3 ms·

"anti-competitive practices" is an anti-concept (look that term up in an epistemology book if you don't know it). Microsoft didn't initiate force or fraud again

by javert 14y ago

"anti-competitive practices" is an anti-concept (look that term up in an epistemology book if you don't know it). Microsoft didn't initiate force or fraud against anyone; therefore, they weren't cheating. In the long run, had they continued those practices, Linux and Apple (or some other competitor in the marketplace) likely would have risen farther/faster. Forcing everyone to use IE was not a viable strategy back when that was a death sentence for computer security. AFAIK AMD is alive and well.

_delirium 14y ago
Microsoft was cheating; your strange Randian views are neither the law, nor philosophically defensible. In the real world, abusing monopoly power is cheating, both legally and ethically.
- javert 14y ago
  MS didn't have a monopoly (i.e., exclusive right to sell something granted by the government); they were operating in a free market. People were always free to use a different OS, and many have. You haven't offered a counterargument to this obvious fact. You haven't explained why you think MS was cheating by selling software configured in a particular way (nor why countless analogous examples in other industries don't constitute cheating). I find your bald assertion that my views are not philosophically defensible to be below the belt. I can (and often do) rigorously defend my views, and can point to further information. I take claims contrary to my views seriously. People who aren't interested in what I have to say can easily avoid me. strange Randian views By the way, hasn't it been said that good, novel solutions will often appear strange, and not to discount ideas for that reason? Isn't that a reason to investigte? Especially since philosophers have not engaged with or been able to offer counter-arguments to Rand, and since there is a growing persence of Objectivist philosophers in university philosophy departments?
  - _delirium 14y ago
    First, a government-granted monopoly is only one kind of monopoly. Surely you have read enough economics since the 17th century to be aware of that? Even Adam Smith discussed it as a possibility. Secondly, there is not actually a growing presence of Objectivist philosophers, excluding those who are explicitly bought, like Roderick T. Long. If you want a demolition of her philosophical views from people who are politically sympathetic to libertarianism, see Robert Nozick's "On the Randian Argument", or Murray N. Rothbard's "The Sociology of the Ayn Rand Cult". Rothbard's satirical play, "Mozart was a Red!" [1], is also somewhat funny, though it is not very well-produced. [1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mGpMpaHGM4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mGpMpaHGM4
    - javert 14y ago
      Roderick Long is not an Objectivist. I don't know how you calculate Objectivist presence in academia, but I strongly suspect the numbers are growing, although I think that growth will probably plateau soon (but maybe I'm wrong). But, that doesn't really matter. Do you not think that all academic philosophers are bought? (OK, I know what you mean, though.) views from people who are politically sympathetic to libertarianism People who are sympathetic to libertarianism are (generally) anti-Objectivist, since they are basically a splinter group off of Objectivism, so that doesn't really mean anything. Anything by Rothbard can pretty much be dismissed out of hand, especially with a factually incorrect title like that. I think I've seen it before, but I'll double check. I think I've also see Nozick's "On the Randian Argument," and found that he hadn't actually grasped AR's methodology at all and had not made a legitimate critique, but I will double check that, too.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - nowarninglabel 14y ago
    Time to hit the economics text books if you think a monopoly === exclusive right to sell something granted by the government. Free markets have monopolies.
    - javert 14y ago
      Time to hit the economics text books There are definitely economics textbooks that agree with me on this. I know of at least one off the top of my head. Ultimately, we have to look at reality to determine the truth.
      - nowarninglabel 14y ago
        And those books are...? I've got a copy of Macroeconomics by Mankiw sitting over here that says you're wrong. So does the consensus on wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly and to get right down to it Adam Smith, when writing of monopolies in Wealth of Nations, has a different definition than you as well.
        javert 14y ago
        [1] is the book I had in mind. I think it's pointless to argue about it in that way, though. If you can think of a supposed example (or more than one) of a monopoly that doesn't derive from government power, I'll either explain to you why that's not the case, or concede the point. I scanned at the list of examples on Wikipedia briefly, and didn't find any "free market monopolies." [1] http://www.amazon.com/Capitalism-Treatise-Economics-George-Reisman/dp/0915463733 http://www.amazon.com/Capitalism-Treatise-Economics-George-R...
AlexandrB 14y ago
AMD the company is alive and well, but this is despite their CPU division, not because of it. For a sizeable part of the 2000's AMD was the price/performance leader in CPUs. Intel leveraged their position with OEM's to keep AMD out of many PCs during this period. The extent of the damage is debatable, but currently AMD's CPUs are quickly becoming relegated to the low-end, low-margin market. Without strong profits to fund R&D, AMD will likely stay there. Ars Technica has a good writeup that sums up the whole affair here: http://arstechnica.com/business/2010/01/intel-response-to-ftc-hints-at-depth-of-amd-mismanagement/ http://arstechnica.com/business/2010/01/intel-response-to-ft... Note how much market share AMD has lost in the enthusiast market already: http://www.cpubenchmark.net/market_share.html http://www.cpubenchmark.net/market_share.html
- javert 14y ago
  Sorry for my delayed response. I haven't read those links yet (I am planning to, but don't want to forget to comment) but... if AMD lost out because Intel had deals with the OEMs, AMD should have made those kind of deals, even if they had to pay a pretty penny, or AMD should have created it's own end-to-end PC business, or AMD should have purchased an OEM, or whatever. It's just business strategy. At the end of the day, if AMD could not make it happen, they should have let their IP be acquired by someone else and let someone else have a go at it. Or they should have diversified their business (which I guess they did do, successfully) and then waited for a better opportunity to go after the CPU market later. Ultimately, it's barbaric for the government to use guns to stop Intel from making its own business decisions in the market, which is what people are directly advocating whenever they accuse Intel of being "anti-competitive" or a monopoly.

by javert 14y ago

_delirium 14y ago

Microsoft was cheating; your strange Randian views are neither the law, nor philosophically defensible. In the real world, abusing monopoly power is cheating, both legally and ethically.

javert 14y ago
MS didn't have a monopoly (i.e., exclusive right to sell something granted by the government); they were operating in a free market. People were always free to use a different OS, and many have. You haven't offered a counterargument to this obvious fact. You haven't explained why you think MS was cheating by selling software configured in a particular way (nor why countless analogous examples in other industries don't constitute cheating). I find your bald assertion that my views are not philosophically defensible to be below the belt. I can (and often do) rigorously defend my views, and can point to further information. I take claims contrary to my views seriously. People who aren't interested in what I have to say can easily avoid me. strange Randian views By the way, hasn't it been said that good, novel solutions will often appear strange, and not to discount ideas for that reason? Isn't that a reason to investigte? Especially since philosophers have not engaged with or been able to offer counter-arguments to Rand, and since there is a growing persence of Objectivist philosophers in university philosophy departments?
- _delirium 14y ago
  First, a government-granted monopoly is only one kind of monopoly. Surely you have read enough economics since the 17th century to be aware of that? Even Adam Smith discussed it as a possibility. Secondly, there is not actually a growing presence of Objectivist philosophers, excluding those who are explicitly bought, like Roderick T. Long. If you want a demolition of her philosophical views from people who are politically sympathetic to libertarianism, see Robert Nozick's "On the Randian Argument", or Murray N. Rothbard's "The Sociology of the Ayn Rand Cult". Rothbard's satirical play, "Mozart was a Red!" [1], is also somewhat funny, though it is not very well-produced. [1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mGpMpaHGM4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mGpMpaHGM4
  - javert 14y ago
    Roderick Long is not an Objectivist. I don't know how you calculate Objectivist presence in academia, but I strongly suspect the numbers are growing, although I think that growth will probably plateau soon (but maybe I'm wrong). But, that doesn't really matter. Do you not think that all academic philosophers are bought? (OK, I know what you mean, though.) views from people who are politically sympathetic to libertarianism People who are sympathetic to libertarianism are (generally) anti-Objectivist, since they are basically a splinter group off of Objectivism, so that doesn't really mean anything. Anything by Rothbard can pretty much be dismissed out of hand, especially with a factually incorrect title like that. I think I've seen it before, but I'll double check. I think I've also see Nozick's "On the Randian Argument," and found that he hadn't actually grasped AR's methodology at all and had not made a legitimate critique, but I will double check that, too.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- nowarninglabel 14y ago
  Time to hit the economics text books if you think a monopoly === exclusive right to sell something granted by the government. Free markets have monopolies.
  - javert 14y ago
    Time to hit the economics text books There are definitely economics textbooks that agree with me on this. I know of at least one off the top of my head. Ultimately, we have to look at reality to determine the truth.
    - nowarninglabel 14y ago
      And those books are...? I've got a copy of Macroeconomics by Mankiw sitting over here that says you're wrong. So does the consensus on wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly and to get right down to it Adam Smith, when writing of monopolies in Wealth of Nations, has a different definition than you as well.
      - javert 14y ago
        [1] is the book I had in mind. I think it's pointless to argue about it in that way, though. If you can think of a supposed example (or more than one) of a monopoly that doesn't derive from government power, I'll either explain to you why that's not the case, or concede the point. I scanned at the list of examples on Wikipedia briefly, and didn't find any "free market monopolies." [1] http://www.amazon.com/Capitalism-Treatise-Economics-George-Reisman/dp/0915463733 http://www.amazon.com/Capitalism-Treatise-Economics-George-R...

AlexandrB 14y ago

AMD the company is alive and well, but this is despite their CPU division, not because of it. For a sizeable part of the 2000's AMD was the price/performance leader in CPUs. Intel leveraged their position with OEM's to keep AMD out of many PCs during this period. The extent of the damage is debatable, but currently AMD's CPUs are quickly becoming relegated to the low-end, low-margin market. Without strong profits to fund R&D, AMD will likely stay there. Ars Technica has a good writeup that sums up the whole affair here: http://arstechnica.com/business/2010/01/intel-response-to-ftc-hints-at-depth-of-amd-mismanagement/ http://arstechnica.com/business/2010/01/intel-response-to-ft... Note how much market share AMD has lost in the enthusiast market already: http://www.cpubenchmark.net/market_share.html http://www.cpubenchmark.net/market_share.html

javert 14y ago
Sorry for my delayed response. I haven't read those links yet (I am planning to, but don't want to forget to comment) but... if AMD lost out because Intel had deals with the OEMs, AMD should have made those kind of deals, even if they had to pay a pretty penny, or AMD should have created it's own end-to-end PC business, or AMD should have purchased an OEM, or whatever. It's just business strategy. At the end of the day, if AMD could not make it happen, they should have let their IP be acquired by someone else and let someone else have a go at it. Or they should have diversified their business (which I guess they did do, successfully) and then waited for a better opportunity to go after the CPU market later. Ultimately, it's barbaric for the government to use guns to stop Intel from making its own business decisions in the market, which is what people are directly advocating whenever they accuse Intel of being "anti-competitive" or a monopoly.