Linux-Advocacy Digest #655, Volume #31 Mon, 22 Jan 01 13:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Windows 2000 (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 17:42:31 GMT
Said Tom Wilson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 22 Jan 2001 10:38:11
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Tom Wilson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 20 Jan 2001 17:47:05
>> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> [...]
>> >> You seem to be proposing that a profit-seeking business would be
>> >> interested in not making more money.
>> >
>> >Microsoft had already screwed over Apple with the Windows thing. Apple is
>> >ALSO in the software game and by most accounts, did it better.
>>
>> I'm not interested in "the software game", just real world markets and
>> products. Apple doesn't make many software products; their 'game' is to
>> sell computers. Most all software products for Macintosh are third
>> party.
>
>What little they produced, and I know this will be roundly disagreed with,
>was of superior quality to MS's and showed quite a bit of originality.
Oh, certainly. But that's not hard. Being a monopolist, MS is quite
incapable of producing anything of superior, or even adequate, quality,
and originality might be used to support 'churn', but it certainly never
translates into a user benefit. Regardless, this doesn't actually make
DOS/Windows competitive with MacOS. Since they can't be substituted for
each other without changing the entire computer, its rather silly to
talk as if they were competitors, seeing as how MS never produced
hardware, and that's where Apple made their money.
>> >It was in
>> >MS's best interest not to support that platform. Apple was a true
>competitor
>> >to them.
>>
>> How could they possibly be a "true" competitor, if they didn't compete
>> in selling the same kind of product *at all*?
>
>MS's best interests was the PC and compatable market, which they were in the
>process of "owning" via exclusive software bundling, being THE universal
>standard.
That kind of "owning" is a felony. Were you aware of that? Even
attempting that kind of "owning", in fact, is a federal crime.
So, yes, Microsoft monopolized, committing a crime to prevent
competition. You give it an all-too-acceptable-sounding spin when you
refuse to recognize it as such.
> (Which it, indeed became regardless of how it actually happened)
No, it never became "the universal standard". Again, I know YOU think
its pedantic, but I know its actually just using the correct word for
the correct thing. Using words that are known to be incorrect is
called, simply, being wrong. You're wrong; Microsoft became a
monopolist. That is the only correct way of saying it.
>If Apple, which had understandably bad blood with MS, were to catch on big
>and supplant the PC, MS would be out in the cold.
"If"? What the fuck is that supposed to mean? As my mother-in-law used
to say "Shit is one hand, wish in the other." "If", indeed. If wishes
were horses, and all that.
>> >They had the potential to actually hurt them. (They also had
>> >incentive too.)
>>
>> They had the potential to break the monopoly, yes. So did many other
>> competitive threats. As for incentive, profit seeking firms
>> unfortunately *don't* have any incentive for acting competitively in the
>> face of a monopolist. They either act anti-competitively, or they
>> batten down the hatches and try to ride it out, while actually
>> minimizing any exposure caused by development or compatibility. It
>> hurts their customers, of course, but there's no way to prevent that.
>> Monopolies are already illegal.
>
>But a fact, none-the-less. The big problem is this one was allowed to go on
>for too long.
No, that is not a "fact, none-the-less". It is a supposition, at best.
In fact, its worse than that, its a fantasy, since despite any
"potential" a competitor might have to weaken a monopoly, the monopoly's
ability to prevent them from doing so is only mitigated by the law, and
nothing else. Since they had to be law-breakers to gain monopoly power
to begin with, using monopoly power to maintain their dominance of the
market is always going to be a greater potential than anything that any
competitive producer can bring to bear. One might consider the
possibility that an *anti-competitive* producer might be in a 'better'
position, but unfortunately, their actions are illegal as well, and
cause the same harm to the consumer.
[...]
>> >Despite the obvious business faux-paus, they got away with it. It made B.G.
>> >the richest man in the world.
>>
>> It was illegal. The rest is rather unimportant.
>
>No non-biased, thinking individual would argue the illegality of it.
Do you mean "argue against the illegality of it?" It seems to me that
calling it a "business faux-paus", rather than a felony, as appropriate,
begs the question.
>> >If supporting and standardizing multiple platforms were, in Microsoft's
>> >views, advantageous, they would have done it.
>>
>> Who cares about Microsoft's view? We're consumers, not producers. Stop
>> being brain-dead. That's the trouble with you Randites; you seem to
>> think that its OK to get ripped off, as long as you get the chance to
>> rip someone else off some time.
>
>You are so misunderstanding what is being said. I'm merely pointing out why
>multi-platform support, (which this thread had veered into), was/is so poor
>as to be non-existent.
But you are mistaken; I am not misunderstanding you, I'm disagreeing
with you. I am merely pointing out that the reason multi-platform
support is poor is because of illegal behavior, and that alone. Your
attempts to rationalize it as 'appropriate behavior under certain
circumstances' is a thinly veiled apology for a monopolist.
>I most certainly DON'T think any of this is OK and it
>upsets me as much as most of us who jumped on the Linux/BSD bandwagon.
Then stop trying to justify it. If you don't think its OK, then why
does it bother you that I point out its illegal and anti-competitive,
when you try to pretend that there is some logical efficiency involved,
as if the decision to monopolize were one of economics. You would
perhaps consider 'bank robber' or 'extortionist' to be perfectly
respectable careers, other than the fact that they are unlawful.
>> >Had they started with a technological edge and a decent product, they
>> >probably could have benifitted by that approach. Neither of those were the
>> >case.
>>
>> So its rather hypothetical and even unlikely, now that you mention it,
>> that they "could have benefitted by that approach".
>
>If they had concentrated on developing a superior product that had appeal
>across multiple platforms, they most certainly would have benefited. Truth
>be told (My truth anyway-Your milage may vary), they just weren't/aren't
>capable of doing it.
I believe the two, ability to compete, and monopolistic behavior, are
obviously mutually exclusive. If they had been capable of not
monopolizing, they would have been capable of developing a superior
product.
[...]
>> I see. I've tripped over my fanaticism again, haven't I? ;-)
>
>I'm just as idealistic about things as you are. I just temper it, in this
>case, with the proven fact that money makes "suit-types" stupid.
I think calling yourself idealistic because you recognize that
monopolizing isn't competing is a real shame, and should be discouraged.
You are not idealistic; you are honest. Business people who do not
understand the difference between trying to compete and trying to
prevent competition are, perhaps, stupid, perhaps, lazy, and, perhaps,
dishonest. I have no interest in second-guessing any of them; I just
want them to learn the difference, regardless of why that might be more
difficult for them in having to overcome their greed.
I think, honestly, that a primary problem many of them have is that to
question the "make more money mandate" they have, necessary to
understand why competing is smart, industrious, and honest, and
monopolizing is illegal, requires examination of essentially existential
issues, and that scares them, frankly.
[...]
>Yes, Max...It is illegal and unethical. As I've said repeatedly, the overall
>worth of their product had nothing to do with any of this - Their actions
>did.
Maybe that's why I keep getting all 'zealous' on you. (I do apologize
for that; I really am trying. You'll know when I succeed, because
you'll probably never hear from me again, as I'll have lost my reason to
post to Usenet.) Because my thinking is that it does, in fact, have
much to inform us about the overall worth of their product. Either
their software or their actions are a complete testimonial to their
attempts to monopolize. Admittedly, the evidence of their crapware is
not entirely conclusive, without the knowledge of their actions or
motivations in producing it the way they did. Still, the story is writ
large for all to see.
[...]
>> More pointless and somewhat ludicrous second-guessing. Regardless of
>> any putative justification, your statement is a fabrication. Apple had
>> a good CEO, and did have a large impact. To say "if something were
>> different, then something might be different" is just pointless
>> posturing.
>
>They had a CEO that turned two divisions into direct competitors. A lot of
>bad blood internally in that company. It's no surprise he was ousted. Jobs
>was a visionary and did some right things, he just wasn't up for the "big
>game".
I'm not up for second-guessing other people's decisions and PRETENDING
that I know what would have happened had the world not been exactly as
it is.
>Who's second guessing and fabricating, the 1980's Apple was and is a
>brilliant example of how NOT to run a tech company. Jobs is a visionary, not
>a business man.
I can't really understand why you would say that. Macintosh's are still
widely available. Can't say the same for Commodores and Amigas and
Ataris and about two dozen other proprietary microcomputers. In fact,
Apple is the only proprietary microcomputer left (not counting the
now-desktop level machines come down on high from the mini world, by way
of the workstation market.)
>> >> Its not much of a threat, since they can make Office for Mac suck as
>> >> much as they want should people start defecting from Windows, even at
>> >> the expense of buying a new computer, because it sucked too much. And
>> >> it has the added bonus as a facade for claims of 'support for
>> >> interoperability'. Kind of laughable, given the current discussion,
>> >> though.
>> >
>> >Token gestures are a bit laughable. MS ports to that platform, and I get
>> >this second hand since i'm not a Mac person, were very laughable.
>>
>> I didn't find them at all humorous, actually. They aren't really
>> 'token' gestures, I don't think. They might be presented as if they
>> were, but they're more probably carefully planned strategic moves to
>> prevent competition from threatening their monopoly.
>
>Perhaps they thought they could dominate the Apple market in the same way
>they dominated the PC one.
Now why would they think that? They can't control Apple like they do
Dell; they don't produce the OS.
>They couldn't do this, IMO, because they didn't
>start on the ground floor and there were already credible applications for
>the platform that were superior to anything they could come up with. If they
>can't compete with them and can't buy them out...What do they do?
Compete with them. You seem to be under the impression that to
"compete", you have to win some final battle and put the other guy out
of the market. That's the soft-headed thinking I'm trying to correct.
To "compete" means to continue to compete; the market is not of one
mind, and does not select one "winner", outside the manipulation by
criminals intent on restraining trade.
Two of the most popular applications on the Macintosh were Microsoft
applications; Excel and Word. Word for Mac versions prior to 4.x were
often the best program available, in general. (Though most people had
their 'favorite', of course, and would be loath to use any other. In
this way MacWrite continued to find a market, even years after it had
been entirely superseded on technical grounds, simply because the users
were 'used to it'.)
Office for Mac is simply a place-holder, "insert monopoly here." MS
used it originally to prevent any other app suite from becoming popular
on the Mac, because then the producer would undoubtedly introduce a
cross-platform version, and that would threaten the Office/Windows
monopoly. Later, I think, they considered the idea of simply extending
the Win32 middleware to Mac, and taking over the platform like that,
through Office APIs. That didn't last long, though, probably; it became
important to keep the Mac viable in order to use it as an "example" of
how MS doesn't monopolize. If the Mac disappeared, it would make it all
the more obvious, even to those who don't really understand anti-trust,
that Microsoft was a monopoly.
[...]
>> Which makes it entirely and completely inefficient as a market. You are
>> again forgetting that monopolists don't inhabit markets or dominate
>> markets; they prevent markets.
>
>Innefficient only from the market's standpoint. Not theirs.
And again you've tripped over one of my guide-wires. The term
"efficiency" only has to do with the market's standpoint. Whether a
crime is 'efficient' from the criminals perspective is wholly
irrelevant, and, honestly, somewhat unethical to provide as a
consideration in this respect.
>How can you call
>a percentage of nearly all bundled PC sales being delivered to your front
>door inefficient.
What the hell is that supposed to mean?
>It's not like, until recently anyway, they had to do much
>in the way of innovatation. Just keep the lawyers, reps, and government
>officials fed and watered.
Yes, its this casual flaunting of 'ethical calculus' which offends me so
much I burst into rants in response to your posts, Tom. You seem to be
carping about how well crime pays.
[...]
>> >> Well, technically there is a rather important difference between market
>> >> dominance and monopolization, you see. And, yes, this contradiction of
>> >> technological justification for development which decreases the value of
>> >> the product to the consumer is a tell-tale, in fact.
>> >
>> >The net result is the same regardless of what words you use to describe it.
>>
>> Your interpretation of the result is incorrect, regardless of how many
>> similar words might also describe a correct interpretation.
>
>How have they not dominated the market then, Max?
You also misinterpreted my comment, it seems. They have monopolized the
market, which is an illegal act. It is both legally and economically
distinct from, and in fact contradictory to, 'dominating' the market
through competitive means.
[...]
>> This supposition is unsupported by any facts, I'm afraid. It is the
>> government, not becoming "big, bloated, and inflexible", that eventually
>> overcomes monopolists.
>
>Does the government have anything to do with Microsoft's slipping market
>share in the web server market?
Certainly. Had not the monopoly trial and conviction made public the
situation, I doubt apache would be quite so popular as it is today.
Linux, too, for that matter.
>Why do you think they're now releasing, not
>only 2000, but Whistler? They're running a bit scared right now. They know
>there are competitors out there ready and willing to devour them.
There always were. Why do you think they released all their earlier
products? There are always competitors *willing* to devour anybody in a
market, competitor or monopolist. The difference is that being willing
(and having a superior product, greater business acumen, or benefiting
from an accident of history) is sufficient to compete against a
competitor. They are not sufficient to compete against a monopolist.
>Government intervention helps, but folks eventually realize that better
>options exist.
Folks eventually realize that better options exist, sure. About then,
government intervention is called for, because, despite your naive
assumptions, competition cannot overturn a monopoly through competitive
actions.
>The government didn't weight in at all in my decision to
>scrap NT from my present and future networking - a superior product did.
Your decision did not cause Dell to start supporting Linux (or if it
did, Dell would have offered something, anything, other than Windows,
for the last ten years, don't you think?) The government action did.
>If
>Linux distros only keep improving, (I just installed Mandrake 7.2...They're
>getting closer!), Microsoft will have yet another front to defend. Their
>outrageous pricing and that silly subscription based liscense is doing
>nothing more than setting themseves up for the coup-de-gras.
Actually, its lining their already over-grown coffers with enough cash
to kill off Mandrake, and Linux itself, entirely, should the government
allow MS to continue breaking the law. Likewise, .Net threatens to make
the monopoly portable, by severing the connection to the OS itself, and
allowing Win32/.Net to be a 'free floating' monopoly that can control
prices and exclude competition throughout all computer platforms.
>Of course, a nice jucy court verdict would really help too :)
It is far more definitive and instrumental than you suppose.
[...]
>> You assume their fortifications will ultimately be insufficient for the
>> very purpose they were erected. That seems a tad naive.
>
>They're losing market share in the web market to a free product. Said free
>product is improving in useability and functionality with each new release.
>One of these days, its' going to appeal to Joe User. (As previously
>mentioned, I popped $29.00 on Mandrake 7.2 while I was a Staples a few days
>ago. It isn't there yet, but, it's a damned sight better than it used to be.
>Fewer rough edges, better hardware detction, KDE2,...Not bad at all!) Plus,
>thanks to the Government, lawyers all over the country are smelling
>Microsoft's blood in the water. The ramparts aren't really that secure
>anymore.
Precisely. Had the government not finally pinned Microsoft down, the
monopoly would still be quite water-tight.
>> You don't need
>> the ability to innovate unless you are trying to *compete*. To
>> monopolize, you just need "churn", not innovation, as Microsoft so well
>> illustrates.
>
>Sad, but true. Once control a market, you can do what you please and let the
>green roll in...for a while. What goes around comes around.
That is an idealistic, and false, supposition. "A while" is an
indefinite time frame. One might as well say that a monopoly can only
possibly last until the sun goes dark and the world freezes over, so it
should be considered 'temporary'.
>> So someone coming along and 'innovating' does not have the
>> result you presume, either in theory or in fact. Your theory is trivial
>> to refute, as all Objectivist bullshit is. Objectivism is little more
>> than the purposeful abrogation of the reasonable in glorious celebration
>> of the rational.
[...]
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
