A Look at Microsoft's Regulatory Problems

jrexilius writes: "The Economist has a great article on the state of the EUs anti-trust case against microsoft, background, and future troubles with google. One interesting comment was 'Microsoft is preparing to use its dominance in web-browser and operating-system software to promote itself in yet another separate market--search engines this time'."

Comments

Fishy company

[krray]

Microsoft's contracts with PC-makers required them to pay it for a copy of Windows for each PC sold, even for PCs that were sold with other operating systems, or with no operating system at all.

This is exactly what REALLY ticked me off with them (in the IT adm position no less). I put up with their marginal quality on the desktop up until this point. Sure, part of me still wished I had gone OS/2 there as well, but I digress. I certainly still remember buying PC's that I had to pay the Windows tax on ... even though they still run Linux to this day (except one actually which is one of the Netware servers).

Microsoft may some day conclude that the costs of constant regulatory battles--legal costs, fines, bad publicity, and bad relationships with governments--exceed the benefits of its Windows monopoly.

One can only hope. In the mean time it's still Linux in the data-centers and my basement for that matter. OS.X on my desktop, thank you very much. And yes, they talk NFS and not SMB with each other as well. It's faster... You know what I've learned at the offices that have agreed to run Linux and/or Mac's? Within one year it's obviously cheaper and faster than before. Almost ironical after reading all the Microsoft funded ROI type studies showing the exact oppisite. I thought something smelled fishy.

Re:Fishy company

[Ironica]

You go belly up because the market DEMANDS MS products. There are no MS thugs with guns forcing companies to sell MS. It's completely and entirely market driven.

Oh, puh-lease. I suppose it was the market that drove MS's decisions to put fake error messages in Windows 3.1? That it was simply a market phenomenon when MS violated their joint development agreement with IBM by telling developers to code for Windows instead of OS/2? That the consumers demanded them to exploit dozens of cooperative development agreements with all kinds of companies, which were only made to send software engineers in to steal code and then incorporate it into Windows? Remember the Stacker settlement? They were a tiny slice of the pie.

Anyone who thinks that Windows is the dominant OS because "it's just better" is fooling themselves. MS did many, many things that were at best unethical and usually illegal to obtain their dominant position in the market. They've been convicted of it, for crying out loud. Get over it: they're crooks. Just successful ones.

Search Engines, Portals, Etc.

[Some Clown]

In the last few years there has been a lot of hype, at least with business folks, that Web sites like Yahoo, Google, MSN, Netscape would become big "Portals." on the Internet, driving all others into obscurity. It sounds like Microsoft to a certain extent may still believe this. You control the results of the search, you are in a position to profit from it. To quote the certain to come business advice:

(1) Leverage monopoly to get into search engine business
(2) ??
(3) Profit!

What I've seen in practice however, is quite different. It seems as if the new users tend to get sucked into the "portal" concept when they sign up with Earthlink, MSN, etc. But as they become more Internet savvy, they migrate and spend less and less time on those sites. It's like a giant ponzi scheme... once they run out of new people to sign up, they're done.

I guess with the speed of the tech cycle right now, If Microsoft profits off of something like this for even a couple of years, then it's worth it (well, duh... Hmmm... case of the painfully obvious this morning.) Bottom line though, I think at this point Microsoft is still coming in well above negatives like costs to litigate, negative regulatory environments, bad feelings, slashdot insults, etc. Microsoft is a business, bottom line, as soon as it gets more expensive to work this way... they'll change strategies. As long as this is working, which it obviously is, they'll stick with it even if God himself came down and said stop.

Re:Well, really

[Xtifr]

Microsoft isn't a monopoly, per say, they're just really successful.

Tell it to the judge, bub! Seriously, they may not meet ONE OF THE dictionary definitions of "monopoly", but they most definitely meet the LEGAL definition, which is what's important here.

And furthermore (and this is a point that proponents of both sides often seem to miss), there is nothing wrong with having a monopoly! What's illegal and wrong is abusing your monopoly position. Both Intel and Cisco have been found in court to have a monopoly in their respective markets. But both have been cleared of any charges of wrongdoing (rightfully so IMO).

Re:Why all the Micorsoft hate?

[errxn]

Parent has a point. While there are things I both like and dislike about Microsoft, I do get kinda sick and tired of seeing a story get posted on /. every time Bill Gates picks his nose in public, or something equally inane.

Yes, we're all aware of Microsoft's business practices. Yes, we're all aware of the faults in their OS code. No, I don't want to hear about it every FREAKIN' five minutes. Also, if there is such interest in Microsoft, why don't we ever hear about the good things that they do (save your "because they don't do any good things" replies)?

Take ASP.NET, for example. I've worked with JSP/Servlets, PHP, and "old-school" ASP, and nothing is better or easier to work with than ASP.NET, IMHO. Before you bad-mouth it, why don't you actually try using it? Plus, if it sucked as bad as some people on this site claim, why would Ximian, et. al. be working so hard on Mono?

All I'm saying is that there should be credit where credit is due, and that it would be nice if every nitpick associated with Microsoft didn't rate a new topic on /.

I know, wishful thinking.