The Active Network
ActiveMac Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise  
 

  *  

  Windows XP to reflect antitrust changes
Time: 12:52 EST/17:52 GMT | News Source: CNET | Posted By: Robert Stein

Microsoft this summer will institute some changes to Windows XP as part of a settlement agreement meant to benefit consumers and increase competition. But some state trustbusters and Microsoft's chief rivals aren't convinced that those changes go far enough. The software maker says it plans to start testing Windows XP Service Pack 1 as early as next month, with a final release slated for late summer. The update will introduce support for Mira wireless devices and the Freestyle digital media interface.

More importantly, the update will let consumers and PC makers remove access to about a half-dozen of Microsoft's so-called middleware technologies integrated into Windows XP. The capability was mandated by Microsoft's settlement with the U.S. Justice Department and nine of 18 states that brought an antitrust suit against the software colossus. In theory, this change means programs from AOL Time Warner, RealNetworks and other companies could get prominent placement in Windows XP over similar Microsoft technologies, creating more consumer choice and increasing competition.

Write Comment
Return to News

  Displaying 1 through 25 of 324
Last | Next
  The time now is 3:03:32 PM ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us
#1 By 20 (68.53.242.24) at 4/5/2002 1:45:26 PM
Where do these anonymous morons come from?

I mean, not a friggin' basic clue at all. *SMACK #2*. Get a clue moron.

We're talking about commerce.

This is supposedly a capitalist society, however it appears that the
liberal democrats have gotten their way far too often and now
we have a more socialist/communist marketplace where if you do
something that someone else doesn't like, or if you exceed, you are
smacked down so that the underachievers can feel better about
themselves.

#1, you are completely right. Atals Shrugged should be mandatory
reading for all Americans. Or, rather you have a choice: Read Atlas,
or get smacked with a cluestick every year.

Are we, or are we not a capitalist society? Must we keep punishing
companies for success and rewarding failure with court judgements?

#2 By 20 (68.53.242.24) at 4/5/2002 2:09:50 PM
#6(Adrian):

It started way before Clinton. It (mostly) started with FDR.

#3 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 4/5/2002 2:22:54 PM
And what about Teddy?

We have never lived in a pure capitalist society; even Smith and Hamilton recognized that pure capitalism is an untenable proposition.

#4 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 4/5/2002 7:16:51 PM
owa, you just provided a great example: messaging... There are a number of messaging apps that have "hacked into" all of the different messaging systems you mentioned, so why wouldn' it be better, or simply nice to have the option, to have an OEM package these "multi-platform" messaging apps instead of MSN messenger. Instead of being tied to MSN you'd have access to ICQ, AIM, Yahoo, others, etc... and MSN Messenger.

This issue extends beyond the shallow claims of Microsoft providing a consistent and stable platform; the issue is the OS is THE platform for apps and middleware; if MS is to have 95% control of the OS, something needs to be done to prevent them from making it exclusively a Microsoft platform.

This post was edited by sodajerk on Friday, April 05, 2002 at 19:44.

#5 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 4/5/2002 7:32:26 PM
Anon, I don't see how what I suggest would deny you your choice. It would provide more choices. Can you explain that one to me?

#6 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 4/5/2002 7:39:27 PM
#21, 2 things, they are not a monopoly (let's repeat that one: they are NOT a MONOPOLY), and you can simply remove the programs if you want to... Apple designed their system so that the apps aren't tied to the underlying multimedia platform so ripping out the apps doesn't destroy your system, which is, of course, either poor design or a legal defense, which is why the gov't will ultimately be ruling on and determining in part MS's software design.

#7 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 4/5/2002 8:37:09 PM
#23, so what do your 2 points about Apple have to do with inappropiately designing their system to prevent others to develop for it, to prevent OEMs from bundling software of their choice (in fact there are no OEMs), or shows that Apple has the power and does retaliate against ISVs?

1. You have choice on the PPC too, having OS choice has nothing to do with this except that when a hardware manufacturer decides to include MS's OS, they are prevented from including other OSes. Apple has had a control panel/boot loader which would allow you to startup any OS you wanted to run on the system. When is MS going to build a bootloader that will allow you to select different partitions/startup OSes?
2. Exactly, I don't buy my computer from MS so why do they get to tell me what an OEM can and cannot bundle with it?
3. Hardware and software are just as open, if not more so, on the Mac platform; there are just fewer developers. Fewer developers doesn't mean less openness.

You describe the fact that MS created a model where they provide an OS to OEMs. Consumers buy PCs from OEMs. I don't necessarily buy an OS/bundled apps package from Microsoft. This system is supposed to create openness in hardware and software; OEMs can tailor their package to their customers. Yet, as soon as Microsoft wants to enter a market, that choice is eliminated, MS's version of the software is now "crucial middleware" which cannot be removed (just hidden), and OEMs are discouraged, or flat out prohibited from, including products which compete with the MS version. So, my question is: is Windows an open platform that makes it easier for developers and OEMs to customize, provide new software, etc. --an agnostic and ubitquitous platform that can be distributed by anyone who licenses it--or is it a closed system? I'm not suggesting that it's entirely closed, you see--what I am suggesting is they can't have it both ways.

Apple wants it one way--closed system: hardware and OS tightly integrated. Apple can't possibly restrict the competitiveness of OEMs and ISVs in the same way as MS because the same OEM/ISV channels do not exist in the Mac world--Apple has little power to wield over competitors or other markets.

Can anyone explain this argument about allowing the presence of unneeded or nuisance code and apps but just not using it? I find it ridiculous that when people tell you, "I don't want it." The reply is"Well, just don't use it, but MS has the right to let the code sit there." But when #15 says that when ISVs include software, it's always possible to remove it and the MS alternative will be present, you get people like #18 who say that even being able to remove the bundled app isn't enough and it needs to be completely eliminated. (Do you people support bundling only of MS apps?) Does this loop really make sense in your heads?

This post was edited by sodajerk on Friday, April 05, 2002 at 20:51.

#8 By 2459 (66.25.124.8) at 4/5/2002 8:39:15 PM
Apple is more a monopoly than people claim Microsoft to be. Show me a place where I can get Linux or some OS other than MacOS preinstalled on a Mac. Where can I get a Mac computer, or a computer running MacOS X other than from Apple. They are the sole supplier, and there is no choice in the matter. On the PC side, Microsoft is not the only supplier of hardware or software, but they are the most popular. And that popularity comes mainly because they produce powerful and easy to use software that mainly runs on an extensible, economical platform.

Microsoft started out at a time when there were many different computers and OSes (especially on the PC) seeking victory in the marketplace. The dominance MS's products have today are largely due to popularity and MS having better business sense than others. Despite what the states, Procomp, AOL, et al., would want you to believe, most people use Microsoft products because they want to. Many developers like the platform and so do end users. Maybe if other companies stopped focusing on MS's every move and, instead, came out with a great product that didn't remain mostly stagnant once they attained a large marketshare, and continued to provide users with compelling reasons (increased featureset, greater ease of use, etc.) to stay with their product, and effectivly marketed their product themselves instead of looking for hand-outs, they could stay in business.

Speaking for myself, as long as MS provides products that fit my view of the future, and they continue to improve upon them, and bring needed additions to existing technologies, I shall remain one of their many customers, both as an end-user and as a developer.

#9 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 4/5/2002 8:47:37 PM
Uh, enforcer, obviously you wanted to just ask: can I run MacOS on a non-Apple computer? Can I get an Apple computer without MacOS? Either that, or you aren't very open to learning anything about things besides MS, or you are just FUDing. Because there are plenty of independent dealers selling Macs and CompUSA. And there are other PPC OSes which will install on a Mac.

Apple chose a different business model, that's all and it's not illegal. Are you claiming that Sun, SGI, Amiga (when it was around), Commodore (when they were around), etc were all ILLEGAL MONOPOLIES just because their business was selling a complete hardware/software solution? Get real!

#10 By 1845 (12.254.230.230) at 4/5/2002 9:02:23 PM
Where does it end 25? How 'bout XML Core Services? MDAC? Winsock? Crypto? MAPI? I'd like to see you uninstall any of those things.

If you don't like it don't use it IS the point. If you don't like the way they create, package, and license the product to you, then you have the right to not use it. It is that simple. I don't like that I couldn't get rid of ads when I used AOL, so I stopped using them and found someone else. I don't like the message system and annoying ads with RealOne, so I don't use it. You have a choice just like anyone else in what to buy. So make your choice and let Microsoft make theirs. A mass exodus away from Windows because you can't remove Media Player, would likely cause Microsoft to not make it mandatory. Use the power you have - choice.

#11 By 2459 (66.25.124.8) at 4/5/2002 9:03:58 PM
#25 The OS is Microsoft's product and should be sold in whatever form they desire. Certain things cannot be removed or replaced from many other products without losing support of the manufacturer. The manufacturer provides a product for the marketplace. It can be as customisable or as rigid as they desire, but they should have descretion as to the form the product they develop takes. If it offends too many users, and doesn't change, the users cope, or the product loses marketshare.

Sodajerk, OEMs have always had the choice of using whatever OS they please as long as they didn't sign a contract with MS for special deals. There are thousands of non-contracted OEMs that can sell PCs with multiple OSes preinstalled, or with a single OS (Windows or other) preinstalled, or with no OS installed. There is also nothing preventing anyone from developing their applications on the Windows platform. The developers just can't take every idea Microsoft comes up with and expect to get free access to that functionality just because it appears in the latest MS app. They are in the software business and have a right to IP just like other vendors. The other vendors can't expect to take everything Microsoft develops with its time, money, and R&D, and automatically profit from their hard work, basically getting a free ride.

#12 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 4/5/2002 9:12:18 PM
n4cer, you dropped your Apple is a monopoly idiocy, huh? Good. As for your new points, this is exactly my point: MS wants it both ways, and they only move towards being a closed system when it's a piece of business they want to control. This selective closing of their system/retaliation againsts OEMs and developers demonstrates that it isn't motivated by good technology or improving competition or helping the consumer but by greed and an attempt to "guarantee" success--and they wouldn't be able to accomplish these tactics without control of the marketplace. And that's the simple fact. Would MS be able to do half the crap they calim is their right if they didn't have 85+% of the market? No. Well, in our country, a company is not allowed to reap the windfall of controlling a market to eliminate competitors and control consumer choice.

Bob, the simple answer to your question is when it's an application, not a service/API/component. MS likes to pretend and hide behind the idea that IE, Movie Maker, WMP are API platforms. They aren't: they are apps which also use underlying components. If they were truly open API platforms they (the APIs) would exist independent of the distinct MS app code so they could be used by other apps. MS on the other hand says as soon as that app is gone, we have to rip out what we told developers was a programming platform... and now your system doesn't work either... baloney.

This post was edited by sodajerk on Friday, April 05, 2002 at 21:14.

#13 By 2459 (66.25.124.8) at 4/5/2002 9:57:50 PM
Sodajerk, I'm not saying what Apple does is illegal, nor am I saying (#29) that there is anything wrong with Nintendo games only working on the Gamecube. What I am saying is that those platforms represent a more closed architecture than MS', and are defined by the descretion of the company and noone else. Apple may have chosen a different business model at one time, but there was also a time they licensed their technology to other vendors. They subsequently killed the clone market and revoked all licenses. This did harm consumers, as did Apple's tactics of engineering their OS so it wouldn't work on certain configurations, making the consumer need to buy a new computer. Nintendo has been convicted of price fixing and muscling retailers in the past. They also have bad developer overall relations. This has little to do with the Gamecube as a platform for its software/hardware, just pointing out that Nintendo is not a good example of a by-the-book company.

The original Judge was biased. He and others also do not have a good understanding of the tech industry and Microsoft's situation. Microsoft was ruled to have a monopoly, but this was extremely narrowed to the Intel-compatible PC Desktop OS market. Even with this extremely narrow focus, it can easily be shown that MS has no true monopoly because they are far from being the sole provided of OSes for the Intel-compatible Desktop PC. If they were, you wouldn't have others hapily using other OSes in that space. Microsoft, like any other manufacturer, produces a product. It should be at their descretion what is included in the product, just as it is with any other manufacturer. OEMs are free to include whatever they want, and always have been if not under contract, but, like Sun, Apple, Nintendo, etc., Microsoft should be able to define the capabilities of their platform. Windows is not *nix. It is not defined as just a kernal. It has standards for basic functionality that may change and increase at any time. This is for the user's and developer's benefit, and is one of the things that defines the product. But just as Apple, Sun, and others can, MS should be able to include/exclude whatever functionality it chooses in the different market segments it serves, and should be under no obligation to reveal the implementation of every technology it creates or integrates. Third parties can't expect to always profit for the works of others, and end-users should be able to comprehend that Windows is one package. It was never intended to be a build-your-own-OS type product, yet it still offers a massive amount of functionality and extensibility that a user, developer, OEM, etc., can take advantage of within certain limits, and provided they are not bound by a contract they agreed to sign. They do, however, only license, not own, the software, and MS should be free to establish the terms of use they see fit for the licensee as other companies do each day.

#14 By 3339 (64.175.40.60) at 4/5/2002 10:11:43 PM
Uh, enforcer, you keep retreating, then raising a new issue, then retreating, then making huge generalizations... NOW we are back to MS is not a monopoly at all? For real? Are we going back to that? SERIOUSLY? Do I have to explain to you that businesses have been defined as monopolies with as little as 65% of the market.. anyway, I'm diverting to this new Anon (#35) because his comments are just stupid--you're always sharp, enforcer, but elusive, sliding away from what I thought we were just talking about... This is still relevant though...

Okay, #35, you have no idea what a monopoly is; monopoly isn't even a business model under the excepted business term I am using ("business model")--my point was that you were confusing a business model (Apple's) with a monopoly; monopolic (Ha, Ha) isn't even a word. Monopolies, if you'd like to learn something, are never absolute. It is almost never one supplier, no competition. What defines a monopoly has much more to do with certain behaviors, practices. Could the business raise the price of a product higher than what the market tolerates? Can they arbitrarily set prices (profits AND losses not being important to a company which controls, or is trying to control a market)? Can the company tie a product, not desired by the consumer from the company, to an existing "necessary" product and "force it on/sell it to" consumers? Can the company deny access to the marketplace to a competitor's product? etc.? Do you need me to keep going? Do you not see how MS IS a monopoly, and that if Apple tried to do any of these things they would go out of business (some of you will always claim that this is imminent; well, if they tried this, IT would really and definitely happen)? Go pick up a friggin book, just about anyone will do you some good it seems, maybe I judge your English too harshly.

This post was edited by sodajerk on Friday, April 05, 2002 at 22:24.

#15 By 2459 (66.25.124.8) at 4/5/2002 10:21:11 PM
To further clarify my position in a not-so-longwinded way:

Apple has a platform based upon hardware and software which they control.

Sun has a hardware platform they control.

Sun has a software platform (Java) that they control.

Microsoft's platform is purely software which they should be able to control.

There is little difference in the controls instituted over these platforms. Microsoft simply has an advantage over the other companies because they are not tied to a platform costing more than what happens to be popular at the time like Apple and Sun (hardware). MS' "software above all else" paradigm gives them greater flexibillity in responding to changes in the market.
And, unlike Sun, MS works with developers in creating new functionality, but doesn't push developers into limiting their options for platform development (Java). This keeps the platform popular, and is the reason for MS' success. It is, however, their platform, and just as Sun and Apple maintain control over their platforms, so should MS because they are the creators, investors, and improvers of the product.

Their "monopoly" is a result of popularity and little else.

This post was edited by n4cer on Friday, April 05, 2002 at 22:26.

#16 By 3339 (64.175.40.60) at 4/5/2002 10:37:26 PM
Enforcer, I get what you are saying. I am saying that these companies can control their products because they do so legally (most of the time) and ALSO because they aren't monopolies. You think MS is where it is act EXCLUSIVELY do to popularity; I think if you know just a fair bit of what has been transpired over the past 10 years you (a generic you, not you) ...you would think that Microsoft established many of their market dominances by using their OS dominance, by tying their products to the OS, by blocking and impairing competitor software, by undercutting, underselling, buying, strong arming, intimidating competitors and forcing them into exclusive, and highly promotional and favorable towards MS, contracts, and that they continue to do so and feel that there should be only one OS--THEIR'S, only one developer community and framework--THEIR'S; if business buys it, it should be THEIR SOFTWARE; if its involved in consumer media and content, THEY want a piece of it.... and on and on and on. And I do think they became a monopoly (perhaps legally but some of it was probably prosecutable) and that they ARE a monopoly, and they aren't even compromising now in recognition of that but rather they are compromising ever so slightly not only to MAINTAIN and EXTEND that monopoloy, but to continue to be equipped with the fruits of a monopoly, those tactics which they use so well and which so strongly define them... Which, as I said, I think most people would except if they knew a bit more of their history and looked at objectively. The many people I have asked, whether or not they were tech-saavy (and many were), whether or not they liked, disliked, or didn't even care about MS (and most of them DON'T care), they think MS is a monopoly.

This post was edited by sodajerk on Friday, April 05, 2002 at 22:41.

#17 By 2459 (66.25.124.8) at 4/5/2002 10:50:03 PM
#39 Sad, but true. I hope the current judge can at least see through to the true intentions of Microsoft's opposition backing the case, and show them that litigation isn't a substitute for product development.

I would argue that the opposition stifles innovation more than MS because in most instances (Netscape, Palm, etc.), they had the majority of the market but chose to improve their product or produce new products that offered greater benefits to the consumer. In many cases, MS' entry into the market was laughed at and taken as a joke, but MS improved their products and offered features the opposition said the consumer didn't want/need.

It sets a bad precedent whenever litigation can be used to overcome another's shortcommings in marketing/development.

This post was edited by n4cer on Friday, April 05, 2002 at 22:50.

#18 By 3339 (64.175.40.60) at 4/5/2002 10:56:38 PM
Okay, #41, let's get back to the subject... Apple has made Quicktime a core component of the OS; it is an API which other programs can and do access, basic shell functions also use Quicktime (Previews in file directories--i.e. the Finder). Sound Familiar? But.. You can remove the program QuickTime (Player) and not remove the API. Now you don't have the Apple program to play audio/video media, but you can still have other apps that access Quicktime, etc. You can even remove the API which destroys functionality throughout the system and in apps, but still (wonder, of all wonders) the system still runs -- of course, losing the media-related functions.

MS insists it could not possibly do this; that the API/platform and application are one and the same. I know of no other platform/API TIED this way to an application. You can separate Gecko and have an html render engine without having the Mozilla or Netscape application, you can use Gecko or Mozilla to build other browser applications. MS TIED their product to gain dominance over the browser market and the early years of the internet era and continue to extend this control (I personally think this is monomental: having developed a monopoly in the early to mid-nineties, and then using that MONOPOLY to take control over the most important era to date in computer technology) . If they weren't a monopoly, they wouldn't have done this-- the API/platform (the rendering engine) would have been independent of the application. And had they done that, they may have avoided this trouble. There may have been rival browsers built using that engine even. But today, they try to pass off Movie Maker as a PART of the OS? Come on, you don't buy that do you?

#19 By 3339 (64.175.40.60) at 4/5/2002 11:07:23 PM
Enforcer, do you think this case sets a precedent that could really be duplicated again in history? Even based on the present situation and guessing how it may evolve over the next 20 years I can't imagine any other company ever being in this place? And if it did get to a situation where this were duplicated, I would still want it enforced because it would mean a monopoly controlled a market important to me and was trying to extend that control further?

Just because a lot of people here think Apple is a monopoly doesn't mean a single court in this country would. I think you'd be surprised by how unique this case is, and I wish the Court had had the balls to set further precedent in this case rather than largely avoiding it.

#20 By 2459 (66.25.124.8) at 4/5/2002 11:50:02 PM
Sodajerk, the reason many of MS' programs aren't removable from Windows (other than it being their decision to do so) is because many of the "applications" are simply OS functionality wrappers. The executables take very little space, and you would gain little by removing them. The dependant dlls must remain because they provide OS functionality as well as (and more importantly) the platform and API that developers use to interface with MS' apps or create their own apps using MS' functionality. Movie Maker, Windows Media Player, Messenger, and Explorer/Internet Explorer share common functionality (as do many third party applications) provided by the dlls. This prevents their removal.

Just as applications that take advantage on Quicktime integration gain new functionality when Apple upgrades Quicktime, so do applications that integrati WMP or IE, etc. If Quicktime were removed from MacOS, wouldn't apps such as Final Cut Pro or iMovie that tightly integrate Quicktime's renderer break? If not, Apple must not uninstall all of the QT tech, or the functionality is replicated within the app instead of just using the already present functionality. MS apps, in terms of the exe, are not required by all API-dependant applications, however, some applications do call the actual exe so it must remain for those applications. If OEMs removed them entirely, users would have to reinstall them anyway when prompted. In some cases, they may just meet an error dialog and not realize what missing functionality needs to be installed. It's not just a "we get the upper hand" thing. It is a legitimate concern.

-------------
"Enforcer, do you think this case sets a precedent that could really be duplicated again in history?"

I can't think of any good examples right now, but I can imagine another company becomming the popular choice, and having other companies with less-than-proper motives seeking to get the company out of the way by litigation because they failed to do so in the marketplace. Maybe ATI vs. NVIDIA. NVIDIA already faced a series a suits from other graphics card chipset vendors when they started gaining in popularity. Maybe Sony and Nintendo vs. Microsoft if the XBOX becomes the dominant console.

#21 By 2459 (66.25.124.8) at 4/6/2002 12:09:03 AM
#48 Maybe, but Nintendo has had control of the handheld gaming market for some time and hasn't had many (any?) complainers. I think Nintendo will complain, however, when they eventually lose this market to PDAs like the PocketPC as they come down in price (Casio has a PocketPC for around $200). Developers can write more powerful games than what the Nintendo handhelds can handle (Quake on PocketPC), and the developers don't have to pay money to anyone for the privilege of developing on a PDA.

#22 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 4/6/2002 1:04:09 AM
What the hell is Sodajerk babbling about?

Microsoft is removing the Internet Explorer application, but leaving the HTML rendering engine. The same exact situation sodajerk claims Apple does with Quicktime. Yet somehow he claims that Microsoft is being different...

#23 By 3339 (64.175.40.60) at 4/6/2002 1:19:33 AM
Oh, soda, get off it... I'm moving through the entire argument at work here... Just because, in some respects, MS in finally complying doesn't discount the fact that this is where we are at. (And as far as I know they still haven't separated the IE only functions from the html render dll.)

Enforcer, two things here: code and examples of potential precedents. Precedents or possible negative effects from similar cases, first: In some respects, I would say these examples wouldn't even qualify. But further... are you saying it would be a bad move to enforce these scenarios or that similar monopolies already exist without being prosecuted? These are two very different things, two very different directions to go in... In part, I discount your examples (Nvidia/ATI & Game Boy) because it seems that any monopoly would only be acquired naturely. In considering how the graphics card market would evolve, one would become dominant, but ultimately, that design would be licensed out by the company simply because they couldn't meet demands. (In fact, Nvidia looks good in some respects now, pretty tarnished in others--but I think they have a very bad chance of being a big player for long. There are concerns about how uch they can grow licensing revenue, and it seems that CPU and GPU designs are getting intermingled and competitive with each other... but anyway...) Nintendo as far as I know hasn't done anything improper to gain their popularity for GB, nor do I think they'd have a case if some other portable game market destroyed them. You see, some of these examples just don't hold up to the monopoly test. AND... Even if they did, the consequences wouldn't be similar to MS's: a company that provides a platform for other markets, some of which the company itself is in and some of which they want to get in... There is no such company that is suh an octopus as Microsoft.

The technology issue: well, to be brief: you mention that they share functions, but I am talking about the functions that they don't share. Separate them out so that you can uninstall one thing without breaking other things. Shared things can stay. It's a simple principle that I think should stand as a technology tying standard. Anything that can be shared should reside as a distinct "module." And yes, it means you'll keep that stuff installed. But it does change the landscape drastially without impairing Windows because if you can uninstall it, you can reinstall it.

#24 By 3339 (64.175.40.60) at 4/6/2002 1:22:46 AM
Oh, by the way, the XBox example: the only way XBox is going to gain dominance of such a nature as to be a monopoly is if they sell the boxes for $100 and the games for $30 and spend $5 billion a year on marketing because it looks like they are losing big time. And that would be illegal because basically they would be subsidizing a losing business at an arbitrarily low price in order to bury the competition.

#25 By 2332 (129.21.145.80) at 4/6/2002 6:41:40 AM
#53 - Don't you see how insane that comment is?

It is illegal for Microsoft to *decrease* the price on their Xbox system not because it will hurt consumers (who would LOVE it), but competitors.

Even you have to see the insanity in that.

What's next? Limit the profit margins for a company? Limit the amount of their own capital they can spend on R&D? Limit the amount of capital they can spend on advertising? How about individuals? How much money do you have in your wallet? The limit is $100, because it would be unfair to the guy with $50.

I hate those stupid slippery slope arguments... but if there was ever a time for one, this is it.

I'm slowly starting to formulate my own economic theories... and so far the thing that stands out the most for me is that a society needs to pick *either* capitalism or socialism... a mix of both creates a huge number of problems.

I'm unaware of any completely capitalistic society in history (aside from perhaps our early days... perhaps), but I know that Amsterdam was 100% socialistic between around 1200 and 1700.

During those years, Amsterdam was one of the greatest cities on the planet. (Well, more between 1300 and 1670 or so.) The standard of living was *very* high, they had many of the most renouned artists and thinkers of the day, and they were very socially free. It was a Noam Chomsky world, and a world I wouldn't be too upset to live in. It would be more free than the United States, that's for sure.

The reason they succeed was that their society valued contribution to the society as a whole much greater than personal wealth. That's not to say they were selfless... quite the contrary. But instead of $$$ being their reward, the high regard and esteem from the society was the payment. Intellectual curiosity and exploration were considered the cash... the more of that you had, the better off you were.

Sounds strange, huh? To people in the USA, it certainly is... but to the people of Amsterdam, it was only natural.

Socialism doesn't work in the United States not because it is fundamentally flawed, but because we have a system where the primary reward for effort is money. That's a system designed for capitalism, and the introduction of social development ideology into that system simply causes havoc.

Write Comment
Return to News
  Displaying 1 through 25 of 324
Last | Next
  The time now is 3:03:32 PM ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us
User name and password:

 

  *  
  *   *