|
|
Post by Prometheus on Jun 24, 2022 9:30:35 GMT
Decades ago we seemed dedicated to breaking up monopolies in order to enhance capitalistic competition. These days it seems that certain companies are growing so large (mainly by buying up the competition) that, again, competition is being stifled.
Is it time to start breaking these companies up and - more importantly - putting a limit on how large they can grow (in terms of market share)?
|
|
|
|
Post by abbey1227 on Jun 24, 2022 12:27:28 GMT
Decades ago we seemed dedicated to breaking up monopolies in order to enhance capitalistic competition. These days it seems that certain companies are growing so large (mainly by buying up the competition) that, again, competition is being stifled.
Is it time to start breaking these companies up and - more importantly - putting a limit on how large they can grow (in terms of market share)?
I do wonder what happened to that sentiment? I recall Microsoft getting spanked when they were pushing their product into most PCs and cutting the cost to consumers.
I'm guessing part of that compliance/cooperation with Govt these days has bought them protection from monopoly busting now.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prometheus on Jun 24, 2022 23:39:06 GMT
Decades ago we seemed dedicated to breaking up monopolies in order to enhance capitalistic competition. These days it seems that certain companies are growing so large (mainly by buying up the competition) that, again, competition is being stifled.
Is it time to start breaking these companies up and - more importantly - putting a limit on how large they can grow (in terms of market share)?
I do wonder what happened to that sentiment? I recall Microsoft getting spanked when they were pushing their product into most PCs and cutting the cost to consumers.
I'm guessing part of that compliance/cooperation with Govt these days has bought them protection from monopoly busting now.
1. I was about to agree with you there because I thought you were talking about bundling "Explorer" but then you said, "cutting costs to the consumer," which threw me, as browsers were (and are) generally free, so I'm wondering what costs Billy Boy was trying to cut for us?
2.carts... horses...
3. Are you going to answer the question?
|
|
|
|
Post by abbey1227 on Jun 25, 2022 2:00:05 GMT
I do wonder what happened to that sentiment? I recall Microsoft getting spanked when they were pushing their product into most PCs and cutting the cost to consumers.
I'm guessing part of that compliance/cooperation with Govt these days has bought them protection from monopoly busting now.
1. I was about to agree with you there because I thought you were talking about bundling "Explorer" but then you said, "cutting costs to the consumer," which threw me, as browsers were (and are) generally free, so I'm wondering what costs Billy Boy was trying to cut for us?
2.carts... horses...
3. Are you going to answer the question?
1. Don't you remember how expensive the first computers were? Sorta like Henry Ford, the way Microsoft made very user friendly software accessible and ubiquitous it helped to lower the cost to the consumer, imo. They then, of course, tried to use that growth and power to force everyone to use their stuff ONLY, or at least collect fees whether they did or didn't. At least, that was the Govt's argument.
"In 1990, Microsoft introduced the Microsoft Office suite which bundled separate applications such as Microsoft Word and Microsoft Excel.: 301 On May 22, Microsoft launched Windows 3.0, featuring streamlined user interface graphics and improved protected mode capability for the Intel 386 processor, and both Office and Windows became dominant in their respective areas.
On July 27, 1994, the Department of Justice's Antitrust Division filed a competitive impact statement which said: "Beginning in 1988 and continuing until July 15, 1994, Microsoft induced many OEMs to execute anti-competitive 'per processor' licenses. Under a per-processor license, an OEM pays Microsoft a royalty for each computer it sells containing a particular microprocessor, whether the OEM sells the computer with a Microsoft operating system or a non-Microsoft operating system. In effect, the royalty payment to Microsoft when no Microsoft product is being used acts as a penalty, or tax, on the OEM's use of a competing PC operating system. Since 1988, Microsoft's use of per processor licenses has increased."
Following Bill Gates' internal "Internet Tidal Wave memo" on May 26, 1995, Microsoft began to redefine its offerings and expand its product line into computer networking and the World Wide Web. With a few exceptions of new companies, like Netscape, Microsoft was the only major and established company that acted fast enough to be a part of the World Wide Web practically from the start. Other companies like Borland, WordPerfect, Novell, IBM and Lotus, being much slower to adapt to the new situation, would give Microsoft a market dominance."
My answer is likely 'No'.......because I trust the marketplace more than I trust the Govt
|
|
|
|
Post by Prometheus on Jun 25, 2022 2:56:01 GMT
1. I was about to agree with you there because I thought you were talking about bundling "Explorer" but then you said, "cutting costs to the consumer," which threw me, as browsers were (and are) generally free, so I'm wondering what costs Billy Boy was trying to cut for us?
2.carts... horses...
3. Are you going to answer the question?
1. Don't you remember how expensive the first computers were? Sorta like Henry Ford, the way Microsoft made very user friendly software accessible and ubiquitous it helped to lower the cost to the consumer, imo. They then, of course, tried to use that growth and power to force everyone to use their stuff ONLY, or at least collect fees whether they did or didn't. At least, that was the Govt's argument.
"In 1990, Microsoft introduced the Microsoft Office suite which bundled separate applications such as Microsoft Word and Microsoft Excel.: 301 On May 22, Microsoft launched Windows 3.0, featuring streamlined user interface graphics and improved protected mode capability for the Intel 386 processor, and both Office and Windows became dominant in their respective areas.
On July 27, 1994, the Department of Justice's Antitrust Division filed a competitive impact statement which said: "Beginning in 1988 and continuing until July 15, 1994, Microsoft induced many OEMs to execute anti-competitive 'per processor' licenses. Under a per-processor license, an OEM pays Microsoft a royalty for each computer it sells containing a particular microprocessor, whether the OEM sells the computer with a Microsoft operating system or a non-Microsoft operating system. In effect, the royalty payment to Microsoft when no Microsoft product is being used acts as a penalty, or tax, on the OEM's use of a competing PC operating system. Since 1988, Microsoft's use of per processor licenses has increased."
Following Bill Gates' internal "Internet Tidal Wave memo" on May 26, 1995, Microsoft began to redefine its offerings and expand its product line into computer networking and the World Wide Web. With a few exceptions of new companies, like Netscape, Microsoft was the only major and established company that acted fast enough to be a part of the World Wide Web practically from the start. Other companies like Borland, WordPerfect, Novell, IBM and Lotus, being much slower to adapt to the new situation, would give Microsoft a market dominance."
My answer is likely 'No'.......because I trust the marketplace more than I trust the Govt
1. I started working in the BU Bookstore computer department in 1984. I have more than a passing knowledge and what you're quoting has nothing to do with what you actually said.
2. So... you trust Jeff Bezos to decide what you can and cannot buy and at what price? You trust Disney and Warner to decide what you can watch? You trust Google to give you the answers?
|
|
|
|
Post by abbey1227 on Jun 25, 2022 11:40:02 GMT
1. So Gates didn't make computers better, more widely available to all and in some ways more inexpensive? I stand corrected then.
2. Yes. Cuz where there's competition, I trust someone else will always wanna piece of the pie.......and maybe outcompete Bezos. Or Disney. Or Google.
That might require the Govt doing it's job in playing the impartial referee over it all.........but as we've already agreed, thy kinda suck at that the last few decades.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prometheus on Jun 25, 2022 23:52:25 GMT
1. So Gates didn't make computers better, more widely available to all and in some ways more inexpensive? I stand corrected then.
2. Yes. Cuz where there's competition, I trust someone else will always wanna piece of the pie.......and maybe outcompete Bezos. Or Disney. Or Google.
That might require the Govt doing it's job in playing the impartial referee over it all.........but as we've already agreed, thy kinda suck at that the last few decades.
1. Not through the bundling of software but through the adaptability of the OS
2. I'm pointing out that when companies own such a large share of the market there is very little room for competition.
|
|
|
|
Post by abbey1227 on Jun 26, 2022 0:36:07 GMT
1. So Gates didn't make computers better, more widely available to all and in some ways more inexpensive? I stand corrected then.
2. Yes. Cuz where there's competition, I trust someone else will always wanna piece of the pie.......and maybe outcompete Bezos. Or Disney. Or Google.
That might require the Govt doing it's job in playing the impartial referee over it all.........but as we've already agreed, thy kinda suck at that the last few decades.
1. Not through the bundling of software but through the adaptability of the OS
2. I'm pointing out that when companies own such a large share of the market there is very little room for competition.
1. OK
2. I'd be in full agreement with you........and THAT is where an effective and impartial referee of a Govt is supposed to be involved. Instead, they've become corrupt
|
|
|
|
Post by Prometheus on Jun 26, 2022 1:45:59 GMT
1. Not through the bundling of software but through the adaptability of the OS
2. I'm pointing out that when companies own such a large share of the market there is very little room for competition.
1. OK
2. I'd be in full agreement with you........and THAT is where an effective and impartial referee of a Govt is supposed to be involved. Instead, they've become corrupt
2. So... they could referee in the manner of limiting market share? |
|
|
|
Post by abbey1227 on Jun 26, 2022 1:49:06 GMT
1. OK
2. I'd be in full agreement with you........and THAT is where an effective and impartial referee of a Govt is supposed to be involved. Instead, they've become corrupt
2. So... they could referee in the manner of limiting market share?
That would be an interesting approach. What percentage becomes too large?
There certainly is a trend in larger and larger companies just plain buying out the competition........at least it seems so.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prometheus on Jun 26, 2022 2:06:15 GMT
2. So... they could referee in the manner of limiting market share?
That would be an interesting approach. What percentage becomes too large?
There certainly is a trend in larger and larger companies just plain buying out the competition........at least it seems so.
So... you're finally catching on to the actual topic.
here's a cookie
|
|
|
|
Post by abbey1227 on Jun 26, 2022 2:09:32 GMT
That would be an interesting approach. What percentage becomes too large?
There certainly is a trend in larger and larger companies just plain buying out the competition........at least it seems so.
So... you're finally catching on to the actual topic.
here's a cookie
You on the take from the Girl Scouts of America by chance?
|
|
|
|
Post by Prometheus on Jun 26, 2022 2:13:06 GMT
So... you're finally catching on to the actual topic.
here's a cookie
You on the take from the Girl Scouts of America by chance?
I'm guessing there's some "news" story that I'm not aware of at play here, but... no. However, my daughter earned her Gold Award.
Oh wait... cookie... Girl Scouts
I get it.
Now get back on topic
|
|
|
|
Post by abbey1227 on Jun 26, 2022 2:17:10 GMT
You on the take from the Girl Scouts of America by chance?
I'm guessing there's some "news" story that I'm not aware of at play here, but... no. However, my daughter earned her Gold Award.
Oh wait... cookie... Girl Scouts
I get it.
Now get back on topic
OK, the topic..........at what point do we decide any company owns too much of the marketplace? ![[giveup]](//storage.proboards.com/7182076/images/FSYefibmKqtatIXMgHZg.gif) And is it all marketplaces?
IIRC, Unilever owns a shyteton of different products offered to consumers
Before the Japanese arrived, the Big 3 pretty much dominated the auto market.......and there's certainly been a lot of protectionism going on to prevent the so-called American companies from getting their butts kicked too badly.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prometheus on Jun 26, 2022 2:24:06 GMT
I'm guessing there's some "news" story that I'm not aware of at play here, but... no. However, my daughter earned her Gold Award.
Oh wait... cookie... Girl Scouts
I get it.
Now get back on topic
OK, the topic..........at what point do we decide any company owns too much of the marketplace? ![[giveup]](//storage2.proboards.com/7182076/images/FSYefibmKqtatIXMgHZg.gif) And is it all marketplaces?
IIRC, Unilever owns a shyteton of different products offered to consumers
Before the Japanese arrived, the Big 3 pretty much dominated the auto market.......and there's certainly been a lot of protectionism going on to prevent the so-called American companies from getting their butts kicked too badly.
I guess we have to decide, at what point a company can block access to the marketplace. |
|
![[giveup]](http://storage.proboards.com/7182076/images/FSYefibmKqtatIXMgHZg.gif)
![[giveup]](http://storage2.proboards.com/7182076/images/FSYefibmKqtatIXMgHZg.gif)
![[crazy1]](http://storage.proboards.com/7182076/images/ue0z0fwvecEC0UQSHAmw.gif)
![[crazy1]](http://storage2.proboards.com/7182076/images/ue0z0fwvecEC0UQSHAmw.gif)
![[cheers]](http://storage.proboards.com/7182076/images/engyBVslEdpmpmdnBwZQ.gif)
