Re: The American Dream
- From: "Quirk" <quirk@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 22 Nov 2005 02:42:22 -0800
Les Cargill wrote:
> The lack of a monitor is going to be a serious limitation
> for 'em.
Among many, proving that what Roy said is true, Micros~1 does control
the "On Ramps" to "the information superhighway" that they did not
build, and what you said, that it was Cisco, was missing the point.
Perhaps a better analogy would be that Micros~1 owns controls the Car
market, but in anycase his point was clear.
> > Irrelevent, Bill Gates still recieved money every time one was sold by
> > one of venders with "preloading agreements" wether or not they actually
> > ran Windows. And, for over a decade, it was virtually impossible to buy
> > a PC that didn't have the Windows Rent built into it's cost, especially
> > if you needed an enterprise level volume retailer.
> And that was hugely irrelevant prior to Linux.
Sure if you ignore the fact that there were indeed other OSes before
Windows established their defacto monopoloy. Including Digital
Research's CP/M, DR-DOS, GEM and a few pre-linux flavours of
Unix-like operating systems that where squeezed out of any change in
the marketplace by Micros~1 hegemonic relationship with the PC vendors.
> You're calling it
> "Windows Rent" when it's trivially circumvented.
You are dishonestly saying that it's trivially circumvented, when what
you mean is it technically possible to circumvent it if you have
profesional level technologist skills, a detailed knowledge of the
alternative options, or be able to afford to hire such skill and
knowledge to avoid paying the Rent.
> Bill Gates was able to arrange contracts with computer vendors.
> What a concept!
Only because, first, he had Government granted and enforced
intellectual property rights to what was essentially was Gery Kildall's
design (admited by Paterson), later incorporating developments by
others including those from Douglas Engelbart, Tim Berners-Lee, Marc
Andreesson, and the research teams at Xerox-Parc and Bell labs, plus
the designers of of the Macintosh and the Amiga, and many others.
In each case, using his position of privilege with the major market
players, first IBM, and then later the major vendors, and finaly
leveraging his own de-facto Desktop monopoly, to "protect" his market.
> > By writing tools for Windows, you still increase the Rent Micros~1 is
> > able to collect, wether or not you use their tools.
> These are tools for computers, which in this case happen
> to be Windows. I don't care if they increase
> anybody's Evil Empire; I just wann'em to work.
I don't care if you care. The point remains, that because of his
established hegemonic control of Desktop systems, what Roy has
described as "The On-Ramps to the Information Superhighway,"
Application developers //must// support his platform to reach the
market, and by doing so they increase the Rent-value of his platform.
The deepest Irony comes when after building a market for their Windows
-accessible applications big enough to attract the envy of Micros~1,
Micros~1 applies their rent-wealth to essentially clone their product
and use their hegemonic position to squeeze the original innovator out
of the marketplace, and then argues that their right to do so must be
protected in the name of innovation!
> Real pioneers get arrows in their backs. It's the
> carpetbaggers after that clean up. Why should computers
> be any different from, say, TV?
Do you admit that the Microso~1 story is a giant market failure or not?
You seem to be waffling here. I never said they where the first, nor
the only company that has used a combination of privileged access,
wealth, and anti-competive practices to profit.
> The market "wants" a defacto standard, and some
> hegemonist will give it to 'em.
Wich is why, instead, the market should demmand actual, free and open
standards, the biggest benefit of the Micros~1 story is that more
market players understand that now, including such industry
heavyweights as IBM, HP, Novell, Sun, and some innovators such as those
behind Real Networks and Netscape Communications. Not to mention the
growing group of consumers that are now dedicated to the free-software
marketplace and understand why free and open source software benefits
them even when they have never seen a line of source code in their
lives.
> >>Very good evidence exactly why M$ earned the bucks. They
> >>saw it - no wonder; Gates' mom being on the board and all.
> > Interesting! I've always heard she was their legal council, not on the
> > board, where did you here that?
> Hmmm.... probably Cringely. Actually, I heard it first around 1984
> from a professor .
Well if you come across a citation I would love to have it, my version
of the story has always been that she (Gate's Mother) was part of the
legal team involved on IBM's behalf, a story I have no citation for
either ;)
If she was indeed on the board of IBM, that would make things even
clearer.
> > In anycase, there you have it, securing Rent collecting from a position
> > of privilege. Pretty typical.
> This example is pretty much why I remain skeptical. I think
> rent it actually a tradeoff. It happened with Sarnoff/RCA,
> Edison, Gates, Bell, Stanford....
As rent rewards the later "capert-baggers" and not the innovators, I
fail to see what the consumer's end of the "trade-off" is. Less choice
and a more limited, and expensive final product?
> It's pretty simple to extend R&D rent being "payment"
> for innovation to land rent being payment for ducal
> protection or pioneering.
Do you want to explain how the R&D costs of MS-DOS/Windows where higher
than the costs of CP/M, DR-DOS, GEM, and the various available flavours
of unix-like OSes? Or Explorer vs. Netscape? Or RealPlayer vs Micros~1
Media Player? Or Word versus WordPerfect? Or Excell vs Lotus 123, etc,
etc, etc....
R&D did not win the market, privilige and anti-competitive practices
did.
> That the payment is out of
> proportion is another matter - such is our tradition.
Just like manditory tribute to church and king where tradition, yes.
> In a perfect world, it would not be necessary. However....
However what? Becasue the world is imperfect we should refuse to
describe something that is plainly injust as being so?
> >>Ballmer: "We had to protect the langauge ( interpeters
> >>& compilers ) business. "
> > Indeed, "protect" says it all.
> Naw. The IBM/DOS deal fell in their lap, while
> Kildall apprently hid.
It's much easier to have some scraps fall on your lap, if you sit next
to the King. And the Kildall storry, as intresting as it is, is just
the stuff of legend. How Gates came to be the Hegemon is not changed by
the fact that somebody else might have been so instead of him. The
story does show that whatever assets Gates had, technical innovation
was not among them.
> > Rent-seekers don't "compete" they "protect."
> Indeed; Bill Gates greatest "innovation" is his
> letter to Byte asserting IP rights over M$ code.
LOL. Yeah, that's a good one, tells a lot about his character right
from the start, especially as MS BASIC is also just another product
Gates cloned.
Cheers.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: The American Dream
- From: Les Cargill
- Re: The American Dream
- References:
- Re: The American Dream
- From: Dan in Philly
- Re: The American Dream
- From: royls
- Re: The American Dream
- From: Les Cargill
- Re: The American Dream
- From: Quirk
- Re: The American Dream
- From: Les Cargill
- Re: The American Dream
- From: Quirk
- Re: The American Dream
- From: Les Cargill
- Re: The American Dream
- Prev by Date: Re: How do you define valuel?
- Next by Date: Re: Oil profits: rent?
- Previous by thread: Re: The American Dream
- Next by thread: Re: The American Dream
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
