Microsoft Hatred FAQ

joe at invalid.address joe at invalid.address
Tue Oct 25 16:56:28 CEST 2005

Not Bill Gates <nbg at nbg.invalid> writes:

> davids at wrote...
> >     1) There is no other operating system worth selling. In this
> > case, you are right, you have no choice but to sell the Microsoft
> > OS, but the deal they're offering you harms you in no way. (Unless
> > you intended to sell PCs with no OS at all.)
> > 
> >     2) There are other realistic competing operating systems. In
> > this case, you were foolish to agree to Microsoft's deal. You lost
> > out on the realistic competing markets. That is, unless Windows
> > only really was a better deal, in which case you were wise to take
> > the deal and have no reason to be upset.
> The flaw with this is that business owners don't get to decide what 
> the market wants.  And the market wanted the Microsoft OS.  Every 
> other OS in the market had bit player status, via the economic 
> principle called increasing returns. 
> You either sell what the market wants, or you go out of business.

I'm hesitant to get into this, but I keep wondering why, if there is
no other competing OS, or not one worth worrying about, the MS
business agreements are so draconian? Why would a company come up with
such heavy handed agreements if it wasn't worried about competition?

Yes, I know, they can do whatever they want, it's not a crime,
etc. However when they use their market position to disallow
competition, it sounds to me like they're worried about something, and
trying to squelch it.

Gort, klatu barada nikto

More information about the Python-list mailing list