PDA

View Full Version : How's This?: Does Anyone WANT to See MS Monopoly fall?



kshane
October 4th, 2007, 11:37 AM
Does anyone want to see the monopoly fall apart? I mean the monopoly, not the company.

Kevin

dynamicv
October 4th, 2007, 11:48 AM
Yes, although it's already happening.

The moment MS can no longer take the easy route and lock their customers in with "standards" they'll have to actually compete by innovating. So we'll all gain.

kshane
October 4th, 2007, 12:10 PM
Yes, although it's already happening.

The moment MS can no longer take the easy route and lock their customers in with "standards" they'll have to actually compete by innovating. So we'll all gain.

Yes, but not soon enough for my liking...

Kevin

orange2k
October 4th, 2007, 01:31 PM
Price tag on a product is a very important thing for many people: these people judge product quality by its price. If something costs more, it seems to be better than something that you can get for free...

This kind of thinking will keep MS in the OS-game for a long time.

But luckily, not everybody is a snob...

Zero Prime
October 4th, 2007, 03:21 PM
Price tag on a product is a very important thing for many people: these people judge product quality by its price. If something costs more, it seems to be better than something that you can get for free...

This kind of thinking will keep MS in the OS-game for a long time.

But luckily, not everybody is a snob...

I actually heard a comment like this from a tech at one of the PC repair shops around here. He thinks Linux is freeware and all freeware is crap.

LowSky
October 4th, 2007, 07:24 PM
[QUOTE=orange2k;3473403]Price tag on a product is a very important thing for many people: these people judge product quality by its price.QUOTE]

that might be how Apple stays in busineess...lol

Microsoft will never go away, it will become another IBM. As in it will sell a whole bunch of products and servies that confuse the hell out of everyone. Which bring me to this: can anyone tell me what IBM really does anymore... IBM used to stand for International Business Machines, but now they only make mainframes and sell "business solutions"... I dont get it?

orange2k
October 4th, 2007, 09:34 PM
[QUOTE=orange2k;3473403]Price tag on a product is a very important thing for many people: these people judge product quality by its price.QUOTE]

that might be how Apple stays in busineess...lol

Microsoft will never go away, it will become another IBM. As in it will sell a whole bunch of products and servies that confuse the hell out of everyone. Which bring me to this: can anyone tell me what IBM really does anymore... IBM used to stand for International Business Machines, but now they only make mainframes and sell "business solutions"... I dont get it?

I think that the number of freelance programers that contribute to the open source has grown big enough to actually show the "paid proffessionals" companies like IBM the leading way into inovation.
The way open source works seems to me like something that nobody can stop - the possibillity to share knowledge and work together over space and wire truly announces an era of bliss for those 3% of the people on Earth who have access to the internet or those 25% who have a bed, table, chairs and a roof. :KS

justin whitaker
October 4th, 2007, 09:43 PM
Honestly, I don't see the Microsoft monopoly ever going away.

I can see a point when Apple, Linux, and BSD get some more of the desktop pie, but I can't honestly say that that will ever get past 40%.

People are too ingrained in the whole Microsoft thing, and frankly, even now, most users aren't all that unhappy with either their products or their business practices.

American_Outcast
October 4th, 2007, 09:52 PM
The monopoly fall? Yes. Microsoft fall? No.

Competition is great for the human spirit.


Also if people want to spend an arm and a leg for an OS and basic software, let them. If people need another or a company to think for them then that is their choice.

Now on the flip side of this. Many people are just to busy to worry about getting the basics of an OS set up. So the only choice they have is to get one that is very easy to install and use (Easy from a non-geek's point of view.) So with that I think this gives Linux as a whole an extra push to come up with more for people in that group.

So again. Competition is a good thing but not a monopoly like MS.

Maybe MS could stop what they are doing, in part anyways. Create a whole new computer just for their software, something like what Apple has done, and leave PC's alone. Then the PC's could be for Linux and BSD :)

Ok, maybe not, :lolflag:

jacob01
October 4th, 2007, 09:53 PM
i would like to see this since ms tries to control every thing and at the same time they are screwing every one over with viruses, bad products and just a very unstable sluggish product. Most people don't know any better than to think ms is the best so they think that, but the the reason why is they see that every one uses windows so they assume it must be the best.

Their are so many reasons why m$ should burn.

also take a look at vista, its no good. Its an example of ms to the extreme, slow and unstable.

I believe as more people either get fed up with ms or start to explore more technologies they will realize that their are better things out there and ms will have to change. but until then

jrusso2
October 5th, 2007, 02:31 AM
While its fun to think about MS failing, the truth is there are no signs of this happening yet.

They still have over 90% of the desktops and most of the Office suite sales.

happysmileman
October 5th, 2007, 05:25 PM
Honestly, I don't see the Microsoft monopoly ever going away.

I can see a point when Apple, Linux, and BSD get some more of the desktop pie, but I can't honestly say that that will ever get past 40%.

People are too ingrained in the whole Microsoft thing, and frankly, even now, most users aren't all that unhappy with either their products or their business practices.

Well once it gets to about 10-20% of people using non-MS products (if that ever happens, which I hope will, but there's no real proof either way yet) I can guarantee that by that point almost all software vendors will start coding multi-platform, and once all major apps are available on Linux (for purely financial reason, I'm not implying the vendors will suddenly stop being greedy) all it'll take to get a lot of people to switch is the Cube and some flashy Desktop effects.

jrusso2
October 5th, 2007, 05:47 PM
In the late 90's there was a higher percentage of users running Linux desktops then now.

We clearly have lost some of our desktop users to apple. At one point there was more Linux desktops then Apple.

Apple continued and improved, while Linux continues to improve but is still way too geeky and troublesome for the regular user.

joecool362
October 5th, 2007, 08:47 PM
Microsoft, yea I'd love to see them bite the dirt

frup
October 5th, 2007, 11:59 PM
In the late 90's there was a higher percentage of users running Linux desktops then now.

We clearly have lost some of our desktop users to apple. At one point there was more Linux desktops then Apple.

Apple continued and improved, while Linux continues to improve but is still way too geeky and troublesome for the regular user.

Would this not have more to do with the total amount of computers increasing faster than the rate of linux users increasing so linux looses market share? I am doubtful of this though it seems most linux users today started using linux after 2004 or so, that is my own speculation though. It would be nice if everyone signed up to counter.li.org or something though :(

betweenthetines
October 6th, 2007, 01:20 AM
Price tag on a product is a very important thing for many people: these people judge product quality by its price. If something costs more, it seems to be better than something that you can get for free...

This may be true for much of the developed world, where people can afford to discriminate based on price, but consider how small a percentage of the global population makes up the segment that regularly uses or owns a computer. Despite the heavy saturation of the current market for computer and software manufacturers, there is still so much potential left in undeveloped and unreached markets for computer buyers and end users. People who have never even used a computer but could benefit from it don't care who wrote the software that they are using or have a mindset that "more expensive equals more reliable." And for this type of person a (even slightly) lower price can mean the difference between having a computer or not. It's reasons like this that moves like the recently launched "One Laptop per Child" program gather so much attention from both hardware and software companies--the possible market potential is vast!

So, while your statement is probably correct for a good portion of the developed computer market, there is still an incredible opportunity for Linux (and other software) in most of the world. Instead of just thinking about how best to "steal" market share from Windows from current computer users, it might be more effective to primarily look towards reaching people who have never used any operating system (which I know is currently somewhat being done). That's the real potential battleground to undermine the MS Monopoly!

eljoeb
October 6th, 2007, 08:18 PM
Umm... you guys do realize if the Microsoft Monopoly fell, activity across all Linux oriented forums would fall about 95%? The only things left to do here would be telling newbies how to get their wireless working, and christian bashing. We can't let that happen. MS must go on.

Billy_McBong
October 6th, 2007, 08:56 PM
i would love to see MS lose there monopoly

and if there next OS is as bad as vista then it might happen sooner than a lot of people think

Lord Illidan
October 6th, 2007, 09:00 PM
It was so close to losing its monopoly back in the IE/Netscape days...then it virtually took over the entire browser market.

Luckily, the EU seems to be irritating it, now. Hopefully, we might see MS crack before long, but it won't be easy.

HermanAB
October 7th, 2007, 03:26 AM
Look at the trends:
1. There are billions of Linux devices out there: Cell phones and routers mostly, but also millions of servers. The embedded and server market is driving a tremendous growth in the number of techies that develop, use and understand Linux. The desktop market is really a tiny and almost inconsequential part of the Linux world.

2. Linux is moving into the financial markets in a big way. Fortune 500 companies and stock markets are using lots of Linux servers.

3. Governments the world over (Everywhere except North America) are moving to Linux in a big way. This is the main force that will increase the desktop use of Linux.

4. In North America the market forces are different and Microsoft has more marketing clout, since it is close to home. I don't see a large government adoption of Linux. It is still happening in stealth mode, a few servers here and a few hundred servers there, but no desktop deployments.

Just my tuppence worth.

Herman

kshane
October 7th, 2007, 03:38 AM
Umm... you guys do realize if the Microsoft Monopoly fell, activity across all Linux oriented forums would fall about 95%? The only things left to do here would be telling newbies how to get their wireless working, and christian bashing. We can't let that happen. MS must go on.

I have to admit that is the best line of reasoning yet! <laughing at Cowans>

Kevin

southernman
October 7th, 2007, 10:30 PM
I only know of Microsoft from 98SE and on. In fact, 2000 was already out when I bought my first computer... but I had no knowledge of it. My points are:

1- IIRC - when XP launched, it was met with the same type crap that Vista met with... BSOD's and serious flaws that were being talked about all across the www. I'd suggest this could have been just another one of the many, sheer marketing ploys designed and implemented by MS to the inth degree. The hype kept MS in the spotlight. While most of us see through this hype, most people can't begin to understand it... hence even greater popularity.

2- Vista will become *somewhat* stable too, just as xp did, and all the negative publicity will have paid off for them yet again... Negative publicity is a wealth of free advertising for the Windows brand.

3- Bank on it... the next release of Windows OS will without a doubt meet with the same type of release, the same type of negative hype and again, increased market visibility for MS.

4- We are witnessing some of the bad things (strong arm business tactics) that Microsoft set in place long ago, starting to bite them in the butt. That is almost certain to keep happening.

I don't particularly care to see them fail, as much as I'd appreciate seeing that aforementioned strangle hold they have on OEM's fall apart. If their market share for desktop OS were to dwindle to a meager existence, most of us wouldn't loose a winks sleep over it! Of course, IF that were to happen, we'd probably see their hardware prices go through the roof. *dawns suit of amour* I use MS keyboards and mice, and don't see that changing in the foreseeable future.

Earthwormzim
October 9th, 2007, 12:20 PM
MS is not a monopoly. It may be a "near monopoly"...but in reality, the only monopolies that exist are state-supported/enforced monopolies, such as your electric company, cable company, and water company (and in the past, phone company).

Those WERE/ARE monopolies because you are denied the possibility of choice, whereas with Microsoft, you DO have a choice...i.e., you can choose Mac, Linux, Unix, or what-have-you. Hell, even Wal-Mart is not a monopoly. Instead of shopping a Wal-Mart, you can go to K-mart, or Target, or a slew of other Wal-Mart-like competitors.

Point is, if there is competition/choice, then there is no monopoly. True monopolies are only theoretical and have never existed...without state support/enforcement. All monopolies reqiure state support/enforcement. Why? Because, there are hundreds, if not, thousands of other rich people out there that will be Johnny-On-The-Spot to jump in and compete if any of them recognize that there is profit to be had in any given business arena. As long as these other rich people exist, monopolies will not / cannot exist...that is, again, unless you get the government involved.

If I had a company, let's call it X, and X did so well that it completely dominated the market, and I was making bucket loads of money off of it...how long do you suppose it would be before some other rich person jumps into the game to compete? Hell...probably not that long at all. I'd most likely have competition long before I even began to dominate the market.

Anywho...I know this is a long rant. It just irks me when I see people refer to Microsoft (and/or Wal-Mart) as so-called "monopolies", when the true bandit monopolies are your cable/water/electric companies. Note: just because they aren't as big as MS or WM, does not mean they can't be monopolies. These are localized monopolies, in that they have complete, total market domination of a given geographic locale, and they achieve this through state-support/enforcement. They are the true bandits.

Edit: Note: When I say "near monopoly", I mean that it is the closest thing you will (likely) ever see to a monopoly. It is true...MS and WM are the closest things you will likely ever see to true monopolies in the free market (i.e., without government enforcement).

kshane
October 9th, 2007, 02:49 PM
For a good view of MS's attitude towards us (open source users), read this:

http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2200717/microsoft-sharpens-aims-patent

I, personally, will NEVER support them or their products EVER again....

Kevin

Earthwormzim
October 9th, 2007, 04:04 PM
You see, here, Microsoft is trying to utilize the big-gunz of government...therefore, in my eyes, they are acting like a monopoly. I'm sure if Microsoft could get the US government to declare Microsoft the "official" operating system of the US, and forced all computers to be sold with it, and did not allow any retailers to sell anything but Microsoft stuff...Microsoft would just LOVE it!

I don't have much respect for any company that tries to use the guns of government to maintain/claim market share. There are other ways to maintain/claim market share that are more clever and artful ways to do this. Violent enforcement is never an answer.

GSF1200S
October 18th, 2007, 02:10 AM
i would like to see this since ms tries to control every thing and at the same time they are screwing every one over with viruses, bad products and just a very unstable sluggish product. Most people don't know any better than to think ms is the best so they think that, but the the reason why is they see that every one uses windows so they assume it must be the best.

Their are so many reasons why m$ should burn.

also take a look at vista, its no good. Its an example of ms to the extreme, slow and unstable.

I believe as more people either get fed up with ms or start to explore more technologies they will realize that their are better things out there and ms will have to change. but until then

Sluggish and overrated? Yes. Unstable? No. In all fairness, Windows isnt what it used to be in the stability department. It still isnt going to hold a candle to debian old stable now, but its not windows 95 either...

EdThaSlayer
October 19th, 2007, 06:22 PM
Microsofts monopoly is crumbling in the EU, and slowly crumbling in the USA.