The Intersection of Microsoft, Linux, and China 206
at_$tephen writes "Fortune magazine has an article stressing the Chinese market's importance to Microsoft's long term strategy, and touching on Linux's involvement in the Chinese market. In the early days of Microsoft rampant piracy helped establish it as the de facto standard in PCs despite good alternatives. History may be unfolding again here, with the exception that having the Chinese government as an ally has huge additional benefits. Or perhaps Gates has met his match with the Chinese government. 'In another boost for Microsoft, the government last year required local PC manufacturers to load legal software on their computers. Lenovo, the market leader, had been shipping as few as 10% of its PCs that way, and even US PC makers in China were selling many machines "naked." Another mandate requires gradual legalization of the millions of computers in state-owned enterprises. In all, Gates says, the number of new machines shipped with legal software nationwide has risen from about 20% to more than 40% in the past 18 months.'"
Good (Score:4, Insightful)
Go Microsoft!
(This is why I wish copyright protection on software would be 100% succesful: Too many people just download software and keep using it that way, if this would be impossible a fraction of those would pay but many more will start searching alternatives...)
WGA (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft would be wise to look the other way (Score:5, Insightful)
Presently, Microsoft's copy protection has not only been shown to inconvenience legitimate users who upgrade their hardware and the like, but also makes illegitimate software distribution a great deal less convenient. And this is, obviously, to the detriment of Microsoft's present and future market penetration and saturation. Where once "alternatives" were a threat and even a previous reality [read OS/2], people are looking at alternatives once again in the form of Linux and MacOSX. These solutions do not offer the resistance that Windows offers and I think we can see clearly how Microsoft has managed to over-zealously shoot themselves in the foot.
By far the easiest solution for Microsoft would be to remove their copy protection schemes and just kind of look the other way for a while until their saturation once against builds the addictive dependency on Microsoft software that it is presently losing. It may mean some sort of decline in stock values or a leveling-out of revenues, but they would regain something far more important -- market saturation and monopoly control.
$3 Windows? (Score:3, Insightful)
I do think its unfair that they get a "cost of living adjustment" for software and medicine, yet we have to compete for techie jobs on our own cost of living. They get the best of both worlds. This is another reason why free trade is not fair. They get almost 1st-world wages but only have to pay 3rd-world prices for these items. Tell me this is what Adam Smith and David Ricardo had in mind.
Re:Alternatives NOT GOOD ENOUGH (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, yes. (Score:5, Insightful)
* Back then, Linux was about as friendly to the average user as a dominatrix on a meth jag; this had more to do with hardware drivers (or rather, lack thereof) than anything else.
* The other x86 GUI-based alternatives for the typical home user were... OS/2 (insert sarcastic mention of how developers 'loved' writing for it), Geos (well, if you used a Commodore), and, umm... not much else, unless you wanted to lay down some serious dough and buy a Macintosh.
Ease of copying coupled with an interface that really didn't require much in the way of brainpower was what gave Windows its boost.
"Naked PCs" = Anti-competitive bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
The characterization of computers without pre-loaded software as "naked" and mandating that software be bundled with PCs by the retailer is nothing more than an attempt to create a barrier-to-entry into the market. Now, instead of creating your own operating system and just selling it, you have to negotiate with PC retailers (who probably have exclusive contracts with Microsoft) in order to be on the same footing as the more-established players.
That Linux and FreeDOS exist is a convenient workaround to the bundling requirements, but it doesn't negate the anti-competitive nature of Microsoft's "no software implies pirated software" BS.
I can buy a television without subscribing to cable TV service offered by Best Buy, why should a computer (for which there more options) be any different?
It's exactly what they had in mind (Score:5, Insightful)
However, there are downsides. Life in China by all account is not a lot of fun for most people. Access to things we take for granted is limited to the usual third world elite. It is not free trade is your problem, but the lack of democracy and knowledge about the rest of the world that China's people suffer from, and, I think, the acquiescence of the US population in their country being run by large businesses with monopolistic practices. If you had free trade, you would be able to buy those $3 Windows copies and the cheap medicines in the US. But you don't.
The difference between Adam Smith and Marx is basically that Smith lived in a world of tiny companies and thought capitalism was benign, while Marx lived in a world of growing capitalist monopolies and saw that it was not. What is happening in China is a repeat of the British industrial revolution - poor workers making an elite rich while being kept in a state of ignorance. Just as in the UK, some of those workers are more highly paid (the ones in the cities). How long before they start to get difficult? I really think that over the next thirty years we will find out whether in fact it was Smith or Marx who was right (my money is on Marx, as an economist you understand) and the laboratory will be China.
Jeez - at least Microsoft is trying... (Score:4, Insightful)
That really applies to all businesses trying to do business in China - particularly sales. It's actually quite an interesting story of business culture clashes and a good lesson on how standard US and EU business practices don't really work well in China.
Re:It's exactly what they had in mind (Score:1, Insightful)
This is over rated, for most people those moves would be hightly stressful Life Changing Event.
| Much of the US used to have a lower cost of living than the UK, plus higher wages, but I didn't notice you complaining when all our best scientists emigrated. |
Just exactly what were the slaves paid? or how about the Irish, slaves were considered to we worth more than the Irish at one time. Hey,I thought they came from your little peice of heaven.
| It is not free trade is your problem, but the lack of democracy and knowledge about the rest of the world that China's people suffer from, and, I think, the acquiescence of the US population in their country being run by large businesses with monopolistic practices. |
Democracy does not include Free Trade as part of its creed. As far as large businesses goes, haven't merchants always bribed officals?
| If you had free trade, you would be able to buy those $3 Windows copies and the cheap medicines in the US. But you don't. |
I remember reading something about tea in Boston once, sooner or later greed sets in and it is taxed or exploitied somehow.
|The difference between Adam Smith and Marx is basically that Smith lived in a world of tiny companies and thought capitalism was benign, while Marx lived in a world of growing capitalist monopolies and saw that it was not.|
Both were idealist, and both brought hardship where their ideas flurshied.
|What is happening in China is a repeat of the British industrial revolution - poor workers making an elite rich while being kept in a state of ignorance.|
I thought this was more like the "Dutch Model" myself.
|Just as in the UK, some of those workers are more highly paid (the ones in the cities).|
Let me see "Tiananmen Square" v.s. "The Ring of Steel" v.s. "The Iron Curtan" well you can take your pick on this one.
|How long before they start to get difficult?|
See the above answer.
|I really think that over the next thirty years we will find out whether in fact it was Smith or Marx who was right (my money is on Marx, as an economist you understand) and the laboratory will be China.|
I not sure Smith or Marx was right. By the way I have some beachfront property I would like to sell you in Beijing with a Caribbean View on the cheap.
Re:It's exactly what they had in mind (Score:3, Insightful)
He believed that the economy was like a cake, and it can be shared equally or otherwise. Its not - its like a fire - if you take out all the hot coals, and share them round, it goes out!
He beileved it was necessary to own something to control it: A hire car will still go where the driver steers it, and any fool can adjust the volume on his neighbour's stereo.
He believed the state youod onw the "four factors of production" - one of these is people - owning people is called slavery, and is currently out of fashion.
As for being an economist: there is good sound research that says the more highly qualified an economist, the less reliable his predictions!
in short - Marx: Right: no, Left: yes, Wrong: yes.
Re:Well, yes. (Score:3, Insightful)
Agreed, if we weren't speaking of historical context. Back then, to Joe Sixpack, the alternatives (yes, including Linux) were far less desirable. Now that Windows is entrenched, it has to be dislodged before Linux can get anywhere. For the desktop, Ubuntu is kicking arse, but it still has some polish needed, more interoperability with what's out there, and it has that Windows entrenchment thing to overcome.
Where the street price for the Windows OS is the same as the price for a "fully loaded" Linux distro and Windows remains the OS of choice - it is not a Troll to ask "Why?"
Nope - not a troll at all, though the reasons why are familiar enough with a little thought: familiarity, entrenchment... not exactly something that really required deep thinking. The heavy thinking lies in how to change those two factors.
Re:$3 Windows? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Alternatives NOT GOOD ENOUGH (Score:3, Insightful)
This kind of sadistic user hostile sort of environment didn't stop Windows or MS-DOS when the main competitor was a vastly superior Macintosh. So this often trotted out fallacy is just that. People stay away from Linux (and also Macs) is because they have to worry about msword documents, IE only websites and games that won't run on anything but Windows.
"easy" has nothing to do with it.
"choice induced confusion" also has nothing to do with it.
The herd is comfortable with what they think the rest of the herd uses.
It's interesting how some people like to ignore or re-write history.
Indeed (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course Marx wasn't right about everything and, as I made I thought clear, I wasn't talking about his political philosophy. Marx perceived that the effect of unrestricted capitalism was that ultimately all wealth would end up in the hands of a very few rich people. And that is incorrect how? He never suggested that the economy was static; Marx wasn't stupid.
It never fails to amaze Europeans that many Americans confuse consumer goods with wealth. Many American workers have few vacations and work long hours. They find it hard to save. They may have relatively large houses and cars, but in many ways they are still bonded workers. They cannot just leave their jobs and survive without very unpleasant consequences. To an Athenian or a Roman citizen, (or to an obnoxious Brit with no mortgage and money in the bank) that's slavery. And that's without considering the inner city subclass and the illegal migrants. In the US, a form of slavery is still very much in fashion, but people are in denial about it. Unfortunately we have allowed it to be exported to this country, with bonded laborers, many Chinese or Eastern Europeans, being controlled by gangs and the Government making sympathetic noises and doing precisely nothing.
Adam Smith believed that everybody would benefit from the invisible hand of the market - well, except a load of foreigners and poor people who did not count. Marx believed that the rich and greedy would, in the end, impoverish everybody else relatively speaking. Look at the US. Look at the reduction in status and opportunity for most of the middle classes, compared with the 50s and 60s.
In the late 50s my father bought his first house on one and a half times his salary. That house now costs more than ten times the average UK middle class salary. In those days there were few gadgets, but look at those gadgets now. They are basically small and cheap ways of delivering cheap content at high prices; iPods, mobile phones.
You're being screwed by monopolists while being told you're in a free market. And if you don't like Marx, read two prophetic books by three great US science fiction writers: The Space Merchants, by Pohl & Kornbluth, and Player Piano, by Kurt Vonnegut.