Annual Cost of Microsoft Monopoly: $10 Billion 713
An anonymous reader writes "Microsoft's deals with major PC vendors lock users out from alternative options, such as Linux. A recent whitepaper calculates that the cost to industry of this Microsoft monopoly is $10 billion per year."
The real cost comes from copy controlls (Score:2, Interesting)
If you look at copyrights as a microregulatory controll on how people use information, and not a free market property right like mindless mob would have you believe. Then it becomes clear that the real harm comes from that poor belief system, and all the rest is just a natural consequence of it being brought to it's logical conclusion.
Re:What's going to make them stop? (Score:5, Interesting)
The really sad part about it all is how Apple gets sued for the Tiger name or for "Apple" in cahoots with iTunes. Intel and AMD are going after each other. These are instances of competetition that is allowed to thrive and it's carrying over to the courts. Then you've got Microsoft getting pissy at Google and suing because Google is getting an ex-Microsoft employee (rumor has it, they're getting quite a few employees actually). And then you've got this monopoly business. This current administration in office doesn't care about Microsoft's anti-competitive practices. Microsoft has to get slapped pretty damn hard to stop...and I just don't think that will happen anytime soon.
MS Tax vs MS Profits (Score:3, Interesting)
MS profited $12B this year, and is expected to profit $15B next year. And they make $10B just from being a convicted criminal?
If only duh-byah hadn't quashed the anti-trust suit.
Apple is a worse Monopoly in my opinion. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Dropping... (Score:5, Interesting)
3. businesses are not upgrading from windows 2000.
4. many people find their 8 year old computer working just fine for internet/email/word processing/spreadsheets/tax software.
5. some other ancedotal excuse.
Re:Blatant Example of Microsoft Monopoly (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Blatant Example of Microsoft Monopoly (Score:5, Interesting)
It is called a loss leader.. while illegal in theory it hasn't ever been used to prosecute a business for non-competivite behavior.
Are you drunk, stupid, or joking? A loss leader? You honestly think MS pays all the computer manufacturers to include Windows on their machines and then makes their revenue selling, office or services or something? It is completely untrue. They sell Windows, but have contracts insuring they get paid for every PC sold, not for every PC with Windows. The extra money is for the expense of putting FreeDoS on the machine. They manage to get this ridiculously favorable deal because as a monopoly they have the power to put any PC seller out of business at their whim. Get a clue.
The Slashdot Bandwagon (Score:5, Interesting)
But: every time there's a new study on how "piracy costs the music industry N dollars", where N is the estimated number of piracy incidents times the average suggested retail price of the pirated materials, there is universal outrage. "That's fallacious," we cry, "it assumes that every incident of piracy would have otherwise been a retail purchase at full price!". And we are right to make that claim.
However, here's a study that exercises a similar fallacy, and yet the outrage goes in the other direction. (and yes, I know this doesn't apply to everyone... I'm generalizing).
We can't assume, if the major vendors decided to stop bundling Windows/Office tomorrow, that any significant number of people would happily explore alternative options and be just as satisfied.
We can't assume, had Microsoft gone belly-up nine years ago, that people would have been perfectly content to start figuring out monitor sync rates and which filesystems with which to partition and format their hard drives.
We can't assume that all the unwashed masses would've just gone to Apple; we can't assume they would've been able to afford it; we can't assume Apple's products would've advanced at the rate they have without the pressure of being the "underdog". And since the premise of this "study" (though I am loathe to call it that) is that of the cost of a monopoly, we can't assume Apple (or Linux, or whatever) "winning" the market would've been any better.
Like it or not, Microsoft's presence and market dominance is an inextricable part of computing history. There is no way of even remotely predicting how the last twenty years would have panned out without it. And despite its grandiose claims, the authors of this article don't even seem to have bothered trying.
Re:Blatant Example of Microsoft Monopoly (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Dropping... (Score:3, Interesting)
Losing market share as a coercive monopoly (http://psychcentral.com/psypsych/Coercive_monopo
Re:What's going to make them stop? (Score:5, Interesting)
Now, Microsoft suddenly decides to make it more labor-intensive to keep your systems up to date: You have to verify the license. It's not much, but it would be enough to make you start looking at Linux a little harder, just after your next update round.
Maybe you'll switch, maybe you won't, but you are thinking about it. If you do, you now will show every user in the company that Linux works. They had probably never heard of it. Maybe they'll like it. Maybe even take a look at it at home. Even if you don't, you may talk about it with your boss. Who make look at it, if you make a good enough case.
No one cost in this is enough to force a switch. But every small cost is enough to make switching just that little bit more attractive. And any one switch is one more real-world example, making more switches more likely.
This is how empires fall. Not all at once, but in pieces...
Re:Blame Game (Score:3, Interesting)
But go ahead and keep blaming Microsoft's business practices... why stop now? It is easier than trying to actually compete for users.
The article says MS is costing the industry X squandered dollars with their blatantly illegal business practices. The number is probably bunk, but could be in the right ballpark. How does Linux users believing that most people enjoy the experience of using Linux have anything to do with whether or not MS is engaging in illegal business practices?
Ok Linux sucks, whatever. Even assuming I agree with you, what does your statement have to do with anything? Does it make MS's business practices any less unethical, illegal, or despicable? Does it address the article at all?
Must be two major reasons, then. (Score:3, Interesting)
I tend to disagree - I think the reason so much software is pirated is because of the retarded prices. $600 for a copy of Office 2003 Pro non-upgrade? $1000+ for the Adobe CS package, or hundreds and hundreds more for each individually? $300 for Windows XP?
The only mainstream software out there that's resonably priced is games. Sure, $50 might seem like a lot for a single game, but for a game like Half Life 2 - it took those guys a long time and a crap load of development to get it shipped.
I understand the the audience is different, but really, unless you pirate software you gotta be rich to own anything besides Works, the OS that came on your PC, and some browser.
Just wait until Microsoft and Friends (TM) go and really lock down their software. It *can* be done fairly effectively if you're shitty about it, like how games are now a days (check out Steam, you'll frigging hate it.) Microsoft isn't going to get nicer, so it's going to happen. Wait 'til I tell my mom that the new printer she got only works with Windows whatever, and it costs $299 for the upgrade.. We'll see people seeking alternatives pretty furiously if and when it happens.
But that's where "trusted computing" and DRM comes in. Microsoft knows it wants to lock the hell out of your computer, and they know when they do it, it's going to piss off a LOT of people. So, they're doing everything they can to lock free software out before it happens. I dunno, maybe I'm seeing conspiracies here that aren't, but it just seems too obvious to me to dismiss.
Re:Apple is a worse Monopoly in my opinion. (Score:5, Interesting)
Your opinion about Apple controling both the hardware and the software of their computers may be valid (I'm not going to argue or agree with you). But calling them a monopoly shows a lack of understanding of the term. They (Apple) haven't prevented you from choosing a competing product through illegal methods or coercion.
Re:The number is crap (Score:3, Interesting)
Let's say, in order a virus to spread, it needs an environment to live in, which is given by Microsoft because they are a monopoly, systems have the same code (windows).
If a virus would manage to infect 10-15% of the systems worldwide and crash them down or make them otherwise impossible to use in a relatively short time, that would be an economical disaster, in the sense of closing the stock market and throwing the key into the ocean because it's useless in the future anyway.
In order a virus to spread, it needs a platform: a vulnerable version of an operating system with a high enough marketshare. 90% is bad, so its anything between 40%-100%. However, if you manage to split the market into shares smaller than 40% each, you basically prevented the mass virus infections. They just can't spread effectively, so this means, if you have 10 INSECURE operating systems, it doesn't matter, the virus still won't spread effectively. This is the case, when one quite good OS would be worse than 10 BAD, but as we know we don't even have one good operating system with a high enough marketshare, although linux is gaining.
The risk is there in today's world, waiting for a smart virus writer to write a good virus and that could collapse economies. We are ALMOST in that state, thanks to the monopoly.
If we would have 10 different operating systems owning the OS market in around equal percentages, then it would mean we would be forced to use open standards in communicating between those systems, which is a good and certainly possible thing, so it's not quite true that by having a heterogenous system we cannot work together efficiently. It would only mean that the virus/malware risk is basically solved, and that would indirectly solve other problems caused by infected windows pcs.
It costs us a heck of a lot money to have a monopoly, it is a bad thing in all cases. How long do you think humanity would have survived if we would be much more similar to each other? One illness would have wiped out our whole species already.
Re:10 easy facts (the Unseen hand - look it up) (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh, and FYI, professors are leftist because they actually study the world. I find it incredible that most people wouldn't ride in an airplane built by a layman, but are perfectly willing to listen to economic theory espoused by people unqualified to do so.
different language options neither (Score:3, Interesting)
OK, so with PCs at least you get a normal version, but laptop versions do not install anywhere else other than the laptop
I hate microsoft for that crap, and hate all retailers who force me to buy a copy with every laptop I buy
I do not need WINDOWS on my laptop please do not let me pay for it
PCs I just build from pieces and not by OP system (Linux/BSD would be used anyway)
Re:Interesting response (Score:3, Interesting)
With a marketing budget of their size, I'd be surprised if they didn't drip some greenbacks into hands that would spend time defending their reputation online.
And no, I don't think Slashdot is the only place they have paid staff doing astroturf.
Re:I may very well get killed for this, but... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Must be two major reasons, then. (Score:1, Interesting)
Windows: It works; easy to install, easy to use, easy to update
Linux: It sometimes works; install is hell on some of them (gentoo?), it would be waaay to hard for non-technical people to use, installing extra hardware or software features often requires recompiling the kernel, not something an ordinary user wants to do, and the list just goes on...
Mac: easy to use, expensive as hell
Unix: see linux
So yeah, i would buy it. for ordinary consumers, linux is crap...
Re:Of Course! (Score:2, Interesting)
It would have been a different scenario if the students in question were actually of any competence. I know of people who have interviewed MCSEs graduates that weren't capable of formatting disks! never mind administering systems.
In my walk of life... an MCSE can (almost) administer a Microsoft Windows system... a Linux or UNIX qualified admin can work *and script* both UNIX and windows and will still be doing so when the monopolist falls.
I guess it's quite similar to those that were MCSE qualified in Windows NT. Without going the Microsoft upgrade path to 2k and 2003 those graduates are now obsolete. If said graduate had bothered to get qualified in a generic 'server environment' qualification like a BSe in systems administration 20 years ago that would not have been a problem.
The same goes for RedHat and Cisco qualifications... although Cisco has became more of an industry standard as far protocols go.. than either RedHat or Microsoft will ever hope to be.
The point is: defacto standards do not come about because a government or corporation says so.. they last in our industry because they are reliably time and time again deliver the goods in question and don't need patched every day or upgraded every month. If you honestly thought otherwise... you wouldn't have been posting AC.
Re:Blatant Example of Microsoft Monopoly (Score:3, Interesting)
I agree about the technical support/warrenty: they're absolutely useless. Dell's tech support used to be quite good when I was talking to people in Texas and Florida, but the Indian tech support sucks bottom. I'm not just talking about accents, which are a hinderance; their phone connections are incredibly shitty, and apparently there was some gap in their English education, as they do not respond to the words, "I cannot hear you, you need to speak louder." That's with a modern cell phone turned up all the way - if I use that volume with most people, their voices distort from being amplified that much. However, I am slightly hard of hearing, and I have a tendency to get angry at people for muttering shit at me, rather than just break down and wear a hearing aid. Anyway, every retail guy I've ever known tells me that the warrenties make them money hand over fist: pure profit.
Not all Dells are that poorly built. I bought a 2.6 GHz Dell about two years ago and was quite impressed at how expandable it was. The internals were good, full of fans. The clamshell design was nice. Installing a new hard drive was a snap. Of course, I have no doubt that your friend's was a piece of shit. The only PCs in my future are AMD-64s (homebuilt) and Apples.
Re:This sounds as hyped as the piracy numbers. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Interesting response (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Blatant Example of Microsoft Monopoly (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Of Course! (Score:1, Interesting)
Now - I'll prefer Open Source software. So when I go with something proprietary, it should really shine. But then - isn't that a part of doing business in the marketplace?
Re:Blatant Example of Microsoft Monopoly (Score:3, Interesting)