Slashdot Mirror
Annual Cost of Microsoft Monopoly: $10 Billion
An anonymous reader writes "Microsoft's deals with major PC vendors lock users out from alternative options, such as Linux. A recent whitepaper calculates that the cost to industry of this Microsoft monopoly is $10 billion per year."
Until the penalties outweigh the revenue, what's going to make MS stop? This 300lb gorilla is going to keep stomping on the little people (Linux, FreeBSD and otherS) unless something changes. In addition... Even if this didn't exist MS still has a stranglehold on the software available for personal computers, everything from Games to Applications. That's the next hurdle.
"Simplify, simplify, simplify!" Thoreau
Where do they come up with a figure like that? Put on a blindfold and throw a dart? That's ridiculous. It probably does cost the industry, but the fact that they have to come up with a number at all demonstrates some level of bias here.
Reading articles like this, I often wonder if Bill Gates has managed to delude himself into thinking he's doing good for the industry, of if he actually knows what an evil, vicious spawn he's created?
Also, if Bill Gates would dissapear tomorrow, would the balls necessary to defy the US Government, other larger organizations go as well? I often think that perhaps the rest of the company doesn't have the nerve to go toe to toe like their head does...
Well you can't blame Microsoft (flame me) but it's a business world.
What does your Credit Report look like?
The Windows monopoly saves the world at least $500 billion a year in compatibility costs.
The pressure from Microsoft on OEMs is very, very well know. Would it be tolerated in any other industry? Absolutely not, but there's a tendency from people to think that that's just the way things are when it comes to computers unfortunately.
Well you obviously haven't thought about how much time would be spent helping people with their linux machines. There are other options, like those sun thin clients. But in my experience most people don't even know how to use firefox, let alone a completely new OS.
Um, how is Microsoft stopping people from using Linux, Solaris, OSX etc? This is like saying Coke locks you out of drinking Pepsi. Just becuase not all vendors offer all choices does NOT mean that there are no other options.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
The number one fastest in what way? Revenues? Profits? Employees? Hype?
Since the sidebar was the only thing that would load:
"linux support - get penguin powered" [...] "training - for linux administration and web development" [...] "development - apps for linux, unix, windows and the web"
How shocking that a company which sells training, support, and development services for both Linux and Windows would come out with an inflammatory article.
Why, they couldn't possibly have ulterior motives! Nothing like a bit of viral marketing.
Please help metamoderate.
The reason I don't use Linux is because I know it to be a much less intuitive system, but I'd struggle to refer to my choice for not using Linux as being locked out by Microsoft.
For he today that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother.
In the grand scheme of things $10 billion is not a lot of money. But keep subscribing to that FUD.
Let me begin by saying I don't like Microsoft products. I think it's an evil, opportunistic company that is likely funded by Nazi gold, but....
Microsoft itself is not the real culprit here. If the cost to the industry is really 10 billion, then the threshold for establishing a monopoly should be met. The problem is no real enforcement of the Sherman Act or any of the other federal "calls to arms" against monopoly.
Like it or not, in capitalist society the message sent to business is to be as nasty as profitable and permitted. As long as consumers keep buying (maybe because they feel like they don't have a choice, and there is some argument there) and the government doesn't enforce its own laws (which is probably why consumers feel they have no choice), Microsoft can't be blamed overmuch.
In short (too late!), the problem isn't really the 300 lb. gorilla. It's just doing what gorillas do. The problem is the federal prosecutor with the tranq gun taking a nap.
ACWith a New PC system with OS-- easily available for under $500, I find this hard to believe. The price of a microsoft windows OEM install hasn't gone up considerably since the mid 90's, when there was a competing operating system (OS/2) available for about the same price.
I just don't feel they've taken the "good" parts of Microsoft's monopoly into account (kill me for saying that.) Considering all of the features included with the OS that we used to pay for-- Browser, media, utils, etc, Microsoft has "given" a lot to maintain their monopoly. While I support competition whole heartedly (and look forward to a day where I can "choose Mac OS to run on my custom intel hardware) I don't think this is an honest assesment. You get a LOT with what you pay for, and there hasn't even been a new version in 4 years. And they still support you with security fixes for FREE (all jokes aside).
Office is no more expensive now than when Word Perfect was still alive and kicking.. And the features keep coming. (Though I gladly use openOffice, myself.)
I think the worry should be "Let's not make this a total monopoly so one company can't hold all the keys to human technology in the future" rather than, man, they're screwing us out of cash.. because I think the sheer volume of units they ship actually causes the price to be CHEAPER, not more expensive.
I guess we'll only find out if Apple sucks it up and makes their OS able to work on Dells.
Here's a blantant example of how Microsoft has everyone in their pocket:
Dell Dimension 2400 w/ Windows XP = $299
Same PC w/ FreeDOS = $319
Now someone tell me how Microsoft prices Windows XP $20 cheaper than the same PC with a free operating system.
More
Maybe the MCSE's shouldn't have put their careers in the hand of one company, then? If MS collapses, and the MCSE's are all out of jobs - well, it's their problem for making a poor career choice. Maybe they should have seen the trend and prepared by learning about it.
Software development, however, will not be affected. There's not much different when you're coding C++ for Windows or Linux. Or Java. Or Perl. Or [insert language here].
There's not much different in using those computers, either. Thunderbird is similar in look and feel to Outlook, OpenOffice.org is similar to MS Office, and Firefox is well, Firefox, and a great number of Windows users are already running it.
The deals they make to certain companies require they sell windows exclusively or at a certain ratio. You proved it yourself. You say theres nothing stopping you from putting linux on a box that came with windows. But getting that box initially without ever paying for a copy of window and starting off with linux is ALOT harder.
Does that figure include the cost incurred by their culture of software neglect?
Should it?
"We are all geniuses when we dream"
- E.M. Cioran
Damn this kind of thing just burns me up. They were convicted of abusing their monopoly and harming the public.
Nothing has changed their practices... not even a little. They continue to do harm. I think they should be brought back into court for a REAL remedy. How can we start a petition to get the Justice Department to charge them for failing to abide by their terms and for continuing to do the things they were convicted of -- i.e. bundling MSIE and all that, and then add everything else we can think of as examples of wrong doing.
If we have a community that wants to see justice, someone who wants to get elected will see that justice is done.
Standards for what? Documents? (HTML, Postscript, PDF, and RTF have all done fine as de-facto standards). Database interface (SQL)? About the only industry that would suffer would be games. Most normal user/office apps can run fine behind a decent platform abstraction layer like Java or a web-client.
Besides, everyone knows it's impossible to make a cross-platform version of Office (*cough* *cough* office 98 *cough*).
Just one potential example - the Office add-on for automating collection letters they tried to develop a few years ago - with a "phone-home" back door. The beta testers were really enthused about having their receivables being logged by the mother ship. How much did it cost the participants to train people to use it, then UN-train them and re-enter everything back in their old systems?
Who knows? Only time will tell what the true cost is.
Is that $10 billion figure net costs or gross costs? If gross, then what are the benefits from same? Isn't that relevant? If something has a $10 gross cost and a $20 gross benefit, that's a net $10 benefit.
If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
Some things never change. The Slashdot crowd is still playing the blame game, working on the assumption that if Windows didn't have a large monopoly, Linux usage would be more widespread.
Still ignoring the fact that the vast majority of people just don't want to use Linux even if given a choice, because it still has serious usability issues that show no signs of being solved. Mostly because even though it is "one OS" it still suffers from the fragmentation that killed UNIX as a viable platform. Instead of kernel/system call fragmentation, it is fragmentation of desktops (KDE, Gnome, etc) and services (different print systems, different X servers, different window managers, each with slightly incompatible ways to cut & paste, etc).
Not to mention how much easier it is for developers to develop for Windows due to the fact that you don't have to worry about a billion different differences between distros, libc versions, kernel branches, etc.
But go ahead and keep blaming Microsoft's business practices... why stop now? It is easier than trying to actually compete for users.
I agree. If I had any moderation points I would mod it 5 insightful. This is precisely the problem: copyright & patents. Copyrights are in effect a government subsidy for monopolies. So some people argue actually enforcing monopoly law alone would be enough, and this certainly seems like something that should be illegal under anti-monopoly laws, if anything should.
Apple's a hardware vendor. They make nice-looking computers, put their OS on there, and what do you know--it works. And when you add another one of their products, you may find it hard to believe, but it again, works. Apple isn't selling an OS to put on any computer, they're selling a complete system that works. How is that a monopoly?
Given that a bigger part of the professional programming population spends a good deal of its time working around the non conformity of Microsoft web browsers to W3C standards and trying to reverse engineer Microsoft protocol descriptions right out of the fairy tale real, I would say the annual cost of the Microsoft monopoly is much bigger. If Microsoft had to pay pack all the costs caused by their behavior and their monopoly even with 50 billion+ in the bank they probably would be bankrupt in a handful of years.
Microsoft is a software OS vendor, one of few.
Apple is not a convicted monopolist.
Microsoft is.
There's your answer as to why Apple is not a "worse monopoly." They aren't even a monopoly! They are a hardware vendor with software for their hardware. You are welcome to put a Linux variant on their hardware instead. You are welcome to buy from many other hardware vendors instead.
I'm sick of this type of argument, usually seen in political circles. Target A gets caught doing some harm, so partisan followers change the subject with "Yeah? Well Target B is just as bad, so let's talk about them instead." How about we just keep talking about Target A, the subject at hand.
If Windows were on equal footing with BeOS, Amiga Workbench, and OS/2; if Word were on par with Wordperfect and AmiPro; and if Bill Gate and Steve Job saw eye to eye... Australia would be $200,000,000 richer? Not only that, but the differential between the cost of hardware and software would stay perpetually where it was in 1995?
Wouldn't training costs for sys admins and secretaries be higher if Windows and Word weren't de facto standards. Wouldn't developers be overworked if the market demanded every consumer program be ported for Atari ST and FreeBSD?
Isn't this whitepaper tantamount to saying Australia would save $234,670 million if only Spiro Agnew hadn't been convicted of tax evasion?
"Give a man a fish and he will ask for tartar sauce and French fries!"
By your logic, then Kleenex has a monopoly on Kleenex Tissues, Clorox has a monopoly on Clorox Bleach, and Domino's has a monopoly on Domino's Pizza.
Apple is not a monopoly.
"What do you think?" "I think 'What, do you think?!'"
If you want people to use your forum and add value to your service, then they need to trust that insightfull comments that they make will be appreciated and moded insightfull - and even more so they need to trust that they have reasonable protections from large corporate interests that might try to manipulate a forum's discussion or content.
Translation. You need to do something about the relentless modding down of anybody who attacks Microsoft and Microsoft's "intellectual property" regime. I have been posting here since 98 and have made over 1300 posts and know a baised interest when I see it, and at least since 2002 almost every post, without fail, that questions Microsoft's "intellectual property" regime has been attacked without reguard to how truthfull or insightfull it is. I'm sorry, but in this case it seems like the moderation system is just not working.
Please, again, I'm dying for anyone for anyone to explain to me how my parent post is redundant or overrated. And please, if you don't like what I'm saying, or think I'm just a loud mouth, then I beg you, kick me off of slashdot - it wouldn't hurt me to have an excuse to start my own blog.
They could put nothing on the drive and it would cost more than the XP install because that is additional time and effort in tracking these low volume machines through the factory.
It's really not that hard to understand.
Very little. If the 'standar' didn't exist, people would have been managing systems as they alsways have. There were plenty of UNIX, VAX, Netware, and other SA's in existence long before Microsoft had a network OS. If something should happen to Windows, there will be others. My contention is there would be far better security. I don't doubt there are some good MCSE's but there are many many more who have no practical experience outside Windows. As such, they have very little knowledge of serial networks, console commands, and in many cases ethernet and TCP/IP. They are poor troubleshooters often times because they've never had to carry over any previous principles. I've had an MCSE tell me point blank that something couldn't be done that I'd been doing for quite some time. Why? "Microsoft even says so." Microsoft has poisoned these SA's and set them up for an all Microsoft world. As such, these folks have a hard time interacting in multiplatform environments. In the end, they owe it to themselves to learn alternatives.
I do find it interesting that you see the only two alternatives as being Microsoft in it's current monopolistic form, or no Microsoft at all.
Personally I was thinking more along the lines of
You would seem to think that any such concession would inevitably lead to the destruction of the software giant. The only way I can see in which that might follow is if MS' offerings have become utterly debased and devoid of all value. A damning indictment coming from an apparent support of Microsoft. It's also somewhat further than I'd have been prepared to go myself.
You don't think you might be guilty of a touch of the old groupthink yourself, do you?
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
That being said - the market for commodity software is dead. The future is in customization and embedded systems. This will continue, and will allow engineers like me to continue to get paid.
Furthermore, I don't believe that all applications must be open source. Operating Systems? Absolutely. It's the ultimate level playing field for the application space.
And as far as it not changing: Whether I'm writing a machine control module, Windows or Linux as teh OS doesn't change much.
What in the name of CMOT Dibbler has the cost of hiring a secretary got to do with the inflated margin MS charge for office?
Do you have any idea what OS's used to cost before MS came out?
And this would relevant because...?
There are a lot of things not to like about MS, but I really don't think anyone can claim they've done anything but drive prices down to the point where computers are affordable for the masses.
I'm inlined to credit Moore's law for that one, personally. Perhaps you'd like to explain how this one works?
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
I'm surprised so many Slashdotters come to the defense of Microsoft in response to a story that merely says the obvious. Of course Microsoft's monopoly creates losses! If it didn't, it'd be the first monopoly in history not to! The fact that it is a monopoly, and that it uses business practices that are illegal (for good reason) isn't even under debate. They've been convicted of the charges already!
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
How much does IE alone cost in extra web dev expense? It seems to add about 20% to dev time in my experience to deal with IE bugs and inabilities. And it keeps us from using some features that'd make life much easier or make our products more useful.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
Microsoft and Apple are monopolies. But they are different kinds, illegal and legal.
Apple, from the beggining, is a monopoly by design. They make the computer and the OS. (not including the brief period where Apple allowed 3rd parties to make mac's)
MS, as much as we may hate to admit it, became a monopoly by choice. Business's and consumers chose MS. Along the way to monopoly'hood MS used it's influence to stifle competition. When you are not a monopoly you can get away with monopolistic practices. So MS used all the dirty tricks (which weren't dirty when they were smaller) to get where they are today.
Now MS, the monopoly, is no longer a monopoly of choice, they are a monopoly of because of the lack of choice. Sure you could always argue that there is choice. You could buy a Mac, our build your own box and install linux instead of using Windows. That's all great to say but the bottom line is that it's just to expensive for that to be a viable choice. It's not just about the hardware but all the custom software and process's that will only work in an MS environment. Transitioning from MS takes a lot of time and money, you can do it, but many factors are working against you.
But being a monopoly even the kind that is MS, is not illegal. What's illegal using using your monopoly position to stifle competition in markets which you do not compete in directly. Or to use your position to influence companies that are not in your market to prvent other from entering your market. (think netscape and bundeling) For example, Why do people buy Dell's over Gateway's? Price and service. (other factors as well, but the vast majority of the time it boils down to price and service.) So Dell wants to sell Linux boxes, MS says "no way, if you do we will raise the price you pay for Windows $100 and lower the price Gateway pays by $100."
This would kill Dell. They would be at a total competitive dis-advantage and I doubt they would survive it without giving in to MS's demands. So, the easy solution? Don't sell linux... Or sell linux, but still pay MS for the copy of Windows per box. In fact the deal might be, make the exact same linux box more expensive than the windows box.
Apple may be a monopoly, but they are a monopoly of their nitch. There are plenty of alternatives, just no alternatives if you want a Mac. Guess what? That's how it is and that's ok. Lot's of alternatives to BMW, but none if you want the BMW.
But in a semi-related note, if Apple can maintain and grow it's position in the digital music market, expect to see the record labels start suing Apple for unfair monopolistic practices. (this is years down the road, when downloadable music is the norm, and hard copies are the exception.)
Freedom, man freedom! You have to remember, the freedoms you want to take away from businesses are also freedoms that will be taken away from you! And how dare you try to limit other people's freedoms just because YOU don't like something. If you don't like a product or a company, don't support it by buying it! If that's not enough, get on the news and persuade people to boycott etc...but please, don't try to limit my freedoms as a consumer or as a business with government force! Remember, the only true monopoly is your government--it is your government that doesn't give you a choice. You HAVE to pay taxes, you HAVE to obey laws, or you will go to jail or get shot. In the business world, you always have a choice (unless govt. interferes).
I think, therefore I doh.
Put the average end-user in front of two identical machines, ready to load. Each with one Ethernet card, one webcam, one HP inkjet printer, one external USB/Firewire device, one HD, one DVD burner, one dial-up modem. Give them Windows XP Home retail for one and Fedora Core 3 for the other. The assignment: by yourself with no external references or help, install each one and have all peripherals and harware working. You may only connect to the net to download drivers but may NOT research anything. You have to go with the interfae and help files immediately availible with the OS in question.
I guarantee you it will be Windows XP Home every single time that is totally or mostly successful. The webcam alone will be enough to prevent the FC3 build from reaching totality. The second most problematic will be the external USB or Firewire device. The third will be the modem and fourth will be the printer.
People can whine about there being a monopoly when the Linux would comes up with a disto that is as easy to use, as well supported, has as wide support for hardware as easily, and is so easy to maintain as Windows. Of course, the method Microsoft chose to follow to this plateau also came with a lot of tradeoffs on stability and security but any Linux zealot who claims Linux is secure and stable is lying blatantly. If Linux was so stable, or any *nix for that matter, would you need to have (you@yourbox)# kill [process id] in your toolbox never mind the legendary issues with the quirks of the most common *nix tools?
Here's a neat one. Load up the Stardock Object Desktop software suite on a WinXP box. Load up xcompmgr w/KDE on the FC3 box. Make each work. I guarantee the xcompmgr on FC3 will be so unstable and resource hogging as to make the machine useless, illustrating the claim of those who put it in, that is is unstable. Not so with SOD. Neat shadows, transparancy, zoomers like OSX, etc. Eye candy in abundance.
All that said, I use FC3 every day at home. But I have no blinders on that it is a techies' OS and NOT a casual end-user OS. I've been supporting Windows since before most of the anti-Microsoft crowd began their inane tinfoil hat FUD ranting against Redmond and if there is one central truth to it that I've learned, that it is very stable and secure IF YOU KNOW WHAT YOU ARE DOING (with the exception of Millenium Edition which sucked donkey balls, especially on HP Pavillions).
I guarantee you that should any distro of Linux of tomorrow become equal to the ease of use and intuitiveness of Windows of today, it will be equally open to user error because that is the nature of the situation. The only practical way to shield against user error is to make the doing of things so hard that it discourages the attempt. The only practical way to make the system easy to use for total idiots is to make it childishly open and easy to do the slightest thing.
I wouldn't sell ANY version of Linux preloaded on consumer PCs aimed at casual end-users because as someone who's supported them for years on end, I know they won't even read their VCR manuals to stop the clock from flashing 12:00. They won't have truck with RPMs and dependency never mind makefiles and builds.
If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
what about the bulk of VB programmers out there? they outnumber real programmers 10 to 1. and imagine all the webdesign people curled in a ball when asp disappears. (asp=visual basic for webapps)
personally I would LOVE to see it. VB only recently forced good programming (and only if you have strict turned on.)
Many companies will find themselves stuck having to pay real wages and hire real programmers instead of hiring discount VB programmers.
yes it will change things, PHB's will argue for the worse, everyone else will argue for the better.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
That makes a fairly major assumption. It could just as easily be true that dropping prices led an explosion in personal computing and that Microsoft owes its success to hitching a ride on the IMB brand name.
Certainly there was an explosion in the field personal computers in the early 80s: Commodore, Acorn, Sinclair to name but a few. All released home computers before the PC. So it seems that the costs were already dropping then, and that increased microprocessor use would have driven the price down anyway.
The reason MS did so well was because they had the OS on the platform that emerged dominant. And the reason for this dominance is that IBM legitimised personal computing with the IBM PC. Business bought PCs, and people bought a home computer to be compatible with work.
As far as the cost of hiring a secretary, that's what it would require for me to create the documents that I'm able to create in Word, Excel, and Powerpoint and to continue to do my work.
That's assuming no other options exist besides a human secretary or MS software.
Generally speaking, a good way to value a product is to compare the pricing of your alternatives.
I entirely agree. OpenOffice is free by the way. Thanks for playing!
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
Losses, perhaps, over some ideal market -- a perfectly competitive market.
No, losses over a more competitive market. The more competitive the market, the lower the losses. In a perfectly competitive market, the losses are zero.
No markets are, in reality, perfect competition.
Doesn't matter. A lot of markets are close enough that the losses due to lack of perfect competition are very small. Even in moderately competitive markets like soft drinks, the economic losses are still much smaller than in a major monopoly like Microsoft.
There are huge barriers to entry in the OS world, simply because an OS is not just an OS but also a suite of programs, drivers, etc. That alone prevents the market from being perfectly competitive.
Undoubtedly. But the OS market doesn't need to be perfectly competitive. That'd be nice, but it's not essential. The losses could be minimized by making it more competitive. That's the whole idea behind anti-trust legislation. There are certain natural monopolies that are inevitable (power companies are a classical example). However, in order to maintain some semblence of efficiency in the system, monopolies must be regulated, and prevented from doing things to make the situation worse. In the case of Microsoft, there is a lack of controls that should be there.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...