I have to wonder... Did your relatives work in the Carnegie Steel plants and live in "company housing" back in the great industrial years of America? Yeah, free enterprise is always looking out for the good of the people. In order to make profits better, they decided to offer employees cheap housing for lower wages and if the employee left the company, they were kicked out of their home.
Is this the type of free enterprise your talking about? Companies dictating the rules so they can make an extra buck?
Why not let Microsoft continue on it's path to controlling all of your operating system needs? When they release a new version of Windows every year and force you to upgrade it by shutting off the old version, we'll see who really wants free enterprise. I mean, Microsoft still has to make money. If they can't charge people every year, how are they supposed to stay open?
Oh, a competitor is supposed to come in and make a better product? Sure, no problem. Let them try to create an entire system of Servers, Workstations, Software, and hardware (XBox) that does everything Microsoft has control of when they finally take over. Oh, and by the way, those documents you created on Windows won't work with this new system because they are not allowed to break patent laws. Try to be the start up company on that end of the stick. "Oh, sorry, our servers only communicate with Microsoft operating systems. You're going to have to get your supplies elsewhere."
Of course we always have to jump the the most extreme measures to prove a point, I think any logical being knows that those scenarios are far more likely to come from the government than a cooperation. This is simply punishing someone for their success, if such things were in fact going on, such as shutting down the old operating systems when the new ones came out we would be speaking of an entirely different thing all together.
"those scenarios are far more likely to come from the government than a cooperation."
Carnegie Steel, AT&T, Microsoft, Enron and (who was the IPod manufacturer with "slave" labor) were/are not government bodies. Also, look up "oil-for-food scam". If you get ambitious, you can find many instances of this type of thing going on.
These are businesses that were considered successful because they manipulated the people that work for them and bent the rules. I include Microsoft in those companies because they used unfair licensing schemes with OEMs in a time when software was new. They purchased and closed many companies along the way to claiming domination in the PC industry. There were no regulations and Microsoft milked it for every penny. Without regulations, companies will back stab and cheat to be successful. It's a historical fact. Without control of your "successful" business, they will grow into what I described. You expect the governments to shut them down _after_ that happens instead of _before_? You'd trust a company like that?
Every company is like that they try to get a head, you cannot compare business of old with business of new. Look at it objectively, Microsoft's OEM licenses forced companies to pay per computer/processor for the OS, even if it wasn't installed on the computer. Ignoring the fact that is a standard software OS practice (IE Unix servers etc.) that is the deal the Microsoft setup for a special license price for their software, the companies could have dumped the software and they could have went with something else, especially in the beginning. And of course the companies complained, just like MS complained they were getting the licenses too cheap. A good business deal is usually one that leaves both parties unhappy. The OEM's got the OS for the price they wanted and MS charged them for OS they didn't sell everyone wins, everyone looses, and computers get cheaper for us.
I'm sorry, Eric, but your last post in this thread is just stupid and ignorant. I hate being rude, but Microsoft's practice of forcing OEMs to pay a Windows licence fee for every system they ship is just grossly unfair behavior which takes advantage of their monopolistic position. The reason that legislators/governments need to act on this is that it stops the market from working properly. If you can't see/understand that then you need to get an education. It's as simple as that.
Free markets and competition are all very well when they work as designed. But it takes continual oversight to ensure that distortions of the market don't take over, often because of an overly dominant position of one player - like Microsoft's prevention of competition wherever they have been able. This is not "interference with the market" as so many right wing simpletons think, but necessary action to make sure that the market works as designed.
No, its because Microsoft breaks the law it has to pay. Just like it did in the USA, only the politicians over in the US at the time were on the payroll of MS so they didn't want to bite the hand that feeds them so they voted against breaking up the company. They have election campaigns to win you know.
MS has a long criminal record. Lets not forget that.
Nick who forced them to sell Microsoft products to begin with. Check around may software companies use that licensing format. It's not uncommon. Its ok that you don't understand this, we will have to agree to disagree, I just wish some people could get past the view point that Microsoft is the villain, every company is just as evil. If the OEM could they would charge you for every hour you use your computer.
Free enterprise still has basic game rules, you can't do without them, not even if you are an republican american Ayn Rand aficionado. And america also has these rules, and applies them, they just have people in power that collect grease to apply them a little less for some selected people.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
It's just business, Microsoft has to pay for it because the governments in the world don't understand business. Free Enterprise!
I have to wonder... Did your relatives work in the Carnegie Steel plants and live in "company housing" back in the great industrial years of America? Yeah, free enterprise is always looking out for the good of the people. In order to make profits better, they decided to offer employees cheap housing for lower wages and if the employee left the company, they were kicked out of their home.
Is this the type of free enterprise your talking about? Companies dictating the rules so they can make an extra buck?
Why not let Microsoft continue on it's path to controlling all of your operating system needs? When they release a new version of Windows every year and force you to upgrade it by shutting off the old version, we'll see who really wants free enterprise. I mean, Microsoft still has to make money. If they can't charge people every year, how are they supposed to stay open?
Oh, a competitor is supposed to come in and make a better product? Sure, no problem. Let them try to create an entire system of Servers, Workstations, Software, and hardware (XBox) that does everything Microsoft has control of when they finally take over. Oh, and by the way, those documents you created on Windows won't work with this new system because they are not allowed to break patent laws. Try to be the start up company on that end of the stick. "Oh, sorry, our servers only communicate with Microsoft operating systems. You're going to have to get your supplies elsewhere."
Of course we always have to jump the the most extreme measures to prove a point, I think any logical being knows that those scenarios are far more likely to come from the government than a cooperation. This is simply punishing someone for their success, if such things were in fact going on, such as shutting down the old operating systems when the new ones came out we would be speaking of an entirely different thing all together.
"those scenarios are far more likely to come from the government than a cooperation."
Carnegie Steel, AT&T, Microsoft, Enron and (who was the IPod manufacturer with "slave" labor) were/are not government bodies.
Also, look up "oil-for-food scam". If you get ambitious, you can find many instances of this type of thing going on.
These are businesses that were considered successful because they manipulated the people that work for them and bent the rules. I include Microsoft in those companies because they used unfair licensing schemes with OEMs in a time when software was new. They purchased and closed many companies along the way to claiming domination in the PC industry. There were no regulations and Microsoft milked it for every penny. Without regulations, companies will back stab and cheat to be successful. It's a historical fact. Without control of your "successful" business, they will grow into what I described. You expect the governments to shut them down _after_ that happens instead of _before_? You'd trust a company like that?
Every company is like that they try to get a head, you cannot compare business of old with business of new. Look at it objectively, Microsoft's OEM licenses forced companies to pay per computer/processor for the OS, even if it wasn't installed on the computer. Ignoring the fact that is a standard software OS practice (IE Unix servers etc.) that is the deal the Microsoft setup for a special license price for their software, the companies could have dumped the software and they could have went with something else, especially in the beginning. And of course the companies complained, just like MS complained they were getting the licenses too cheap. A good business deal is usually one that leaves both parties unhappy. The OEM's got the OS for the price they wanted and MS charged them for OS they didn't sell everyone wins, everyone looses, and computers get cheaper for us.
I'm sorry, Eric, but your last post in this thread is just stupid and ignorant. I hate being rude, but Microsoft's practice of forcing OEMs to pay a Windows licence fee for every system they ship is just grossly unfair behavior which takes advantage of their monopolistic position. The reason that legislators/governments need to act on this is that it stops the market from working properly. If you can't see/understand that then you need to get an education. It's as simple as that.
Free markets and competition are all very well when they work as designed. But it takes continual oversight to ensure that distortions of the market don't take over, often because of an overly dominant position of one player - like Microsoft's prevention of competition wherever they have been able. This is not "interference with the market" as so many right wing simpletons think, but necessary action to make sure that the market works as designed.
No, its because Microsoft breaks the law it has to pay. Just like it did in the USA, only the politicians over in the US at the time were on the payroll of MS so they didn't want to bite the hand that feeds them so they voted against breaking up the company. They have election campaigns to win you know.
MS has a long criminal record. Lets not forget that.
Nick who forced them to sell Microsoft products to begin with. Check around may software companies use that licensing format. It's not uncommon. Its ok that you don't understand this, we will have to agree to disagree, I just wish some people could get past the view point that Microsoft is the villain, every company is just as evil. If the OEM could they would charge you for every hour you use your computer.
Free enterprise still has basic game rules, you can't do without them, not even if you are an republican american Ayn Rand aficionado.
And america also has these rules, and applies them, they just have people in power that collect grease to apply them a little less for some selected people.