Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Dislikes Nations Trying to Escape Lock-in
Johnny Mnemonic writes "Reuters, link to C|Net, is reporting that Microsoft considers a possible collaboration among three Asian nations to produce their own OS "unfair". You just can't make this stuff up. Shouldn't Asian nations also have the Freedom to Innovate? Or is this merely a dodge by Microsoft to demonstrate that they really do face competition? Will they hire Boies to prosecute their case?"
Microsoft are either off their heads, or someone at the State Dpt has given them a wink and they know they can get away with acting like two-year olds.
"Governments should not be in the position to decide who the winners are," Robertson said.
:)
Of course not; Microsoft likes to be in that position
Alan Perlis once said: "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing"
Mmmmmmm...
Microsoft's only comeback I can think of is that, at least, they patented ones and zeroes.
Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.
Looks like MS is facing more competition than they'd like. They can change their ways, improve their products, or falter and die. My bet is they'll try to get their systems in these places at a price cheaper than dirt, as they've tried before with Munich and the rest. Interesting to see how this will revolutionize the software industry in the long run.
A blog like any other.
so that is what the sound of over a billion people laughing sounds like.
Will they hire Boies to prosecute their case?
Or will they hire Rumsfeld?
Well, you have to admit that it is a little bit unfair since it is not a company on the free market developing a competing product, but it is the governments of those nations doing it. So, Microsoft has something of a point, since the nations do hinder free competition.
From the article: "You would have to look at what a government does--whether it's a protectionist issue," Robertson said, "As with any trade-related issue, Microsoft would look to its peers and colleagues in the information technology community for guidance."
Who exactly are Microsoft's "peers"? IBM, Sun, Sony, the Open Source "community"? On one hand MS wants to create a "government security program" that it defines and implements, on the other they want their "peers" to say that doing anything else is unfair?! Good luck!
MS are simply copying the line of the US government (and a lot of US companies and even /. users).
Look at steel, farm goods, coding out-sourcing, skilled immigrants etc, etc.
In all these fields the US or a lot of its citizens are actively seeking to halt global competition and seeking to privilege US companies, producers and citizens.
MS are simply trying to get their piece of the action, though of course than means that they are already on a downward slope (ask any Pensylvannia steel worker about how effective trade sanctions have been at protecting the long term health of their industry).
Tom Robertson on one hand says "Governments should not be in the position to decide who the winners are," and yet when asked if its an international trade issue says "You would have to look at what a government does--whether it's a protectionist issue," which if it was seen as protectionist would require action by the US Government. Wouldn't it then be a case of a government deciding the issue?
According to Rob Enderle, Microsoft is hated because it's misunderstood.
So please, try to understand their side -- those poor, misunderstood folks in Redmond need your support. Really.
It hurts their feelings when we make fun of them, and talk about the methods they use to achieve their goals in unkind ways.
C'mon, lighten up. They're good guys.
</not>
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
Loosely translated, this means that Micro$oft hasn't contributed enough money to someone's political campaign just yet.
Was Microsoft ever fair? Doesn't it unfairly leverage its monopoly to crush competitors daily? Doesn't it lock people into their products, and charge an arm and a leg for upgrades? And now Microsoft is saying that other people wanting to develop an OS is "unfair"? Cry me a river.
"Backups are for wimps. Real men upload their data to an FTP site and have everyone else mirror it." -- Linus Torvalds
As a foreigner working in Japan for a tech company, I have realized that the expectations of quality and service here are MUCH higher than in the rest of the world.
People in my company really cant understand how thing like MSBLAST happen and there is nobody from MS on TV the next day apologizing (or committing seppuku =).
Now that things in the computer industry are settling down, they will slowly push Microsoft out of the picture.
Wait and see.
Apparently the Asian triad wants to go as far away from Microsoft as they can. The bigger question, will open source innovation be shared.
That it doesn't own the copyright to an "operating system" (yet..) and that not only is it somebody's right to create and use their own operating system, it's also a right for countries, goverments to create and use their own operating system.
Comment: Yes I realise the username 'fuckfuck101' makes me sound intelligent, no you cannot buy it from me.
Bill's got you guys working Saturdays, now?
Shit, I feel kind of guilty. Maybe if I acted like I believed your astroturfing bullshit during the week, he'd give you a day off every now and then.
If the Asian countries were deliberately trying to shut MS out of the private-sector market, then MS would have the beginning of a case (only the beginning, mind. There is still a reasonable case for anti-trust action like the EU is taking). Under world trade rules, etc. you're not supposed to deliberately shut out foreign competition.
BUT... It is accepted, and very common, for governments to deliberately favour their own producers for government contracts. This can be for any reason, including economic, security, and strategic considerations. Microsoft really don't have a leg to stand on on this count.
The US has a legal system which gives several critical advantages to companies like Microsoft (DMCA, software patents, etc)... it is only fair when other countries say "we don't like that" and choose a system that gives strong advantages to Free Software. Free Software is typically developed by its users and not as a product to be sold; since governments are among the largest software users it is only natural for them to consider making significant contributions to developing the Free Software that they would like to use.
But ultimately governments making software isn't a whole lot better than governments making airplanes or computer chips.
How about governments paying people to make airplanes because the government needs airplanes? Governments pays lots of people money to produce things. That includes producing software to meet their needs (as well as airplanes and computer chips). I think you need to be a little clearer as to what the problem is in this case. Governments want a better operating system, governments pay for it to be produced.
So would it be "unfair" for, say, the Pentagon to announce it wanted to use software developed in the USA in preference to overseas products?
The Microsoft Corporation recently bought themselves the USS Enterprise (The aircraft carrier) and rechristened it to the MSCACDOTNET (Microsoft Certified Aircraft Carrier Dot NET ) "William Gates the Third". Latest US satelite intel indicated the ship, along with several other recent MS aquired warships due to a sneaky clause in the license for Windows 2003 .NET server for the US navy, were last seen heading toward the Pacific. Among the ships are the MSACDOTNET William Gates the Third, the 'boomer' submarines MSC Alabama and MSC Red October along with a small flotilla of surface warships and a large convoy of freighters with Win 2k3 .NET licenses, all heading for an unknown destination.
In other news, Denzel Washington and Sean Connery have been flogged with a wet towel.
Hate me!
I have to first take offense to Microsoft's philosophy that if it's not broken, fix it and charge more for it... and if it's broken, ignore it until something terrible happens.
That said, this latest call that it's unfair for countries to divert the giant cash waterfall from MS, I find the notion preposterous. Similar arguments have been used by MS lawyers for years now to defend against accusations of shenanigans. The point being, that free market is the underlying theme and MS can't cry about the free market deciding they are too greedy, and the demand can be met on less expensive systems that don't cause massive havoc every time some child gets a hold of their latest gaping hole.
Similarly, I think critical software is as much a national security issue as defence hardware; and in a world where the US is trusted less and less, and Microsoft hardly at all, it makes sense for other countries to ensure that they have a homegrown alternative that they can rely on.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
Everywhere we are seeing seeds of discontent. The first anger Microsoft planted in its customers was when it got greedy and ended licensing that permitted you to own only as many copies of software that you actually had running. Then all of these recent "software assurance" changes have angered folks more. Companies and countries are starting to understand that they are locked in and have little choice and they are looking for ways to bail. And Microsoft's actions are starting to look more and more desperate starting to scramble to hold on to what they have. This story, the viral GPL fud, their financial backing of SCO, their desperate and failed attempts to move into other markets, etc, etc.
Oh, people will disagree with me, but where does Microsoft have left to go? Nowhere but down, and the stock market doesn't like any downward movement, even if the company *is* making billions.
And Microsoft better not disagree with this danger either, for their own good. Complacency is the first step toward irrelevance. But I honestly believe they know this is coming and are scared shitless. Gates isn't stupid.
Why the are you complaining about non payment for MS software in asia? When this new proposal is part of the way to stop it. If you don't use MS junk you don't have to pay for it.
Lol and your email adress is hotmail?
Anyway.
Awh, how sad. Poor little MS gets some competition. Except that it is not some tiny startup who can be easily kept out but a trillion dollar part of the world. It sounds like you are feeling sorry for the school bully who suddenly finds himself getting beaten senseless by a 400 pound gorilla. Personally I am going hope this is going to be like any decent western. MS doing the .45 dance.
MS screwed BeOS now they are going to get screwed. Bees should not complain about being stung, thiefs should not complain about things being stolen and MS should not complain about facing competition with a bottemless warchest.
MS has had for the last decade more then enough money and resources to make themselves popular. Instead they have opted to get more and more money and make themselves hated and despised. Now they are reaping the rewards. More and more people and even whole countries are refusing to deal on their terms anymore.
It is sad that it takes goverments to put up some serious competition but that is the way it works. With small companies it is possible but with say the car industrie competition came only about with goverment sponsored companies. Japan and korea spring to mind but also europe were the marshall plans, US money after WWII, was used to setup factories that would have been very hard to do with private money. For the current steel wars, the dutch "hoogovens" got its start from US money :)
Sometimes it takes goverment intervention to dictate changes in the market. Don't forget that in the rest of the world politics are not entirly decided by corporate sponsors. Goverment sponsored promotion of certain products over established products are hardly new. Eco-tax on petrol while subsidising natural gas. Tax breaks for enviromental production, coupons for low power consumption electronics.
But back to your post. MS facing competition from huge goverments is unfair. Small business facing competition from huge MS is fair. "Call for Mr Kibo. Bill Gates wants you to report for his 4 o'clock asslicking."
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
You are right if your assumptions turn out to be true. The problem is that there aren't any good details on this three country deal, if it is even a deal.
One thing to keep in mind is that Microsoft's actions also subvert free market quite a bit IMO, I would question if there _is_ a free market for OS software, especially when all the competitors, even the free ones, can't muster ten percent combined. If the _real_ OS choices for most people are W2k, XP and coming sometime this decade, Longhorn then it _is_ time for governments to step in and start funding new alternatives or improvements for existing alternatives.
As it is, the governments really don't seem effective in curtailing the monopolist actions
The governments in question have the freedom to their own tyranny, under the philosophy of the forefathers of the USA. The USA fights against tyranny, but the true meaning of freedom isn't "freedom to" or "freedom from"; it's anarchy in it's finest form... to have anarchy in a state where it appears as if none exists.
Governments under socialist principles can and do own companies that operate at a loss to serve a better purpose. Hydro is one, even in many friendly states. The idea is that if software is a commodity, it is this commodity that ought be accessible to the public at large. It's about time that government started to incorporate computer technology in it's fold, like it would power and water technology. The freedom to create your own software under these umbrellas would be a better notion, as well.
We all know that operating systems can go on without major viral attacks and huge bugs causing havoc in the world. Linux. Mac.
So you tell me then, why is it that MS has one worldwide catastrophe every two months? It's because it's profitable for companies like Symantec and McAfee and the like to sell "protection" from the miscreants who would turn systems off if they could. That actual profit-cycle is set in a kind of catch 22.
That is the catch 22 that is going to bite Bill Gates in the arse.
If it's BSD, I wouldn't expect much sharing to happen. If it's the GPL, then they should [if they intend to redistribute modified products.]
Use ISO 8601 dates [YYYY-MM-DD]
If their sales fall then they won't be able to sustain their monolithic enterprise. As soon as they start laying off staff then it's the beginning of the end for Microsoft. News like that doesn't install investor confidence.
Their profit margins on Windows and Office are quite high, if they have to constantly undercut Linux solutions then their income from these two lines will be reduced. Problem with that scenerio is those two product lines keep the company going and allows them to take risks in other markets.
My conjecture is that they're realising that they cannot win against Free Software unless they manage to create the impression of Free Software such as GNU/Linux being "un-American" and "a threat from Asia against our economy".
Of course they'll consider it an added bonus that maybe they can get US dimplomats involved in putting pressure on foreign governments in areas like
If these governments were subsidizing the development of a commercial competitor to windows then I might agree that MS had some sort of WTO complaint, but they are planning to use Free software which benefits everyone when it is improved including Americans. So what is their actual grievance? It would be like Phizer compaining that a foreigner cured AIDS and then announced to the world how to do it. Or ADM complaining that foreigners grow some of their own food. Oh, right.
"A cartel of governments..."
...to answer.
You appear to disagree with all the "free trade" agreements the USA appears to have been arranging recently.
"...with an annual GDP in the 5 trillion range"
I assume you meant the combined GDPs of the combined populations of those countries. Which is very different to the amount of money their governments have to spend. And of course those governments have nothing else to spend that money on, apart from developing software (despite the USA's best efforts to accelerate a new arms race with their current level of military spending).
""compeating[sic]" with a company in the neighborhood of a thousand times smaller is not the free market."
Many of the companies Microsoft competes with in many areas are in the neighbourhood of a thousand times smaller.
Microsoft's position, and its business practises, have nothing to do with the free market.
"They should innovate"
Yeah, why don't those countries create their own damn operating system? Oh, wait.......
"But ultimately governments making software isn't a whole lot better than governments making airplanes or computer chips."
After all, the internet had absolutely nothing to do with a government agency called DARPA. And governments have never sponsored any sort of research in universities or wherever that have had anything to do with software, oh no.
"Microsoft does have a case..."
"And they probably should get the US to go to step up to the plate..."
After all, no other countries in the world should be able to do what they want, subject to their own rules (and any international treaties they happen to have signed up to), within their own countries.
"...especially considering how little of the MS software in use throughout asia was paid for."
Well if all that software had never been paid for in the first place, what on earth has Microsoft to be concerned about ? And supposing a large amount of piracy does take place there, what better means to stamp it out than by having the people of those countries come together, in the form of their governments, to design and build something to use legitimately in its place ?
Japan, the world's second largest economy, made a proposal at an Asian economic summit this week to build an inexpensive and trustworthy open-source operating system that would be based on a system such as Linux, which can be copied and modified freely.
"We'd like to see the market decide who the winners are in the software industry," Tom Robertson, Microsoft's Tokyo-based director for government affairs in Asia, told Reuters in a telephone interview.
I think the market IS deciding, which is going to be Microsoft's biggest problem for the next few years.
"Governments should not be in the position to decide who the winners are," Robertson said.
You know, I don't remember there being any protest from Microsoft when the US government stopped accepting RFP documents in WordPerfect format. I guess they've had a change of heart for some reason.
Full story at Netscape.com
It's not the governments of Japan or China that need to be put on alert, it is our own. As Departments of State, Treasury, and the White House among others, busily archive critical documents in .DOC format that will not easily be converted to anything else in a few years, low level management of these departments need to be aware that going the "safe route" of managing everything using Microsoft tools will in hindsight only allow you to say "But everyone else around me was doing that too".
I suspect there will be more and more defectors from this way of thinking, even within the US government as time goes on. However as that happens there will also be signs of desparation from Microsoft as they try and appeal to some sort of warped patriotism that says we should all keep using overpriced, buggy and undocumented junk.
We need to stop thinking of Windows as America's software equivalent to the Boeing 7x7, and start thinking of it as America's software equivalent of the Yugo...
Q: How do you make a Yugo go faster?
A: A towtruck.
Q: What do you call the shock absorbers inside a Yugo?
A: Passengers.
Q:How many Microsoft programmers does it take to change a lightbulb?
A:None, they get Bill to declare darkness to be the international standard
Look, as an example, at the *BSD world. They have lots of talented people, many of the finest minds in the *nix world, and started with a good product. Yet a "college kid" in Finland started a product that kicked their collective arses in market penetration. Why? Linux mostly avoided the bueracracy and political infighting that has plagued *BSD. (neither an opinion of the technical merits of *BSD, nor a "BSD is dying troll)
What the nations should be doing is sponsering programmers, giving them a mandate to 1) contribute to open source, 2) spend a significant fraction of that contribution making open source more available to asians. Then let those programmers participlate wherever they want. I could imagine an army of programmers working with OpenOffice.org, for instance, improving the word processing software overall, and its ability to deal with asian character sets. Others would contribute to Debian and Gentoo, creating asian language documentation and binary versions of those distributions.
Is having a kitchen an impediment to the free market of restaurants?
Is driving a car an impediment to the free market of taxi and train companies?
Get real, man.
Free market means that people have the freedom to choose which product to use, and these countries choose to make and use their own. There is nothing wrong with that, not even considering the "free market" globalization iron fist of driving poor countries into complete bankruptcy (read the book and articles from Greg Palast for scary documentation about this).
In fact, it is in their best interest to reduce their dependency on software imports from other countries, and everyone acting in their own best interest is exactly the idea of free markets.
Right. In fact the US government is, by allowing software patents and tolerating that companies like SCO destroy other people's business without having to prove that they have a point, influencing the market much more than a government that stimulates the development of free software.
The only reason they might monitor the SCO situation is for humor value.
Asian countries are going to do unto MS as MS did to IBM. Let's not blame Linux, though; if not for Torvalds, the BSDs would BSOD MS soon enough.
Prediction: MS eventually splits into OS and application companies. The application arm ports the profitable bits of MS software to Linux, and continues to do decent business. The OS arm gradually tapers off, as the inexorable migration away from proprietary operating systems continues.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
The US "free market" speech is cynicism of the highest order, which is abundantly clear with the US farm goods, which are highly subsidized by the government. Then the USA is using "free market" treaties to force the poor Mexicans (whose government can not afford these subsidies) to buy the "cheaper" US farm goods instead of their own, which are actually produced at substantially lower prices.
All the potentially noble thoughts behind this free market newspeak is completely eviscerated by the subsidies of the various governments. As long as governments subsidize their local producers, there is nothing free about the market.
... from any other customer. If they want to develop their own solution in-house, why shouldn't they be able to. As the size of an organization grows, the benefits of internalizing things like that increases. A 20 person company couldn't afford to develop it's own operating system, but a 250,000 person company could. Also, you shouldn't measure the government by the number of people it governs, but rather by the number of people it employs.
1) A government doesn't have a GDP. A country has a GDP.
2) The government has many, many things to do besides develop software. The money actually being earmarked for this project is the sort of amount that Microsoft could spend without noticeably affecting the balance sheets.
3) The fact is, the software Microsoft produces can never be adequate for the needs of foreign governments. Even if MS software functions perfectly, and is apparently immune to hackers, there is no way for the governments to assure themselves that the U.S. hasn't built backdoors and other spyware into it. Nor can they be sure that they will be able to support themselves in the event that Microsoft drops support. With a Linux-based OS, they can maintain it themselves, and run security audits to their hearts' content.
4) If no private entity makes a product that suits a government's needs, there is nothing wrong with them building it themselves.
5) If nobody is paying for Microsoft software over there anyways, why should Microsoft complain when the government decides to create an alternative? Perhaps because people pirating their software is better for them than people using non-Microsoft products.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
That must be some ugly source code, it seems like they got a look that and ran like hell.
I'll first disclaim that I'm unfairly biased against Microsoft. But then, that puts me in good company here.
Microsoft is no longer at the top of their game. They're still the dominant world superpower, but the world can now see that MSFT has vulnerabilities, and that we have alternatives.
As much as I'd like to see them go the way of the Roman Empire, Soviet Russia, and Enron, I'm afraid of what happens when MSFT falls. What does that do to the US economy? Does Microsoft fall with a "Splat!" like Enron and take a million jobs and half of every American's 401(k) with them, or do they quietly fade into obsoloscence like Atari?
These are the things that keep me up at night.
The cure for cancer is coming: Reovirus
...who the winners are in many cases. I'm not trying to be some kind of loony conspiracy theorist here, but the fact of the matter is that the free market sometimes plays less of a role than personal interests do in government purchasing. Unfair? I think so, but it's nothing new. At least with the cases described here, it seems like it's being done with the country's best interests in mind, not with the intent of generating business for a "friend." (Okay, I'm done ranting now).
I produce electronic music and write little games. Have a look.
Thank god, the Internet, which has been mainly created by government-funded research, has competed "unfairly" with proprietary online services such as MSN, AOL and Compuserve.
All the large consumer electronics companies have decided to standardize on linux (embedded).
All the large phone makers (Nokia, Sony Ericsson, Motorola) have very consciously decided against using MS software in their phones because they don't want MS to enter their market and screw them over. I bet Sony & IBM are working to make the PS3 such a killer console in order to stop microsoft from taking a larger market with the xbox.
If the State dept lends itself to promote microsoft they will just show themselves off as ignorant pawnsand be perceived as such by foreign govts. The US is not imperialist but MS certainly is.
Of those to whom much is given, much is required.
-----
Free P2P Backup, Windows & Linux
Microsoft prefers competition between software applications to be determined in the free markets rather than by government agencies
perhaps they'd like to consider the following:
1: Withdraw all political lobbyists from pestering politicians.
2: Stop making bri.. oops, donations to political parties.
3: ensure that all "charitable" donations are made via banks rather than press agencies
4: Stop flying the UK E-Envoy and other countries IT decision makers to Redmond for freebies, oops there I go again - conferences at which to discuss which MS products they'll be buying next.
5: Talk to the DoJ and, after offering thanks for favours done in the past agree to undergo investigation for the parts of the anti-trust trial that were dropped when the current US administration came to power.
6: Open up their file formats so that makers of third party and competing software can compete on a level playing field rather than having to reverse engineer complicated code for the sake of interop' with monopoly creating products i.e. MS Office.
7: Release the API details reqd. to make software run as quick as theirs
Until these and the manifold other issues created by MS's monopoly are dealt with maybe they's be graceful enough to SHUT THE FUCK UP about free markets, a concept that they either don't understand or have no intention of utilising.
Hmmmmmm..... Deep fried and look like Squirrel.
Catching up with Bill Gates of Microsoft outside his $600 million dollar home this morning, he declared "I strongly believe it is unfair to use any software but ours, and to come up with your own so you're not totally reliant on us is just wrong on so many levels. And if they're worried about all the NSA backdoors in Windows, tell them to suck it up and live with it like everybody else. Privacy is dead. Now screw off, peasant. I've got a tee-off at ten."
Similarly, a press release from Orville Reddenbacker this morning claimed that "when you buy no-name popcorn, you're buying terrorism" and immediately demanded the abolition or bombing of all popcorn makers but them in order to defend America against this terrible low-priced threat. "The time for competition is over", the deceased Reddenbacker stated, the national anthem playing gloriously in the background, "We are an American institution now and must be protected from any loss of sales resulting from people buying other brands. Choice is the true enemy here. Remember this when you're voting, kids, there should be limits on freedom - especially the freedom to buy popcorn other than our new Maple Salmon flavored EZ-Popp(TM) Microwaveable popping corn, on sale now at better grocery stores near you."
The RIAA, MPAA, and SatelliteTV vendors all agreed. "Look, we all know that you'd all have bought all those 400,000 CDs, movies, and tv channels anyway if it weren't for piracy, so just cough up the money and we'll call off the dogs. Making 'mad money' is a guaranteed right that is protected by law since Dubya's been in power. It's the American Way. You love America, don't you? If you don't buy more stuff from us, we WILL press charges." Jack Valenti took it one step further. "These goddamn Chimese terrorisms ain't de worst part of dis trend either. What I tink we should do is outlaw 'playing outside'. Yup, jes tink about it. All dem little rats playing outside when dey could be enjoying a good movie or copy-protected Celine CD. De children is de REAL Boston Stranglers here, dose unAmerican little gooks. Wasting their lives playing outside in de goddam sun when dey could be supporting our economy? I don't understand kids dese days. De world is goin' straight to hell, I tell ya. Goddam nature. We'll sue God next, yeah, go for de REAL deep pockets." At this point, SCO's Darl McBride quickly took out a notepad and started scribbling furiously and then ran off, his villainous humpback swaying in the wind.
Despite the overwhelmingly good evidence the corporate shills of America had barfed forth, I thought I'd see if another view existed. So I sought out some elusive hippie culture leaders. When asked for his views, the uber-influential Richard Stallman said, "My name is GNU/RMS! Why can't you people get that right!" and starting making clucking noises and playing a flute like that little centaur guy off the Hercules cartoon. His arch-enemy Linus Torvalds quipped, "I don't get involved. Sorry.", dismissed us with a wave of his hand, and went back to his penguin burrito. Eric Raymond could not be reached for comment, as he has been at the gun club since July and is apparently not ever coming out until people start using Python to write device drivers.
Hello? I think it just did. Hint: you're not among them. (-:
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
..."Microsoft prefers competition between software applications to be determined in the free markets rather than by government agencies." This from the company that last week said they would have document lock-in - they were going to design the new Office so you couldn't import word docs into other applications. You reap what you sow, baby.
Will there be people in 2100? Will they be real skinny? vote : the_real_38@yahoo.com
If I were a large MS shareholder, I would have already demanded MS split itself into OS and App companies.
I suspect if they did that, the result would be worth far more than the company today, we'd probably have a revival in PC innovation, and there would be a general economic revival in the tech sector.
Instead, MS is sitting on billions in cash, the stock price is in the dumper, and every foreign government is trying to dump MS. I can't believe the shareholders don't quietly ask Ballmer and Gates to step down.
And no, I am not trolling.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
It seems that every country other than the US is trying to build on open source software, while the US is trying to protect Microsoft under the guise of "free" markets. (Now that's doublespeak!)
It's only a matter time when the US will be the only country stuck with proprietary software, while the rest of the world will be light years a head because their tools will not be hidden and obscured.
If you think the tech economy is bad in the US now, wait about ten years! All of our technology will come from abroad.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
Kurtz is that you?
Right, split them up into OS and APP companies...
...
That's pretty PC-centric though. Lets not forget the XBOX. Split Microsoft into OS, App and Video Game Companies.
Well then there is the MS Smart Phones... so split Microsoft into OS, App, Video Games, and Mobile Phones.
Hmmm, that leaves MSN out. Hotmail and Passport too. OK then we need to split Microsoft into OS, App, Video Gaming, Mobile Phone and Internet Services.
Of course they make hardware too... Tablet PC's, Microsoft Mouse and Keyboards. So - oh this is it!
Split Microsoft into
OS, Applications, Video Gaming, Mobile Phones, Internet Services and Hardware Companies.
And do it quick before they start making Media Centers!!!
Microsoft's arguement is simple. It is bad policy for govts. to run businesses that compete with industry. A govt. that cares about individual rights has no business taking taxpayer money and using it to develop products that compete with industries. A govts. only job is to defend individual rights. It shouldn't be wasting taxpayer money on social engineering by messing with the free market. I certainly would object to the US govt investing in software that wasn't directly related to national security or other govt. functions. A govt developing software to compete directly with commercial software is taking a step towards communism. Let Redat, Mandrake, and free orgs. like FSF develop Linux, but don't force taxpayers to pay for it by turning it into a govt. project unless you have a really good reason. I won't even get into the practical problems of who's in charge of development when govts. get involved.
Vote for Pedro
2) "A government's only job is to defend individual rights" is an absurdly simplistic statement. Ask any ten people in any ten countries what the primary role of government is, and you're likely to get ten answers. Americans right now might tell you the primary role of government is to safeguard its citizens. Thirty years ago, they might have told you it was to provide every citizen an equal opportunity to succeed. A hundred years ago, they might have told you it was to provide law and order. Ask someone in South Korea right now, and they may say it's to prevent war. Ask someone in China, and they might say it's to raise the standard of living.
3) There is no truly free market, though as a libertarian I'm sure you would love it to be that way. Microsoft and other high-tech companies in the US receive tremendous tax benefits and the powerful backing of government agencies and elected officials, who apply pressure on other nations during trade negotiations. It would be fantastic if there were true globalization and dropping of subsidies and barriers worldwide. But that's not the reality. Microsoft is not acting alone. They have the support of the most powerful government on earth.
4) The US government considers weapons systems used by the US military to be of strategic importance. That's why, with few exceptions, almost all key American weapons systems are built by American companies, even when there are sometimes better alternatives produced in allied nations such as Germany, Britain, Italy, or France. What would happen, for example, if the French chose to stop supplying the US with weapons systems? Now imagine yourself making decisions about the security of any country on earth other than the US. The Americans have shown how sophisticated computer-driven information systems can reduce the fog of war and create staggeringly effective results. Would you want all of your own systems to be run by American-produced computer systems that you couldn't get the source code to? Wouldn't you be worried just as the French revealed the inner workings of the air defence systems they sold Iraq, Microsoft wouldn't do the same or worse to you?
Even close allies spy on each other. Why give the overwhelmingly most powerful nation on earth an open door into the heart of everything you're doing? Sure, that might be a paranoid conclusion. But if you're in charge of a nation's security, your job is to be paranoid.
Leaders in other countries are beginning to realize that software is not just an economic issue, it's an issue of much broader strategic importance.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ