I am not a critic who would rather live in a world where MSFT is
not a major factor. Just not a monopoly. There is a difference.
So, obviously, your comments aren't addressed to me, nevertheless...
MSFT has always been a slacker in the area of innovation and
quality. This is well known. MSFT prowess has been in marketing
and distribution. The complaint is that MSFT has successfully
put other companies that were innovating by their marketing tactics.
This, if true, would indeed hurt the consumer.
Generally, people who make arguments along the line that you do
are making a logical error. You presume that since we have new
technology, we must be living in the best of possible worlds WRT
this technology. The critics charge not that MSFT doesn't provide
a product, but that the products and productivity would have been
even better had MSFT not buried their competition with their marketing
practices. That is the crux of the debate, and there are two sides.
Nothing in your comment indicates the situation would be worse if
a company other than MSFT were supplying similar functionality.
Your comment also seems to imply that "compatibility" and a fixed
standard is positive. Generally, I would agree, as might even most
of MSFT critics. The question is who controls the standard and
who can compete to providing products with that standard. There
was a time when there were three vendors for DOS-compatible OS.
But MSFT one, not by virtue of the quality and support of their
products, but by marketing practices precluding choice from OEM
for installed OS. My feeling is we are all worse off for that.
You obviously disagree. |
