PDA

View Full Version : Share this Quote



DoctorMO
August 9th, 2007, 09:38 PM
Oh yes, Microsoft is just trying to do what any other company would try to. And a fully automatic AK-47 is just trying to do what any spit-ball shooter would try to do. And a 3000 megaton hydrogen bomb is just trying to do what any firecracker would try to do.

Except that monopolies, fully automatic AK-47s, and hydrogen bombs are illegal for private persons to own in most countries, not because of what they try to do, but because of how bloody awful well they actually do it.

from here: http://www.microsoft-watch.com/content/corporate/who_are_microsofts_competitors.html

I thought that this was an excellent quote, pointing out how ridiculous people look saying Microsoft "is only doing what business try and do"

tbroderick
August 9th, 2007, 10:08 PM
from here: http://www.microsoft-watch.com/content/corporate/who_are_microsofts_competitors.html

I thought that this was an excellent quote, pointing out how ridiculous people look saying Microsoft "is only doing what business try and do"

No thanks.

popch
August 9th, 2007, 10:20 PM
how ridiculous people look saying Microsoft "is only doing what business try and do"

But - MicroSoft actually is doing what most businesses are (or at least ought to be) trying to do.

A business which does not try to succeed isn't.

DoctorMO
August 10th, 2007, 10:27 PM
I thought that this was an excellent quote, pointing out how ridiculous people look saying Microsoft "is only doing what business try and do"

The answer is not that; it's that you should not wait for the H bomb to blow you sky high; you should have measures in place, governmental, social, what ever which does not excuse Microsoft for it's actions, even if they are "in character"

Mitigation is such a horrible word for Republicans to hear, but they should have mitigated Microsoft long ago.

popch
August 10th, 2007, 11:05 PM
The answer is not that; it's that you should not wait for the H bomb to blow you sky high; you should have measures in place, governmental, social, what ever which does not excuse Microsoft for it's actions, even if they are "in character"

Mitigation is such a horrible word for Republicans to hear, but they should have mitigated Microsoft long ago.

I can agree that both an H-bomb (when exploding) and the holder of a monopoly may not act to the advantage of customers.

But.

The action of a weapon is somewhat one-sided. The user of the weapon - er - uses it, while the other party or parties do not have to do anything i n particular to be blown up or filled with holes.

Even if Microsoft held a monopoly, the roles would not be the same. I would find the rant you are quoting objectionable under even these cirmumstances.

But Microsoft does not hold a monopoly. It used to be differently in its earlier history, but nowadays it is not only Microsoft working towards dominance of the market; nearly all of the industry is practically falling over their feet in order to help Microsoft keeping that position.

Perhaps the 'industry at large' is simply tired of all those format wars or architecture wars or gui wars or whatever-you-have wars.

Remember betamax? Remember counterclockwise turning 24-hour analog clocks?

Sometimes, it's not even important which one was the better product, but that all agree on using the same one.

lyceum
August 10th, 2007, 11:26 PM
Great quote.

And to comment on the conversation, a good company does one thing well. A bad company does many thing poorly. Microsoft had a great office line. They have a bad OS and many other things that work poorly. If they worked on IE, MS Office and FrontPage, leaving the OS world to Apple and the many Linux/Unix/BSD/Solars/etc distros maybe they would have better products rather than a ton of junk that is getting replaced one at a time. First IE, next their OS. Adobe's DreamWeaver blows FrontPage out of the water. I could go on, but I wont.

DoctorMO
August 10th, 2007, 11:37 PM
But Microsoft does not hold a monopoly. It used to be differently in its earlier history, but nowadays it is not only Microsoft working towards dominance of the market; nearly all of the industry is practically falling over their feet in order to help Microsoft keeping that position.

A leveragable position in a UK market is a business that owns more than 25% of a mature or developing market. Microsoft currently hold 90% of the desktop market, we're way past the point of 'Not a monopoly' we're entering the 'Position is so strong that any business becomes warped at the very exposure'

As for businesses and other organisations wishing for a business to rule over them in order to bring us standard formats... *sigh* please just go and write that book you've always put off and retire, they're thoughtless, short sighted and simply stupid to think that a monopoly is a good alternative to strong industry standards organisations. next you'll be asking for sony, philips, nec and bose to be merged so we can have standard CD disks and stero sound connectors.

original_jamingrit
August 10th, 2007, 11:41 PM
Awesome quote. MS is a very dangerous company, that quote suits it well.

popch
August 11th, 2007, 12:16 AM
we're way past the point of 'Not a monopoly'.

I would like to remind you of the fact that I did not say anything about there being or not being a monopoly, but I said that Microsoft did not hold one. By that I mean that the cause of there being a monopoly are not primarily the actions of Microsoft but those of others. If there is, indeed, a monopoly as you imply, then that very monopoly is being upheld by the customers of Microsoft.

For private users it would be perfectly possible to buy products other than those by Microsoft. Corporate users would have to do some careful planning and setting of priorities, but they could also buy other products. As you point out, they would stand to gain in the process. Nonetheless, they do not do so.

Manufacturers and sellers of PCs (in fact the largest buyers of operating systems) would love to sell their machines with other operating systems, but they have to see a demand.

So, even if Microsoft did not do anything at all to hold or increase their market share, they outsold all competitors by an ample margin due to the demand in a real market.


As for businesses and other organisations wishing for a business to rule over them in order to bring us standard formats...stupid to think that a monopoly is a good alternative to strong industry standards organisations. next you'll be asking for sony, philips, nec and bose to be merged so we can have standard CD disks and stero sound connectors.

Sorry, what standard formats? It is now a very short while that an acceptable standard - say for word processing documents - exists which actually is supported by existing, usable and affordable software. I am, of course, referring to ODF and Open Office. Why else do you think that so many businesses and public agencies have been using Microsoft Word and are still doing so in spite of the pitiful and scandalous file format, which is not even compatible between different releases of that software? Because Microsoft applied their magical monopoly power and made them buy that clearly inferior product?

There are, by the way, indeed standards for CD disks and stereo sound connectors. The video industry was indeed hurt by the format war as done by Betamax and VHS.

DoctorMO
August 11th, 2007, 01:46 PM
So, even if Microsoft did not do anything at all to hold or increase their market share, they outsold all competitors by an ample margin due to the demand in a real market.

You seem to think that i would care about the internal motivations and want to excuse Microsofts actions by attempting understand them. I don't, I care more about how government and the market deals with Microsoft and how they attempt to limit this (and other is required) dangerous companies.


Because Microsoft applied their magical monopoly power and made them buy that clearly inferior product?

Tie in, Microsoft embellishes it's monopoly position by limiting the platforms Microsoft Office will run on. Fortunately there is at least a case in OpenOffice that can be built upon to eventually exceed the feature set and user focus of MSOffice; although it is one of their better products. they just use it to extend their bad technologies such as windows.

tigerpants
August 11th, 2007, 02:03 PM
from here: http://www.microsoft-watch.com/content/corporate/who_are_microsofts_competitors.html

I thought that this was an excellent quote, pointing out how ridiculous people look saying Microsoft "is only doing what business try and do"

It's usually Americans that say this as well. What MS does is awful, but only because they are allowed to do it and can get away with it. Yep businesses are set up to make money, tick, correct, but they aren't set up to systematically retard development, stifling competition and screw over consumers. Sorry, no cigar.

popch
August 11th, 2007, 04:35 PM
I care more about how government and the market deals with Microsoft and how they attempt to limit this (and other is required) dangerous companies..

(Some) governments do two things with respect to Microsoft's perceived monopoly:

They threaten (but don't follow through with) legal action for foul play in the market
They endorse said foul play by refusing to buy anything but Microsoft for critical functions.


As I said before in another thread: nobody got ever fired for buying Microsoft (anon., trad.)


Microsoft embellishes it's monopoly position by limiting the platforms Microsoft Office will run on. (...) it is one of their better products. they just use it to extend their bad technologies such as windows.

I find your demand that Microsoft Office should be usable on more platform passingly strange, given your position on the OP. MS Office is more expensive and does - when used - more damage than Windows ever did. Personally, I find Microsoft's de facto monopoly on Desktop applications such as Office and the ensuing lock-in into those proprietary formats also more alarming.

Besides, MS Office being one of the better products of MS is a matter of opinion. In your place, I would not make that statement in a public place. They may sue you for the implication that most of their products were inferior products to Office.

DoctorMO
August 11th, 2007, 06:21 PM
I find Microsoft's de facto monopoly on Desktop applications such as Office and the ensuing lock-in into those proprietary formats also more alarming.

I also find it alarming, it's not something I would ever use or endorse; in fact my main argument against all Microsoft software is that it's immoral because use harms others ability to choose.


Besides, MS Office being one of the better products of MS is a matter of opinion. In your place, I would not make that statement in a public place. They may sue you for the implication that most of their products were inferior products to Office.

Now I think your being silly, Microsft are unable to sue me for defamation/libel/slander because it's an opinion, stated as such and it's also not directly critical, in fact no one could claim I've said microsoft's other products are bad because I didn't say that here.

jgrabham
August 11th, 2007, 06:30 PM
I love that quote, its on my myspace now :D

(www.myspace.com/jamesgrabham if anyone wants to add me)

Murrquan
August 11th, 2007, 07:35 PM
Yep businesses are set up to make money, tick, correct, but they aren't set up to systematically retard development, stifling competition and screw over consumers. Sorry, no cigar.

Quoted for truth. Microsoft's modus operandi seems to be to succeed not by developing superior products, but by stifling all competition.

They do not mind "dirty tricks," such as entering into a partnership with a company simply in order to stall them and, later, release their own competing product. They do not mind using proprietary formats that only their software can read, in order to keep other people from entering into the market. And they are willing to throw billions of dollars into a project, just to make sure that their less well-funded competitors don't make any money.

Should Microsoft be shut down by antitrust? Debatable. Is it in my best interest to purchase their products? I really don't think so.

popch
August 11th, 2007, 10:42 PM
Now I think your being silly, .

Yes, please forgive a bit of trolling.