Manufacturing Quality

In article ,
Matt Whiting wrote:
Almost everyone who uses or tests computers reports that Apple computers
are of higher quality than IBM architecture PCs. There is competition,
and quality wasn't the dominant factor as it often isn't.


While I'm amazed that I find myself in agreement with Newps about
something, I do have to agree with you on this point.

As someone who purchased a new-construction home in the last few years,
it amazed me at how much money many new home buyers will pay for
absolute crap. There are an amazing number of developers who build
nice-looking but otherwise trash houses on postage-stamp, benched lots,
and charge outrageous prices--and sell out the developments time after
time. I guess I'm in the wrong business.



JKG

In article ,
B A R R Y wrote:
Exactly. I recently witnessed a Toyota Tundra trying to pull a 2-horse
trailer. Not sure if there were any horses in it (I assume there
were... but remember that we're talking about a small trailer), and the
rear bumper was nearly dragging on the ground, with the front end up in
the air. Would be a piece of cake for even an F-150 properly equipped.

The Japanese trucks are appealing (though I think Ford has figured out
how to build a quality truck), they are nothing by very light duty
trucks--even the big ones.

It never occurred to you that Tundra may not have properly equipped,
just as the F150 would need to be? G

The problem is that you CAN'T properly equip the Tundra. Toyota doesn't
offer any heavy-duty options.



JKG

"Jonathan Goodish" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Judah wrote:
Actually, several companies, including Dell and IBM, tried to market PCs
with

Linux on them instead of Windows. OS/2 failed, not for quality. Even
Apple
had to give in to the MS OS wars, with their new ads that indicate their
new
Macs run Windows...

Microsoft has competition. They're just better marketers.

Not really. When's the last time you saw a Windows ad? The reality is
that Microsoft is basically a monopoly--whether you might consider it to
be de facto or government-sanctioned. When governments and companies
mandate a Windows-only standard, that effectively shuts out all other
competition. When folks buy home PCs, they buy what's being used at
work.

Even back in the days before Windows, when PCs ran MS-DOS, Apple was
being displaced in the home as more companies issued PCs to the grunt
workforce, despite the fact that Apple's machines were still heavily
used in education.

Apple knows that they have a much better mouse trap with Mac OS X.
Their retail stores are their best marketing effort yet, and they've
been producing positive results in market share. Apple is in no way
"giving in" to Microsoft by advertising that Macs can run Windows; just
the opposite, they are using that advantage as a marketing tool to
remove the "risk" out of investing in a Mac. If you buy a Mac and don't
like OS X, you can still run Windows. Apple is betting that not many
Macs will be running Windows as their primary operating system, and I
suspect they are right.

I realize Macs are superior buildwise and OSwise. However the total cost of
ownership (and limitations in available software) pushed me towards PC/MS
boxes. I estimate total cost of ownership for PC is about 1/2 that of Mac in
my usage. With PC/MS you get proprietary OS. With Apple you get proprietary
hardware and software. The hardware situation might have changed since I
haven't looked over the past several years but previously add-ons for the
MAC were pricey.

Howard

On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 11:52:03 -0400, Jonathan Goodish
wrote in
:

The reality is that Microsoft is basically a monopoly--

That's what the European Commission found also:


http://news.zdnet.co.uk/business/leg...9149844,00.htm
EC: A Q&A on the Microsoft decision


http://www.regdeveloper.co.uk/2006/0...adline_missed/
Microsoft runs out of EC time
Three strikes and you're out
By Mark Ballard
Published Thursday 9th February 2006 13:17 GMT

Microsoft is facing fines from the European Commission after
failing to get an extension on a deadline it had been set by the
competition police.

The Competition Directorate had already extended, from December
15, a deadline for Microsoft to comply with the terms of a
previous ruling, Reuters said.

The software firm, which had already paid $593m in fines to the
EC, now faces further charges of $2.4m a day unless it complies
with a previous anti-trust ruling.

The EC had told Microsoft to help other software firms understand
its operating system so they could write server software as easily
as it could itself. It appeared from the EC ruling that Microsoft
was doing what it could to further tighten the hold it had on the
market for operating systems.

But the commission found that Microsoft was still delivering up
shoddy information to other server software vendors and cried
foul.

Microsoft complained that it did not get a fair opportunity to
make a defence. However, the commission insisted it had
opportunity enough.



http://www.techworld.com/networking/...gtype=samechan
12 July 2006

EC fines Microsoft €280.5 million
By Paul Meller and Peter Sayer, IDG News Service

The European Commission has fined Microsoft €280.5 million for
failing to comply with the terms of a March 2004 antiitrust
judgement against it.

Microsoft has already paid a €497 million fine as a result of the
judgement, in which the Commission found that Microsoft had used
its near-monopoly in the PC operating systems market to gain
advantage in the markets for work group server operating systems
and media players.

At the time, the Commission ordered the company to release a
version of Windows XP without a built-in media player, and to
provide its competitors with technical details of certain
communication protocols used by its server products.

The €280.5 million fine announced today is to punish the company
for failing to provide those technical details in a timely manner.
If Microsoft continues to fail to comply, the Commission will
increase the amount of the daily fine to €3 million per day, it
said.

Microsoft has called a press conference this afternoon to discuss
the decision.

The Commission initially gave Microsoft 120 days to disclose
details of the software interfaces used by its server products to
communicate with the desktop versions of Windows, so that
competing vendors could build compatible systems. Progress was
slow, and in March last year, and then again in June, the
Commission threatened the company with additional fines if it
didn't fully comply with the ruling.

Microsoft succeeded in pushing back the deadline numerous times as
negotiations continued, but the Commission remained unsatisfied
with Microsoft's progress, notably in documenting its software
interfaces.

Microsoft is due to submit the final batch of technical
documentation required by the Commission by 18 July, according to
a timetable the two parties agreed with the independent monitoring
trustee appointed to oversee matters.

The Commission had earlier threatened fines of up to €2 million a
day until all the required information about the communications
protocols had been supplied. The €280.5 million figure is based on
a fine of €1.5 million per day, for the period from 15 December to
20 June.

In a separate action, Microsoft has also appealed against the
anti-trust ruling itself. The European Court of First Instance in
Luxembourg finally heard that appeal in late April, and is now
considering its decision.


And the US isn't finished with Microsoft's monopoly either:

http://news.zdnet.co.uk/business/leg...9157300,00.htm
Microsoft fails to have monopoly lawsuit dismissed

Declan McCullagh
CNET News.com
June 10, 2004, 09:15 BST

A New York court has ruled that Microsoft must continue to fight a
lawsuit that alleges deceptive and monopolistic business practices
A New York state appeals court has rejected Microsoft's attempt to
throw out a class-action suit alleging deceptive and monopolistic
business practices.

The state Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that the lawsuit could
continue, overruling part of a lower court's decision that had
sided with Microsoft.

"Microsoft's end-user licence agreements with its prime customers,
the computer manufacturers and distributors, insulate it only from
product defect claims, not consumer injury complaints predicated
upon claims of monopolistic and deceptive conduct," the Supreme
Court said.
...


[Follow up set]

Thomas Borchert wrote:
Newps,

We want big and powerful.


Until the fuel prices climb some more...

Fuel cost is insignificant to those seeking a squirt of testosterone.
That's the only way I can explain guys driving around a load of air in
the back when they could be enjoying a nice Lexus.

In article ,
"Howard Nelson" wrote:

I estimate total cost of ownership for PC is about 1/2 that of Mac in
my usage.

I guess you don't put a high value on your time.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

Jonathan Goodish wrote:
In article ,
Judah wrote:

Actually, several companies, including Dell and IBM, tried to market PCs with

Linux on them instead of Windows. OS/2 failed, not for quality. Even Apple
had to give in to the MS OS wars, with their new ads that indicate their new
Macs run Windows...

Microsoft has competition. They're just better marketers.


Not really. When's the last time you saw a Windows ad? The reality is
that Microsoft is basically a monopoly--whether you might consider it to
be de facto or government-sanctioned. When governments and companies
mandate a Windows-only standard, that effectively shuts out all other
competition. When folks buy home PCs, they buy what's being used at
work.

Don't confuse marketing with advertising. They aren't the same thing.
Probably the best marketing decision that Microsoft made and Apple
failed to make was to work closely with third party software developers.
This had nothing to do with advertising, but was shrewd marketing.

Matt

Jonathan Goodish wrote:

In article ,
Matt Whiting wrote:

Almost everyone who uses or tests computers reports that Apple computers
are of higher quality than IBM architecture PCs. There is competition,
and quality wasn't the dominant factor as it often isn't.



While I'm amazed that I find myself in agreement with Newps about
something, I do have to agree with you on this point.

As someone who purchased a new-construction home in the last few years,
it amazed me at how much money many new home buyers will pay for
absolute crap. There are an amazing number of developers who build
nice-looking but otherwise trash houses on postage-stamp, benched lots,
and charge outrageous prices--and sell out the developments time after
time. I guess I'm in the wrong business.

I wrote the above, not Newps. So who are you really agreeing with?
Newps who says sales volume is synonymous with quality or me who says it
isn't necessarily so.

Matt

Howard Nelson wrote:

"Jonathan Goodish" wrote in message
...

In article ,
Judah wrote:

Actually, several companies, including Dell and IBM, tried to market PCs

with

Linux on them instead of Windows. OS/2 failed, not for quality. Even

Apple

had to give in to the MS OS wars, with their new ads that indicate their

new

Macs run Windows...

Microsoft has competition. They're just better marketers.

Not really. When's the last time you saw a Windows ad? The reality is
that Microsoft is basically a monopoly--whether you might consider it to
be de facto or government-sanctioned. When governments and companies
mandate a Windows-only standard, that effectively shuts out all other
competition. When folks buy home PCs, they buy what's being used at
work.

Even back in the days before Windows, when PCs ran MS-DOS, Apple was
being displaced in the home as more companies issued PCs to the grunt
workforce, despite the fact that Apple's machines were still heavily
used in education.

Apple knows that they have a much better mouse trap with Mac OS X.
Their retail stores are their best marketing effort yet, and they've
been producing positive results in market share. Apple is in no way
"giving in" to Microsoft by advertising that Macs can run Windows; just
the opposite, they are using that advantage as a marketing tool to
remove the "risk" out of investing in a Mac. If you buy a Mac and don't
like OS X, you can still run Windows. Apple is betting that not many
Macs will be running Windows as their primary operating system, and I
suspect they are right.


I realize Macs are superior buildwise and OSwise. However the total cost of
ownership (and limitations in available software) pushed me towards PC/MS
boxes. I estimate total cost of ownership for PC is about 1/2 that of Mac in
my usage. With PC/MS you get proprietary OS. With Apple you get proprietary
hardware and software. The hardware situation might have changed since I
haven't looked over the past several years but previously add-ons for the
MAC were pricey.

That just supports my point that quality isn't what drives most
purchases. It is cost or other factors.

Matt

"Jonathan Goodish" wrote

One thing that neither Ford nor GM have is a decent small or mid-sized
truck. Toyota and Nissan both have decent mid-sized offerings in the
redesigned Tacoma and Frontier. Dodge had a great truck in the Dakota
until the redesign (I think it was 2005) that basically ruined it, in my
opinion.

You wouldn't think that Dodge had such a good truck in the Dakota, if you
had ever looked underneath one. They were/are built like cars. Wimpy!
--
Jim in NC