From: rhoward@matd.gatech.edu (Robert L. Howard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Date: 21 Dec 92 18:59:00 GMT
Followup-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Organization: Georgia Tech Research Institute

bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) writes:

>In article <BzLMIH.II3@csulb.edu> sichermn@csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec20.215347.1614@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
>>>In article <BzKsJ2.Bwp@csulb.edu>, sichermn@csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes:
>>>I _still_ don't understand what isn't "fair" about what Microsoft is doing.
>>>Why shouldn't Microsoft let its application programmers talk to its OS
>>>programmers?  What is wrong with giving their own programmers an edge?
>>
>>   Because it gives them undue power over the software market as a whole
>>and acts detrimentally to the market for applications software in that
>>Microsoft leverages its unique and restricted access to information about
>>it's operating environments to gain an advantage in a separate market. Now
>>you may not see these as separate markets but that is for the FTC to decide.

>Why do you consider this unfair ? MS made a bussiness decision to 
>write operating systems, and it turned out to be a successful one.
>And this decision was many times very risky. Even today MS may lose
>all its tremendous investment in Windows-NT because of OS/2.
>Other companies did not. Tough for them. MS could not have any advantage
>over other companies if people did not buy their software. And people 
>did buy because that is what they needed, or at least believed they
>needed. 

>If the other companies want to have advantage, let them write a
>better Operating System that people need, rather than resorting to
>the governemnt. IBM did just that. MS is not in the market to supply
>profits for other companies.

Others have (IMHO) written better OS's.  DRI's DR-DOS 6.0 is
better than MS-DOS 5.0

The problem is that I cannot call my local clone vendor and
get a PC with DR-DOS installed.  Why?  Because MS has used
their enormous market presence to, in effect, force that
PC maker to install MS-DOS on *all* PCs they make.  Even
if they don't send out my PC with MS-DOS on it, MS gets the
licensing fee anyway.  So if I *really* want DR-DOS, it costs
me money (to go and purchase it), and time (because I have to
install it over MS-DOS).  DR-DOS had better be *damn* better for
most people to bother with that....

You cite IBM as an example..yet they are having a hard time
getting clone makers to pre-install OS/2...for just those
reasons.

Robert
--
| Robert L. Howard              |   Georgia Tech Research Institute     |
| robert.howard@matd.gatech.edu |   MATD Laboratory                     |
| (404) 528-7165                |   Atlanta, Georgia  30332             |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| "See, when the GOVERNMENT spends money, it creates jobs; whereas when |
| the money is left in the hands of TAXPAYERS, God only knows what they |
| do with it.  Bake it into pies, probably.  Anything to avoid creating |
| jobs." -- Dave Barry                                                  |
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy