Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 03:14:26 +0200 From: Eivind Eklund <eivind@yes.no> To: Atipa <freebsd@atipa.com>, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why we should support Microsoft... Message-ID: <19980519031426.35170@follo.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.96.980518105723.3796A-100000@altrox.atipa.com>; from Atipa on Mon, May 18, 1998 at 11:23:19AM -0600 References: <Pine.BSF.3.96.980518105723.3796A-100000@altrox.atipa.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, May 18, 1998 at 11:23:19AM -0600, Atipa wrote:
>
>
> <Puts on flame-retardant asbestos suit>
>
> I know I am going out on a limbe here, but I do not think the Justice
> Department should make any decisions on the software industry, and I think
> Microsoft should be allowed to ship whatever the hell it wants.
I think you're nuts ;-)
> We are told that this is a free, capitalistic country, but now they want
> to say it is just sort-of capitalistic?
'Free' and 'capitalistic' aren't equal (and applying the former
adjective to the US is quite a stretch). Anyway; you wouldn't want
pure capitalism. Let me give you a simple example from a _purely_
capitalistic society:
Microsoft decides that they would have a better chance in the
market without Netscape present. They calculate the value of
not having Netscape present, and comes up with a number in the
hundreds of millions. So, they decide to invest $10million in
making sure that Netscape doesn't release the next version of
their browser. They look around for opportunities - which
people on the Netscape team would be most sorely missed? They
create a list - Jwz, Ramrigo, two people from the 'Raptor'
team, Andressen, Clarksdale. They make some discreet
phonecalls, spending their money on making sure that the
people on the list doesn't work again - neither for Netscape,
nor for anybody else. The flowers are very pretty.
THAT'S the society you're idealizing. I don't think you want that - I
guess you have some pink, fuzzy picture of a capitalistic, free
society...
What I think you would want if you thought a bit more about it is a
society that is optimized for (1) having broad consumer choice and (2)
using that choice to optimize the production. This is often called a
'capitalistic socitey'; it is really a 'market-driven' society.
> That you can make all the money you want, until you make too much?
> What kind of crap is that?
That's not what this is about _at all_. What it is about is stopping
Microsoft because they're _not competing in the market_. Nobody is
interested in how much money they are making; the only reason there is
any hype about that part at all is because it is the easiest way for
MS to excuse themselves ("they're just envious of our success").
> I belive in economic Darwinism; that is to say, good products flourish and
> poor products wilt away. The consumer ultimately decides what sells and
> what doesn't, and not the providers.
This is only correct in a market. A market that is manipulated by a
monopoly don't behave this way, because consumers are searching for
local instead of global optima. You don't want society to reach a
local optimum which then let the coorporations rape the consumers.
Let me give a simple example of this: Standard Oil (now Esso/Exxon)
used to use 'predatory pricing' to keep competitiors away. They'd
select an area that they wanted to 'own'. Then they'd sell gas at
less than cost until all competitors went bankrupt; afterwards, they'd
raise prices to get an overall profit for the area. If any
competitior tried to 'invade', they'd lower their prices in that area
again to make sure that that competitor went away.
Now, in this case it is fairly obvious how predatory pricing can work
- the consumer end up paying more for gas over the total time he buys
gas, while he pays less for gas in the short periods where SO is
killing off competitors.
The case isn't as easy to see with Microsoft, but they use the exact
same techniques, only they don't (in this case) take out their profits
from the same product ("gas is gas is gas"). A case where it seemed
like they were planning to use the standard predatory pricing
technique was by giving away 'MS-Money' - but they were stopped.
> Adding insult to this whole situation are the demands of the US
> Government. Now these are plain silly, and I applaud Bill Gates for
> telling them where to go with their suggesions:
>
> * That Microsoft disable their browser, and _all_available_means
> of accessing it. This is _almost_ reasonable, but I can
> understand the common vision of PC's as extensions to the
> Internet. To make a browser part of an OS seems like a really
> cool idea to me.
To make it possible to access a browser through an operating system
seems like a really cool idea to me. To include a browser with the
operating system so this technology is available sound like a fairly
good idea. To integrate the browser in the OS to the point where it
"can't be ripped out" sounds like a combination of a marketing trick
and horrible engineering. Creating an API for replacing IE would be
easy - not creating one seems to be driven by their desire to use one
monopoly to create another.
> Now I do agree 100% that other browsers should > be able to
> operate in the new environment (eg, no MS booby traps or
> proprietary mumbo jumbo to prevent competition)
And how do you ensure this, except by making sure other browsers have
something like an equal footing? How do you make sure that there will
be a minimum of cross-platform compatibility, to avoid you having to
have a Wintel PC to see the web?
Microsoft has already done a LOT of attempts to pull the web over to
being Wintel only.
> * If MS does include a browser, they must also provide all
> competing products as well. Can you say horse<dung>? That is
> entirely ludicrous. To paraphrase Bill Gates, "It is like having
> to include 2 cans of Pepsi in every Coke six pack." Amen.
I believe it is somewhat extreme, but I haven't gone through this side
of it in depth. Making sure that all browsing platforms compete on an
EQUAL footing certainly has merits.
> As I said, take off the restrictions and let the best product
> win.
Removing the restrictions remove the competition between the products
- one product get a _large_ default following, and it will be
impossible to avoid to use it (yeah, that's correct. Even if you
install Netscape, it will be impossible to avoid using IE when
browsing from other programs).
> As consumers, _WE_ are the ones getting hosed in this >
> ordeal, not Microsoft.
No, you're not. You're the ones that get a slightly less convenient
'now' in swap for a better future. That's what being part of a
society is about.
> * MS must modify their "Window Manager" so that OEMs and
> competitors can customize their visual. How would all the
> developers of FreeBSD feel if I took a FreeBSD release, changed
> the GUI a bit, and called it AtipaOS?
Fine - go ahead. If you read the license carefully, you will notice
that you are allowed to do this, and we're encouraging people to do
just this. E.g many NCs are running slightly re-wamped NetBSD - we
wouldn't mind at _all_ if they wre running FreeBSD instead. :-)
> You would feel smited.
Bull.
> Also, the continuity of the UI is the only thing that makes
> supporting this crap OS possible. If everyone had their own
> interface, providers would have a bear of a time giving
> accurate, detailed instructions.
Too bad. You're in favour of consumer choice - hey, you said so above!
Not that I really feel the requirement as useful, but I don't think
your arguments hold water.
> We must take a stand, and tell the Justice Deptartment to bugger off. They
> do not understand the software industry, they are setting a horrible
> precendent, and depriving the American people of free choice.
We must take the people that don't understand the problems of
monopolies (or extreme market dominance) and tell them to bugger off -
they're setting an extreme bad precedent, _and are attempting to deny
the people free choice, even though they don't understand it_.
> They are ruining a good, competitive environment by degrading the efforts
> of the front runner, instead of promoting the laggers. We are all losing
> out.
They're fixing an environment where anti-competitve techniques are
growing BIG.
> The issue to me is not whether or not Win98 is good or bad, the issue is
> freedom.
Correct. That's why we must stop Microsoft from making the web
uni-platform NOW. NOW. Not in a year - NOW.
Eivind.
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?19980519031426.35170>