Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 17:48:29 -0500 From: Greg Lehey <grog@mojave.sitaranetworks.com> To: David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com> Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Subjctive views of the world (was: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit") Message-ID: <19991118174829.00569@mojave.sitaranetworks.com> In-Reply-To: <000701bf3214$a03b5180$021d85d1@youwant.to>; from David Schwartz on Thu, Nov 18, 1999 at 02:31:15PM -0800 References: <19991118172219.62530@mojave.sitaranetworks.com> <000701bf3214$a03b5180$021d85d1@youwant.to>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[Format recovered--see http://www.lemis.com/email/email-format.html] On Thursday, 18 November 1999 at 14:31:15 -0800, David Schwartz wrote: >> On Thursday, 18 November 1999 at 14:13:25 -0800, David Schwartz wrote: >>> >>>> On Thursday, 18 November 1999 at 10:23:28 -0800, David Schwartz wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> Is it possible for company to cause the adoption of lesser >>>>>>> technology purely by business/marketing tactics? >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes. It required the ability to wield what is called "monopolistic >>>>>> power" in the marketplace. If you can wield this power, you can >>>>>> subvert normal free-market pressures, and by subverting, ignore them. >>>>> >>>>> Then why is it that not one single clear example of this has >>>>> ever been found? This must be some extreme usage of the word >>>>> "possible". >>>> >>>> A good question. We've found them. When you say (paraphrased) "why >>>> has no example been found?", I have to assume you mean "why have I not >>>> seen one?". >>>> >>>> I can't answer that question. >>> >>> Seeing as I'm the only person in this thread who has cited >>> even a single reference to back up his claims, this amounts to >>> little more than whining. >> >> No, it's a disparate view of the world. I have seen plenty of >> references to back up claims, but none of them came from you. >> >> I once did a lot of thinking about people like you. You're not >> certifiably crazy, and I'm the first to stand up for letting everybody >> have their own opinion. On the other hand, your view of the world >> differs so totally from that of everybody else I know that I do think >> there's something wrong with you. But there's a simple way of testing >> this: if we had a vote, what proportion would agree that no example of >> a monopoly has been presented, and what proportion would not? Come up >> with something approximating the correct answer and there's still >> hope. > > Eh? I never said monopolies don't exist. I'm sure they do, and for good > reasons. > > For some things, there's a tremendous benefit to us all having similar > things. Perhaps even operating systems fall into this categorty. This would > mean that you would expect to see a monopoly in the operating system market. > > Similarly, there are advantages to people having compatible instruction > architectures. This is why the '386-compatibles have held the desktop market > for so long. If Intel had successfully kept the architecture all to > themself, they would certainly have held a monopoly for some amount of time. > Perhaps over many generations, if they could keep extending the architecture > sufficiently that there was no great loss in sticking with it. > > Are you reading what I'm saying? Or is there a narrow slot in your mind for > people who disagree with you that you are trying to pigeonhole me into? > > I'm sure you can find this entire thread somewhere. Please cite back to me > anything I said that made you suspect that I would take the position that > monopolies don't exist. I think that reply proves my point. Greg -- When replying to this message, please take care not to mutilate the original text. For more information, see http://www.lemis.com/email.html Finger grog@lemis.com for PGP public key See complete headers for address and phone numbers 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?19991118174829.00569>