Microsoft Hatred FAQ

[Not Bill Gates]

joe at invalid.address wrote...
> 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?

For the same reason that people put down bug spray, I guess:  You 
don't want any bugs showing up later and ruining your dinner party.

> 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.

Heck, I dunno.  Like you, I don't even really care all that much.  

Maybe they were trying to protect themselves against all the market 
momentum they'd created around 0S/2.  They'd been big fans of it 
right up until Windows 3.0 took off.