Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 14:52:30 -0800 From: "David Schwartz" <davids@webmaster.com> To: "Terry Lambert" <tlambert@primenet.com> Cc: <freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: RE: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit" Message-ID: <000401bf353c$41eb6900$021d85d1@youwant.to> In-Reply-To: <199911222159.OAA00163@usr01.primenet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > > Bull. They were killed by predatory pricing. Technological superiority > > > makes little difference when an inferior product is free -- as we've > > > seen in the cases of Netscape, Stac, Quarterdeck, and others. > > > > Price is one of the factors that you have to compare when you > > determine if something is superior or not. > > > Pull the other one... we didn't just fall off the turnup truck. > > Technical superiority is independent of pricing. Pricing is a > function of economies of scale and of market forebearance, and > has nothing whatsoever to do with technological capability. What the hell are you talking about? Are you next going to allege that the reason we don't all have Cray T90's is due to Microsoft lock in? After all, they are superior to our desktops, right? > For example, Microsoft has dropped prices on their software in > some markets in order to reinforce mindshare. Clearly, they > can't be selling below cost (technical term: "dumping"), since > that is an illegal monoply tactic. And yet it's dumping that can save us from lock in! If lock in is a problem, then companies should be allowed to dump to break the lock in. You can't have it both ways. > > If the 'inferior' product is cheaper than the 'superior' > product, and this > > price difference overwhelms any feature difference, then it's > obvious which > > product is really superior. > > The one with the best technology. This is an Alice-in-Wonderland view. Better technology in isolation doesn't even make a better product. > For example, in the recent bid for the National Aerospace Plane, > a brillian SSTO design lost out to a design that will be incapable > of landing on the moon or other planets. It will only be good for > ground-to-orbit from planets with atmospheres. > > The SSTO design was much more flexible. One could argue that it > had better engine technology, and worse mission profile capability > (the winner uses a ceramic linear aerospike engine, which is an > engine where the rocket exhaust forms an optimal rocket engine bell > out of turbulence for any given atmospheric pressure). With a > linear aerospike engine, the SSTO option would have been the best > all around option, from a technology standpoint. > > Technology means that something has utility and application to > problems that something without that technology can't match (in > the linear aerospike example, the engines don't have to carry > a heavy rocket bell, nor cooling equipment for the bell, etc., > etc., but that doesn't really help if you wanted to go to the > moon). You have an engineer's view of economics. ;) The 'best technology' does not make the best product. Technology is useful only as a means to an end. > > My point is that consumers have gained the benefits of > > all of these products. When a competitor points out a deficiency > > in a Microsoft product, Microsoft acts to correct the deficiency. > > This is one way consumers benefit from 'failed' competition. > > You are crazy. I _still_ can't install Windows 98/2000 onto > removable media because the pager can't correctly do paging on > removable media. > > I reported this bug in 1994, and again in 1996. > > Where is the fix? If you don't like Windows 98/2000, don't use them. Don't bang your head up against a wall and complain to me about it. > > > Netscape eventually expected to make a profit from DESQview. Microsoft > > > simply wanted to put Netscape out of business. And Microsoft was > > > (and is!) a monopoly. Monopoly leverage is illegal. > > > > Are you saying that Microsoft has no intention of making a > profit from IE? > > If so, what's their goal? > > How can they make a profit from something they bundle with the OS? Umm, duh, it increases the value of the OS and thus allows them to charge more for it. Did you fail Economics 101? > > Please, show me the browser shootouts that conclude, "In our > opinion, IE is > > inferior to Netscape due to its myriad security problems". Put > up or shut > > up. > > Uh, they are called "CERT Advisories", not "shootouts"... 8-). Well, unfortunately, consumers don't always have the same priorities that you and I do. Yes, it's frustrating for a lot of people. But when what you want is not what everyone else seems to want, then that's what happens. > > > > Umm, it had nothing to do with any predatory tactics. > > > > It had everything to do with IE being a better browser. > > > > > > Utter nonsense. Again, read the judge's Findings of Fact. > > > > I have. Remember, that was the starting point. > > I guess you are implying that you disagree with the findings of > fact? You will have a hard time ignoring them; they are almost > impossible to overturn, unless you can prove that no "reasonable > person" would have arrived at the same conclusions. Microsoft > has had their day in court over the facts, and they have lost. Well, given Judge Jackson's previous history in this case, I wouldn't jump to that conclusion. DS To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?000401bf353c$41eb6900$021d85d1>