Re: OFT say you have our attention on M$
- From: Ewan Mac Mahon <usenet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 12:02:15 +0000 (UTC)
On Monday, 30 January, Chris Croughton wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 02:10:39 +0000, Ben Bacarisse
> <ben.usenet@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 23:00:49 +0000, Beck wrote:
>>
>>> Ewan Mac Mahon wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, 29 January, Beck wrote:
>>>>> How are they holding them back?
>>>>>
>>>> Did you miss the bits where MS were sanctioned for anti-competetive
>>>> abuse of a monopoly on three contintents?
>>>
>>> I haven't read that deep into them. So how are they holding them back?
>>> A person is not forced to use windows.
>>
>> "Forced" is, of course, a very string word, but it is not far off the
>> truth. Go into a computer shop and see what choice of laptops you can buy
>> without paying for a Windows license. In a monopoly-free world all
>> computers would be offered for sale with (or without) any OS you like
>> (subject to availability).
>
> I'm less than convinced by that argument. After all, the manufacturers
> also pay taxes to their governments, and those are included in the price
> as well, can I insist that I won't pay those?
Well no, but then we've only the one government, so they're an oppressive
monopoly too, just one that it doens't make much sense to have any other
way.
> MS don't have a legal ability to say that everyone who sells a laptop has
> to buy Windows from them, they are only able to say "if you don't then we
> won't sell you Windows at all", a laptop manufactuer could say that they
> will sell every laptop 'bare' or with a free OS installed.
>
In a competetive market they could indeed, but in a monopolistic one anyone
trying that would be out of business since most people do actually want
Windows. A monopoly gives a company a lot of power, that's why they tend to
be regulated in the way the various privatised utilities are to make sure
they can't exploit dominance in one are to squash competition in another -
take for example the way BT wholesale have to give the same terms to both
the rest of BT and to their competitors. A few years ago there were legal
cases that prevented the major supermarkets using predatory pricing of
basics (like bread) at far below cost to get an unfair advantage over
smaller suppliers not able to do that.
> That's not Windows or MS 'forcing' people to use it, it's the economics
> of trying to get a minority system supported.
>
It's not just that though - if there were fair competition it would still
likely be the case that most retailers would be Windows only, but those
that weren't wouldn't lose out on the OEM pricing deals, which would allow
an alternative market to grow from smal beginnings, as it is that can't
happen.
MS is an aberation as it is a monopoly that has no regulation to stop it
abusing that power.
Ewan
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: OFT say you have our attention on M$
- From: Chris Croughton
- Re: OFT say you have our attention on M$
- References:
- OFT say you have our attention on M$
- From: Tarquin Mills
- Re: OFT say you have our attention on M$
- From: Beck
- Re: OFT say you have our attention on M$
- From: Ewan Mac Mahon
- Re: OFT say you have our attention on M$
- From: Beck
- Re: OFT say you have our attention on M$
- From: Ben Bacarisse
- Re: OFT say you have our attention on M$
- From: Chris Croughton
- OFT say you have our attention on M$
- Prev by Date: Re: OFT say you have our attention on M$
- Next by Date: Re: OFT say you have our attention on M$
- Previous by thread: Re: OFT say you have our attention on M$
- Next by thread: Re: OFT say you have our attention on M$
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
