XPost: comp.sys.cbm, rec.games.video.classic
From: wildstar128@hotmail.com
Monopolies aren't illegal per se. Certain practices done while there is a
monopoly is illegal. The question is what kinds of practices were deemed
illegal. There was a different culture of what is deemed fair and not fair.
Honestly Joel, you seem to be a kid. Wake up, the world isn't fair and nor
will it ever be. The world is dominated by desire of pocession and the
business world is like that. It isn't a matter of "doing it because the
others are doing it". It is about doing whatever it takes for business to
survive. If you look into the history of every business that has existed for
any length of time over multiple generations, you'll find businesses doing
things that today is illegal but then was not. Businesses uses every loop
hole to get the edge over their competition. They did it then and do it now.
If you don't do it, you fall. The timid dies first. The survival of the
fittest is the "law of the lands". The timid are the ones who dies. The
aggressive yet not taking more then needed type survives. The key was to be
aggressive enough to hold off competition and keep edge while not taking on
too much or getting everyone upset at you. Jack Tramiel did was any savvy
businessman would do in the cutthroat environment. If you let them cut your
throat you fall. Jack been there. 1960s - TI cut-throatted Commodore and
many others. Commodore almost bit the dust. By the mid-70s, Commodore but
everything in a "vertical" order of business by having their own in-house
chip manufacturing, they can cut the prices because when you order chips
from someone else - you pay for their "inflated prices". TI did a cut-throat
tactic that C= used in return to TI in the computer wars. TI - maker of
chips used in calculators sold chips to other companies with a profit
margin. (Manufacturing Cost + TI Profit margin) Then those companies have to
add an additional "profit and assembling cost margin". When TI made their
own calculators, they can cut the extra profit margin per component. For
them, it was just manufacturing and assembling cost and one "profit margin".
In short, they can reduce price of items where the competitor can not.
That was perfectly legal. The business world isn't about "ethics". It is
about doing what it takes for business to survive the competition. Do what
is legal. Law does not equal ethic. Business is war and war is not for the
timid "goodie-tooshoo". Even today. It may not be as viscous as it was but
it still is.
Lets remember that Microsoft is still a monopoly. The courts are a joke on
that one. Even breaking up Microsoft who's stock(s) would still be in Bill
Gates ownership would be a joke because he would still legally be entitled
chairmanship of all the units and the courts really couldn't legally prevent
that. So it be 4-6 Microsofts, each of which Bill Gates would still be in
ultimate control of. So, it wouldn't have done anything. It would be the
same with any of the other companies.
It isn't a matter of forgiveness, it would be just the plain "get over it".
Jack was a hard-ass and they knew it. Some of them try to screw him so Jack
screw them. So, they might have well deserved getting screwd. They knew it.
Try to throw a fast one. If you are not willing to screw the competition
over when they are trying to screw you, then you don't belong in corporate
business leadership because you are too timid. You'll cause the company to
fall.
Really, those people who knew Jack Tramiel don't hold any hard ill-feelings.
Jack had his rough and tough way. Sometimes, when people first meet him
would think he's an asshole but when you know him, you realize that he wants
straight answers. Bil Herd and Chuck Peddle and those who worked for
Commodore had no problems with him. Sometimes, he is difficult to satisfy
but you had to know how to talk straight to him and you know that he wants
straight concise answers and he challenges his employees to work hard. Don't
be a defeat-ist. If a project won't make it, he'll cut it and redirect the
staff to projects that are. He is looking at how to bring the right product
out at the right time at the right price. In some cases, he'd expect you to
be ingenious. At first, alot of projects that were going to be sold or made
as individual products were combined into one product (Commodore 64 for
example). So work wasn't redone. Jack realized that his engineers did that.
So instead of a video chip product and a sound chip product. They combined
it into one product. Saving cost, making one product with these
technologies. The VIC-II, SID and all that.
He didn't care how you did it. Just that you make the schedule and
deadlines. Those that didn't get the idea and complained got booted. Makes
fair sense.
"Joel Koltner" wrote in message
news:13j6joj756qomab@corp.supernews.com...
> "Wildstar" wrote in message
> news:uwGYi.51$e61.19@newsfe06.lga...
>> Being a hard-ass was "law of business" and about 99% of businessmen
>> running major corporations in high competition was that way.
>
> That doesn't mean that Jack should be "forgiven" any more than the former
> Nazis who imprisoned him were.
>
> Doing anything because "99% of other guys are going it" has always been
> piss-poor policy. Being "hard-driving" and a "cutthroat deal-maker" are
> not mutual exclusive with being honest, ethical, and treating people
> fairly.
>
>> The game was monopoly and to control the entire industry.
>
> You have to wonder about the ethics of anyone who would willingly
> participate in such a "game" -- it's quite clear, at least in the U.S.,
> that by law it's a game you can never win, given that monopolies are
> illegal.
>
> ---Joel
>
>
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
