I don’t understand that argument—MS doesn’t seem to have found it prohibitively expensive to produce and sell the EU ‘N’ version of it’s OS. MS already offers various flavors of Vista for different market segments (‘Home’, ‘Home Premium’, ‘Ultimate’, and ‘Business’—not including server versions of the OS). If MS thought it could make more money offering 6 or 10 versions of the Windows for PCs, they’d do that. It seems extremely unlikely that an EU version is going to be too expensive or cumbersome to offer.

The EU may be able to strong-arm MS into offering neutered versions for Europe, but I think there is a snowball’s chance that it will decide that it makes the most business sense to sell these neutered versions everywhere.

(when consumers would like what is on offer in another jurisdiction but can’t get it)

If the EU forces MS to sell stripped down versions of Windows in Europe and European consumers aren’t happy that they can’t get the full versions (or have to pay extra)—do you think they’re really going to blame MS?

And, BTW, does anybody really think the European Commission would have taken these actions if Microsoft (or Apple or Google) were European rather than American companies? Couldn’t this be seen as a anti-trade action in disguise? What are the chances of these issues ending up before the WTO?

This results in a worse web, because MSIE isn’t as good as Firefox (or Safari, or Camino, or Opera, or…), and Bill Gates’ standards aren’t as good as Sir Tim Berners Lee’s.

How did MSIE get that market share? Monopolistic action by MS!

Compared to the price of OO.org?”

I don’t understand how the existance of free software which it sounds like you are hinting is ‘as good’ as Word shows that there is a monopoly harm going on.

As for Explorer, there are readily available alternatives there too. That is why I find examples of the monopoly harm alluded to in the post so difficult to understand. None of the traditional monopoly problems for consumers seem to apply.

““Again, I’m not arguing anything at all.”

I roll my eyes whenever someone trots out this statement.”

Well there you are. I’m not hiding my lack of understanding about the post. You can’t argue about a discussion that has a very key part you don’t understand. I thought Henry was alluding to some obvious situation that I wasn’t aware of. He hasn’t clarified, and no one here has really helped.

I roll my eyes whenever someone trots out this statement.

Have you seen the price of MS Word?

Compared to the price of OO.org?

Microsoft’s Server pricing?

Internet Explorer, the software that makes baby Jesus cry?

So I was wondering what Henry has in mind.

“the harms of alleged monopoly abuses (high pricing being the main one of course) have not materialized”

Which is because of—erm—good old government intervention, such as that against AT&T after it came up with the Kingsbury Commitment.

(But let’s pretend that the government intervention didn’t exist! Quick, we must ignore this Stalinist fact!)

Yet for the most part, the harms of alleged monopoly abuses (high pricing being the main one of course) have not materialized for even enormous companies like Microsoft, much less any of the lesser cases. And the history of Apple personal computers suggests that high pricing can quickly cut into your market when your competitors can create even moderately passable substitutes at low prices.

I’m willing to play along with network effect leverage hurting say WordPerfect in favor of Word, so I’m not insensitive to the concept. But the actual practice of technological change in the computer market doesn’t really seem to support “The US administration has taken a hands-off (some might say supine) approach to preventing monopoly abuses in technology markets – the Commission is now in an excellent position to start to fill this regulatory vacuum.”

Remember it isn’t that long ago at all that IBM looked like an unbeatable monster.

You’re either joking, or you haven’t used a computer since 1955 or so. (I suppose we have to conclude the former.)

Broadband access in the US seems to be a fairly long term mess… one that might get worse if the whole Net Neutrality business goes the wrong way.

I don’t know enough about these issues for an example to jump to mind. The only thing I can think of is cell phones, and a huge part of the problem there is caused by the government intervention (and its capture by those it is ‘regulating’). Are there lots of monopoly abuses in technology markets that last more than a year or so?