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 :)
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."
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
Are you sure about that? I would say that honor goes to applications like Lotus 1 2 3. A killer apps of old. How many of those came out of MS? Those applications as used by business, are what moved the PC from hobby to ubiquity. The consumer market is peanuts compared to the business market. The fact is that companies have been using computers (sometimes with really brutal interfaces) for years before they were common to massmarket consumers. Usually they crunched numbers (think banks/insurance/whatever), but they also wrote letters, printed payroll and so on.
Breaking the company up will harm the average user, since a high level of integration means a greater ease of use.
Greater ease of use means buying a mac :) Actually higher level of integration only means greater ease of use if the system is consistent (orthogonal). As the number of features integrated goes up the ability to maintain consistency goes down. This is because you end up with an attempt to meet contradictory design goals. This is also because as the system gets larger (and more people work on it) the need to comunicate a simple common interface (user and software) strategy goes up, but your ability to communicate it and enforce it goes down.
And for once, /. should stop and think about the average user rather than blindly following some dogmatic principle.
I don't know if everyone here advocates the destruction MS, but I do know this: those that do have good reasons that they are able to articulate , rather than pontificate from on high (and do quite vocally). You must have mistaken them for a bunch of kids going "Ah dude, MS sucks."
--locust
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.