Re: If you could design a $300 homecomputer today, what would you choose?

[David Ogg <davidogg@nc.rr.com>]

In article <6EG+ci0efUZ7Ew70@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>, 
james@zephyr.org.uk says...
> In message <MPG.15cede648df0ba4c9896a6@news-server.nc.rr.com>, David Ogg
> <davidogg@nc.rr.com> writes
> >> Monopoly does *not* mean that *everyone* uses your product. AT&T was a monopoly, even
> >> though there were several other competitors (GT&T, IT&T, here in eastern Nebraska
> >> there was LT&T, and so on), AT&T was a monopoly because they had a super majority of
> >> the business, and there was no way that any of the competitors could take the monopoly
> >> away from them.
> >
> >A monopoly means the consumer has no choice.
> 
> Not in the real world.
> 
> A choice can still be available when a company is monopolistic - like
> Microsoft, for instance. 

:) We're talking about Microsoft, and you can use Microsoft as your 
example of precidence? "Microsoft can be a monopololy even though there 
are choices, take Microsoft for instance?"

> And most users *didn't* get a choice, because
> of the licensing agreements with major PC manufacturers which is how a
> lot of people buy hardware.

They chose to buy a PC with Windows on it, they had a choice. If anyone 
here can find me a PC they want, and they don't want Windows on it, I 
guarantee I can find it somewhere else, with the same warranty, support, 
and hardware, at the same price, with another OS on it.

Even during the time when Microsoft had exclusive licensing clauses 
(ended around 1993) there were options. I mean, heck, look at this 
newsgroup.

Do you really think that everyone with windows on their computer was 
forced to use it? I guarantee if you take a poll and ask people buying 
new machines, and ask them what OS they want on their new PC, it will be 
Windows. The people who want something else will buy a machine without 
Windows. (Personally I've never purchased Windows, but I get developer 
versions via MSDN, and beta versions like the XP I'm using now)

 Here's the real world situation. Microsoft can't touch Apache with IIS 
in any of it's incarnations, and it doesn't look like that will change, 
despite the fact they'll give it to you FREE with Server, and Mindcraft 
say's it's faster and scales better.
 On top of that, after stating "opensource is a virus" Microsoft has egg 
on their face because they just cant for the life of them get hotmail to 
work without good old BSD holding the fort, and this is at a time when 
they're pimping their platform for .Net.
 There are Free alternatives to all of Microsoft's products, and ones in 
developement for products Microsoft hasn't even released yet! Miguel's 
already pimpin' Mono to work with .Net.
 Microsoft's days are numbered, they see the writing on the wall, they 
know they can't compete with a competitor that they can't buy, 
undersell, influence, or lock out of the market. The government stepping 
in right now, would just stop the inertia at a time when they're not 
needed anyway, they'd take the credit for the inevitable.

 Monopoly or not aside, the governments role is to protect the consumer 
and ensure the consumer has choice. The government's role is NOT to 
leverage consumer choice for the benefit of Microsoft's competitors. If 
competitors are cutting each others throats giving away free software, 
and as the dust settles, the consumer has free software, and netscape's
dead, the consumer has benefitted. What then, would the consumer benefit 
from the government flexing its arms at Microsoft on behalf of these 
businesses who lost the war to the benefit of the consumer? That's 
supposed to be how the Monopoly law works, to benefit, for, and ONLY, 
the consumer.

 So where has the consumer lost? The consumer has both Netscape, AND IE, 
both free, and without the government stepping in where it would have 
hurt the consumer to do so.

 The fact remains, Netscape is just as available as it's always been, if 
not more so. From the consumers point of view, the consumer has won.