Re: My Migrations
- From: "James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2008 00:39:42 -0600
Pete Dashwood wrote:
<snip>
Yet. They would, however, like to preclude that. IE was done to drive
Mozilla out of business so that they could not be a choice (mainly
because Mozilla was talking about 'cloud computing' back then).
[Pete]
Fascinating. Your insight into history and the motivations of MS is certainly imaginative. Even if you were right, and there is not a shred of evidence other than your own biased cynicism, that was then, and this is now.
MS today is a different company than it was when they first produced IE.
Anyway, I don't intend to spend more time defending them; I really have no vested interest and people will draw their own conclusions. I don't really care whether people like MS or not.
The full extent of my interest here is that I use their products and find some of them really outstanding. YMMV.
<snipped remaining fanciful rant>
Pete.
As Ronnie Regan used to say with a smile, "There you go again.......".
Having yourself written at great length about those silly people who disliked Microsoft, and so many of their points were just gossip, you write, "I don't really care whether people like MS or not". So why did you write your original message in the first place ?
Then you inform us that, having done your own thing, it becomes tiresome. And as 'moderator' you consider the topic now closed.
I still have no problem with MS products - BUT - doggy-walking tonight - fact not gossip. Husband and wife team; director of safety for an oil/gas service company and his wife a provincial employee - not sure of title but drifts around the province scouting out and agreeing accommodation for the homeless. They both were sure pissed off at Microsoft for the version of Word they got - they were confused over the Version and manage to confuse me too. All I can tell you is that they moved back to Word 2003, but that necessitated buying the whole MS Office package.
Their objection to the particular version of Word was that it makes assumptions WHILE you are writing, and pops up suggestions. They found this more than just irritating - hence the backwards move.
Just received an M/F e-mail today - watch it guys when XP becomes defunct.
" http://www.microsoft.com/windows/lifecycle/default.mspx, Microsoft plans to discontinue shipments of Windows XP on January 31, 2009......."
To be fair to Microsoft this warning has been around since 2002 and was updated April 2008. This is the very first time I've seen ANY reference to their Windows Life-Cycle Policy. How come it didn't come up blazing as I registered my new XP. Am I supposed to search their friggin website for gotchas ?
I was preparing something on monopolies but it really is pointless. You are as firm in your conviction as Richard is in his. But I tell you, as biased as he obviously is, and there has to be a good reason, I'll vote for his corner before I'd vote for yours. But first take a look at this extract from my intended message :-
Wikpedia - Monopoly :
----------------------------------------------------------
DEFINITION :
In Economics, a monopoly (from Greek monos , alone or single + polein ,
to sell) exists when a specific individual or enterprise has sufficient
control over a particular product or service to determine significantly
the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it.[1]
Monopolies are thus characterized by a lack of economic competition for
the good or service that they provide and a lack of viable substitute
goods.[2] The verb "monopolize" refers to the process by which a firm
gains persistently greater market share than what is expected under
perfect competition.
A monopoly should be distinguished from monopsony, in which there is
only one buyer of a product or service; a monopoly may also have
monopsony control of a sector of a market. Likewise, a monopoly should
be distinguished from a cartel (a form of oligopoly), in which several
providers act together to coordinate services, prices or sale of goods.
A government-granted monopoly or legal monopoly is sanctioned by the
state, often to provide an incentive to invest in a risky venture or
enrich a domestic constituency. The government may also reserve the
venture for itself, thus forming a government monopoly.
POSITIVE ASPECTS :
Some argue that it can be good to allow a firm to attempt to monopolize
a market, since practices such as dumping can benefit consumers in the
short term; and once the firm grows too big, it can be dealt with via
regulation. When monopolies are not broken through the open market,
often a government will step in, either to regulate the monopoly, turn
it into a publicly owned monopoly environment, or forcibly break it up
(see Antitrust law). Public utilities, often being natural filiations
and less susceptible to efficient breakup, are often strongly regulated
or publicly owned. AT&T and Standard Oil are debatable examples of the
breakup of a private monopoly. When AT&T was broken up into the "Baby
Bell" components, MCI, Sprint, and other companies were able to compete
effectively in the long distance phone market and began to take phone
traffic from the less efficient AT&T server.
Examples of alleged and legal monopolies :-
* The salt commission, a legal monopoly in China formed in 758.
* British East India Company; created as a legal trading monopoly in
1600.
** we know from Sri Lankan friends that BEIC definitely affected the
Ceylon economy. Sri Lanka was self sufficient in rice production. The
British changed over to tea and I think, still today, Sri Lanka imports
rice.
* Dutch East India Company; created as a legal trading monopoly in
1602.
* U.S. Steel; anti-trust prosecution failed in 1911.
* Standard Oil; broken up in 1911.
* National Football League; survived anti-trust lawsuit in the
1960s, convicted of being an illegal monopoly in the 1980s.
* Major League Baseball; survived U.S. anti-trust litigation in
1922, though its special status is still in dispute as of 2008.
* United Aircraft and Transport Corporation; aircraft manufacturer
holding company forced to divest itself of airlines in 1934.
* American Telephone & Telegraph; telecommunications giant broken up
in 1982.
* Microsoft; settled anti-trust litigation in the U.S. in 2001;
fined by the European Commission in 2004, which was upheld for
the most part by the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities in 2007. The fine was 1.35 Billion USD in 2008 for
incompliance with the 2004 rule.[9][10]
* De Beers; settled charges of price fixing in the diamond trade in
the 2000s.
* Joint Commission; has a monopoly over whether or not US hospitals
are able to participate in the Medicare and Medicaid programs.
* Telecom New Zealand; local loop unbundling enforced by central
government.
** How about that - Kiwiland gets a mention :-)
* Monsanto has been sued by competitors for anti-trust and
monopolistic practices. They hold between 70% and 100% of the
commercial seed market.
-----------------------------------------
As regards monopolies I was going to write about Fannie and Freddie, Microsoft of course, (but Richard covered that EU-wise) but can't recall if he made reference to the various States' attorneys, and I was going to throw in WalMart for good measure.
Jimmy
.
- References:
- Re: My Migrations
- From: Pete Dashwood
- Re: My Migrations
- From: Richard
- Re: My Migrations
- From: Pete Dashwood
- Re: My Migrations
- Prev by Date: Re: My Migrations
- Next by Date: Re: My Migrations
- Previous by thread: Re: My Migrations
- Next by thread: Re: My Migrations
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
