Linked by Eugenia Loli on Wed 14th Dec 2005 23:30 UTC, submitted by LinuxFanBoy
Editorial Today, we cannot know if people would still buy Microsoft products because the government protects the monopoly. What percentage of the market would Microsoft have in a fair market? The only way we can answer that last question is to stop manufacturers from preloading Windows. Until then, we do not have a free market. Microsoft has no way to prove itself otherwise, says LXer.
Thread beginning with comment 73238
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: ok?
by morgoth on Thu 15th Dec 2005 04:01 UTC in reply to "RE: ok?"
morgoth
Member since:
2005-07-08

Yes, and this is fine. However, you fail to note that Microsoft does 'dirty' deals with hardware vendors to make sure that they only bundle Microsoft Windows. If they decide to bundle something else, there is usual a clause in the agreement that states that the cost of Microsoft Windows goes from $5 each to $150 etc. Remember Dell a few years ago?

Microsoft uses every single dirty tactic in the book to discourage and force hardware vendors to ONLY preload Microsoft Windows on desktop PCs and laptops. Microsoft can afford to offer Windows at dirt cheap prices like $5 because idiots go out and pay full prices for retail versions of Microsoft Office. And of course, Microsoft Office only runs on Windows and the inconsequential Apple platform, which is no real competition to the Microsoft dominance.

If you want true freedom, make Microsoft port Office to Linux, BSD etc. Go on. See what starts to happen then. And don't give me any bullshit that there's not enough users to justify porting it to Linux or BSD, cos that's just crap. There are fewer Apple users worldwide than Linux users, yet Microsoft can manage to port Office to the OS X platform. What gives?

Microsoft has a monopoly, has abused it, has long since abused it, and continues to abuse it, despite being found guilty. It's plainly obvious that the US government is not going to punish Microsoft for any of these infringements, purely because of monetary greed - the loss of income to the US economy would cause it to collapse!

Dave

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: ok?
by Bit_Rapist on Thu 15th Dec 2005 07:54 in reply to "RE[2]: ok?"
Bit_Rapist Member since:
2005-11-13

If they decide to bundle something else, there is usual a clause in the agreement that states that the cost of Microsoft Windows goes from $5 each to $150 etc. Remember Dell a few years ago?

Post some links with the figures. I'm always curious.

Of course to a degree I have no doubt this happens. Seems to happen in every industry I've ever worked.

Microsoft uses every single dirty tactic in the book to discourage and force hardware vendors to ONLY preload Microsoft Windows on desktop PCs and laptops.

None of that changes the fact that for desktop use Linux distros largely suck. If there was real money in pre-installing Linux then vendors would do it despite MS.

If you want true freedom, make Microsoft port Office to Linux, BSD etc. Go on. See what starts to happen then.

In regards to what ?

And don't give me any bullshit that there's not enough users to justify porting it to Linux or BSD, cos that's just crap. There are fewer Apple users worldwide than Linux users, yet Microsoft can manage to port Office to the OS X platform. What gives?

Well lets see... some of the core applications that make up office actually came out on the mac first.

MS was supporting the mac before windows ever shipped.

Supporting apple has payoffs for MS as I'm sure they collaborate on some level.

Its profitable venture that continued to bring in revenue without threatening the windows market.

in short there is probably no business case for MS to support a version of office on Linux.

Microsoft has a monopoly, has abused it, has long since abused it, and continues to abuse it, despite being found guilty. It's plainly obvious that the US government is not going to punish Microsoft for any of these infringements, purely because of monetary greed - the loss of income to the US economy would cause it to collapse!

How would there be a loss of income to the US economy ?

Will everyone start buying a distro of Linux that was compiled in china or something ?

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: ok?
by morgoth on Fri 16th Dec 2005 04:05 in reply to "RE[3]: ok?"
morgoth Member since:
2005-07-08

Quote: " Post some links with the figures. I'm always curious."

Dell basically wanted to sell Linux on some of its servers and PCs, and Microsoft pointed out in their agreement with Dell that they could do that, but the price that Dell paid for Microsoft Windows would no longer stay the same. Since Dell primarily sells Windows based systems, a price rise from say, $5 to $100 would be catastrophic. I believe Microsoft can no longer do such agreements post DOJ settlement. As to finding a article that states the costs for OEM versions of Windows, I doubt I'll find anything. I mean, would Dell like for the average consumer who pays $300 for the retail version of Windows to know that they get Windows for as little as $5. My information comes from an inside source for an undisclosed major PC and laptop manufacturer. I can say no more.

Quote: "Seems to happen in every industry I've ever worked"

True, to some extent, but I think the software industry has this problem to a much larger and more rampant extent. At least from my experience.

Quote: "None of that changes the fact that for desktop use Linux distros largely suck. If there was real money in pre-installing Linux then vendors would do it despite MS."

I don't think it largely sucks. Again, a lot of it comes down to users and their abilities. I've been successfully using Libranet GNU/Linux as my only desktop machine for the past near 3 years. It works for me. That sort of negates your argument. By the way, I'm pretty damn experienced with both Microsoft Windows and Apple Macs, so I have a good ability to compare Linux and it's abilities to them. It stands up pretty damn good if you ask me!

Quote: " In regards to what ? "

My point is that some people are saying that Microsoft shouldn't be 'hounded' by the US DOJ, but should be allowed to do whatever it wants, no matter what problems it causes by having untethered responsibilities for its actions. My counterargument to that is force Microsoft to port Office to Linux/BSD. See how many Windows installations will be lost as people migrate to Linux/BSD. Freedom works both ways. That freedom to still use Office from your operating system of choice means better choices for the customer - me. Why should I only be limited to Windows and Macs if I want to use MS Office?

Quote: " MS was supporting the mac before windows ever shipped."

That is very true. I don't deny that. It wasn't out of love of the Apple platform that Microsoft did this, but out of trying to maintain and grow a monopoly on office suites on the Apple platform, and stop Apple from expanding and creating a 'entire platform' of software that would compete with Microsoft products running on an Intel based system.

Quote: " Supporting apple has payoffs for MS as I'm sure they collaborate on some level. "

Oh, I'm sure as well!

Quote: " in short there is probably no business case for MS to support a version of office on Linux. "

There is, there most certainly is. I can guarantee you that if they ported MS Office to Linux, it'd be a hit. It would sell like hotcakes. People would be ditching OpenOffice in a jiffy, because they'd have 100% guarantee compability with MS Office documents made on both the Windows and Mac platforms. That means a lot ot businesses. Sadly, Microsoft knows that Microsoft Windows would get dumped real quick, and replaced by Linux desktops - cheaper and more reliable and more secure. It would gain money from MS Office sales, but lose a LOT of money from losses in the operating system field. So, by tying MS Office only to Windows and Mac, Microsoft makes sure that it's killing any potential competition in the operating system market. This is why I argued that the US DOJ should have made Microsoft port windows msn messenger, windows media player and MS Office to the Linux and BSD platforms. See how quick the operating system market evens up then :-) Microsoft is purely using it's market ownership to maintain and grow a monopoly. Nothing more, and nothing less. The penalties (if they can even laughingly be called that) administered by the US DOJ are laughable and worthless.

Quote: " How would there be a loss of income to the US economy ? "

Try a bit harder. Microsoft Windows is a big seller. It has 95% of the operating system market. Now, imagine if Microsoft lost 75% of those windows sales to Linux. That lost income is a LOT of money. And tht income would be mostly going to non US companies, selling Linux distributions. That income loss will directly affect the US economy.

Dave

Reply Parent Score: 1