RE: Way OT: Adam Smith and Software Markets

["Robert C. Leif" <rleif@rleif.com>]

For instance, none of Microsoft's competitors have had the brains to use
Ada. Microsoft cannot be held responsible for the stupidity of its
competitors, such as their use of Java. In fact, IBM did more to assure
Microsoft's monopoly than Microsoft. IBM spread the impression that only
Microchannel based PCs were suitable for OS2.
Bob Leif

-----Original Message-----
From: Marin David Condic [mailto:mcondic.auntie.spam@acm.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 5:00 AM
To: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org
Subject: Re: Way OT: Adam Smith and Software Markets

Preben Randhol <randhol+news@pvv.org> wrote in message
news:slrnb678l5.2g1.randhol+news@kiuk0152.chembio.ntnu.no...
>
> Or they might not prefer it but be force into using it because allmost
> everybody else uses it (or feels forced to...).
>
Nobody is "forced" into using Word - or any other word processor for that
matter. If people use it for reasons of compatibility, then (as I observed)
compatibility might be a major factor in "quality" and it is the thing that
the market appears to want over other factors (such as "efficiency" or
"reliability")


>
> Well I read an article once that showed that the efficiency of writing
> had not improved since 1980s despite the changes in the word processors.
> However, I cannot recall where I read it so this so this cannot be
> submitted as evidence ;-)
>
Evidence of what? Efficiency of writing is a whole different thing. How long
does it take Shakespear to write "Hamlet" and why does that figure into word
processors? Word processors - as with lots of other software - may have
"topped out" in terms of adding new and interesting features or improving
the way we work. Microsoft is discovering that people don't want or need
lots of spiffy new features just to write their term papers or letters to
grandma. People are coming to the conclusion that Good Enough is not nearly
so wonderful a thing as Perfect, but that it is Good enough. :-) As a
result, it changes the market equation.


> However, try writing a paper with some 20 equations and figures and
> tables and you'll soon see how frustrating Word is. Top it of with that
> the paper has to be in Letter format (or A4 for those who use Letter)
> and you'll go nuts. Word works for two page memos, but not much more IMHO.
>
You have needs that don't line up with the needs of a large majority of word
processor users. Maybe you need something special. Choices are available. If
you select Word and sacrifice the ability to write equations easily, then
perhaps there are other factors in your decision.


> I don't know about TECO (probably before my time), but I don't think
> WP5.1 was much poorer than the Word of today. But give me LaTeX and I'll
> be happy. ;-)
>
TECO was a pot-shot at a friend of mine who reads this newsgroup. He's a bit
of a luddite and a big fan of Tops-20.

If LaTeX does your job for you, great. The market worked and got you
something you needed at a price you wanted to pay. If you can dream up a
concept for a better word processor, perhaps you've got a potential
product - one that might be written in Ada (just to bring it back on-topic.
:-)


>
> The market works poorly in the desktop business as there is a monopoly
> situation. The competition seem to be eaten by the monopolist. However,
> there seem to be evidence that things may change in the future,
> hopefully. The only reason why Microsoft hasn't been able to remove
> Linux etc.. as a threat is that they cannot buy it.
>
Monopolies aren't a good thing because someone can use the enormous power to
unfairly stiffle competition. But just remember that a monopoly didn't get
there by putting a gun to your head. (Unless it is a government monopoly -
then they *did* put a gun to your head.) Microsoft got to be as big as it
did by offering free men a voluntary transaction and they accepted it.
Microsoft is also in the process of losing its monopoly because others are
offering free men a voluntary transaction and they are starting to accept
that deal instead. (Linux being that case, but there are other OS's out
there as well.)

Markets may occasionally work poorly - but from my education in economics,
the folks who study this stuff tend to agree that it is a spectrum between
totally free markets versus total command economies. If markets work poorly,
the only apparent alternative is to move along that spectrum towards a more
command-oriented economy. In every instance where that has been tried, it
has worked even more poorly than a market economy. We live in an imperfect
world. You can have a market economy where there are inequities,
inefficiencies and injustices. Or you can have a command economy where the
inequities, inefficiencies and injustices abound in far greater numbers.
I'll take markets over orders since it respects my free will.

If one sees Microsoft as making poor quality crap and using heavy-handed
tactics to harm their competitors, the long term answer isn't to seek
government interference. That may be a necessary step, but it doesn't create
a long term solution. The long term solution is to come up with *better*
products and market them successfully. Microsoft can't stop you from
producing a *better* office suite or OS and making it available to the
consumer. You have to figure out what "better" means to the consumer and try
to deliver it. Doing so means the consumer wins.

MDC
--
======================================================================
Marin David Condic
I work for: http://www.belcan.com/
My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/

Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g

    "Going cold turkey isn't as delicious as it sounds."
        -- H. Simpson
======================================================================