Adinnieken said:
mike_intellivision said:
Adinnieken said:
mike_intellivision said:
Argh_College said:
Well Microsoft is doing things right but unlike Apple that only uses their OS on their devices, everybody uses Microsoft OS so Microsoft needs to be carefull because others companies also want to sell their Windows 8 tablets. |
Or far worse for Microsoft, they will get hit with a varsity of monopoly charge by governments and have the other hardware makers embrace a new software standard of OS (such as Linux).
Mike from Morgantown
|
Mike do you know what a monopoly is? I don't get how Microsoft developing hardware that uses its software would be a monopoly when there are/would still be OEMs that are capable of licensing the OS and installing it on their hardware? Not to mention, Apple, to my knowledge has never been hit with a single monopoly charge for being the sole source for its OS.
Would it necessarily be good business? Possibly not. It might hurt them in the long-run, but we'll see I suppose. However it isn't a monopoly. There are other alternatives, namely Linux and OEMs have the same opportunity to do what Microsoft is doing. What got Microsoft into trouble in the 1990's is that they previously had used their market position to pressure OEMs into using Windows and or Internet Explorer as the default/installed browser.
Their position in the market allowed them to push competitors out of the market. Not by competing against them, but by forcing the hand of OEMs to ensure
that Windows and Internet Explorer were on desktops. Even if Microsoft stopped licensing Windows to OEMs, it wouldn't be a monopoly because there are still alternatives to Windows available on the market.
|
Yes, I know what a monopoly is. And I will admit that because I was posting on my iPad that I tried to write the message in brief and may have not fully explained myself. In fact, what I was referring to was monopolistic business practices, better known as "antitrust."
Calling Microsoft a monopoly is so 1999 -- https://www.google.com/search?q=microsoft+monopoly&rlz=1C1RNAN_enUS474US483&aq=f&sugexp=chrome,mod=9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
(Although Bill Gates was testifying last year (2011) in a 2004 Novell Monopoly lawsuit -- that's on the first page of that search listing.)
But I imagine if it tried to control software and hardware, those charges would come up again. No one brings charges against Apple because while it might be highly profitable, it is still niche on the computer side. This would be especially true if they tried to make you buy their hardware to use their software -- which is the market leader in word processing, spreadsheets, and presentations (the three most common business functions).
Also, if history is a guide, European regulators would be much stronger in their opposition to such actions than their US counterparts.
Mike from Morgantown
|
Antitrust is what a government does, not a charge levied against a business. Again, I don't see monopolistic behavior if Microsoft builds its own hardware. As long as the hardware business isn't unfairly advantaged (i.e. the software is licensed the same internally as it is with OEMs), than I don't see how it is anti-competitive.
|
OK. They will face antitrust charges. That was what I was trying to say. Stop playing semantics. What I was trying to say before was that I meant to say "antitrust" instead of "monopoly."
As for Microsoft, it has a long history of being seen as being on the wrong side of these laws.
I am Mario.
