This is a discussion forum. I posted a piece on how M$ screwed it's way to the top, then someone cut me down saying 'business is business' well maybe in a communist command economy or in a banana republic but in a capitalist state what's unfair and anti-competitive is wrong and gets punished. I'm just pointing out to the Windoze fanboys how lousy their OS is. That's all. Nothing more and nothing less. It amazes me that people can sue - Apple for example - over incorrect monitor colour depth but accept a shoddy OS which has cost millions if not billions of dollars in lost revenue because of zombie botnets sending out spam and phishing sites and people working on slow malware infested systems. Surely, if that's not defective by design, I don't know what is. Linux and Apple Mac OSX are better, of course, so is Solaris and other UNIX based operating systems.
-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: Are you keeping your Prime subscription?
Some M$ history...
- Thread starter PeterCH
- Start date
This is a discussion forum. I posted a piece on how M$ screwed it's way to the top, then someone cut me down saying 'business is business' well maybe in a communist command economy or in a banana republic but in a capitalist state what's unfair and anti-competitive is wrong and gets punished. I'm just pointing out to the Windoze fanboys how lousy their OS is. That's all. Nothing more and nothing less. It amazes me that people can sue - Apple for example - over incorrect monitor colour depth but accept a shoddy OS which has cost millions if not billions of dollars in lost revenue because of zombie botnets sending out spam and phishing sites and people working on slow malware infested systems. Surely, if that's not defective by design, I don't know what is. Linux and Apple Mac OSX are better, of course, so is Solaris and other UNIX based operating systems.
I am Penguin
Executive Member
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2009
- Messages
- 7,712
- Reaction score
- 38
Typical idiocracy. Off topic in his own thread.
Ask the mods to change the name to "The Apple/MAC/OSX Fanboi, PeterCH, Microsoft Bashing thread"Typical idiocracy. Off topic in his own thread.
I guess that's the best you can do. :yawn:
Hmmm... in a pure capitalist economy "business is business" or laissez faire. The implementation of ideas like "unfair" and "anti-competitiveness" are actually social-political adjustments to pure and unadulterated capitalism. Not quite communism, but leaning slightly towards socialism - a check on pure capitalism.
+1000000
Couldnt have said it better myself. Can even customize linux to suit your needs, something totally taboo in windoze. I've found a replacement for every program I use in windows on linux some work even better if not most.
The amount of programs available to linux users are far more useful and widespread and they don't lock up or crash your system.
The golden rule, the terminal is always your friend
Nonsense. Using a monopoly in one field to stiffle competition makes for one large uncompetitive behemoth. When smaller companies cannot compete with superior products because they're locked out the result is reduced innovation, productivity, more expensive prices for the consumer who now has to pay one behemoth instead of spending his money on other products in possibly unrelated markets - eg buying a new TV or luxury goods. I'm sure you know that CAPITALISM grew out of competition, when one company uses one monopoly (which was already created in a dodgy way) to shut out competitors, it's definately not good for the economy or the consumers (who are businesses themselves and their costs go up).
You also conveniently forgot to mention M$ lobbying of the government.
I guess you're a fan of Enron then.
Did you have shares in that great capitalist company?Telkom?
AT&T?
Yeah-- great Capitalist Monopolies.
Kloofvreter
Honorary Master
Nobody is forced to buy M$ products. I'm sure you don't. Linux has always been the free alternative, and is only NOW *starting* to take off? Why do people piss and moan about M$'s expensive products, yet they don't use the open source ones?
RoosTa
Expert Member
In the end, consumer is king.
I think you are confused between economic and political systems - capitalism and democracy.
Admittedly the two blend together, but I was commenting on your remark. Unfairness and anti-competition (i.t.o. monopolies) blur the lines between economics and politics, but are at heart socio-political principles. When all factors are equal becoming a monopoly (other than legislated monopolies) is actually the pinnacle of capitalistic achievement!
I'm don't approve or agree with Microsoft's strong market position, and I'm anything but a fanboi, but that's not the point
I also agree with you that monopolies tend to be counter-productive for the economy and consumers. But it is never clear cut. I wonder if we would have advanced this far with PC's, including the use and general uptake of the technology by consumers if everyone had to deal with 200 various forms of Linux?
I guess you're a fan of Enron then.
Telkom?
AT&T?
Yeah-- great Capitalist Monopolies.
Irrelevant. But in any case I would buy shares in them if it made economic sense. It would be a financial decision. If you are morally opposed to them that would be different. BTW you should have included MTN, duopolies also count.
Why am I confused?
Adam Smith was against monopolies. Anyhow monopolies which got where they are in an unfair way are examples of communism too. In communism the industry is controlled by one body - the Party - and it lets in no competitors.
Maybe I'm blurring the line with anti-trust here but when a company behaves unfairly (eg steals secrets, assasinates an opposing CEO - and no-one finds out about it) or leverages one monopoly to stiffle competition in other areas,
that's akin to that type of forced centralised control - in effect it becomes like that.
I'm don't approve or agree with Microsoft's strong market position, and I'm anything but a fanboi, but that's not the point
That's irrelevant.
EU did a study and in this case it is clear cut. Did you read the PDF above?
Linux wasn't around when MS started. It killed off Dr-DOS (superior), it killed off Office competitors and at the same time killed off OS2 Warp which was
superior to Windoze and did not cost more. It was meant to be run on clones.
Glad you didn't buy into Enron? After all it was doing so well without oversight.
It is relevant, BTW.
That's the biggest bullsh1t I've ever heard.
Your absolute hate of MS is derailing the interesting subject of monopolies/economics/politics. Let's quit now...
...before we start argumentum ad hominem
That's the biggest bullsh1t I've ever heard.
Your absolute hate of MS is derailing the interesting subject of monopolies/economics/politics. Let's quit now...
...before we start argumentum ad hominem
Communism = central control of economy where little guys can't start their own businesses. Tried to start a business in Soviet Russia? You couldn't - gov decided what you could or could not do. A command economy is central to
Communism. A large MONOPOLY which ABUSES it's position is VERY SIMILAR,
forgetting ideological issues and populist BS talk, the end result is the same.
MS controlled (still does) the consumer PC OS market, browser and Office markets. It performed dirty secrets (exposed by US DOJ and EC) to stay in power and block out other competitors. True it did not send you to the gulag but the effect was similar - if you tried to compete you were assimilated or otherwise disposed off - and the economic effect was the same - a big giant behemoth corporation full of bureaucracy without innovation dictating market terms to consumers and other businesses.
Why do you feel you need to insult me? Can't you explain yourself in civil, clear terms?
What a load of cr@p. Most people ARE forced to buy MS products whether they like it or not. Try going into incredible connection and asking for a computer that doesn't have Windows installed on it.
Most people don't even see the hidden cost they pay when they buy a computer with MS loaded. However, that cost became more apparent, when netbooks started appearing with Linux loaded on them.
MS has also gone out of its way to make it as hard as possible to make OpenOffice compatible with MS Office. Incidentally, ODF is the only ISO accredited standard, but MS don't offer the option to save in it. Isn't that a tad anti-competitive?
All those who believe MS is better because MS has the market share, doesn't understand the first thing about the war for standards. If you harbour this ill-conceived belief, I suggest you read up a bit on game theory and bowls of attraction.
I'll remind you that Sony's Betamax was widely regarded as a greatly superior technology to VHS, yet it faded into oblivion.
Look, quite simply the reason that people don't like MS is that is stifles innovation. Look at IE6. The browser wars were won, and MS sat back and tried to protect its monopoly rather than innovate.
XP had 97% of the market share, and MS produced Vista, late and a load of rubbish. It's Aero interface couldn't run on most of the computers at the time, and still can't run very well (if at all) on entry level computers.
MS's policy is to crush all opposition using any available tools (including but not limited to: FUD, Astroturfing, Paid "Independent" case studies, Legal action), then to sit back and stop all further innovation.
The reason why Win7 was rushed out, was because of the threat of Linux.
Kloofvreter
Honorary Master
Strange, because when I asked for the price WITHOUT Windows installed, they said it's the same because Windows is included as part of the price. Same with Computer Mania, and a few other places. Tell them you want just the PC/Notebook with NO preinstalled software, you still pay the same price.
These ideas/subjects differ fundamentally and you are latching on to one or two similarities to defend your theory.
Quality of products were ****e in the USSR, so are those in the Seven Eleven around the corner from my work. Therefore the Seven Eleven owner is a gun-toting, rhetoric-spewing Stalinist?
Any case, I suspect you could find similarities between Khmer Rouge and MS. Or Ted Bundy and Bill Gates. You are forcing me to defend MS, which I don't want to.
I'm not condoning it, but you are naive if you think that this is not the MO of most big business. Or the Rockfellers. Or whoever made a fantastically lot of money. MS is no exception. By your thinking we are practically all communists. See, I'm defending MS again.
It was just a joking reference to your favourite latin expression
Don't for one second think that this means that you get Windows for free. It just means that the Vendor / manufacturer / Microsoft is pocketing the difference.
These ideas/subjects differ fundamentally and you are latching on to one or two similarities to defend your theory.
Quality of products were ****e in the USSR, so are those in the Seven Eleven around the corner from my work. Therefore the Seven Eleven owner is a gun-toting, rhetoric-spewing Stalinist?
A monopoly exercises non-market based controls. A company which leverages one monopoly to fight off competition is effectively controlling that sector and market forces cannot influence supply/demand in that field.
I think the similarities are more glaring.
I'm not condoning it, but you are naive if you think that this is not the MO of most big business. Or the Rockfellers. Or whoever made a fantastically lot of money. MS is no exception. By your thinking we are practically all communists. See, I'm defending MS again.
I agree with you 100%. However, M$ is the big cuplrit here and they have gotten off relatively scott-free. We known about M$, we don't know about the others but this is a more or less M$ specific discussion.
Kloofvreter
Honorary Master
So then my argument that nobody is forced to buy M$ products stands then.
RoosTa
Expert Member
Are PC salesman pointing guns at people's heads and forcing them to buy MS products? Whats the world coming to?!?
In the 80's, if people wanted to buy a walkman, it would be a Sony. If anyone wanted a console, it would be a Nintendo. If you wanted tekkies (sneakers), it had to be Nike. If you wanted to rent a movie, you had to have a VHS.
Although Betamax might have been the 'superior' product, it had a major flaw. A "grand total" of 1 hour recording, while VHS allowed you to record 3hours+. Consumers chose the longer recording over the 'superior' image quality and that is the crux of the matter. What ever happened after that is irrelevant.
I've tried several Linux distro's and although they are great alternatives, they don't fulfill my requirements as a consumer. If Linux was a better product, surely it have been installed on every PC today as its completely free? I applaud Shuttleworth's effort into bringing Linux into the mainstream. This is something that Linux has always lacked, regardless if its 'superior' or not.
A product is only as good as its weakpoint.
And thats what I meant by "Consumer is king".