And consumers are perfectly capable of buying (or building, for that matter) a PC completely without Windows. (For what it's worth, I have bought exactly ONE pre-built PC in my lifetime - my first; I've built the others - all the others.) Choosing NOT to build your own is a choice. That choice has been available in the EU for nearly as long as it has been in the United States - or are you saying that the EU (or even an individual national government) should act as nanny because consumers refuse to make that choice? And there we come to the crux of the argument - Microsoft is not liked because it has a majority share of the desktop market AND because it is not an EU-based company; worse, the EU distribution channel charges a higher price (in the EU) than is charged to Americans - has it not occurred to you that the same is, in fact, true of even EU-sourced commercial software? (Consider SAP R3 - it is, in fact, developed in the EU. Yet it costs less here than it does in the EU. A good portion of the cost of goods in the EU consists of the VAT: while the amount of VAT is different in each country, it is assessed in a similar fashion in each country; a percentage of the products value, with an additional assessment at each layer of the distribution channel. The United States has no VAT (at present) - our only consumption tax is assessed at the state (and sometimes local) level. Unlike the VAT, it is also assessed only once (at the point of sale). Basically, the fault for the high price of goods (regardless of source) you can lay squarely at the feet of your labyrinthine (and notorious) bureaucracy and your consumption-tax system - otherwise, why do even EU-sourced goods generally cost less here than in their countries of origin - Germany, in the case of SAP R3?)
You are right that differences at the price are due to VAT and tariffs. But you surely know that every company makes their own price for a particular market. VAT and tariffs alone don't explain the huge differences of the i.e. I-phone. Besides that the taxes are used to fund the health and welfare system, public unemployment insurance, pension fund. Terms that are in the purely capitalistic and environmentally harmful US unknown, especially to the Republicans. I cannot understand why one should support the monopolist M$. It should be to everybody clear that competition is good for business. No matter if in the EU or US. But with a monopolist as M$ is, it is NOT possible. From the technical and programming aspect M$ ever was crap and they never had the feeling for innovation and needs of the consumers. Other companies always had been cleverer and faster. The only thing M$ can do well is to (ab)use their monopoly situation. Concering this I can expect from every consumer that he thinks about if he really needs to buy w8 and to feed monopoly and larceny.
I was very interested to see Windows 8 as I didn't even imagine how can they improve such an awesome OS such as Windows 7. And to my surprise, Windows 8 SUCKS BIG TIME!!! Now I am not tempted the least bit and am perfectly happy about my Windows 7! Sometimes, developers tend to really screw up what's already awesome!
I think that W8 could be a nail in the coffin for MS. The system is clearly directed to tablets and other mobile devices. My main computer is a desktop built by myself in the way I thought best, so I'm not bothering with what think the OEMs. How many personal computers (not netbooks or tablets) have touch screens? It is an essential feature to have an excellent experience with the W8. Everyone is willing to invest in this technology and buy such screens? I believe that MS is putting all the eggs in one basket by investing in such radical changes in your OS.
That is why I said that the justification is *the government knows best* - basically, *thoughtcrime*. Because Microsoft has a dominant position in the OS market (note that not even the EU said that Microsoft broke any law OR regulation to get there), they must be pre-empted?
I also am running the WDP on a personally-built desktop. Immersive is still my default UI in the WDP. (Yes - I am quite aware of any number of ways to get the Start menu back - however, I have absolutely zero interest in it.) My monitor is not a touch-screen. While *I* like Immersive, I have never claimed that Immersive is for everyone - in fact, there may be those with touchscreens - and even some tablet/slate PC users - that loathe it. Liking - or loathing - Immersive doesn't make you right-headed, or wrong-headed. It just makes you different. Let the choice remain with individual users. To each his own.
As I said, emotional. Rational person would argue rationally. This is kiddies stuff from McCarthy era... FYI, I fought Stalinists in "my" country, whatever that was, risking at least my freedom. Can you tell the same, about your actions, when it comes to "your" country and its injustices? Btw, when the time came to give me sanctuary, as pro-democracy activist, a conscientious objector, who wouldn't fight in a silly nationalist war, the conservatives in the West, in power at the time, said "no"... Because I was and still am from the Left. But democratic Left. A "tiny", fine difference, obviously lost on you, too... And that speaks volumes! They (Western Govs, esp.Conservatives) egged us on all the time, to "do something" and then... Glorious... From what you wrote and "argued": I am light years ahead of you, as a "Liberal"... My "liberal" credentials have some serious weight, unlike yours, it seems to me... Again, no understanding of the issues from your side. No one said that. We all stated the obvious, which is lost on you, in your m$ apologist position: markets are not rational, they tend to end in monopolies, oligopolies, concerns... hence, the Gov has a role and it is doing that role, since no other body can. Somebody has to think long term. Embody the general interest. And markets and corporations do not do that. Learn your elementary political economy. My word. Do the "google" dance, FFS... Honestly... There is no EU Gov and no EU SW, for crying out loud... Linux belongs to the world, Win to m$. Suuuugaaarrrr... And they are openly saying, as I already explained (why do I bother?), that markets without real competition, no real, serious choice, is no market at all but a monopoly, hence a Gov role is to provide conditions in which competition would serve everybody, as opposed to the present situation, where we have a monopoly and high prices, with all that it entails. Go wriggle out of this one... Because the monopolist, as I explained, has the accumulated wealth and a market position favouring it, where every HW manufacturer writes Win drivers but not necessarily Linux ones etc. Go figure... What would Bill Gates say if the roles were reversed? Gov is not going anywhere. Not any time soon. Get over it. You lost me there, for the Linux part: the whole story is that Ubuntu is doing the next move in the general market, for most users. It needs help. From everybody, if the unfair position that it is in is to be overcome. Gov needs to help doing its bit, the manufacturers of HW their bit by writing Linux drivers or opening up the code, co-operating with Linux guys etc. Or is m$ that scared of such a scenario, with all their entrenched advantages, wealth and leverage...?!?
If that way then right: I know it best! Lol. You still seem not to get that capitalism leads to accumulating of money. Accumulated money is actually worthless. It is not available for innovation. Hence some clever minds need to regulate it! Unfortunately history has proven that the best product of a particular sector never became number one. And so it will.....there are rudiments from others, but the market rules work different. It's actually a shame. Cleverness how to con money out of somebody is more important than technical quality. It's a generic problem of capitalism. I will react with my consuming behavior, it's the least I can do. w8 will not bring what M$ is expecting, I am sure. The concept of w8 to go for apps will break its neck. The idea to have apps now is nothing but to satisfy the greed of money--> stengthen the monopoly. It's a fully copied idea from Apple. (With fully I mean the greed for money as well).
Part of the problem is that the governement is not only no better than business; it's often worse. Notice that I never said that government regulation didn't have a place - I said that the government has done a poor (in fact, VERY poor) job of it. And the *Apple idea* (apps, not applications) is all about short-term profit, and it's even, to an extent, backfiring against Apple - the big increase in buzz around their iDevices (and especially iPad2) hasn't exactly resulted in more sales of Macs (of any sort); sales of Macs have remained flat, if not dropped. Microsoft is *adding* app support - but without sacrificing full-tilt application support (as far as x86 goes). The only part of the Windows 8 ecosphere without legacy application support is the ARM (non-x86) space. The criticism of Metro (in Windows 8) is, if anything, because Microsoft did NOT copy the iDevice strategy. Attack after attack (on Metro as a UI) is that "Metro has no place on desktops." - basically, there should NOT be any sort of UI choice when it comes to anything that isn't a tablet or slate. That doesn't sound like the Apple strategy to me. Microsoft is NOT Apple. Apple has also been known to make some rather massive blunders (have we forgotten the Lisa and Newton?). No - I did not forget that capitalism is about accumulation of money. Said accumulation is required before it can be, in fact, distributed - to company personnel (employees, board members in hte case of corporations, legal for protection of company IP, etc.) ancilliary contractors, consultants, retained experts, etc. (Most folks don't work for nothing - they expect compensation.) The *theory* of socialism - or even statism - is all well and good - however, in practice, that theory falls apart, because it requires perfection among the implementation class. Humans aren't perfect - a skew in their favor WILL get put in (because that is, in fact, human nature, like it or not). Is capitalism perfect? No, it's not - not any more than democracy is. However, it holds up far better in practice, despite its flaws, than the alternatives. (Just as democracy does.)
For those that aren't in charge. name a single country where an alternative to capitalism (or even democracy) works for the average citizen (and does NOT have a built-in advantage for those at the top).
You know full well that is not the question. (Ever heard of comparing like for like?!?) In other words: so long as it is not happening to you - it's either not happening at all, to anyone or at least it doesn't matter, since you're the centre of the Universe... Your little ideology - how well is it working in the US right now?!? Or how well did it work in the 1930-ties? Have you any idea how many tens of millions live in abject poverty?!? And not just the US. Try almost the whole of Americas, for instance, enjoying your "pure market idyll"?!? How well did it work for the world around two world wars it created?!? How well did it work for the colonised and subjugated, murdered on a grand scale, all over the world? How well did it work for countless hundreds of millions of "ordinary" people (non-owners) during the "pure market" phase, that you seem to favour (because state is not "perfect")? I could go on and on and on - but what would be the point?!? This is tiresome, since you have "no ears to hear"... Soon I will hear that you have all my qualifications and twice as many, while I will still know nothing in-depth of IT...
The only thing, that I hate is the stupid way, that Metro based apps can only be fullscreen and not windowed. D:
I fully agree. Nothing is working well in the US. debts: 14*10^9 USD per US citizen: 45300 USD Capitalism without social aspects is cruel. US economy is sick. Sooner or later people will get it the hard way. I'd consider the US to be imperialistic.
my dear yen, i fear you may well be bloody right, once more.. but hey. terms that are charged with the political ideas from the cold war era are flying around my ears, here. that era is dead as a doornail now, thank heavens. so why can`t we just discuss this as if we were all civilized people, i just can`t help to wonder? regards, nodnar
Then answer me this, Yen - where does socialism - or even statism - work where it isn't skewed (just as you claim that capitalism is) - toward the topmost? If anything, statism is more *blatant* in the skew (in practice) than capitalism. In theory, neither socialism or statism is supposed to suffer from that particular flaw; however, in practice (as opposed to theory), both do. I have never said that capitalism was perfect - or that government regulation had no place. My beef with government is that, despite the best intentions, they all too often get it not merely wrong - but horribly wrong, doing far more harm than good. And that is regardless of the system of government. It still comes down to *who regulates the regulators*? Regulation run amuck is all too often worse than a complete lack of regulation - for the folks being regulated, and even the folks that the regulation is supposed to benefit. Would you say that the average citizen of the PRC or Russia (neither of which is a capitalistic society) are better off than the average American - despite our acknowledged income disparity and mountain of debt? And if so, why?