Re: David Faber Report : Putting 2 and 2 together

Mike wrote:
On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 16:56:49 -0600, John Galt wrote:

Mike wrote:
On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 16:32:25 -0600, John Galt wrote:

I understand what you said. Essentially, this is a "I won't agree that
you're right unless you meet my standard of proof." That doesn't mean
your standard of proof is agreed upon.
nor yours
Of course. To me, the problem (assuming we agree that the problem is the
availability of alternatives with Linux) is solved if the consumer has a
single alternative.


first off, i don't agree that linux is a viable alternative to msft for several reasons, not the least of which is that msft uses its monopoly position to lock out competitors of some of the most basic functionality with proprietary formats (for example, audio & video formats such that the average home linux user will run into many cases during the normal course of web-browsing where they can't see or hear content on the web).

Same problem. You and I can argue all day about what a "viable alternative" is TECHNICALLY. What matters is that Linux runs programs on a Wintel platform. LEGALLY, it's a viable alternative from the standpoint of anti-monopoly laws.

and second, i don't agree that any evidence has been provided that a computer can be purchase without paying the msft "tax". just because you bought a computer without an o.s. doesn't mean the cost of an ms license wasn't included in the purchase price.

OK, whatever. That's unprovable either way when you buy in bulk at a discount. Whatever's on the PO is reality, and nobody can show one way or another that Lenovo didn't stick something in someplace and bury a cost.

JG



perhaps a review of history on this subject is in order, see the following excerpt from:

Comes vs Microsoft Petition Shows How Microsoft Blocked Linux Sales

http://edge-op.org/iowa/iowaconsumercase.org/assets/attachments/
Petition.pdf (93 pages)

a quicker way to view the excerpt is here:

http://forum.freespire.org/archive/index.php/t-8813.html

the excerpt:

148. One method for encouraging competition in the operating systems market would have been the sale by OEMs of "naked machines" (i.e., computers that are sold without a predetermined suite of software forced upon the consumer). "Naked machines" would allow consumers to choose their computer’s software configuration from an array of competitive software products, either for preinstallation by the OEM or installation by the end user. Microsoft sought and obtained the agreement of the OEMs to refrain from selling "naked machines." Instead, OEMs universally agree to "bundle" Microsoft applications and operating systems with their computer hardware, effectively depriving consumers of any competitive choices. These restrictive agreements exited before 2000 but, in 2000, Microsoft ratcheted the restriction up so that OEMs are forced to forfeit all discounts otherwise earned if they ship any "naked machines" to consumers. This heightened restriction, which (on information and belief) continues to the present, prohibits PC users and PC retailers from buying and installing lower priced or better quality operating systems of their choice.

now i know you'll want to say that's old news, everything has changed, yada, yada, so allow me to help you out in that endeavor with a link to, and some excerpts from, the final judgement of the "landmark" U.S. vs. msft antitrust case in which it was convicted:

"C. Microsoft shall not restrict by agreement any OEM licensee from exercising any of the following options or alternatives:
...
4. Offering users the option of launching other Operating Systems from the Basic Input/Output System or a non-Microsoft boot-loader or similar program that launches prior to the start of the Windows Operating System Product."

sounds great! problem solved! woohoo! except for one minor detail, there's been very little by way of enforcement of the antitrust ruling and in light of the fact that msft's behavior has not changed (and the article i linked in my last post from 2007 (which you completely ignored): "Top five PC manufacturers fail naked PC test", provides ample evidence that it hasn't) and that the monopoly has continued to grow & thrive, a person would have to be incredibly naive to think that because some usenet poster provides some anecdotal evidence about how their company bought a few computers without an operating system (for which the costs of a windows license was likely included anyway) that the systemic problem of microsoft's anticompetitive abuses that have been going on for the company's entire 30+ year history (which is not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of record and is documented ad nauseum in an endless string of cases against microsoft for which $billions in fines have been paid and many other settled for an "undisclosed sum" and a hush order), and specifically the issue of the msft "tax", has somehow magically been resolved.


To you, it's not solved until all vendors provide the alternative across
the entire product line.


what you call an "alternative" i call freedom from monopoly coercion.


JG

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: David Faber Report : Putting 2 and 2 together
    ... Comes vs Microsoft Petition Shows How Microsoft Blocked Linux Sales ... One method for encouraging competition in the operating systems ... "Naked machines" would allow consumers to choose ... Microsoft sought and obtained the agreement of the OEMs ...
    (misc.invest.stocks)
  • Re: David Faber Report : Putting 2 and 2 together
    ... Without significant exception, all OEMs pre-install Windows on the vast majority of PCs that they sell, and they uniformly are of a mind that there exists no commercially viable alternative to which they could switch in response to a substantial and sustained price increase or its equivalent by Microsoft. ... The accuracy of this belief is highlighted by the fact that the other vendors of Intel-compatible PC operating systems do not view their own offerings as viable alternatives to Windows. ...
    (misc.invest.stocks)
  • Re: David Faber Report : Putting 2 and 2 together
    ... Intel- compatible PC operating systems is directly evidenced by the ... all OEMs pre-install Windows on ... Microsoft from raising prices or imposing other burdens on customers ... their own offerings as viable alternatives to Windows. ...
    (misc.invest.stocks)
  • Re: David Faber Report : Putting 2 and 2 together
    ... Intel- compatible PC operating systems is directly evidenced by the ... all OEMs pre-install Windows on ... Microsoft from raising prices or imposing other burdens on customers ... their own offerings as viable alternatives to Windows. ...
    (misc.invest.stocks)
  • Re: David Faber Report : Putting 2 and 2 together
    ... Viable Alternatives to Windows ... all OEMs pre-install Windows on ... emerging any time in the next few years is too low to constrain Microsoft ... of Intel-compatible PC operating systems do not view their own offerings ...
    (misc.invest.stocks)
Loading