Re: Believe me, you WANT to read this!

• Previous message: Kai Regenstein: "Compiling and Linking SUB-Program on z/OS or. OS/390"
• In reply to: JerryMouse: "Re: Believe me, you WANT to read this!"
• Next in thread: Hugh Candlin: "Re: Believe me, you WANT to read this!"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Date: 27 Nov 2003 11:05:18 -0800

"JerryMouse" <nospam@bisusa.com> wrote

> Slick, here's a flash. It is not against the laws of God or man to be a
> monopoly.

Many countries do have laws that prevent a company, or cartel, from
_using_ that monopoly for certain things.

> By consent decree, unfair business practices have stopped with no
> admission of wrong-doing. The courts haven't found squat.

Whether they have _actually_ stopped is a matter of conjecture. One
of the things that is illegal in the US is using the leverage in one
market to gain entry to another. MS is spending billions from Windows
and Office sales by subsidising XBox as it attempts to take over the
games console market.

> Who give a shit about Netscape?

Who gives a shit for the corner store when Wal-Mart moves into town.
Who gives a shit for the local farmers when the SuperMarket buys
globally. Who gives a shit for JerryMouse when the corporate
outsources IT to India.

> A price of zero for a browser is certainly a
> boon for tens of millions.

Who would have gladly paid a few dollars for the product. But paying
for it may have led to those millions making a choice about where
those dollars went and which browser they _actually_ wanted. MS
couldn't allow that.

> Heh, heh. Too bad for Spyglass. Dumbasses. It's Darwinism, you see.

So is those dumbasses in Iraq getting shot. Its just Darwinism.

> So what? Again, zero dollars is good for consumers. Who gives a shit about
> DR-DOS?

Because DR-DOS was a far better product. MS monopoly leads to
inferior products that are used because there is 'nothing else', or
because someone (MS) has decided that it must be on the machine that
is sold.

> No, the purpose of bringing down the price of kerosene was to generate a
> market. Before cheap kerosene, when it got dark people had nothing to do but
> breed. And tend mushrooms.

What crap. As you already said there was whale oil, there was also
candles and other oils. It may have expanded the market, but the
pricing was to create a monopoly by driving the others out of
business.
 
> > This is why MS tried to make selling a computer without an OS
> > 'illegal' by the box makers, or at least a breach of reseller
> > agreements. With XP you cannot replace the hardware and keep the old
> > OS, you must buy a new copy.
 
> MS could not make selling a blank-box illegal;

It is still working on that. MS's plan to control with DRM will only
work if laws are passed to enforce it. Already this has been
proposed.

> MS has a lot of power, but
> not the power necessary to put someone in jail.

They have their 'subsiduary' BSA to do that.

> Re-seller "tying" agreements
> are the norm in almost every business (if you're a grocer, you can't stock
> Pepsi unless you agree to stock Mountain Dew).

What is illegal is if there are incentives to _not_ stock competitors
products. At one time MS was paying OEMs $5 to remove Netscape and
install IE.

> With XP you may install the
> OS on as many machines as you want - just not more than one at a time.

XP requires validation and checks certain ids on components. If more
than a certain number of changes are made to a computer the OS
complains that it needs a new validation.

Also, read the EULA for a machine from say, Gateway, and you will find
that the licence is _only_ for the the original machine and the
original purchaser. It is against the licence to remove the OS from
that machine and install it on a different machine.

If the machine is sold then it is also against the licence to pass on
the OS, according to the EULA a new copy of XP must be purchased by
the new owner, even if the OS was not installed on another machine.

> Good enough is good enough.

Of course some would say that Windows is not 'good enough' for some
purposes and is 'too good' (overly complex) for other purposes.

> There is no such thing as a secure OS or any other product. Blaming MS for
> the impossible is common amongst MS haters. It's the pathology, you see.

Windows is an insecure OS _by_design_, or specifically by lack of
design.
 
> >They want to keep the threat of viruses, piracy and attacks
> > because those are from non-MS parties. MS can keep offering 'better'
> > products as long as 'evil' others can come up with new ways of
> > attacking Windows.
>
> And what's wrong with that?

Because, as in the point above, Windows _could_ be a more secure OS to
the benefit of the consumers, but that would affect MS revenues, so it
isn't.

When MS talks about 'more security' it actually means 'more security
for MS revenues'. More security against piracy of MS products, more
revenue by offering secure access to music and films via DRM.

> Maybe. That's why there are so many ant-virus companies, anti-spam tools,
> pop-up blockers, etc. Seems MS is fostering innovation and job creation.

You may note that MS is moving into those markets too. Soon all that
revenue will be MS's. MS has already announced that it will block
pop-ups with the next IE. You can be sure, though, that the blocking
will be selective. Pop-ups will still appear if MS gets some revenue
from the advertiser for not blocking them.

MS will have their own version of these tools so that it can justify
the next upgrade of Windows, or, more likely, move more to annual
rental with expiring. This is already the model for anti-virus to
ensure the latest viruses are blocked.

MS will simply build that into the business model. In fact MS may be
writing some of those viruses as 'punishment' for not updating and
agreeing to latest EULA and terms and conditions.
 
> It's good business sense to turn a one-time sale into a repetitive one.

OTOH it is good business sense for the buyers to turn repetitive sales
into one-time purchases. You are only looking at MS as having a tame
and compliant user base who will roll over and fork out gratefully for
every little offering from MS.

> > You seem to think that is attributable to MS only. In fact many of
> > those tools were _not_ crafted by MS at all, they were bought in to
> > ensure that MS controlled the market place.
>
> Whatever. They've got Microsoft's name on them, they're sold, maintained,
> and updated by Microsoft.

In many cases MS bought products, _not_ to sell them but to bury them,
to remove them from the market place so that they didn't interfere
with MS's control. They tried to buy Quicken to bury it but they were
refused.

> You think, just maybe, they really come from Honda
> and we're all being fooled?

MS C came from Lattice. SQL server from Sybase, Front Page from Front
Page Inc, IE from Mosaic via SpyGlass, MS-DOS from SCP, FoxPro from
Fox, Word was a copy of BravoX, ...

Specifically relevant for this group MS Cobol came from Microfocus.

In many cases cars 'really do come from Honda', for example some
Triumphs and Rovers. Some Fords come from Mazda, some Pontiacs come
from Opel.

Whether you are being fooled is another issue.

• Previous message: Kai Regenstein: "Compiling and Linking SUB-Program on z/OS or. OS/390"
• In reply to: JerryMouse: "Re: Believe me, you WANT to read this!"
• Next in thread: Hugh Candlin: "Re: Believe me, you WANT to read this!"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]