Final Arguments in MS vs. the States

Bistronaut writes "Reports are in today on the final arguments between the 9 State Attorneys General and Microsoft (articles from eWeek). CNN also has a summary. Spoiler: States say, "Here are our priorities for reforming MS." - MS says, "We don't need no stinkin' remedy.""

Comments

Re:Let's stop and reflect

[Zeinfeld]

Please notice that MS has -VERY- little to do with designing their own hardware. They outsource the design and manufacture, and just slap their name on it.

Well yes and no, the only reason the hardware division exists is that Bill wanted a funny shaped keyboard and a feedback joystick and there was no other company making either at the time.

Come to that, the only reason they did the flight simulator was so Bill could play it.

Bill is just an uber geek with better toys than the rest of us and a company to build more if he runs out. The only reason MSFT gets stick on /. is that the lesser geeks get jealous.

Where lies the real fault?

[NewtonsLaw]

I'm no fan of Microsoft (as many will testify) but before we all make a huge noise about how Billy Boy and his sidekicks ought to be hung, drawn and quartered -- should we not look a little more closely at the systems that allowed them to get this far?

It's a brave (or stupid) businessman who doesn't take advantage of an opportunity when it comes along -- and in the case of a listed company, management has a responsibility to stockholders to ensure that they get the maximum return on their investment.

If this means taking full advantage of the capitalist environment and using all of ones abilities to gain a dominant position within a competitive marketplace then so be it.

Gates & co have only done what thousands of other companies would love to have done. We hate M$ but we don't hate the others. The only difference is that Bill got lucky or was better at exploiting the opportunities that came along.

And ultimately -- you've got to apportion some of the blame to stupid consumers. If people are prepared to pay the prices that MS charges for the products they sell then if they find themselves in the merciless grip of a monopolistic tyrant then who do they really have to blame?

Nobody holds a gun to your head and says "You must buy Windows or we'll kill you" do they?

No -- over the past 20 years or so, people have chosen to buy Billy-Boy's products because they thought they were getting a good deal (even if perhaps they weren't).

Every other software vendor has had the same options and opportunities available to them -- but many have simply dropped the ball.

Anyone remember Digital Research? They once owned the OS marketplace with CP/M and had a good slice of the languages marketplace with CBASIC and Pascal/MT+ Both of these products were superior to Bill's pathetic Basic80 and MS Pascal equivalents.

Then Gary Kildall dropped the ball and MS took over the OS marketplace.

And what about Borland? After the demise of Digital Research, they owned the most popular structured programming language in the world -- Turbo Pascal. Now, even though Delphi retains a band of loyal followers, Microsoft has effectively eclipsed Borland as the main vendor of PC-based computer languages (Java not withstanding).

Then there was Ashton Tate and their dBase products. They owned the PC-based database marketplace -- and then they dropped the ball, allowing MS products such as Access and MS-SQL to take up the slack.

Or what about Visicalc? When the IBM PC launched, Visicalc was the number-one spreadsheet. Look who owns that market now -- who dropped the ball?

Word processing? It used to be Micropro's WordStar, then Word Perfect -- now it's... you guessed it, Microsoft Word.

Did Microsoft bully all these other products out of the marketplace or force consumers to buy its versions instead? No, they simply turned out a better product at an acceptable price that was promoted with superior marketing.

If we chose to all flock like lemmings to the abys that is Microsoft then we get what we deserve.

However, there's now some light at the end of the tunnel. OSS such as Linux and its growing number of applications gives us the chance to break free of this self-induced addiction to MS products.

But once again, nobody can force consumers to go the OSS way -- it's a choice they have to be make for themselves. Unfortunately, the consumer has already proven that they're none too bright when it comes to choosing the best long-term option eh?

So, maybe we shouldn't be too quick to blame others for our own stupidity and short-sightedness.