Re: Boycott Microsoft

[Rubywand <rubywand@swbell.net>]

Edwin E. Thorne writes ...
> 
> Thomas Bregulla <thomas.bregulla@t-mobil.de> wrote in article
> <355AE992.E97@t-mobil.de>...
> > Jeremy Crabtree wrote:
> >
> > > Interesting...a moral defense for an immoral corporation...
> > What makes me wonder is that you all say MS is immoral.
> > MS is just a capitalistic company, right? - You are living
> > in a capitalistic environment, right? - You feel well with this?
> 
> The USA is not a pure capitalistic environment.   We have a modified
> capitalism system, wherein the government regulates some aspects of the
> market.


     When it comes to computer stuff, the USA (and everywhere else) is
about as close as it is possible to come to a pure capitalist
environment. This has been true for years. It is _why_ computers are so
dirt cheap.


>    Microsoft is in violation of the laws of the USA.
>

     If this refers to the widespread acceptance of the Windows OS, what
is the alternative? Users and developers will always move toward a
standardized operating system. It is a necessary, unavoidable condition.
Whoever owns the rights to, develops, and produces the OS will,
automatically, have an overwhelming market position.


 ....
> 
> They give products away for free to put competitors out of business.
> That's illegal in the USA.
>
 ....

     More vague, unsupported charges. If giving away a product free is
such an evil practice, then, supposedly, Netscape is even more evil than
Microsoft. Netscape makes the most popular browser and they give it away
free and this has surely wiped out competitors.

     Of course, there is nothing bad or evil about Netscape's approach.
Companies give away free product all the time. Apple used to give
computers to school districts (and, in the process, helped establish a
base of educational users).

     Netscape is just responding to market realities. So is Microsoft.

     Since Microsoft can easily demonstrate that it has owned and
produced the standard OS for years, it will be nearly impossible to show
that Microsoft had any motivation to damage anyone in order to sell the
next version of its OS.

     Inclusion of a browser and other features in Windows 98 is simply
an instance of maintaining control of essential features of ones
product. It does not prevent other companies from modifying their
products to accommodate the dominant OS.

     A good example of what happens when you lose control of your
product's major features is Apple's sorry performance as a PC
manufacturer. Apple can make no significant changes to its product
without sacrificing compatibility and/or increasing costs.

     Consequently, Apple has little to offer shoppers vis-a-vis cheapo
slap-together PC's except a higher price tag. Were Apple to introduce a
new high-performance non-PC Apple II, it would regain control of its
product and be in a position to win a significant share of the home and
education markets.

     Unlike Apple leadership, Microsoft management understands the need
to control vital features of its primary product. It helps to explain
why Microsoft is prosperous while Apple skates from quarter to quarter
on the verge of collapse.



> 
> > Why do you think MS is immoral? Because they sell software?
>
> Because they sell software that they have stolen from someone else.

     If you are bound and determined to grasp at any straw as an excuse
to ban Microsoft's OS, fine. Go to CNET Shareware, download Bob and
Ollie's Zippy OS, and install it. Just do not post some whining
complaint when BattleZone crashes or Lara Croft turns up looking like a
boy. 



Rubywand