OSNews

Is assault an inherently negative term or something?

I'd say so (especially in the context of the whole story - pressure on Asus, etc). But hey, correct me if I'm wrong.

Edited 2008-05-12 18:07 UTC

I can't think of a positive connotation. In law enforcement, my field of expertise, assault is most definitely a bad thing to do to someone, as it lands you a night or more in jail. Other uses of the word include acts of war, verbal harassment (verbal assault), intimidation tactics, and generally giving someone a bad day.

Yeah, I'd say it's a pretty negative concept.

This would be price discrimination which would actually make it anti-competitive.

I agree: if Microsoft is not allowed to set the price of its product to fight the competition, then it is anti-competitive.

Edited 2008-05-12 23:10 UTC

A free market only works when there is something called choice. There is reason for antitrust regulation and it is to promote consumer choice.

I know people cringe at hearing the word regulation, but sometimes, regulation is an necessary evil. As someone much wiser said, your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose. So who's going to enforce that?

Not the US. We're more concerned about countering terrorism these days. DOJ et. al. vs MS was all pre-WTC. Maybe the new administration will care. Meanwhile, Neelie Kroes is this atheist's God.

Asus is the customer. It has already demonstrated that it has a choice between Windows XP and Linux. So, really, the notion that there's an antitrust issue here is ridiculous.

Let me put you right there, what you meant to say was 'Fair competition', I'd agree but since when did the words fair, Microsoft and competition ever be in the same sentence.

Also called "predatory pricing", and there is something wrong with it.

But I won't cry "anti-trust" or anything like that. In fact, it's amusing to see Microsoft do this. It's not often that you see MS willingly undermine the value in their own products, considering they go to such great lengths to protect the perception.

Microsoft has acknowledged desktop linux as a viable alternative to Windows. They would not be dropping the license price if they felt that they could justify the value otherwise. Even if they're limiting that recognition to a narrow market niche, it's still a wonderful validation for all the work that the OSS community has done for desktop linux. They deserve credit for that.

Ghandi's famous quote is often abused now in OSS, but still utterly relevant:

"First they laugh at you,
Then they ignore you,
Then they fight you,
And then you win."

So it seems...

I completely agree with you. First I thought that this would not be good for Linux as people tend to buy the cheapest machine there is. Even a Linux user would consider buying a cheaper version and simply install Linux on it, filling Microsoft pockets (eventhough it's a very small Microsoft tax).
Eventually Microsoft will loose the battle as nothing is as cheap as free.
With Linux (and other open source operating systems) becoming more user friendly and more generally available (as pre-installed OS on new machines) people will eventually turn to a operating system that is free.

Thanks for making one of the few non-stupid comments so far.

The only thing I would argue about is

This may not be their current strategy NOW, but it is the one they used to gain market dominance in the first place. Apple was telling companies that they should do business on 10k USD machines, and MS was offering a "good enough" solution for a fraction of the cost.

It was only relatively recently in the conquest of the server room that they started talking about quality, ease of use, and TCO, because what they were up against often cost half as much (or free), and they really had no other choice.