Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)
Barry Watzman <WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote:
> First, MS doesn't require a mfgr. to put it's OS on every computer sold,
First, that's not the case, as found by the courts. They did. The
question was whether that was illegal or not (and secondly, please stop
top posting! It is most rude to ignore my post like that and even ruder
to stub my poor ignored post on the end of yours as a sort of insult
saying "Look what I've ignored, ha ha").
(random quote, from the bbc, but you can find your own)
Microsoft had maintained its monopoly power by anticompetitive means
and had also attempted to monopolise the internet browser market.
..
However, he said that Microsoft's marketing arrangements with other
companies did not constitute unlawful exclusive dealing
..
and in my opinion he (judge jackson) was crazy not to.
> but it does offer lower prices per unit if they do so.
AFAIR (1) if they didn't agree to do so MS would charge them the full
whack for each unit sold and do it up front instead of afterwards, (2)
they offered the lower price and the pay-later only if the accounting
wæs per machine sold not "per machine with a MS o/s on". Those are
killers.
> Looking at this from the perspective of the computer maker, if MS gives
> them a 10% discount for agreeing to put Windows on every single
It's not a 10% discount - you know the difference.
> computer, no exceptions, and the computer makers figures out that only
> 5% of customers would order a computer without an OS were it offered
> both with and without an OS, guess what: It's cheaper for the laptop
> maker and 95% of the customers for that vendor to offer only machines
> with Windows. If you are one of the 5%, you may not like that outcome,
> but should the Government really have the right to tell Microsoft that
> they can't offer a 10% discount to a customer who agrees to sell Windows
> with every computer?
I don't expect to see a defense of such activity from you. Let me put
it this way - I offer to give all the greengrocers their apples from my
orchards at a 10% (your figure!) lower price if they give them away
"free" to every customer and include the cost instead in the overall
price they charge the customer, without disclosing it to them. And my
apples are already the most popular because they've been developed to
look good, no matter that they taste like paper.
I would have said that was deeply anticompetitive behaviour.
> There's also the matter of support and support costs. The 5% of
> machines that would be sold without an OS are quite possibly going to
> consume a disproportionately huge support resource as the people who
> bought them try to install an OS on them themselves.
Running support costs nothing (dell supply/ied server machines with
linux on, I know, because I bought one, and I ALWAYS buy no-name desktop
clones with no o/s on). The argument goes: supporting people who
install a supported o/s costs the same no matter which supported o/s
they use. You just change the flip-charts for the telephone help. And
if they don't use a supprted o/s then they don't get support. Your
argument must instead be based on capital costs, such as overheads for
housing, which is higher per 5% than it is per 95%.
> In the end, economically, it's just not worth it. It really, truly
I don't care - if I don't want an o/s on then they shouldn't insist on
selling me one. It doesn't cost them anything NOT to sell me an o/s
just as it doesn't cost them anything NOT to sell me a cd player. If I
don't want one I don't want one. And they get to choose if they want to
"support" me installing a cdrom on it by the service agreement they
sell me.
> isn't, not withstanding the fact that you'd like it to be, and that in
> an ideal world it might be. But not in the real world.
No - in the real world I almost never buy machines with an o/s on¸ and I
buy about 50 a year. The ones I can't get WITHOUT an o/s on are
portables, and I buy about 5 of those. I object to that.
Peter
Barry Watzman <WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote:
> First, MS doesn't require a mfgr. to put it's OS on every computer sold,
First, that's not the case, as found by the courts. They did. The
question was whether that was illegal or not (and secondly, please stop
top posting! It is most rude to ignore my post like that and even ruder
to stub my poor ignored post on the end of yours as a sort of insult
saying "Look what I've ignored, ha ha").
(random quote, from the bbc, but you can find your own)
Microsoft had maintained its monopoly power by anticompetitive means
and had also attempted to monopolise the internet browser market.
..
However, he said that Microsoft's marketing arrangements with other
companies did not constitute unlawful exclusive dealing
..
and in my opinion he (judge jackson) was crazy not to.
> but it does offer lower prices per unit if they do so.
AFAIR (1) if they didn't agree to do so MS would charge them the full
whack for each unit sold and do it up front instead of afterwards, (2)
they offered the lower price and the pay-later only if the accounting
wæs per machine sold not "per machine with a MS o/s on". Those are
killers.
> Looking at this from the perspective of the computer maker, if MS gives
> them a 10% discount for agreeing to put Windows on every single
It's not a 10% discount - you know the difference.
> computer, no exceptions, and the computer makers figures out that only
> 5% of customers would order a computer without an OS were it offered
> both with and without an OS, guess what: It's cheaper for the laptop
> maker and 95% of the customers for that vendor to offer only machines
> with Windows. If you are one of the 5%, you may not like that outcome,
> but should the Government really have the right to tell Microsoft that
> they can't offer a 10% discount to a customer who agrees to sell Windows
> with every computer?
I don't expect to see a defense of such activity from you. Let me put
it this way - I offer to give all the greengrocers their apples from my
orchards at a 10% (your figure!) lower price if they give them away
"free" to every customer and include the cost instead in the overall
price they charge the customer, without disclosing it to them. And my
apples are already the most popular because they've been developed to
look good, no matter that they taste like paper.
I would have said that was deeply anticompetitive behaviour.
> There's also the matter of support and support costs. The 5% of
> machines that would be sold without an OS are quite possibly going to
> consume a disproportionately huge support resource as the people who
> bought them try to install an OS on them themselves.
Running support costs nothing (dell supply/ied server machines with
linux on, I know, because I bought one, and I ALWAYS buy no-name desktop
clones with no o/s on). The argument goes: supporting people who
install a supported o/s costs the same no matter which supported o/s
they use. You just change the flip-charts for the telephone help. And
if they don't use a supprted o/s then they don't get support. Your
argument must instead be based on capital costs, such as overheads for
housing, which is higher per 5% than it is per 95%.
> In the end, economically, it's just not worth it. It really, truly
I don't care - if I don't want an o/s on then they shouldn't insist on
selling me one. It doesn't cost them anything NOT to sell me an o/s
just as it doesn't cost them anything NOT to sell me a cd player. If I
don't want one I don't want one. And they get to choose if they want to
"support" me installing a cdrom on it by the service agreement they
sell me.
> isn't, not withstanding the fact that you'd like it to be, and that in
> an ideal world it might be. But not in the real world.
No - in the real world I almost never buy machines with an o/s on¸ and I
buy about 50 a year. The ones I can't get WITHOUT an o/s on are
portables, and I buy about 5 of those. I object to that.
Peter
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram