From: robs@hardy.u.washington.edu (Robert Suh)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Is Microsoft the next Standard Oil?
Date: 3 Jan 1993 09:27:04 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
NNTP-Posting-Host: hardy.u.washington.edu

In article <1993Jan2.225225.7080@gw.wmich.edu> x90wardell@gw.wmich.edu writes:
>In article <1992Dec29.015526.3909@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>, helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
>> In article <1992Dec27.191705.7069@gw.wmich.edu>, x90wardell@gw.wmich.edu writes:
>> 
>> What's so frightening about that?  As long as no one is forcing people
>> at gunpoint to buy their products, they could be put out of business
>> overnight by their customers.  
>> 
>	Because when someone dominates to such an extent, people buy it
>because it is name brand.  AT&T was the same thing, other copanies could
>have been started up but it was extremely difficult.

So, if AT&T provided long-distance service at a price that was equal
to the market clearing price of long-distance telephone usage, what would
be the big deal?  Nothing, because the consumer is getting what they want
(relatively-cheap long-distance) while AT&T gets what they want.

Now, once AT&T starts charging over the market price for long-distance
services, then the marketplace can take over, and some up-start (or other
company such as GM, Exxon, IBM, etc.) come into the LD fray, and you have
increased competiton.

"people buy it because it is name brand." - you're describing a small portion
of the public.  "People" will buy what they demand, and at the price that
the demand and supply of the marketplace set.  Some people might be willing
to pay a little extra for 'name brand', but once you reach a low enough point,
they are off like a bullet.  But I digress.. >

>    Okay, to make it a bit closer to Microsoft, let's say that the drilling
>equipment had become standardized around this one company who charged
>outratigious prices, compeitiros would pop up and try to compete but in
>order to compete, for example, you wuld have to give up most of your present
>equipment  since it was not compatible with the mean drilling company.
>
Well, I've read the above paragraph a couple of times now, and I still don't
see how it compares to Microsoft.  I tried to insert Windows/DOS instead of
'drilling equipment' no-can-do. >

>
>	Key word, voluntary.  PC manufacturers are pretty much forced to
>include DOS and windows with their comptuers or face paying much higher prices.
>Do you really think that Ms-DOS is cheaper by itself wholesale than Dr Dos?
>Dr Dos at wholesale costs about $29 to MS-DOs's $34 (for our company), however
>many customers want Windows.  But look out, Microsoft will give you a
>special deal on Windows if you put ms-Dos and Windows on EVERY machine you
>make.  The result, you can't give the customer a choice of OS's like they
>should.  Who's going to pay an extra $40 for Dr. DOS when MS-DOs comes
>with the computer free?  This is wrong.

Actually, from what I understand, the FTC deal is that MS had entered into
a contractional agreement with PC manufactures about loading of DOS into their
computers.  (Something about have DOS as the sole OS on the PC's, not too
important of detail.)  Microsoft didn't hold a gun to PC manufactures heads
and say that they WILL distribute only MS products.  No, MS just signed a
contract with the individual PC manufactures, in which they agreed.  
I don't see anything wrong with that.  (But I guess FTC does, because they
consider it 'anti-competitive'.) >