Re: [dvd-discuss] Fwd: Bush taps Clarke as CyberdefenseChief

[Noah silva <nsilva(at)atari-source.com>]

right,

But what I am saying is that Microsoft was _never_ a monopoly because they
were technically superior.  THAT is the main reason I am upset with the
state of affairs.  Not only weren't they superior, they were almost always
markedly inferior.  One argument people raise often is that
"standardization is good", even at the expense of quality.  This may be
true in some cases, but with microsoft, I think the trade-off has been too
great.  

Look back a few years, the populat systems were:
a.) Unix (no linux yet)
b.) Windows
c.) Mac
d.) OS/2

Unix has its problems, but is very stable.
Mac isn't as stable, but has some very nice UI stuff.
OS/2 is stable and rock solid, and runs windows apps.

I don't want to be forced to use anything, but if we are going to have
somewhat of a standard, I would be much happier if say, OS/2 had won.  At
least if it would have won on technical merit, I could be somewhat happy
with it.

Your point is correct though.  Let's say for the sake of argument that
OS/2 was superior, and won on that basis, IBM might become lazy, and Os/2
might trail behind unix, etc.  OTOH, they might have money from sales to
improve it further.

 -- noah silva 

On Tue, 16 Oct 2001 Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote:

> Inherent to monopoly? That would be impossible to prove but Historically 
> step 1 and step 2 have been repeated over and over again for about 150yrs. 
> Microsoft's argument that it's different in the "internet computer age" 
> fell on deaf ears in court. If the product is genuinely better that it 
> creates a monopoly it's rare that it is forever genuinely better unless 
> the market is so small that a genuinely better product never has any 
> competition  (e.g., Zambonis) . Generally, the monopoly spends more time 
> keeping its monopoly than being genuinely better.
> 
> Step 3 is the dotage phase. The monopoly becomes so far behind the times 
> that eventually it collapses when it does get some competition (e.g., US 
> Steel). 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noah silva <nsilva@atari-source.com>
> Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> 10/16/01 09:21 AM
> Please respond to dvd-discuss
> 
>  
>         To:     dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
>         cc: 
>         Subject:        Re: [dvd-discuss] Fwd: Bush taps Clarke as CyberdefenseChief
> 
> 
> I don't believe it's nessisarily inherent to monopoly.  We -could- have a
> monopoly because the products were gunuinely better.  We just -don't-.
> 
>  -- noah silva 
> 
> On Tue, 16 Oct 2001 Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote:
> 
> > The problem with allowing a monopoly is that not only are there no 
> > alternatives but that they stiffle, smother, purchase and ultimately 
> > destroy any possible one. (Step 1) Also, since the monopoly has no 
> > competition, ultimately everybody gets unacceptable junk. Step 2. WRT to 
> 
> > Windows, we are clearly in step 2 right now. 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Noah silva <nsilva@atari-source.com>
> > Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> > 10/16/01 07:04 AM
> > Please respond to dvd-discuss
> > 
> > 
> >         To:     dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> >         cc: 
> >         Subject:        Re: [dvd-discuss] Fwd: Bush taps Clarke as 
> CyberdefenseChief
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On Mon, 15 Oct 2001 Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote:
> > 
> > > Now Betty, who is my mother, uses a mac. WRT to your Aunt Betty not 
> > > demanding something better, what's the alternative for the PC? 
> Microsoft 
> > 
> > > has a monopoly.....and the government isn't doing much about it right 
> > now 
> > > other than letting microsoft screw around and waste time.
> > 
> > <veering slightly off topic...>
> > 
> > My point isn't about wether there are alternatives at all.  To me, some
> > things are acceptible, some things aren't.  If every time you drove
> > somewhere in your car, there was a 25% chance it would fail, I wouldn't 
> be
> > caught dead in a car.  Since the chance is much smaller, it is
> > acceptable.  If every time I use a PC, there's a large chance it will
> > crash and lose my work, I won't use it most of the time.  Without being 
> a
> > computer expert, I think people should still be able to look at 
> something
> > and say "this is reasonable" or "this isn't reasonable".  My 
> girlfriend's
> > dad bought a computer around last X-mas with Win ME.  It seriously could
> > not stay running for more than an hour or two at a time without having
> > serious problems.  Maybe it was the computer itself, but I doubt it. 
> Even
> > if the car was the best thing we had, I would say 25% failure rate is
> > still too high, and I would still complain.
> > 
> >  -- noah silva 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>