It's sad because Microsoft's software doesn't totally suck. They could compete without resorting to dirty tricks. They don't need to take out the competition before people even have a chance to make a choice. Let customers choose and Microsoft will still be a favorite, just not the only option.

Take out the competition?

You mean the competition that the Linux and Mac zealots constantly trumpet as growing daily??

Let customers choose and Microsoft will still be a favorite, just not the only option.

Sounds quite a bit like how it is right now, actually.

Let's go back to basic:

Is customer worst off by buying system with Windows and/or Office installed?

Or put it this way. Is customer better off by install Linux and OO on their computer?

That's pretty subjective. Depends on how the system will be used, and who's using it.

I feel...for the sake of pitdingo who posted 20 single line replies on this thread saying "MS is a monopoly"...that we need to define for him what a monopoly is exactly:

n economics, a monopoly (from the Greek monos, one + polein, to sell) is defined as a persistent market situation where there is only one provider of a kind of product or service. Monopolies are characterized by a lack of economic competition for the good or service that they provide and a lack of viable substitute goods.

Now given this persons post history I really don't expect him to actually understand what all of that means, but hey, we can give it one last try right?:)

Anwyay...lets look at the definition, shalll we?

"market situation where there is only one provider of a kind of product or service. "

I don't know...I use ubuntu, redhat and CentOS linux at work, my friend uses nothing but macs at home, I have a windows laptop at home...to me that sounds like there is more then one provider for this type of product.

"Monopolies are characterized by a lack of economic competition for the good"

Last I checked...Apple has been gaining ground...not only that, but linux is a VERY large competitor in the server market. We use about 30% linux servers at work...and MS isn't here telling us they'll shut down our Windows servers for doing that or anything like that.

"lack of viable substitute goods. "

Again...plenty of substitute goods.

This argument might be a little different 5 or 6 years ago...but, we are in 2007 now last time I checked and things have changed. Some people are just stuck in time, I guess.

Thank you.

That summed it up *very* nicely.

He still won't get it, but it's an excellent summation.

Very good, thanks.

All of you that are bashing MS, take a look at this article and tell me what is the difference please:

http://www.betanews.com/..._Over_HD_DVD/1185464777

Last i checked, Sony is not a monopolist. things work a bit different when you have a monopoly.

Last I checked, Microsoft isn't a "monopolist" either...

So what exactly is wrong with a company giving incentives for loyalty?? I don't get it. Sprint PCS will give you a discount for buying a new phone after a certain period of time and the amount will also differ depending on how long you've been with them. It's just an incentive for sprint to keep you as customer. It's the same thing that microsoft is doing so what is wrong with that?

so basically you can't read just a few lines down about monopolies?

oh wait....that's right, people don't care about learning things.

This sounds like a precursor to another frivolous lawsuit like the frivolous antitrust lawsuits in the USA, EU and South Korea.

Yes, frivolous antitrust lawsuits. That's why Microsoft LOST those lawsuits and has been forced to play fair.

thats why intel, amd and many other companies do it without a problem right? well intel did get in a bit of trouble, but amd's defense was that they can do it but intel cant because they have majority of market share. not their fault they have grown that big...

What appears people are missing is the fact that Microsoft is a "MONOPOLY". That is the sole difference between Microsoft paying for loyalty and Intel or anyone else doing it. (unless another company is a monopoly too)

There are different rules when a company is a monopoly and has been convicted in multiple international courts to be a monopoly.

It's not that people hate Microsoft and are trying to rid the buggy software makers, they are just trying to fix the "monopoly" problem.

Did that clear anything up? Didn't think so.

Continue on with your M$ ba$hing or fanboyi$m

dude, the M$ droids on here have no idea what you are talking about. When they hear "monopoly" they think you mean the board game.

...or they perhaps understand what a monopoly is. Unlike yourself.

"The GVH sensed that (Microsoft) likely applied a system of conditions and benefits -- rewards for loyalty -- for the most significant software distributors which gave no incentive to these distributors in selling other products competing with Microsoft Office software,"

This sounds dumb. Maybe lost in translation?

Why would or should Microsoft give any software distributor an incentive to sell competing products? Should Ford pay Chevy dealers the same incentives they pay their own dealers when the Chevy dealer sells a car?

There must be a translation issue or some Hungarian law we are not familiar with. What is wrong with "rewards for loyalty" ?

There must be because I am wondering the same thing.

Let me translate by giving an example....

M$ Monopolist: If you don't sell any competing products, i will give you a 20% discount on M$ products

PC Builder: Yes, my master

Good example, but is that illegal?

Simmons Mattress: Hey mega furniture store, if you only sell my mattresses, then I'll cut your costs by 20%.
Mega Furniture: OK!

This happens all the time with no secrecy.

I'm stunned, shocked, in disbelief well no not really. It's just Microsofts thinking in the box, but it's effective, somewhat.

Doesn't Intel do this type of thing, oh yeah, that's different I forgot.

LOL. And all the M$ drones keep on doubting my M$ monopoly statements.

Wow I wish I was as cool as you and could use $'s in place of S's

Come on buddy that is so 10 years ago.

aaawwwwwww....$omebody i$ pi$$y!

It's actually more of a doubt of your basic intelligence, not any specific statements. :p

Why? Because they got raided because someone thinks they may be doing something?

These types of things happen all the time to all big companies...you just don't hear about them very often.

maybe cause you are an idiot?

i try

i have no idea what you are trying to say.

Some would say you are very trying. :p

there is a very fine line between genius and insanity.

I don't expect you to...I know how easily you get confused.

You still can't figure out if you should download HD movies or buy them?

You may be right.

Perhaps you are intelligent.

Bat-sh*t crazy...but intelligent.

Who'da thunk it?

How is different if Sony or MS to give game developers incentive if they only exclusive for their console system?

Or Cellular companies offer incentive plan that's not available to loyal customers?

xyzcb1 - So, you don't dispute it's wrong - but other people also do things wrong, so they should be let off?

You might want to stop for a moment and think of a new argument...

ms does do that, sony has been quoted on not buying exclusives so doesn't make ms look any better to bring it up

what quote?

http://darkzero.co.uk/v4...hey-wont-buy-exclusives

"we have a very different approach to exclusives than some of our competitors. We don't buy exclusivity. We don't fund development. We don't, for lack of a better term, bribe somebody to only do a game on our platform"
oh yea that quote, that made it into psm and just the phrase we don't buy exclusives brings like top 5 references in google for it.

"How is different if Sony or MS to give game developers incentive if they only exclusive for their console system?"

You're comparing apples and oranges here. Buying exclusive game titles for your console is NOT the same as paying "incentives" to make sure your software is sold along with PCs. A more apt comparison would be to say, MS or Sony pays an "incentive" to Walmart to only sell their console. That is NOT fair. Buying exclusive titles for your console as an "incentive" to get people to buy YOUR console rather than the competing console, that is totally fair.

To put it simply: it's about giving the consumer a choice. Even if Microsoft buy a specific game to make it exclusive to their console, you can still go buy a competing console. It's your choice. But when Microsoft pays OEMs to only ship Office or whatever Microsoft product installed on the computers, you have no choice. The choice is removed and you are FORCED to buy their product. That's the difference.

"oh yea that quote, that made it into psm and just the phrase we don't buy exclusives brings like top 5 references in google for it."

Oh yeah, and Sony has never lied, mislead or deceived their "loyal" customers and the public in general, right? Please. We all know how many truth telling contests Sony has won so far.

His example was a bit off the beaten path, but you are missing something as well. Microsoft doesn't have to offer the consumer only but what it wants. If it fails to offer what the public wants, the will go broke. The can enter into "pay for loyalty" agreements as long as both companies agree.

If Walmart enters into that agreement, it is they that are not offering choice to the consumer. At last check, regular joe consumer cannot buy directly from MS, but has to go through companies like Walmart. It is in Walmart's best interest to offer a wide selection to gain favor of its customers.

Therefore, unless Walmart was forced into this agreement, or in this case the Hungarian comapny, they have not broken the law.(unless there is a law in Hungary we are not aware of).

This sounds like there could be more to the story then what we are hearing, but maybe Hungarians like to bash MS as well. This is not to say that they(MS) hasn't done anything in their past to warrant it, but some people just can't move on.

Today, I see a company that is not doing anything differently than most companies in business. Whether here or Japan.

If you can offer any proof to the fact that consumers were FORCED, I really would appreciate it. I would concede your every point.

how is it wrong? just cause they happen to have the largest market share isnt their fault, it just means they dont have very good competition.

Perhaps it is because M$ is a monopoly?

or they got that market share from being an illegal monopoly?

You seem to be stuck on this. They were considered an illegal monopoly by the hacks in the DOJ back when '95 was released.

You need to come to grips with the fact that that is long over. That it is 2007 now and not only has the market changed dramatically, but that the other competitive options are actually *gaining* ground, not losing it.

Be definition, a comapny cannot be a monopoly *and* be losing marketshare.

Monopolies don't lose marketshare.

Microsoft is losing ground on many fronts.

Why?

Because options exist, competition exists, and the market has changed since 1995. Microsoft is *not* a monopoly, by any stretch of the imagination.

You need a kick in the backside since the record is stuck same thing said line after line.

Well, that is a sad leg to stand on.

I don't see where the consumer doesn't have a choice. There are alternatives to Windows. Second, alot of those are free - some pay. Popular doesn't mean monopoly.

Furthermore, you don't see people running to the stores to buy those, and those that do, have the outlet in which to buy. Microsoft doesn't even have to coerse people to buy shelf space, because the sheer volume of people that look to buy their products take up space due to demand.

If you don't want to buy their products, don't. The offer a wide arena of products that compete well with other companies, just other companies are not competing well with Windows. This is hardly their fault these days.