Hammering Microsoft
The Software Giant Gets No Respect
Matt Lawton:
"But even if there is validity to the claim that Microsoft uses sneaky tactics to do business, the solution is not to whine to the government about Microsoft not being 'fair'; rather, the solution is for the other companies to improve their own business tactics. If a company does not like the way Microsoft operates, it does not have to do business with them. It has no right, however, to demand that they change. If all these companies truly feel threatened by the competition, they can organize themselves against Microsoft, in hopes of gaining a greater market share. Instead, they all act as hypocrites: doing business with Microsoft in the marketplace, then attacking them in the courtroom.
Did Microsoft ever force anybody to buy their products? Did they ever force any companies to use them? Did they force companies into becoming business partners? The answer to all three questions is a resounding 'No!' Microsoft made products, marketed them, and succeeded. It's that simple.
Another claim of these attackers is that Microsoft's tactics have destroyed competition and hurt the consumer in the end. This, however, is purely apocryphal. The notion presented here - that people are being forced into buying Microsoft products - is a fallacy and an insult to the consumer. Look at the three primary attacks upon Microsoft: Windows, Internet Explorer, and Media Player. In all three categories, accusers claim that Microsoft eliminated its competition, but a simple glance at the market indicates this isn't true.
There are hundreds, if not thousands, of Operating Systems. Apple - a sizable competitor - produces OS X. There are hundreds of Linux distributions, most of which are completely free. Red Hat Fedora and Mandrake are two shining examples of user-friendly, completely free, operating systems. One Operating System, Ubuntu, is not only free - they'll send you as many copies of it as you like, without shipping cost.
The browser war is far from won, with Mozilla FireFox gaining ground every day. Opera, Netscape, Epiphany, and Konqueror are just a few more examples. The very notion that consumers have no other options here is absurd.
The media player accusation is the largest joke of them all though. For the Windows operating system alone, there exist QuickTime, RealPlayer, iTunes, Napster, Winamp, and a host of others. Microsoft bundling Windows Media Player with its operating system does absolutely nothing to eliminate competition.
In fact, consumers can own any computer, and not use a single Microsoft product. I use FireFox for my browser, not Internet Explorer; Thunderbird for my email client, not Outlook; OpenOffice.org for my office suite, not MS Office; Mandrake for my operating system, not Windows; the list goes on. I don't have a single Microsoft product on my computer because I don't have to. There is no monopoly; there is no coercion. Microsoft succeeds because the overwhelming majority of consumers like its products, not because it has somehow destroyed its competition.
But assume, for a moment, that Microsoft does eliminate its competition. The theory behind the antitrust lawsuits is that if that happened, they would create a poor product and overcharge. Simple logic suggests that wouldn't and couldn't happen though. If they began to charge too much or worsen their products, the competition would immediately return.
People will not stand for prices that are too high, especially for bad products. No private company can have a monopoly on a market, unless the government gives it to them, because it does not have the means to outlaw competition."
The Software Giant Gets No Respect
Matt Lawton:
"But even if there is validity to the claim that Microsoft uses sneaky tactics to do business, the solution is not to whine to the government about Microsoft not being 'fair'; rather, the solution is for the other companies to improve their own business tactics. If a company does not like the way Microsoft operates, it does not have to do business with them. It has no right, however, to demand that they change. If all these companies truly feel threatened by the competition, they can organize themselves against Microsoft, in hopes of gaining a greater market share. Instead, they all act as hypocrites: doing business with Microsoft in the marketplace, then attacking them in the courtroom.
Did Microsoft ever force anybody to buy their products? Did they ever force any companies to use them? Did they force companies into becoming business partners? The answer to all three questions is a resounding 'No!' Microsoft made products, marketed them, and succeeded. It's that simple.
Another claim of these attackers is that Microsoft's tactics have destroyed competition and hurt the consumer in the end. This, however, is purely apocryphal. The notion presented here - that people are being forced into buying Microsoft products - is a fallacy and an insult to the consumer. Look at the three primary attacks upon Microsoft: Windows, Internet Explorer, and Media Player. In all three categories, accusers claim that Microsoft eliminated its competition, but a simple glance at the market indicates this isn't true.
There are hundreds, if not thousands, of Operating Systems. Apple - a sizable competitor - produces OS X. There are hundreds of Linux distributions, most of which are completely free. Red Hat Fedora and Mandrake are two shining examples of user-friendly, completely free, operating systems. One Operating System, Ubuntu, is not only free - they'll send you as many copies of it as you like, without shipping cost.
The browser war is far from won, with Mozilla FireFox gaining ground every day. Opera, Netscape, Epiphany, and Konqueror are just a few more examples. The very notion that consumers have no other options here is absurd.
The media player accusation is the largest joke of them all though. For the Windows operating system alone, there exist QuickTime, RealPlayer, iTunes, Napster, Winamp, and a host of others. Microsoft bundling Windows Media Player with its operating system does absolutely nothing to eliminate competition.
In fact, consumers can own any computer, and not use a single Microsoft product. I use FireFox for my browser, not Internet Explorer; Thunderbird for my email client, not Outlook; OpenOffice.org for my office suite, not MS Office; Mandrake for my operating system, not Windows; the list goes on. I don't have a single Microsoft product on my computer because I don't have to. There is no monopoly; there is no coercion. Microsoft succeeds because the overwhelming majority of consumers like its products, not because it has somehow destroyed its competition.
But assume, for a moment, that Microsoft does eliminate its competition. The theory behind the antitrust lawsuits is that if that happened, they would create a poor product and overcharge. Simple logic suggests that wouldn't and couldn't happen though. If they began to charge too much or worsen their products, the competition would immediately return.
People will not stand for prices that are too high, especially for bad products. No private company can have a monopoly on a market, unless the government gives it to them, because it does not have the means to outlaw competition."
Comments