On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 08:11:09PM +0000, Ian wrote:
On Friday 14 December 2001 04:57, Frank Shute wrote:
It was established in the findings of fact that
there is no pressure
on them whatsoever to cut their prices. Their margins are obscene & it
was a crucial piece of evidence in establishing that they were a
monopoly in the first place.
People often have to run Windows whether they like it or not - even I
have to run it - and believe me I don't like it. Price is not an
I disagree. If they charged £1000 a machine for Windows you would see a mass
rush to Linux. Its a matter of degree.
With proper competition I should think
Windows would be less than a tenner without proper competition its £100. If
MS did reduce this to say £20 it would make it a lot harder to establish
They're essentially stuck at charging what they presently charge even
if there was proper competition. They can't reduce it because the
shareholders have come to expect a suitably huge income as you
If they have lower sales volumes (as is happening) and
putting the price up, the economic argument for Linux will eventually get the
The lower sales volumes are as a result of fewer sales of PCs with of
course their preloaded stuff on every PC you buy.
The problem is that Intel & the clone chips give so much now that even
MS can't take it away with their bloatware.
I think this box is about 3 yrs old (300MHz) and it runs NT, Linux &
BSD quite happily so I can't really see me needing another for a
few years yet. Although I say that my university says they will give
me 250 quid towards a new one which is probably too good an
opportunity to pass up. It means I get a 1GHz machine for an outlay of
250 myself =)
The only way to stop this continuing is to
regulate & regulate hard.
If the regulators did set a price of say £10 a licence for windows and £10
for Office you could probably say good bye to any real chance of a shift to
Linux at the desktop.
They'd never tell them at what price they should sell their products
at - that's rightfully a business decision for them to make.
Its why I think on balance it could well be better to
give MS enough rope to hang itself. Greed is a difficult emotion for the
greedy to resist and if sales volume is reduced by fewer PCs going out there
the temptation is to keep putting the price up to maintain the revenue the
shareholders have come to expect.
They're not putting up the price per se ie. a copy of NT bought a few
years ago is pretty much the price of a copy of 2K/XP today. What they
are doing is imposing onerous licence conditions on businesses in
particular to ensure that they have to upgrade at MS's whim thus
ensuring their revenue.
They'll also extend the .NET/Passport stuff & eventually get their
customers to move away from TCP/IP and onto a proprietry protocol -
that seems to be the game plan. Lock them in even further.
This is where their needs to be regulation. Force them to use open
protocols so they can be re-implemented by others. Otherwise they'll
just carry on like they always have and embrace, extend & proprietrise.
don't have a BT line at all. Its all NTL,
mainly because its cheaper and faster. BT are not doing wonderfully well.
I don't get NTL out in the sticks here. BT & the rest of the telecoms
companies aren't doing terribly well because they got screwed over by
their respective governments for their 3G licences - which was not
good for anybody as they've now got stuff all money to invest in
infrastructure & they'll never get more than a fraction back of what
they paid for the licences.
So the money has gone into the public purse. Good scam on behalf of the tax
payer :-) All depends on your point of view. Personally, I think taxing IT
infrastructure is detrimental and will delay things a few years. Delays might
actually help Linux as it gives it longer to strengthen and mature before
things like .net have tme to establish another monopoly.
I agree with you, taxing infrastructure is detrimental to us all & it's
set back the telecoms business back years. I can't see that it
particularly helps MS more than Linux or vice versa. We'd all like to
see Broadband connections etc. so to my mind it has been a disaster
for the development of the industry as a whole.
It might have seemed like a good idea to grab a pile of money for the
public purse at the time but I think in hindsight it was a damn fool
idea & was probably one of the major causes of the recession.
American political system is undoubtedly as corrupt as anything on
this planet and FWIW their legal sytem sucks too in that the more
money you've got, the better chance you have of winning your case.
I can think of worse.
Name & shame them! I can't think of any political system where
corruption and bribery of the political class is institutionalised in
the shape of the PACs (political action commitees).
I should think the Taliban, Idi Amin, Saddam Hussein, Hitler, Stalin and a
few other ran more corrupt governments by a long way.
They weren't corrupt in the way that they could be bought like the
American political system.
Unpleasant - undoubtedly. But corrupt - not particularly.
Everywhere else it seems to be done on an `ad
I don't think ethnic cleansing of Jews was particularly ad hoc.
I don't see that corruption & genocide have much in common.
Tel: 01423 323019
PGP keyID: 0xC0B341A3
Bondage maybe, discipline never!