Ok, I've read it. I agree it is serious. But I think it's also wrong. Monopolies can be abused in ways that make it almost impossible to compete against them. Let's use Windows as an example. Some companies that sell Windows boxes also sell Linux boxes. (Dell for example.) Of course, the Linux boxes are less popular. But why not sell a computer that can dual boot? People would be a lot more willing to experiment with Linux if they didn't have to install it themselves. Indeed, around 1999 a young company was trying to popularize its new operating system: BeOS. I am quoting from this site:
"[...] Be was engaged in enthusiastic discussions with Dell, Compaq, Micron, and Hitachi. Taken together, pre-installation arrangements with vendors of this magnitude could have had a major impact on the future of Be and BeOS. But of the four, only Hitachi actually shipped a machine with BeOS pre-installed. The rest apparently backed off after a closer reading of the fine print in their Microsoft Windows License agreements. Hitachi did ship a line of machines (the Flora Prius) with BeOS pre-installed, but made changes to the bootloader -- rendering BeOS invisible to the consumer -- before shipping. Apparently, Hitachi received a little visit from Microsoft just before shipping the Flora Prius, and were reminded of the terms of the license."
If Windows started sucking, people would switch. Demand would arise for a better alternative. In the long run, companies and consumers are not going to choose a significantly inferior product.
There are no specific examples that will get you out of this.
Actually, it Windows already kinda does suck, which is why so many people (even companies) use Apple. And there are lots of other alternative OSs.
Unfortunately the example given and the "windows tax" is a perfect example. Microsoft had such size and control over the industry they could strangle competitors at birth. Who knows what they would have done without this tiresome legislation.
No, I'm saying that there is no example possible that will negate the point. Because the point is true.
I mean, you can keep taking it out one level, and competition can happen there. For instance: Can't compete due to OEM agreements with MS? Have to get an OEM to capitulate, or start your own OEM, or find another way to get your competing OS on machines. There is no specific example that will make the argument that competition is impossible go through.
Why didn't you try to understand what I said instead of taking the cheapest opportunity to pick on it?
>No, I'm saying that there is no example possible that will negate the point. Because the point is true.
You can't dismiss evidence ahead of time because you're convinced your theory is true.
this isn't a cheap opportunity to pick at your argument, it's a huge red flag that you have a fundamental error in your reasoning.
>I mean, you can keep taking it out one level, and competition can happen there. For instance: Can't compete due to OEM agreements with MS? Have to get an OEM to capitulate, or start your own OEM, or find another way to get your competing OS on machines. There is no specific example that will make the argument that competition is impossible go through.
Fine - but this argument doesn't model reality, and this is where the relevance of evidence comes in: many times competition is theoretically possible but won't occur since no one wants to risk a lot of capital and time and effort on what will likely be an unsuccessful venture.
So if an unregulated Microsoft manages to lean on their competitors enough that people don't want to try competing anymore, then competition is still possible, but without regulation it won't occur.
> You can't dismiss evidence ahead of time because you're convinced your theory is true.
There is no possible counter-evidence. You'd say the same thing about lots of things---for example, that the Earth is spherical.
So you are mistaken here about how epistemology works.
> many times competition is theoretically possible but won't occur since no one wants to risk a lot of capital and time and effort on what will likely be an unsuccessful venture.
That isn't borne out in reality. It's very easy to compete against a shitty product with a superior product, and there is plenty of capital to compete with any product that exists today.
> So if an unregulated Microsoft manages to lean on their competitors enough that people don't want to try competing anymore
What does it mean to "lean on competitors"? Nothing. It's meaningless. There is literally nothing a company can do to "lean on" competitors unless they use the law to do it. They can lean on other market participants---e.g., OEMs, But you can always get around that because you can start a competing OEM or get an OEM to capitulate. That's why I say I can always take the argument out one level.
I'm most likely not going to continue responding. I will if you ask a question out of curiosity, but I'm not interested in "aruging" with you further.
You said not to take the cheap shots, so I replied two minutes ago with a real comment. This one is a cheap shot: starting your own OEM will not help: MS won't give you a windows license. But you will say that just means you must try something else.
So according to you, it's alright for a company to hold a monopoly position and erase their competitors, as long as they provide the bare minimum its customers need?
No. I said that there is no such thing as a monopoly except legally-created monopolies.
Those are, in effect, government created. I am totally against that. I am totally against government passing laws to favor certain people over others, treating people unequally.
http://birdhouse.org/beos/byte/30-bootloader/
"[...] Be was engaged in enthusiastic discussions with Dell, Compaq, Micron, and Hitachi. Taken together, pre-installation arrangements with vendors of this magnitude could have had a major impact on the future of Be and BeOS. But of the four, only Hitachi actually shipped a machine with BeOS pre-installed. The rest apparently backed off after a closer reading of the fine print in their Microsoft Windows License agreements. Hitachi did ship a line of machines (the Flora Prius) with BeOS pre-installed, but made changes to the bootloader -- rendering BeOS invisible to the consumer -- before shipping. Apparently, Hitachi received a little visit from Microsoft just before shipping the Flora Prius, and were reminded of the terms of the license."