Uninitiated is the proper term. You scurrilously altered it. What percentage of the population can honestly tell you what/how/why an OS does? Less than 5-10%. That represents a uninitiation, when you consider that of that number, only 3-10 times (depending on the % you use) as many have a home computer. Over time, both these numbers will climb, and the DOJ case may not be necessary. Problem is (and believe me, I'm no fan of the DOJ), by that time, MSFT WILL own the standard, and there will be no choice.
Why does AAPL continue to exist so you can own it? Because of 2 things: a little luck in that it has a determined and loyal base (unlike most MSFT products, which have "by default users" such as myself), and the MSFT investment, which brought them some extra time and attention. However, MSFT's investment was purely motivated on a "control factor" as Avie's testimony last week so clearly pointed out.
Uninitiated is nothing near stupid. It is sort've like buying a car. How many of us can remove a distributor cap - let alone tell you what it does? I'm lucky in that these things interest me, and I know. It doesn't mean you're stupid, just that if the car starts and does a decent job, who cares what else happens? However, cars and distributor caps are commodities and an OS is not. An OS is like the railway gauge. If you own it, you pretty much own everything that is built for it and everything that runs on it.
Is there something like the plane, or the highway coming along that can undermine the OS gauge, as history typically dictates? Probably. Problem with it is, that when you understand history of this nature, and have the treasury chest of MSFT, you can subvert and alter it as it is in the process.
Example: the steam driven car. Review why steam doesn't drive our cars. The Stanley Steamer was a successful steam driven car. The reasons for its failure have little to do with impracticality or even better choices.
Another example: The trolley in major metropolitan areas. How is it that so few survived? GM's payoffs and marketing prowess had nothing to do with it, I'm sure.
If the government wanted to really derail MSFT, they could cancel all their contracts with them. That's using the market to achieve your ends. However, too much dislocation may make that an impractical solution (though one I support). As a result, this is a next best solution, though one I support grudgingly.
As for my experience and changing OS's....some people can, some can't. I can't (as I explained many times earlier) due to the inability of the software (which my company uses) to port. In order to have a practical home solution, I have defaulted to MSFT. I am planning on buying G3 on the next go-round, if my wife's company can find a way to operate their software on it....but we'll see. Maybe we'll just have 2 computers. But I won't buy one until this one's useful life is sapped. BTW, it's 4 years old, so the time is coming.
Do I feel I have a choice? Yes. And whenever someone asks what computer they should buy, I still say a G3. Most buy it. Many do not, however. Why? Because they have MIS people who don't recommend altering standards, and they fear the unknown. That is uninitiation, not stupidity.
Finally, what you should note is that what I am opposed to more than MSFT is the OEM arrangement. OEM deals seem to operate in the consumer's favor, when in fact they don't. They limit choice and innovation. To the unitiated, it makes it an easy purchase, so they don't fight it (review my IOM example).
The DOJ would do well to finish the MSFT case and outlaw OEM arrangements...but MSFT has to be neutered. Why? Because even in a non-OEM world, they own such a large %, they could continue to subvert the process effectively. |
