They were on "pins and needles" in every market. It wasn't because of the CDC, and like, suits, though. The '56 consent decree really handicapped them. It wasn't removed until '00, or there abouts.
People voting with their wallets, AKA market penetration. You couldn't give OS/2 away (sadly) and still can't give Linux away.
Because the "market is controlled by one company" does not mean there is anything wrong. There is no law against being a monopoly. However, M$ is no saint, either. There were many violations of the "anti-trust" laws, but they didn't "get caught". The plain fact is that people do WANT Windows(whatever).
Wrong. We're still using the same microprocessor architecture, too. That won't change until the PC is obsolete, and neither with the junk riding on top of the hardware.
No, it means that people want to buy it. Again, you can't give the "competition" away. That says something.
On the products I worked on, it required >40% (some wanted in excess of 60%) to stay in business. The investment is huge.
There is a big difference in these markets and companies. You can't compare margins directly.
BTW, what do you think the maximum legal margin should be?
picked to provide the OS determined who would ride the DC/PC revolution. The only thing stopping them from doing it themselves was fear of another anti-trust suit. They picked Gates, not because he had an OS to sell, but because the CEO or President of IBM, I don't recall which, was friends with Gates mother. Gates had to go out and find a workable OS, and he bought DOS from Patterson, for $100 grand. Gates eventually hired Patterson, because Gates and friends couldn't figure out how DOS even worked, and seems they never did, from the garbage they put out. Hard to imagine a company like IBM signing a contract with someone that had nothing to sell, but that's exactly what they did.
You might want to mention that to the several millionaires that were made producing OSs long before MS/IBM entered the party. I personally know at least one.
whatever reason, chose MS. That meant that if you wanted to write software, sell software, or have anything to do with PC's, you had to go with MS because that was the platform IBM used. Those that attempted to get a foot in the door of any retail outlet was quickly stomped on by MS threatening the retailer to either withdraw their license to sell MS or with super high price for the product. Since IBM had set the stage for MS, if a retailer ignored MS threats, they were doomed, so they didn't, and no "feet" got in the door. All other products were like farts in the wind, had no chance, mattered not if they were good, bad or indifferent. They eventually all went away, which is exactly what monopolies do to the competition. Even if you think you know more than judge Sporkin, who listened to years of testimony laying out how MS violated anti-trust laws, and found them super guilty of violating a nti
monopoly. Well you can, but then you would be spouting nonsense.
And this "lack of competition" is why we have more choices than ever today? Your narrative is falling apart in the face of observable reality.
MS made sure of it, and it was proven in court after the fact in 1995.
cell phone market, or the meat market. They dominate over 90% of the DT market, they have a lousy product that is only "good enough" because the average consumer has little choice when shopping the DT market.
Most of the systems I mentioned are available in desktop variants. Some, like Ubuntu, are very, very good. You know why they don't get selected? Because MOST people don't want to tinker with a computer, they just want to USE it. Microsoft gets them there at a very low cost and, these days, with a very robust product.
market pans out.
not a monopoly all day long, you will be wrong.
When there are a dozen *free* alternatives, it's not a monopoly.
profit. They were broken up because they had monopolies and either were not as corrupt as MS or Government was not as corrupt in their day, or some combination of both.
The oil companies' cost to produce it dominated by drilling costs. Software marginal cost for additional units is very low. This is not evil, it is Econ 101.
expect from a monopoly. They have been "bulletproof" for around 25 years, what happens in the future is a guess, the past is undeniable.
competing products and by changing the environment so software, often even their own, would not work between upgrades. This was deliberate to control the market, and it worked.
anti-trust violations and all they got was a slap on the hands, and a dire need to contribute vast donations to those in charge of the "rule of law". The current regime is even worse, and thinks the "rule of law" is for you, not them.
You desperately need to read a good book on economics. I'd suggest "Economics In Lesson" by Hazlitt. You're not even close to calling what's going at Microsoft accurately ....
30? 40? Man, oh man! Do I have a bridge to sell you! Try 500% for starters... Withness the crap that has been the world economy since the GFC - is anyone seriously complaining? Hey, if they can find the suckers - and obviously they can - then all the power to them.
It was next to impossible to buy a copy of OS/2. Most every PC was sold with DOS/WIN installed. You could NOT get anything else installed unless you bought from some geek down the street. Retailers did not install OS/2 or anything else, and if they tried, MS would pull their license or remove the fake discount MS gave them. Worse, the retailers rarely had copies of OS/2 to sell, either because IBM didn't provide them copies, or, because again, fear of MS punishing anyone that sold something other than MS OS.
IBM wanted MS to develop a system that they could use for their ATM machines, and DOS/WIN was crap (still is) MS either was too dumb (my guess) or had some other lame reason to not be able to deliver. (I recall it said that MS told IBM it was not possible) IBM then did it themselves in about a year, and it was awesome. IBM killed it's development when it was selling a million copies a month despite their lack of support. My opinion is they never wanted that part of the market because of the "pins and needles" mentioned above. At the time, there was an obvious, and uncomfortable disconnect between IBM OS/2 team and the rest of the company. It became clear IBM had no intention of moving in on MS, why is open for speculation.
Excuse me, but their is a law, and it's called the Sherman anti-trust act. MS was found in violation of it, just as IBM, AT&T were, and others. If a company dominates a market with over 90% control, makes excessive profits (over 30%) and does it with CRAP, you can begin to get suspicious of monopoly problems. If that doesn't float your boat, you can try to find out what Judge Sporkin said after hearing the case brought against MS by the DOJ.
"anti-trust" laws, but they
Well, MS DID get caught, that is the plain fact. Saying people do want windows is stupid, 9 out of 10 users could not even name another product let alone want it. My doctor was bitching about their new Obama computer system going down. I asked her if it was windows, she said she didn't know. I said normally only windows crashes routinely. She then said "come to think of it, the windows logo does come up when she reboots." She's a freaking doctor and doesn't even know what she is running, but you can bet she WANTS windows right?
Why would you need 60% profit to stay in business. Most business gets by on less than 10%, particularly large companies like IBM and Exxon whose investment is huge.
I can compare profits directly, why can't you?
I don't think there should be a maximum profit margin. I think profits far above average should raise suspicions of anti-competitive practices. When profits are high, quality low, and potential competitors are bitching up a storm because they can't get in the door, as in MS case, they should be investigated just as in MS was. The judge found MS GUILTY, it's not just me. He found MS so guilty in fact, he sent it back to the DOJ for more than the wrist slap they were seeking. The DOJ appealed their VICTORY. Something victors do every day after winning in court, right? It would be like you suing McDonald's for a $1000, and the judge saying, guilty, but you need to get more redress for the damage done, and you appeal saying nope, only want a $1000... It was around then MS started with large political donations, funny how many ways the public can get screwed by government.
Also wrong. There were companies that built OS/2 systems, just like there are companies today that will build Linux systems. Few want them. It's no surprise that Dell doesn't go for that infinitesimal market.
*Some* retailers, true. Others specialized in OS/2. No one wanted it. Sad, but true.
It wasn't "pins and needles". It was *NO*MARKET*. The money just wasn't there to justify keeping it. Soon the whole PC business (minus some servers) was sold off. No money in it.
Rent a clue. Sherman doesn't say anything about having a monopoly. It can be used to *restrict* the actions of a monopoly holder, but it doesn't prevent a monopoly, at all.
Stop lying.
...then what happened?
"anti-trust" laws, but they
For some warped definition of "caught", perhaps.
Saying that they don't is asinine. Most wouldn't know what to do without it.
That, alone, should tell you something.
Why would you expect a doctor to know, or care?
Ask her if the wants Linux.
Because of the expense of staying in business. It has to be worthwhile to justify the bother.
Perhaps you haven't figured it out yet, but there is a lot more to business than one number.
picked to provide the OS determined who would ride the DC/PC revolution. The only thing stopping them from doing it themselves was fear of another anti-trust suit. They picked Gates, not because he had an OS to sell, but because the CEO or President of IBM, I don't recall which, was friends with Gates mother. Gates had to go out and find a workable OS, and he bought DOS from Patterson, for $100 grand. Gates eventually hired Patterson, because Gates and friends couldn't figure out how DOS even worked, and seems they never did, from the garbage they put out. Hard to imagine a company like IBM signing a contract with someone that had nothing to sell, but that's exactly what they did.
Surely you are not going to compare an almost nonexistent PC/Desktop market pre-IBM PC with a millionaire you know vs the IBM/MS PC revolution controlled by MS which made a ton of billionaires via almost total control of the DT OS market?
When you control 90% of the DT market, and about no one can market a competitive product, you in fact, have a monopoly.
Funny, when I go to Best Buy, or Gateway, or Dell, or Staples, or about any DT retailer, I can't find all these alternatives for sale.
The fact that Microsoft knows how to prosper and maintain
profit. They were broken up because they had monopolies and either were not as corrupt as MS or Government was not as corrupt in their day, or some combination of both.
No, this is stupid and has nothing to do with one company dominating over 90% of a market. In fact, just the opposite should happen. If development costs are low, as in software, competition should be stiff, if development costs are high, like in oil, competition should hard to find. It is just the opposite in MS case. Basic econ 101.
You read the book, and perhaps you might be able to say something meaningful other than MS is wonderful despite being found guilty of violations of the anti-trust laws. I thought you were smarter than this. Besides, I experienced the entire MS fiasco first hand. I knew what was going on before the good judge rendered his verdict, I was in the stores trying to buy alternative software, I was intimately familiar with DOS, UNIX and OS/2, even deskView for that matter. I knew what worked, what didn't, the strengths and weaknesses of all of them, and MS sucked, big time. Deskview was a DOS multitasker, it was as bad as windows, but amazingly, actually worked. OS/2 was the system that really worked and should have replaced Windows. It was said to be the windows that worked, and that was pretty close to correct. OS/2 could have easily replaced windows, and there was no technical reason it didn't.
A PC was never found in any decent size business until IBM's name went on the box.
You are correct in saying IBM essentially created the PC market and not Gates.
Now we should laugh about IBM and how they disconnected all interrupts in their boxes so all I/O was done by polling...LOL YUK!!!!
------------- "Jack" wrote in message news:j7iv03$n7d$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me... You read the book, and perhaps you might be able to say something meaningful other than MS is wonderful despite being found guilty of violations of the anti-trust laws. I thought you were smarter than this. Besides, I experienced the entire MS fiasco first hand. I knew what was going on before the good judge rendered his verdict, I was in the stores trying to buy alternative software, I was intimately familiar with DOS, UNIX and OS/2, even deskView for that matter. I knew what worked, what didn't, the strengths and weaknesses of all of them, and MS sucked, big time. Deskview was a DOS multitasker, it was as bad as windows, but amazingly, actually worked. OS/2 was the system that really worked and should have replaced Windows. It was said to be the windows that worked, and that was pretty close to correct. OS/2 could have easily replaced windows, and there was no technical reason it didn't.
Indeed. After all, IBM contracted Gates' company to produce the OS for the PC, after they couldn't contact the guy from Digital Research. (it also helped that Gates' Mum was on the board of IBM but let's not go there now...)
Most of what IBM did with the PC was laughable but that is a totally other story, I'm afraid...
Well while I agree that 500% is pretty darn high, it is not unheard of of providing we are talking about GP vs net. Although profit margins are generally focused on GP and not net.
Clothing is one that comes to mind. For example a Columbia Sportswear Outlet store near me sell shirts for $11.99. I have seen the exact same brand and style shirt on their web site and at sporting goods stores for $65.00. While the $11.99 is a marked down price the store is making a profit. Guess where I buy these shirts from?
Valve stems for you vehicle tires. When I was in the tire business the stems cost me 10 cents each, sold them for $1 each.
You might want to think further back. Initial PC's had no OS installed. Back in the mid 80's PC/DOS not to be confused with MS/DOS was a very common OS that came with many if not most, if they were not IBM PC's. My ATT 6300 came with that software. Also, many comnputers back then only had floppy drives, a 10 meg HD was a $500 option,
IIRC MS/DOS was only coming on IBM and Windows did not start showing up on PC's until hard drives were common and version 3.0 came out.
I do recall buying a different OS back then that was about $25 IIRC.
Yeah, and little market for DT/OS's until Gates bought his for the IBM PC from Patterson for 100g's. Once that happened, the door was soon closed on all competing DT/PC OS's. Gates and IBM made certain of that, and the home PC market has been paying the price ever since.
UNIX was developed by Kernighan and Ritchie around 1975, long before Gates bought his OS for the PC. Before that, things were rough, caveman like. So rough, they decided to develop a low level programing language, C, just to help code the OS. Pure genius, unlike Gates, who is more of a dunce compared to these two. Windows still hasn't caught up to UNIX after quarter century of work by the competent jerks at MS.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.