Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

A Look at Microsoft's Regulatory Problems

Posted by Cliff on from the looking-in-from-the-outside dept.

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'."

53 of 302 comments (clear)

  1. Fishy company by krray · · Score: 4, Interesting
    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.

    1. Re:Fishy company by October_30th · · Score: 5, Insightful
      required them to pay it for a copy of Windows for each PC sold, even for PCs that were sold with other operating systems

      Which, of course, is an exaggeration. Any such requirements come from the deal your shop has signed with Microsoft. If the contract stipulates that in order to get OEM discounts you must sell MS Windows with every piece of complete hardware you sell, that's a perfectly reasonable clause.

      --
      The owls are not what they seem
    2. Re:Fishy company by NoOneInParticular · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It might be a reasonable clause in the case of a competitive market where OEMs can pick any OS-vendor and strike a deal with them, but in the current world it doesn't work that way. If you sell PC-hardware, then you have to provide Windows. If you don't strike this deal, you go belly up. That's the nature of Microsofts monopoly, and that's why such deals should be illegal.

    3. Re:Fishy company by jefe7777 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ah whatever.

      if you are an oem, small or large, prepared to buck the establishment?

      then be prepared to die.

      if you don't play ball, you're not playing at all.

      Microsoft still controlls the playing field.

      Competition is great for all of us...till somebody finally really wins.

      with 40billion in general liquidity, 40billion estimated worth of the founder, and 40billion estimated worth of the next several officers combined(after the founder)...I think we know who has won.

      and it's not the public...hell it's not even the stockholders.

    4. Re:Fishy company by McDoobie · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "No one is forcing anyone to choose Windows as an operating system."
      No, thier not. But they sure as hell are forcing people to pay for it, even when thier not using it.

      "As a matter of fact, Microsoft hasn't bought or litigated another OS out of the market."
      Sure, if you dont consider OS/2 and BeOS to be operating systems.

      Check youre facts before you spew.

    5. Re:Fishy company by NoOneInParticular · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Forcing everyone to use their product is not what a monopoly makes. Obviously everyone could have gone without railroads in the time of the robber barons, right? You don't really *need* a telephone right. Sure you can refrain from using windows when your entire network of suppliers, customers, government, bosses, etc. assume you use windows/office and communicate with you through that?

      There's also nothing unfair about a monopoly per se. Many monopolies exist, and they're not neccessarily evil. Nor are monopolies per se illegal. In Microsoft's case, it was the leveraging of the monopoly that was deemed illegal, *not* the monopoly per se.

      The point I'm trying to make is that if you get into the situation where you want to sell a product (a PC), and that without striking a deal with the supplier of a part of that product (the OS) you will go out of business, simply means that there's no competition and the supplier possesses a de fact monopoly.

    6. Re:Fishy company by NoOneInParticular · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Sure, it's market driven. Save for the thug approach, all monopolies are market driven creations. MA Bell won the phone market, IBM the mainframe market. Purely market driven.

      This does however not mean that monopolies should be left alone, as at some point such a monopoly will start hurting. This is why there are different sets of rules for monopolists versus competitors in a market. For one, barriers to entry must go. One barrier to entry is the Microsoft tax we're discussing currently. It's been set up when MS was on its way to becoming a monopoly, but now that it is has succeeded, the barrier must go. With such barriers in place, there is simply no possibility of a competitor to enter the market, let alone succeed. It's a simple case of making sure that any PC vendor has access to the same pricing of windows as their competitors. MS can still set the price, but cannot play favours. They lost that privilige once they won.

    7. Re:Fishy company by gigahawk · · Score: 2

      The EU stopped those contracts with pc-makers in 1994. Why is Microsoft still the dominant force in the market 10 years later? They make a better product?

    8. Re:Fishy company by nathanh · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Which, of course, is an exaggeration. Any such requirements come from the deal your shop has signed with Microsoft. If the contract stipulates that in order to get OEM discounts you must sell MS Windows with every piece of complete hardware you sell, that's a perfectly reasonable clause.

      Except for those pesky antitrust laws, sure.

      The FTC (Federal Trade Commission) and DOJ (Department of Justice) got Microsoft into trouble for exclusive OEM deals back in 1994.

      The OEM exclusive licensing was part of the FTC investigation. From that link

      The major illegal practice cited in the complaint was that Microsoft imposes a per processor license fee on OEMs, which means the manufacturers would have to pay Microsoft a royalty for each PC they sold, even if it did not include a Microsoft operating system. See the section on OEM Licensing Issues for details.

      The FTC and DOJ didn't consider per-processor licensing to be "perfectly reasonable". Microsoft settled out of court rather than go to trial; they knew they would lose.

      That settlement led to the Microsoft Consent Decree. Basically Microsoft promised never to do it again. This attracted criticism from Judge Sporkin who said:

      Simply telling a defendant to go forth and sin no more does little or nothing to address the unfair advantage it has already gained

      Of course, Microsoft violated the Consent Decree in 1997 in order to destroy a new company called Netscape. The Consent Decree was worthless (as many people said it was).

    9. Re:Fishy company by Ironica · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?
    10. Re:Fishy company by NortWind · · Score: 2, Informative

      Win 3.1 could run on top of MS-DOS or on top of DR-DOS (Digital Research DOS.) When you would start Win 3.1 on DR-DOS you would get an error message (that said ERROR) unsuportted OS detected. This effectively killed the ability of third party PC makers to sell DR-DOS + Win 3.1 preinstalled. Here is one site that gives the story. (Features Caldera too, eh.)

  2. Search engines are a "low cost" change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Search engines are a "low cost" change by Davak · · Score: 4, Insightful

      MS can't just "win" the search engine war by pointing users there by default.

      To quote the article now:
      [Google] accounts for 35% of search-engine visits--compared with 28% for Yahoo!, 16% for AOL and 15% for Microsoft's MSN

      Do you really think that 31% of the population feels that Microsoft and AOL searches are better than google?

      No. Users do not know better. They just click, and click, and click -- until they find their answer. You and I and most of slashdot knows that google would probably give you the answer quicker and better. 31% of the people out there just blindly search with whatever the easiest search option is...

      Now Word and other Microsoft programs send information to various web sites to get translations, directions, and other additional information.

      MS and AOL may not be able to win by pointing users to their products; however, they can drain enough money from the rest of the field to drive some better products into the poor house.

      Davak

    2. Re:Search engines are a "low cost" change by shaitand · · Score: 5, Informative

      Man are you off. You realize that most users STILL do not know the address bar exists or what it is for? There are a huge number of users typing web addresses they are given in the MSN or AOL search box.

      Since typing the address in the search box generally brings up the link they think that is how it's done and never know better.

      Trust me, these people are just using whatever is there, not changing to anything.

      True story. An old man called who had recently bought a windows pc from our shop. He said he was having trouble with his computer, so I talked with him about several minor issues, helped him get the bar back to the bottom on the screen (he had it docked on the left side and expanded to half the screen), typical user. At some point I suggest he use google for searching and gave him the address.

      A month later his modem went out and I went onsite for the service call, after fixing his modem I searched for cleaned off the spyware on his system and launched his browser. Msn.com. "So you didn't go for google eh?" I asked. "No I love it, I use it all the time!" he exclaimed and proceeded to tell me how great google is, I let him take the chair. I turns out he has been starting his internet use by typing www.goole.com into the MSN searchbar and then clicking it, then doing his searches from google.

      The guy though msn search was where you put web addresses and google was a search engine where you search for terms. I think I tried setting google as his home page but he didn't get it, I think he ended up having a kid or grandson change it back.

      Moral of the story, people are idiots. Just accept that and you will be much happier in life.

  3. Go Google Go by Davak · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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

    1. Re:Go Google Go by ZuperDee · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Don't be so sure about Google--people also once said the same things you are saying about Netscape.

    2. Re:Go Google Go by Chess_the_cat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And AltaVista, WordPerfect, Macs, and typewriters. Just because everyone is using Google now doesn't mean we all will 10, 5 or even 2 years from now.

      --
      Support the First Amendment. Read at -1
    3. Re:Go Google Go by Davak · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I disagree...

      Google has the data.

      Netscape had a physical piece of software.

      Google has one (the?) largest collection of web data indexed. One way they use and abuse this is the way they can give such targetted ads on web sites.

      Their little text-based ads rock the socks off other ads... Is it because people just are drawn to the little google boxes full of text? No... it's because the ads so closely related to what's on the page.

      Data is going to rule. Even microsoft realizes that google has beaten them to the punch.

      Could google screw up (like netscape)? Sure! Right now however... they are sitting pretty.

      Davak

    4. Re:Go Google Go by NoOneInParticular · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Google has the data. The data is however free to be collected by anyone. Indexing isn't a big issue either for the likes of Microsoft. Just add that little MS-search toolbar in IE, and make a few 'adjustments' so that the google-bar doesn't link that well anymore between minor revisions of IE. Finally add a few links into MS-office to enable some search (if only to use MS-search to search the helpfiles), and voila, another market killed and gained.

  4. In some ways, Bill Gates is poor. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 5, Insightful


    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.

  5. The most important bits by Space+cowboy · · Score: 5, Informative

    ... 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!
    1. Re:The most important bits by PPGMD · · Score: 3, Interesting
      But you are neglecting what many users are looking for when they purchase a new system, they want something that when it comes out of the box does all of the basic functions expected of it.

      Among them is browse the web, watch movies, write papers, et al. But they most of all don't want to spend their first week downloading software, particularly if they are on a dial up.

      So if Windows XP was just an OS nothing else, you would need to download/buy a browser, file decompresser, media player, text editor, calculator, personal firewall, back-up utility, the list goes on. Poor old grandma would be spending several weeks downloading programs, assuming they including a basic ftp program, which the first week would be grandma learning how to use the put command.

      In the end though the end-user is going to expect the computer to come pre-installed with these things, since the margins are so low on the system builders end, that only really leaves the OS manufacturer to add these in, so it's only natural that it's including with Windows. Besides that fact, I do remember a version of Media player came with Windows 95, it was real basic, but it has been in there since then.

      I don't know about anyone else, but even for myself, it's still rather annoying setting up a new computer from a CD install, installing all the apps that I have on the other computer, even if I have the install executables available, it still takes time.

  6. Winning Battles? by OS24Ever · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Winning Battles? by shystershep · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I don't think they 'won' the battle with the US courts, I think they bought the president.

      I can't think of much nice to say about Bush, but the Appeal's Court reversal of the break up of Microsoft was handed down in June 2001, only 6 months after Bush took office. Considering that the decision was made by appointed judges -- none of whom (AFAIK, but I'm almost positive) were appointed by Bush -- and not by the federal prosecutors or any other arm of the executive branch, I'd say that it's highly unlikely that the change of president had anything to do with this.

      IMHO, politicians are corrupt (or not) regardless of ideologoy/party affiliation, but I have a slightly higher opinion of our appointed-for-life judges who don't have to answer to any special interests once they're on the bench. I don't agree with the decision to overrule the break-up of Microsoft, but I don't believe that it had anything to do with politics or bribery (insulation from the policital process does not guarantee competency, after all).

      --
      The bigotry of the nonbeliever is for me nearly as funny as the bigotry of the believer. - Albert Einstein
  7. Disagree by iamwahoo2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  8. How Microsoft Will Attack Google by Davak · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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

  9. Search Engines, Portals, Etc. by Some+Clown · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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..."
  10. I don't hate you... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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!?!)

  11. Re:Well, really by iamsure · · Score: 5, Insightful

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


    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
  12. Microsoft not thinking long term... by ThomasFlip · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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
    1. Re:Microsoft not thinking long term... by macjohn · · Score: 2, Interesting

      As part of a $1500 computer, the price issue is pretty irrelevant.
      I don't think most companies are buying 1500 computers. The average worker's computer should be a total commodity by now, and it should cost about $300 plus the OS. I suspect that on many PCs today, Microsoft is getting more money than the hardware guys.

      And of course you're aware that the OEM OS you buy has to get thrown away when the computer is no good. You cannot transfer the license to another machine.

      --
      --Hi. I'm in Portland and it's raining. This appears to be a permanent condition.
  13. Re:Well, really by Xtifr · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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).

  14. Re:Well, really by NoOneInParticular · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  15. Nothing Really Changes by Ridgelift · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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
  16. Re:Troll by October_30th · · Score: 2
    No, not a lawyer just a humble physicist who's sick of intellectual dishonesty in the article.

    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
  17. Re:Well, really by PishiGorbeh · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  18. Re:Troll by chromatic · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Are you proposing that Microsoft should be subject to another set of rules than the other companies?

    That rather is the point of anti-trust law.

    --
    how to invest, a novice's guide
  19. Splitting up Microsoft by LippyTheLip · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I found the following quotation in the article particularly enlightening:

    Microsoft has come to a critical juncture. It can choose to continue its war of attrition with regulators, constantly testing the legal limits and, when it crosses them, treating the consequences as the cost of doing business. Or the company could throw off its monopoly mindset and decide to compete, like most other firms are forced to do, solely on the merits of its products.


    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

    The breakup created an array of choices that consumers still find confusing. But it's widely agreed that it lowered long-distance prices and stimulated innovation. The companies created out of the Bell System, including those since swallowed up, are worth about $810 billion today, vs. $59 billion before the breakup. That 1,300% gain compares to a market-cap rise of just 140% for IBM over the same period.
    So... Microsoft splitting itself up would be good not only for consumers and competitors, but perhaps also for its stockholders.
  20. Cool Search Engines by iamwahoo2 · · Score: 5, Informative
    There are a lot of unknown quality search engines out there. One of the tricks with search engines is knowing which was is going to turn up the best results in a particular search. In addition to google, I highly recommend www.alltheweb.com, and dogpile.com.

    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

  21. Re:Why all the Micorsoft hate? by errxn · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
  22. Re:Troll by NoOneInParticular · · Score: 2, Funny

    Everyone has.

  23. Re:Well, really by El · · Score: 4, Funny
    The Electric Company isn't a monopoly, per say, they're just really successful. If the Electric Company were truly a monopoly you would only be running your car, boat, and homes with energy from the Electric Company powering hardware supplied by the Electric Company. The Electric Company may be market dominant, but they're not the only choice out there. You can always install gasoline, diesel, propane or natural gas fired generators, solar panels, windmills, or whatever else to generate your electricity. You can even use electric power to power hardware not supplied by the Electric Company. Plus, no one's forcing you to use electricity!

    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

  24. Again? by Beer_Smurf · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  25. Its really about Real not being able to compete by WhoDaresWins · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  26. Right for the wrong reason by Davak · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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

  27. Pointing to Content vs. Having Content by sangfroid · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  28. Re:Well, really by andih8u · · Score: 2, Informative

    Utilities are what's referred to as naturalized monopolies quickdraw

    --


    slashdot, news for crazed liberal socialist zealots
  29. A fine ? by Axoiv · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  30. This time for sure! by rspress · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  31. And in another article in the same issue... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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

  32. MSonopoly + FUD = less innovation and opportunity by scotty777 · · Score: 2, Insightful
    The Economist points this out in their article, and I agree. In fact, I consider it the core issue. Before I invest any time or money in developing an innovative product, I have to wonder whether MS will find it worthwhile to crush my efforts. Because they can and will, if th past is a guide.

    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!

  33. What should be dnoe to MS by jonwil · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  34. Open Standard Laws would solve MS Monoply by tdwebste · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.