Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 00:06:08 +0000 (GMT) From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> To: davids@webmaster.com (David Schwartz) Cc: tlambert@primenet.com, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit" Message-ID: <199911230006.RAA01158@usr02.primenet.com> In-Reply-To: <000401bf353c$41eb6900$021d85d1@youwant.to> from "David Schwartz" at Nov 22, 99 02:52:30 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > Pull the other one... we didn't just fall off the turnup truck. > > > > Technical superiority is independent of pricing. Pricing is a > > function of economies of scale and of market forebearance, and > > has nothing whatsoever to do with technological capability. > > What the hell are you talking about? Are you next going to allege > that the reason we don't all have Cray T90's is due to Microsoft > lock in? After all, they are superior to our desktops, right? Of course not; if I said that, I'd be arguing from the specific to the general, and we all know that that's false logic. What I'll say is that cost has no bearing on superiority, or vice versa, unless we are talking about a technologically superior manufacturing process that enables one to drop prices. > > For example, Microsoft has dropped prices on their software in > > some markets in order to reinforce mindshare. Clearly, they > > can't be selling below cost (technical term: "dumping"), since > > that is an illegal monoply tactic. > > And yet it's dumping that can save us from lock in! Tell that to IBM and CDC, or Sony and Emerson. > If lock in is a problem, then companies should be allowed to > dump to break the lock in. You can't have it both ways. I don't want it both way. Companies should not be allowed to dump for any reason, including breaking so-called "lock in", and the government should be permitted to kick butt and twist nipples in order to break so-called "lock in". I see no inconsistancy with prohibiting monopoly tactics from use by all players in any market. > > > If the 'inferior' product is cheaper than the 'superior' > > > product, and this price difference overwhelms any feature > > > difference, then it's obvious which product is really superior. > > > > The one with the best technology. > > This is an Alice-in-Wonderland view. Better technology in isolation > doesn't even make a better product. 1) I did not state "in isolation". 2) I merely disagree with you that cost is a factor in determining superiority of one product over another. Let me put it this way: humans effectively give away feces for free; does this make it a better food than wheat, merely because when I divide the cost of an equivalent amount of wheat by the cost of the feces, the price difference overwhelms and feature difference, and thus it's obbious which product is really the superior food? > You have an engineer's view of economics. ;) No, I have a reasonable view of economics, but that is not the question before the board; the question before the board is gauging technical superiority between a set of products, seperate from their ability to compete in the market, and in specific regard to the ability to "lock in" inferior technology through reasons other than free market forces (theorem: free market forces are not operational in the presence of monopolies). > The 'best technology' does not make the best product. Technology > is useful only as a means to an end. I'm reminded of the "Star Terk: The Next Generation" episode, where a revived cryonic suspendee who was a wealthy man in his time, is being berated by Captain Picard about how that type of power is illusory, and isn't really real. His retort to Picard? "Really? I'm _here_, aren't I?" While I agree that degree of technical superiority is not the sole measure of the value of a product, there is no way to make a good product with bad technology. I am reminded of another statement: "How can my people make bricks without straw?" In other words, good technology is necessary, but not sufficient, for creating a good product. Turning this around, if you have all of the other factors present, _except_ good technology, then you will have a mediocre product, and it doesn't matter if you win the market or not using illegal tactics, your product is still mediocre (e.g. if it crashes every 46 days because the nanosecond counter overflows, etc., then it's mediocre, and no amount of angels on the heads of no amount of pins will make it any less mediocre). > > > My point is that consumers have gained the benefits of > > > all of these products. When a competitor points out a deficiency > > > in a Microsoft product, Microsoft acts to correct the deficiency. > > > This is one way consumers benefit from 'failed' competition. > > > > You are crazy. I _still_ can't install Windows 98/2000 onto > > removable media because the pager can't correctly do paging on > > removable media. > > > > I reported this bug in 1994, and again in 1996. > > > > Where is the fix? > > If you don't like Windows 98/2000, don't use them. Don't bang your head up > against a wall and complain to me about it. Are you retracting your statement? You stated: "When a competitor points out a deficiency in a Microsoft product, Microsoft acts to correct the deficiency." I worked for a competitor of Microsoft both times. I pointed out the deficiency. Microsoft _did not_ act to correct the deficiency. Your statement is therefore false. Turning this into whether or not I "like" the products with this deficiency is irrelevant to determining the veracity of your statement. > > > > Netscape eventually expected to make a profit from DESQview. Microsoft > > > > simply wanted to put Netscape out of business. And Microsoft was > > > > (and is!) a monopoly. Monopoly leverage is illegal. > > > > > > Are you saying that Microsoft has no intention of making a > > > profit from IE? > > > If so, what's their goal? > > > > How can they make a profit from something they bundle with the OS? > > Umm, duh, it increases the value of the OS and thus allows them to charge > more for it. Did you fail Economics 101? Wait. Are they giving IE away for free, or are they bundling it with the OS, thus "locking out" Netscape? Either they are "locking out" Netscape, or they are not adding value by bundling; make up your mind. > > > Please, show me the browser shootouts that conclude, "In our > > > opinion, IE is inferior to Netscape due to its myriad security > > > problems". Put up or shut up. > > > > Uh, they are called "CERT Advisories", not "shootouts"... 8-). > > Well, unfortunately, consumers don't always have the same priorities that > you and I do. Yes, it's frustrating for a lot of people. But when what you > want is not what everyone else seems to want, then that's what happens. So your tack has changed from: "there are no public comparisons contradicting the point" to "the public comparisons contradicting the point are irrelevant" Nice to clear that up. > > > > > Umm, it had nothing to do with any predatory tactics. > > > > > It had everything to do with IE being a better browser. > > > > > > > > Utter nonsense. Again, read the judge's Findings of Fact. > > > > > > I have. Remember, that was the starting point. > > > > I guess you are implying that you disagree with the findings of > > fact? You will have a hard time ignoring them; they are almost > > impossible to overturn, unless you can prove that no "reasonable > > person" would have arrived at the same conclusions. Microsoft > > has had their day in court over the facts, and they have lost. > > Well, given Judge Jackson's previous history in this case, I > wouldn't jump to that conclusion. Feel free to try to overturn it. As good scientists, it is beholden on the rest of us to apply Occam's Razor, and state that, in the absence of contradictory facts, the simplest explanation is the correct one. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers. 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?199911230006.RAA01158>