Vista Licencing (if true)

Quote:

---

Lets remember that a monopoly does not mean 100% market share.

---

The very definition of a monopoly (including the Latin root of the word) means 100% market share, to the exclusion of any and all competition. Furthermore, Haaretz probably wouldn't publicize this any more than would the New York Times; but T.P. Jackson has had a number of his decisions overturned by the US Court of Appeals for faulty application of case law, specious reasoning, failure to abide by stare decisis and for lack of objectivity. The "harming consumers" is laughable on its face. I couldn't afford a computer until Windows hit the market; its development and adoption by millions of consumers helped bring the price of a computer within reach of the home user and spawned competition as well. I agree they're milking the price for Vista for all it's worth, but the market will correct that. As far as a monopoly on OSs? Laughable...ever heard of Apple?

Quote:

---

You cannot simply say that if you don't want to use it, don't buy it.

---

Yes, I can--and I did. You're not stuck or forced to buy Microsoft. Get Linux for free. If you can learn how to use Windows, you can learn Linux. Or Apple OS-X. M$ can charge $5000 for all I care; I'm not buying Vista until the price comes within my range--which it will. These initial MS prices are for those who absolutely have to have the latest thing and will pay dearly for the bragging rights.

Sorry my friend, but I have my opinions too. :)

I'm installing Ubuntu 6.1 as a dual-boot this week.
I've probably done 10 hardware upgrades in the last three months.
I can't wait to prove I can live on the linux side, so I can show my friends how to do it too.

Monopoly, in the strict literal definition means one competitior (mono = one), however, in the economical sense, it does not have to be one or 100%. Laws passed by governments decide what constitutes a monopoly. And as far as I know, Microsoft is considered a monopoly by every developed country.
There are other OSs available on the market, but they don't have nearly enough market share to threaten Microsofts share of the OS market. That includes Linux and Apple (I am pretty sure Linux has a bigger share than Apple, but I may be mistaken).
If I was to move to another OS, I wouldn't necessarily move to a lesser quality OS, but a less capable OS for my needs. It would be (almost) impossible to find the games that I like and the business programs that I use for another operating system. This ties me to MS, whether I like it or not. Many other people are in the same situation as myself.

I do want to use Windows, I like the operating system. But I don't want to pay an arm and a leg to use it.

As for the honorable Judge Jackson, the appeals court did overturn some of his decisions, but upheld that Microsoft is a monopoly.

You're more than generous in referring to Judge Jackson as honorable. :) Frankly, the man is an intellectual lightweight. That's not opinion; he's demonstrated it himself in his volume of work. However, the honorific his position confers is "The Honorable," so I'll concede the point.

If that decision were ever go to the Supreme Court, I believe it would be overturned in the present Court. It would never be overturned with the Court we had a generation ago, during the Carter years; so opinions do change over time. I'm just happy that, despite government meddling, the market works by the immutable forces of supply and demand. Which, in the long run, will determine Vista's price; if MS doesn't drop the price eventually, sales will disappear.

Of course we all have opinions and that it to be respected.

What I don't understand is why some people do not think that it's reasonable that when you buy a RETAIL license for Vista, you can't upgrade your hardware as much as you like.

If your argument is to prevent piracy, then surely all Microsoft has to do is switch off all machines with a duplicate key. this can be done if they access the update site during a short period of time each other.

For me Apple and Linux are not an option but staying with XP certainly is.

I think it's perfectly reasonable, and wish that it were so. My point was never that it is unreasonable to expect; my point is that Microsoft owns Microsoft, not the users. Microsoft has the right to do as it pleases. I have the right not to buy Microsoft. I don't have the right to tell Microsoft what to produce. I also have the right to start looking elsewhere for an operating system, which I am doing now. I've installed Ubuntu 6.10 and PCLinux on a spare computer, and am finally going to learn them inside and out.

If Vista comes down in price, and is more reasonable in its license restrictions, I may think of buying it. Actually, their policy is not so much different than it used to be; they've just clarified it and seem intent on enforcing it more strictly. That's their prerogative. Oh well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lgbpop

I don't have the right to tell Microsoft what to produce.

---

I feel that we all have the right to tell Microsoft what we want them to produce, at the end of the day we are the customers and without us they are out of business.

It's also worth noting that as computer enthusiasts we help them develop and support their products, so why do they want to screw us for more and more money every chance they get.

The main thing that I want to get across is that the more we show them that we are upset with their license terms the more chance we have of changing their minds.

Perhaps being British gives me more of a fighting spirit :D

Being American, I'm more of a laissez-faire spirit. :) When the government (God forbid) owns corporate enties they can dictate the terms of production and sale. Otherwise, let the market rule--and rule it does. The secret of business success is not in selling what you want to make, but to make what will sell.

Quote:

---

at the end of the day we are the customers and without us they are out of business.

---

Not if people keep buying.... ;)

Perhaps if we dumped hundreds of copies of Vista overboard into Boston Harbor, maybe then.......

Aw, forget it....it worked before, but probably not a second time.

LMAO Bistro :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bistro

Perhaps if we dumped hundreds of copies of Vista overboard into Boston Harbor, maybe then.......

Aw, forget it....it worked before, but probably not a second time.

---

All we need is a millionaire to buy them in the first place :D

Dump them at the end of M$'s entrance road on Bel-Red, that would mess up morning traffic for sure!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philgo

All we need is a millionaire to buy them in the first place :D

---

Well, heck....we'll ask Bill Gates to buy them for us and.....

No.....wait.....that won't work.....

I like the Boston Tea Party suggestion :) The way I see it, one thing that could happen is that MS realizes that they don't have a monopoly (noting that members of this board have said that they would readily switch to another OS, the market force that we are), and that MS would suddenly become reasonable, as a business decision of course. Another is that legislators will step in. Interestly enough, consumer protection, and business practices legislation, in Canada anyway, do not yet address this issue; it's new; all of the internet legal issues are new everywhere. But it is of the same nature as business behaviour that the Ontario consumer protection legislation prohibits, like tied selling; forcing you to buy another product as a condition of buying. So I would suggest you contact your local representatives
to ask for amendments to legislation to deal with this kind of coercive corporate behaviour.
Chas

Looks like there are bigger players crying foul about Vista pricing.

Acer: Vista is an excuse for Microsoft price hikes