home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
- Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!agate!dog.ee.lbl.gov!news!manta!discar
- From: discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar)
- Subject: Re: ftc and ms
- Message-ID: <1992Dec21.213006.9278@nosc.mil>
- Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego
- References: <BzMLLx.JtD@news.iastate.edu>
- Distribution: usa
- Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 21:30:06 GMT
- Lines: 84
-
- In article <BzMLLx.JtD@news.iastate.edu> TW.FY4@isumvs.iastate.edu (Timothy I Miller) writes:
- >
- > A return, yes. Binding contracts which allow no other
- >alternatives, no. MS has reaped quite a little reward for writing
- >DOS, and they probably deserve at least most of it. In the past, it
- >wasn't as big of a deal, as MS didn't have contracts which hampered
- >the ability of competitors to do business, and they weren't
- >competing as heavily in the applications market. Now, though, MS
- >has practically forced (yes *forced*) vendors to either load MS-DOS
- >on all machines, or only have access to MS-DOS at a more expensive
- >price. This is what's unfair.
-
- Ah, but the vendors aren't forced to stick with the contract. The agreement
- generally says "we will supply product X at a cost of D only under these
- terms." The vendors, at any time, can say "well, we don't want to do this..."
- and simply pay more money for MS-DOS (later in your post, you allude to this).
-
- Is it Microsoft's fault that vendors wish to abide by the terms? No. The
- vendors want to do this because abiding by the terms and geting a lower
- price for DOS and Windows is far more profitable than not abiding by the
- terms: regardless of what a few people think, MOST people WANT DOS and
- Windows. Indeed, unbundling DOS and Windows from a system could actually
- INCREASE the cost of the system (as volume sales go down).
-
- If you want, blame the Vendors for abiding by the agreement... or better yet,
- blame the computer market. And remember that it takes two parties to make
- an agreement in the first place.
-
-
-
-
- >MS knows that MS-DOS is what would
- >probably be loaded anyway, but instead they want to force the OS on
- >to the minority of people who would rather have another OS.
-
- They don't "force" the OS on anybody. As far as I know, the hard disk is
- read/write--and the end user could quite easily reformat the drive and put
- another OS in DOS's place. Vendors would be quite willing to install another
- DOS on the machine, even--what they may not do is lower the price of
- the system even though you decide not to buy DOS or Windows... but this is
- the vendor's choice, and includes the decision that the price of the
- system is fixed (i.e., the prediction is that 100 systems will be sold at
- a cost of X... therefore the system price should be X*100*margin).
-
- Yes, I know that they could simply "make an exception..." and some (few)
- vendors do because the forecast for the cost of the system takes into
- account volume discounts from distributors and other incentives.
-
- But regardless of this, the end user OWNs the computer. Microsoft (to
- my knowledge) does not have cameras that follow people around and tattle-tales
- when they uninstall DOS from the system; the operating system is hardly
- "forced" onto the buyer. "Installed" yes, "Forced" no.
-
- >This
- >is what is hampering competition. If MS was secure enough to feel
- >like DOS is a worthwhile OS, they would let people choose it,
- >instead of forcing it on people.
-
- If automobile manufacturers felt secure enough about their cars, they
- wouldn't have to advertise it. If soda pop manufacturers felt secure
- about their product, they wouldn't have to pay extra for a cap fee at
- the stores. If hardware manufacturers felt secure enough about their
- peripherals, they wouldn't need to have volume incentive plans.
-
- So what? MS's agreement is a marketing ploy. Nothing more or nothing
- less. Vendors don't NEED to install DOS on their machines--but they
- find it to their best interest (and the interest of MOST of their
- buyers) to do so.
-
- I grant that if you wanted to make a statement, simply tell a vendor
- that you're not going to buy from him/her because you don't want to
- have product X installed... and you're willing to pay more money at
- another vendor to get what you want (or don't want). If enough people
- do that, no vendor would bother coming to terms with the MS agreement.
-
- But, given the marketplace, I sincerely doubt this would ever happen.
-
- >
- >Timothy Miller
- >
-
- Joe
- My opinions.
-
-