Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 19 Nov 1999 09:42:42 -0500 (EST)
From:      Thomas Valentino Crimi <tcrimi+@andrew.cmu.edu>
To:        "Jonathon McKitrick" <jcm@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org>, "David Schwartz" <davids@webmaster.com>
Cc:        chat@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit"
Message-ID:  <IsBK7W_00UwF0ACsI0@andrew.cmu.edu>
In-Reply-To: <000001bf31fd$24050960$021d85d1@youwant.to>
References:  <000001bf31fd$24050960$021d85d1@youwant.to>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
Excerpts from FreeBSD-Chat: 18-Nov-99 RE: Judge: "Gates Was Main .. by
"David Schwartz"@webmast 
> > All that really remains of substance is whether M$ acted illegally to
> > reserve its market status.
>  
>         Yes, but if lock in (and similar affects) are nonexistent, thenit's
> impossible for Microsoft to have acted illegally to reserve its market
> status.

Question is:  If Microsoft was hypothetically destined for 60% market
share - by forcing OEMs to make an all or nothing decision it was in the
OEM's best interest to go with the 60% OS than go through the effort of
selling the multiple OSs which would constitute 40% of the market share.
 Microsoft made their mix-and-match decision trivial.

  I'm quite sure Microsoft was sure to gain more than 60%, lets say 95%.
 What tends to trouble people is: Microsoft isn't happy with 95%, they
went through the effort of using their potential 95% market share to win
them 100% of the consumer PC desktop market.  It's the last few
percentage points of the market that Microsoft is fighting to staunchly
for in making it's morally questionable OEM contracts.

  Having gone to more than a few lectures given by Microsoft employees
it has been said that the Microsoft policy in programming is to go with
the 80% solution.  Rightly so, you can make a very marketable product
which is 80% "done", and given that it's always the last few nits that
take the longest, get a fairly decent product out to market, fast.  The
last 20% are killers, and the last 10% may never even be done, just not
worth it.  I'd suggest that this is the same policy one should adopt
with market share.  Gaining a large share of the market of any industry
is possible through honest means -- better products, better marketing. 
The last few percentage points, though, require the eye-gouging which is
now putting people up in arms against Microsoft.  I hope Microsoft pulls
through this and learns that the last few points aren't worth it.  That
is yet to be seen, of course. 


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: <http://docs.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?IsBK7W_00UwF0ACsI0>