4 ms·

>No, I'm saying that there is no example possible that will negate the point. Because the point is true. You can't dismiss evidence ahead of time because you'r

by pliny 11y ago

>No, I'm saying that there is no example possible that will negate the point. Because the point is true. You can't dismiss evidence ahead of time because you're convinced your theory is true. this isn't a cheap opportunity to pick at your argument, it's a huge red flag that you have a fundamental error in your reasoning. >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. Fine - but this argument doesn't model reality, and this is where the relevance of evidence comes in: many times competition is theoretically possible but won't occur since no one wants to risk a lot of capital and time and effort on what will likely be an unsuccessful venture. So if an unregulated Microsoft manages to lean on their competitors enough that people don't want to try competing anymore, then competition is still possible, but without regulation it won't occur.

javert 11y ago
> You can't dismiss evidence ahead of time because you're convinced your theory is true. There is no possible counter-evidence. You'd say the same thing about lots of things---for example, that the Earth is spherical. So you are mistaken here about how epistemology works. > many times competition is theoretically possible but won't occur since no one wants to risk a lot of capital and time and effort on what will likely be an unsuccessful venture. That isn't borne out in reality. It's very easy to compete against a shitty product with a superior product, and there is plenty of capital to compete with any product that exists today. > So if an unregulated Microsoft manages to lean on their competitors enough that people don't want to try competing anymore What does it mean to "lean on competitors"? Nothing. It's meaningless. There is literally nothing a company can do to "lean on" competitors unless they use the law to do it. They can lean on other market participants---e.g., OEMs, But you can always get around that because you can start a competing OEM or get an OEM to capitulate. That's why I say I can always take the argument out one level. I'm most likely not going to continue responding. I will if you ask a question out of curiosity, but I'm not interested in "aruging" with you further.

by pliny 11y ago

javert 11y ago

> You can't dismiss evidence ahead of time because you're convinced your theory is true. There is no possible counter-evidence. You'd say the same thing about lots of things---for example, that the Earth is spherical. So you are mistaken here about how epistemology works. > many times competition is theoretically possible but won't occur since no one wants to risk a lot of capital and time and effort on what will likely be an unsuccessful venture. That isn't borne out in reality. It's very easy to compete against a shitty product with a superior product, and there is plenty of capital to compete with any product that exists today. > So if an unregulated Microsoft manages to lean on their competitors enough that people don't want to try competing anymore What does it mean to "lean on competitors"? Nothing. It's meaningless. There is literally nothing a company can do to "lean on" competitors unless they use the law to do it. They can lean on other market participants---e.g., OEMs, But you can always get around that because you can start a competing OEM or get an OEM to capitulate. That's why I say I can always take the argument out one level. I'm most likely not going to continue responding. I will if you ask a question out of curiosity, but I'm not interested in "aruging" with you further.