🚀 go-pugleaf

On 7 Aug 1995 Rony.Fl...@wu-wien.ac.at wrote:

> Well, depends. If you meet the richest robber in the world, who happens to have 
> a *lot* of money, that is o.k. with you, isn't it ? A *true* sign of free 
> capitalism (i.e. the stronger, the smarter wins, no matter what means he uses).
Precisely.  Read a little of the ideology of Capitalism.  Strictly 
speaking, anti-monopolistic legislation is anti-capitalist.  That's why 
it's called "FREE enterprise."  Meaning you are FREE to perform whatever 
function (including monopolistically providing a service or product) you 
want to.

> In a *civilized* society, the rules by which competitors are allowed to compete
> with each other, are *regulated* to assure fairness among all *and* to shelter
> consumers from monopolistic robbing companies (and to shelter small companies 
If the "monopolistic" Microsoft charges too much, their market will 
shrink.  Oh please, protect me from a phantom fear!

> from being unfairly sweeped away by the big and mighty ones).
If the small companies are swept away, they deserved to be.  They weren't 
meeting the customers' needs.

> These rules of fairness depend on the people and their lawmakers (politicians). 
> Ever wondered why *the* capitalistic society, the United States of America, has 
> laws *against* monopolies ?
Because it's not a truly free capitalist society.  Next question, please.

> the competitiveness in that important segment:  look how WordPerfect was sold,
> because it was not able to compete with the *preloaded* MS-Office anymore.  as
> well as their office product, as well as Lotus' office product, BTW.  And all of
WP was a pig.  And I have never owned a copy of MS-Office, nor has it 
been "forced" onto my system.

> MS is doing the same stunt again with MS-Network.  *No* other competitor *can*
> compete, 
BZZZT! Sorry!
> hence the market mechanisms are not working anymore.  MS is a classique
> monopolist *leveraging* its monopolistic status into any interesting (read money
> making) market segment coming to its attention.  And in the age of
Actually they're using their widespread appeal to make net hookups 
easier.  They see that it's coming, and want a piece of the action.  How 
big a piece depends on how much they offer for how little.

> look at FoxProf, Microsoft could not compete with them, hence they bought the
> entire company, hence buying out the market competition!).
Ashton-Tate was the giant with dBase.  Now it's Borland.  Gosh, don't see 
too many other successful C++ compilers, do you?

> people did *not* buy it, when they had a *choice*.  Windows 1.01 was a
> catastrophe, introduced in 1985 !  Windows 2.0 was not accepted, Windows 2.11
> was the first version, making *modest* sales in the end-user market.  Then,
So you're saying... It sucked, nobody bought it, they made it better and it 
sucked, nobody bought it, they made it even better, people started to 
want it.  I fail to see what's wrong with improving a poor program.

> Microsoft *forced* its OEM-customers (PC customers dependent on getting MS-DOS
> for their PCs) to *bundle* Windows 3.0 (startin 1990) with DOS.  And slowly
<snip>
> Microsoft.
So why didn't I have windows on the system I got back in '91?  The evil 
Emperor of Microsoft must have missed that one...

> Then Microsoft did the same stunt with MS Works and thereafter MS Office:  force
see above, substituting '95 for '91.

> Look at MS-Bob:  the majority of people (potential customers) are *not* buying
> it, as long as they have a *choice*. Well, MS starts to have Bob preloaded ...
What do you know, it sucks and nobody buys it... Gosh...

> MS products are not being *bought* by the majority of the people by their merits
> alone !  (In reality, in almost any application segment there are technological
<snip>
> the customers to OEMs, and the OEMs are *controlled* by Microsoft !  They even
Gosh, people are going for a Chevy that does the job, not a Jag that does 
the job and costs more!

> not dare to *not* sign a treaty with Microsoft, which allows Microsoft to
> illegally use technology developed and devised by its OEM customers !
Yes, I'm sure most manufacturers would much rather not be able to run 
Windows on their systems...
 
> And then, by new releases of Windows, Microsoft all of a sudden *forces* its
> end-user customers to *upgrade* for money to the new applications, because the
> old ones do not work flawlessly anymore; no matter whether the customer
<snip drivel about forcing people to buy stuff>
> purse by selling you *anything* forcing you to pay me even more money, because
> of my initial sale to you.  NOT!
As far as I've seen '95 will run any previous WinG app flawlessly.  It's 
really more the hardware manufacturers who "force" us to buy new 
software; I wouldn't have upgraded to Win95 if I were still using my old 
286/20; once they come out with a bigger better processor, you need/want 
programs to take advantage of that, not before.

Was Charisma really that good? That much "technologically superior?"
Where do you get that 85% figure?
Did you know that most people use Windows because it's EASIER?  Funny 
thing that...
Finally, a re-iteration of my first note... Read such books as Wealth of 
Nations (Adam Smith) and find out more about what capitalism really is.

						The D-Mon.
*****************************************************************************
 "Killing isn't always the answer... but it's usually a good guess"
					-Jack Deth
*****************************************************************************
"Life is like a mule.  Never goes where you want, push it too hard and it 
kicks you in the head..."   - dah...@freenet.calgary.ab.ca