to have a monopoly position in a market, the antitrust laws make it unlawful to maintain or attempt to create a monopoly through tactics that either unreasonably exclude firms from the market or significantly impair their ability to compete.
This comes directly off the FTC website (http://www.ftc.gov/bc/compguide/maintain.htm), and whether you agree with the law or not, they know what they're talking about.

[duby229]

Case Law.......
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm

Coersive Monopoly.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coercive_monopoly

The part of the Sherman act that makes it illegal
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode15/usc_sec_15_00000002----000-.html

The part of the Clayton Act (later amended by the Robinson-Patman Act) that defines what a monopoly is
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode15/usc_sec_15_00000014----000-.html

So there you have it.... The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God.....

[jimmyb]

The FTC guide to antitrust law is quite clear in explicitly stating that there is nothing inherently illegal about a monopoly. If you choose to disbelieve the organization that is responsible for enforcing these laws, that is up to you.

The link you posted regarding MS does nothing more than show that the courts found MS specifically in violation of antitrust law, not that monopolies are illegal in and of themselves. The link you posted regarding coercive monopolies notes correctly that a coercive monopoly can be illegal, but again, it says nothing about monopolies in general being illegal.

As for that passage out of the Sherman act, I admit it does suggest that any instance of a monopoly is illegal, but what it refers to is the act of forcing others out of competition through collusion with other companies or other strong armed tactics. It doesn't disallow a monopoly by nature of natural market forces.

I should add, I think the fact that companies are sometimes ruled to be "illegal monopolies" is evidence enough that there exists a legal monopoly. (as if the FTC explicitly stating it wasn't enough)

[As I Lay Dying]

actually I recall the OLPC guy, Negroponte saying linux would be to bloated for the laptop, but I think is was a misconstrued quote...... I mean after all they are getting red hat to make them a leaner linux operating system........

[LhasaCM]

Correct - and if you look back at Congressional intent - one of the co-authors of the Sherman Antitrust Act explicitly said that if a business controls the market because it was better than everyone else, well good for them. Use of power is appropriate. Abuse of power violates the law.

[LhasaCM]

actually I recall the OLPC guy, Negroponte saying linux would be to bloated for the laptop, but I think is was a misconstrued quote...... I mean after all they are getting red hat to make them a leaner linux operating system........

Correct - he was discussing just taking an off-the-shelf distro "as-is" for the OLPC.

[Ricedaddy]

I'd have to say that the ends justify the means here. Sure Microsoft hasn't been the best in the universe as far as business practices go, but come on. don't act like Microsoft is the only company who has been shady.

Now look at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. the millions and millions they have spent are most certainly used more benevolently than most others would have done given the fact that they made the kojillions instead.

Keep in mind too that Gates has stepped down as chairman of the big bad Microsoft to focus on charity and philanthropy.

[duby229]

I'd have to say that the ends justify the means here. Sure Microsoft hasn't been the best in the universe as far as business practices go, but come on. don't act like Microsoft is the only company who has been shady.

Now look at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. the millions and millions they have spent are most certainly used more benevolently than most others would have done given the fact that they made the kojillions instead.

Keep in mind too that Gates has stepped down as chairman of the big bad Microsoft to focus on charity and philanthropy.

I hate to be a prick, but come on....All I'll say is one word....

Taxes....

[zacdl]

:rolleyes: Duby, I swear... Arguing with what the FTC says- You know more than the FTC now?

I'd have to say that the ends justify the means here. Sure Microsoft hasn't been the best in the universe as far as business practices go, but come on. don't act like Microsoft is the only company who has been shady.
I wouldn't even consider it shady. Nobody forced anything.
Microsoft packaged up IE and shipped it with their own product- there is nothing wrong with that (argue all you want- there's not).

Now, if Microsoft blocked any other browsers from being used- yes, that is a monopoly. But due to the fact any user can install whatever browser they want, or even uninstall IE (Yes, it can be done), means there is still that option of choice.

Yea- we all know nobody wants a browser nor media player along with Windows :rolleyes: Everyone wants to go out and search, download, and install software :rolleyes:


Now look at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. the millions and millions they have spent are most certainly used more benevolently than most others would have done given the fact that they made the kojillions instead. Keep in mind too that Gates has stepped down as chairman of the big bad Microsoft to focus on charity and philanthropy.

It doesn't matter if Gates stepped down or not- he's the founder of the "evil company" and will always be ridiculed.

Bill Gates has spent more on charity than any other. In comparision, he's betting out most CEOs you could find. He's even pledged to donate all his money (you know, over $50 Bil worth, by then it'll probably be much more) by the time he gets old and "retires".

[As I Lay Dying]

hey I pretty much hate microsoft and their monopolistic tactics, but as per mr. gates and his donations, for tax purposes or not, I cant say I dunno, but if he and his wife do donate all that money for charitable reasons, then he is a sweet heart, I mean its 10000x more then *cough* steve jobs *cough* unless he does it secretly......

[markt435]

hey I pretty much hate microsoft and their monopolistic tactics, but as per mr. gates and his donations, for tax purposes or not, I cant say I dunno, but if he and his wife do donate all that money for charitable reasons, then he is a sweet heart, I mean its 10000x more then *cough* steve jobs *cough* unless he does it secretly......

steve only makes $1 a year so he can't afford to donate ;) :rolleyes:

[LhasaCM]

steve only makes $1 a year so he can't afford to donate ;) :rolleyes:

Of course not...and the 10 million restricted shares he got in 2003 are worthless...:cool:

[duby229]

:rolleyes: Duby, I swear... Arguing with what the FTC says- You know more than the FTC now?

The FTC isnt responsible for Illegal Monopoly oversite.... As I clearly pointed out the Robinson-Patman Act states what is legal and what isnt... This is an undeniable federal law... Period... It doesn matter what the FTC says. The law is law.

[Catweazle]

....I wouldn't even consider it shady. Nobody forced anything.
Microsoft packaged up IE and shipped it with their own product- there is nothing wrong with that (argue all you want- there's not).

Now, if Microsoft blocked any other browsers from being used- yes, that is a monopoly. But due to the fact any user can install whatever browser they want, or even uninstall IE (Yes, it can be done), means there is still that option of choice.

Yea- we all know nobody wants a browser nor media player along with Windows :rolleyes: Everyone wants to go out and search, download, and install software :rolleyes:

Thoroughly agree with that. Far as I'm concerned all the kerfuffle about monopolistic practices is a load of rubbish. There's always been the capability of installing alternatives for people who choose not to use the bundled applications.

All we're really seeing, with the bundling of more and more apps into Windows, is the continuation of something which has occurred since the earliest days of computers being a consumer item. People want their PCs to be able to "do stuff" as soon as the machine is taken out of the box, connected up, plugged in and turned on! It's as simple as that! Same reason OEM assemblers bundle applications software in their product packages. Customers always HAVE wanted the PCs they buy to be able to "do stuff", and have always been disappointed when purchased PCs turned out to be no more than a bunch of wires and an OS.


Sometimes I get the impression that people posting on internet forums are all about 15 years of age. Doesn't anybody remember the way things used to be? Back when the 'business computer' was predominately a Commodore PET or some other CP/M running machine? Back when the 'computer' consumers purchased was an Apple II or a Sinclair or a Commodore or a Spectravideo or.........

Yep, people purchased a computer because the thing was supposed to "make things easier", and were disappointed if it didn't do just that. People still do. That's why the OEM packages with bundled software dominate sales. Why on Earth do people continue complaining about Microsoft including more and more functionality in Windows when all they are really doing is meeting consumer demand?

[LhasaCM]

The FTC isnt responsible for Illegal Monopoly oversite.... As I clearly pointed out the Robinson-Patman Act states what is legal and what isnt... This is an undeniable federal law... Period... It doesn matter what the FTC says. The law is law.

The FTC is responsible for carrying out many of the provisions of federal antitrust legislation. For Robinson-Patman, the consistent test used is whether or not, to the extent reasonably practicable, that businessmen at the same functional level would stand on equal competitive footing so far as price is concerned.

The law is not just a strict reading of statutes, but a combination of that with past precedence and court judgments.

The law is the law - but if the organization responsible for upholding the law choose to ignore it - what does it matter?

[LhasaCM]

Why on Earth do people continue complaining about Microsoft including more and more functionality in Windows when all they are really doing is meeting consumer demand?
Isn't there a Mac vs. PC commercial that claims Macs just work - and come with movie/photo/music software?

[Catweazle]

Shhhhhh!!!!!

You'll have Apple Inkblot getting carted off to court too, in a minute!

[jimmyb]

The law is not just a strict reading of statutes, but a combination of that with past precedence and court judgments.

The law is the law - but if the organization responsible for upholding the law choose to ignore it - what does it matter?
"The law is the law" - depends on who you ask :) . Anyway, discussing jurisprudence, as interesting as it is, would be way off topic.

Personally I believe in legal interpretivism (as in the full law outlined by Dworkin), and I think this is how almost every western legal system behaves. If you only believe in posited (or positive) law, you'll likely find yourself getting in all sorts of trouble.

[zacdl]

Thoroughly agree with that.
lol, that almost came as a shock to me... what with all the crap going around about Vista, I thought the next thing to happen would be someone trying to tell me Microsoft has a secret plan to breed hampsters and overtake the pet market...

Same reason OEM assemblers bundle applications software in their product packages.
You know, I never thought of that.

Hey, Dell refused to pre-package my own malware on their PCs... I think they are a monopoly, should I go cite some of these Acts to them to force them to include my program?

[markt435]

lol, that almost came as a shock to me... what with all the crap going around about Vista, I thought the next thing to happen would be someone trying to tell me Microsoft has a secret plan to breed hampsters and overtake the pet market...

SHHHHH!!!!!

[eeyrjmr]

:rolleyes: Duby, I swear... Arguing with what the FTC says- You know more than the FTC now?


I wouldn't even consider it shady. Nobody forced anything.
Microsoft packaged up IE and shipped it with their own product- there is nothing wrong with that (argue all you want- there's not).

Now, if Microsoft blocked any other browsers from being used- yes, that is a monopoly. But due to the fact any user can install whatever browser they want, or even uninstall IE (Yes, it can be done), means there is still that option of choice.

Yea- we all know nobody wants a browser nor media player along with Windows :rolleyes: Everyone wants to go out and search, download, and install software :rolleyes:



It doesn't matter if Gates stepped down or not- he's the founder of the "evil company" and will always be ridiculed.

Bill Gates has spent more on charity than any other. In comparision, he's betting out most CEOs you could find. He's even pledged to donate all his money (you know, over $50 Bil worth, by then it'll probably be much more) by the time he gets old and "retires".

riiight, so the fact that both the US courts and the EU courts found MS breaking THEIR anti-competition laws (two completly different definitions mind) on the subject of bundling in IE & media isn't wrong.

I mean breaking a law isn't wrong now is it :rolleyes: I mean being found guilty isn't proof that such a practise is wrong now is it :rolleyes:

Get over it, the Bundling of IE and integration to the level it is was found to be wrong, who's word am I going to accept? Yrs and the rest of yr clique who state nothing is wrong , or two big law-courts rulings?

[zacdl]

I won't even argue with that post, all I can say... wasn't it a "big court" ruling that found OJ not guilty? Or Jacko? Or any other list that would go on for pages on end...

[Martyr]

riiight, so the fact that both the US courts and the EU courts found MS breaking THEIR anti-competition laws (two completly different definitions mind) on the subject of bundling in IE & media isn't wrong.

I mean breaking a law isn't wrong now is it :rolleyes: I mean being found guilty isn't proof that such a practise is wrong now is it :rolleyes:

Get over it, the Bundling of IE and integration to the level it is was found to be wrong, who's word am I going to accept? Yrs and the rest of yr clique who state nothing is wrong , or two big law-courts rulings?

i never really understood the problem people had with it.

[Catweazle]

...Get over it, the Bundling of IE and integration to the level it is was found to be wrong, who's word am I going to accept? Yrs and the rest of yr clique who state nothing is wrong , or two big law-courts rulings?
Probably the weight of opinion amongst customers. IE is still part of Windows. Media Player is still part of Windows. A Media Player free version is made for sale in Europe, and hardly anybody buys it.

Those are local rulings which neither have impact on what occurs elsewhere nor seem to be well supported in the places where they were made. Lot of hot air about bugger-all, IMO

[eeyrjmr]

i never really understood the problem people had with it.

People don't, potential competition (stifled) did/does

General users will use whatever and expect it just to work, they have no need to go out and find something else. With MS deciding to integrate IE into the OS and thus have it right there for the end-user, said user had no need to go looking for something to replace it, and thus the market leader at the time (netscape) all but vanished since it was no longer getting to the end-user by ISP disks.

Even though I have told quite alot of people to just use FF and Winamp, they take it on board but just carry on using whatever is there. Those that I have sorted out use FF and Winamp and yer like the things that it brings, but if they wern't there wouldn't go and get them.

These are the same people that think Norton products are good for security and performance, these are the people that are finding problems with Vista (Vista atm is a bit like linux, you do your homework before and everything will just work, if not... something is going to bite you [difference being Vista will get to a "just works" state quicker then say... Ubuntu)

I personally don't care if IE or WMP is in the OS, I don't use them, but 99% (crude figure) of windows users just use what is given to them and there in lies the case for anti-competition, which has been proven in multiple court cases.
Netscape only survive now cause they opened their source... The whole realplayer arguement is just citing the IE (a valid case imo) as a justification for such a shite player

so again as I said get use to it, IE have been found in a court of law to be a monopoly

[zacdl]

With MS deciding to integrate IE into the OS and thus have it right there for the end-user, said user had no need to go looking for something to replace it, and thus the market leader at the time (netscape) all but vanished since it was no longer getting to the end-user by ISP disks
Such is a perk of being a large company, with your product widespread. There is nothing wrong with it.
Again- the users can chose what they want to use. That is the bottom line. It does not matter if they use what is there or not. What matters is that they can change what they use.

You can't use personal opinion (using what's bundled) as argument for monopoly. You just can't do it.

It's like saying because Pizza is so widely popular, PizzaHut has a monopoly on Pizza because everyone prefers to use PizzaHut (although I'm just assuming PizzaHut is #1).

[LhasaCM]

Such is a perk of being a large company, with your product widespread. There is nothing wrong with it.
Again- the users can chose what they want to use. That is the bottom line. It does not matter if they use what is there or not. What matters is that they can change what they use.

You can't use personal opinion (using what's bundled) as argument for monopoly. You just can't do it.

It's like saying because Pizza is so widely popular, PizzaHut has a monopoly on Pizza because everyone prefers to use PizzaHut (although I'm just assuming PizzaHut is #1).

The problem Microsoft had (way back when) was they deliberately went out of their way to ensure that the competition did not have a "level" playing field. This means coercing OEMs to not enter into agreements to pre-install Netscape/RealPlayer/etc., and making it extremely difficult to use other programs in a similar fashion. Using your analogy, it would be as if Pizza Hut built a giant bunker around Domino's to make it difficult for you to get there, and dumped water on you after buying a pizza at Dominos to make the pizza not as good.

Since then - they're better behaved. For example, it is far easier to manage the default web browser/media player/e-mail program than in the past. Also, one of the first things IE 7.0 does when launching is ask you if you want to change the default search provider from Live.

I'm all for letting market forces dictate the outcome, but in the past, Microsoft did not want to let market forces decide, hence the lawsuits.

(I'm not going to comment much on the EU suits because, quite frankly, the EU seems to be going a little overboard with their anti-MS tactics to me. However, I don't live there so don't know enough about the "on the ground" truth versus the news coverage I've seen in the US...)

[eeyrjmr]

Such is a perk of being a large company, with your product widespread. There is nothing wrong with it.
Again- the users can chose what they want to use. That is the bottom line. It does not matter if they use what is there or not. What matters is that they can change what they use.

You can't use personal opinion (using what's bundled) as argument for monopoly. You just can't do it.

It's like saying because Pizza is so widely popular, PizzaHut has a monopoly on Pizza because everyone prefers to use PizzaHut (although I'm just assuming PizzaHut is #1).

if there is nothing wrong with it, why were they found guilty in two different cases in two different countries under two different legal systems?
correct me if I am wrong but being found guilty of something means there is something wrong in doing that :rolleyes:

I never said my personal opinion was why MS are a monopoly, I said that they have been found guilty by courts of law under the charge of using their monopoly to stifle the competition (nothing wrong with being a monopoly btw).

In your example assuming Pizzahut is #1 then fine they may have a monopoly, BUT if they made it such that all Pizza's made had to use a Pizzahut base then that would be anti-competative

Biig difference. Again nothing is wrong in being a monopoly so to speak. HOWEVER how you get there and stay there can determine if yr company is anti-competative via leveraging their monopoly to stifle the competition

[zacdl]

:rolleyes: I just don't think you understand what I'm getting at, and I really don't think it matters that much.

But what drives me nuts is that you still think our judicial system is perfect.
Like I said, OJ Simpsion, Michael Jackson anyone?

You ever hear of jury nullification?

What a law ends up being can be completely different from what is actually written down on paper.

[MrGuvernment]

if there is nothing wrong with it, why were they found guilty in two different cases in two different countries under two different legal systems?
correct me if I am wrong but being found guilty of something means there is something wrong in doing that :rolleyes:

I never said my personal opinion was why MS are a monopoly, I said that they have been found guilty by courts of law under the charge of using their monopoly to stifle the competition (nothing wrong with being a monopoly btw).

In your example assuming Pizzahut is #1 then fine they may have a monopoly, BUT if they made it such that all Pizza's made had to use a Pizzahut base then that would be anti-competative

Biig difference. Again nothing is wrong in being a monopoly so to speak. HOWEVER how you get there and stay there can determine if yr company is anti-competative via leveraging their monopoly to stifle the competition

as zackdl said


I won't even argue with that post, all I can say... wasn't it a "big court" ruling that found OJ not guilty? Or Jacko? Or any other list that would go on for pages on end...


if real player wasnt crap and found stealing users info i am sure they would be larger and could afford to buy into OEM to be distributed, just how Cyberlink is often the software sold in OEM, Quicktime format? how many movies trailers are only in mov format?

Lists can go on and on and on of individual companies that have a monopoly in X markt and i am sure they did what ever shady practices to get there.

But as usual, when your on top, everyone wants to see you fail.....

Or how Nero is likely the #1 software sold with new DVD drives.....

[LhasaCM]

But what drives me nuts is that you still think our judicial system is perfect.
Like I said, OJ Simpsion, Michael Jackson anyone?

Well, these are more examples of likely prosecutorial incompetence (if your conclusion of guilt is correct), but the point is still somewhat valid. A more appropriate example in this case would be one where a court found someone guilty when they were not...


Lists can go on and on and on of individual companies that have a monopoly in X markt and i am sure they did what ever shady practices to get there.

But as usual, when your on top, everyone wants to see you fail.....

What Microsoft did was threaten to withhold Windows if OEMs removed the IE icon from the desktop (something which Netscape wanted as part of its licensing deal with OEMs). That type of coercive behavior is a clear violation of US antitrust legislation (regardless of how well it is enforced or if it is "good" law), so they got hammered for it. And even though they've settled, MS is dragging their feet (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/07/microsoft_delay/) in complying with the settlement (they have an excuse, of course...but still...it doesn't look good.)

That said, I do love the delicious irony that MS is complaining (correctly, I feel) about Google's proposed acquisition of DoubleClick and its anti-competitive ramifications.

[zacdl]

Well, these are more examples of likely prosecutorial incompetence (if your conclusion of guilt is correct), but the point is still somewhat valid. A more appropriate example in this case would be one where a court found someone guilty when they were not...
And examples such as that abound as well.

My point is that what is ruled does not reflect upon what actually passes as law most of the time, nor does it reflect what is written as law is actually what is enforced.


That said, I do love the delicious irony that MS is complaining (correctly, I feel) about Google's proposed acquisition of DoubleClick and its anti-competitive ramifications.
I almost brought it up, but I have yet to discover how "pro-Google" folks around here are so I didn't.
I know some people would use Google no matter what the heck they did... I, for one, think their practices are pretty darn ugly, and don't give them my business.

[LhasaCM]

My point is that what is ruled does not reflect upon what actually passes as law most of the time, nor does it reflect what is written as law is actually what is enforced.

I agree with the second half (or at least how I'm reading it). Take, for example, the Robinson-Patman Act. Strictly enforced - any form of price discrimination (say a student discount) is illegal. Volume discounts are okay as long as the schedule is sensible (i.e., don't make the cutoff so high that it only applies to one favored customer, or at least don't make that the only cutoff).

That said - what is ruled does have to reflect the law. If not the wording, then at least the intent (where that is known). Where it gets dicier is when the law is broken but not prosecuted...or is unevenly prosecuted. Anti-trust legislation in the US, especially, is ripe with these sorts of cases where there are these sort of "differences" so blanket statements become difficult - it's all sort of gray...

(And with that - I'm not sure how much further we can divert this thread...)