4 ms·

Just consider. The very recent imposition of the Metro/Windows 8 interface on a widely unwilling public is prima facie evidence of MS' continuing abuse of it's

by PakG1 13y ago

Just consider. The very recent imposition of the Metro/Windows 8 interface on a widely unwilling public is prima facie evidence of MS' continuing abuse of it's particular monopoly. If they were truly a monopoly, they would not have seen it as important to respond and revise Windows 8. Real monopolies can abuse their customers and have no qualms about it. Microsoft is no longer in that position, so they changed direction once they saw what was happening in the market. The fact that they responded to the market and changed course is evidence that they have no monopoly power in this matter. They simply made a huge mistake due to being terrified of what iPad was doing to them, and they decided wrong. It's nothing more than that. And besides, it's not like they didn't have a public beta program in the first place.

joe_the_user 13y ago
If they were truly a monopoly, they would not have seen it as important to respond and revise Windows 8. Obviously things aren't black and white, we're arguing the degree of monopoly of MS. Consider, yes, eventually you hit the elephant hard enough with a 2x4 and it responds. It didn't respond much even then. And even government granted, official monopolies respond a little bit criticism. Real monopolies can abuse their customers and have no qualms about it. Many people would view MS as being just that way. But sure, maybe there's some leeway. But "no monopoly power" is bending the stick ridiculously far in the other direction. I mean, MS is convicted monopolist. They already lost a lawsuit in the 90's. [1] MS' strangle-hold PC operating system remains the same even if other markets (the web, the phone etc) have risen. (Edit: Consider, if MS did face competition in the PC operating system market, they might feel pressure to improve the PC rather than just milking their position for the purpose of entering other markets.) And besides, it's not like they didn't have a public beta program in the first place. Now there's some counter evidence to all your earlier argument. All the beta people were expressing shock and horror and MS did ... nothing. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp.

by PakG1 13y ago

joe_the_user 13y ago

If they were truly a monopoly, they would not have seen it as important to respond and revise Windows 8. Obviously things aren't black and white, we're arguing the degree of monopoly of MS. Consider, yes, eventually you hit the elephant hard enough with a 2x4 and it responds. It didn't respond much even then. And even government granted, official monopolies respond a little bit criticism. Real monopolies can abuse their customers and have no qualms about it. Many people would view MS as being just that way. But sure, maybe there's some leeway. But "no monopoly power" is bending the stick ridiculously far in the other direction. I mean, MS is convicted monopolist. They already lost a lawsuit in the 90's. [1] MS' strangle-hold PC operating system remains the same even if other markets (the web, the phone etc) have risen. (Edit: Consider, if MS did face competition in the PC operating system market, they might feel pressure to improve the PC rather than just milking their position for the purpose of entering other markets.) And besides, it's not like they didn't have a public beta program in the first place. Now there's some counter evidence to all your earlier argument. All the beta people were expressing shock and horror and MS did ... nothing. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp.