Capitalism, and freedom.

[Soccerman]

This doesn't make sense.. why is it, that the United states, probably the most Capitalist countries out there is allowing MS to continue without being split up?

Is it me, or does it appear that even the in-corrupteable Politicians have been corrupted to the point where Capitalism is starting to look like communism?

Look at president Bush for example. Tell me, why is he not striving towards innovation, rather then just adding a bandaid? Oil companies must love him..

When will the fuel delivery system finally be changed over for fuel cells? when fuel cells come out in cars! when are fuel cells going to appear in cars? when the infrastructure for fuel delivery is in place (methanol)! It will cost mucho dollars, but hey, you're stimulating the economy when you employ workers!

Why is it that companies and corperations are allowed to become so powerful, they can star to limit our freedom?

If things like what MS is doing (with the rental of software) continue, people will begin to see their ability to choose whether or not they want to upgrade or not, disappear!

 

[jhu]

oh no! i bent my wookie.

 

[jmcoreymv]

My teacher had a really good explanation as to why MS is not a monopoly but im sure I will just mess it up if i try to explain. It had the basis of that fact that MSes revenue comes from software and that takes hardly any capital to produce, so within a day a new startup company could pop up and become serious MS competition where for example in the auto industry, it would take years for a company to build up enough capital and assets to compete with other major companies like GM.

 

[pulpp]

<< My teacher had a really good explanation as to why MS is not a monopoly but im sure I will just mess it up if i try to explain. It had the basis of that fact that MSes revenue comes from software and that takes hardly any capital to produce, so within a day a new startup company could pop up and become serious MS competition where for example in the auto industry, it would take years for a company to build up enough capital and assets to compete with other major companies like GM. >>



well that depends on how you define capital, in the old industerial economy, capital was factories, facilities and raw material and the like, today, and as int he case of MS, they do have alot of capital, which is the talent of the people they employ, so i doubt that any company can come out of no where and pose a serious threat to MS overnight.

 

[Soybomb]

<< oh no! i bent my wookie. >>

Man I've had that happen before, it felt like it was gonna break, the whole flow of things was ruined.

Anyway I disagree with the concept that MS has little cost. GM might have to spend millions in raw materials to come up with a car, but so does MS to come up with code. Sure anyone can bang out code and they can't a car, but to compete with MS you have to have a huge team of people working on the code. Not to mention the budget they have for marketing, you might have a better product, but if you can't get the market to even see it, does it matter?

MS in my eyes actually hasn't done that much wrong. They've shown some dirty business practices in the past and sorta muscled their way around, but I don't think enough so to justify their break up. I say let teh people buy what they want. If a rental scheme or registration routines make the consumers angry enough, tides will turn. Do you feel there would be a signifigant rise in competition if MS were broken into divisions? I don't, actually on the contrary. I think at this point we're giving them enough rope to hang themselves with, where on the other hand they might make a poorer product, but not such an organized set of related poor products that people would seek out alternatives. I think for the time being letting MS choose their own path is doing the most for competition.

 

[RossGr]

<< MS you have to have a huge team of people working on the code >>



Is this really true? This assumes that good code has to be bloatware. The tightest and best code is that written by one person who knows and understands every line of the program. Windows is obviously committee designed and written, is that good? It would be very nice to see another alternative to Windos but like Linux it will face the problem of no aplications. So don't hold your breath for overnight canges. MS is still the big dog on the block.

Soccerman: some of your original logic just doesn't work. In a Capitilistic country MS would be allowed free reign, it is communistic to break up the big company, prehaps nationalize them?

Of course big oil loves GWB, he is one of them, You voted for him, not me.

Fuel cells are still underdevelopment, they are not quite where you want them to be, maybe in the next 5-10 yrs they will be getting there.

 

[Soccerman]

actually RossGr, I'm Canadian.. just trying to figure out WTF is going on down there..

ok, if MS was allowed to do whatever the hell it wanted, guess which direction it would head?

the way companies work is actually quite.. communistic (if that's a word).

Think about it, their goal is to own (not literally of course) the market for the products (or services) that they sell. When that happens, they can do whatever they want (called stagnating the market) with their products.

Communist countries work the same way (due to their leaders). They do whatever they want, with little regard for what the people want, though they often sugarcoat things for the people. The perfect example would be the space race. In Russia, the government saw that they could use their space program as a PR tool, not a way of opening new technology and science windows..

Can someone provide me with a good definition of Capitalism?

 

[charrison]

soccerman,

You can run fuel cells off gas. Gas is hydrogen rich and would be lower polute less when used in a fuel cell, rather than burned.


Go ahead and break MS up and then you 4 monsters to deal with.


Or get the funding to write a MS compatable OS.

 

[Linflas]

<< Think about it, their goal is to own (not literally of course) the market for the products (or services) that they sell. When that happens, they can do whatever they want (called stagnating the market) with their products. >>


That assumes that the company exists in a vaccuum. In 1980 MS was a tiny company selling a compiler for a hobbyists machine. IBM was the prime target of the US antitrust folks since it looked like OS/MVS systems owned the market with the only competition coming from Digital Equipment Corp in the scientific computing market.
Fast forward and now MS is a dominant software company under fire by the US antitrust folks, DEC is gone, and OS/MVS is a piece of history for the most part. Who knows what the scene will be 20 years from now?

 

<< Do you feel there would be a signifigant rise in competition if MS were broken into divisions? I don't, actually on the contrary. >>


EXACTLY! If you break MS into 1, 10, or 20 companies, how does that make the market more competitive?
If you got rid of MS totally, then you would probably have NO market left, and a bunch of small time companies releaseing hundreds of different OSes that are not the slight bit compatible with each other(Need to make money ya know, HEH).



<< ok, if MS was allowed to do whatever the hell it wanted, guess which direction it would head? >>


Probably in the, get big and rich direction, just like EVERY other company out there.



<< the way companies work is actually quite.. communistic (if that's a word). >>


I don't get it, your COMPETING against another company, so you should do everything you can to get ahead of them. Why would you implement business tactics that go against that idea?



<< Look at president Bush for example. Tell me, why is he not striving towards innovation, rather then just adding a bandaid? Oil companies must love him.. >>


Bush is not an innovator, he is a old money oil man. He is not the peoples leader, and that has been made very clear.

 

[Soccerman]

Fuel cells are still underdevelopment, they are not quite where you want them to be, maybe in the next 5-10 yrs they will be getting there.

yeah, maybe down there in the states, but up here in Canada, we have a company called Ballard, who has been building a plant to mass produce these fuel cells for a while.

their cells are already easily good for cars, it's a question of mass production.

I don't know this for sure, but I heard methonal is better then gas when it comes to environmental friendliness when burning it..

 

Half that money is probably coming from american investments.

 

[charrison]

Soccerman,

Ballard is still very much doing RnD on feul cells. Yes they do have prototypes as do many other companies. However there are still alot of issues to work out before anyone takes these things to production. Cost, effiencency and power are still issues.

If their tech was easily ready for cars, it would be in them. As soon as someone figures out how to make these things without using gobs of platinum, then they are good to go.

Also the more hydrogen rich the fuel is, the better it will work in a fuel cell. Gas could be converted to a hydrogen fuel right at the pump.

Please do some more reading on fuel cells and how they work.

 

[ElFenix]

MS is currently in appeals court. the politicians don't have much to do with it. MS is a monopoly. amount of capital has nothing to do with the definition of a monopoly. &quot;an industry structure in which there is only one large firm that produces a product for which there are no close substitutes. monopolists can set prices but are subject to market discipline. for a monopolt to continue to exist, something must prevent potential competitors from entering the industry and competing for profits.&quot; the important part is the &quot;no close substitutes.&quot; there is no operating system that will run as many combinations of hardware and software as windows. the barriers to entry aren't the capital costs but the network. in order for customers to want an OS, there needs to be lots of applications for it. application makers want a customer base before a port is made. its the chicken and the egg.

as for bush... what are you talking about?

methanol is highly toxic. much more so than gasoline. so there is a safety issue.