"In a bid to slow iPad adoption by enterprise customers ..."
sorry, but this is a silly emotional projection by AI about MS' motives. everything really isn't always about Apple, you know? $25 per iPad is not a sufficient extra amount to make any difference whatsoever in the purchasing decisions of any corporation. it's peanuts. the costs that matter are most of all total support/training costs, which amount to many hundreds of dollars per year per employee, and overall resulting employee efficiency.
what MS is actually doing is tacking on one more small charge to its lucrative enterprise services to reap some more revenue from the boom in tablet deployments by businesses. this is part of their classic 'nickel and dime' strategy for pricing those services. this way they will make some more money thanks to the expanding use of the iPad and any other tablets.
sure, they may not charge the fee for their own Windows tablets. that is accurately termed a "discount." but of course they are selling the Windows license to the tablet OEM for about the same amount anyway, so the business winds up paying something to MS either way.
all this foaming at the mouth here is much ado about nothing.
That's a logical view...</p><p> </p><p> But MS is a monopoly and their actions are viewed from a different perspective. AIR, MS ran into similar difficulties with IE. </p><p> </p><p> I suspect that DOJ and the EU will watch this with interest.</p><p> </p><p> Of course, W8 OS may fail of its own accord -- on both the desktop and tablets.</p>
But does MS have a monopoly in the appropriate context? They certainly do for a desktop OS but this license doesn't artificially support that position. Instead it helps prop up a currently non-existant tablet OS market.
But what of we count all versions of their OS as one market? Thr would mean we include iOS for iPad in the equation alongside Mac OS X. Does MS have a monopoly when you consider the number of iPads being sold? I wouldn't think so.
PS: I am on the BB Edit settings and I'm still HTML code in my replies which requires clean up before posting a reply. This is making me not want to use AI forums as much simply because of the extra hassle involved.
This will be a problem for MS, additional tax for the privilege to use an OS that is not geared for corporate environments.
Every company I work with has zero plans to migrate from 7.
They now have there desktops now fully functional with 7 and users finally trained.
There is no huge benefit for a company to spend the license fees and the training expense for the new OS they do not want, AGAIN!!!!!, in such a short period.
I have been beta testing the 8 and I can tell you right now this is not going to work in corporate unless they turn off tiles.
I see a terrible adoption rate for this version.
Windows 9 will fix Windows 8 like Windows 7 fixed Windows Vista.
I am not a Windows basher at all, I actually like Windows 7.
It is a most stable version of Windows since Windows 2000.
However Windows 8 is the biggest mistake MS has made since Windows ME.
They are trying to compete with Apple and Android to go after consumer market, tisk tisk … Big Mistake.
I won't even go into there numerous mistakes they have made in virtualization and the way they have tried to punish enviros using Citrix or VMWare
You're right.
This appears to be an incredibly stupid and clumsy move by MS, which will back fire horribly.
This is worse than shooting themselves in the foot - its more like cutting their head off to spite their face!
As it is, Windows 8 is going to be a hard, uphill sell to the enterprise sector. They have just given one more important reason for organisations NOT to move to Windows 8!
MS are not winning any friends with this farcical move. One just has to look at the overwhelming critical tenor of the posts here to see that!
The article says that non-Windows tablets will need to pay a fee and that Windows tablets will be free.
That may be an illegal use of a monopoly position to restrain trade or suppress competition.
If you are too dense/stubborn to understand that, then do a web search for
"ms ie eu lawsuit".
As to the tone of your recent responses to my posts... It is unfortunate that my posts don't meet with your satisfaction !
I have as much a right to post here as anyone... and do not seek your approval -- now, get off my back!
I hope you enjoy the company of zither and gator on my block list!l.
As to the bolded, that's NOT what it says. It says that a client license to connect to Windows server is included in the Windows RT software. As long as the amount that they allocate to server access is the same as what they charge for licenses for iPad and Android, there's no problem. Since you don't have any idea how much a Windows RT license costs, much less how much they're allocating to server licensing or how much they're charging for iPad access, your claims that it's illegal are unfounded.
As for the rest, I really couldn't care less. Since you seem to think that you can make any argument you want without evidence and people should just bow down and worship your arguments rather than ask you to back them up, I really don't care if you respond to me. I'd rather discuss things with people who are able to be rational and back up their arguments.
This appears to be an incredibly stupid and clumsy move by MS, which will back fire horribly.
This is worse than shooting themselves in the foot - its more like cutting their head off to spite their face!
As it is, Windows 8 is going to be a hard, uphill sell to the enterprise sector. They have just given one more important reason for organisations NOT to move to Windows 8!
MS are not winning any friends with this farcical move. One just has to look at the overwhelming critical tenor of the posts here to see that!
Why would this negatively affect anyone's move to Windows 8?
Now, it MIGHT negatively affect someone considering Windows 2012 since they might have to pay extra client license fees, but it shouldn't affect anyone buying Windows 8.
That's a logical view...</p><p> </p><p> But MS is a monopoly and their actions are viewed from a different perspective. AIR, MS ran into similar difficulties with IE. </p><p> </p><p> I suspect that DOJ and the EU will watch this with interest.</p><p> </p><p> Of course, W8 OS may fail of its own accord -- on both the desktop and tablets.</p>
But does MS have a monopoly in the appropriate context? They certainly do for a desktop OS but this license doesn't artificially support that position. Instead it helps prop up a currently non-existant tablet OS market.
But what of we count all versions of their OS as one market? Thr would mean we include iOS for iPad in the equation alongside Mac OS X. Does MS have a monopoly when you consider the number of iPads being sold? I wouldn't think so.
PS: I am on the BB Edit settings and I'm still HTML code in my replies which requires clean up before posting a reply. This is making me not want to use AI forums as much simply because of the extra hassle involved.
I am certainly no expert in misuse of monopoly powers.
However, I did work for IBM in their heyday years and we had to attend annual awareness sessions to be sure that we did not do anything that even looked like abuse of monopoly power.
I think what would apply here, is that MS is using its dominant position in the OS marketplace to try to compete unfairly in the tablet marketplace.
This is somewhat similar to the way that MS used its OS position to compete unfairly in the browser marketplace.
I don't understand your P.S about being on BBEdit settings…
With my new iPad, I've found that posting on any forum is better because of the dictation.
I am certainly no expert in misuse of monopoly powers.
However, I did work for IBM in their heyday years and we had to attend annual awareness sessions to be sure that we did not do anything that even looked like abuse of monopoly power.
I think what would apply here, is that MS is using its dominant position in the OS marketplace to try to compete unfairly in the tablet marketplace.
This is somewhat similar to the way that MS used its OS position to compete unfairly in the browser marketplace.
But we don't know if MS is competing unfairly in the tablet space. Several people have convicted them without knowing the facts.
Let's say that MS decides to license Windows RT for $20 per unit (paid to their tablet OS unit) and adds on $10 per unit to be paid to their server unit. Then they charge $5 per iPad or Android device (paid to their server unit) for a client license.
First, the amount paid would be GREATER with the Windows RT device. Second, every Windows RT device would be paying it whether they are going to use it or not. So they could be putting their product at a disadvantage.
We just don't know enough about the terms to know if what they're doing is illegal (or even unethical) or not.
Besides, Microsoft stole SQL Server from Sybase. Remember Sybase? No? I guess that's what happens to you when someone gets away with stealing your IP.
I remember it quite well...a nice implementation. Though Microsoft stole nothing - Sybase entered into an agreement with Microsoft to share source code. Once they split, MS got no more code so the implementations cleanly separated.
I believe Sybase is still used in the DoD due to a great deal (for the military.)
I remember it quite well...a nice implementation. Though Microsoft stole nothing - Sybase entered into an agreement with Microsoft to share source code. Once they split, MS got no more code so the implementations cleanly separated.
I believe Sybase is still used in the DoD due to a great deal (for the military.)
But we don't know if MS is competing unfairly in the tablet space. Several people have convicted them without knowing the facts.
Let's say that MS decides to license Windows RT for $20 per unit (paid to their tablet OS unit) and adds on $10 per unit to be paid to their server unit. Then they charge $5 per iPad or Android device (paid to their server unit) for a client license.
First, the amount paid would be GREATER with the Windows RT device. Second, every Windows RT device would be paying it whether they are going to use it or not. So they could be putting their product at a disadvantage.
We just don't know enough about the terms to know if what they're doing is illegal (or even unethical) or not.
First of all, those sort of accounting tricks aren't going to fool anyone, should they attempt to justify themselves using your logic.
Secondly, and most to the point, the issue is that a convicted monopolist, Microsoft, it could be argued, is leveraging that monopoly position to take over other markets, which would clearly be an antitrust violation if it were deemed to be the case. So, the issue doesn't have anything to do with their position in the tablet market, it's all about their Windows monopoly and whether they are leveraging it to advance themselves in the tablet market.
But does MS have a monopoly in the appropriate context? They certainly do for a desktop OS but this license doesn't artificially support that position. Instead it helps prop up a currently non-existant tablet OS market. ...
See above. Key phrases: "convicted monopolist", "leveraging monopoly"
See above. Key phrases: "convicted monopolist", "leveraging monopoly"</p>
1) So if you were guilty in the past you are automatically guilty in the future no matter the case? I certainly don't agree with that outlook toward corporations or people.
2) What monopoly in the tablet market are they leveraging, which is what this issue is addressing? I'm being generous by saying they have 1% market share.
1) So if you were guilty in the past you are automatically guilty in the future no matter the case? I certainly don't agree with that outlook toward corporations or people.
2) What monopoly in the tablet market are they leveraging, which is what this issue is addressing? I'm being generous by saying they have 1% market share.
You're not usually this obtuse so I'll have another go at phrasing this point. No-one is suggesting MS has a monopoly in the tablet market. They do have a working monopoly in the desktop market. They question is whether they are leveraging the latter to aid them in the former. Anonymouse is not saying that, having been found guilty of monopolistic behaviour in the past, MS should pre prejudged forevermore. Rather, they are suggesting that it is in MS's character and so we shouldn’t be surprised when people suggest that they might be up to it again.
See above. Key phrases: "convicted monopolist", "leveraging monopoly"</p>
1) So if you were guilty in the past you are automatically guilty in the future no matter the case? I certainly don't agree with that outlook toward corporations or people.
2) What monopoly in the tablet market are they leveraging, which is what this issue is addressing? I'm being generous by saying they have 1% market share.
I agree with your take on number one above. However, if MS had been smart they would've settled before being convicted.
As to number two, I think what he is saying is that the MS Monopoly in Desktop Windows could be unfairly used by MS to sell MS Windows tablets -- by giving Windows Tablets an unfair cost advantage to access apps on the desktop machine.
I believe that the fact that there is no charge now, but MS is adding a new charge only for non-Windows access in the future, gives away their intentions.
First of all, those sort of accounting tricks aren't going to fool anyone, should they attempt to justify themselves using your logic.
Secondly, and most to the point, the issue is that a convicted monopolist, Microsoft, it could be argued, is leveraging that monopoly position to take over other markets, which would clearly be an antitrust violation if it were deemed to be the case. So, the issue doesn't have anything to do with their position in the tablet market, it's all about their Windows monopoly and whether they are leveraging it to advance themselves in the tablet market.
First, those "accounting tricks" would be absolutely legal. No need to fool anyone.
Second, even a convicted monopolist is innocent until proven guilty. As I pointed out, there is no evidence that establishes that Microsoft has done anything illegal and no one has come up with a convincing argument that they did so. All we have is a bunch of people piling on saying "it could be an antitrust violation because Microsoft is a convicted monopolist". Fortunately for them, it takes a lot more than that to convict.
If you have any evidence on how the licenses are set up, then feel free to show exactly how they've violated antitrust laws. Until then, you're only guessing without any foundation.
As to number two, I think what he is saying is that the MS Monopoly in Desktop Windows could be unfairly used by MS to sell MS Windows tablets -- by giving Windows Tablets an unfair cost advantage to access apps on the desktop machine.
Precisely. Using their established Windows PC monopoly to muscle their way into other markets. The fact that they are a convicted monopolist is entirely to the point as well because it's that very monopoly that they are using as leverage to gain market share in the new market. This is exactly the sort of thing monopolists are not permitted to do. It's also exactly what got them into trouble in the first place, attempting (and succeeding for a time) to use their Windows monopoly to take over the browser market.
Personally, I don't think it's going to buy them much traction in tablets, it may even hurt their (PC) Windows business in the long run, but it's definitely the sort of activity that merits anti-trust scrutiny, just because of their (PC) Windows monopoly.
Precisely. Using their established Windows PC monopoly to muscle their way into other markets. The fact that they are a convicted monopolist is entirely to the point as well because it's that very monopoly that they are using as leverage to gain market share in the new market. This is exactly the sort of thing monopolists are not permitted to do. It's also exactly what got them into trouble in the first place, attempting (and succeeding for a time) to use their Windows monopoly to take over the browser market.
Personally, I don't think it's going to buy them much traction in tablets, it may even hurt their (PC) Windows business in the long run, but it's definitely the sort of activity that merits anti-trust scrutiny, just because of their (PC) Windows monopoly.
But none of this looks anti-competivie to me. To make it more in-line with the IE bundling, if MS was giving away Windows RT and then said that this is the only way to VNC to a Windows desktop machine then I could easily make a case for MS being anti-competitive, but since they are charging a fee they are simply using common business practices... and one that I do not think will be effective, but I do see it as their choice to make, based on the available information.
But none of this looks anti-competivie to me. To make it more in-line with the IE bundling, if MS was giving away Windows RT and then said that this is the only way to VNC to a Windows desktop machine then I could easily make a case for MS being anti-competitive, but since they are charging a fee they are simply using common business practices... and one that I do not think will be effective, but I do see it as their choice to make, based on the available information.
But, common business practices aren't always ok for monopolists. (It's not like they aren't still a monopolist because a few years have passed.) What they are giving away are free licenses: "Buy our tablet and get a free license to connect to our monopoly operating system, which you're going to need to connect to anyway, because we have a monopoly."
Monopolists aren't allowed to use their monopolies to leverage themselves into new markets. That's exactly what they are attempting to do here, there's really no way around that.
Comments
"In a bid to slow iPad adoption by enterprise customers ..."
sorry, but this is a silly emotional projection by AI about MS' motives. everything really isn't always about Apple, you know? $25 per iPad is not a sufficient extra amount to make any difference whatsoever in the purchasing decisions of any corporation. it's peanuts. the costs that matter are most of all total support/training costs, which amount to many hundreds of dollars per year per employee, and overall resulting employee efficiency.
what MS is actually doing is tacking on one more small charge to its lucrative enterprise services to reap some more revenue from the boom in tablet deployments by businesses. this is part of their classic 'nickel and dime' strategy for pricing those services. this way they will make some more money thanks to the expanding use of the iPad and any other tablets.
sure, they may not charge the fee for their own Windows tablets. that is accurately termed a "discount." but of course they are selling the Windows license to the tablet OEM for about the same amount anyway, so the business winds up paying something to MS either way.
all this foaming at the mouth here is much ado about nothing.
But what of we count all versions of their OS as one market? Thr would mean we include iOS for iPad in the equation alongside Mac OS X. Does MS have a monopoly when you consider the number of iPads being sold? I wouldn't think so.
PS: I am on the BB Edit settings and I'm still HTML code in my replies which requires clean up before posting a reply. This is making me not want to use AI forums as much simply because of the extra hassle involved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DGNR8
This will be a problem for MS, additional tax for the privilege to use an OS that is not geared for corporate environments.
Every company I work with has zero plans to migrate from 7.
They now have there desktops now fully functional with 7 and users finally trained.
There is no huge benefit for a company to spend the license fees and the training expense for the new OS they do not want, AGAIN!!!!!, in such a short period.
I have been beta testing the 8 and I can tell you right now this is not going to work in corporate unless they turn off tiles.
I see a terrible adoption rate for this version.
Windows 9 will fix Windows 8 like Windows 7 fixed Windows Vista.
I am not a Windows basher at all, I actually like Windows 7.
It is a most stable version of Windows since Windows 2000.
However Windows 8 is the biggest mistake MS has made since Windows ME.
They are trying to compete with Apple and Android to go after consumer market, tisk tisk … Big Mistake.
I won't even go into there numerous mistakes they have made in virtualization and the way they have tried to punish enviros using Citrix or VMWare
You're right.
This appears to be an incredibly stupid and clumsy move by MS, which will back fire horribly.
This is worse than shooting themselves in the foot - its more like cutting their head off to spite their face!
As it is, Windows 8 is going to be a hard, uphill sell to the enterprise sector. They have just given one more important reason for organisations NOT to move to Windows 8!
MS are not winning any friends with this farcical move. One just has to look at the overwhelming critical tenor of the posts here to see that!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
The article says that non-Windows tablets will need to pay a fee and that Windows tablets will be free.
That may be an illegal use of a monopoly position to restrain trade or suppress competition.
If you are too dense/stubborn to understand that, then do a web search for
"ms ie eu lawsuit".
As to the tone of your recent responses to my posts... It is unfortunate that my posts don't meet with your satisfaction !
I have as much a right to post here as anyone... and do not seek your approval -- now, get off my back!
I hope you enjoy the company of zither and gator on my block list!l.
As to the bolded, that's NOT what it says. It says that a client license to connect to Windows server is included in the Windows RT software. As long as the amount that they allocate to server access is the same as what they charge for licenses for iPad and Android, there's no problem. Since you don't have any idea how much a Windows RT license costs, much less how much they're allocating to server licensing or how much they're charging for iPad access, your claims that it's illegal are unfounded.
As for the rest, I really couldn't care less. Since you seem to think that you can make any argument you want without evidence and people should just bow down and worship your arguments rather than ask you to back them up, I really don't care if you respond to me. I'd rather discuss things with people who are able to be rational and back up their arguments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Secular Investor
You're right.
This appears to be an incredibly stupid and clumsy move by MS, which will back fire horribly.
This is worse than shooting themselves in the foot - its more like cutting their head off to spite their face!
As it is, Windows 8 is going to be a hard, uphill sell to the enterprise sector. They have just given one more important reason for organisations NOT to move to Windows 8!
MS are not winning any friends with this farcical move. One just has to look at the overwhelming critical tenor of the posts here to see that!
Why would this negatively affect anyone's move to Windows 8?
Now, it MIGHT negatively affect someone considering Windows 2012 since they might have to pay extra client license fees, but it shouldn't affect anyone buying Windows 8.
I am certainly no expert in misuse of monopoly powers.
However, I did work for IBM in their heyday years and we had to attend annual awareness sessions to be sure that we did not do anything that even looked like abuse of monopoly power.
I think what would apply here, is that MS is using its dominant position in the OS marketplace to try to compete unfairly in the tablet marketplace.
This is somewhat similar to the way that MS used its OS position to compete unfairly in the browser marketplace.
I don't understand your P.S about being on BBEdit settings…
With my new iPad, I've found that posting on any forum is better because of the dictation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
I am certainly no expert in misuse of monopoly powers.
However, I did work for IBM in their heyday years and we had to attend annual awareness sessions to be sure that we did not do anything that even looked like abuse of monopoly power.
I think what would apply here, is that MS is using its dominant position in the OS marketplace to try to compete unfairly in the tablet marketplace.
This is somewhat similar to the way that MS used its OS position to compete unfairly in the browser marketplace.
But we don't know if MS is competing unfairly in the tablet space. Several people have convicted them without knowing the facts.
Let's say that MS decides to license Windows RT for $20 per unit (paid to their tablet OS unit) and adds on $10 per unit to be paid to their server unit. Then they charge $5 per iPad or Android device (paid to their server unit) for a client license.
First, the amount paid would be GREATER with the Windows RT device. Second, every Windows RT device would be paying it whether they are going to use it or not. So they could be putting their product at a disadvantage.
We just don't know enough about the terms to know if what they're doing is illegal (or even unethical) or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
Besides, Microsoft stole SQL Server from Sybase. Remember Sybase? No? I guess that's what happens to you when someone gets away with stealing your IP.
I remember it quite well...a nice implementation. Though Microsoft stole nothing - Sybase entered into an agreement with Microsoft to share source code. Once they split, MS got no more code so the implementations cleanly separated.
I believe Sybase is still used in the DoD due to a great deal (for the military.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyberzombie
I remember it quite well...a nice implementation. Though Microsoft stole nothing - Sybase entered into an agreement with Microsoft to share source code. Once they split, MS got no more code so the implementations cleanly separated.
I believe Sybase is still used in the DoD due to a great deal (for the military.)
And Sybase got? I believe the word is, screwed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
But we don't know if MS is competing unfairly in the tablet space. Several people have convicted them without knowing the facts.
Let's say that MS decides to license Windows RT for $20 per unit (paid to their tablet OS unit) and adds on $10 per unit to be paid to their server unit. Then they charge $5 per iPad or Android device (paid to their server unit) for a client license.
First, the amount paid would be GREATER with the Windows RT device. Second, every Windows RT device would be paying it whether they are going to use it or not. So they could be putting their product at a disadvantage.
We just don't know enough about the terms to know if what they're doing is illegal (or even unethical) or not.
First of all, those sort of accounting tricks aren't going to fool anyone, should they attempt to justify themselves using your logic.
Secondly, and most to the point, the issue is that a convicted monopolist, Microsoft, it could be argued, is leveraging that monopoly position to take over other markets, which would clearly be an antitrust violation if it were deemed to be the case. So, the issue doesn't have anything to do with their position in the tablet market, it's all about their Windows monopoly and whether they are leveraging it to advance themselves in the tablet market.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
But does MS have a monopoly in the appropriate context? They certainly do for a desktop OS but this license doesn't artificially support that position. Instead it helps prop up a currently non-existant tablet OS market. ...
See above. Key phrases: "convicted monopolist", "leveraging monopoly"
2) What monopoly in the tablet market are they leveraging, which is what this issue is addressing? I'm being generous by saying they have 1% market share.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
1) So if you were guilty in the past you are automatically guilty in the future no matter the case? I certainly don't agree with that outlook toward corporations or people.
2) What monopoly in the tablet market are they leveraging, which is what this issue is addressing? I'm being generous by saying they have 1% market share.
You're not usually this obtuse so I'll have another go at phrasing this point. No-one is suggesting MS has a monopoly in the tablet market. They do have a working monopoly in the desktop market. They question is whether they are leveraging the latter to aid them in the former. Anonymouse is not saying that, having been found guilty of monopolistic behaviour in the past, MS should pre prejudged forevermore. Rather, they are suggesting that it is in MS's character and so we shouldn’t be surprised when people suggest that they might be up to it again.
I agree with your take on number one above. However, if MS had been smart they would've settled before being convicted.
As to number two, I think what he is saying is that the MS Monopoly in Desktop Windows could be unfairly used by MS to sell MS Windows tablets -- by giving Windows Tablets an unfair cost advantage to access apps on the desktop machine.
I believe that the fact that there is no charge now, but MS is adding a new charge only for non-Windows access in the future, gives away their intentions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
First of all, those sort of accounting tricks aren't going to fool anyone, should they attempt to justify themselves using your logic.
Secondly, and most to the point, the issue is that a convicted monopolist, Microsoft, it could be argued, is leveraging that monopoly position to take over other markets, which would clearly be an antitrust violation if it were deemed to be the case. So, the issue doesn't have anything to do with their position in the tablet market, it's all about their Windows monopoly and whether they are leveraging it to advance themselves in the tablet market.
First, those "accounting tricks" would be absolutely legal. No need to fool anyone.
Second, even a convicted monopolist is innocent until proven guilty. As I pointed out, there is no evidence that establishes that Microsoft has done anything illegal and no one has come up with a convincing argument that they did so. All we have is a bunch of people piling on saying "it could be an antitrust violation because Microsoft is a convicted monopolist". Fortunately for them, it takes a lot more than that to convict.
If you have any evidence on how the licenses are set up, then feel free to show exactly how they've violated antitrust laws. Until then, you're only guessing without any foundation.
Precisely. Using their established Windows PC monopoly to muscle their way into other markets. The fact that they are a convicted monopolist is entirely to the point as well because it's that very monopoly that they are using as leverage to gain market share in the new market. This is exactly the sort of thing monopolists are not permitted to do. It's also exactly what got them into trouble in the first place, attempting (and succeeding for a time) to use their Windows monopoly to take over the browser market.
Personally, I don't think it's going to buy them much traction in tablets, it may even hurt their (PC) Windows business in the long run, but it's definitely the sort of activity that merits anti-trust scrutiny, just because of their (PC) Windows monopoly.
But none of this looks anti-competivie to me. To make it more in-line with the IE bundling, if MS was giving away Windows RT and then said that this is the only way to VNC to a Windows desktop machine then I could easily make a case for MS being anti-competitive, but since they are charging a fee they are simply using common business practices... and one that I do not think will be effective, but I do see it as their choice to make, based on the available information.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
But none of this looks anti-competivie to me. To make it more in-line with the IE bundling, if MS was giving away Windows RT and then said that this is the only way to VNC to a Windows desktop machine then I could easily make a case for MS being anti-competitive, but since they are charging a fee they are simply using common business practices... and one that I do not think will be effective, but I do see it as their choice to make, based on the available information.
But, common business practices aren't always ok for monopolists. (It's not like they aren't still a monopolist because a few years have passed.) What they are giving away are free licenses: "Buy our tablet and get a free license to connect to our monopoly operating system, which you're going to need to connect to anyway, because we have a monopoly."
Monopolists aren't allowed to use their monopolies to leverage themselves into new markets. That's exactly what they are attempting to do here, there's really no way around that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
... After every lousy release, they get their act together and the next one is usually significantly improved.
Do you mean that from now on, even version numbers will be more or less OK (8,...), odd version numbers will suck (9,...) ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanFruniken
Do you mean that from now on, even version numbers will be more or less OK (8,...), odd version numbers will suck (9,...) ?
That doesn't make any sense. Seven's good and eight is planned to suck, so it'd be even-bad, odd-good. Like the Star Trek movies.