NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/comp/os/os2/advocacy/11506

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-03 | 3.1 KB

Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:11506 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:3648
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Path: sparky!uunet!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!news.cs.indiana.edu!noose.ecn.purdue.edu!ecn.purdue.edu!helz
From: [e-mail] (Randall A Helzerman)
Subject: Re: Is Microsoft the next Standard Oil?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET news)
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>  <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 00:00:06 GMT
Lines: 44

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes:
|> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
|> > In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes:
|> >
|> > |>     Let's go with your logic and say that Standard Oil was not
|> > |> a monopoly.  Let's say it existed today and only controlled 60% of the
|> > |> market.  60% of a multitrillion dollar market is frightening.
|> >
|> > What's so frightening about that?  As long as no one is forcing people
|> > at gunpoint to buy their products, they could be put out of business
|> > overnight by their customers.
|> >
|>     Because when someone dominates to such an extent, people buy it
|> because it is name brand.  AT&T was the same thing, other copanies could
|> have been started up but it was extremely difficult.

AT & T was only a monopoly because it was illegal to compete against them.
The second that it was legal to compete other long-distance carriers sprang
up and AT & T has been losing market share ever since.

|>     Key word, voluntary.  PC manufacturers are pretty much forced to
|> include DOS and windows with their comptuers or face paying much higher prices.
|> Do you really think that Ms-DOS is cheaper by itself wholesale than Dr Dos?
|> Dr Dos at wholesale costs about $29 to MS-DOs's $34 (for our company), however
|> many customers want Windows.  But look out, Microsoft will give you a
|> special deal on Windows if you put ms-Dos and Windows on EVERY machine you
|> make.

I don't certainly don't like it, and you don't like it, but that doesn't mean
that it is "wrong" in a moral sense.  I've used this analogy before, but
McDonalds does the same thing to their francizess--you get a discount on
beef if you only sell McBurgers.  There's nothing "wrong" with that sort of
agreement.

|> The result, you can't give the customer a choice of OS's like they
|> should.  Who's going to pay an extra $40 for Dr. DOS when MS-DOs comes
|> with the computer free?  This is wrong.

That's like saying that just because McDonalds gives their franchisess a
discount on beef that the customer is forced into only buying McBurgers
for lunch.  Not at all--you can go to Wendy's or the Colonel if you
want something different, and you can go to Dell or to IBM if you want
OS/2 preinstalled.  The computer consumer in our society has no lack of
options.