Microsoft sues Barnes and Noble over Android

Posted Mar 22, 2011 18:18 UTC (Tue) by forlwn (guest, #63934)
In reply to: Microsoft sues Barnes and Noble over Android by sgros
Parent article: Microsoft sues Barnes and Noble over Android

That's the sad real true and nobody see, nobody care.

Every company is competing with an objective: gain user preference with the best balance among selling price vs quality. No one can sell for less than total cost plus a profit margin.

When an exogenous factor is added to cost, like the M$ tax, legal expenses, lobbying expenses and the like, the compensations are: less quality (cost reduction), less profit, higher selling prices. These measures damage the technological development because funds available and motivation for R&D will be less (why shall I make an effort to invent if I know that my invention will be stolen by a shark?)

Those who collect the proceeds from royalties will not do R%D because is useless. The monopoly position allow to simply don't care. That is the reason why Windows XP had the ridicule life time of around 10 years, was replaced by a worst and mediocre OS (Vista) and at the end Windows 7 was an improvement only because someone felt some fear when both Apple and Linux showed capable of advancing in that core market.

Android / Chrome / linux / open source, have a huge potential to threaten the Microsoft's core and peripheral business. They don't need to compete doing better. Its more cost effective for them to spread FUD by litigating. Money is an asset and they have lots of it. The competitors do not. Then they use it to compete.

The consumers will pay again. More for worst, at each gadget purchase.

Microsoft sues Barnes and Noble over Android

Posted Mar 22, 2011 20:02 UTC (Tue) by klbrun (subscriber, #45083) [Link] (5 responses)

>No one can sell for less than total cost plus a profit margin.

Have you checked the price of a browser recently?

Microsoft sues Barnes and Noble over Android

Posted Mar 22, 2011 21:02 UTC (Tue) by martinfick (subscriber, #4455) [Link] (1 responses)

If it's free, it isn't sold.

Microsoft sues Barnes and Noble over Android

Posted Mar 22, 2011 22:22 UTC (Tue) by klbrun (subscriber, #45083) [Link]

But it is not free to develop a browser. A commercial company providing a browser for free is operating at a loss. Of course, it is sometimes in the strategic interest of the company to do so; presumably profits in other areas make up for the loss. I have heard it is common in retail to have a "loss leader" to bring in customers, who then also buy regular priced items.

Microsoft sues Barnes and Noble over Android

Posted Mar 22, 2011 22:22 UTC (Tue) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link]

Or the price of beer in the UK?

Several supermarkets are allegedly selling it for less than the taxes on it.

Cheers,
Wol

Microsoft sues Barnes and Noble over Android

Posted Mar 23, 2011 9:16 UTC (Wed) by oldtomas (guest, #72579) [Link]

> Have you checked the price of a browser recently?

Have you checked the price of malware recently?

Sad as it sounds: browsers are taking the place of malware more and more. "Loss leaders" is the technical term, AFAIR.

Yes, the intentions of the Mozilla Foundation may be laudable (and they are buying us a couple of years: hadn't Microsoft busted it by killing Netscape off too early, in its unlimited greed, we'd possibly be at that point by now), but the vulnerability of this whole construction to corporate greed is just mind-numbing:

Users are not the clients. Users are the wares.

Microsoft sues Barnes and Noble over Android

Posted Mar 24, 2011 4:09 UTC (Thu) by forlwn (guest, #63934) [Link]

That's like the coffee and sugar. You pay the first and get the second but you cannot ask for the later and leave.
Firefox is free but is useless without an os.