An even better article from the Economist: http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8550569
Leave it to economists not to be in awe of anything - including Microsoft? --- Andrew Latham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > A must read...... > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Robert G. Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Jan 23, 2007 12:28 PM > Subject: [Beowulf] An OT patented rgb editorial > rant, skip if you like... > To: Ryan Waite <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: Beowulf Mailing List <[email protected]> > > > On Thu, 18 Jan 2007, Ryan Waite wrote: > > > I know some of you aren't, um, tolerant of > Microsoft for various reasons > > but I thought I'd clear up a couple errors in some > of the posts. If you > > hate Microsoft at least you now have an email > address for when you're > > feeling grumpy. > > I don't feel grumpy (I've had my coffee:-) about > Microsoft, nor do I > hate it. > > If anything, I fear it. And so should you, even as > you work for it. > > Never in the history of the world has a single > company achieved the > level of single-market dominance that Microsoft now > has. Even AT&T at > its peak didn't dominate the WORLD market, and it > was a government > regulated monopoly (indeed, it could not have come > into existence > without the active help of the government, which > more or less > deliberately decided to give it exclusivity in the > market in exchange > for accepting government regulation and price > control). J.D. > Rockefeller was a piker, Vanderbilt a wimp in > comparison. Only Ford, > perhaps, enjoyed a similar period of global > dominance but then, no, > probably not, as global markets didn't really exist > until after he had > competition. > > Microsoft, on the other hand, is for all practical > purposes completely > unregulated, it faces no serious competition, it > routinely engages in > business practices that make it very difficult for > serious competition > to ever arise, and it extends all over the world, > not just in the United > States. It has long since surpassed critical mass. > It has demonstrated > conclusively that it is invulnerable to antitrust > suits -- it can > cheerfully spend more money defending against them > than it stands to > lose, and can stand to lose a billion dollars, and > still come out > unimaginably ahead. After all, its opponents also > have to match it > dollar for dollar and politically breaking it up is > not an option even > if it is the "obvious" thing to do. > > Microsoft has exploited its position to achieve the > unthinkable -- it > has become a globe-spanning "hydraulic empire" > (water monopoly), the > strongest kind of monopoly there is and one where it > has virtually NO > competition and where by virtue of its position it > can ensure that NO > competition has any sort of realistic chance to > emerge. > > This is more than an analogy -- its practices fit > this historical model > better, in many ways, than e.g the Chinese empires > that were one of > Wittfogel's original examples. By controlling the > basic operating > system (the "water") it has asserted a level of > control over the mass > software market for PCs that vastly exceeds any > reasonable definition of > a "trust". Basically, it does whatever it likes in > this market, in such > a way that it literally cannot be opposed. Time and > again, when a new > software market has developed in the past, when an > entrepreneur has come > up with a good idea and at risk of personal fortune > and time created a > new software product, Microsoft has simply written > their own version of > the product, shifted the access of their competitor > to the "water" of > the operating system to create problems that they > (Microsoft) are able > to avoid, and behold! The emperor's troops remain > healthy and strong > while those of the upstart warlords are thin and > emaciated without the > water to grow rice! They have then proceeded to > take as much of the > market as they liked. Where is Borland today? > Lotus? Corel? > Netscape? Even Apple exists to some extent because > Microsoft "needs" a > visible "competitor" lest our government be forced > to actually > acknowledge the obvious truth. OS2 was the last > viable candidate for a > competitor, and if it had won IT would doubtless > have become the > hydraulic empire and we'd all be railing against > IBM. > > I could go on (and have gone on in this and other > forums in the past:-). > Adam Smith's invisible hand relies on the > POSSIBILITY of nucleation and > growth of real competition, but the wonderful (from > Microsoft's point of > view) thing about hydraulic empires is that they > historically never fall > from within, and even when conquered from without > their replacement > starts to "look like" the conquered bureaucracy -- > the temptation to > exert abolute control by controlling access to water > is just too strong. > Only forces from outside -- foreign barbarian > invaders -- tend to be > able to bring about real change. > > So when netscape emerges as a viable competitor in > one small part of the > Empire -- sorry, no water for you. Your product > will not work, our > competing product cannot be removed and does. Java? > A clear threat, as > it enables the development of software that does not > rely on our supply > of water -- suborn it and insert our own insidious > code base to ensure > that future programs written to use it require water > from our carefully > controlled and expensive wells. Make sure that our > customers know that > glacial ice melt water provided by penguins, however > clear and cold and > free of access, is of limited supply and contains > giardia, cholera, > amoebic dysentary and possibly traces of mercury and > radioactive > compounds because penguins have unclean habits and > never wipe their feet > and should NEVER be used to make java. We > (Microsoft) cannot lose, > because somewhere between 90% and 95% of all > desktops already run our > flavor of water (and the exceptions are pretty much > confined to graphics > arts workstations or geek machines, both ignorable > markets that we still > dominate anyway) and will hence inherit our flavor > of Java. Business > developers who choose to fight the trend will simply > dry up and blow > away, and if we have to pay Sun a half-billion > dollars in "damages" who > cares? The real "damage" is already done to our > advantage and the > markets at stake are tens of billions per year. > > Or my favorite -- when assessing and certifying > competence on computers > in the state of North Carolina, students are tested > on the use of an > integrated office suite. Which one(s)? Well, let's > see. Schools have > the choice of Microsoft Office, Microsoft Works > (even for -- and this is > not a joke -- DOS 2 or 3) or Apple Works (or again > not a joke, Claris). > > Hmmm. Apple has been driven to the edge of > extinction several times and > has only been teased back from the brink by the > invention of the ipod > and OSX (the latter allowing it to tap into the fast > pool of OS software > === message truncated === ____________________________________________________________________________________ Never miss an email again! Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/ _______________________________________________ Fwlug mailing list [email protected] http://fortwaynelug.org/mailman/listinfo/fwlug_fortwaynelug.org
