The State of Iowa vs Microsoft

Oh man! Ad-blocking software has been detected! :'(

This website is run by the community, for the community... and it needs advertisements in order to keep running. Blocking our ads means your killing our stats!
Please disable your ad-block, or become a premium member to hide all advertisements and this notice.

All I've got to say here is that, major retailers are selling desk top and laptops with linux on. Either in their stores or their online stores. K-mart, walmart, best buy, are just a few. If someone isn't finding a comp with a linux based OS on it, then they aren't looking hard enough. Because I found this link in under a minute on google.

http://www.linspire.com/featured_partner/featured_partner.php?sent=1&country=1

 

Oh man! Ad-blocking software has been detected! :'(

This website is run by the community, for the community... and it needs advertisements in order to keep running. Blocking our ads means your killing our stats!
Please disable your ad-block, or become a premium member to hide all advertisements and this notice.

Wow, what a thread!

I am wet behind the ears compared to most of the forum, but would like to add my bit.

The phrase *supply and demand* comes to mind. Is it safe to say most of the computing world is for business compared to personal use? If so, is it safe to say MS supply the majority software compared to open source? If this is the case, then it is in the interest of all the major hardware manufacturers to offer their equipment to be preshipped with XP, Server or whatever MS want them to have. They are in the business for that sole reason- to make money.

It is a shame however, when a company reaches the wealth such as MS because it appears the rich are simply getting richer.
There is a lot of work, sweat and tears going in to Open source software that is availible for anyone to use for free.

Personally, i think there is a big future market in open source software. Smaller companies alone would save a fortune if they were small enough that had to buy sofware on a retail premium.

Si

 

Boyce,

I'll give a couple of links so you can figure out what "supply and demand" means.

http://www.investopedia.com/university/economics/economics3.asp

This first one explains what supply and demand is, and how it balances out pricing. As you will see, your attempt to relate it to MS and the desktop world is completely and totally off base.

The second link talks about monopolies, oliogopies, and perfect competition. As you will see, if one company--the supply side--can get rid of competition there is no choice and the demand side--consumers--has no effect on price. Thus the law of supply and demand is thrown out the window. It simply cannot work.

http://www.investopedia.com/university/economics/economics6.asp

This is why a monopoly is the goal of the greedy and unscrupulous. They can charge what they like and if the product is considered a necessary one people will have to buy it. Thus the monopoly that becomes such through unethical means is cheating people. And if you and I are in the market for their product we are getting ripped off every time we purchase their products because the only reason their prices are so high is because they have literally invalidated the law of supply and demand. That law is the mechanism that a capitalistic society depends on to keep things fair.

 

And just what happens when the consumer, ignorant of all things computing to begin with, asks the sales people about the Linux machines they have? You really think Walmart has any sales people knowledgeable enough about Linux to able to give them an accurate portrayal of what it is?

Tell me, mitz, are you really saying that Linspire systems on sale at a discount retailer, sold by people who know nothing about it and cannot give the consumer technical support, is really what is meant by "competition in the market place"?

 

Give it up Freddy, you complain no one is supplying Linux machines. When I find you resources that are, you start bitching about who is selling them? If walmart isn't competition I don't know what the hell is. The Linux machines have their space right beside the window machine what the hell else do you want? Because a sale clerk may know more about windows is MS fault how? And geek squad or what ever their names are know about Linux and they are at best buy which happens to sale both windows and Linux.

And as far as your comment to Boyce. He does have a point. Why is a company going to carry something they don't or can't sell when they have a product that does sell. Why would anyone want to put money into inventory they can't move. That like telling you to move out of your house and let someone other family live there but you still have to make the mortgage payment.

You know Freddy. I had nothing against Linux. It was fun to play with gort and send him cute clippings of windows PC kicking a Linux PC, and he would send me something back. To me it was just another OS. Just not in my taste. But your kill, smash, beat windows into the ground before it sends us all to hell has absolutely made me want to not ever go near a Linux box. The more you learn about Linux the worse you get. And man you are just freakin scary when you get on your holier than now rants. If this is what Linux does to people then I want nothing to do with it all. Reply all you want, but I"m out of here. This thread is healthy for no one and I want no more part of it.

 

Freedloader, if you are trying to convert people to switch to Linux you are going the wrong way about it!!!
And by the way, if you hate Microsoft so much why get certified in it ?

PS: I have never seen someone as confrontational as you!!!
Sorry couldn’t help- myself! I am out!!

 

I used to go to restraunts all the time to try and pull grannies, but I was rarely successful.

I suppose that's because I'm a Windows user...

 

That's not true. It's because that where the MONEY is for them at this time. They know they can't compete in the desktop market because the average Joe will always choose Windows OS over Linux. Where in contrast the Techies that design large scale enterprise solutions know the benifits of using Linux in it's many flavours.

MS have cornered the market for desktop OS. Although that may not be a good thing in terms or reliability or freedom that's the way it is.

Kids grow up using Windows
99% of corporate users use Windows
95% of home users use Windows

Brain washing you could say but in the absence of a 'viable' alternative what are people to do.

I've tried many different versions of Linux and found some of them to be excellent. The problem is learning from scratch again over the Windows experience most people have.

I drive a Mini (no jokes please) but if I had to take a new test and learn to drive with my seat facing backwards if I say bought a Honda I'd never change the mini!!

The industry standard is Windows, for a worthy challenger to really hit MS they needs to be a consistant distro that people can be confident will still be around in 6 months!

That's my 5 pence worth.

 

You think the sales people at CompUSA, CircuitCity, and BestBuy are knowledgeable? Even about Windows? If consumers must rely on the sales people to inform them, they are lost, regardless!

Okay, Freddy, now which way do you want to attack Microsoft? Come on, there are plenty of directions you can choose from...

 

nice one

 

LOL. I see lots of sarcasm, and a lot of responses that have nothing to do with the core issue, but I don't see anyone tackling the main substance of the argument I've made.

How about someone actually taking on my real argument, or does nobody here really understand it? I'll even give you the parameters of how to frame the argument.

All you need to do is prove that the law of supply and demand doesn't apply to MS OS's and the price of MS OS's to consumers. Show that MS manipulation of the availability of dual boot computers with competing OS's on them by telling the pc vendors how they could run their businesses, and through that crushing the startup OS's has no effect on the price you pay today for a MS OS. Show that a monopoly known for its greed is pricing its products today at the same price it would have if there were competitors that took even as little as 30% of the market between them. Prove that the leveraging of the MS monopoly hasn't kept prices artificially inflated.

This ought to be really easy for all of you who are convinced that I'm just wrongheaded and stubborn with no basis for my convictions on this issue.

You might try using the computer hardware market to prove your point.

 

Well, they are not the same arguments because hardware has very little markup so prices can't drop much even in the face of massive competition. Usually, the only thing that causes hardware prices to drop is more efficient manufacturing processes.

Just to humour you how about we look at the graphics card market? There are two companies dominating with let's say about 49% of the market each. So we have competition. We have consumer choice. Do we have low prices? No. Most budget PCs still come with integrated graphics because of the high price of GPUs. In fact, many GPUs sell for more than an entire budget PC system.

So there is no monoply, but still high pricing of products. We have startup and other smaller companies struggling and going under. Why? People must still be buying ATI and Nvidia GPUs over these other products. Why? They are supplying products people want and they are prepared to pay for them.

What about the CPU market. Via are much cheaper than AMD and Intel CPUs. Why aren't they cleaning up? People are paying the extra for products they actually want.

 

Are you actually making this argument with a straight face? I'm not being sarcastic, I'm honestly asking.

To prove your point on this you have to show that the massive competition doesn't cause the small profit margins. I think you'll find that extremely hard to prove. Do you really think that if there was only one company manufacturing 95% of the available computer hardware that the profit margin on computer hardware would be as small as it is today?

All you really did, Baba, was prove my point.

 

The onus is upon you to first prove that:
- MS manipulates the availability of dual-boot computers
- MS actively crushes the startups of competing OSes

In what way does Microsoft actively do either? Linux conspiracists have whined for years that Microsoft has done so. But just saying it happens doesn't make it true. And whining about it in no way improves Linux's position in the marketplace.

There's no way to prove that the pricing would or wouldn't be the same had there had been any real competition to survive. Commodore, Atari, Apple, Novell, and others fell by the wayside. But it really doesn't matter if Microsoft is charging higher prices today than they would have if any of those other companies had stayed competitive. If I want to buy Microsoft's stuff, and it's priced at a price I want to pay, I'll buy it. Otherwise, I won't. Sounds like supply and demand to me.

But the discussion of the supply and demand of Microsoft's products is irrelevant... you're ranting that computer vendors and retailers won't stock Linux boxes, and somehow, that's Microsoft's fault because they're "crushing the competition" and "forcing the PC vendors to cooperate". A discussion of the supply and demand of Linux boxes is much more relevant. Manufacturers don't build them and retailers don't stock them because they don't believe there to be a large enough market for them. That may or may not be true. If manufacturers were to make Linux-installed boxes, and retailers were to sell them, perhaps they would sell well. But you'll have to convince those manufacturers and retailers. They know computers with Windows installed on them will sell. Microsoft doesn't have to push or threaten... manufacturers and retailers are more than willing to sell them.

Bottom line, if Linux wants to get noticed, they're going to have to convince manufacturers to get on board, and they're going to have to convince retailers to carry them. Otherwise, it will remain a niche OS that only true geeks like ourselves can love.

 

I can't believe I'm doing this. Freddy, do you know how many people ms has on it pay role? Their supposed to work for free? I paid 100 dollars for my windows 2000, can pick up xp for what 120 now I think? You know dell, gateway, and hp are paying less then that. That is not a bad price. Hell there are graphic cards out there that 3 to 5 hundred dollars. They get those prices because they know the gamers will pay it. What about the people here in the US that can't afford their meds because of the high prices? And your campaigning against a OS company?

you are so jealous that someone is living the American dream and becoming rich off of it you can't stand yourself. you need help Freddy. This hate is not healthy but yet it seems to drive you. It like a drug to your system. Its changing you Freddy. The worst part about it, is that you don't even see it. You use to be able to make rational arguments about thing. You don't seem able to do that anymore. Or at least when it comes to this subject. You use to be able to draw people to you, now it seems you just push everyone away.

 

I predicted a response such as this and I think you need to decide what hardware you're going to use as an example.

Allow me to explain:

Dell can sell a reasonably good PC with a 19" LCD monitor for around the £400 mark - I know because my Dad just bought one. I can't build a similar system for less than about £500 without the cost of a Windows licence which would also add to the cost.

The reason for this is because of competiton between system builders BUT, this is not the same competition as eg. between Linux and Windows because all the system builders are basically offering the same products with the same price points. My Dad doesn't care if his new PC has an Intel or AMD CPU or if it's an Intel chipset or an NForce chipset. What matters to the average system buyer is the size of the monitor, the speed of the CPU and the capacity of the hard drive they are getting for their money. These are all things that are not manufacturer specific so the only thing that will encourage my Dad to buy a Dell over a Gateway PC (if they're even still trading) is cost. Therefore in this case competiton drives down prices that is true but it's because price is the only factor differentiating one system builder from another (excluding unquantafiable things like reputation and after sales' service). The fact that system builders pay considerably less for Windows licences than the retail cost of one is enough to sully that comparison anyway.

Now take a look at a hardware manufacturers. The reason it would cost me more to build a budget system than buy it? Markups are higher on individual components. This is because someone looking to spend £200-£400 on a graphics card is going to look at more than price. If someone thinks spending an extra £50 on an Nvidia will benefit them in the long-run, they'll spend it. AMDs are (pre Core 2 Duo) cheaper than Intels yet Intel are still the market leader. People will pay what they think something is worth. Markups are low, but not zero.

Even if (and the latest resurrection of Tiny do this) system builders sell Linux boxes with the same specs but £50 - £100 cheaper than Windows boxes, there are always going to be people who will fork out the extra dollar for Windows.

It's too cut and dried to say competition is the only market factor to affect prices.

 

Also as a computer builder/supplier I put a markup on anything I buy in for a customer and that includes the operating system. If the OS is free, well then I can't charge for it, so what is in it for me? Unfortunately as much as I like open source software, I need to make *money* to survive. This is one good reason why retailers don't usually bundle open source software - Like everybody else, they are in business primarily to make money not to supply free goodies to the masses.

 

Freddy, do you drink Pepsi? Eat Macdonalds? Shop for clothes in Benneton or Gucci? (probably not but it's just for reference)

The fact is plain and simple, MS are doing exactly what any other mega corporation are doing i.e. living "the great american dream". They are trying to increase their market share and make money like any other business.

 

Your first objection has already been shown. Do some reading in the articles I've posted here. Since I've already shown the point in previous posts I'm not going to do it again here. MS does this through their "Windows License" agreement with the vendors.

Second, the manipulation of the availability of dual-boot computers is the manner in which MS has crushed the startups. Creating a license that prevents dual-booting of a system with a MS OS on it is actively crushing a startup through the power of market position. If the startups can't get their products before the public they can't sell them....

As the law of supply and demand is already proven this is an open and shut case.

This isn't about Linux as MS can't crush Linux in the manner it has crushed proprietary startups. Linux being free removes this avenue of attack by MS. This is about justice, fairness, and ethics. Nothing else.

The fact that the presence of competing products has forced MS to lower their prices in the commercial market is evidence that MS would have to do the same in desktop market if the startups had survived. The law of supply and demand proves it.

The fact that Linux is the competitor in the server market place is completely irrelevant to issue. The fact that you guys keep bringing Linux into this discussion just sort of makes me laugh. Straw man city....

This isn't rocket science. It's plain old common sense based on an economic law that has been proven over and over again through hundreds of years people doing business.