Replies

I would argue that Microsoft was in competition (with Borland, WordPerfect, Lotus) because they offered similar products. The newer, more expensive, products are as a result of Microsoft's own innovation.

What stopped Borland, WordPerfect, Lotus, or anyone else from coming up with their own Microsoft Office? Did Microsoft send someone over there to "rough them up"? Lastly, if Microsoft products were too expensive they wouldn't sell.

While I blame Lotus for what happened to Lotus, you are aware that there are still lawsuits being filed over this ,right? Also, when Microsoft's products are too expensive, people pirate them. There is plenty of that going on, much to Microsoft's annoyance. I think that's part of the reason why they started selling lower cost "Small Business" and Word-only licenses.

(sigh) Why does everyone always bring Ma Bell into these discussions?

Because it's the classic recent case of monopoly busting.

The mistake, which both the public and Bell accepted, was in believing that anybody should be granted a business monopoly enforceable by law.

Well, if it's a mistake, then someone should tell the people regulating the cable television industry.

It's true that the early telephone industry appeared chaotic and inefficient when two telephone systems in the same area could not connect with each other. In short order, however, the needs of the customers, merger, or improved technology would have overcome this problem.

You are assuming that the competitors would have switched to a cooperative model rather than trying to drive each other out of business with proprietary technologies. I don't have a lot of faith in that sort of cooperation, and even where open standards exists, Microsoft and other vendors keep trying to change them in their own products so they can control them and shut competitors out of business. I'll also point you back toward what happened to WordPerfect with respect to the Windows API controlled by Microsoft.

And "natural" monopolies, to the extent that they exist, become outmoded. The railroads, for example, once had a monopoly on fast overland transport; this was quickly bypassed by the trucking industry in the 1930s.

I'm not concerned about a natural monopoly that exists because nobody else wants to compete. I'm concerned about monopolies that exist because nobody else can compete. It's only a matter of time before that sort of power gets abused.

I disagree. A lot of the "innovations" that Microsoft adds to Word or Excel are negligible for most users. Many users were upgrading Office simply so they could open files created by newer versions. They weren't upgrading for the features. Of course a lot of home version of Office are pirated and it's largely businesses that now pay for it. They're the only ones usually buying MS Project, too, which is why the price is so steep. And they better license or else.

How could you possibly know that most users found the innovations negligible, that many of them were upgrading Office simply so they could open files created by newer versions, and that they weren't upgrading for the features?

While I blame Lotus for what happened to Lotus, you are aware that there are still lawsuits being filed over this ,right? Also, when Microsoft's products are too expensive, people pirate them. There is plenty of that going on, much to Microsoft's annoyance. I think that's part of the reason why they started selling lower cost "Small Business" and Word-only licenses.

I'm aware of the lawsuits and see them as absurd. Time will tell. There's an infinite number of products being "pirated" - everything from watches to sunglasses. If Microsoft's products were truly too exspensive they'd suffer from lower sales.

(Ma Bell) Because it's the classic recent case of monopoly busting.

I was lamenting because it requires a lengthy discussion, one I've had with Leftist until I'm blue in the face.

Well, if it's a mistake, then someone should tell the people regulating the cable television industry.

Agreed. I've sent several letters to Congress. I watch the likes of McCain hold hearings on the subject in disgust.

You are assuming that the competitors would have switched to a cooperative model rather than trying to drive each other out of business with proprietary technologies. I don't have a lot of faith in that sort of cooperation, and even where open standards exists, Microsoft and other vendors keep trying to change them in their own products so they can control them and shut competitors out of business. I'll also point you back toward what happened to WordPerfect with respect to the Windows API controlled by Microsoft.

I think you misunderstood my point. I was pointing to the fact that a government sanctioned monopoly wasn't needed. I didn't assume that the competitors would have switched to a cooperative model. I said, "In short order, however, the needs of the customers, merger, or improved technology would have overcome this problem."

I'm not concerned about a natural monopoly that exists because nobody else wants to compete. I'm concerned about monopolies that exist because nobody else can compete. It's only a matter of time before that sort of power gets abused.

I shouldn't have used the word "natural" because I can't think of a single business in which nobody else wants to compete. I was trying to point out that "monopolies" will exist naturally in a free market. Those that want to jump into competition with a large company are going to have problems because the large company has advantages (economy of scale for example) that the new company doesn't have. I believe that those advantages are earned by the larger company, and that they're to the consumer's benefit.

It's clear that there's very little that we can agree on here. That's OK. As I said from the onset, most people disagree with my view on this. However, I can think of one particular monopoly that I will gleefully join you in dismantling - the government. One more thing, I changed my tag line in your honor. ;o)