[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote... > 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?
For the same reason that people put down bug spray, I guess: You don't want any bugs showing up later and ruining your dinner party. > 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. Heck, I dunno. Like you, I don't even really care all that much. Maybe they were trying to protect themselves against all the market momentum they'd created around 0S/2. They'd been big fans of it right up until Windows 3.0 took off. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
