🚀 go-pugleaf

kony wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 20:19:26 -0500, David Maynard
> <nospam@private.net> wrote:
> 
> 
>>kony wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 19:24:41 -0500, David Maynard
>>><nospam@private.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>As decided by our courts, Microsoft 
>>>>>in fact has monopoly power over the personal computer operating 
>>>>>system market.
>>>>
>>>>Which is irrelevant to Kony's posit about how companies behave in a 
>>>>"competitive market."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>No, it's not.
>>
>>
>>Yes, it is.
>>
>>Your posit was "they'd have to actually add features rather than subtract 
>>them if they had a competitive market." (which is not correct but that's 
>>already been dealt with)
> 
> 
> "Dealt with" merely meaning you disagree, which is fine as
> again we are not expected to meet middle ground here as in
> other discusssions.

I did not just 'disagree'. I gave you what the other alternatives are and 
those kinds of decisions are made every day in development meetings. You're 
faced with not only a 'feature' cost/benefit analysis but a target price, 
hence cost, as well so that you are almost always faced with deciding which 
features give the best return and the others, which might still have a 
'positive' effect, must be left out lest the price/cost escalate beyond the 
target market.

So while Netbeui might have a limited benefit (and I'm not saying there is 
one) to a limited few under limited circumstances it doesn't rate enough to 
be there. And if you had sat in on their development meetings you'd 
probably find a few hundred other 'features' that didn't make it either.

Netbeui is a no brainer. What does it do that the ones you MUST support 
don't? Nothing. Kill it.

>>So how does whether Microsoft is a monopoly, or not, affect your claim of 
>>how they would behave in a competitive market?
> 
> 
> 
> It is relevant to my position that they would need add
> features rather than deciding for us what we do or don't
> have available.

I know what 'point' you were trying to imply by the statement but that has 
nothing to do with the characteristics of a competitive market and that is 
what I was dealing with: your assertion of what a company 'would do' in a 
competitive market. And for that discussion it not only doesn't matter 
whether Microsoft is a 'monopoly', or not, it doesn't even matter whether 
it's Microsoft or someone selling sandals.

>  By not having to compete, they don't have
> to be feature-competitive.

Actually, being a 'monopoly' would make it easier for them to include 
useless things like Netbeui whereas in a competitive market price pressures 
would preclude such waste.

>  It worked, it is even known how
> to make it work again.

They didn't 'break' it, at least not intentionally. They just don't 
'support' it nor test to see if something broke it. Nor do they intend to 
'fix' it if something did.

And the reason is IT COSTS MONEY.

>  They certainly do NOT have any kind
> of financial restrains keeping them from testing it.

I was not aware they had changed their charter to 'non profit'.

>  Your
> arguments about cost are simply invalid.

My arguments are not only valid but anyone with any experience at all in 
software development/support is well aware of what 'support' means and the 
costs involved.

If you want to argue that they should toss money down the toilet so someone 
can have Netbeui then *say* so instead of hiding it behind a false claim 
that support is 'free'.

>  In FACT they could
> now give away windows free and still afford to support it.

That's not what being a "business" means and the stock holders likely have 
a different opinion than yours about loosing money on the deal.

> The arguement cannot be made about it being "good business"
> because it is most certainly NOT good business to maintain a
> monopoly and be in courts of multiple first-world nations
> because of it.

"It" is a completely different topic than what "support" means.