Subject:
|
Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 24 Oct 2001 19:49:53 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
608 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Low writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > > >
> > > > MS is not a monopoly.
> > > >
> > > > It has competitors, and effective ones at that. MS is dominant in certain
> > > > market segments but since there are few or no barriers to entry other than
> > > > MS competence at making good product, the net result of MS dominance (not
> > > > monopoly) is that we pay less for OS and app than we would without them.
> > >
> > > What about the integration between OS and applications? Different market
> > > segments right? So why should one corporation be able to leverage its
> > > products in one segment as a direct consequence of its dominance in another
> > > segment?
> >
> > Why not?
> >
> > This assertion has been made in this and other antitrust trials but has not
> > been justified. I see nothing wrong with it. It benefits everyone to get
> > more efficient products. There are no barriers to entry, so dominance is due
> > to efficiency and product superiority. Those are good for the consumer.
>
> I would contend that it _is_ a barrier to entry. No other application
> producer has the same access to the OS. The efficiency accrues from
> interactions between the OS and application packages, as much as from any
> inherent superiority in the applications.
Nothing is stopping anyone else from writing a better OS. Novell tried. IBM
tried. Novell tried buying one from AT&T...
> Secondly, preinstalling Office and IE on new Wintel machines minimises
> consumer choice.
Nothing is stopping any hardware vendor from not installing it and going
with a different OS, or any end consumer from uninstalling it. Nothing
except that maybe consumers don't WANT Linux on their boxes.
> Thirdly, OS/application "efficiency" makes it much easier
> to compromise security (and privacy?), cf Lovebug, Melissa etc.
Here you have something. I'm just not sure what. I'd say take a looksee to
see if those license provisions that disclaim responsibility are actually
enforcable...
> > > Cf Nestlé. No doubt the TV dinner division benefits from the
> > > business experience/influence of the coffee division, and for all I know
> > > there may even be production synergies. But ( I hope) Nestlé can't produce
> > > coffee that tastes better after one of their TV dinners, and worse after
> > > anyone elses.
> >
> > Why not? Are you saying it's not techically possible to do this (I don't
> > think it currently is, actually) or that it would be bad to do if it were? I
> > assume the latter and again, why not? I see nothing wrong with enhancing my
> > enjoyment of Stouffers if it's possible.
> >
> > "Things go better with Coke" after all.
>
> I need a pause to refresh my thoughts on this one while I
> digest your argument.
I didn't think you'd have the stomach to make such a bad pun, but I was wrong.
++Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
| (...) Okay, another couple of points. 1. It's not about the OS, whatever the merits of DOS/Windows//NT. It's about producing the OS _and_ the application software (whatever the merits of the Office suite). By developing both the platform and the (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
| (...) I would contend that it _is_ a barrier to entry. No other application producer has the same access to the OS. The efficiency accrues from interactions between the OS and application packages, as much as from any inherent superiority in the (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
173 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
