For god sake Microsoft is NOT A MONOPOLY!

[killswitch1968]

All these ridiculous lawsuits posed against them always seem to lay the burden of proof on them.
"You are anti-competetive"
"No we're not"
"Prove it!"
Which of course opposite to how anyone else is tried in the US.

First things first: What is a monopoly? The term itself is vague, but economically it means the SOLE provider of a good or service. What good or services does Microsoft currently provide?

1. PDAs
2. Operating Systems
3. Office suites
4. Keyboards/Mice
5. Internet Browser
6. Instant messenger client
7. Webmail
8. Media Player

Are they the sole provider of ANY of these? Absolutely NOT. They are of course the sole provider of MICROSOFT products, but Coke is the sole provider of Coke products, and no one makes a fuss over that.
Microsoft CANNOT charge whatever they want for these products because companies will simply look elsewhere. Of course it seems ludicrous to charge $400 for a $0.69 disc, but then again you're not paying for a blank disc, you're paying for the information within, and THAT is what's expensive and takes a long time to develop. They are recouping FIXED costs, not variable ones.

So get off your high horse: Microsoft dominate the industry for a lot of reasons, none of which is they are a monopoly. Does Microsoft make inferior products? If you believe the Linux zealots (and I partly do) then yes, microsoft makes inferior products.
Their products are on desktop computers not because they have some strangle-hold on the market, it is because of the millions of blue collar Joes who make conscientious decision to buy computers with Microsoft products, the thousands of companies who program software solely for the Microsoft OS, and the big name computer suppliers who pay licensing fees to put XP into their computer bundles. None of these decisions have been made under the direct and authoratitive economic control of Microsoft.

Now I'm not some microsoft fanboy: I don't use their browser, their hardware, their IM client, or their webmail. I do use XP and Office, mostly because I am too lazy to try Linux or OpenOffice. I don't think the benefits they offer will be great enough for me to switch? Plus, like most desktop users, I didn't pay a dime for MS software.

[Supersheep]

monopoly:
A situation in which a single company owns all or nearly all of the market for a given type of product or service. This would happen in the case that there is a barrier to entry into the industry that allows the single company to operate without competition (for example, vast economies of scale, barriers to entry, or governmental regulation). In such an industry structure, the producer will often produce a volume that is less than the amount which would maximize social welfare.

People just like to shit on microsoft because they're
rich, most people don't even know what they're talking
about when they say microsoft is a monopoly.

[fwgx]

They have about a 95% share of the browser market and a 97% share of the desktop operating system market. Add onto that that MS has "But Microsoft, because of its market dominance, may be disproportionately affected. LeTocq said Office's market share is "in the low nineties in the U.S. and in the eighties most everywhere else." Source

It's pretty safe to say they are a monopoly. Being a monopoly in part ensures you stay a monopoly for that very reason. It's anticompetative, stiffles inovation and does mean MS can do almost anything they want, including charging over the odds for their products.

Once very good example of this is IE6. IE6 is a bag of shit when it comes to standards on the web and about 95% of people use it (or worse still older versions!). But MS is refusing to update it even as standards progress. The result is people are forced into designing sites that work with IE even if this means ignoring good new technology. Now if MS hadn't bundled this program with their OS (as was ruled was anti-competative by the Us courts) IE would not have such market dominance and standards and innovation could progress.

[killswitch1968]

Originally posted by Phily Baby
It's pretty safe to say they are a monopoly. Being a monopoly in part ensures you stay a monopoly for that very reason. It's anticompetative, stiffles inovation and does mean MS can do almost anything they want, including charging over the odds for their products.

Those are ridiculous examples that hold absolutely no bearing on their being a 'monopoly'. I'll say it again: A monopoly is the SOLE provider of a good or service. Microsoft is not a sole provider of anything. Just because 97% of people choose to use XP/Office instead of Corel or Mac does not change this fact. The options are there, and THE PEOPLE have selected microsoft, for better of worse.

Once very good example of this is IE6. IE6 is a bag of shit when it comes to standards on the web and about 95% of people use it. But MS is refusing to update it even as standards progress. The result is people are forced into designing sites that work with IE even if this means ignoring good new technology. [/B]

This is not because Microsoft has a strangle hold of the market. It is because consumers are stupid. Nobody knows what firebird is. Nobody knows what Opera is. Don't blame Microsoft for other people's ignorance. If Microsoft some how weaseled their way into government and passed a law saying no one is allowed to advertise computer products but them, then you have an argument. But they have not. Firebird and Opera simply don't do a good job of telling people of their existence.
People use IE6 because they don't know any better. In the long run, like most business monoliths, sloppy products will be their downfall, it just takes time.

[Supersheep]

It is because consumers are stupid. Nobody knows what firebird is. Nobody knows what Opera is.

People aren't just plain stupid, IE6 works
and that's what the people care about.
Who gives a damnn about the fact that firebird
has a better cookie management.

Firebird and Opera simply don't do a good job of telling people of their existence.
People use IE6 because they don't know any better. In the long run, like most business monoliths, sloppy products will be their downfall, it just takes time.

Promoting the product will cost money, and that's exactly why it will never win from microsoft.

[fwgx]

Originally posted by killswitch1968
A monopoly is the SOLE provider of a good or service.

That is not the legal definition of a monopoly

http://lists.microshaft.org/pipermai...er/004207.html
I don't know if you're just misguided or trolling, but the fact of the
matter remains that the legal definition of a monopoly is NOT 100%
market share with zero competitors anywhere. If that doesn't jibe with
your worldview, then, well, sorry. Ranting and raving about "There are
other people who make operating systems, so Microsoft is not a
monopoly" may make you feel better at night, but it doesn't change the
legal definition. Observe:

http://profs.lp.findlaw.com/antitrust/antitrust_5.html

"Monopoly power . The Supreme Court has defined monopoly power as the
power to control prices or exclude competition. As a practical matter,
such power is measured by the alleged monopolist's share of the
relevant market. Absolute monopoly in the economic sense -- 100 percent
of the market -- is a rare phenomenon, raising the question of how
large a share a firm must possess to come within the statutory concept.
Although there is no hard and fast rule, any market share of 50 percent
or higher is sufficient to be of concern. "

You don't have to have 100% market share and no competition to be a
monopoly. Webster's Unabridged is irrelevant to the standards that the
courts use to decide a monopoly.

And, in the end, the only standard of "monopoly" that matters is the
one the legal profession uses. And their standard focuses on the power
to stifle competition, not market share. If you don't like that, feel
free to take it up with the Supreme Court. Otherwise, kindly base your
arguments within the framework that the rest of the world uses.

Further quotes from the page linked to in that message that are relevent:

Willful acquisition or maintenance. Once monopoly power is found the question remains: Was it willfully acquired or maintained? This is ephemeral and difficult to determine. What is clear is that the statute does not require that monopoly power be abused or intentionally exercised to drive out competition, although such conduct, if present, is sufficient to make out a violation. Nor does the element of willfulness entail an evil intent to eliminate competitors. Conscious acts designed to further or maintain a monopoly market position will suffice -- for example, acquisitions of competitors, exclusive dealing arrangements, or unreasonably low ( i.e ., below cost usually measured on an incremental basis) pricing tactics with a reasonable prospect of recoupment by monopolistic pricing once competition is eliminated. On the other hand, monopoly power achieved through growth or development as a consequence of a superior product, business acumen, or historic accident is permissible.

Attempt to Monopolize . Section 2 of the Sherman Act also prohibits attempts to monopolize by companies that do not possess monopoly power but engage in anticompetitive conduct designed to achieve it. To prove an attempt to monopolize, one must establish that the defendant had a specific intent to achieve monopoly; that it acted in an anticompetitive manner designed to injure its actual or potential competition; and that there was a dangerous probability that monopoly power would in fact be achieved. Since companies that actually possess monopoly power are an industrial rarity, most Section 2 litigation involves allegations of attempts to monopolize; and it is the "dangerous probability of success" element on which the resolution of most cases turns.

So in what way are my examples "ridiculous"?

This is not because Microsoft has a strangle hold of the market. It is because consumers are stupid. Nobody knows what firebird is. Nobody knows what Opera is. Don't blame Microsoft for other people's ignorance.

I feel perfectly justified in blaming MS as it has broken anti trust laws in order to promote and distribute it's browser.

[Raas]

I hate the fact that most websites works best using IE because they were designed too!
So even if I like Mozilla better I choose not to use it.

[killswitch1968]

Originally posted by Phily Baby
So in what way are my examples "ridiculous"?

Unknowingly you have proven my point. So a market share of 50% or more is "cause for concern" but NOT a monopoly. What many people fail to realize is something this demagogue stated:
"Absolute monopoly in the economic sense -- 100 percent
of the market -- is a rare phenomenon"
And there ya go, Microsoft is not an 'absolute monopoly', as if there were really any other kind. In fact the only absolute monopolies that have ever existed were government mandated ones. US Postal Service anyone?
They also lump in 'stifling' competetion, whatever the hell that means. Even when you are the sole provider of something, competitors may not exist, but the phenomenom of competition is very real and cause enough to maintain high standards.

This law is simply judicial vaguery, as are most laws unfortunately. It also clearly lacks any economic sense and in the end will do far more to protect shoddy businesses. Case in point: Netscape.
So yes, these laws may be the only ones that 'matter' in terms of prosecution, but it is these very laws that are the problem; its moral foundation is questionable at best.

[gt55x]

Microsoft charge 2 much for there over sized bloted Operating systems.

Windows xp is so easy to break....its stable but if i try to game...it makes me nervious...

There silly slight upgrades of office and expect people to pay.

Microsoft try every sneeky trick in the book to make sure knowone goes up agenst them.

Bill gates uses his money to push him to make it seem Microsofts products are no 1.. use them or use nothing.

Some people build websites use silly IE standerds instead if W3C's web standerds only cause of there lazyness and simply see that 80% of there websurfers use ie because there lazy......Ie works......it may be buggy and old and un reliable and full of security holes and lack no new features compared to opera/Netscape/Mozilla etc.. but it works......

And then there is "Microsoft certified" courses oh yeah.....there is a few misleaded minds.

Ignorance is bliss huh ?

Im sick of saying the same old thing about M$. Im sick of bitching about it ..

here is a handy site to read :

www.microsuck.com

im geting a Mac ASAP...when i got the money to do so.

[killswitch1968]

Originally posted by gt55x
A bunch of incomprehensible, misspelled points.

Summarized:
1. MS has crappy products - agreed, but that doesn't make them a monopoly.
2. Thousands of people making independent decisions have chosen to use MS standards rather than other standards - then they are idiots for making that choice. MS didn't make them choose it, they did.
3. Bill Gates wants you to use his products rather than someone elses - No fucking shit, is there a business in the world without this motive?
4. Microsoft stifle competition - I would like one iota of proof that Microsoft has eliminated the notion of competition in the OS marketplace. Unless some law prevents me from choosing different products, I can guarantee you will have a hard time showing me this. Historically the only monopolies that ever persist are government sponsored ones, where competition is illegal.


Hate microsoft for making shitty software, but not for some imaginitive notion that they are 'controlling the market'.

[fwgx]

Originally posted by killswitch1968
Unknowingly you have proven my point. So a market share of 50% or more is "cause for concern" but NOT a monopoly.

Originally posted by Moi
Webster's Unabridged is irrelevant to the standards that the courts use to decide a monopoly.

You're arguing over semantics, which is futile and pointless, MS is a monopoly by the definition of law and that is all that matters.

edit: They do control the market and stifle competition. And holding a monopoly does not force anyone into maintaining high standards, it makes it possible to control the market in a way so that people accept lower standards.

[killswitch1968]

Originally posted by Phily Baby
You're arguing over semantics, which is futile and pointless, MS is a monopoly by the definition of law and that is all that matters.

If these 'semantics' were petty, trivial and practically the same, then yes it would be futile.
But unfortunately what the law says and what EVERY ECONOMIST IN THE WORLD THINKS are entirely different. And who has a better handle on what a monopoly and its threat to society is: a politician or an economist?
It is this law that is the very problem.

They do control the market and stifle competition. And holding a monopoly does not force anyone into maintaining high standards, it makes it possible to control the market in a way so that people accept lower standards.

I have chosen not to use many of MS products. I will not accept their low standards nor can they force me to do so. Why? Because there are alternatives. They make inferior products and as an informed consumer I actively pursue other products.
If you can demonstrate how MS has stifled competition (which is a very different thing from a competitor) I may lend your argument some credence.
Even if a businesses manages to perform so incredible that no other competitors can can make a product better or cheaper, that business must still maintain or improve their standards or another business WILL crop up to steal away their market share. One need only read the history of business mega-giants who have fallen from grace not because of laws, but because they failed to continually perform.

[fwgx]

But unfortunately what the law says and what EVERY ECONOMIST IN THE WORLD THINKS are entirely different.

Please spare me. 100% monopolisation is rarely if ever going to happen, that's a fact. It doen't stop massive market dominance being just as bad as a 'true' monopoly.

And who has a better handle on what a monopoly and its threat to society is: a politician or an economist?

If you're going to back up an arguement at least use a good arguement. That's a rhetorical question that ignores facts. Politicials are guided by ecconomists, lawyers, sociologists, sports scientists, doctors, biologists. Thats why most laws make sense, because they have not been plucked out of thin air, they are advised based on the best known facts, and occasionally twisted for political or ideological reasons. Because the 'true' definition of a monopoly is one with absolutly no competition at all does not matter. The law is there to promote competition and inovation. A company can block both of these without having 100% market share, indeed 95% market share of millions of users is being anal to an extreme extent.

As was stated in the link I provided previously:

Willful acquisition or maintenance. Once monopoly power is found the question remains: Was it willfully acquired or maintained? This is ephemeral and difficult to determine. What is clear is that the statute does not require that monopoly power be abused or intentionally exercised to drive out competition, although such conduct, if present, is sufficient to make out a violation. Nor does the element of willfulness entail an evil intent to eliminate competitors. Conscious acts designed to further or maintain a monopoly market position will suffice -- for example, acquisitions of competitors, exclusive dealing arrangements, or unreasonably low ( i.e ., below cost usually measured on an incremental basis) pricing tactics with a reasonable prospect of recoupment by monopolistic pricing once competition is eliminated. On the other hand, monopoly power achieved through growth or development as a consequence of a superior product, business acumen, or historic accident is permissible.

Attempt to Monopolize . Section 2 of the Sherman Act also prohibits attempts to monopolize by companies that do not possess monopoly power but engage in anticompetitive conduct designed to achieve it. To prove an attempt to monopolize, one must establish that the defendant had a specific intent to achieve monopoly; that it acted in an anticompetitive manner designed to injure its actual or potential competition; and that there was a dangerous probability that monopoly power would in fact be achieved. Since companies that actually possess monopoly power are an industrial rarity, most Section 2 litigation involves allegations of attempts to monopolize; and it is the "dangerous probability of success" element on which the resolution of most cases turns.

http://macintosh.otago.ac.nz/Owen/Xu...oftTricks.html

About half of that page

You Must Install Microsoft Extensions

Microsoft insist Internet Service Providers must install their Front Page extensions or a misleading error message is generated when users try to load their information there.
Problem: Exploiting monopoly to force people to use their products.

No Deal? They'll Just Steal Your Idea (1999)

Microsoft add a TV program guide to their OS based on a product and business planned they gained during negotiations with a small startup, TV Host, when negotiations for a partnership failed.
Problem: Stifling competition and innovation. Stealing other company's ideas.

You Should Use Their Browser (1999)

Deliberately confusing messages are displayed when customers try to update Office at the Microsoft web site if they are not using Microsoft's browser.
Problem: Exploiting monopoly to force people to use their products.

Competition! They Can't Have That! (1999)

To stifle competition from Samba with their Windows NT 4 Server product, Microsoft made an unnecessary change to the communications protocol which made Samba incompatible. This could be reversed by changing the registry but references to how to do this were removed from their web site, in fact all references to Samba mysteriously disappeared.
Problem: Stifling competition and innovation.

Look, It Doesn't Work Now! (15 December 1998)

Microsoft tried to show they couldn't comply with a court order to remove Internet Explorer from Windows by showing a non functional version of the OS to the courts. But a Princeton Professor, Edward Felten, demonstrated a program written by two graduate students that removes Explorer safely. Next Microsoft's lawyers tried to show that the modified OS stopped the Windows update site working. But this was only because Microsoft deliberately changed it.
Problem: Using legal system for their own benefit.

All Competition Will Be Eliminated! (18 November 1998)

The digital greeting card company Blue Mountain Arts discovered that beta versions of Microsoft's Outlook Express were automatically filing their greeting cards into the junk folder and Microsoft's WebTV service was blocking their e-mail greeting cards as well. Maybe this was because Microsoft had recently started its own greeting card system after being unsuccessful in purchasing Blue Mountain Arts.
Problem: Stifling competition and innovation.

Not Only Dishonest but Also Stupid! (1998)

During the antitrust trials, Microsoft attempted to prove the inseparability of Windows and Internet Explorer by showing the judge a video. There was only one problem: The government's lawyer noticed that as the tape rolled on, the number of icons on the desktop kept changing. Microsoft sheepishly admitted to having spliced together footage from different computers to make its point.
Problem: Evidence Microsoft submits in trials is always suspect.

Using the System

The BSA, an organisation theoretically there to stop piracy, conveniently ignores use of pirated software if the organisation involved signs an agreement to buy and use Microsoft software in future.
Problem: Forcing use of their products

Compete and Confuse (1997)

Microsoft's new handheld computing device had to compete with the, already well established, Palm device so what better strategy could there be than stealing their name and calling it a Palm PC. They had to eventually back down on that one.
Problem: Deliberately confusing marketing.

[fwgx]

http://www.dailybruin.ucla.edu/db/is...microsoft.html
U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson ruled in favor of the Department of Justice, saying Microsoft is a monopoly that stifles innovation and hurts consumers by charging unfair prices and limiting choice.

After 77 days of testimony in the government case against Microsoft, Jackson, on Nov. 5, called the harm to consumers "immediate and easily discernible."

"Some innovations that would truly benefit customers never occur for the sole reason that they do not coincide with Microsoft's self-interest," Jackson wrote in his decision.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/24885.html
The release of reference licenses for Windows CIFS and SMB protocols - designed to increase competition in the file-sharing marketplace and also satisfy regulators' antitrust concerns - could actually kill competition ,thanks to some Microsoft Corp fine print.

Redmond, Washington-based Microsoft agreed to license its Common Internet File System (CIFS) protocol on a royalty-free basis, to enable other companies to implement the protocol on non-Windows operating systems. This was done to appease the concerns of both the US Department of Justice and the European Commission about Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior.

ComputerWire predicted the release of CIFS and SMB could squash open source when news first broke of its decision to open the technology in March. As details of the CIFS license have emerged since then, it has become clear Microsoft has effectively banned open source companies from distributing implementations of CIFS, if the software is distributed under the General Public License (GPL).

This caveat is not entirely unexpected as it enables Microsoft to ensure that its CIFS patents cannot be converted to the GPL, and protects the company's intellectual property. However, by specifically targeting the GPL, Microsoft could effectively kill off the open-source Samba project's implementation of SMB (Server Message Block the forerunner to CIFS).

[zootm]

Originally posted by Supersheep
People aren't just plain stupid, IE6 works
and that's what the people care about.
Who gives a damnn about the fact that firebird
has a better cookie management.

it's shipped with the operating system. that fact alone makes it cease to be an option on windows machines, and makes all other browsers "alternative" browsers, rather than equal choices.

[fwgx]

That's what my book above was trying to cover, ty zootm .

[xzxzzx]

Originally posted by killswitch1968
Summarized:
1. MS has crappy products - agreed, but that doesn't make them a monopoly.
2. Thousands of people making independent decisions have chosen to use MS standards rather than other standards - then they are idiots for making that choice. MS didn't make them choose it, they did.
3. Bill Gates wants you to use his products rather than someone elses - No fucking shit, is there a business in the world without this motive?
4. Microsoft stifle competition - I would like one iota of proof that Microsoft has eliminated the notion of competition in the OS marketplace. Unless some law prevents me from choosing different products, I can guarantee you will have a hard time showing me this. Historically the only monopolies that ever persist are government sponsored ones, where competition is illegal.

1) So why do they have 97% market share if their product is so crappy?
2) "Have chosen to use MS sandards rather than other standards" - really? And what standards are you speaking of, exactly? I know of people deliberately using Microsoft standards to make things work with Microsoft software, but what are you speaking of, as I'm afraid I've yet to see a Microsoft standard get adopted by a technical community, rather than forced upon them.
3) Yup. And he's very good at stepping on other buisnesses to do it.
4) Then look for yourself. It's pretty god damn obvious, and there are plenty of such examples in this thread already.

[edit] changed some bad grammar, then edited again to add this[/edit]

[zootm]

in addition to the reply to point 2, microsoft chose deliberately not to use communal standards, which with their existing market share forces companies to use their arbitrary standards which in many cases are not public and hence cannot be legally used on non-MS PCs, which reduces the usefulness of such systems and introduces difficulties in the uptake of them. they're using their existing dominance to stop the perpetuation of rival products. that is monopolistic behaviour.

[xzxzzx]

That is true. SMB, NetBEUI, and printing protocols, off the top of my head.

[zootm]

the replacement for SMB's license has something specifically forbidding its use in open-source software, i think i read somewhere. possibly on here, as a disclaimer.

[xzxzzx]

Haha, yeah, I know. You can't license a protocol, though, fortunately. Only documentation/procedures surrounding it.

[Spazz333]

Just the fact that most tech support places ask you what windows version you run automaticly should say something. Not what operating system or even system specs. It's assumed you have it since it's loaded onto 99% of retail computers.

[xzxzzx]

I think it's closer to 99.9%, but yeah. Windows has become, by Microsoft's anti-competative actions, the only viable choice in many situations.

[killswitch1968]

Originally posted by Phily Baby
Please spare me. 100% monopolisation is rarely if ever going to happen, that's a fact. Politicials are guided by ecconomists, lawyers, sociologists, sports scientists, doctors, biologists. Thats why most laws make sense, because they have not been plucked out of thin air, they are advised based on the best known facts, and occasionally twisted for political or ideological reasons.

WRONG. True monopolies DO OCCUR as I mentioned above. These include the US postal service. A free market monopoly is very very rare simply because the mechanism of the free market prevents them from happening. Only government mandated monopolies exist.
Politicians are indeed guided by 'experts', but ultimately politicians care about one thing: re-election. Since it has become so popular to hate big business, passing laws that hurt these businesses have become a great way to garner votes. And you can bet that his economist told him Microsoft isn't a true monopoly, but it isn't about what's factual, but what the tyranny of the majority believe in. Just look at American steel tariffs.

Bunch of stuff saying Microsoft makes crappy products, but makes no mention they have passed laws preventing people from making/selling competetive products

An OS that doesn't let you uninstall software is a BAD OS. Quite simply you should stop using it. All of that 'evidence' shows that Microsoft makes bad software, but no where do I see them FORCING ANYONE to use their OS.

Originally posted by zootm
1) So why do they have 97% market share if their product is so crappy?
2) "Have chosen to use MS sandards rather than other standards" - really?
3) Yup. And he's very good at stepping on other buisnesses to do it.
4) Then look for yourself. It's pretty god damn obvious, and there are plenty of such examples in this thread already.

1. Apple used to be on 90% of computers, and then Microsoft came along and started offering a better product, believe it or not. This quality has of course diminished, but over that time other OSes have not presented themselves to be SIGNIFICANTLY better.
That is an important point. People resist change, especially something as discontinually innovative as an operating system. They WILL NOT SWITCH unless the advantages are HUGE. Now there are lots of OSes to choose from, are the advantages huge? Tough to say, but there have been tons of articles stating why these operating systems (Mandrake, RedHat, Macs, etc.) lack a HUGE comparative advantage. It's going to take time for people set in their ways to convert. The stupid factor also plays a role, but so does the ignorance factor, who outside our universe has heard of Firebird?

2. Webstandards, .doc standards, etc. You choose to code in whatever you want. If you want to help the movement to stop using MS code, then do so. The more people do this the more other browsers will be accepted.
Don't think they are indomitable. How do you think pdfs have become so popular? That innovation clearly wasn't 'stifled'. And I won't even go into details regarding the server market. The movement is coming, but it's going to take time.

3. Give me a BREAK! All businesses 'step' on each other. That's why we live in a competetive environment.

4. You're gonna have to clarify.

Just the fact that most tech support places ask you what windows version you run automaticly should say something.

Ya it says that a helluva lot of people have microsoft OSes. Guess what, we already know this and doesn't have anything to do with their being a monopoly.

Everyone is ignoring or side-stepping the most plain and simple fact that is a PRIME requisite of a monopoly: they are not the SOLE provider of anything they provide.

[xzxzzx]

No one is the SOLE provider of anything they provide, with the exception of certain countries where it is illegal to compete. What exactly does the USPS provide that others don't? Absolutely nothing. You can send anything via UPS that you can send via USPS. UPS will come to your house to pick up packages. UPS has drop-off points. Other companies provide PO Boxes. You can get money orders in multitudes of places. The only thing that the USPS provides that others don't is delivery to PO boxes under USPS control. Wow, there's a fucking shocker. Microsoft controls those O/Ses that can use Windows Update - that argument is stupid.

Microsoft is as much of a monopoly as the USPS is.

The kind of monopoly you speak of is fictional in the United States, and probably most first-world countries.

1) What product did Microsoft offer that was 'better' (in fact, provided a "HUGE" advantage, according to how people tend to switch, according to you) than an Apple product. I'd like to hear of it. Please, name the competing products so I can see how Microsoft's is better when Apple had "90%" share.

2) WEB STANDARDS? The only thing Microsoft has done to web standards is mutilate them and then fool web developers into thinking it was "the" standard. See http://www.w3.org/ for some ACTUAL web standards. DOC standards? Who uses all non-microsoft software and .doc files? Um, how about no one? PDFs have become the standard because even Microsoft doesn't fuck with Adobe. Adobe is the top provider of just about all it encompasses, and PDFs, if I recall, are based upon an open standard, though I could be mistaken in that. Furthermore, PDFs don't suck.

See
http://news.com.com/2100-1040_3-978607.html
and
http://www.planetpdf.com/mainpage.asp?webpageid=1992
3) Buisnesses have always "stepped on each other", true, but not in such decietful and anti-competative ways as Bill Gates has. See http://www.euronet.nl/users/frankvw/IhateMS.html for some relatively accurate history, or buy a book on Microsoft.
4) Let's take an example.
Microsoft's "Embrace and Extend" method for using open standards to their advantage. Open up Microsoft Visual C++ 7.0 and you'll see countless additions and modifications to the language, clearly designed to tie you to Windows. The .h files for the Windows API only compile with these extentions turned on, so while you arn't forced to use these extentions, you'd better have a sharp eye for those things that are Microosft extentions. To be fair, however, the Microsoft documentation does mark extentions to the language as such.

Microsoft has done, or attempted to do, the same to HTML, Java, Kerberos, and several other things that I can't recall off of the top of my head.
See
http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace_and_extend - though it is a bit biased.

[mikeflca]

Originally posted by killswitch1968

That is an important point. People resist change, especially something as discontinually innovative as an operating system. They WILL NOT SWITCH unless the advantages are HUGE. Now there are lots of OSes to choose from, are the advantages huge? Tough to say, but there have been tons of articles stating why these operating systems (Mandrake, RedHat, Macs, etc.) lack a HUGE comparative advantage.

Maybe you have not been 1) reading or 2) clicking on enough links, such as the one to "microsuck".

The huge comparitive advantage is this: Since Microsoft has managed to force companies to sell their products rather than other people's, and brbed gamers to make games work on windows, and do all that sort of thing, the advantage they hold is that more products work for them than any other O/Ses. I don't have to mention that they did illegal stuff to reach this point.
Did I say that Microsoft is a monopoly? No. Did I say that Microsoft tries to step on competition? Yes. It's so obvious.

[edit]nice new avatar Bazman [/edit]

[Bazman63]

erm, don't mind me. You guys just carry on right after this.

[mikeflca]

ROTFL @picture

[zootm]

killswitch1968 - please check who you're quoting when you quote. also nothing you said disproved any of the points you were contesting.

[gt55x]

I would not hate microsoft so much if they just gave us the OS. with add on disks and insall as u want. : Internet Exploer,Outlook express,Windows Media Player,Paint,Wordpad,MSN Messanger/Explorer etc...

Also allowed the sale of blank machines if you wanted to buy a machine without the nonsince if u wanted to.
But no if you buy a new pc it comes with Windows Pre installed even if you have the Right of a Windows disk off youre older machineor if you bought it seperate.
Thats a nasty forsed upgrade.

[gt55x]

heh also i never of Microsoft Does not crash edition.

[killswitch1968]

Originally posted by xzxzzx
No one is the SOLE provider of anything they provide, with the exception of certain countries where it is illegal to compete. What exactly does the USPS provide that others don't? Absolutely nothing. Microsoft is as much of a monopoly as the USPS is.

Nope. You can only send express packages, which obviously cost a lot more, by a private company. No where does such legislation exist in the computer world.

From xzxzzx
The kind of monopoly you speak of is fictional in the United States, and probably most first-world countries.

It is fictional in free market systems. Surprising? Not to an economist.

From xzxzz
1) What product did Microsoft offer that was 'better' (in fact, provided a "HUGE" advantage, according to how people tend to switch, according to you) than an Apple product.

Apple made a series of poor decisions, including the firing of Steve Jobs that lead to its decline. MS-DOS was a big one, so was Windows 3.1. Surely you wouldn't argue that Microsoft rose to what it is today by exercising its 'monopoly power' when it was starting out!

From xzxzz
2) PDFs have become the standard because even Microsoft doesn't fuck with Adobe. Adobe is the top provider of just about all it encompasses, and PDFs, if I recall, are based upon an open standard, though I could be mistaken in that. Furthermore, PDFs don't suck.

Precisely! Even despite this fictious 'stifling of innovation' great applications like Adobe and Apache not only exist but SURPASS Microsoft's 'monopoly'. So long as neither group makes any grevious error and is better than whatever Microsoft releases they will remain that way. It's also the reason Adobe so explicit states their patents everytime you boot it up.

3) Buisnesses have always "stepped on each other", true, but not in such decietful and anti-competative ways as Bill Gates has. See http://www.euronet.nl/users/frankvw/IhateMS.html for some relatively accurate history, or buy a book on Microsoft.

Obviously any deceitful or fraudulent actions Microsoft does is subject to legal scrutiny, which I wholly support. If they've done something outside the bounds of the law, then they should be prosecuted. As Enron and WorldCom have shown, illegal activity is a surefire way of destroying your company.
Microsoft may legally employ tactics to undermine their competitors, but as do others. When Wal-Mart undercuts cuts prices, it is their desire to out-do their competetitors. However this is not ANTI-competetive, but glorious, raging, free market competition come to life. Such as it is with Microsoft. When someone releases a competetive web-browser, Microsoft undercuts them by giving away their product for free and bundling it.
Make no mistake: Netscape was defeated because they offered no competetive advantage. Their browser was equally shitty, if not more so, than the IE that was included on people's computers. Had they simply had features people wanted, and explicitly stated these features, they would have had no problems.
Or would you rather still be PAYING for a browser that rivalled IE in mediocrity?

xzxxzx
4) Let's take an example.....

This is much like the web-standard argument, and countless others before it. Microsoft corrupts these standards, and indeed, mutilates them. This is clearly not a good way to compete in today's world. Releasing a better product is. The longevity of this tactic is short at best.

My favorite example is WindowsME. Clearly the WORST OS I have ever used in my life. Microsoft did indeed realize this and the only way out of it was by supplying an operating system that actually functioned and was user-friendly. Enter XP. Even its harshest critics agree that it is far superior to the cack that was Windows ME.


So the burning question remains: Why does such a horrible product exist when other clearly superior products exist? Knowledge. Nobody knows about alternatives and most don't even care. Everytime I have switched from using an MS product it was because their competitors offered an advantage GREAT ENOUGH for me to switch. With Opera it was a popup-blocker, with Calendarscope it was a friendlier GUI, with Miranda it was a clean interface, etc. etc.
During the WindowsME debacle I did indeed TRY to use RedHat (it was supposed to be more stable). The results? I couldn't even get past the login screen after downloading GIGS of software on 3 separate discs. Am I computer illiterate? Perhaps, but so is the rest of the desktop market. Linux has always been dominated by geeks, and they know this. Mandrake may indeed take over the desktop market, but not until they offer the significant comparative advantage and offer a desktop that grandma and grandpa can easily use. This is a significant hurdle. yet the evidence suggests MS is on its way down; their stocks have indeed stopped rising. And this will not be because of litigation but because they make bad software and the free market will usher them out.

gt55x
I would not hate microsoft so much if they just gave us the OS. with add on disks and insall as u want. : Internet Exploer,Outlook express,Windows Media Player,Paint,Wordpad,MSN Messanger/Explorer etc...

No you can't uninstall them, more stupid moves on MSs part that further show they make bad software, but are not a monopoly. Do what I do: Leave those products and use a different program. An unfortunate compromise.
Don't forget Moviemaker and that stupid xerox directory, I hate those things!

Did I say that Microsoft is a monopoly? No. Did I say that Microsoft tries to step on competition? Yes. It's so obvious

The very existence of this forums and its associated product show that healthy competition exists, despite all this 'stifling' going around.
But at least we agree that they are indeed not a monopoly.

I clicked on virtually every link, including the heavily biased microsuck.com, and without a doubt a point was proven to me which I already knew: MS products suck. What was deflty neglected were the shortcomings of the alternatives, the rise of competetive products (pdf and apache) in this 'anti-competetive' environment, or the fact that MS is a sole provider of any one software or hardware.

Some rubbish from microsuck.com

...Microsoft components which were bundled with Windows in order to kill competition and which were clearly inferior at the time of their bundling.

People don't like "clearly" inferior products. If people did swap it's because they preferred MSs comparative advantage (not having to go find software since it's already installed) over the other software (some 'superior' features that obviously weren't superior enough or advertised enough to make people switch).

Yes, Microsoft royally screwed over Spyglass by licensing their code and then turning around and giving it away for free.

Nothing shows how heartless a business is by buying a product and then giving it away for free. Who's the real price gougers here? Spyglass who CHARGED for an inferior product, or MS who gave it away for free.

The list goes on and on and in the end the same conclusion is drawn: MS makes crappy products but are not the sole provider of anything they provide. And ONLY by being the sole provider can the troublesome economic monopoly scenarios be demonstrated. Offer me a better product and I will adopt, as I have in the past. I'm just waiting for a Mandrake release like this.

[zootm]

My favorite example is WindowsME. Clearly the WORST OS I have ever used in my life. Microsoft did indeed realize this and the only way out of it was by supplying an operating system that actually functioned and was user-friendly. Enter XP. Even its harshest critics agree that it is far superior to the cack that was Windows ME.

bullshit. XP was in development before ME - ME was a stopgap to make more funds while they created their "next generation" desktop OS.

i don't have time to reply to the rest (working in like 5 minutes), sorry!

[fwgx]

The rise of Apache is most likley to it running on unix platforms that are most widely used to host websites due to Unix's massive advantages as a server.

It appears you see everything MS does as bad programming when it is really just lock in and designed specifically with the purpose of grabbing users who can then never escape.

[xzxzzx]

Oh, CRAP. I had a nice long post written out, I forget about, and erase it. Fuck you. I'll retype it later.

[Fickle]

I don't like how they are known for taking little coding pieces of other programs and implement it into thier own shit. I may not be code but it's very "Johnny-come-lately" and very fucking annoying. And thier Media Player and it's Vis SUCKS btw.

[mikeflca]

killswitch1968, you do know that one does not have to get rid of ALL competition in order to be anti-competitave, right? you seem to be confused there.

You are probably right when you say people don't know about other products and/or don't care, which is why they don't buy/download them. Ever read Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury?

You (killswitch1968)said:

Who's the real price gougers here? Spyglass who CHARGED for an inferior product, or MS who gave it away for free.

If I did this with a singer's song or album, it would be illegal.

[killswitch1968]

Originally posted by mikeflca
killswitch1968, you do know that one does not have to get rid of ALL competition in order to be anti-competitave, right? you seem to be confused there.

You are probably right when you say people don't know about other products and/or don't care, which is why they don't buy/download them. Ever read Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury?

You (killswitch1968)said:
...
If I did this with a singer's song or album, it would be illegal.

Well what exactly is the difference between creating an anti-competetive environment, and being ferociously competetive? They seem one and the same. I would say the difference lies in whether or not competitors are LEGALLY allowed to co-exist, not a company's decision to undercut other companies or use a myriad of tactics to gain market share.

Farenheit 451, I thought that was about censorship and burning some books. I actually haven't read it.

In the case of the SpyGlass example, they licensed the program and was thus perfectly legal for them to give it away. A rather risky gambit to dethrone Netscape's comfortable position that eventually paid off.

I have the feeling that a lot of people who use Microsoft products are the quickest to excuse them of having a monopoly. It's far easier to blame someone else on your own misgivings as an uninformed consumer than to do your research and discover other products.

[fwgx]

Although it's talking about Canada this is a good source of information: http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/pics/ct/aodsummary.pdf

What is Market Dominance?
The Bureau considers market dominance to be synonymous with market power. Although it can be
difficult to measure market power directly, the Bureau places greatest emphasis on key factors such as
market share and barriers to entry. In defining market dominance, the Competition Bureau looks at
whether a firm, or a group of firms, substantially or completely controls a product or service in a given
geographic area.
Though there are no hard and fast rules governing the relationship between market share and market
dominance, the Bureau is guided in its approach by the following general criteria when examining
market conditions:
• A market share of less than 35%, held by one firm, does not generally raise concerns with the
Bureau.
• A market share of 35% and over, held by one firm, generally raises some concern and prompts
further examination by the Bureau.
• In the case of a group of firms, a combined market share exceeding 60% generally raises
concerns and prompts further examination by the Bureau.
When does Market Dominance become Abuse of Dominance?
The Competition Act does not prohibit dominance or the presence of market power per se, and sheer
market power alone, or even market dominance, does not constitute abuse of dominance. Abuse of
dominance occurs when a dominant firm, or group of firms, substantially prevents or lessens
competition, by engaging in acts that aim to eliminate or discipline competitors, or simply to stop
potential competitors from entering the market in question.
There are three essential elements to abuse of dominance; all must be present for an offence to occur:
• One or more firms must substantially or completely control a relevant market.
• The firm or firms must engage in anti-competitive activities.
• These actions must prevent or lessen competition substantially in a market, or be likely to do so
in the future.
When examining an activity to determine if it is anti-competitive, the Bureau assesses whether it falls into
one or more of the following categories:
• Does the activity raise competitors’ costs, reduce their revenues, or prevent their access to key
inputs or facilities?
• Does the activity constitute predatory conduct, particularly in a market with high barriers to
entry?
• Does the activity facilitate or enhance the ability for groups of dominant firms to monitor each
other in order to maintain or increase price levels?
The Competition Act provides an illustrative list of potentially anti-competitive acts. These include
such things as unfair margin squeezing, acquiring a supplier to foreclose a competitor, freight
equalization to impede competition, the use of fighting brands to eliminate a competitor, and the sale of
articles below cost to discipline a competitor. However, the list is meant only as a guide and is not
exhaustive. In a number of cases, the Bureau has alleged and proven that practices not listed in the Act
can constitute anti-competitive acts.

[mikeflca]

My apologies about the F451 statement. What I meant to add was that in F451, being stupid and not knowing that other things in the world exist leads to a everybody becoming a bunch of boring drones.

originaly posted by killswitch
Well what exactly is the difference between creating an anti-competetive environment, and being ferociously competetive? They seem one and the same. I would say the difference lies in whether or not competitors are LEGALLY allowed to co-exist, not a company's decision to undercut other companies or use a myriad of tactics to gain market share.

and Microsoft uses illegal tactics to be anti-competitave. THATS what a lot of the real bitching about microsoft is about.

Abuse of dominance occurs when a dominant firm, or group of firms, substantially prevents or lessens competition, by engaging in acts that aim to eliminate or discipline competitors, or simply to stop
potential competitors from entering the market in question.

EXACTLY what Microsoft does.

When Wal-Mart undercuts cuts prices, it is their desire to out-do their competetitors. However this is not ANTI-competetive, but glorious, raging, free market competition come to life. Such as it is with Microsoft. When someone releases a competetive web-browser, Microsoft undercuts them by giving away their product for free and bundling it.

Please note that wal-mart did not take another companies' products and sell those for free. Also, judging by the fact that you would have to pay 100+ dollars(unless you are upgrading) for a shitty OS, I think the "for free" part is not 100% justifiable.

You should note that although Microsoft is not an "absolute" monopoly, they do everything in their power to act like a monopoly.

As I already mentioned in my post b4 my last post, Microsoft is not on top because they have beter products. They are still on top because they have, for lack of better (or nicer) words, used extortion to make many companies "see their side of the arguement" and make products/computers for Windows only.