Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Paul Ma who wrote (108379)	4/28/2000 7:25:00 PM
From: Mani1	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1570917

Paul re <<Standard Oil and Microsoft are not even close>> I did not say they were. I was giving an example as to why the Sherman Anti Trust Law is there and how it is designed to protect consumers. I just gave the example of how standard oil could start selling sub par car engines because it had the monopoly in the supply of oil. Paul, that happened here. Netscape was clearly a better product, but people started to use explorer because MSFT leveraged its monopoly in the separate market of OS. Mani

To: Paul Ma who wrote (108379)	4/28/2000 8:03:00 PM
From: Goutam	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1570917

Paul Ma, < Also Standard Oil was dissolved because of vertical integration where it controlled not just one market, but one sector. > Well... software also has several different areas similar to the sectors you referred to, where MS is a dominating force. < Microsoft on the other hand does not gouge consumers on prices. > I believe MS is already gouging the consumers. Their OS prices haven't come down even though the number of pcs sold in the world has been steadily going up. < Yet it is because of Netscape who screams that bad Microsoft made IE and bundled it with windows that now there is an antitrust trial.> It's not just making IE - there is more behind it. What exactly was the reason that MS decided to give it away for free? Do you think it was because they were philanthropic? Why is MS so anxious of becoming the sole supplier of Internet browser software rather than concentrating on providing a bug free OS to its consumers? I don't have a choice but to use MS windows OS. Why am I forced to pay for the IE that I don't use. Well, MS says it's free - is it really? I think, if you are an IE user, a fraction of the amount I paid for the windows OS has gone into subsidizing IE users like you, so you can get it for free. < It is just unacceptable to me to think that the government will actually restrict what type of programs Microsoft can integrate into Windows. It's their product and they can do whatever they want with it.> I think government should restrict what products they can integrate with their OS. You have to view the OS just as the electric lines that carry power to your house. Would you allow the electric company force you to use only their brand of appliances. If they are allowed to do it, they can do it you know, without giving any chance to the competition just because they own the power lines. I don't see any thing wrong in splitting up Microsoft. It's not a punishment - it's just a way to make them conduct their successful business in a different way. No body is going to lose any thing in the long run except for the short term dip in their stock price. Goutama

To: Paul Ma who wrote (108379)	4/28/2000 8:31:00 PM
From: that_crazy_doug	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1570917

OT << Microsoft on the other hand does not gouge consumers on prices. >> How about changing the header formats on every version of microsoft office so none of them are compatible with the previous versions. Forcing all corporations to update every release. You don't think Office is a price gauging piece of software, it costs over $1000 bucks for the full versions. << Yet it is because of Netscape who screams that bad Microsoft made IE and bundled it with windows that now there is an antitrust trial >> It's quite clear microsoft leveraged windows to dominate with IE. Again, it's another argument if you think that should be legal or not. How about corrupting open standards like java to ruin interoperability and create windows only code. (same thing with vb script, so that netscape wouldn't function) Things that serve no possible benefit to the consumer except to force them to use only windows.

To: Paul Ma who wrote (108379)	4/28/2000 8:38:00 PM
From: Cirruslvr	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1570917

Paul - RE: "Standard Oil and Microsoft are not even close. Standard Oil was formed by merging a bunch of HUGE oil companies. Also Standard Oil was dissolved because of vertical integration where it controlled not just one market, but one sector. Microsoft on the other hand does not gouge consumers on prices. They could make Windows cost 200 bucks or whatever. I do not believe that Microsoft broke the Antitrust law which is really bogus because the government only enforces it when it wants to. For example during the Gilded Age and beyond to the Progressive Era and finally New Deal, most of the anti trust regulators actually were helping companies, not deterring them. Calvin Coolidge said, "The state of America is business" or something. Herbert Hoover loaned money to corperations during the Depression believing in the trickle down theory. For the majority of US history,the government has favored businesses. Yet it is because of Netscape who screams that bad Microsoft made IE and bundled it with windows that now there is an antitrust trial. It is just unacceptable to me to think that the government will actually restrict what type of programs Microsoft can integrate into Windows. It's their product and they can do whatever they want with it. I wish Alexander Hamilton is resurrected to give those state lawyers and Judge Jackson a drubbing." I see you're ready for the AP US History test. ;)

To: Paul Ma who wrote (108379)	4/28/2000 9:23:00 PM
From: Dan3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1570917

Re: Microsoft on the other hand does not gouge consumers on prices. They could make Windows cost 200 bucks... The price of the latest windows for a desktop PC is $319. shop.microsoft.com Microsoft© Windows© 2000 Professional English North America CD Encryption Coded Software CD-ROM $319.00 Regards, Dan

To: Paul Ma who wrote (108379)	4/29/2000 12:03:00 AM
From: minnow68	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 1570917

Paul, You wrote "Microsoft on the other hand does not gouge consumers on prices." When the Mexican school system asked for a quote for server software for every school in Mexico, MSFT came up with a quote of something like $180 million. The Mexican's asked Red Hat and Red Hat quoted $79.95. MSFT's quote $180,000,000.00 USD RHAT's quote $79.95 USD MSFT wanted over two million times as much money as the competition. At what point is it price gouging? When they want a billion times more money, a trillion? Mike

To: Paul Ma who wrote (108379)	4/29/2000 5:33:00 AM
From: pgerassi	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1570917

Dear Paul: On e claim that was proven was that Microsoft attempted to collude with Netscape. They wanted to divvy up the market. This is almost always bad for the consumer in the long run. Netscape, to their credit, rebuffed the request. Have you looked at current prices? Microsoft wants $159 for Windows 2000. This is higher than Windows 98, about $89. Wow! What a deal for consumers! Not! Time was you could get MSDOS for $29. As their monopoly grew, they charged more for it. The DOJ is against required bundling, especially by monopolies. Required bundling is almost always against the consumers interest except when safety is at issue. If you want to use your super dooper radio, why should you pay for the car manufacturers one. Even a free radio costs me time and money to remove it thus it is not ever truly free. I like Netscape over IE. Why should I actively have to keep it on my Windows machine. Microsoft has "Blown Away" Netscape Navigator twice. This is not in my best interest. I do not want IE to appear on my desktop. It takes me at least an hour to remove it. My time is valuable. If I give the new Windows to my employee, I must either train them myself to use IE or pay someone to do it for me. This can be many times the cost of Windows. Thus by US law, Microsoft must be able to sell me Windows without a browser. This is not STUPID. IE can and does stand alone. Thus Windows must be able to be purchased without it. Now that it is seperated from Windows, Windows without IE should not cost more than Windows with it. Think about it. Also, no one can do anything with something that is theirs. Anything covers a lot of ground. I do not believe that you meant that Microsoft could be allowed to change Windows to destroy any record of you or alternatively email any personal information of yours to all your competitors and enemies. You would not allow them to change Windows to show your childrens location to any pedophiles. There is a lot that Microsoft can not do with Windows. They are also not allowed to use the profits from one division that has a monopoly to subsidize another division. That is the same as required bundling. The users of a monopoly should not have to pay for something they do not use. This still allows a company to have many divisions having monopolies. No one is against someone creating a monopoly by having the best solution for the customers needs by either technical merit or advertising. If you were on the receiving end of a monopoly, you would change your tune. Your just upset that your net worth is taking a hit. So is mine (from my 401K). I wish it applied to the things that governments do. You probably do not like paying $2 or $3 for a gallon of gasoline in taxes where industry pays nothing. Pete