Russell Roberts wrote this essay six years ago but I stumbled on it just this evening making it new to me. He applies the case against Microsoft to Tiger Woods to hilarious effect. It makes the reader consider the somewhat flawed logic that goes into challenging the monopoly of one company by the use of legal muscle.
A few days ago, I was griping to a friend who works for Microsoft about a product that is causing me some suffering these days. After a long discussion in which both sides had some valid arguments, he said with exasperation "If you hate MS products that much, why don't you take your business elsewhere ?" I retorted that I would be not waste a minute to switch to the Google OS whenever that happens. "So stop whining until then. What's the point when the market offers you no better choice ?"
According to him, Google has the wealth of Croesus and the best talent in the industry to boot, so what prevents it from building the OS that will put Microsoft out of business and give whiners such as myself something to rejoice over for a change. It is hard to argue that.
A few days ago, I was griping to a friend who works for Microsoft about a product that is causing me some suffering these days. After a long discussion in which both sides had some valid arguments, he said with exasperation "If you hate MS products that much, why don't you take your business elsewhere ?" I retorted that I would be not waste a minute to switch to the Google OS whenever that happens. "So stop whining until then. What's the point when the market offers you no better choice ?"
According to him, Google has the wealth of Croesus and the best talent in the industry to boot, so what prevents it from building the OS that will put Microsoft out of business and give whiners such as myself something to rejoice over for a change. It is hard to argue that.
Comments