Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 11:45:29 -0800 From: "David Schwartz" <davids@webmaster.com> To: "Jonathon McKitrick" <jcm@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> Cc: "Erick White" <erickw@taurus.oursc.k12.ar.us>, <freebsd-chat@freebsd.org> Subject: RE: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit" Message-ID: <001001bf306b$23222f20$021d85d1@youwant.to> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.02A.9911161622330.48871-100000@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On Mon, 15 Nov 1999, David Schwartz wrote: > > > First you said this.... > > > A company can have all the ideas in the world, but if they > can't turn it > >into a product that consumers actually want to buy, it won't amount to a > >hill of beans. Microsoft excels at turning ideas into marketable > products. > >And that's what the market wants -- products, not ideas. > > > > Ideas were once a dime a dozen, now they're $1 a bale in > 10,000 idea bales. > >The market doesn't buy ideas. > > Then you said this.... > > > If you had an idea that was really better than Microsoft's, > that should > >give you enough of an advantage to take a sizeable market share. If the > >better idea isn't winning, look long and hard at whether it's > really better. > > > Which is it? Better ideas or better products ? They are entirely consistent. Note that I said "an idea that was really better". My implication is that most ideas that people think are so wonderful fail in the market because, when all things are considered, they aren't really good ideas. > > > Sure, and I don't have to buy it. Any manufacturer can > charge any price > >they want for a product. What they can't do is make people buy it if it > >isn't worth the price. > > > > Yes, but a company with superior technology wouldn't need > to brainwash > >anyone. If it really had a better product, it would eventually > take over the > >marketplace. Really. > > Not true. What kind of VCR do you have, if you have one? Beta? Why not? Because the Beta recorders don't let you record for as long as the VHS recorders do. Any difference in picture quality is minimal and can't even be discerned on a regular television. > Beta had a way better picture, and a smaller medium. The way better picture was never substantiated. Comparisons of the two formats occasionally claimed Beta had a better picture and occasionally claimed VHS did. The fact is, on a normal TV, the quality difference can't easily be discerned. Both exceed broadcast TV quality, so for recording and playback, it doesn't matter. > Because VHS won the > marketing battle, not because it was a better product. No, it was a better product. It consistently offered longer recording times and comparable quality. In fact, that VHS was able to overthrow Beta, the market leader, simply because it was better is proof that market power can't lock us into inferior technologies. Sony was the powerhouse behind Beta, and I can assure you, their marketing was excellent. VHS won out because people liked it better, even if it meant a break in compatability. > Has the VCR market > _forced_ us to buy VHS VCR's? No. But it has made it pretty darm > inconvenient NOT to. Those who went with Beta now have very high > picture quality > paperweights. Not at all. Beta actually does have a better loading mechanism. One that's more suitable for high-quality editing. And, in fact, the Beta format still lives on in this niche market. This is a perfect example of a functioning market displacing a leader to embrace a new technology. And it's powerful evidence that markets are not 'all or nothing'. That competing technologies can coexist and each can reign in its niche market. > Why do customers upgrade Windows? Because they like to spend more money? > No. Sure there may be some new hardware drivers or new features they > like, but most do not need these. If they are upgrading the OS, they > usually had hardware that worked before. But it's also because > M$ adds requires developers who want the official M$ seal to > use the newest API calls in their programs. Now, when customers genuinely > _need_ a program upgrade, they also need an OS upgrade. And sometimes a > hardware upgrade as well to handle a more bloated OS. Right, this is progress. If you want the features of Kodak Advantix, you need an Advantix camera. And that means you need Advantix film. And of course, your film processor needs a machine that can process that film. To get the advantages of newer technological developments, you need a new everything. This is really evidence that Microsoft does not operate by locking people into inferior developments but actually by continually reinventing its products to keep them leading edge. > The whole upgrade scam was carefully engineered to put more money in their > pockets by staying ahead of the competition just enough to make it > unfeasible to switch. It's the donkey and the carrot. Sure, M$ had some > innovations. But just enough to stay ahead. They kept the really good > stuff for when they needed it, which will always be the next OS release, > JUST around the corner. And I won't even comment on how many of those > ideas were taken from other companies.... This is all interesting but has no relevance to anything. Yes, Microsoft acted as a fierce competitor. > Just a comment on the CD vs vinyl debate: it was a case of the Emperor's > new clothes... anyone who remembers the original CD players know they > sounded HORRIBLE... but no one would say that except audiophiles, because > no one wanted to argue that vinyl sounded better than new-fangled digital > technology. Yes, and very few people bought them. They are much like the early adopters of Linux, who used an operating system that was missing essential features and was buggy as hell. They didn't care, because they _loved_ it. I was one of them, so I understand the psychology. > Same with windows. No one wants to argue that such a cute, easy to use OS > really is unstable and is a carefully engineered money making scheme. Actually, you're wrong. I think most Windows advocates admit that it is less stable than competing operating systems and that it is a carefully engineered money making scheme. I think those points are generally conceded. I certainly concede them. I still use Windows for my desktop machine and for the machines my kids and I play games on. It still works better. It's not a big deal if your desktop crashes. Servers are another story. DS To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?001001bf306b$23222f20$021d85d1>