Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Settlement Talks End In Failure
fremen was among the first to write with this news: "Yahoo is reporting the end of the mediation talks with Microsoft. Richard Posner has declared the discussions to be at an impasse, and the disagreements to be "too deep-seated to be bridged." The story can be found here." This is not an April Fools joke. Watch this space; we will update this story as more details become available. The outcome may be more dramatic than the strong hints of settlement had suggested. Updated 3:15GMT by timothy: Here's a more detailed article from The New York Times helpfully sent in by reader GenetixSW.
However, one thing that is negligected when talks of the result of this case are mentioned are finacal ones; not just how it will affect MS's finances, but the stock market. Everyone knows that most high tech stocks, especially the IPOs of late, are riding a bubble, and at some point, that bubble *has* to burst. I think both Judge Jackson and most market people realize that even with a ruling on MS that is in accordance with the law and anti-monopoly tactics, it WILL hurt the market. Especially given the levels that have been suggested by the reports of how big the judgement will be. When that stock bubble breaks, it probably will not take down the whole market, but it will ripple through the current booming economy badly.
So I think that Jackson was trying to encourage a settlement to avoid breaking the market; a settlement is much more pleasing to investors than a government ruling. But, as either DOJ of MS is not yeilding to the other side, that won't be happening. Brace yourselves for a very interesting week this week.
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
Microsoft headquarters also appears to be under a higher alert level, including employee badge checks. These events, combined with instructions transmitted over the US Emergency Broadcast Network to consider shutting down any and all machines running Microsoft OS and applications, for undisclosed "safety reasons", have caused only minor unrest and agitation. We spoke with one source, a computer industry veteran who wishes to remain anonymous at his Y2K survival bunker in Northern California. "Microsoft has breached three major financial and military facilities in the past week, possibly using a Windows NT back door. Electronic warfare between Justice and Microsoft has been escalating over the past week. I beleive it is only a matter of time before this e-war becomes a hot war." Our source pointed out that Microsoft has gained control of the top level internet domain .ms (by acquiring the formerly sovereign nation of Montserrat) and "may attempt to declare independence at any time." Meanwhile, angry computer users, carrying torches and pitchforks, shouting "You'll pay for our suffering" are rumored to be on route to Washington State, and growing by the minute. Some appear to be carrying laptops, cell phone modems, and homemade firewall penetration softwarwe. Microsoft was down one half of one point during trading today on light volume, before rallying to gain 2 points in the afternoon.
one thing that is negligected when talks of the result of this case are mentioned are finacal ones; not just how it will affect MS's finances, but the stock market. Everyone knows that most high tech stocks, especially the IPOs of late, are riding a bubble, and at some point, that bubble *has* to burst. I think both Judge Jackson and most market people realize that even with a ruling on MS that is in accordance with the law and anti-monopoly tactics, it WILL hurt the market.
...When that stock bubble breaks, it probably will not take down the whole market, but it will ripple through the current booming economy badly.
The only market it will hurt is the market for Microsoft shares. Think of how many Linux and independent software vendor shares are going to get a shot in the arm from a ruling that promises to bell the cat, er, um, tame the shrew, hmmm, cut the gordian knot, ahhhh, you know what I mean. It sure wouldn't hurt to be holding some Redhat and Corel when the conclusions of law come down.
If, as you suggest, there is some tough medicine to be taken, isn't it best to take it when the economy is strongest?
In any event, the market as a whole will turn up if anything, the stronger the ruling, the more up.
No, all Jackson's efforts to achieve settlement have nothing at all to do with the stock market. They have everything to do with (1) trying to achieve effective rememdies without a long draw-out supreme court appeal (2) bringing down a rock-solid judgement that doesn't stand a chance of being overturned on appeal. Showing that every effort was made in good faith to achieve a settlement, and that the defendant did not reciprocate in good faith is just part of building that airtight judgement. No judge likes to be reversed on appeal and Jackson is doing everything he can to avoid that.
Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
seems to me a "settlement" would be silly.
after all, wasn't this whole thing started because MS failed to abide by their last settlement and refused to abide by their agreement not to tie products together?
if they didn't do it then why would they do it now? they'd just appear to comply for two years, stop complying, and then when the gov sues them to start complying again the injunction to stop would be overturned again and we'd be back at square one, going into a massive legal battle that will not end until enough time has passed the original issues (in this case netscape) are irrelivant.
likewise "forcing them to open APIs" by a legal _judgement_ doesn't seem too bright either. How would you insure they _were_ following the judgement? You couldn't, except by having the government surveilance and oversight of MS be so intense it would be seriously scary. I have no sympathy for MS, but i don't want them to be a precedent that states the government has the right to interfere in scary ways with the internal workings of a software company.
This is why i say a breakup is the only way-- make OS/compilers and software seperate companies, and make it so they can only communicate through openly published, universally usable APIs. This is the only way i can think of to reliably ensure the MS OS is just as integrated with MS apps as it is with non-MS apps without resorting to Shades of Orwell. [although somewhere you still have to do something about OEM contracts]
I have one other thought, one which may be wrong since i don't think i have all my information straight. so i'm just going to say it, and ask for corrections: i think "opening up" the windows source code would do more in the way of placating the public than of actually solving anything, but one thing that does need to be done is force MS to open-source Visual C++ and MS Developer Studio and all that other crud. MS development tools seem to have an insane stranglehold on the market and seem to have a distinctly unfair advantage, but i think making compilers a third company seperate from both OS and software (as some have suggested) would actually make it very difficult for MS to do things such as propigate APIs.. my opinion probably isn't very meaningful though because i don't know much about this subject. Could someone please correct the flaws in my thinking? does anyone else have comments on what if anything should be done about the situtation involving MS having such a huge advantage when writing the compiler / MS making it virtually impossible to write decent software for their OS without shelling out huge amounts of money to them?
-mcc-baka
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY IS THEFT
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Interesting - though my personal preference would be for only two seperate companies - MS"1" and MS"0".
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Zagato-sama wrote:
"Revenge against a company that makes software? Oh dear. Move over Hitler, there's a new villain making way. *eyerolls*"
lol!
I think there are legimate gripes with Microsoft, but Zagato-Sama has made a point that doesn't get made enough, except by some very -ahem- 'suspect' sources. Namely, that Microsoft is a company which had made a bunch of "good enough" software for 20 years, put hundreds of thousands of hours and enough money to sink boats into designing interfaces and such, distributed an affordable (or rather, 'more affordable than contemporary competitors') GUI OS, employed thousands of people etc.
There seems to be a frightening smugness in some of the prescriptions that people have for Microsoft -- like being barred from the software industry for "malpractice." Whaaaa?! What if it was you?
The impression that an alien would get reading descriptions of Microsoft in the popular press and esp. on fora like slashdot might be that Microsoft is attacking the people of earth, and that anyone who used windows was doing so drugged and at knifepoint, with gritted teeth, and reaching for the cyanide pill. Nothin' doin' -- people have been using MS for the same reason that (as the saying goes) nobody every got fired for buying IBM -- inertia, laziness, other priorities, or (surely, at least in some cases) preference. Businesses can decide that compatibility with their clients / partners / suppliers is the single most important aspect of an OS. (That's why open file formats are important, and why people should demand them from software providers.)
There is danger is turning over something as important as software to the wisdom of government regulators.
Just thoughts,
timothy
p.s. I feel like Bruce Perens right now. Not that he'd agree with me, just that my wrists hurt from typing so much.
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
I think this is good news. If they had settled, and Microsoft were not convicted, then the next monopolist after Microsoft could go and behave in the same way and the DOJ would have to waste another 5 years fighting them in court. Wheras if Microsoft get convicted, then a legal precedent will have been set and it will be much easier to prosecute the next violator.
Of course, this assumes that Microsoft do get convicted. If this doesn't happen it will be very bad news indeed. Not so much because Microsoft will then wreak havoc; more because then every other potential monopolist knows he has nothing to fear from the law. MS have price-fixed. They've held secret meetings to arrange not to compete in a certain area (with Netscape). They've payed companies to dump a competing product. They've arbitrarily tied products together (other than Windows+IE). If they aren't a monopoly in the eyes of the law, then nobody is.
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
First off, do you agree with everything the US government states? I then assume you agree with the DMCA? If Microsoft are a monopoly, so are Intel, Sun, Apple, Cisco, and many other companies who maintain a "majority" share in their perspective field. Personally, I'd say yes, Microsoft is one. Sooner or later, Redhat will become a monopoly in Linux, I hope you'll then stand up and advocate that they be crushed by the DOJ.
Here's an interesting note for you, Linux is "supposedly" superior to Microsoft's offerings in every way, and is free, and yet the DOJ finds that Microsoft has no competition? Somehow those two things don't go together for me...
As for my tagline, it's very simple. Here at Slashdot, readers are herded into one particular viewpoint. You may not speak well of Microsoft, you may not support DVD Encryption, you may not speak ill of reverse engineering, you may not suggest that Windows NT/2000 is a better choice for a lot of people then Linux. This is simply not allowed, Slashdot readers must maintain a singular opinion on major issues, otherwise all these Linux podium posts that outnumber real news 2:1 wouldn't have much effect.
Slashdot is not a "News for nerds" site, it's a podium for Linux advocates to bash Microsoft and closed source, while patting Linux and open source on the back.
An open minded individual uses all tools presented before him/her to solve a problem. A closed minded individual is trained to one particular way, and refuses to attempt anything else. Which category do the majority of Slashdot readers fall under?
When actual debates on which tools work, and which don't begin to take place, then maybe you'll be right. Until then it's just a reiteration of the old "Linux r00lz M$ dr00lz" chant.
This is the root of the case. Requiring you to take software you don't need. Requiring a user to use IE has nothing to do with technical reasons and everything to do with ms position in the market.
ms knew full well the consent decree they made with the government not to extend their OS, and they did it anyway. As a result of this blatant and obvious disregard for the law, ms deserves to be choped, minced, and diced into tiny little pieces.
One of the more interesting points made in Judge Jacksons finding of fact is: When a company offers: "buy one get one free" You're paying for both. This is what ms is doing with IE.
If a car company throws in a free tank of gas when you buy a car you could say that you payed $20k for the car and you got $20 of gas for free. You can also say you you payed $20k for a tank of gas and they gave you a free car. There is no differance, you've payed for both items.
One could make the same argument (I have) that Win98 was free and you payed $80 for the IE browser.
I've heard it before and I'll say it again: "ms is the phillip morris of the software industry and the goverment should force them to put Linux adds on TV."
_______________
Among the major points in the final draft of the proposed agreement put forward by the Justice Department were these:
*Microsoft would be required to establish a uniform pricing schedule for the Windows operating system so the company could not use price discrimination to penalize companies that defy its will.
*The company would be prohibited from tying any of its products to Windows by sales contract, though it would still be free to integrate applications or features into the program.
*Microsoft would be forbidden to strike exclusive contracts with other companies, as it did with Internet service providers who were asked to feature Microsoft's Web browser and none other.
*Microsoft would be required to share technical information about its products without discrimination with any company that had a right to it.
*The company would also be required to disclosure the software interfaces that allow programmers to like their programs to Windows.
*Microsoft would no longer be allowed to raise the price of older versions of Windows as soon as a new one is released, a tactic to prompt faster migration to the new version. The company would have to support the old version, and sell it at the same price, for three years.
*Computer manufacturers would be allowed to license the source code to Windows so they could modify it, allowing them to change opening screen users see when they turn the computer on. They could also modify the program to feature a program they prefer, such as a different browser. But Microsoft would disclaim any responsibility for offering technical support for those parts of the program that have been changed, or affected by the changes.
One official said Judge Posner had been receiving e-mail messages and telephone calls from numerous state officials over the last several days, complaining that their interests were being ignored and warning that there could be no settlement without the states' agreement. Judge Posner, in his statement, noted: "I particularly want to emphasize that the collapse of the mediation is not due to any lack of skill, flexibility, energy, determination, or professionalism on the part of the Department of Justice and Microsoft Corporation." Nowhere did he make mention of the states.
_______________
It may be that the best thing to do to Microsoft is rule that they illegally used their monopoly power, do nothing to Microsoft (Hence, nothing to appeal) and let the hordes of civil lawsuits brought by MS Competitors bring Microsoft down?
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
I believe that one of the key reasons that Microsoft's market position has eroded at least somewhat is the DOJ's actions. The very threat of being sued allowed several national ISPs (AOL, CompuServe, AT&T, and a couple of others) to have their access software included alongside MSN in Windows 95. This allowed competition to occur in this arena, and to this day AOL's subscriber base dwarfs that of the Microsoft Network. Had the DOJ not harassed Microsoft on this issue, there is no way these ISPs' icons would have appeared on the Windows 95 desktop, and who knows, Microsoft may have gone even further to ensure that the only ISP s Windows 9x users could use were MSN and smaller companies that paid Microsoft a lot of money so that they could count Win 9x users among their subscribers.
I am also convinced that the DOJ acted just in time to prevent Microsoft from really throwing its weight around hardware vendors. When I say "hardware vendors", I mean companies that make processors, video cards, sound cards, and other components, not OEMs like Compaq and Dell. I imagine many of you Linux users have been ticked off when you found that your favorite component you used under Windows won't work under Linux because only Windows drivers have been released, and the part's specs are under an NDA. I see no reason why a company with as many connections and resources as Microsoft would not have been able pressure most hardware vendors into producing only Windows-capable products after learning about potential OS threats on the x86 platform like Linux and BeOS. One way this could happen is if Windows simply refused to interact with a component not on some list of approved parts. A component would be approved if only Windows drivers existed for it and the vendor promised to keep enough information secret about it to make rolling one's own driver an extremely difficult task. While this approach probably would not have worked on the large companies like Intel and Creative Labs, I believe enough smaller companies could have been coereced by Microsoft's tactics to ensure Linux and other OS's could not thrive on the Intel platform. Now that the proverbial Linux horse is out of the barn, Microsoft really can't do much to suppress it by using this or any other unfair tactic. By investigating Microsoft for grounds for serious antitrust charges, the DOJ deterred Microsoft from leveraging their OS monopoly in this manner. I would imagine that if Microsoft considered this technique, the punishment would have been more swift and severe than anything that will come out of the browser trial. If it weren't for the DOJ, there would have been no deterrent for this action, and as a result Microsoft could have gained an even tighter hold on the desktop than they have ever previously enjoyed.
Also, consider the PR fiascos that have taken place during the trial itself. The DOJ has already shown that Microsoft executives habitually lied during the investigation, and in some cases, even under oath in the courtroom. The prosecution made it pretty clear that Microsoft is now mostly about protecting their monopolies at all costs, and are not concerned about who suffers to fulfill this goal. Now that Microsoft's public respect has been greatly diminished, competitors have been embolded to attack them, now that they know that they are less likely to alienate Joe User by going after Microsoft. This has caused further damage to Microsoft's dominance of the PC.
In conclusion, the DOJ has done quite a lot already to curb Microsoft's behavior through its consent agreements and now the antitrust trial. With a guilty verdict and a substantial penalty against the company, Microsoft's fall from the top may be complete. However, the outcome now is in the hands of the judge, and we must accept the verdict no matter how it turns out. While some may argue the DOJ stepped too late to stop Microsoft from crushing Netscape, it was and still is an open legal question as to what "tying" and "integrating" mean in terms of the Sherman Act. The prosecution had to wait until they had at least a decent chance of conviction before suing, otherwise the trial would simply be a waste of taxpayer money. And Microsoft has already won in other arenas, like office suites. It's too late to undo the damage that's been done here. However, if Microsoft were allowed to use this same behavior pattern to gain a monopoly on the ISP market, the results would have a much greater disaster than anything that's happened previously. DOJ action prevented this from happening, and now as result of threatened legal action, Linux has taken advantage of its opportunity to become a fast growing, viable OS on the x86 platform. Five years ago, no such product existed (outside of the very small Linux community at the time), and Microsoft was in a position to make sure that no such product could ever exist. However, current antitrust legislation prevented Microsoft from sufficiently leveraging their market share to meet this goal. So this trial is not the end-all-be-all that many have proposed it to be. Well a guilty verdict will most likely be the last straw that breaks MS's stranglehold once and for all, one must look at what's already come out of this case even if the judge finds that Microsoft has done nothing legally wrong.
Well, its that time again folks. MS is on the agenda, and the FUD starts flying... Just a shame therefore that its from both sides of the argument!
To my tale: I'm a long time computer user, various formats and various Operating Systems, from the old (DOS and whatever CP/M the Amstrad used, AmigaOS) to the new (Mac OS briefly, Win9x/NT/2000, Linux, Solaris). I know what I have found to be the practical plus-points of all of these systems, as well as the minus points. I have read all about the business practices of the people who make (made) these systems, and judged for myself when I think they're being unfair, and when they're just being plain stupid.
However, I don't let the business practices of the companies involved dictate my choice of operating system. Nor do I base my choice on my ideas of 'free as in speech', or even 'free as in beer'. Nope, I've decided on Windows because I can use it to get the job done with the minimum of fuss in almost all circumstances. I love the idea of Linux, BeOS, *BSD, any and all free operating systems and open source software in general. I just don't like the practical aspect of using them.
I don't consider myself to be a geek by the standards people on here seem to apply (I mainly use my computer for 3D art, in fact), so maybe what I'm saying isn't true for everyone. But for my needs, NT/9x are stable enough and give me months of use with virtually no maintainance, run all the software I need or use, and don't stand between me and what I want to do. On the occasions it has crashed, and yes there have been quite a few, a reboot has sufficed. So, when people talk about how unstable Windows is, I take it with a very large pinch of salt, because I can see the FUD going both ways.
In a way its a bit like the subject story - MS users like myself have irreconcilable differences with many Linux advocates, who seek to persuade us to use their favoured operating system, all the while deriding our choice which has been made for logical reasons which just don't fit their world-view. Which is sad, really.
Game dev and music blog
Maybe it is a April fools joke, but if it is everyone is taken.
Clearly, this is a very bad thing for Microsoft as a company (who knows about the stockholders.) The decision will be released and can be used in other Microsoft trials. Settlement was really in their best interest.
--Karl
RayChuang wrote (in part): "You reap what you sow. You have just set back the computer industry six years or more as we have just set the stage for the 'balkanization' of the computer industry with multiple competing standards."
/either way/ is all I'm saying. It's no exaggeration to say that a lot of hardware sales have been because Windows does not take advantage of hardware the way that Linux and other UNIX variants do.
I disagree with the thrust of this claim. And I am *not* in favor of breaking up MS -- making me probably a minority both as a slashdot reader and slashdot author, though I've not seen any real poll data;) -- but not for this reason. In fact, I think a flood of competing 'standards' (none of which is truly fixed, perfect or universally accepted) is the best thing that could happen to the computer industry, and the thing which is most harmful about Microsoft's market dominance.
Why? Because a robust marketplace of ideas is anything but abstract in the computer world. Ideas in the form of bits really are competing for acceptance, based on the interaction of human prejudices, interface, capabilities, availability.
There are simultaneous upheavals in the hardware world as well as the software world -- and not just whether chips are 32 or 64 bits, or whether they take RAMBUS memory. The whole idea of what computers are for, whether they ought to be special-purpose or general (and as part of this, whether the processing power that defines the abstract "computer" available to a given person / organization ought to be distributed or all in one place) is still up in the air.
We could 'standardize' on something -- new law passed tomorrow says "You may only use MS Windows 2000, rev 2 or below" -- but that's not how a free market works, or ought to. Standards shift, mindsets change, the unthinkable becomes commonplace. Sure, the software environment will affect the hardware environment, but in the case of OSes running on commodity hardware (as is the case with Linux, the various BSDs, Be, Solaris and others*), why should a breakup of MS per se have an effect on hardware sales? It could go
Just thoughts,
timothy
*I'm ignoring the other processors these can run on only because they're not germane to this line of reasoning.
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
Oh, yes, I think there should be no more tying. IE should be separate, and so should the office stuff.
I was just pondering the implications of that statement... does that mean Be would no longer be able to ship NetPositive (their web browser), sound recorder, CD burner, etc. with the OS? Or would the ruling apply only Microsoft because they were the ones guilty of predatory marketing?
As a side note, something fishy's going on: as of right now, not one moderation has been performed on this story... please say it's not another April Fool's Joke(tm)
Revenge against a company that makes software? Oh dear. Move over Hitler, there's a new villain making way.
*eyerolls*
Open Source. Closed Minds. We are Slashdot
What I find most amazing about this whole thing is that it was started to protect Netscape, as lame a software company as ever came down the pike.
Here was a company that took a free browser, made it proprietary, cleaned it up a little, and grabbed 85% market share, not because it was any good, but because they had a head start. On the basis of what was basically an HTML file viewer, they announced their intention to topple Microsoft. Investors believed them, and the money started pouring in. They used it to go on an acquisition spree, hoping they could buy and popularize enough stuff fast enough to maintain their lead; relatively little original code ever came out of Mountain View. And when this silly plan didn't work, they were lame enough to blame Microsoft instead of their own hollow business plan.
Netscape's stated plan was to leverage their browser share, and they immediately started doing all the things that we get ticked off at Microsoft for: adding proprietary tags, encouraging sites to write to their specifications instead of to the open specs. In the early days, this was pretty effective, since Netscape jumped the gun with such things as table tags and font tags, which were pretty radical tools for early web designers. But such a strategy was doomed to failure, since each new feature became increasingly less useful than the previous one. When people started to notice that very few copies of Netscape were ever purchased (it was free for students, government, and non-profits), they said that their plan was to make money by selling servers, and that they were going to use their browser share to drive the server business!
Eventually, the investors lost their shirts and nearly everything else, but not before Netscape management became wealthy. But of course, it would have been suicidal to admit that their business plan had been as bad as it was; to do so would have invited a massive shareholder's suit. Instead, we've been treated to the spectacle of whining billionaires, one of the worst inventions ever to come out of Silicon Valley.
The most ironic thing is to hear these losers tell us the secret to Microsoft's success. Well, if they're so damned smart, how come so many people lost so much money on their company?
Please don't construe any of this as a defense of MS; I'm just sick of hearing guys with zillions of other people's dollars complaining that they didn't end get more. Yeah, maybe MS did end up with a monopoly in browsers, but if Netscape had concentrated on making a decent product instead of trying to topple Microsoft by churning out crap quickly, they might still be a player instead of a little component in AOL 6.
Yes, the judge doesn't understand that Microsoft is criminal to the core. Yes, the judge is continually trying to look for a change of heart, a sign somebody there has a clue. Yes, MS is taking all of this as signs of weakness in a purely darwinian armwrestling match. But there's still the law, and there's still the judge- and Microsoft doesn't make all the rules. Who noticed all the details on the failure of settlement? Posner pointedly avoids laying blame for the failure on Microsoft- yet the last straw was when he read Microsoft's latest proposed terms. _I_ think Posner is going back to Jackson and saying "I give up. These guys are the biggest criminals I've ever seen! They're not even ashamed of it! Everything they've proposed has intentionally had loopholes you could drive a truck through, they don't even bother concealing it. They have no good faith at all, it's absolutely sick to watch. Nail 'em. Nobody can say we didn't try, and they can't even say I was prejudiced- I thanked them and implied it was the states' fault. Excuse me while I go _wash_ _my_ _hands_... euggggh!"
I'm serious- I think these judges have been beating their heads against Microsoft's obvious, relentless criminality, astonished that it doesn't even understand what they're trying to do. And I agree with Cringely that MS can see this only as a sign of weakness, because they are so far outside the law in their heads that they can't even comprehend it (something which shocks the hell out of the judges). But Cringely is wrong if he thinks that is going to help them- MS is NOT the law, and to the legal system, it is not a defense to say "I am innocent because all this legal stuff is crap anyway! I kick ass wherever I want and you can't stop me 'cause you're weak and cowardly!". That is... not an effective position to take.
It is the position Microsoft believes, in its heart. And so, I see Posner giving up, going irreconcilably against Microsoft (Posner's first love is the law, not power) and cleverly issuing statements to block even the implication that he was biased and quit due to unfair prejudice against Microsoft. His statement seeming to blame the states... is for the appeals courts to appreciate, not us.
The latest Cringely has a very interesting take on the vast difference between the judge's way of looking at things and Microsoft's, and how that explains the failure to reach any agreement.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
Folks,
You reap what you sow.
You have just set back the computer industry six years or more as we have just set the stage for the "balkanization" of the computer industry with multiple competing standards. This will be the ultimate IT manager nightmare, because they will have be current on multiple competing versions of Windows, Linux, BeOS and whatever x86-compatible operating system comes along the line.
The result is very simple: IT managers will start to sit on the sidelines waiting for the standards to settle down before buying any new hardware, and it'll be akin to the side effects of the AT&T breakup in 1984. You can tell what THIS will do computer hardware sales.
Don't laugh when I say "I told you so" at the end of 2001 when the computer industry is in the doldrums because of the combination of the collapse of Microsoft and the collapse of the Internet industry due to stockholders demanding profits.
Raymond in Mountain View, CA
As for the "tying" of Internet Explorer, I still don't see the issue with this.
The issues isn't that they did it. It's how they did it.
1) In their own words, Microsoft indicated that they were giving away IE to undercut Netscape.
2) They went out and paid off several large ISPs (from AOL on down) so that the ISPs distributed IE instead of Netscape.
3) They threatened to raise prices on OEMs such as Compaq if they shipped Netscape preinstalled.
4) They forbade OEMs from placing any other Internet or ISP-related icon on the preinstalled Windows desktop.
5) They paid and rewarded large websites that included IE-specific features like Channels.
6) They tied key Windows system DLLs to Internet Explorer, so that some 3rd party applications would be forced to have IE4 as a prerequisite for install.
The plan was to cut off Netscape's "air supply" -- meaning cut their revenue stream, cut their distribution points, cut their new user supply, and discourage development on Netscape-specific features. During a period when the Internet was growing exponentially, the plan was a incredible success -- By 1997-8, many of the early web users were still on Netscape. but a huge majority of new users were on IE.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
(let's try that again...)
I have a song request: anybody who lives in the Redmond area, see if you can get your local classic rock station to start playing Queen's Waiting for the Hammer to Fall off of Radio Ga-Ga, and dedicate it to Bill.
www.eFax.com are spammers
While Microsoft was a monopoly from 1995 - 1998, owing to the overwhelming success of Windows 95, the changing state of computers has done more to level the competitive playing field than any consent decree possibly could.
Much has been written about Microsoft's ability to dominate the desktop. Nearly every Microsoft basher worries that Microsoft will be able to leverage its strong desktop position into a powerful server and internet position. They argue that Microsoft will assimilate like the Borg, spread like a virus, but the numbers simply do not bear this out.
IF Microsoft were a classic monopoly, they would try and leverage IE into forcing NT / Win2K sales. IE now dominates the Windows desktop space - it's bundled after all. However, as much as IE has gone up, the use of IIS and WinNT as a web server has remained even at best in terms of share. In fact, IIS is starting to go DOWN against Apache.
You would think that since Microsoft completely owns the client, that they would be able to force Windows NT as a server, or at least provide a compelling reason to use NT over some other server technology. They have not. Windows NT / 2000 market shares are steady, not increasing. Indeed, Linux is the growth player in operating systems. Not Windows.
One might also think that because Microsoft rules the desktop, they ought to be able to leverage an online service. This has been the biggest and most damning failure of the company. MSN has been bundled into Windows 95 since the get go. This alarmed a lot of people, but as it turned out, AOL not only succeeded in the face of this, but triumphed. While MSN goes from being a core part of the operating system to being a web based streaming media thing to a web based thing to possibly up for sale to something else, AOL has become the dominant owner of not only network infrastructure (Cable), but content (Time / CNN / etc). At AOLs level, the choice of browser or even operating system is almost trivial and is certainly non-relevant.
All of the talk about Microsoft dominating the Internet has been just that, talk. That they destroyed Netscape was sad, but in the grand scheme of things the destruction bought them absolutely nothing. They have not dominated the server market. They have not dominated the online services market. They have not even protected their interest in retaining control of the PC - internet appliances are all the rage. Microsoft is about to be slammed by the justice for committing a crime that had no reward. In retrospect, the destruction of Netscape was a phyrric victory, a business decision that achieved none of its objectives for a price that may ultimately threaten the business itself. You may not like the destruction of Netscape because you whine and sob, Cat Stevens like, about the evils of capitalism. But even the most hardcore capitalist at this point has to conclude that the destruction of Netscape was not even very smart.
This is my sig.