EU ~vs~ Microsoft looming!

[devolution]

[REMOVED BY DEVOLUTION - YOU DON'T DESERVE MY KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERTISE]

[radioz]

They'll beat it; I bet. Money usually wins on both sides of the Atlantic. If it's just a fine we're talking about here, they can pay anything. They've been harding tons of money for a long time. Monopolies pay. Just ask Verisign!

I do hope that you're right though!

[proproject]

The article says... "First, it is accused of unfairly promoting its own media player at the expense of competitors such as Real Player and Apple Quicktime."

As I understand it, Microsoft includes the media player for free, just like they do a browser, device drivers, and all the other stuff.

We want the EU to punish Microsoft for giving us more features for free? (Just like US gov. punished them for including browsers for free?)

Alan Greenspan once said, "The entire structure of antitrust statues in this country is a jumble of economic irrationality and ignorance." Must be similar in Europe.

IMHO, this is bad everyone. It only encourages MS to spend more money contributing to political campaigns, rather than adding features for its customers.

[Steen]

I am not a software maker so maby I dont understand.


What is microsoft doing wrong?


I can understand Verisgins monopoly but just becuase everyone uses windows doesnt meen they have to.

everyone does have to use verisign for any com/net though.


JM(uninformed)O

[proproject]

dude, I think you do understand. Sometimes it is that simple.

Note that such articles always mention the cry of Microsoft's competitors and never mention the cry of some consumer protection group. Anti-trust is ostensibly suppose to protect consumers, not competitors.

It's public choice theory 101. Microsoft's competitors (the special interests) are having a little success in the political market at the expense of consumers in the free market.

I wish Microsoft executives had the guts to call it what it was. But that *would* take guts, possibly causing them more harm in the political market. Political correctness is worth millions of euros in this situation.

[Steen]

Pro,


I have no clue what you meant by that post.

I am confused and dont understand

[proproject]

Sorry for that. I was agreeing with you. Verisign registry is a genuine monopoly. They have an exclusive government granted privilege. Microsoft does not have a monopoly, as you pointed out. They dominate with their products only so long as they offer a good value to customers compared to their competitors.

[devolution]

Around 90% of the world's PCs run some version of Microsoft software. I think that pretty much makes it a monopoly.
MS try and stifle competitors either by buying them out, muscling them with their bottomless pockets of cash, or just trying to launch lawsuits against them.
Consider the recent SCO vs Linux fiasco. SCO Xenix - you might not remember this from the 80s, but it was a very heavily MS involved project.
MS is also currently trying to stifle the games console market by kamikazee-funding it's half-blind incontinent sheepdog of a games platform. It loses approximately $100 on each console it sells. It's games library is a pathetic collection of hackneyed remakes and god-awful franchises. There is virtually only one A-class title - 'Halo' on the PC-in-a-XBox - and MS bought out the games studio that developed it, hoping that somehow magically they would be able to assimilate some kind of talent that would produce show-stopping games at the click of a mouse.

You speak of good value - Windows XP Pro - £300. Linux £0. I recently mentioned how crap XP ran on my laptop. Each time we get a few new icons and some different wallpaper, MS expect us to upgrade for £100. I fail to see how that can be considered good value. Windows has barely changed since Windows 95. True, XP is basically a NT 32-bit rendition in both the home and pro flavours, but the interface is the same, the programs are the same, and the things you can do are the same. Unbelieveably, virtually all software *still* being released even now can be run on Windows 95, and only some hardcore games titles and special apps need Windows 98 and above.
The core of Windows XP goes back to Windows NT 3.1, released in 1992, and developed from 1988!!!! Windows is old hat - fifteen years old hat to be precise. And they still charge us premium prices. It's amazing how so many people can be conned into thinking new versions of Windows are some kind of life-changing OS, when in fact they are little more than a Skoda engine inside a Porsche body.

Originally posted by proproject
... Microsoft does not have a monopoly, as you pointed out. They dominate with their products only so long as they offer a good value to customers compared to their competitors.

[proproject]

I was simply using a stricter definition of monopoly than you are:

Monopoly: A right granted by a government, giving exclusive control over a specified commercial activity to a single party.
- AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY, 1982

MS losing $100 on each game console means consumers get them $100 cheaper. We should be celebrating. MS opponents argue of course that this low price is a temporary tactic to destroy competitors, and then MS will raise prices to extract profits from a less competitive market.

Problem with that theory is that the tactic does not work. If MS is dumb enough to use such a tactic then they are punishing themselves - no need to do anything else - self imposed $100/unit fine paid directly to the people that we want to protect: consumers.

Every company that is not profitable (yet) sells whatever products they sell at a loss. I don't think there is anything wrong with that. Nature takes care of it. Companies must eventually profit or die - no need to ban selling at a loss - that's how companies and new product lines always get started.