Bush was cool... but all in all the event sucked.

I was packed into alltel stadium with 50,000 other people. Behind us some guy had a little girl. In front of us two democrats for  bush / ex-dems had two little boys. The little girl behind us kept kicking our seats and I had to turn around and give her a death stare. The dad finally made her quit. But in front of us the boy kept screaming. Whenever there was a clap he screamed at the top of his lungs. Finally a woman tapped them on the shoulder and said "could you tell your kid to stop screaming, I am deaf in that ear now".  They did not, they just moved him to their other side. The encouraged his screaming in fact. They thought it was cute and he was being politically active. I overheard a comment about how he should join the young republicans club... bah.

The coolest part of the show was seeing air force one fly over the stadium really low right before the pres arrived. Bush was pretty good too

The bad parts were having to sit through 3 hours of speakers who were not bush... many of them no-bodys. One of them was Krenchaw... he is cool. But the others were lame. Another bad part is that in the stadium a 20oz Pepsi costs 3 bucks. They inflate the price 300% of what it would be at any sensible vending machine. There is price collusion inside of the stadium, and you cannot bring food in if you do not smuggle it (this is a small picture of how government interference (the stadium) creates collusion and how the market should be as free as possible), I wish someone would go anti trust on the budweiser zone stands and any others who inflate like this.

I've been to two Bush rallies so far, one at Progress Energy Park in St. Petersburg and one at Joker Marchant Field in Lakeland. Both times I've have been given excellent seats and am proud to say I've had the opportunity to shake the President's hand on both occassions. The rallies are so much fun, and there is still one more scheduled here in Tampa before the election, so I know I'll get to see him again!!!

:'( I wish I could have shook the man's hand... but I was stuck around 50,000 other bush supporters.  :-\

My state hasn't voted Democratic since Kennedy, Bush has come here once and that was in 2000. :(

[quote]I overheard a comment about how he should join the young republicans club... bah.[/quote]

I, holding a leadership position in my schools YR club, am inclined to ask you what's wrong with it. :P We've only been around for about 3 weeks and have already been on a national radio network. ^^

[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=9307.msg86089#msg86089 date=1098729526]
My state hasn't voted Democratic since Kennedy, Bush has come here once and that was in 2000. :(

[quote]I overheard a comment about how he should join the young republicans club... bah.[/quote]

I, holding a leadership position in my schools YR club, am inclined to ask you what's wrong with it. :P We've only been around for about 3 weeks and have already been on a national radio network. ^^
[/quote]

I'm in it, but can't be a leader in it because I'm too busy leading ProtestWarrior.

The PW chapter here never does anything so that doesn't occupy any of my time. This year I'm treasurer but since both the current vice-president and president are seniors I get to take over next year.

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9307.msg86008#msg86008 date=1098671309]
Another bad part is that in the stadium a 20oz Pepsi costs 3 bucks. They inflate the price 300% of what it would be at any sensible vending machine.
[/quote]

That's typical republican policies. They're all for the big corporations, letting them gain monopolies and drive up prices. Very obvious that it happens on a Bush rally too. Well, good thing everyone saw that, and know not to vote Bush now.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=9307.msg86110#msg86110 date=1098741753]
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9307.msg86008#msg86008 date=1098671309]
Another bad part is that in the stadium a 20oz Pepsi costs 3 bucks. They inflate the price 300% of what it would be at any sensible vending machine.
[/quote]

That's typical republican policies. They're all for the big corporations, letting them gain monopolies and drive up prices. Very obvious that it happens on a Bush rally too. Well, good thing everyone saw that, and know not to vote Bush now.
[/quote]

Typical democrat/liberal policices to whine about it without offering a solution thats worthwhile.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=9307.msg86110#msg86110 date=1098741753]
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9307.msg86008#msg86008 date=1098671309]
Another bad part is that in the stadium a 20oz Pepsi costs 3 bucks. They inflate the price 300% of what it would be at any sensible vending machine.
[/quote]

That's typical republican policies. They're all for the big corporations, letting them gain monopolies and drive up prices. Very obvious that it happens on a Bush rally too. Well, good thing everyone saw that, and know not to vote Bush now.
[/quote]

Almost every event I've been to (speech/concert/play/etc.) the prices are higher than they should be. Ya' know, not everything is Bush's fault apparently. Yea, it shocked me too.

[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=9307.msg86126#msg86126 date=1098752195]
[quote author=Adron link=topic=9307.msg86110#msg86110 date=1098741753]
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9307.msg86008#msg86008 date=1098671309]
Another bad part is that in the stadium a 20oz Pepsi costs 3 bucks. They inflate the price 300% of what it would be at any sensible vending machine.
[/quote]

That's typical republican policies. They're all for the big corporations, letting them gain monopolies and drive up prices. Very obvious that it happens on a Bush rally too. Well, good thing everyone saw that, and know not to vote Bush now.
[/quote]


Almost every event I've been to (speech/concert/play/etc.) the prices are higher than they should be. Ya' know, not everything is Bush's fault apparently. Yea, it shocked me too.
[/quote]

The popular thing is to blame Bush and Republicans for all that is wrong in the world. Ask a liberal, he'll point the finger at Bush. Whether its the attendence in church being down, whether its global warming, whether its depletion of the global gene pool, whether its world hunger, whether its the sky being blue or the grass being green, whether its 1 not being equal to 2, its all our fault.

[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=9307.msg86089#msg86089 date=1098729526]
My state hasn't voted Democratic since Kennedy, Bush has come here once and that was in 2000. :(

[quote]I overheard a comment about how he should join the young republicans club... bah.[/quote]

I, holding a leadership position in my schools YR club, am inclined to ask you what's wrong with it. :P We've only been around for about 3 weeks and have already been on a national radio network. ^^
[/quote] because this kid is 8 and did not even know what he was screaming about. He wasa just screaming whenever someone clapped. Very annoying.

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9307.msg86102#msg86102 date=1098734424]
[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=9307.msg86089#msg86089 date=1098729526]
My state hasn't voted Democratic since Kennedy, Bush has come here once and that was in 2000. :(

[quote]I overheard a comment about how he should join the young republicans club... bah.[/quote]

I, holding a leadership position in my schools YR club, am inclined to ask you what's wrong with it. :P We've only been around for about 3 weeks and have already been on a national radio network. ^^
[/quote]

I'm in it, but can't be a leader in it because I'm too busy leading ProtestWarrior.
[/quote] You know of any way to dethrone a pw leader? Our chapters leader is not doing anything. Infact I have emailed him about it numerous times and he said "No one has been talking to me, I will tell you when something happens". Seems to me like the guy does not really care.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=9307.msg86110#msg86110 date=1098741753]
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9307.msg86008#msg86008 date=1098671309]
Another bad part is that in the stadium a 20oz Pepsi costs 3 bucks. They inflate the price 300% of what it would be at any sensible vending machine.
[/quote]

That's typical republican policies. They're all for the big corporations, letting them gain monopolies and drive up prices. Very obvious that it happens on a Bush rally too. Well, good thing everyone saw that, and know not to vote Bush now.
[/quote] You are very wrong. Conservative economics is for a more free market. Fewer taxes. The less government intervention in the market, the less chance for collusion. If there are no governments there could be no collusion because competition would take place every time.

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9307.msg86139#msg86139 date=1098754744]
[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9307.msg86102#msg86102 date=1098734424]
[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=9307.msg86089#msg86089 date=1098729526]
My state hasn't voted Democratic since Kennedy, Bush has come here once and that was in 2000. :(

[quote]I overheard a comment about how he should join the young republicans club... bah.[/quote]

I, holding a leadership position in my schools YR club, am inclined to ask you what's wrong with it. :P We've only been around for about 3 weeks and have already been on a national radio network. ^^
[/quote]

I'm in it, but can't be a leader in it because I'm too busy leading ProtestWarrior.
[/quote] You know of any way to dethrone a pw leader? Our chapters leader is not doing anything. Infact I have emailed him about it numerous times and he said "No one has been talking to me, I will tell you when something happens". Seems to me like the guy does not really care.
[/quote]

No, unless you convince him to resign OR convince a PW admin to take him out of leadership.

Ugh... I guess I will have to piss and moan around until something gets done. I wanted to make that florida pw website too that was disgussed. I signed up for that but unless I get a word on weather I need to pony up for some asp.net hosting I can't do much.

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9307.msg86140#msg86140 date=1098754898]
[quote author=Adron link=topic=9307.msg86110#msg86110 date=1098741753]
That's typical republican policies. They're all for the big corporations, letting them gain monopolies and drive up prices. Very obvious that it happens on a Bush rally too. Well, good thing everyone saw that, and know not to vote Bush now.
[/quote] You are very wrong. Conservative economics is for a more free market. Fewer taxes. The less government intervention in the market, the less chance for collusion. If there are no governments there could be no collusion because competition would take place every time.
[/quote]

That's not what happens without government involvement. Look at Microsoft - without governments around to regulate competition, there'd be no competition.

No. First off microsoft is not a monopoly. They are in competition all over the place. If we are talking about the os, you have windows competeing with macos, linux, and unix. If governments are not involved at all the consumer will not pay arm and leg for the windows operating system. They will resort to using linux or unix or macos. Also those oss would probably be better at that point. Competition is natural, if there is a company charging more for a product (even though it is differentiated) people are going to try to get a bargain and get the cheaper one. They want a greater consumer surplus. The reason microsoft is so much bigger then the others is because all of the software is working with their product, but say the government did not get involved, software would not work with windows as well because microsoft is not open source. It was the government who made them give up source code to begin with. If they did not do that microsoft would eventually be forced to go open source.

With governments we get monoplies. Look at the trusts throughout history: You have the railroad trusts, standard oil, countless trusts at the beginning of the last century and the end of the one before that. They were caused by the government's actions. The laws actually helped them form.

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9307.msg86161#msg86161 date=1098785632]
No. First off microsoft is not a monopoly. They are in competition all over the place. If we are talking about the os, you have windows competeing with macos, linux, and unix. If governments are not involved at all the consumer will not pay arm and leg for the windows operating system. They will resort to using linux or unix or macos.
[/quote]

Actually, if the government is not involved at all, the consumer will not pay arm and leg for the windows operating system; the consumer will just copy the windows operating system. I suppose that'd be the best? :P

A basic problem: Since the cost of computer software consists virtually entirely of development (as opposed to building a railroad, digging for oil etc), a player that is big in the marketplace can get bigger and just gain money. There will be no significant additional cost with each sold copy. Dumping prices is easy when needed, and competition can be killed off without any trouble by either buying them out or making what they used to make a "free" component of your system.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=9307.msg86201#msg86201 date=1098810633]
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9307.msg86161#msg86161 date=1098785632]
No. First off microsoft is not a monopoly. They are in competition all over the place. If we are talking about the os, you have windows competeing with macos, linux, and unix. If governments are not involved at all the consumer will not pay arm and leg for the windows operating system. They will resort to using linux or unix or macos.
[/quote]

Actually, if the government is not involved at all, the consumer will not pay arm and leg for the windows operating system; the consumer will just copy the windows operating system. I suppose that'd be the best? :P[/quote] Sure they are. When they force microsoft to give up source code they are. When the eu pisses about microsoft bundleing windows with media player they are. If the us government did not say microsoft has to give up source code, odds are there would not be as many software titles that work on windows. I can see this decreasing their popularity.
[quote]
A basic problem: Since the cost of computer software consists virtually entirely of development (as opposed to building a railroad, digging for oil etc), a player that is big in the marketplace can get bigger and just gain money. There will be no significant additional cost with each sold copy. Dumping prices is easy when needed, and competition can be killed off without any trouble by either buying them out or making what they used to make a "free" component of your system.
[/quote] That does not change the fact at all that microsoft is not a monopoly because they are in competition and they cannot buy out the competition at this point. They cannot 'buy' unix, they can't buy linux, mac, or solaris either. If the government did not intervein, like I mentioned a second ago microsoft might have more of a problem with these competeing operating systems.

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9307.msg86247#msg86247 date=1098833098]
Sure they are. When they force microsoft to give up source code they are. When the eu pisses about microsoft bundleing windows with media player they are. If the us government did not say microsoft has to give up source code, odds are there would not be as many software titles that work on windows. I can see this decreasing their popularity.
[/quote]
You're making assumptions, horrible ones.  Before all the lawsuits, thousands of applications worked on windows.

[quote]
That does not change the fact at all that microsoft is not a monopoly because they are in competition and they cannot buy out the competition at this point. They cannot 'buy' unix, they can't buy linux, mac, or solaris either. If the government did not intervein, like I mentioned a second ago microsoft might have more of a problem with these competeing operating systems.
[/quote]

What ever you say can't change the fact that microsoft *is* a monopoly.  The courts recognizes this.  But to prove it to you...can you name one operating system that has > 10% of the market share of the desktop market (intel-compatible)?

[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=9307.msg86278#msg86278 date=1098845774]
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9307.msg86247#msg86247 date=1098833098]
Sure they are. When they force microsoft to give up source code they are. When the eu pisses about microsoft bundleing windows with media player they are. If the us government did not say microsoft has to give up source code, odds are there would not be as many software titles that work on windows. I can see this decreasing their popularity.
[/quote]
You're making assumptions, horrible ones.  Before all the lawsuits, thousands of applications worked on windows.[/quote] Yes but the anti trust lawsuits, if they had not taken place, might have allowed microsoft to act monopolistic for a period of time, but pretty soon microsoft would not be able to do it anymore because the market can correct its self.
Lets look at opec for a second. If those countires were not allowed to stick the way they do because of the regulations of governments they would be thrown into competition. Iraq could very well break up the cartel.


That does not change the fact at all that microsoft is not a monopoly because they are in competition and they cannot buy out the competition at this point. They cannot 'buy' unix, they can't buy linux, mac, or solaris either. If the government did not intervein, like I mentioned a second ago microsoft might have more of a problem with these competeing operating systems.

[quote]
What ever you say can't change the fact that microsoft *is* a monopoly.  The courts recognizes this.  But to prove it to you...can you name one operating system that has > 10% of the market share of the desktop market (intel-compatible)?
[/quote]Its not a %  thing. It is the fact that Microsoft is still in competition. If there is any competition it is not a true monopoly. Microsoft is in some tight monopolistic competition, maybe even an oligopoly, but they are not a monopoly. They have power to set the price and price discriminate so they have a lot of power, but since there are other companies that prevent them from charging even more they cannot be a true monopoly.

Lets examine the competition:
You have mac, you have sun, you have ibm (aix), you have hp, you have tons of other companies with their own versions of unix. Then you have linux. Microsoft competes with them all over the place. But it is most visible in the server and work station market. The majority of web servers are certainly not windows.

Microsoft is not even that bad compared to the trusts in the sherman era. Those were monsters (humm, that was because it was government intervention that allowed them to be), now we are under clayton.

My point: If the market is allowed to take care of its self there are fewer problems. Taxes are inherently bad because they prevent the market from reaching a natural equilibrium and create a dead weight loss. Price ceiling and price floors are inherently bad because they prevent the market from reaching equilibrium and create shortages and surpluses. The only thing a government should do with the market is to prevent market failures (negative externalities)

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9307.msg86279#msg86279 date=1098846201]
Yes but the anti trust lawsuits, if they had not taken place, might have allowed microsoft to act monopolistic for a period of time, but pretty soon microsoft would not be able to do it anymore because the market can correct its self.
Lets look at opec for a second. If those countires were not allowed to stick the way they do because of the regulations of governments they would be thrown into competition. Iraq could very well break up the cartel.


That does not change the fact at all that microsoft is not a monopoly because they are in competition and they cannot buy out the competition at this point. They cannot 'buy' unix, they can't buy linux, mac, or solaris either. If the government did not intervein, like I mentioned a second ago microsoft might have more of a problem with these competeing operating systems.
[/quote]
What are you talking about?  The court found microsoft was a monopoly, had harmed consumers, and had contacts that had anti-competitive effects.  If that isn't a monopoly, then I don't know what is.  How can the market correct itself from a monopoly, in the case of Microsoft? No regulations of government could stop OPEC.  If a government wanted to boycott OPEC, then they're only harming themselves if they're a oil driven society.  How cannot buy out the competition?

[quote]
Its not a %  thing. It is the fact that Microsoft is still in competition. If there is any competition it is not a true monopoly. Microsoft is in some tight monopolistic competition, maybe even an oligopoly, but they are not a monopoly. They have power to set the price and price discriminate so they have a lot of power, but since there are other companies that prevent them from charging even more they cannot be a true monopoly.

Lets examine the competition:
You have mac, you have sun, you have ibm (aix), you have hp, you have tons of other companies with their own versions of unix. Then you have linux. Microsoft competes with them all over the place. But it is most visible in the server and work station market. The majority of web servers are certainly not windows.

Microsoft is not even that bad compared to the trusts in the sherman era. Those were monsters (humm, that was because it was government intervention that allowed them to be), now we are under clayton.

My point: If the market is allowed to take care of its self there are fewer problems. Taxes are inherently bad because they prevent the market from reaching a natural equilibrium and create a dead weight loss. Price ceiling and price floors are inherently bad because they prevent the market from reaching equilibrium and create shortages and surpluses. The only thing a government should do with the market is to prevent market failures (negative externalities)
[/quote]

Microsoft does not compete against non-intel compatible operating system markets, that is they don't make an operating system for Apples or other esoteric hardware. They make a product for intel-compatible computers and that is who they compete with and for the most part it is *nix.  Microsoft's leading product is a desktop operating system, not a server operating system; that is an important distinction.  It is a percentage thing.  Consumers really don't have a choice.  They want something they're familiar with (windows, not *nix), they want something that's easy to use (windows, not *nix), and they want something that will work with devices they buy (windows, not *nix).  That leaves Windows, and hence makes Microsoft a monopoly.  These other products don't even affect Microsoft's market share.

Side note: I am not bashing *nix.  I just think Windows is a superior desktop operating system.  And my comments are generalizations and for the most part the fault of the manufacturer for not providing drivers or developing their product with a operating system other than Windows in mind.

[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=9307.msg86286#msg86286 date=1098848424]
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9307.msg86279#msg86279 date=1098846201]
Yes but the anti trust lawsuits, if they had not taken place, might have allowed microsoft to act monopolistic for a period of time, but pretty soon microsoft would not be able to do it anymore because the market can correct its self.
Lets look at opec for a second. If those countires were not allowed to stick the way they do because of the regulations of governments they would be thrown into competition. Iraq could very well break up the cartel.


That does not change the fact at all that microsoft is not a monopoly because they are in competition and they cannot buy out the competition at this point. They cannot 'buy' unix, they can't buy linux, mac, or solaris either. If the government did not intervein, like I mentioned a second ago microsoft might have more of a problem with these competeing operating systems.
[/quote]
What are you talking about?  The court found microsoft was a monopoly, had harmed consumers, and had contacts that had anti-competitive effects.  If that isn't a monopoly, then I don't know what is.  How can the market correct itself from a monopoly, in the case of Microsoft? No regulations of government could stop OPEC.  If a government wanted to boycott OPEC, then they're only harming themselves if they're a oil driven society.  How cannot buy out the competition?[/quote] microsoft is not a monoply by definition. I do not care what a court says about them sharing source code. Microsoft is not a monoply. If you say they are then you do not know what a monopoly really is. If there is any competition it is not a monoply.
[quote][quote]
Its not a %  thing. It is the fact that Microsoft is still in competition. If there is any competition it is not a true monopoly. Microsoft is in some tight monopolistic competition, maybe even an oligopoly, but they are not a monopoly. They have power to set the price and price discriminate so they have a lot of power, but since there are other companies that prevent them from charging even more they cannot be a true monopoly.

Lets examine the competition:
You have mac, you have sun, you have ibm (aix), you have hp, you have tons of other companies with their own versions of unix. Then you have linux. Microsoft competes with them all over the place. But it is most visible in the server and work station market. The majority of web servers are certainly not windows.

Microsoft is not even that bad compared to the trusts in the sherman era. Those were monsters (humm, that was because it was government intervention that allowed them to be), now we are under clayton.

My point: If the market is allowed to take care of its self there are fewer problems. Taxes are inherently bad because they prevent the market from reaching a natural equilibrium and create a dead weight loss. Price ceiling and price floors are inherently bad because they prevent the market from reaching equilibrium and create shortages and surpluses. The only thing a government should do with the market is to prevent market failures (negative externalities)
[/quote]

Microsoft does not compete against non-intel compatible operating system markets, that is they don't make an operating system for Apples or other esoteric hardware. They make a product for intel-compatible computers and that is who they compete with and for the most part it is *nix.  Microsoft's leading product is a desktop operating system, not a server operating system; that is an important distinction.  It is a percentage thing.  Consumers really don't have a choice.  They want something they're familiar with (windows, not *nix), they want something that's easy to use (windows, not *nix), and they want something that will work with devices they buy (windows, not *nix).  That leaves Windows, and hence makes Microsoft a monopoly.  These other products don't even affect Microsoft's market share.

Side note: I am not bashing *nix.  I just think Windows is a superior desktop operating system.  And my comments are generalizations and for the most part the fault of the manufacturer for not providing drivers or developing their product with a operating system other than Windows in mind.
[/quote]Microsoft does compete against non x86 systems. If someone is buying a mac that means they are not buying a dell bundled with xp.

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9307.msg86302#msg86302 date=1098880383]
Its not a %  thing. It is the fact that Microsoft is still in competition. If there is any competition it is not a true monopoly. Microsoft is in some tight monopolistic competition, maybe even an oligopoly, but they are not a monopoly. They have power to set the price and price discriminate so they have a lot of power, but since there are other companies that prevent them from charging even more they cannot be a true monopoly.
[/quote]

Hmm. Oligopoly is when there are several major actors jacking up prices together. Monopoly is when there's just one. Still, I wonder if this isn't actually a monopoly. Microsoft is big enough to buy up its competitors. Allowing certain other players on the market is probably just a trick to make people think it's not a monopoly, and to keep the government of their backs. Microsoft might even be funding fake competition to make it seem like there's no monopoly.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=9307.msg86606#msg86606 date=1099137700]
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9307.msg86302#msg86302 date=1098880383]
Its not a %  thing. It is the fact that Microsoft is still in competition. If there is any competition it is not a true monopoly. Microsoft is in some tight monopolistic competition, maybe even an oligopoly, but they are not a monopoly. They have power to set the price and price discriminate so they have a lot of power, but since there are other companies that prevent them from charging even more they cannot be a true monopoly.
[/quote]

Hmm. Oligopoly is when there are several major actors jacking up prices together. [/quote] No, I believe the word you are looking for is collusion. Oligopoly is one of the 4 types of competition, it is an industry where there are not many firms and the product is not completely differentiated.
[quote]Monopoly is when there's just one. Still, I wonder if this isn't actually a monopoly. Microsoft is big enough to buy up its competitors. Allowing certain other players on the market is probably just a trick to make people think it's not a monopoly, and to keep the government of their backs. Microsoft might even be funding fake competition to make it seem like there's no monopoly.
[/quote] Nice conspiracy theory you have there. Except how would you go about buying Linux or unix when they are not any one companie's os. How can ms buy out sun microsystems, mac, or ibm or other companies with nice unix based osses?

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9307.msg86670#msg86670 date=1099174500]
Nice conspiracy theory you have there. Except how would you go about buying Linux or unix when they are not any one companie's os. How can ms buy out sun microsystems, mac, or ibm or other companies with nice unix based osses?
[/quote]

Buy out the companies that market linux and stop their marketing.  Then you only have a grassroots marketing which usually isn't very effective.

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9307.msg86302#msg86302 date=1098880383]
Microsoft does compete against non x86 systems. If someone is buying a mac that means they are not buying a dell bundled with xp.
[/quote]

Microsoft already sold the OS to Dell.  Dell is then competing with Apple.

[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=9307.msg86680#msg86680 date=1099177719]
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9307.msg86302#msg86302 date=1098880383]
Microsoft does compete against non x86 systems. If someone is buying a mac that means they are not buying a dell bundled with xp.
[/quote]

Microsoft already sold the OS to Dell.  Dell is then competing with Apple.
[/quote] Microsoft is therefore in competition with apple indirectly.

Microsoft also competes with apple in another way: A lot of people buy macs because they do not like PCs, they do not want windows. They want mac for its graphics capabilities and other stuff.

Microsoft is also in competition with IBM. Their power servers are using AIX. That is instead of an x86 server with windows on it.

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9307.msg86670#msg86670 date=1099174500]
[quote author=Adron link=topic=9307.msg86606#msg86606 date=1099137700]
Monopoly is when there's just one. Still, I wonder if this isn't actually a monopoly. Microsoft is big enough to buy up its competitors. Allowing certain other players on the market is probably just a trick to make people think it's not a monopoly, and to keep the government of their backs. Microsoft might even be funding fake competition to make it seem like there's no monopoly.
[/quote] Nice conspiracy theory you have there. Except how would you go about buying Linux or unix when they are not any one companie's os. How can ms buy out sun microsystems, mac, or ibm or other companies with nice unix based osses?
[/quote]

I wasn't talking about linux or unix, I was talking about companies marketing them. Linux isn't a competitor to Microsoft because linux is an OS and Microsoft is a company. Besides, unix doesn't compete with Windows other than on servers.

I'm pretty sure Microsoft funded Apple at some point in time. A good way to maintain the image that they're not a monopoly.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=9307.msg86775#msg86775 date=1099227451]
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9307.msg86670#msg86670 date=1099174500]
[quote author=Adron link=topic=9307.msg86606#msg86606 date=1099137700]
Monopoly is when there's just one. Still, I wonder if this isn't actually a monopoly. Microsoft is big enough to buy up its competitors. Allowing certain other players on the market is probably just a trick to make people think it's not a monopoly, and to keep the government of their backs. Microsoft might even be funding fake competition to make it seem like there's no monopoly.
[/quote] Nice conspiracy theory you have there. Except how would you go about buying Linux or unix when they are not any one companie's os. How can ms buy out sun microsystems, mac, or ibm or other companies with nice unix based osses?
[/quote]

I wasn't talking about linux or unix, I was talking about companies marketing them. Linux isn't a competitor to Microsoft because linux is an OS and Microsoft is a company. Besides, unix doesn't compete with Windows other than on servers.

I'm pretty sure Microsoft funded Apple at some point in time. A good way to maintain the image that they're not a monopoly.

[/quote] I have only heard of microsoft stealing the apple idea... not funding them. Show me some evidence of this happening. Micorosft's monopoly was on their os. They went to court and were forced to supply relevant source code to other companies making software for their os that competes with their own. The linux os is open source and competes with windows.

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9307.msg86876#msg86876 date=1099262968]
Micorosft's monopoly was on their os.
[/quote]

So now we agree that Microsoft is a monopoly?  Geesh, that took to much to come to such a simple agreement.

Well thats what they were taken to court for. Because other vernders could not make products for their os. But that is not true anymore and additionally windows is not the only os so ms can't be a real monopoly. I wish I had worded my last response differently  ;)

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9307.msg86876#msg86876 date=1099262968]
I have only heard of microsoft stealing the apple idea... not funding them. Show me some evidence of this happening. Micorosft's monopoly was on their os. They went to court and were forced to supply relevant source code to other companies making software for their os that competes with their own. The linux os is open source and competes with windows.
[/quote]

Google for "microsoft invests apple". The particular instance I was thinking of happened some time ago, but there are plenty of hits for it. Some quotes:

[quote]Microsoft CEO Bill Gates decided to invest 150 million dollars in its 'arch enemy,' Apple Computer. It was announced at the MacWorld Trade Show in Boston on August 6, 1997, followed by a mixture of boos and applause from the audience. Many people were not pleased to hear about this deal, but some people think it will help keep Apple in business [/quote]

[quote]Microsoft sees this as a small investment to help them out of their anti-trust concerns.[/quote]

[quote]All in all, this has reinforced people's confidence that Apple will survive in the rapidly changing technology world.[/quote]


I.e. Apple was hanging on the line and Microsoft saved them. Either we see this as a sign of Microsoft's goodness, how generously they helped their main OS competitor, or we see this as Microsoft supporting their pretend-enemy, so as not to get the government to come down less hard on them.

Edit: fix url

Humm microsoft becoming a shareholder in a major competitor would first make me think they were trying to have sway in the company. Get 51% of the shares and screw em. That is what I would first think of something like that. I thought when you said microsoft giving money to mac that it was an under the table thing.

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9307.msg86918#msg86918 date=1099270643]
Humm microsoft becoming a shareholder in a major competitor would first make me think they were trying to have sway in the company. Get 51% of the shares and screw em. That is what I would first think of something like that. I thought when you said microsoft giving money to mac that it was an under the table thing.
[/quote]

No, Apple was in a financial crisis and needed investors badly. Microsoft helped them out to keep them floating. If Microsoft played by the obvious capitalism rules, they would've either let them die, or like you said bought 51%. They didn't, they got non-voting stock, which make it seem more like they wanted to support Apple. Now, why would you support your competitor? Especially at the same time you're being investigated for a monopoly position and for trusts with computer manufacturers?

all of that is fine and dandy but it still meant that microsoft had competition, even if they supported it. So therefore microsoft is in some close monopolistic competition. Now microsoft does have some ability to be a price seter and price descriminate, but that would not make it a monopoly by its self.

This thread has digressed well beyond repair. I suggest that Adron and myself be added as moderators to better break up the threads that mold into totally unrelated conversations or debates.

Yeah... this thread has somehow turned into microsoft is a monoply and microsoft is not a monoply.

Let me just say where I am coming from: If something is a monoply it is not in competition. Monoply can be legal or illegal. Illegal examples would be the railroad trusts at the turn of the century, opec, and the debeers diamond cartel which I believe is not allowed to operate within the united states. Of course there is nothing to stop opec or bedeers, but I would still consider them to be illegal.

Legal examples would be your local utility companies, they are given the right to be the only company there if they get the job done to the satisfaction of the voters. Otherwise lines would be everywhere, it would be a big mess.

Because of the fact that microsoft is in competition with other companies with different products all over the place I do not feel it is a monoply.

I also feel that monopolies cannot occur naturally. I can go into game theory and whip up some diagrams in paint but I would rather not. But basically in a not shell that is what I was trying to say.

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9307.msg86953#msg86953 date=1099275529]
Let me just say where I am coming from: If something is a monoply it is not in competition. Monoply can be legal or illegal. Illegal examples would be the railroad trusts at the turn of the century, opec, and the debeers diamond cartel which I believe is not allowed to operate within the united states. Of course there is nothing to stop opec or bedeers, but I would still consider them to be illegal.

Legal examples would be your local utility companies, they are given the right to be the only company there if they get the job done to the satisfaction of the voters. Otherwise lines would be everywhere, it would be a big mess.

Because of the fact that microsoft is in competition with other companies with different products all over the place I do not feel it is a monoply.

I also feel that monopolies cannot occur naturally. I can go into game theory and whip up some diagrams in paint but I would rather not. But basically in a not shell that is what I was trying to say.
[/quote]

Hmmk, given your exact definition from above, there is no monopoly. Isn't it nice when things can get down to hard definitions? :)


The reason I'm disagreeing with you is that when I think of monopoly I'm looking for something I'd best describe as "real competition". I see Microsoft as a cat playing with a mouse (Apple) here. Microsoft is in control and could've had Apple die. They can buy out competitors at will, or tie them up in legal (say patent?) battles long enough to go bankrupt. To stop this, others have to see this and take steps. One way is to have the government make regulations to stop it.