I saw bush speak...

dxoigmn · October 31, 2004, 05:04 PM

Quote from: quasi-modo on October 31, 2004, 04:49 PM
Micorosft's monopoly was on their os.

So now we agree that Microsoft is a monopoly? Geesh, that took to much to come to such a simple agreement.

quasi-modo · October 31, 2004, 05:09 PM

Well thats what they were taken to court for. Because other vernders could not make products for their os. But that is not true anymore and additionally windows is not the only os so ms can't be a real monopoly. I wish I had worded my last response differently

Adron · October 31, 2004, 06:11 PM

Quote from: quasi-modo on October 31, 2004, 04:49 PM
I have only heard of microsoft stealing the apple idea... not funding them. Show me some evidence of this happening. Micorosft's monopoly was on their os. They went to court and were forced to supply relevant source code to other companies making software for their os that competes with their own. The linux os is open source and competes with windows.

Google for "microsoft invests apple". The particular instance I was thinking of happened some time ago, but there are plenty of hits for it. Some quotes:

QuoteMicrosoft CEO Bill Gates decided to invest 150 million dollars in its 'arch enemy,' Apple Computer. It was announced at the MacWorld Trade Show in Boston on August 6, 1997, followed by a mixture of boos and applause from the audience. Many people were not pleased to hear about this deal, but some people think it will help keep Apple in business

QuoteMicrosoft sees this as a small investment to help them out of their anti-trust concerns.

QuoteAll in all, this has reinforced people's confidence that Apple will survive in the rapidly changing technology world.

I.e. Apple was hanging on the line and Microsoft saved them. Either we see this as a sign of Microsoft's goodness, how generously they helped their main OS competitor, or we see this as Microsoft supporting their pretend-enemy, so as not to get the government to come down less hard on them.

Edit: fix url

quasi-modo · October 31, 2004, 06:57 PM

Humm microsoft becoming a shareholder in a major competitor would first make me think they were trying to have sway in the company. Get 51% of the shares and screw em. That is what I would first think of something like that. I thought when you said microsoft giving money to mac that it was an under the table thing.

Adron · October 31, 2004, 07:46 PM

Quote from: quasi-modo on October 31, 2004, 06:57 PM
Humm microsoft becoming a shareholder in a major competitor would first make me think they were trying to have sway in the company. Get 51% of the shares and screw em. That is what I would first think of something like that. I thought when you said microsoft giving money to mac that it was an under the table thing.

No, Apple was in a financial crisis and needed investors badly. Microsoft helped them out to keep them floating. If Microsoft played by the obvious capitalism rules, they would've either let them die, or like you said bought 51%. They didn't, they got non-voting stock, which make it seem more like they wanted to support Apple. Now, why would you support your competitor? Especially at the same time you're being investigated for a monopoly position and for trusts with computer manufacturers?

quasi-modo · October 31, 2004, 08:05 PM

all of that is fine and dandy but it still meant that microsoft had competition, even if they supported it. So therefore microsoft is in some close monopolistic competition. Now microsoft does have some ability to be a price seter and price descriminate, but that would not make it a monopoly by its self.

Hazard · October 31, 2004, 08:08 PM

This thread has digressed well beyond repair. I suggest that Adron and myself be added as moderators to better break up the threads that mold into totally unrelated conversations or debates.

quasi-modo · October 31, 2004, 08:18 PM

Yeah... this thread has somehow turned into microsoft is a monoply and microsoft is not a monoply.

Let me just say where I am coming from: If something is a monoply it is not in competition. Monoply can be legal or illegal. Illegal examples would be the railroad trusts at the turn of the century, opec, and the debeers diamond cartel which I believe is not allowed to operate within the united states. Of course there is nothing to stop opec or bedeers, but I would still consider them to be illegal.

Legal examples would be your local utility companies, they are given the right to be the only company there if they get the job done to the satisfaction of the voters. Otherwise lines would be everywhere, it would be a big mess.

Because of the fact that microsoft is in competition with other companies with different products all over the place I do not feel it is a monoply.

I also feel that monopolies cannot occur naturally. I can go into game theory and whip up some diagrams in paint but I would rather not. But basically in a not shell that is what I was trying to say.

Adron · October 31, 2004, 08:29 PM

Quote from: quasi-modo on October 31, 2004, 08:18 PM
Let me just say where I am coming from: If something is a monoply it is not in competition. Monoply can be legal or illegal. Illegal examples would be the railroad trusts at the turn of the century, opec, and the debeers diamond cartel which I believe is not allowed to operate within the united states. Of course there is nothing to stop opec or bedeers, but I would still consider them to be illegal.

Legal examples would be your local utility companies, they are given the right to be the only company there if they get the job done to the satisfaction of the voters. Otherwise lines would be everywhere, it would be a big mess.

Because of the fact that microsoft is in competition with other companies with different products all over the place I do not feel it is a monoply.

I also feel that monopolies cannot occur naturally. I can go into game theory and whip up some diagrams in paint but I would rather not. But basically in a not shell that is what I was trying to say.

Hmmk, given your exact definition from above, there is no monopoly. Isn't it nice when things can get down to hard definitions?

The reason I'm disagreeing with you is that when I think of monopoly I'm looking for something I'd best describe as "real competition". I see Microsoft as a cat playing with a mouse (Apple) here. Microsoft is in control and could've had Apple die. They can buy out competitors at will, or tie them up in legal (say patent?) battles long enough to go bankrupt. To stop this, others have to see this and take steps. One way is to have the government make regulations to stop it.