Microsoft Hatred FAQ

[Antoon Pardon]

I think you need to look up "extortion" in a dictionary. I can walk up
to you and say "if you want me to mow your lawn, you must pay me $1 every
time you smoke a cigarette". So long as you can say "no" and all that
happens is that I don't mow your lawn (which I have no obligation to do
anyway), it isn't extortion.

If you would happen to have a monopoly on the mowing business, which
would make it very hard for me to have my lawn mowed unless I took
your offer, it would be.

 

[David Schwartz]

If you would happen to have a monopoly on the mowing business, which
would make it very hard for me to have my lawn mowed unless I took
your offer, it would be.

Yes, but that's the "if". I have a monopoly on *me* mowing your lawn.
You can, of course, go to someone else to have your lawn mowed. Microsoft
only had a monopoly on *Microsoft* operating systems. Microsoft had no
control over OSX, Linux, FreeBSD, and so on.

Essentially, Microsoft asked for exclusive arrangements. That is,
arrangements wherein you could not sell competing products if you wished to
sell Microsoft products. That's not even remotely unusual.

DS

 

[Peter T. Breuer]

If you would happen to have a monopoly on the mowing business, which
would make it very hard for me to have my lawn mowed unless I took
your offer, it would be.

In this case the extortion is over smoking a cigarette (it doesn't seem
to me to necessitate a monopoly on mowing for the threat to have been
deemed to have been made, but perhaps for it to be deemed likely for you
to believe it to have teeth) - money is being demanded with menaces for
your continued smoking of cigarettes. The threatened menace is that
your lawn will find itself not mown.

I can certainly also envisage circumstances in which that threat would
be very real by virtue of an effective monpoloy in the garden market.

Peter

 

[Peter T. Breuer]

Yes, but that's the "if". I have a monopoly on *me* mowing your lawn.
You can, of course, go to someone else to have your lawn mowed.

Of course you can't - why would anyone else be available to mow my lawn
just because I want it to be so? Mowing a lawn requires a lifetime's
investment of skill acquirement, plus a small army of lawn mower
backup fronds advancement teams sitting in cold offices setting up the
lawnmower oil. And while I was searching for somebody else to do the
work my lawn business would be losing money like a sieve.

Microsoft
only had a monopoly on *Microsoft* operating systems. Microsoft had no

Nonsense. Microsoft had an effective monopoly on *IBM PC* operating
systems, thanks to nasty illegal competition-killing tactics that in
themselves were illegal (such as making their programs not work with
ther versions of dos).

control over OSX, Linux, FreeBSD, and so on.

They had plenty of control, thanks to their monopoly position (and
Linux didn't exist then, FreeBSD came soon but was not a client
offering).

Essentially, Microsoft asked for exclusive arrangements. That is,
arrangements wherein you could not sell competing products if you wished to
sell Microsoft products. That's not even remotely unusual.

It soitenly is, stanley. In case you hadn't noticed, the shops sell
more than one kind of washing powder.

Please stop this shillism.

Peter

 

[David Schwartz]

It soitenly is, stanley. In case you hadn't noticed, the shops sell
more than one kind of washing powder.

Your argument is nonsensical. Because you can find one category of goods
that don't have the property I'm talking about it follows that the property
is unusual?!

Operating systems are not like washing powder at all. Try to sell both
Big Macs and Whoppers in one store. Heck, try to sell Craftsman tools
without being a Sears. Microsoft gets to decide whether they sell their
operating systems software like washing powder or like burgers, not you.

Please stop this shillism.

If you could produce a strong argument, it might make sense to accuse me
of shilling.

DS

 

[Peter T. Breuer]

[DS, MS shill, said ..]

It soitenly is, stanley. In case you hadn't noticed, the shops sell
more than one kind of washing powder.

Your argument is nonsensical. Because you can find one category of goods
that don't have the property I'm talking about it follows that the property
is unusual?!

Yep. You got it.

Operating systems are not like washing powder at all.

Really? In what way? I think you'll find that in germany at least,
Linux *IS* a brand of washing powder.

Try to sell both
Big Macs and Whoppers in one store.

Looks good to me - buy my hamburgers in a shop that sells lots of
different kinds in their freezer. I THINK you are trying to confuse
hamburgers and restaurant chains, BTW. Uh, uh. Won't woik, stan. I
know the difference.

Heck, try to sell Craftsman tools
without being a Sears.

No idea what they are, but I imagine they are something you tie round
an ample midriff. Anyway, your example is the wrong way round - you
mean "try to buy a lawn mower from Sears without paying for the price
of a set of Craftsman tools". Or shumeshing.

Microsoft gets to decide whether they sell their
operating systems software like washing powder or like burgers, not you.

Uh uh. No they don't. Discriminatory trading practices are, uh,
illegal. You can't refuse to sell me something (or ratch up the price)
just because you don't like me, or even worse, because you want to
create a articial supply and demand situation. That's called "fixing
the market".

If you could produce a strong argument, it might make sense to accuse me
of shilling.

I don't have to - shilling is as as shilling looks. If YOU want to
find out what MS did wrong, read the official and legal reports, dude.
The findings are findings of fact.

Peter

 

[Roedy Green]

Do you think it would be immoral if Microsoft said, "we will only sell
Windows wholesale to dealers who don't sell other operating systems?"

I had an existing independent business. I was not as though I were an
MS franchise. They imposed this extortion well into my business's
life. My choice was comply or go out of business.

It was not as if I had a choice of sell Hondas or sell Kias if I did
like the franchise deal.

To my way of thinking what MS did was similar to a the only magasine
wholesaler in town telling retailers it had to sell kiddie porn under
the table or pay full retail for all magazines.

I broke my own ethical code rather than go out of business. I will
never forgive MS for putting me in that position.

 

[David Schwartz]

I had an existing independent business. I was not as though I were an
MS franchise. They imposed this extortion well into my business's
life. My choice was comply or go out of business.

It was not as if I had a choice of sell Hondas or sell Kias if I did
like the franchise deal.

Okay, I give up. As far as I can see it, there are only two realistic
possibilties:

1) There is no other operating system worth selling. In this case, you
are right, you have no choice but to sell the Microsoft OS, but the deal
they're offering you harms you in no way. (Unless you intended to sell PCs
with no OS at all.)

2) There are other realistic competing operating systems. In this case,
you were foolish to agree to Microsoft's deal. You lost out on the realistic
competing markets. That is, unless Windows only really was a better deal, in
which case you were wise to take the deal and have no reason to be upset.

To my way of thinking what MS did was similar to a the only magasine
wholesaler in town telling retailers it had to sell kiddie porn under
the table or pay full retail for all magazines.

Of course you pick an analogy where MS analogically peddles kiddie porn.
I can play the same game, watch this: What MS did was similar to the major
magazine wholesaler in a town telling retailers they must carry gay and
lesbian publications if they want to carry its mainstream magazines.

I broke my own ethical code rather than go out of business. I will
never forgive MS for putting me in that position.

You certainly have a legitimate personal grudge against MS.

DS

 

[Peter T. Breuer]

1) There is no other operating system worth selling. In this case, you
are right, you have no choice but to sell the Microsoft OS, but the deal
they're offering you harms you in no way. (Unless you intended to sell PCs
with no OS at all.)

2) There are other realistic competing operating systems. In this case,
you were foolish to agree to Microsoft's deal. You lost out on the realistic
competing markets. That is, unless Windows only really was a better deal, in
which case you were wise to take the deal and have no reason to be upset.

3) there are plenty of other OSs that are developed or could be
developed but which cannot get a foothold or even manage to be put on
the shelves because the majority product producer insists on charging
hardware manufacturers for every box produced, whether or not it carries
their o/s, and does other nasty things like sabotaging their own
products so they won't work with a clone o/s.

Sorry - that's not legal, fair, just, or good for the market. It means
that anybody with a 51% share of the market automatically gets 100%.

Stop this apologism now.

Peter

 

[David Schwartz]

3) there are plenty of other OSs that are developed or could be
developed but which cannot get a foothold or even manage to be put on
the shelves because the majority product producer insists on charging
hardware manufacturers for every box produced, whether or not it carries
their o/s, and does other nasty things like sabotaging their own
products so they won't work with a clone o/s.

How could he resell an OS that "could be developed"? If nobody wants
these operating systems, then it doesn't hurt him not to be able to sell
them. If people want them, then he could have shown Microsoft the door.

You are responding to an argument that was specifically about the effect
of this particular arrangement on this particular business. This third case
was not one that he could find himself in. In fact, it's case 1 for him.

Sorry - that's not legal, fair, just, or good for the market. It means
that anybody with a 51% share of the market automatically gets 100%.

That's just absolutely absurd. If some OS had 51% of the market, plenty
of other distributors and manufacturers would gladly take other 49%.

Stop this apologism now.

"Apologism"?

Merriam-Webster says: "The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary.
Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search box to
the right."

Dictionary.com says: "No entry found for apologism."

Fortunately I finally found what you mean, from
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/a/ap/apologism.htm which says:

Apologism is the metaphysical philosophy that argues that it is wrong for
humans to attempt to alter the conditions of life in the mortal sphere of
influence. It is opposed to the idea that absolute "progress" is a desirable
goal for the pursuit of human endeavors.

I'm not sure how I've said it's wrong for people to try to alter the
conditions of life. I strongly believe that progress is a desirable goal. In
fact, thanks to you, I now know that I am a meliorist. Never knew there was
a word for it and never knew there were people who weren't.

But then I found what I think you meant, "Apologetics is the field of
study concerned with the systematic defense of a position. Someone who
engages in apologetics is called an apologist." So perhaps you are asking me
to stop systematically defending my position. Don't worry, my defense is not
and has not been systematic.

DS

 

[Roedy Green]

2) There are other realistic competing operating systems. In this case,
you were foolish to agree to Microsoft's deal. You lost out on the realistic
competing markets. That is, unless Windows only really was a better deal, in
which case you were wise to take the deal and have no reason to be upset.

The actuality at the time was the vast majority of my business was
Windows. People would ask about OS/2 and when they asked around town
and discovered because of the MS dirty deal it cost way more, they
lost interest.

I could not have made a living selling only OS/2. It is was a very
difficult business to survive in as it was and I was already at a
disadvantage because of my insistence on not cutting corners the way
my competitors did. Every once in a while I run into one of my
machines I built back in the early 90s still going without a hitch
over a decade later.

I don't think I could make it clearer. What MS did was wrong and I
will to my dying day curse them for it. If I were a Christian, I
would put it this way. The pressured me into selling my soul.

They did not tempt me into it. They threatened to destroy my business
and my livelihood if I did not knuckle under. That is extortion.

 

[Eike Preuss]

How could he resell an OS that "could be developed"? If nobody wants
these operating systems, then it doesn't hurt him not to be able to sell
them. If people want them, then he could have shown Microsoft the door.

Shouldn't it be my right as a seller, to decide that I want to sell an
operating system 'that nobody wants' _as well as_ operating systems that
'everybody wants'? So it *hurts* me if I am not able to sell these. That
it doesn't hurt me financially doesn't mean that it doesn't hurt me
(e.g. my freedom, ideas of morality, whatever).

[big snip]

EP

 

[David Schwartz]

Shouldn't it be my right as a seller, to decide that I want to sell an
operating system 'that nobody wants' _as well as_ operating systems that
'everybody wants'?

Yes, it certainly is. However, it is also Microsoft's right as a seller
to refuse discounts to those who also sell competing products. You may not
particularly what operating systems your customers use, but Microsoft does.

So it *hurts* me if I am not able to sell these. That
it doesn't hurt me financially doesn't mean that it doesn't hurt me
(e.g. my freedom, ideas of morality, whatever).

You may want to start a restaurant that sells both Big Macs and
Whoppers. But I don't think you'll get either McDonald's or Burger King to
let you. Perhaps this hurts your freedom, your ideas of morality, or
whatever, but the reality is that these companys don't want you selling both
their products and competing products.

It is McDonald's position that a Big Mac is superior to a Whopper and
there is no reason to pick a Whopper over a Big Mac. To them, a store that
sells both makes no sense.

Microsoft's corporate view at the time was that an x86 desktop without
Windows was a brick. And if you want to sell bricks, they don't want their
customers dealing with you.

When you sell a product, you also mention that product in your
advertising. When you sell competing products, you take some customers who
want the product you advertised. That is why a lot of products are only sold
through exclusive dealerships.

Microsoft, like any other company, has the right to set the conditions
under which its product is sold. Prohibiting the distrubution of competing
products is not really all that unusal, and the agreement Microsoft actually
insisted on was much less restrictive than that.

Is it fair to Microsoft if the big "Windows" sign on your store and in
your advertising brings in customers looking for Windows and you then sell
them OS2?

DS

 

[Peter T. Breuer]

How could he resell an OS that "could be developed"?

Is it relevant? Why? Can you sell a voip solution that could be
developed? Is that relevant? No. No. No. No.

If nobody wants
these operating systems,

False premise, indeed, irrelevant premise, therefore rest of statememt
junked. No dumb client cares what o/s they are running. Do you care if
your mobile phone runs symbios of javalite? That's simply not the point
- the point is that the makers of symbios don't charge your mobile phone
manufacturer for every phone sold, whether symbios is on there or
not. Doing so is "restraint of trade", because, uh, it restrains the
manufactrers of mobile phones from exercising their market choices.

then it doesn't hurt him not to be able to sell

Who cares? It's to the advantage of sellers to create a monopoly! It's
not in YOUR, the customer's, advantage to have one, which is why there
are laws against it!

Go away!

Peter

 

[Not Bill Gates]

(e-mail address removed) wrote...

1) There is no other operating system worth selling. In this case, you
are right, you have no choice but to sell the Microsoft OS, but the deal
they're offering you harms you in no way. (Unless you intended to sell PCs
with no OS at all.)

2) There are other realistic competing operating systems. In this case,
you were foolish to agree to Microsoft's deal. You lost out on the realistic
competing markets. That is, unless Windows only really was a better deal, in
which case you were wise to take the deal and have no reason to be upset.

The flaw with this is that business owners don't get to decide what
the market wants. And the market wanted the Microsoft OS. Every
other OS in the market had bit player status, via the economic
principle called increasing returns.

You either sell what the market wants, or you go out of business.

 

[Peter T. Breuer]

Yes, it certainly is. However, it is also Microsoft's right as a seller
to refuse discounts to those who also sell competing products. You may not

No it is not their "right"! That would be a discriminatory practice,
not to mention an anti-competitive practice. Totally.

Peter

 

[joe]

(e-mail address removed) wrote...


The flaw with this is that business owners don't get to decide what
the market wants. And the market wanted the Microsoft OS. Every
other OS in the market had bit player status, via the economic
principle called increasing returns.

You either sell what the market wants, or you go out of business.

I'm hesitant to get into this, but I keep wondering why, if there is
no other competing OS, or not one worth worrying about, the MS
business agreements are so draconian? Why would a company come up with
such heavy handed agreements if it wasn't worried about competition?

Yes, I know, they can do whatever they want, it's not a crime,
etc. However when they use their market position to disallow
competition, it sounds to me like they're worried about something, and
trying to squelch it.

Joe

 

[John-Paul Stewart]

If nobody wants
these operating systems, then it doesn't hurt him not to be able to sell
them. If people want them, then he could have shown Microsoft the door.

If only 5% want another operating system, the vendor has to choose
between selling to those 5% -or- to the 95% who want Microsoft. Had it
not been for the underhanded tactics, he could have sold to *both* groups.

From a purely economic standpoint, the sensible thing is to accept that
95% and let the 5% go elsewhere.

But if *every* vendor has to make that same choice, there is no place
for that other 5% to go to buy another operating system. So the other
operating system(s) die off. And those 5% become customers of Microsoft
since there's no other choice left. And *that* is where the legal
problems start: they gained market share by preventing consumers from
finding competing products.

 

[Not Bill Gates]

(e-mail address removed) wrote...

I'm hesitant to get into this, but I keep wondering why, if there is
no other competing OS, or not one worth worrying about, the MS
business agreements are so draconian? Why would a company come up with
such heavy handed agreements if it wasn't worried about competition?

For the same reason that people put down bug spray, I guess: You
don't want any bugs showing up later and ruining your dinner party.

Yes, I know, they can do whatever they want, it's not a crime,
etc. However when they use their market position to disallow
competition, it sounds to me like they're worried about something, and
trying to squelch it.

Heck, I dunno. Like you, I don't even really care all that much.

Maybe they were trying to protect themselves against all the market
momentum they'd created around 0S/2. They'd been big fans of it
right up until Windows 3.0 took off.

 

[Steven D'Aprano]

The flaw with this is that business owners don't get to decide what
the market wants. And the market wanted the Microsoft OS. Every
other OS in the market had bit player status, via the economic
principle called increasing returns.

You either sell what the market wants, or you go out of business.

That is not true. The market was quite happy to buy competing products
such as DR DOS. What the market was not happy to do was buy DR DOS, but
pay for *both* DR DOS and MS DOS even though they only received DR DOS.

And that, in a nutshell, is why Microsoft's actions were illegal. They
were stealing from computer buyers: if you wished to buy an IBM-compatible
PC, you had to pay for MS DOS even if you didn't want it, and having paid
for it, there was no guarantee that you would receive it.

Most users didn't know that they were paying for MS DOS -- all they knew
was that MS DOS either came bundled with the PC automatically, or that if
they requested some other operating system, they ended up paying more
rather than less -- even when that other OS was cheaper than MS DOS.

Imagine that your corner store charged $1 for a Coke, $0.90 for a Pepsi,
and $5 for burger and Coke. If you asked for a burger on its own, the
price would still be $5. If you asked them for a burger and Pepsi, the
price would go up to $5.90 -- and the Coca-Cola company would still get
their dollar for the Coke you didn't get, plus another dollar for the same
Coke when the next customer bought it.

If only one or two stores did this, then the market would correct
itself: people who wanted Pepsi, or a burger without Coke, would go
elsewhere, and save a dollar.

But in the case of Microsoft, there was no practical "elsewhere" to go to.
All the resellers did the same thing. Virtually the only alternative,
buying an Apple Macintosh, was more or less the equivalent of driving to
the next state to buy a $10 steak when what you wanted was a $5 burger.

The situation was, pay Microsoft for MS DOS or go without a PC. Since
users were either unaware of the situation, or unable to change it, they
did the rational thing: why pay for a Coke and then pay again for a Pepsi
if you just want any old drink? A few die-hard DR DOS supporters paid
double for the product they wanted, and helped enrich Microsoft. The rest
simply took the path of least resistance: if you're going to pay for a
Coke no matter what, you might as well drink it.

The thing with markets is that they only lead to efficient outcomes when
there is sufficient competition. That's why anti-competitive behaviour is
a bad thing, and is illegal in just about every country in the world.
(Whether the laws are enforced is another story.) A few people, blinded by
ideology, deny the evidence of their own experiences by insisting that
monopolies do no harm.

See, for instance, the contrasting situation in hardware and software.

As compilers and other tools have evolved, it has become easier to develop
software. Distributing it has also become easier: in 1985, Word came
on five or six floppies worth perhaps a dollar each, with two or three
kilograms of paper manuals. Today, you get a single CD worth maybe twenty
five cents. In the case of Windows, often all you will get is a licence
number, not even the media. The cost of distributing Windows is
essentially zero. And yet over that same twenty year period, the cost of
the operating system has more or less doubled in price.

Hardware, on the other hand, has fallen in price by perhaps 90%, while
simultaneously becoming far more capable. The PC I bought in 1986 for
$4000 probably had less computing power than the DVD drive I paid $40 for
this year.

There is one desktop operating system vendor with monopoly power. There
are hundreds of hardware vendors competing on price and features. Only
those blinded by ideology fail to see the connection.