Slashdot Mirror
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'."
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.
If by dominance you mean they have captured the market spewing unwanted popups and spam, well duh!
For users, changing operating systems, and even browsers, can be quite painful. In the case of an OS, old apps might nor work, and you might have to learn a new interface, and there may even be a cost of purchasing the OS. For browsers, it's hard to become aware of alternatives (for regular folk) and a download (on dialup) may take a while. For search engines, though, it's simply a matter of loading a new page, and maybe changing a setting somewhere. Not to mention the fact that even common folk know about Google, and it's become a part of the language. MS can't just "win" the search engine war by pointing users there by default.
I consider Google to be a has-been at this point. Let's face it: 1) it no longer has the usefulness it once did, due to all the spam in it. 2) Google has so far failed to do anything constructive about it. 3) Google's new technologies just aren't that good anymore. Look at Froogle--I have yet to see it perform as well as things like PriceWatch. 4) Google is losing business left and right--most prominent example: Yahoo is now planning to dump Google. 5) Although many (including myself) have applauded Google in the past for sticking to its core competency of searching, it also means they have failed to take advantage of the synergies possible in a full-blown portal, like Yahoo.
I think it is high time Google either get its act together quick, or be finished off by someone who wants to do better, like Microsoft, or Alltheweb.
Microsoft may have software on the majority of computers sold... but my god, we all use google.
In the land of pirating with ease... the man who holds the data, not the software, will win.
Bill isn't dumb... and realizes this; thus, the push into the search engine world.
One more reason that I really like google.
Davak
We won't look down on you. We just feel sorry for you.
As far as I know, Microsoft has only made money in areas where the company has a temporary monopoly, or where being aggressive temporarily makes a profit.
Microsoft has a history of bad management, especially in thinking that the company can be aggressive toward customers, without paying any penalty.
If someone had a monopoly on water, he would make so much money that he would make Bill Gates look poor in just a few days. To unskilled observers, temporary monopolies make those associated with them look like skilled businesspeople.
When you are a billionaire, what is your biggest need? Is is to make more money? No, your biggest need is for connectedness with other people. By his aggressive behavior, Bill Gates has enforced disconnectedness, and he is in that sense a poor man.
... are that
:-))
1) MS might be forced to either bundle competitors (Go Ogg!) or disable Windows media (which the commission don't seem to fancy)
2) The commissioners claim to have learnt from the mistakes of other regulators when dealing with MS, and have pre-emptively included a number of 'you can't do it *this* way' examples in their recommendations
Simon
Physicists get Hadrons!
I don't know about everyone, but I'm not a Microsoft Hater, but I'm not a lover of them either. I don't think they 'won' the battle with the US courts, I think they bought the president. Pretty lame anti-trust slap on the wrist only after Bush comes into office. Prior to that it was looking like they were going to break into bitty pieces.
Just my viewpoint.
As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.
I still find google incredibly useful. It turns up things no other search engine does for me. An they should not try to copy Yahoo. If I want yahoo, I will go to yahoo. Each engine has its strengths. The trick is to be distinct so that users know which engine turns up the best results for different types of searches.
Google has more data that Microsoft. Google is a better search engine than MSN. I don't think that anybody disagrees with this. However...
The next step, inevitably, will be to integrate such search functions into Windows, on the grounds that it constitutes a core technology that should be part of the operating system. In his keynote speech at last November's Comdex show in Las Vegas, Mr Gates demonstrated a prototype technology called "Stuff I've Seen" which does just that. It allows computer users to search for context-specific words in e-mails and in recently visited web pages, as well as in documents on their computers.
Microsoft has it's reaches into the majority of homes and businesses in the world. As broadband always-on internet becomes more popular, more and more services will really be clicks to other sites.
Here I describe one of the ways that microsoft uses this in the new version of Word as a translation machine. The information goes out onto the internet and word brings you back the information pretty seemlessly.
This is where Microsoft knows how to crush their enemies. By using easy clicks with integration, they can direct people to Microsoft search, translation, music, or whatever.
As the article states, before long your searches and data will be references my Windows software in multiple ways. Windows doesn't just want the web integrated into your system... they want their web integrated into your system.
Davak
drop all this reason and argument and just say:
... split and generally encourage the smaller players
"You're doing too good and that's damaging the economy."
A blog I run for the wealth
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.
"...The mice will see you now..."
But it's like this:
You know your box is "sick/ill", it spreads virii!
I can see the "infected" pass by in my serverlogs(they don't hurt me, I got a good imune system).
lets take this a little further:
Note:some maybe pesonally insulted by this analogie!
If I had AIDS and I would go fucking around without a condom, what would you think of me?
Thats about how I think of people who know their box is "sick/ill" and still use it for their everyday tasks.
needless to say this applies to most people cause most people know M$ spreads virii.
( I do not mind if you use it off line, but whenever you connect make sure you are protected, virii create a lot of useless traffic, on top of that everybody needs to update their virii progs, which results in even more traffic.
guess who makes money out of all this!?!)
I'm not a Microsoft Hater
;-)
If you're extremely fortunate, you'll get the GNU/chair.
Do you like German cars?
You are confused about what they have a monopoly IN. Multiple courts ruled that they were in fact a monopoly. You seem to be under the false impression it is for being a PC monopoly - far from it.
They have become a defacto OS monopoly - while there are other choices, they leverage their market share to ensure you can't, shouldn't, or won't want to use a competitors product.
Good companies encourage you to choose their product OVER the competitors, monopolies discourage competitors products through control, price gouging, and more.
GPL'd web-based tradewars themed space game
As soon as Linux is ready for the desktop, Microsoft is going to hell. Nobody is going to want to pay for software let alone software which is strictly limited in variety. If Microsoft was smart, they would stop trying to suck every penny out of every company, and start producing software which doesnt limit a users choice. And with DRM in Longhorn, there is going to be even more incentive to migrate to Linux.
If the dollar is an "I owe you nothing", then the Euro is a "Who owes you nothing." - Doug Casey
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).
If by poor you mean sleeping with billions and billions of dollars, why yes, yes he is....but seriously, you made a good point there..
Jisho - A Japanese English German Russian French Dictionary for the rest of us.
If you are not putting together your own box (which I don't see many do in the case of laptops), whatever operating system you're installing on your pc, you have already paid for Windows. I think Ma Bell would also have been perfectly happy for you to use any telco, as long as you would pay Ma what was due to her regardless.
But it does confirm that Microsoft is exploiting its desktop dominance in workgroup server software; and that, by "tying" WMP to Windows, it has overtaken its chief rival in the media-player market, RealNetworks.
_Of course_ Microsoft will continue to use their position in the desktop world to compete against their competitors. They always have, and they always will. The fact ist the legal system moves at a much slower pace than technology. It's a simple formula:
1) Use monopoly to compete against competitors now.
2) Drag out law suits for as long as possible
3) Make token settlement like coupons which continue to expand Windows penetration
4) Profit & repeat.
Ruby on Rails Screencast
Damn! Slahsodt should have an automatic spellcheck! Fat finger syndrome lives.
What's your point? Are you proposing that Microsoft should be subject to another set of rules than the other companies?
PS. It's "Mussolini".
The owls are not what they seem
I AGREE 100% There are places in this world that do not have international copy right laws.. Places that Linux and Windows XP sit on the same shelf in a software store and cost the same damn price.. Know what... No one touches the linux stuff. I don't know exactly why but seems to me it a clear example of consumer choice. After all, the cost is the same and the availabilty is the same. Windows is easier to use than linux, at least for the average user. BTW.. this place is right here in Tehran.. 4000 toman ($5 USD) for Windows XP and 4000 toman for RH Linux 9 at any software store in the city.. and there are many.
You say: "Well, they crushed the independent software vendors!"
Some were crushed (ex. Netscape), others sold out and now are very wealthy. For us, the consumer, (those of us who have to pay with our hard earned dollars) we are getting more value for our money.
And... for those of you who think that MS is the ONLY company who does such things, I ask you to try to get a cola flavored soda in your supper market.
There is no spoon or sig.
That rather is the point of anti-trust law.
how to invest, a novice's guide
Everyone's free to make a complaint against Microsoft.
The owls are not what they seem
If history is any guide, it is not difficult to predict which of these two paths Microsoft will take. On the other hand, there are a few examples of companies that have begun as monopolies and actually ended up increasing the value of the company faster after being forced to give up their monopoly position. For example, after the breakup of AT&T in 1982, the companies formed as a result have grown much more quikly. According to this article at Businessweek
So... Microsoft splitting itself up would be good not only for consumers and competitors, but perhaps also for its stockholders.
But one that I have really come to like is vivisimo.com, check it out, and after performing a search ecspecially take a look at the "preview" feature
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.
In Soviet Russia, Chuck Norris will still kick your ass.
Everyone has.
If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and acts like a duck, then it's a duck. If it's able to exert monopolistic control of a market or markets, then it's a monopoly.
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
Yeah, that Internet Explorer is a real quality product...
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
Everytime I do a search, I find what I am looking for almost allways on the first page. I would say that it is still tops.
As to taking advantage of other tech., that remains to be seen. Google took several years to get their top billing. I am going to guess that it will take a while before they catch on (or MS kills them).
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
The parent post is not interesting.
It is completely misinformed.
It has been legally established that MS, for all intents and purposes is a monopoly.
Anything else about this matter is uninformed babbling that deserves only to be rebuked as soon as such nonsense is repeated (yet once again).
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Actually, MS is spending billions to build a better search engine. and, based on their past, I would not count them out.
Personally, If I were google, I would try integrating into Apache, Mac, and Linux ASAP. That would force MS to deal with those environments as well.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Boy, my post went right over your head, didn't it?
MS hasn't been lowering the price of anything! Prices of computer hardware and software were steadily falling long before MS got into the market, and continued to fall afterwards. MS has lowered their prices and improved their products more slowly than almost anyone else! If you think you're better off than you would have been in a competitive market, I'm sorry for you!
I am not going to debate the truth of this article.
However we hear the same thing over and over.
So I cannot begin to hold MS completely blameless.
What I cannot understand is at this point, with their huge advantage just in cash reserves, why they cannot just do the work and make the best products.
The potential they have to really do something awesome when put in contrast to their actual tactics it's just sad.
I've always wondered, what exactally would you split Microsoft up into? Or something like that.
Biting in 3...2...1... You're quite the troll. (Or should I say your?) I don't think you would have any problem at all fitting into American society. This whole comment satisfies itself (particularly, number 5.) This comment is quite nonsensical and irrational; not all Americans are ignorant of geography, spelling, the world, the evils of our brand of democracy. I'm also sure that not all europeans are as quick to classify _all_ of America into a subcatagory as you are.
You know the whole issue of tying WMP to Windows being an issue is silly. Hello!, Windows Media Player has been included with Windows for free since Windows 3.1 days (yeah go ahead and check it if you don't believe it). So for many many years MS was including WMP with Windows and Real did not have a problem with it? Suddenly one fine day Real has issues with it? What has happened is that MS came up with a superior product ever since Windows Media 8 and started kicking Real's *ss. Who would want to use Real's intrusive annoying player when a better alternative was available?
With Windows Media 9 Microsoft really started shining in the Media Player arena and Real instead of competing wants to run crying to momma. Get a clue Real! If you hadn't abused your users with the intrusive crap of player you had then no one would have looked for alternatives. As long as WMP was inferior, Real was in fact the one abusing its dominant position by shoving a pathetically intrusive player on its users. Guess what they did when they had an alternative? Real squandered away its lead when real (pun intended) competition was coming its way. I guess it was sheer haughtiness on its part that it thought no one could beat it. When it has finally woken up and realised that no one is going to give it a second chance, then guess what happens. WMP9 is what decimated Real since its a much superior product overall compared to Real. Now the irony is that WMP9 is not bundled with any OS but is a separate download. Yet inspite of that its usage is skyrocketing.
The other story in all this is how Apple has been able to keep QuickTime alive and not face Real's fate. Well the QuickTime player also does some bad things (like adding itself to runonce reg key) but overall it respects its users a lot more. QuickTime and Windows Media are now the most dominant Media technologies on the net. So how come Apple is not complaining about Windows Media? How are they able to hold on to the market? Clue to Real: They actually compete. They care about their users and make a better player or better codecs (Apple has very good support for MPEG4). This whole media player tying issue looks like some kind of EU vendetta against a large US company. In fact the original case wasn't even about this till Real went crying to the EU comission. Makes me sick. What next? Tying of WordPad to Windows will become illegal since that hurts AbiWord? How silly can people get really.
Amazingly effective. To the point of being annoyingly effective.
It's a shoot first, ask questions second tactic.
In other words, if I were investor, I'd hold off buying Google stock when they IPO.
You should hold off buying google when they go IPO because everybody else will be buying... and the price will be way too high.
After a while, the stock will come back down to a fair market price... and that will be when you should buy.
This has happened before when Yahoo and other hot companies have gone public.
Davak
The thing that I think most Portal Pushers miss is the difference between having content and pointing to content. New users eventually learn where the content is - even if it's just from having hundreds of bookmarks - even if they're not internet or computer savvy. By repetition even my grandma can now get to google for searching and the new york times website by typing "nyt.com" into the title bar. This is the same woman who calls me every power outage to figure out what button to push to get the "tv-part" back on. To make it work they need more than just the search engines, they need to provide the content. AOL, MSN, and the like just don't provide enough good, unique content to be worth it. IMO.
To make an excellent indexing, searching, and categorizing group (read: Portal) and top-notch content providers (read: everybody else) would be extremely difficult, very expensive, and kludgy/unwieldy. Most of the best content is started by hobbyists and is community-supported -- I can't see a huge company (read: microsoft) able to compete quality or quantity-wise with the current and emerging nice sites.
I don't think the super-site is going to work.
Utilities are what's referred to as naturalized monopolies quickdraw
slashdot, news for crazed liberal socialist zealots
When google results come back too "commercialized" (five pages of online stores before the first useful link), I go there and find stuff.
And operating systems are not natural monopolies?
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
they leverage their market share to ensure you can't, shouldn't, or won't want to use a competitors product.
Taht's not true at all. Many, many people know and do have other options. I don't use Linux because it sucks (I'm not getting into this conversation). I don't use Apple because it's overpriced, and I don't like the lock-in. Thus, I *choose* Windows.
And operating systems are not natural monopolies? NO! You can't choose to go out and get Bob's Electricity vs Larry's Electricity. Its a naturalized monopoly. You don't have a choice of utility company, you do have one about which OS you run. Jeez.
slashdot, news for crazed liberal socialist zealots
I quit reading the Economist article after the first paragraph gushed about how Bill Gates, "combines knightly philanthropy on an unprecedented scale with a long and impressive combat record." It's hard to admire someone who's broken the law so many times to rob everyone. The best article on Bill's charity was done by Salon years ago. Since then, much of his giving has been suspiciously close to countries considering free software. There have been and are today much better examples of philanthropy than Bill Gates. The hero worship sickens me.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
They are already there. Get you some Mepis today. Mepis is a Debian based distro, much like KDE. It autoconfigures itself in a way that M$ with it's goofey propriatory reboot required drivers can only dream of. More interestingly, it has a graphical install that sticks the working and configured OS onto your hard drive. Click and drool has arived in free software and it comes clean, without security problems, and with all the goodies that larder M$ - office productivity suits.
DRM, embeded in hardware, is Microsoft's last ditch attempt to stop the comming avalanch of free software use. Rather than being forced to throw away your old computer so that you can get XP, people are going to save themselves loads of money and trouble with CDs like Mepis. Once you discover free software you don't go back because you discover how badly you have been lied to about free software by comercial software companies. Microsoft can not compete on merits, so they are trying to make it technically and legally imposible for others to do anything.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Surely you jest.. that staement is almost as bad FUD and flase BS as the statement that java makse s apps crash when the user stating that fact views flash presentations in a browser eachday ass most do not know that flash payer is in fact a java media player running java..:)
Don't Tread on OpenSource
I've you're using Firebird then you've got a preview feature for any hyperlink. It's called CTRL+CLICK.
Dan East
Better known as 318230.
Multiple courts use an outdated and frankly incorrect definition of monopoly. Their being prosecuted for being a monopoly does not make them a monopoly; especially amoungst economists. "monopolies discourage competitors products through control, price gouging, and more" So if my local grocery 'gouges' me $5/lb for bananas is that their way of excerising monopoly? Claims of monopoly have gone on far enough. Unless you are the sole provider of a good or service the power you can exert is SEVERELY limited. Any economist will tell you that. Unfortuately economists don't make laws, politicians do. And politicians will pass any unjust law if it gets them votes.
Corporations: your universal scapegoat for all society's ills.
Jeez.
I feel your pain. It's unfortunate how many people make grandiose economic statements without knowing any economics. It's a good thing people don't do the same regarding heart surgery.
Corporations: your universal scapegoat for all society's ills.
300$-500$ doesn't seem like big enough fine to me. How much hasn't Microsoft robbed us consumers in terms of overprices for their monopolist software? 300-500$? That's for a year... Common guys...give them a fine.
I don't think that MS will be able to buy its way out of their legal troubles with the EU like they did in the U.S. but you never know.
The problem with a 600 pound gorilla is that if it does not get what it wants it will beat the crap out of you until you are dead and take it anyway.
As far as their search engine is concerned, making it default will increase traffic to their site as so many windows users just go with what is already there for them. Of course we can trust MS to not filter content so bad words like Linux, Netscape, Opera, anti-trust and Mac will be available through their search engine.
There is another article in the same issue of The Economist (you need a subsctiprion to access) in which the magazine says
Begin Quote
[............]
Isn't this simply a matter of Microsoft competing vigorously? The strange thing is that its products invariably succeed in PC-based markets where the dominance of Windows provides an advantage: office productivity, web-browsing, media playback and servers. Yet in other markets that have nothing to do with PCs, such as mobile phones, set-top boxes and games consoles, the company is far less successful. Odd, that.
This newspaper has long argued, and still believes, that a break-up of Microsoft is the only remedy that would have any impact on its conduct, by removing its key weapon, Windows. At the moment that seems out of the question. How else might Microsoft be stopped from illegally exploiting its monopoly? By the long-awaited rise of open-source software such as Linux, maybe, though that seems unlikely. Perhaps the company will eventually conclude that the costs, in bad publicity and constant legal battles, of maintaining its monopoly exceed the benefits, and choose to divest or open up Windows itself. But that also seems implausible when there are large monopoly rents to be had. Some day a break-up of this too-mighty firm will again have to be considered.
[end of article]
End Quote
Things that are trival in the former are sometimes much more difficult in the latter.
Examples? Seriously, I'm curious. Also, yes, the lock-in factor is very true, but we'll see how the Mono implementation works out. ASP.NET application code is supposed to be portable across platforms with no modification with it. If that pans out, the lock-in argument will be a moot point.
That being said, I wasn't really focusing on the lock-in, but simply the technology itself.
In Soviet Russia, Chuck Norris will still kick your ass.
.... or insightful! ;)
Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.
Why is that comment a troll? Because someone dares to say something, *gasp*, bad about Google?
I think you mean "razing the standard of living."
IMHO, governments adopting Linux is the ray of light through the clouds. If I target my applications to that market, then I need not fear MS. Sure, I will have to compete with all the rest of you. But we will compete as equals in a free market, not as weaklings against a bully.
Live long, and prosper!
Taht's not true at all. Many, many people know and do have other options. I don't use Linux because it sucks (I'm not getting into this conversation). I don't use Apple because it's overpriced, and I don't like the lock-in. Thus, I *choose* Windows.
That's all well and good. You're in plentiful company, with 95% of desktop machines running some flavor of Windows.
But then, since this *is* a monopoly (and we won't even get into how Windows gained monopoly status), certain rules apply. You're not allowed to use monopoly position in one market, however it was gained (legally or illegally) to leverage your position in another market. For example, it's not legal to use your OS monopoly to leverage your position in the web browser, office productivity, or media player markets. These other products have to stand on their own merits, independent of the control you have over the OS.
The courts have ruled on the browser market; MS illegally leveraged their position there. Corel never did take them on about the office productivity market, but they might have had a case. Now Real is giving them hell, not because they integrated WMP into the OS, but because they forbade OEMs with Windows license agreements (i.e., all of them) to bundle competing media players. This is a no-no if you have a monopoly, because they can't simply choose to bundle a different OS to get out of the agreement. It's *irrelevant* that Real is only doing this because they started sucking and people didn't want to use them anymore, because the argument is that MS's OEM agreements violated anti-trust law, and based on the previous court decisions, they're probably right.
Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?
Sometimes I find it curious to see you Americans struggle with your own prerogative: the free market enterprise. Don't you think that market forces will sort things out? Of course if your government (as well as other countries') keeps interfering by giving Microsoft special privileges it does skew things severely. So tell your government to foster equal competition between all players - let it NOT succumb to industry pressures to introduce 'standards' that favour a single player. Microsoft has excellent practices in persuading users to adopt and disseminate their formats. This is in no-one's interest other than Microsoft's. This is all trivial of course and self evident ...
I AGREE 100% There are places in this world that do not have international copy right laws.. Places that Linux and Windows XP sit on the same shelf in a software store and cost the same damn price.. Know what... No one touches the linux stuff.
That supports the notion that Microsoft has a clear monopoly in the OS market. Which does mean they have to play by different rules in the other software markets.
On the other hand, it could be that no one's paying 4000 toman for RH 9 because they can download it for free...
Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?
NO! You can't choose to go out and get Bob's Electricity vs Larry's Electricity. Its a naturalized monopoly. You don't have a choice of utility company, you do have one about which OS you run. Jeez.
Except that, a whole lot of people have argued that MS didn't do anything *really* wrong in how it achieved OS market dominance, because it was for a greater good... without that standardization, we would never have gotten so far with desktop computer technology.
Now, I don't necessarily agree that it's all ok because there was something more important at stake. I still think that either MS should have played fair and let the victor emerge from natural market forces, or the government should have stepped in a long time ago to help form a "standard," but regulated OS. Still, if you accept the idea that in order for us to make progress with desktop technology, we need a "standard" OS, then you are arguing that operating systems do not and should not work in the free-market competitive system. Instead they should be naturalized monopolies.
And with that, look at regulation of utilities: since I *can't* just ditch SCE and go with LADWP (oh, how I would love to), they have to play by much stricter rules than companies who can be regulated by market competition. There's an argument for operating system software to work the same way.
Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?
Also, I'm about twice as productive using PHP/perl then I am on C# and ASP.NET. Things that are trival in the former are sometimes much more difficult in the latter.
.NET is looking pretty good.
You remind me of the old joke where a chainsaw salesman visits a woodsman chopping down a tree with an axe. The woodsman is suspicious about the salesman's claims but he agrees to try the chainsaw for a while. A few weeks later the salesman returns to find the woodsman taking a break in his hut. "This thing is useless", the woodsman exclaims. "I can cut down a tree much faster with the axe". "I'll show you" says the salesman who leaves the woodsman sipping his tea and takes the chainsaw outside. A few minutes later he returns. "There! That tree is down". "Wow!, that was quick, but what was that loud noise?". VS.NET, C#, SQL Server, ASP.NET, ADO.NET and, just released, Reporting Services make an awesome combination. BTW, I happily continue to use PHP / LAMP for several relatively simple, non-profit projects but in my daytime corporate job
And nobody is excited about high-tech startups anymore. Even more so about more or less mature companies whose potential is well known, and who is gonna receive the wrath of one little company from Redmond this year (rumor has it).
As soon as Linux is ready for the desktop, Microsoft is going to hell
Ummm, I have Linux on my desktop and it runs better than WinXP ever could. It could use more drivers for better Plug and Play but it is ready. Real question is: are users ready for Linux?
1.they should be forced to reveal on a public website with no cost or licence restrictions their "propriatory" file formats. (exactly which formats would have to be decided by a sutable panel made up of legal people and technical people but should include all the office file formats like word, excel, powerpoint, access). Also, all their "secret" APIs (for example hooks into the shell) and all their "secret" network protocols (for example, the various windows-only authentication for MS IIS and MS proxy server
2.they should be forced to make all their contracts with OEMs public and be banned from having secret contracts with OEMs.
3.they should be forced to sell OEM windows at one price and one price only to ALL OEMs.
4.they should be prohibited from restricting OEMs who ship (or want to ship, talk about shipping etc) systems with operating systems other than windows, systems with no operating system installed at all or systems containing windows in conjunction with one or more other opreating systems.
5.same as for 4. but for application software (i.e. OEM pre-installs mozilla or netscape or whatever else)
Basicly, force them open on the OEM desktop plus force them to give up the secrets that will allow their competitors (including Open Source) to talk to, interact with and share data with those products (windows, office, IE, IIS, MS servers, media player, MSN messenger and etc) that microsoft currently enjoys a monopoly on or that microsoft is currently using is monopoly power to push.
1) All data storage formats and application communication protocols need to publicly available at no charge. In other words make make "Open Standards" the law. Methods how to implement such data storage formats and application communication protocols could be perhaps patented, copyrighted or a trade secret. But NOT the data storage formats and application communication protocols. This is the only effective solution to the artificial bearers Microsoft has put in place to protect its Monopoly. This is not a Microsoft problem per say. Microsoft is just the best example of this problem. The Europe as the European Union is able to and should apply this law retroactively in to all Union Countries. This will give competitors to Microsoft sufficient market to be "economically" successful. The European Union can not force other or even suggest other countries outside the Union follow suit. And I strongly doubt that the US will be happy about this, because United States protected Microsoft because it is HUGE US company with even large political weight. However United States no longer controls the world. So I expect several Counties in Asia with large manufacturing and internal markets to adopt the European approach.
1) All data storage formats and application communication protocols need to publicly available at no charge. In other words make make "Open Standards" the law.
Methods how to implement such data storage formats and application communication protocols could be perhaps patented, copyrighted or a trade secret. But NOT the data storage formats and application communication protocols.
This is the only effective solution to the artificial bearers Microsoft has put in place to protect its Monopoly. This is not a Microsoft problem per say. Microsoft is just the best example of this problem.
The Europe as the European Union is able to and should apply this law retroactively in to all Union Countries. This will give competitors to Microsoft sufficient market to be "economically" successful. The European Union can not force other or even suggest other countries outside the Union follow suit. And I strongly doubt that the US will be happy about this, because United States protected Microsoft because it is HUGE US company with even large political weight. However United States no longer controls the world. So I expect several Counties in Asia with large manufacturing and internal markets to adopt the European approach.
...let's remember that European courts are nothing like American ones.
Unlike American courts, which do their own thing (e.g., compare the 9th and 11th Federal Circuit courts), European court decisions mostly reflect what the local government wants.
Also, European Governments - especially France - have recently shown themselves to be massively susceptible to bribery. Witness MEMRI's stories about how Saddam traded oil for positive opinions from leftists all across Europe.
This will be no different. Should Microsoft not get a positive decision, it simply means that it failed to pay off enough government hacks.
Condider a loss in this court case to be the end of one round of negotiations. Nothing more.
668: Neighbour of the Beast
Please mod parent up.
Here is an excerpt from one of my posts in July about the best way for Microsoft to auction its divisions. New comments are in brackets.
Addition: Believing MS is completely myopic, I assume that Longhorn and XBox2 will be delayed as MS concentrates on cost-cutting. They have already started offshoring to India and reducing the headcount on the west coast. I expect the company to implode before Longhorn is supposed to be released.
---
- Windows and Office actually make money, and are the reason MS exists.
[They will keep them together as long as possible since they define MS. I believe that the Office division will need to sell Linux versions to survive, and that could save the company, but they will wait until Windows has lost its monopoly, and by then it will be much too late.]
- Server SW would be a good choice, because it breaks even, but is too strategic to be sold first.
- Mobile software: Too much recent news about how Tablets and PocketPCs are strategic.
[I have not heard much hype about this recently. Are they pulling back?]
- Games: Game software companies are always sold cheap, but MS has the XBox hardware. Sell the software to Atari (formerly Infogrames). The XBox could be sold to a company wanting to get into gaming like NVidia, a company that sells consoles like Sony, or a Linux distributor who will sell it as a PC replacement and wants the existing public awareness of the trademark. MS can start by selling older titles to Infogrames: quick cash and it does not look like MS is folding.
[I have not read any news about their Game division recently; are they still releasing? Could we tell if they stopped new development of games?]
- Business software: Good choice. Say it was a mistake to upset other companies by having the GreatPlains purchase compete with MS's business partners. Good publicity, and a decent price.
[I am waiting, but again have not heard much news. Did MS turn off its publicity department?]
- MSN: With AOL on the run, MSN could look like it will increase marketshare. The problem is that the M stands for Microsoft. They could announce that they believe subscription services are obsolete, but that would kill the price. A quiet deal with Earthlink would be the best. I'd say AOL, but AOL has enough problems. But can a deal like this be quiet with the FCC watching? More likely MS will move move equipment and people to Earthlink, while keeping the receivables moving through MS to satisfy the regulators.
[Microsoft has already decided to stop promoting MSN.]
I spend my life entertaining my brain.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,69 03,1136045,00.html
1) All data storage formats and application communication protocols need to publicly available at no charge. In other words make make "Open Standards" the law.
Methods how to implement such data storage formats and application communication protocols could be perhaps patented, copyrighted or a trade secret. But NOT the data storage formats and application communication protocols.
This is the only effective solution to the artificial bearers Microsoft has put in place to protect its Monopoly. This is not a Microsoft problem per say. Microsoft is just the best example of this problem.
The Europe as the European Union is able to and should apply this law retroactively in to all Union Countries. This will give competitors to Microsoft sufficient market to be "economically" successful. The European Union can not force other or even suggest other countries outside the Union follow suit. And I strongly doubt that the US will be happy about this, because United States protected Microsoft because it is HUGE US company with even large political weight. However United States no longer controls the world. So I expect several Counties in Asia with large manufacturing and internal markets to adopt the European approach.
This is addition to their games over the OEM licensing that you mention.
However, it is interesting that Linux is still sitting there, it would be hard to see it getting shelf/stall space unless it was selling.
The fun thing was when I was working in such places, we were forbiddden about getting Win from the market officially because of piracy but really because of virus fears. Not so with Linux, as we could verify the MD5s over the net.
No. I'm serious. (Flamebait...puhlease...)
Ok. How is Microsoft preparing to promote itself in another separate market by drawing upon the dominance in web-browsers and operating-systems? There is only one good answer to this: MONEY. Which means that the statement '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.' is not insightful as it could pertain to any industry as MONEY is a universal protocol.
The statement would be more thought-provoking and relevant if it pertained to some aspect of Microsoftdom that was unique to MS...not merely piles of cash (which isn't terribly unique or interesting).
So, fault me for not backing up my original statement if you wish, but it certainly is not "Flamebait".
HP merged with Compaq.
Gateway is buying EMachines.
IBM can never decide if they want to stay in the PC market.
Dell is still Dell, but wants to move into electronics.
[Yes, I am ignoring laptops. They can replace PCs, but are a very different business model.]
PC manufacturers have consolidated because the profit margins keep shrinking. If it were not for these awful contracts with Microsoft, every one of these vendors would be shipping a "free" OS to cut costs. Most people would not know the difference until their child's new game did not run.
It would be cheaper to write a few children's games than to pay the MS tax. Making a game unique and challenging are negatives when writing for children. They could invest in The Learning Company and insist the games are ported to Linux. The manufacturers could bundle the games for free, make it another marketing point, and still profit more than paying MS.
What else do you need? Every distro comes with email, multiple browsers, an office suite, a graphics program, a few movie players, and more games for adults than Windows. Make certain they can easily change the wallpaper. Get Maxis to port "The Sims". At that point, most of the population is covered.
I do want the boot process to be fixed. Single threaded booting means Linux is slower than Windows (for the boot. After that Linux wins easily.) Split the stuff required for the GUI from everything else. Get the drives mounted, X started, then hit them with the login screen. Make certain the firewall and network are running before the desktop finishes loading. The printers should be ready about then. Internet servers and everything else can finish up while the users are reading their email.
Linux is ready. The applications are there. We are just waiting for one of the large manufacturers to offer Linux as the default option so they can undersell the others.
I spend my life entertaining my brain.
"That supports the notion that Microsoft has a clear monopoly in the OS market. Which does mean they have to play by different rules in the other software markets." MS has no market here. It's pirated software. I couldn't buy a legal copy even if I wanted to. MS can not even ship software here if I ordered it online. People simply choose Windows because it's easier to use. I ask a couple of people who have software stores how much linux they sell. The answer was sometimes but when people learn what they have to do to get their digital cameras to work.. they come back for windows. "On the other hand, it could be that no one's paying 4000 toman for RH 9 because they can download it for free... " I thought about that but if you consider that 99% of conectivity here is 56K... I don't think that would be the case.. All in all, it's the purest example of consumer choice that I have ever experienced
This is really the point: for my part, MS can bundle any software it wants on its platform, as long as this software doesn't make a proprietary/patented/secret protocol or data format ubiquitous.
If WMP was only a media player, able to play any standard media, it would compete with other software (still with the advantage of being preinstalled).
From the moment WMP "helps" people to switch from mpg/realmedia/ogg/... to MS-only standards, this kicks-off not only these other formats, but also non-Windows platforms. I don't care what player Windows users use (WMP, Winamp, or whatever), I know I can use XMMS, Xine, mplayer, or vlc on Linux to play most media files or streams, except those coming from MS (don't tell me I can use win32 dlls, I know that. But MS will do its best to stop this possibility).
And what pisses me off most, is when I find internet radio stations streaming .asf files, because I know they choose this format for its ubiquity on the desktop, and that forced them to use MS on their servers.
I guess that wasn't what he meant. His point was that enough Americans are so ignorant about history, geography, and spelling and grammar that this is "typical" in the USA. Of course, any classification must consider exceptions, but when one does a caricature a certain amount of exageration is OK.
Even more importantly, a lot of countries (like mine) have arrangements where you can freely choose your eletricity supplier. The electric grid in that case becomes just a common carrier, like the phone network for isp's.
You miss the point of "monopoly." Regardless of why a product or company has a monopoly, once it does, US law requires it to play by different rules.
If people are overwhelmingly chosing Windows when there is no price difference, that supports the notion that they have a monopoly.
Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?