Microsoft Hatred FAQ

[joe at invalid.address]

Not Bill Gates <nbg at nbg.invalid> writes:

> davids at webmaster.com wrote...
> 
> >     1) There is no other operating system worth selling. In this
> > case, you are right, you have no choice but to sell the Microsoft
> > OS, but the deal they're offering you harms you in no way. (Unless
> > you intended to sell PCs with no OS at all.)
> > 
> >     2) There are other realistic competing operating systems. In
> > this case, you were foolish to agree to Microsoft's deal. You lost
> > out on the realistic competing markets. That is, unless Windows
> > only really was a better deal, in which case you were wise to take
> > the deal and have no reason to be upset.
> 
> The flaw with this is that business owners don't get to decide what 
> the market wants.  And the market wanted the Microsoft OS.  Every 
> other OS in the market had bit player status, via the economic 
> principle called increasing returns. 
> 
> You either sell what the market wants, or you go out of business.

I'm hesitant to get into this, but I keep wondering why, if there is
no other competing OS, or not one worth worrying about, the MS
business agreements are so draconian? Why would a company come up with
such heavy handed agreements if it wasn't worried about competition?

Yes, I know, they can do whatever they want, it's not a crime,
etc. However when they use their market position to disallow
competition, it sounds to me like they're worried about something, and
trying to squelch it.

Joe
-- 
Gort, klatu barada nikto