Not Bill Gates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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.
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 -- Gort, klatu barada nikto -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
