HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bdubbs@cs.tamu.edu (Bruce Dubbs)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Is Microsoft the next Standard Oil?
Date: 30 Dec 1992 19:51:08 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department, Texas A&M University
NNTP-Posting-Host: neuron.tamu.edu

In article <1992Dec29.225839.15668@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
|In article <1hqe98INNsef@tamsun.tamu.edu>, bdubbs@cs.tamu.edu (Bruce Dubbs) writes:
|
||> If one company has deep pockets and no controls,
||> the potential exists for that company to dump the product (software) for a
||> period of time until the competitor goes out of business and then
||> raise the prices again.
||> 
||> Has MS done this?  You bet.  How much was OS/2 1.0?  Answer: $325.
||> Why so much?  No competition.  How much was the original OS/2 PDK? 
||> Answer: $2600.  Same reason.  Did IBM go along? Yup. They were
||> partners, not competitors then.
|
|Wait a minute--how was this an example of a company dumping a product,
|getting a hugh market share, and then charging outragious prices?

Dumping wasn't necessary then.  There were virtually no competitors
then. Its an example of having a huge market share with no *effective*
competitors. 

||> Dumping of any product at such a low price to put competitors out of
||> business or prevent them from entering the business hurts the
||> consumer.  Look beyond today.  If competitors are eliminated, we all
||> lose. 
|
|By "Dumping" I assume you mean selling something below what it costs to
|produce it.  However Microsoft hasn't been doing that--even when you factor
|in the cost of developing Windows--selling a million copies of it a month
|at $8 a copy still isn't selling it below cost.

Using your definition, its impossible to "Dump" a software license,
because it costs nothing to reproduce. (The HW vendors do the
reproduction.)  What MS is doing is selling below *value*.  Most
people would think an OS is worth a bit more than $8.  

The real battle is for those users who don't know much about
computers.  If they are given something that provides inefficient
functionality, there will be reluctance to change--even for more
functionality.  

||> Look beyond today.  If competitors are eliminated, we all
||> lose. 
|
|With OS/2 and NeXTSTEP (both of which can run DOS _and_ Windows programs)
|Solaris, and Pink, I don't think Microsoft has faced as many competitors
|in its history.

Agreed.  Thats why MS wants to go back to the bad old days.
    -- Bruce
--
Bruce Dubbs                   |  Oxymorons of note:
bdubbs@neuron.tamu.edu        |  Honest Politician, Political Science,
                              |  Scrupulous Lawyer
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: rwh@moose.cccs.umn.edu (RICHARD HOFFBECK)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Reply-To: rwh@moose.cccs.umn.edu
Organization: Colon Cancer Control Study, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 16:58:00 GMT

In article <8dbbhl3@Unify.Com>, veit@Unify.com (Veit Irtenkauf) writes:
>  
> If Gates would have been able to get 5.5 Billion dollars out of 
> Microsoft this would mean that Microsofts totalled profits of the
> last years would be about 40 billion dollars.  Impossible.
> The answer why Gates is worth so much is simple: Stock Market.
> Speculators drove up the price of Microsoft, and as its founder
> he profitted the most.  He then reinvested his profits....

Yikes, get thee to an economics course! The market value of a stock only
depends on the past to the extent of the current balance sheet. The most
important determinant of Microsoft's market value is the expected future
earnings not the level of profits earned in the past.  That's what makes 
Gates stock worth 7 or 8 billion.  It has nothing to do with speculators ...

>  
> This is it.  Look at other people like Jobs or Kahn.  How did they
> make their initial wealth?  Stocks in their own company.  It's that
> easy (if you can make a startup company successful -- this is the
> problem!)

How do you rationalize this wonderful logical leap of faith?

--rick

Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:11400 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:3612
From: tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Date: 2 Jan 93 10:24:41 GMT
Article-I.D.: shelley.1i3qh9INN343
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95
NNTP-Posting-Host: stein.u.washington.edu

scdorcy@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (JAMES DORCEY) writes:
>bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) writes...
>
>>How come that no other company produced an equivalent of WIN 3.0 before MS ?
>>I do not say that WIN 3.0 is necessarily an outstanding technical 
>>achievement. What I say is that MS were the first to provide people
>>with what they need to do their work. 
>
>Maybe up until Win 3.0 companies figured that if the customer wanted a 
>computer with a Macintosh interface, then the customer would buy a 
>Macintosh ;-)  And please identify any type of work which _requires_ 
>Windows 3.0 to accomplish.

Also, what does "equivalent" mean?  Hasn't Quarterdeck, for example, had
many of the useful features of Windows in their various systems software
for a long time?

--Tim Smith
From: helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman)
Subject: Re: ftc and ms
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 11:48:44 GMT

In article <1992Dec21.233102.14676@sjsumcs.sjsu.edu>, rick@sjsumcs.sjsu.edu (Richard Warner) writes:
|> I am hoping that Sun's new WABI pans out.  That will kill NT, severely
|> cut into Windows, and force MS to try to stop Sun in court.  (for
|> the uninitiated, WABI is an interface that allows any Windows program
|> to run on any machine [CPU/OS combination] to which WABI has been
|> ported).  You could run Ami Pro 3.0 in an X-term session on your
|> HP workstation running HP/UX.  Take that Billy :-)

I can't tell you how happy it makes me that at least ONE company is
trying to beak Microsoft using programmers and not lawyers.  I saw in
January's computer shopper that this is also persuading Microsoft into 
perhaps porting Word, EXCEL, etc. to Solaris.  If IBM used this technique
they probably could get Microsoft to port those killer aps to OS/2 too.

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: ckincy@cs.umr.edu (Charles Kincy)
Subject: Re: More advertising
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 06:22:10 GMT
Organization: University of Missouri - Rolla, Rolla, MO

In article <1992Dec31.191058.20531@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
[...]
>	Gimme a break.  It is quite EASY to show that OS/2 does not
>	run "all" DOS or "all" Windows programs.  Try some Windows
>	OCR programs under OS/2.  Oops, can't do it.  Why is that?
>	Oh, because they're 386e programs.  Well,we didn't mean *ALL* programs,
>	just "all" programs.
>
>	It's a *lie* Fred.  An untruth.  A falsehood.  The only way 
>	it isn't a lie is if the original poster and you are both quite
>	ignorant of OS/2 and what it can and cannot run.

Well, then, there you have it.  

Since when did advertisers know what OS/2 can and cannot run?  Or
marketroids, for that instance.  :)

cpk
From: helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Date: 30 Dec 92 18:04:56 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <8243@lib.tmc.edu>, jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
|> In article <1992Dec30.153554.8759@tc.cornell.edu> bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) writes:
|> >>You're once again missing the point: if MS sells me Windows for $8 if I agree
|> >>to pay for a copy for every machine I sell, but triples the price if I don't,
|> >>then that's force. 
|> >Interesting logic. Ever noticed the "Buy 1 XX, get 1 YY free" 
|> >deals ? 
|> 
|> Sure. Nearly all of them are short-duration, promotional offers. On the other
|> hand, the "Windows royalty on every machine" pricing MS wants everyone to sign
|> up for is the normal way for MS to do business.

What Microsoft is doing with the clone makers is really just another example of
the trendy new concept in purchasing called "Just in time" purchasing.  The idea
is that instead of having 3 or 4 suppliers for one of your components, you
form a long-term relationship with a trusted supplier who will be your only
source.  You save money because instead of having to keep an inventory of
all of your supplies you're supplier will ship to you exactly what you need
exactly when you need it.

This "just in time" is spreading like wildfire because it saves money and makes
manufacturers more efficient.  EVERYBODY is doing it, not just Microsoft.
From: os2man@panix.com (Larry Salomon Jr.)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: More advertising
Date: 29 Dec 92 13:52:15 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

Since no one decided to respond to the initial advertising thread I attempted
to start (maybe I tried it in comp.os.os2.misc?  I can't remember anymore...),
I'll try with another one.  Again, I'm interested in reading any ad ideas you
can come up with (and I know there are IBMers who read this and are probably
interested also).  Here's the idea for this one:

<Radio ad>
"With an operating system that can run all of your DOS, Windows, and OS/2
applications, using your computer is as simple as 1-2-3...or dBase IV...
or Ami Pro...(start to fade) or CorelDraw...or Describe...or Microsoft Excel
(etc. ad nauseum)"  Meanwhile, once the voice starts to fade you get the 
overdubbed deeper voice (but not too deep) take the foreground:  "OS/2 2.0
for your personal computer.  Requires an Intel or compatible 80386 or better
CPU with 4 megabytes of memory and 30 megabytes hard disk space.  To order,
call 1-800-3IBMOS2.  Product names are trademarks of their respective owners."

As with the TV ad last time, this has a two page analogue for a magazine.  The
first page would be the first voice, with the fade represented by continually
shrinking point sizes and the second page would be the deeper voice.  I would
use a white Helvetica font for the first page on a black background, and have
the OS/2 logo in the middle of the second page with the type below it.

What is something you can come up with?

Cheers,
Q
-- 
"If you choose not to decide, you  | "My other body is in the shop" - seen
 still have made a choice" - Rush  |  on a T-shirt
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman)
Subject: Re: Be more creative than the FTC!
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 07:38:07 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.194131.27824@spang.Camosun.BC.CA>, dbarker@spang.Camosun.BC.CA (Deryk Barker) writes:
|> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
|> : In article <1992Dec22.180054.1107@spang.Camosun.BC.CA>, dbarker@spang.Camosun.BC.CA (Deryk Barker) writes:
|> : |> : |> AT&T?
|> : |> : 
|> : |> : AT&T was only a monopoly because the goverment wouldn't allow other companies
|> : |> : to compete with it.  In fact, I challenge you to name a single monopoly
|> : |> : which wasn't a monopoly because a goverment outlawed competition with it.
|> : |> : Name one which was a monopoly in America before the antitrust laws came in.
|> : |> : You can even name companies in countries which don't have antitrust laws.
|> : |> 
|> : |> Standard Oil anyone?
|> : 
|> : 
|> : When it was broken up in 1911 by the Shermen Antitrust act, it only had a 66%
|> : share of the market.  Not even the great John D. Rockafeller himself could
|> : create as monopoly in a free market.
|> 
|> If its 66% market share was no big deal, why was it broken up?

Because there was an unjust law passed which arbitrarily made illegal what they
were doing.
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:11058 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:3490
From: veit@Unify.com (Veit Irtenkauf)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Date: 28 Dec 92 17:35:40 GMT
Organization: Unify Corporation (Sacramento)

In article <1992Dec22.161425.0299694@locus.com>, lowell@locus.com (Lowell Morrison) writes:
> Dov, the price drop has nothing to do with Windows.  It simply with
> more and more people purchasing software, the fixed costs can be
> amortized out over more people.  And if you think Microsoft is a leader
> in this, please explain how Billy Gates is now worth 5.5 Billion Dollars.
> It sounds like some over charging, and preditory policies have made
> Gates the worlds richest man in only a decade.
> 

If Gates would have been able to get 5.5 Billion dollars out of 
Microsoft this would mean that Microsofts totalled profits of the
last years would be about 40 billion dollars.  Impossible.
The answer why Gates is worth so much is simple: Stock Market.
Speculators drove up the price of Microsoft, and as its founder
he profitted the most.  He then reinvested his profits....

This is it.  Look at other people like Jobs or Kahn.  How did they
make their initial wealth?  Stocks in their own company.  It's that
easy (if you can make a startup company successful -- this is the
problem!)

-- Veit


-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Veit Irtenkauf    Technical Marketing Manager  |  email: veit@unify.Com
Unify Corporation                              |  voice: (916) 928-6322
3901 Lennane Drive, Sacramento, CA 95834-1922  |    fax: (916) 928-6406
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 00:24:28 GMT

In article <8285@lib.tmc.edu>, jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
|> In article <1992Dec31.040712.3797@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
|> >     Jay, this tactic of branding everyone who doesn't agree with you
|> >as "trying to work for MS" is getting really tiresome.  If you can't
|> >address the points made in the posts, why bother to post this kind
|> >of drivel?
|> 
|> Because I cannot fathom why someone would leap to the defense of sucvh
|> obviously bad, monopolistic practices as MS engages in unless there's
|> something in it for them. You're hardly an unbiased judge of the situation.

Remember the statement "when they came for me, there was nobody left to
stand up for anybody?"  Its in _everybody's_ best interest that the goverment
stays out of the marketplace.

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: dbarker@spang.Camosun.BC.CA (Deryk Barker)
Subject: Re: DOS 6 Beta Looks for OS/2!!!!!!!!
Organization: Camosun College, Victoria B.C, Canada
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 20:23:35 GMT

philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
: In article <1993Jan2.024108.2313@ccsvax.sfasu.edu> z_kupkams@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes:
: >In article <1993Jan02.025323.15888@microsoft.com>, philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
: >> In article <1993Jan1.133731.2312@ccsvax.sfasu.edu> z_kupkams@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes:
: >>>
: >>>	All this talk about FUD & Misinformation about OS/2 from Microsoft has
: >>>some NEW Merit!
: >>>
: >>>	I Recently talked to a Beta Tester of DOS 6.0. He Runs OS/2 with 2 Hard
: >>>Drives, One FAT, One HPFS. He decided to Install the DOS 6.0 Beta on the FAT
: >>>Partition, and got a Message saying, and I paraphrase: 
: >>>
: >>>- OS/2 Detected! Due to the size of OS/2 you may wish to delete your OS/2 
: >>>files before installing DOS 6.0 -
: >> 
: >>      Interesting.  What is the problem with that?  If there was a
: >> similar message that said "Autocad detected.  Due to the size of
: >> Autocad you may wish to delete your Autocad files before installing
: >> DOS 6.0", whould that be bad too?
: >> 
: >	The Problem is simple. There is no need for such a message. If there
: >was insufficient disk space, a simple "Insufficient Disk Space" would be
: >enough. Unless of course you wanted to to spread FUD 
: 
:     Point A:  We have no idea what the actual message is.  I'll wager
: that it _isn't_ what was quote above (in fact, you admit that it's
: "paraphrased" _and_ secondhand.).  There are several good reasons why
: you wouldn't want to run the DOS 6 Beta (and note, it is a beta) and
: OS/2 on the same machine.
: 
: 
: >F-Fear- Fear that Using OS/2 and DOS on the same machine would be dangerous.
: 
:     It is.  DOS 6 may make your FAT partitions unreadable by
: OS/2 or other operating systems.

Including DOS 5 presumably?

: 
: >Uncertainty - Make the User uncertain about using DOS and OS/2 at the same
: >time.
: 
:    As well they should be.  It is a beta product, after all.

I thought they already knew that - or is this a tacit admission that
anyone using a MS beta product must be stupid?
: 
: 
: >Doubt - Make the User Doubt OS/2, after all OS/2 didn't even say that there
: >might be a problem, but DOS is so great that it warns a user of 
: >impending danger.
: 
:     This is a bit ludicrous, don't you think?

Exactly.
--
Real:  Deryk Barker, Computer Science Dept., Camosun College, Victoria B.C.
Email: (dbarker@spang.camosun.bc.ca)
Phone: +1 604 370 4452
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Mark Kovarski <kovarski@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: OS/2 2.1 Announcement
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 05:04:19 GMT



     December 18, 1992

     IBM is  initiating a Beta program  for OS/2 2.1 and  the OS/2 2.1
     Toolkit.  The  code  is  being  made  available  for  testing and
     development  feedback purposes  only, and  should NOT  be used in
     production. The purpose of this Beta program is to get input from
     key constituents that will be  integrated into the final software
     product,  enabling us  to deliver  the highest  level of quality,
     compatibility, and  function in this  world-class product. Notice
     of this Beta program will also be posted on CompuServe,

     DESCRIPTION

     This Beta contains several enhancements to the award-winning OS/2
     2.0  code,  including  support  for  Windows**  3.1 applications,
     multimedia, a 32-bit graphics engine, expanded SVGA, XGA, printer
     and CD-ROM support for industry standard devices as well as fixes
     to customer reported problems.

     PREREQUISITES
     -  Requires a test system capable of executing OS/2 Version 2.0
     -  Requires a minimum of 42MB of DASD for a full install
     -  Requires a minimum of 32MB of DASD for a default install

     ORDERING INSTRUCTIONS

     For  customers  without  local  branch  office  support or remote
     customer  locations,  the  Beta  will  be  available on CD-ROM by
     calling  1-800-3IBMOS2,  available  in  the  United  States only.
     Customers  will be  charged a  fee of  $15 to  cover shipping and
     handling. This Beta program will end on February 28th, 1993.


     Support for customers without local branch office support will be
     provided on CompuServe and in the OS2BETA CFORUM on the OS/2 BBS.


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 18:27:20 GMT

In <1992Dec29.010935.2947@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:

>In article <1992Dec24.175117.12752@pcatsc.UUCP>, palmer@pcatsc.UUCP (Doug Palmer) writes:

>|> You are *completely* missing the point. It's not the hardware vendors
>|> who are adversely affected by MicroSoft's predatory practices, but the
>|> competitor OS vendors. In effect, when MicroSoft enters into an agreement
>|> to tie royalty payments to units sold, they are forcing the hardware
>|> vendor to add the price of DOS/Windows to any other bundled operating
>|> system. This is an "unfair" practice in re the OS vendor, not the
>|> hardware vendor. They have effectively increased the cost of all other
>|> operating systems. That's illegal.

>Let me get this straight--Microsoft is offering really good deals to 
>hardware vendors.  Those deals are so good, that hardware vendors don't
>typically don't want to buy from anyone but Microsoft.  The FTC would be
>perfectly happy if Microsoft was offering _bad_ deals to hardware vendors.

>In other words, good deals, BAD.
>                 bad deals, GOOD.

>I think I understand now.

Well, if that's the level of your ability to understand, I guess
there's no point in trying to discuss reality with you.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: hwhalen@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca (Hugh Whalen)
Subject: Re: ftc and ms
Organization: Faculty of Administration, University of New Brunswick
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 20:30:08 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.184617.11527@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>In <1992Dec29.001528.2087@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
>

[enormous amounts of stuff deleted]
>
>As for 'pointing guns', I wasn't aware that they pointed guns at
>people for anti-trust violations.  They generally point LAWYERS at
                                                         ^^^^^^^
Better to have guns pointed at you. At least those people only take 
what you have on you at the time. With lawyers they just keep on 
taking and taking and .....

As someone once said, all corporations are entitled to their decade in 
court. :) :)


>them.  You seem to want to differentiate between 'force due to market
>position' and 'force due to law'.  There ain't no such difference at
>the bottom line, son.
>


Hugh Whalen                     | Where all men think alike, no one
Faculty of Administration       | thinks very much.
University of New Brunswick     |               - Walter Lippmann			


DISCLAIMER: Neither UNB nor I care what the other thinks.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: olavt@ulrik.uio.no (Olav Torvund)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: ftc and ms
Date: 22 Dec 92 10:48:46 GMT
	<Bzn3M2.IvJ@csfb1.fir.fbc.com> <1992Dec22.045145.15784@tc.cornell.edu>
Organization: University of Oslo, Norway

I think the point have been missed somewhere in this thread.

If MS offer PC-makers DOS and Windows at a reasonable price for
bundling, that is fair enough. But if that deal restrict the PC-makers
choice of other OSs, then it is not fair. If the PC-makers have to pay
royalty to MS for DOS and Win for every PC sold, no matter if it ships
with DOS/Win or not, that is unfair. And it is even worse if the deal
says that DOS/Win shall be included on every PC, even if the customer
do not want it.

The OS-vendors should be free to make a bundling offer to all
PC-makers, but not include clauses that excludes the PC-makers to make
bundling deals with other OS-vendors.

If a clone maker says that their production line is set up in a way
that makes it more expensive to deliver a system with a blank disk
than with the default OS, it is fair enough. But if the reason is that
MS does not allow them to deliver that way, or charge royalty even if
the default OS is not delivered, then it is unfair competition.

Olav Torvund
University of Oslo
Norway
Olavt@jus.uio.no
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy