Microsoft, EU square off behind closed doors

TalkBack 23 of 35:: Next »; « Previous

Thread View
Flat View

Are you related to No Axe Bit?: Or work in the same MS division/department???

You've mastered the ability to twist and ignore the issues just like Bit. Must be that MS training and/or dirty money.

>>> What's level, Joe? MS has been at the game for over 20 years and has spent many billions arriving at their current visibility. You want the courts to prohibit them from offering products in competition with others so that prospective buyers will have to seek out some obscure source of products rather than the well-known Microsoft. That's just plain silly and kind of a lame way to get the world to take a look at the junk being offered by the losers. >>>

Nice twisting and reversing of the actual situation.

The issue isn't "to prohibit (MS) from offering products in competition with others" but quite the opposite... to prohibit MS from keeping 3rd party apps from the view, easy access and usability of the buyer so they don't have to seek out some very useful, often superior products.

And another of many of your lame arguments... just because MS is well known doesn't make them the best or only source. "That's just plain silly and kind of a lame way to get the world to take a look at the junk being offered by the losers (MS)"... read, producers of bug & virus infected spaghetti-coded junk. Performed your almost weekly fix & patch yet?

>>> And they do not (control OEMs). Any OEM can offer anything that they want to the public. Microsoft cannot stop that and cannot even deal differently with those that may want to. >>>

Keep dreaming and pushing this bull. The Sword of Damocles is still hovering over the heads of OEMs who dare not cross MS, given the weak-kneed, made-in-Redmond DOJ "deal". MS just cannot be quite so overt and obvious with it's threats and retaliation. As I stated in a previous post... Hell hath no fury like a Bill Gates scorned.

>>> But the sorry fact of life for the losers is that none of the OEMs want to deal with them since they don't have anything that the public is demanding and they don't spend any effort or time or money to convince the public that they are worth having. So why should the OEM bother with these losers? The OEM isn't going to sell any more computers and will probably sell fewer, since the buyers will suspect that the OEM is trying to save money by foisting off some cheesy substitute for the real thing.>>>

You used to engage in semi-intelligent, credible discourse at one time but your blind devotion and support of the MS mother ship has really dragged you down.

MS is still in a threatening position and OEMs will not push fate by crossing Gates and company.

It's out right demeaning and ignorant of you to blanket 3rd party competition as "losers" and having absolutely nothing to offer vs MS products.

And you're still being dishonest and won't answer your charge that 3rd party apps are necessarily going to cost consumers vs MS "free" apps when I pointed out the falsehood of your "argument". Those wondrous "free" MS apps are not so free when you consider all the time spent on "fix & patch" maintenance and constant virus attacks. (A caller (and "average" user) to a local radio computer advise show complained that when he bought his new XP machine, he never dreamed it would be so much work just to keep it up and running... frustration and anger in his voice.)

>>> So your position is that the Microsoft competitors are screaming and complaining because they are losing out on the opportunity to give their stuff away? Right. Who are you trying to kid? >>>

Bravo... another twist on the situation.

Competitors are "screaming and complaining" because MS will not allow their 3rd party apps (free or otherwise) an equitable chance at exposure, functionality and fair competition.

(And you continue to completely ignore all the damning unethical evidence revealed at the trial ... tying inferior Explorer to Windows; threatening OEMs for including Netscape, Quicktime, etc; fraudulent video evidence; demands Apple kill the QT baby; threats to kill Office on the Mac unless Apple dropped Netscape in favour of Explorer... not the tactics of a company that can compete on merit and quality.)

A question you won't answer but asked anyway to show how bogus your position is... Why can MS not compete on merit and must resort to the sleazy tactics outlined above? Many other companies compete successfully without being sleazy, unethical, underhanded, anticompetitive, etc... why can't MS?

The fact you seem to agree with and readily accept such tactics speaks volumes.

>>> Microsoft has risked a lot in building a one-stop product that has widespread appeal to hundreds of millions of consumers world-wide. Let the others do the same rather than trying to get rich overnight. >>>

Competitors have spent millions and ARE trying to let others experience their products... it's just that the overbearing power of the unethical, predatory monopolist MS makes it unreasonably difficult, both access and functionality wise.; Posted by: MacCanuck Posted on: 11/13/03 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use