[ On Friday, February 22, 2002 at 14:19:29 (-0800), David Lawler Christiansen (NT) wrote: ]
> Subject: RE: IP: Wal-Mart PC, Operating System *Not* Included: $399 (fwd)
>
> I didn't ask whether the practices to which you refer have been
> "proven".  I asked which ones.  

I meant exactly those ones documented by the courts.  No more, no less.

> As I've said in the past, hardware companies don't take software
> terribly seriously.  Why would they?  They're more interested in
> crafting nifty gizmos and in their eyes, "anyone can be a good coder,
> right...?"  This means they're usually understaffed to maintain even
> drivers for Windows, let alone for the gazillion-odd free unixes there
> are out there.  

Perhaps you're forgetting Apple, Sun, IBM, DEC, Pyramid, HP, Cray,
Sequent, Tandem, and so on and so on and so on.  They've all been
innovative on the hardware side, and they've each also taken their
systems software very seriously, to the extent that some people have
even come to like them more for their software than their hardware.
Most of the above have even innovated in some areas of systems software
(well maybe not Apple, at least not without counting NeXT as part of
them :-), and sometimes more than once!

There are those people who will even argue that M$, a software-only
company, hasn't innovated anything on its own except marketing.  I
wouldn't go quite that far, though I would say that the kinds of
technical innovations coming out of M$ over the years have been rather
on the small scale, and more of the type that can inevitably be produced
by a million monkeys....  It seems to me that only recently has M$ been
able to use its very significant monetary resources to attract
significant people in computer research circles.

In terms of business practices I'd tend to suggest M$ is not doing
much more than what the railroad barons of the past had perfected long
before.

> Now we get to the heart of the issue-- you're complaining because
> someone provided for your needs before, but no longer does.  For some
> reason, rather than blaming the company whose service has regressed, you
> hop on the bandwagon and blame that darn Microsoft.

I continue to blame M$ because it has been shown unequivocally that M$
either engineered market conditions which unfairly forced their
competitors out of existance, or where that wasn't possibly simply
bought them outright.  I blamed M$ long before the courts collected
evidence to substantiate what were previously just my personal opinions.

I'm not saying the Netscapes and Oracles of the world have been any
better either, mind you.

>  How exactly is it
> that MS prevented that company from providing you with non-Windows
> software?

Read what your courts have told you.  I don't need to rehash it all again.

> > The only cost that's fair to hide in the bundle price 
> > is the cost of performing the bundling service (pre-install 
> > of the customer's chosen software, configuration, etc.).
> 
> "fair" is an interesting term.  Fair to whom, out of curiosity?  

Fair to the customer, obviously.  The very fact you've asked such a
question is revealing in and of itself.  If you don't understand who
such regulations are intended to protect, and implicitly accept the
correctness of such protection, then what exactly do you think would be
fair?

> Fairness isn't even the issue.

It sure as heck is!  Indeed some have claimed it is the fundamental issue.

>  Many hardware manufacturers negotiate
> prices on a bulk rate that may be variable... RAM's a great example,
> because the prices sometimes change by the hour.  Think Best Buy is
> going to go reprint labels just because Dell got a better price for RAM?

RAM is a commodity.  The OS is not.  (everyone's RAM adheres to publicly
documented engineering specifications -- however M$'s OS does not work
(from the user's P.O.V.) like mine and cannot run all the same
applications as mine, even though they both work on the same hardware
and they both may claim to implement some common APIs)

Are you trying to say that the hardware manufactures have negotiated a
bulk rate on M$ OS software and they're not going to (be able to) stop
buy from M$ even though they can now use an OS with no licensing costs
whatsoever?

> Even if this were possible, it's NMF-- you should take it up with the
> manufacturers.

I suspect if Bill Gates were to have his way then nothing at all would
ever be Micro$oft's fault -- not even bugs of his own making.  Your
rhetoric not uncommonly mimics much of his, whether you claim to be
towing the company line or not.

-- 
								Greg A. Woods

+1 416 218-0098;  <gwoods@acm.org>;  <g.a.woods@ieee.org>;  <woods@robohack.ca>
Planix, Inc. <woods@planix.com>; VE3TCP; Secrets of the Weird <woods@weird.com>