Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Break-Up To Be Proposed?
lowLark writes: "The Seattle PI is reporting that the feds and most of the states have agreed to pursue breaking Microsoft into two companies." One company will be in charge of 'Bob' and the Mouse, the other will be everything else :)
There's a very good article in the Washington Post with lots of details. It also talks about the restrictions that will be placed on the Baby Bills - limits on bundling, uniform licensing, etc.
-David Ziegler
-dziegler@hotmail.com
-David Ziegler
-
Non-sucky
- Barney
- cream-coloured optical wheelmouse
- Age of Empires
- most other microsoft hardware
- Word 2
Sucky
- "Nike" mouse
- anything that stops working unexpectedly
I think that covers it all.
-- Don't believe everything you read, hear or think
Despite the /. anti-Microsoft propaganda machine, the forced break up of Microsoft would be a bad thing for the computing industry as a whole, and harm consumers more than anyone else. Persoanlly I think this whole mess has gotten well out of hand, and it's now being used as an excuse for blaming Microsoft for everything from the Fall of Man onwards, which is blatently untrue.
The fact of the matter is, Microsoft practically single-handedly turned the PC from the haven of 31337 tech-savvy "gurus" to a domain where anyone could use a computer to browse the internet, write letters and play games. Whilst I know that /.ers seem to think that only they should be allowed to use PCs, Microsoft pushed the idea that everyone could benefit from a PC, and it worked, because people wanted that.
Face it, the only people who have anything against Microsoft are the very people that disdain to use it since it isn't based around a CLI. Breaking the company up will harm the average user, since a high level of integration means a greater ease of use. And for once, /. should stop and think about the average user rather than blindly following some dogmatic principle.
No. I've been concerned about this for some time. It's certainly a step in the right direction, but the OS company will still have a desktop OS monopoly, and the apps company will still have a monopoly in terms of office suite market share (and hence will be able to block competition by repeatedly changing file formats, etc.).
"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." -- Delos B. McKown
If I were MS, I'd be very quiet right now, with perhaps an occasional mention of how much competition MS faces from Linux, Apache, Oracle, AOL, Sun, etc.
"What I cannot create, I do not understand."
Sorry, I just think it's kinda funny that so many slashdotters claim to be libertarian and then turn around and expect the govt. to break up MS. Personally, I would rather see the market punish MS. Move from MS products to quality products. MS will either be forced to change to what the market wants (instead of what MS wants), or they will die out. Iron_Slinger -- Pain is just weakness leaving the body.
See the latest I, Cringely article at PBS online for why this is all irrelevant at this point (see towards the last half of the article). If you don't have your I, Cringely slashbox turned on, I'd say turn it on. The guy always has some interesting points, a better pundit than Dvorak.
-JD
Hasn't Slashdot milked this enough? How many "Microsoft-will-die" stories must be posted to satisfy the drooly/giggling anti Microsoft fanatics?
It's been stated already, this will go on to appeals and will probably not come to a conclusion in our lifetimes, get over it and report some real news already instead of playing the old podium game.
Realize also that any breakup of Microsoft will have very little impact on Linux. If a hardware vendor doesn't give a rat's ass about Linux, it certainly won't change it's mind like magic after any ruling.
So instead of having just one dirty handed, predatory, monopolizing business, we're going to have two! What a great solution!
The feds are going about this entirely the wrong way, they're thinking that software is somehow like oil, when infact it isn't anything like it.
The product has different properties which make breaking up the company ineffective.
1. It costs virtually nothing to copy data
2. Source between these two companies can be shared in such a way that they can basically keep operating as one company
3. The two companies would have different products (OS / Everything Else) and therefore don't have to compete against eachother unlike the oil and phone company breakups!
It's just a bad decision, I've said it from the start, and I'll say it 'till the end.
-- iCEBaLM
You realize, of course, that Microsoft 2.0 will have all the features of Microsoft 1.0, plus added functionality: MsEmailSafe (tm) will no longer allow damaging emails to leave Microsoft Exchange Server, and wind up on Open Source web pages. Exchange will lock up and spit blood instead, and the users will never notice, having become accustomed to this. MsPropaganda will be upgraded to 3.2.1, incorporating the latest kernal upgrades from the MPAA and the Public Confusion Algorithm (MSPCA), in particular. And Bill Gates will finally get a decent haircut.
Error 503:
No one seems to have pointed out that one of main things that gives Microsoft an edge over all of their competitors is that they have full and exclusive access to the Windows API. Breaking the company into two would mean that any information being tranferred between them is "on the market" and therefore available to anyone that's willing to pay for it. So next time they change the whole of the Windows OS in order to make Word work correctly (you'll notice that almost every system dll is replaced when you install Office) they have to tell everyone what they changed. No more undocumented API calls (in theory ;-)). Woohoo.
--- If something doesn't feel right, you're probably not feeling the right thing.
Breaking up MS into OS and apps doesn't destroy or even affect Windows, Office, or IE as products. It prevents the MS marketing dept from misusing their monopoly position. You may think differently, but there is very little benefit gained by the integration of apps with the OS. In fact, I see very little integration at all, aside from default file associations, and the fact that MS Office just uses the Windows OS better than competitors, who don't have the same information. IE has been used to enhance the desktop and file manager, but those enhancements could be done independently of the browser.
Remember that Bill Gates didn't write DOS, he bought it. He didn't invent the interface, he copied it. He didn't invent any applications, he just copied and improved competing applications. If MS never existed, we'd be still have PC's, good apps, good OS's. We will never know what things would be like if MS hadn't been around. I won't say things would be better or worse, because I don't know. What I do know is that things would definitely be better if MS had never broken the law.
"What I cannot create, I do not understand."
1) Microsoft did not turn the PC from its haven of the techy into the realm of the user. That title went to the Mac, good _marketing_ gave the PC its edge as well as the massive failure of IBM to spot its power.
2) The rise of the PC and of Microsoft is of the same sort of community that is contained in
Now onto the rest. Microsoft _has_ done a good job in promoting and extending the PC. The problem is that it has done this _at the expense_ of the consumer on many occasions. Few would argue that MS-DOS was better than DR-DOS, yet strangely DR-DOS died. This was a result of MS pushing out the opposition by using their dominante position.
Microsoft have succeeded by realising two things
1) Quality doesn't matter, being first matters
2) Marketing can over come most evils.
Using these two commandments they have created the PC market place. However when competition loomed they used their command of the market to crush the competition, not in the interests of the consumer or because their product was "better", soley because they have the first hook that every user sees. This is bad.
The internet, windows, the web, the mouse and all the other things that make the world a better place for the average user were not invented or even best implemented by MS. They were best marketed by them and opposition removed by other means.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
But then ms came from nowhere and inialated them. No one had to use windows. It was the best and most available at the time.
Nothing came up to challenge it sufficently. Okay OS2, MAC OS, but MS always came back ?
All the kiddies on this site seem to forget this. Remember the apple2 ? Remember the BBC micro, hell even the ZX spectrum where a lot of computing gurus grew up.
But if apple had dominated, we would be in a much worse position now, what with it's proprietary hardware and software etc...
No linux then my friends !
Equally if IBM had pursued the copyig of it's BIOS by other companies (notably compaq who reverse engineered it) then again we would have another unfriendly giant to content with.
Never forget what microsoft has done for the industry, but the fact remains they got WELL out of control.
They should be broken up, into different division and FORCED to release their APIs to the OS, and also make sure that the other baby bills did not get early access to them.
Consider this also, if everyone was using different apps, operating systems etc. how would they all transfer files without being messy ? Yes HTML, PDFs etc...
Another law should be passed to provide a common file format for all applications (one for word apps, another for spreadsheets...etc..). This would solve a lot of compatability issues.
I really don't like MS, and use linux a lot at home because it I can do more easily, but it has to be said, MS did certainy help make PCs avaiable to the masses.
Just think for a minute what would have happened if the corporate giants at the time would have had there way.
Aso think Bill was once a geek, but he really MADE it and fair play to him.
Alanp
I don't think there's a meaningful way to simply "divide" the company. I think if they want to do it right, they have to DISMANTLE the company. Like so:
- Marketing in one company, engineering in another. Each half must independently regrow the other half and thus cannot simply repackage the same old crap with brand new FUD and claim it as 'innovative', MS Engineering will have to EARN its respect and I can't imagine many engineers wanting to work for MS Marketing.
- Hold a public auction to sell off each and every one of Microsoft's products. The only stipulation is that no company gets more than one product. I can see logistical problems trying to make sure there's no collusion or secretly connected "subsidiaries" involved trying to accumulate a whole other Microsoft, but this WOULD END THE MONOPOLY. The two Microsoft companies described above would be allowed to bid, but each gets only one product. (Plus it would flush out the back catalog of stuff MS just sits on; anything not purchased goes GPL, which means freeware ROMs for lots of emulators and fully commented source code for old goodies like EDTASM.)
This won't happen, because I can't imagine the DOJ having the cojones to attempt such a radical solution. I figure they'd be afraid MS would win the appeal. But even THAT might not be so bad. Ponder this sentence:
The Microsoft of 1995 would never have allowed Linux to get where it is today.
In other words, Microsoft behaves itself when it's under the spotlight. Simply keeping the light in the giant's eyes for a few years has been enough to allow alternative OSes to capture the MAINSTREAM's eye for probably the first time since the late 1980s. If Microsoft appeals, it's likely that the spotlight could remain on them for years to come - hopefully long enough that their 90% market share in multiple markets will erode to something more surmountable, that well-equipped competitors can climb.
~ radiographite: art by john shepard
Sounds a bit reactionary, let's give the idea a minute to sink in.
1. It costs virtually nothing to copy data
Yeah, so what? It also costs nothing to copy data between Lotus and Microsoft. They don't exactly have a Cartel going.
2. Source between these two companies can be shared in such a way that they can basically keep operating as one company
This is why they need to be two companies. The Fed can dictate the terms of the break-up, and include a clause about conspiratorial practices. I expect that the terms of break-up will REQUIRE that communication between these two SEPARATE companies be conducted on open channels, via published APIs and public company press releases. Again, M$ and Lotus style. The Fed can not exert this kind of control on separate departments of one company, but they can on separate companies.
3. The two companies would have different products (OS / Everything Else) and therefore don't have to compete against eachother unlike the oil and phone company breakups!
The purpose of a company is to make money. The more money the better - since a company must show profit to it's stake-holders.
An applications company will necessarily develop for all platforms, since it will not care about the success of a particular one. Office for Mac and Linux is right around the corner. An applications company will seek to maximize profits by making it's product available on all possible platforms.
An operating systems company will seek to support as many different applications as it possibly can, to make its product OS(es) as desirable to customers as possible. It will be in the best interest of such a company to make the OS easy to code for, and to make the API available to all application developers.
If an applications company and an OS company share information 'under the table', they will be guilty of conspiracy to form a monopoly - this problem has been solved before - they are just like oil afterall.
In the case of Standard Oil, SO consipired with rail shipping companies to give preferential treatment to SO's business, and to squeeze other competitors out of the market.
If MS-Apps were to play footsie with MS-OS, they would get slapped with Sherman Act faster than you can say MONOPOLY. Besides this, they would be more PROFITABLE without conspiring. That is what business is all about, profits, not control of the market. The two often go hand in hand, but with the Fed's fingers in your pie, it's just not doable.
The point of the break-up is not to force MS-OS and MS-Apps to compete against each other. The point is to make it un-profitable for the two product lines to bolster each other's success in the market place. The point is to make all apps compete for all platforms, with no one specific combination of the two (MS-OS and MS-Apps, for example) profitting a single company.
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
Well let's see...
It would be VERY BAD for customer confidence if the Monolithic Microsoft decided to port it's applications (MSO is a cash-cow after all) to another, competing OS - especially a free one.
What sort of message would that send to customers? "Microsoft has no confidence in it's OS".
But if the Big Bad Fed huffs and puffs and blows Microsoft apart, then the MS-Apps can happily port to Linux, and be justified in doing so, in the name of competition ( or Innovation(tm) ). Subsequently MS-OS can 'partner' with other applications companies, (under NDA of course) and glean what it is that they do better than MS-Apps; after all, MS-OS is just trying to do what's best for the customer ( Innovation2k(tm) ).
This 'break-up' might be good for Microsoft. On the App side they would 'embrace and extend' Linux. Yes, it's open source, but if you NEED some key daemon (closed source of course) to run that hot new version of Office... Well, all but the purists and the zealots would oppose, and they don't run MS-Products(tm) as it is.
On the OS side, poor, battered MS-OS could 'take a peek' into how MS-Apps competitors do things (in an effort to help them compete, of course). And while communicaton between MS-OS and MS-Apps would be Federally monitored, the board members of these companies would regularly play golf together. What's more, developers at either company (OS or Apps) could easily 'job-hop' across the street, with their lap-top PCs, every couple of months. I wonder how well this developer migration would coincide with each companies release cycles.. Hmmm.
Back, and to the left. Back!... And to the left!
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
I'll just "me too" the other posters on how a breakup would work and be a good thing.
:-), the more we can get back to having some competition in desktop software again.
But wouldn't it be fun if MS Office were itself broken up? By building this monolith, and entangling it so tightly with the OS, MS has ensured that individual best-of-breed packages can't thrive. There used to be a time when you bought your word processing, spreadsheet, database, publishing, email, and presentation software separately, and could pick and choose the best in each category. And if it weren't for this trial, we'd see Visio piled into Office shortly, too.
Remember, folks, the MS monopoly has been created by, done its damage (to both consumers and competitors) with, and made its profits from, OS-specific APPLICATIONS, not the OS itself. And those applications have become more entrenched by merging together.
Now, take the same argument and apply it to IE, and MSN, and Visual Studio, and Windows extras, etc. and you can see that the more finely MS is chopped
"You can't get something for nothing." - my grandfather, on the stock market and Reaganomics.
...they'd probably shatter it so it wouldn't do any harm.
Honestly, could they have picked a worse way to end this trial? Even giving them nothing more than another slap on the wrist and another "no more anticompetitive practices for you" order would have been better, as Microsoft would have then been more likely to continue futilely bashing it's head against Sun and IBM on the high end while getting eaten away by free software on the low end.
I'm sure there are anti-Microsoft fanatics out here who are happy to see Bill get his comeuppance, but think about it. The last thing people who hate Microsoft should want to see is more Microsofts. Sure, they'll only have a few billion dollars in cash a piece, and they'll only have part of the Microsoft software line... so what? Does anyone really expect the corporate culture to change instantly because they're under different names? Will we see Office for Linux now? No.
What we will see is Microsoft forceably saved from it's biggest danger - corporate bloat and sluggishness. I heard someone use the analogy of cutting up a starfish; it doesn't kill the starfish, it just makes more of them. Basically this just drastically reduces the chances that we'll get to see Win32 fade away and see POSIX/X standards develop as a permanent way of ensuring that consumers are never locked into one company's monopoly.
It also sets a hell of a precedent. The original reason for going after Microsoft was bundling IE with Windows, remember? WTF? Should Red Hat be prosecuted for bundling Netscape (and Apache, and a whole lot of other things that are even less "a part of the operating system" than a web browser) with their Linux distribution? Look for the
"Federal Software Guidelines and Regulations" series of 1000 page books to start appearing in university libraries everywhere, on the same floor that's filled with all the other selectively-enforced laws and executive orders of similar titles. Hope you included a nice hefty legal budget in your startup's business plan.
I use Linux, not because I think Microsoft is a horrible monopoly, because I don't want to pay for Windows, or even because Windows crashed on me every week and needed to be reinstalled every year when I did use it. Well, actually that last one was a biggie. I use Linux because it has greater capabilities, cleaner code and APIs, and because it gives me more choices of kernel (I could move to a BSD or even a recent commercial Unix without much upset), user interface (some of which I like better than Windows, although Explorer is good), and applications. I don't have to worry that the programs and documents I produce today will be obsolete tomorrow like thousands of Win16 programs and Win* file formats are today. I don't have to worry that Linux is going to get worse or stagnant (when do we get a non-DOS based, stable consumer OS from Microsoft, exactly? Even Win2K doesn't seem any more stable than NT), because there are so many Linux options to choose from, so when Slackware or SuSE falters moving to Mandrake or Debian isn't the end of the world.
But that's not why everyone uses Linux. A lot of people avoid Microsoft because of their outrageous pricing (have you looked at buying a non-OEM license on anything from Microsoft lately?) and instability. Some people switch from Windows because Linux is better on a relative scale; I think most switch because Windows isn't good enough in the absolute sense.
With a Microsoft breakup, that won't be the case. Windows may get cheaper and more stable... not enough to satisfy anyone who has used free software, but enough to slow the expansion of Linux on the desktop, enough to give it a new shot at taking over the embedded and server markets. It may still not be a quality product... but that never stopped McDonalds. People like familiarity too.
Hm. Well, that's my rant for today. I got one hour of sleep last night, and it looks like it shows. I hope there was some coherent logic up there; but basically I'm trying to get across the concept "Microsoft breakup == bad".
> What evidence do you have that any secret API's > were given out by the Windows team?
:-).
Back when I worked at Vantive, I was doing a port of their UNIX product to Windows NT (now I spend my time helping people port from NT to Linux, so it goes
We were using MS-SQLserver for the port. Now this was back in the NT3.1 timeframe. MS-SQLserver could do a very neat thing. It could take an authenticated Windows users who had logged onto the domain, and allow that user to access a SQL database *without needing to log on again* - ie., the Windows domain password was being used to control access to the SQLserver database.
Wow, what a neat trick, I thought. I'd really like to be able to do that to control access to the Vantive product (as then a username/password would only be created once, in the Domain, and the SQLserver and Vantive products would both use the same logon/password pair).
So I started to look to see how it was done.....
Can you guess ? It was not possible given *any* published API's at the time.
Now (5+ years later), the SSPI is revealed as the way they probably did this.
But no one outside MS had access to that API. Oracle on NT couldn't do this (no single sign on). Sybase & Informix on NT couldn't either....
Don't tell me the OS team don't leak private API information to the app development team without explaining the story above please.
Regards,
Jeremy Allison,
Samba Team.
I am a lawyer; this isn't legal advice. See an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction if you need legal advice.
:) Remember, Stone is the one who claimed to be entitled to "artistic license" *in a documentary* when he was called on his fabrications . . . (specifically, _Born on the Fourth of July)_)
>Interesting theory, except how do you explain Microsoft Office for the
>Macintosh?
He wrote, "Oliver Stone voice." That means there's no need to be consistent, or pay any attention to the facts
>Everyone seems to forget about that one.
Noone has forgotten that, not even Judge Jackson. The Findings of Fact were quite clear about the use of the mac version to maintain windows dominance. Microsoft threatened not to ship the *completed* next version of Office as a means of leveraging Apple to make IE the "default" browser for Mac. This was to undercut Netscape, thereby lessening the general threat of Netscape applications.
hawk, esq.