5 ms·

Absolutely. That makes him even worse. "Antitrust" is a bogus concept. It is never and was never in the public interest. It is also a massive violation of th

by javert 11y ago

Absolutely. That makes him even worse. "Antitrust" is a bogus concept. It is never and was never in the public interest. It is also a massive violation of the rights of companies and their shareholders. Consider that if Windows/IE were really that bad, people would have just switched more readily to a Microsoft competitor. Desktop-quality Linux would have come about/come about sooner, or something equivalent. This is an example of the point that there is no such thing as a monopoly unless it's created through legal channels (i.e. is granted by the government). There is no business that can't be competed against with sufficient capital. And the global economy accumulates spare capital over time (because in the net, the species produces more than it consumes). Even "natural monopolies" are a function of a mistaken way to implement property rights, as opposed to being "natural." Because you can always build underneath or around whatever is already there. edit: This is a serious intellectual comment that deserves to be read. It also matters a lot for our industry. Consider Google in Europe right now.

mappu 11y ago
Most "free" markets don't have perfect competition, nor perfect information, nor rational actors. It's possible for Microsoft to provide a terrible service and for no better competitors to emerge. Consider last-mile telephone lines. It's wasteful to have ten companies each spend billions of dollars digging up the same roads to lay the same cables - and it's a nearly-impossible barrier to entry for new competitors. Sure, anything is possible with "sufficient capital", but fundamentally it's an inefficient waste of time and investor money to recreate a service that already exists, and the investors will be correspondingly scarce. Most countries have enacted legislation enforcing fairly shared use of such lines (breaking up monopolies in the process) because cooperation is fundamentally more efficient than competition as effort is not wasted in duplication. As a result, the ISP/telco market in civilized countries has since escaped from that stagnant local maxima with its high barrier-of-entry, to a more agile, more competitive state where smaller players have a fair chance of competing. I'm not sure if this includes the USA though (c.f. Comcast/TWC merger complaints, single-ISP areas, the "Worst company in america" award, unending complaints on /r/technology &c).
- javert 11y ago
  There's an easy solution to the last-mile problem, which is for communities to own the infrastructure and operate it as a non-profit. Believe me, people would do that if they were getting sufficiently screwed by telcos and if it were legal. Actually, the former condition is already satisfied, but the latter is (basically) not. Though there have been lots of municipal broadband efforts, which is a point in my favor, here. The telcos fight them tooth and nail using the legal system. That is just another example of a legal monopoly (as opposed to a natural monopoly---no such thing).
  - mappu 11y ago
    The solution is for the lines to be operated prioritizing the community before profit, yes. We've agreed on the fundamentals but now differ in imagination of the size of the community. Why not extend such egality to all citizens? And why do people have to get "screwed by telcos" first before it can happen?
    - javert 11y ago
      No, we differ in that you want to do it by force and government authority, and I don't. Arbitrary government exercise of power is incredibly dangerous.
marvy 11y ago
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: http://birdhouse.org/beos/byte/30-bootloader/ 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."
- javert 11y ago
  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.
  - pliny 11y ago
    >There are no specific examples that will get you out of this. So you're saying that no amount of evidence to the contrary will change your mind?
    - javert 11y ago
      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?
lifeformed 11y ago
Why is more important to stick to an ideology than to find pragmatic solutions to problems?
- javert 11y ago
  That's not the way I work. And you can see that from my statement. I don't invoke any moral principles to make my case. It's all pretty down to earth. edit: Actually, to elaborate... A better way to put it: I go from the ground up, not the top down. Most ideologies go top-down, which is utterly futile and is why people believe there is a dichotomy between the moral and the practical, i.e., principles and pragmatism. Going top-down produces ideologies that are floating abstractions. Castles in the air. They end up being more constricting then they are empowering. Nearly every ideology you have ever heard of is like this. That is why you reject ideology. If you do it from the ground up, you get an entirely different result.
indians_pro 11y ago
Thank you for your comment. It shows a lot of insight and has given me a few things to think about.
- javert 11y ago
  Really nice to know my comment was appreciated, since it was such an uphill battle. If you want further reading, here [1] are some short excerpts about antitrust laws from one of my favorite authors. [1] http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/antitrust_laws.html http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/antitrust_laws.html
chinpokomon 11y ago
I agree with you, but perhaps for a slightly different reason. I worked for Microsoft in 2001 and 2003, and recently rejoined the company. I have had enough time away from Microsoft that I feel safe in saying that I have perspective both from the inside and from the outside. The biggest drawback that I saw from the DOJ decision was that Microsoft was not allowed to innovate. Windows 98 and Active Desktop can be considered an early precursor to today's web applications like Chrome packaged apps and Firefox apps. How might the application landscape look today if XP were firmly rooted in the concept of web applications rather than native applications? The decision against Microsoft actually slowed them down and allowed them to slowly outlast their competitors. Instead of fighting a browser war, Netscape might have pivoted and created a Chrome OS like operating system that ran on top of Windows, Linux, and Mac OS. Google might have become known for creating a rich set of web-centric APIs that Netscape OS leveraged. Instead, Netscape got stuck in an entrenched losing battle over a product. It was myopia that defeated them. The DOJ decision delayed the inevitable and it caused Netscape to waste resources thinking they had a chance in a "fair" fight. The Web 2.0 revolution was poised to take place on the desktop rather than in the browser. As a result, I think we all have suffered a 15 year setback. I feel in the same way that an EU decision against Google won't correct any injustices, but it might stifle innovation; and not just innovation from Google, but its competitors as well.
- javert 11y ago
  Thank you very much for bringing an insider's perspective to this. Very interesting. I had not thought about it that way, in terms of the specifics.

by javert 11y ago

mappu 11y ago

Most "free" markets don't have perfect competition, nor perfect information, nor rational actors. It's possible for Microsoft to provide a terrible service and for no better competitors to emerge. Consider last-mile telephone lines. It's wasteful to have ten companies each spend billions of dollars digging up the same roads to lay the same cables - and it's a nearly-impossible barrier to entry for new competitors. Sure, anything is possible with "sufficient capital", but fundamentally it's an inefficient waste of time and investor money to recreate a service that already exists, and the investors will be correspondingly scarce. Most countries have enacted legislation enforcing fairly shared use of such lines (breaking up monopolies in the process) because cooperation is fundamentally more efficient than competition as effort is not wasted in duplication. As a result, the ISP/telco market in civilized countries has since escaped from that stagnant local maxima with its high barrier-of-entry, to a more agile, more competitive state where smaller players have a fair chance of competing. I'm not sure if this includes the USA though (c.f. Comcast/TWC merger complaints, single-ISP areas, the "Worst company in america" award, unending complaints on /r/technology &c).

javert 11y ago
There's an easy solution to the last-mile problem, which is for communities to own the infrastructure and operate it as a non-profit. Believe me, people would do that if they were getting sufficiently screwed by telcos and if it were legal. Actually, the former condition is already satisfied, but the latter is (basically) not. Though there have been lots of municipal broadband efforts, which is a point in my favor, here. The telcos fight them tooth and nail using the legal system. That is just another example of a legal monopoly (as opposed to a natural monopoly---no such thing).
- mappu 11y ago
  The solution is for the lines to be operated prioritizing the community before profit, yes. We've agreed on the fundamentals but now differ in imagination of the size of the community. Why not extend such egality to all citizens? And why do people have to get "screwed by telcos" first before it can happen?
  - javert 11y ago
    No, we differ in that you want to do it by force and government authority, and I don't. Arbitrary government exercise of power is incredibly dangerous.

marvy 11y ago

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: http://birdhouse.org/beos/byte/30-bootloader/ 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."

javert 11y ago
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.
- pliny 11y ago
  >There are no specific examples that will get you out of this. So you're saying that no amount of evidence to the contrary will change your mind?
  - javert 11y ago
    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?

lifeformed 11y ago

Why is more important to stick to an ideology than to find pragmatic solutions to problems?

javert 11y ago
That's not the way I work. And you can see that from my statement. I don't invoke any moral principles to make my case. It's all pretty down to earth. edit: Actually, to elaborate... A better way to put it: I go from the ground up, not the top down. Most ideologies go top-down, which is utterly futile and is why people believe there is a dichotomy between the moral and the practical, i.e., principles and pragmatism. Going top-down produces ideologies that are floating abstractions. Castles in the air. They end up being more constricting then they are empowering. Nearly every ideology you have ever heard of is like this. That is why you reject ideology. If you do it from the ground up, you get an entirely different result.

indians_pro 11y ago

Thank you for your comment. It shows a lot of insight and has given me a few things to think about.

javert 11y ago
Really nice to know my comment was appreciated, since it was such an uphill battle. If you want further reading, here [1] are some short excerpts about antitrust laws from one of my favorite authors. [1] http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/antitrust_laws.html http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/antitrust_laws.html

chinpokomon 11y ago

I agree with you, but perhaps for a slightly different reason. I worked for Microsoft in 2001 and 2003, and recently rejoined the company. I have had enough time away from Microsoft that I feel safe in saying that I have perspective both from the inside and from the outside. The biggest drawback that I saw from the DOJ decision was that Microsoft was not allowed to innovate. Windows 98 and Active Desktop can be considered an early precursor to today's web applications like Chrome packaged apps and Firefox apps. How might the application landscape look today if XP were firmly rooted in the concept of web applications rather than native applications? The decision against Microsoft actually slowed them down and allowed them to slowly outlast their competitors. Instead of fighting a browser war, Netscape might have pivoted and created a Chrome OS like operating system that ran on top of Windows, Linux, and Mac OS. Google might have become known for creating a rich set of web-centric APIs that Netscape OS leveraged. Instead, Netscape got stuck in an entrenched losing battle over a product. It was myopia that defeated them. The DOJ decision delayed the inevitable and it caused Netscape to waste resources thinking they had a chance in a "fair" fight. The Web 2.0 revolution was poised to take place on the desktop rather than in the browser. As a result, I think we all have suffered a 15 year setback. I feel in the same way that an EU decision against Google won't correct any injustices, but it might stifle innovation; and not just innovation from Google, but its competitors as well.

javert 11y ago
Thank you very much for bringing an insider's perspective to this. Very interesting. I had not thought about it that way, in terms of the specifics.