Capitalist dilemma, what would you choose?

[NUKE]

Originally posted by -tronski-
There maybe plenty of other choices for an o/s, but no-one sells them with home computers.....windows 9x/XP (for better or worse) has been given the market, and there is no way around that...

 Tronsky

Why do you think "no one" sells computers with other operating systems? What force is causing this trend? Consumers maybe?

After all, there are FREE OS's out there better than MS right? What prevents ANYONE from selling or making systems with other OS's?

The average consumer could never maintain a Linux system, let alone install programs or drivers on the system. God forbid an average consumer had to update or re-install a Linux, UNIX, BSD system.

Then there is MAC. MAC chose to be all controlling and proprietary and lost big time. They now are more expensive and less popular as a result, yet they have a good product. Consumers dont give a rats Arse who's name is on the system they buy....they just want it to be simple, work well, have support, have software, and a good price.

To punish MS because they make the best product for consumers is stupid.

I'll bet 90% of average consumers would reject a free alternative to MS and PAY for the MS system on their systems after they tried working the other OS's

[Munkii]

Company X could be Wal-Mart in that scenario, while not a complete monopoly, it's so close it's getting scary.

[Lizking]

There are no monopolies anymore.

[OIO]

DELL and others dont offer linux or OS/2 or any other operating system with their PC's because there is no market for them.


however, microsoft did not push its way into a monopoly.. it became one because there was no other alternative back then.. so everything began to be built around it. it built up inertia and it all ends up to what we have today.

but it is a monopoly because it does have virtually everyone depending on their products, particularly the Windows OS, just to be able to use their PC's.

Load Linux into your PC.. see how many games you can run. See how many programs, applications, multimedia stuff, etc you can get to run on it in comparison to what you find for windows.

and MS, do not doubt it, has and does take steps to ensure this continues.. its their bussiness to keep making the max  profits they can. dont forget they even made windows almost incompatible with netscape a while back .

If tomorrow, out of the blue, someone came out with something much better than windows it would be extremely hard for that new product to replace windows. (unless of course it was a free download *grin*).

its like beta and vhs.. beta WAS better but vhs was already widespread and mass marketed.

[GRUNHERZ]

Microsoft is a Monopoly in the PC operating system environment. The number of competitors is really not relevant in determination of monopoly status, it is the amount of market share of the dominant firm.

There were  plenty of alternatives to DOS in the 1980s, microsft became dominant because of superior marketing and licesing policies of non-proprietary IBM clones which used DOs as oppsed to the propriatary apple system.

[NUKE]

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Microsoft is a Monopoly in the PC operating system environment. The number of competitors is really not relevant in determination of monopoly status, it is the amount of market share of the dominant firm.

 

The number of competitors ( lack of) is the definition of a monopoly, as the monopoly assumes no other competitor with a similar product and has nothing to due with market share.

If MS is a monopoly in OS's or PC's, then the Beatles were a monopoly in music.

Fact is that there are equal and better products than MS for less money and even free. A monopoly has no equal or similar product availibe,  cost is not a factor as that is driven by demand.

[GRUNHERZ]

Originally posted by NUKE
The number of competitors ( lack of) is the definition of a monopoly, as the monopoly assumes no other competitor with a similar product and has nothing to due with market share.

If MS is a monopoly in OS's or PC's, then the Beatles were a monopoly in music.

Fact is that there are equal and better products than MS for less money and even free. A monopoly has no equal or similar product availibe,  cost is not a factor as that is driven by demand.

Not true NUKE, it depends on market share.  For example standard oil likely had thousands of independant gas stations as competitors yet it was a monopoly. Just because you have many irrelevant competitors doesnt stop it being a monopoly. Another determinat of monopoly is pricing power of the dominant firm.

[GRUNHERZ]

BTW Nuke the Beetles example doesnt work. If you bought a record player, or 8 track or tape machine or CD is beetles the only thing some 95% of those machine came installed with?  And dont tell me that its "easy" to change OS, because for 99% of consumers that simply is not a practical or desiriabvle option.

[Lizking]

The number of competitors is really not relevant in determination of monopoly status, it is the amount of market share of the dominant firm.


I have issues with that statement, because the logical conclusion of that reasoning is a division of the market by the participants, that is to say, price fixing.

Dell does offer linux, and it is FREE for Cods sake.  Just admit that windows.... works.  Anything that can go with it, and is available for free, anyway, is a boon to the consumer, not a burden.

Repeat after me:

Windows works, and it works even if you don't know dick about it.


That is why it is the dominant OS for home computers.

[MrCoffee]

I agree with what NUKE said except for the last paragraph

I'll bet 90% of average consumers would reject a free alternative to MS and PAY for the MS system on their systems after they tried working the other OS's

I think that 90% of the average consumer could care less what OS they ran so long as it was GUI enough for them and ran all the applications they want it to run. This was true back then with Win vs OS/2 vs Mac and is true today. Now adays theres alot of build in internal techologies that MS owns. (however see last paragraph)

I dont think Microsoft is a monopoly today though there were cases in the past were it was very close to becoming one in practice.

Linux kicks arse of course and is the future. Even if Linux doesnt surpass Microsofts technology sometime in the future, it will always be there tugging at it for a very long time. Then there is always the chance some natural phenomena like a comet that will change or revolutionize the industry and Linux will be right there to reap the benefits of it.

[GRUNHERZ]

Coffe you grossly underestimate microsofts brand power.

[MrCoffee]

Well if thats what you got from what I wrote then there may have been a slight misunderstanding. I do not underestimate Microsofts brand power, rather instead Im focusing on the consumers buying power and power of choice.

[GRUNHERZ]

I think that 90% of the average consumer could care less what OS they ran so long as it was GUI enough for them and ran all the applications they want it to run. This was true back then with Win vs OS/2 vs Mac and is true today.

But how true is that statement? Mac was much much easier to use than IBM clones in the 1980s until MS added a GUI yet microsoft still won. At that poin t mac still had technological advantages and yet MS still won, heck apple nearly collapsed in early/mid 90s.  When average people think OS they now think microsoft, and no a tech guy like you and a business student like me arent average guys.  I think people would be reluctant to give up ms.

[MrCoffee]

Well in the mainstream, the old mac was very popular when it came out. It revolutionized personal computing. Windows didnt really begin to get a good footing until Windows 2.0 came out (if I remember right).  Up to then Apples were very popular. With Windows 3.0 it was in full stride competing against Apple. My opinion, what Windows ultimately had that the Mac base did not have were the number of applications (including entertainmant software).

Also Apple was propriety in architecture so alot of hardware makers and businesses went the Intell/PC route. That was another major factor in Microsofts success as an OS/platform.

[rpm]

See Bell Telephone