Slashdot Mirror
Is Microsoft Still a Monopoly?
Microsoft Windows still dominates the desktop. But in many
other areas,
including Web servers and supercomputing, Microsoft is just one player
among many, and often a weak player at that. On the gaming side,
despite the latest xBox getting all kinds of media buzz as "the"
console to buy, Sony's Playstation outsells the xBox at
least two to one, and many analysts expect Sony to widen that
gap even more when Playstation 3 comes out in the Spring of
2006. On the Internet, MSN and MSN Search are so far behind AOL and
Google that it isn't funny. And even on the desktop, Linux
keeps getting stronger, while Mac OS X is commonly accepted as more
reliable, secure, and user-oriented than Windows. So why do
we keep saying Microsoft is a monopoly?
Microsoft (Slowly) Moves
Away from
Monopolistic Behavior
If a major IT user tells a Microsoft salesperson that he or she is thinking about switching to Linux, Microsoft will usually come back with a cut-price offer, something the company never used to do. Microsoft also now sells something called Windows Starter Edition in some parts of the world -- supposedly for as low as $37 or $38 (US) in Thailand, including a basic version of Microsoft Office. In other words, Microsoft is starting to compete on price, which is not monopoly-style behavior.
This does not mean Microsoft has suddenly adopted a "let's all love one another" attitude.I believe Microsoft is getting more concerned about interoperability not out of goodness, but because of market pressure. But in the long run, as long as Microsoft stops treating every other operating system and file format as some sort of devilspawn, life is a little easier for those of us who would rather not use their products, and that's what really matters.
Microsoft Explorer No Longer Rules the Online World
A majority of desktop computer users may still run Microsoft's Internet Explorer browser, but it no longer has 95% market share. In a 2002 book, and again last year in an online article, I warned Web designers not to make IE-only sites, just as in the (distant) past I'd warned them not to make Netscape-only sites. Some listened. Some didn't.
Firefox adoption may have slowed in 2005, but it certainly hasn't stopped. Opera has become enough of a force that we hear rumors about first Google, then Microsoft, buying it. In any case, whether MSIE is currently running on 90% of all desktops or on only 70% (as a few surveys indicate), it is becoming less popular every month. Now Microsoft has decided that Explorer is no longer fit for Mac users, so its market share will drop even more. Sure, there's a new version of Explorer coming out, but it isn't going to help the millions of "legacy" Windows users who don't want to buy XP. If they want modern browser functionality, they must switch to Firefox, Opera or another non-Microsoft browser.
'The Network is the Computer'
I don't think this is quite true today, if by "the network" we're talking about applications delivered over the Internet instead of over well-maintained LANs. Back in October I explained why I don't think Internet-delivered applications are quite "there" yet. More recently, Salesforce.com had an outage that angered many of its (claimed) 350,000 subscribers. Worse, ZDNet blogger Phil Wainewright pointed out that Salesforce.com compounded the problem, and possibly made users leery of all Internet-delivered applications' claims of "99.9% reliability," by poor communication with its users.
Most of the Web 2.0 (and even Web 3.0) stuff that's getting so much hype these days is not OS-dependent. You can run things like Google Maps on Linux, Mac OS, Unix, and even Windows, using any standards-compliant browser you choose.
Even Microsoft is trying to get into the Web 2.0 game. I got a press release from their PR people that included this sentence:"And if you enjoy taking a drive to check out your neighborhood’s Christmas lights visit this great Windows Live Local developer application at http://msnsearch101.com/searchmap."
I found this online utility's behavior strange and primitive, not nearly up to the standards of Google Maps and some of the mashups based on it. "Ah," I thought, "that's probably because I'm trying to use it with Linux and Mozilla." So I turned to my one Windows (XP) computer and checked the site with both Firefox and Explorer. For some reason the map background didn't load at all in Firefox, on Windows, and its behavior in Explorer, on Windows, was just as clunky as it was in Mozilla, on Linux.
If this is supposed to be a sample of what Windows Live Local can do, I don't think Microsoft is headed for any kind of monopoly -- or even much market share -- in the online map business. Not only that, it makes me wonder how good their promised Microsoft® Office Live is going to be. If even a quarter of the rumors we've heard about Google and Sun joining up to produce a Webified version of OpenOffice.org are true, I suspect Microsoft is going to be a distant also-ran in the (inevitable) Internet-delivered office software business, too.
Hundreds of Thousands of Competitors
It's fun to play the "Google is cooler than Microsoft" game and talk about how Google, not Microsoft, has become the hot place for top-end programmers to work if they want to make their mark on the world, but even Google can only hire a tiny fraction of the world's software development talent. There are over 100,000 Open Source projects on SourceForge.net (which is owned by the same company that owns Slashdot), and SourceForge.net is but one of many Open Source and Free Software hosting services out there. There are literally millions of programmers working on Free and Open Source Software, plus countless others working on personal proprietary projects.
We've all heard -- probably too many times -- the old saw, "If you have enough monkeys banging randomly on typewriters, they will eventually type the works of William Shakespeare." This may or may not be true. But it is certain that if you put millions of programmers in front of millions of computers and let them do whatever they want, some of them will turn out brilliant, world-changing work. Even if 999 out of 1000 of our putative programmers work on established projects or never finish what they start, that still gives us thousands of potential world-changing software projects, most of which won't be developed by Google (or Microsoft) employees.
I've been to India, and the smartest programmers I met there weren't working for outsourcing mills but worked for themselves. I'm sure there are plenty of self-employed programmers in China, Brazil, Kenya, and almost everywhere else on this planet, too, and there are certainly plenty of them here in the United States. And, all over the world, millions of programmers have day jobs doing routine work for corporate employers to put food on the table, and do their "real work" at home, at night.
Neither you nor I nor Google's management nor Microsoft's management know what might be going on right now in the mind of a brilliant Saudi woman with a computer science degree who can't work outside her home because her country's laws keep her from mixing with men who aren't related to her. There may be a poorly-dressed young man coding furiously in a Beijing Internet cafe, while you read this article, whose new operating system will make all current ones obsolete -- and you may not learn about his work until it shows up in a Chinese-made $100 laptop computer.
When Bill Gates and his friends started Microsoft, it was one of very few companies that sold nothing but personal computer software, and the others were so small that Microsoft managed to buy most of its competitors -- or at least license their best work or hire away their best programmers. Back then, programmers were scarce and expensive, as were the computers they programmed on. Now there are both programmers and computers all over the world, linked together by the Internet. The Internet not only helps programmers collaborate with each other across geographic boundaries, but allows them to distribute their work without shipping physical products.
The only reason to have a software company's employees work in an office these days is control, both of employees' schedules and of what they work on. Self-motivated geniuses have no need of offices and may even resent being asked to show up at one on a regular schedule, which means that many of the world's best programmers will never work for Google, Microsoft or any other company. Instead, they'll start their own software companies or, in many cases, Open Source-based consultancies.
So Microsoft doesn't face a few dozen competitors, as it did in the 1980s, but hundreds of thousands. And these competitors are spread all over the world. This kind of competition is a lot harder to co-opt, buy out or fend off than competition from a single company, a la Netscape, or even from a group of companies as substantial as IBM, Sun, Oracle, and their computing industry peers.
Competition has Forced Microsoft to Improve its Products
Microsoft may no longer be able to hire all the top programmers it wants, but there is already plenty of talent among its 60,000-plus employees, and they have done some excellent work in recent years. Windows XP is immeasurably better and more stable than Windows ME or Windows 98. The next generation of Explorer will have many of the modern browser features that those of us who use Firefox or Opera have gotten accustomed to. Microsoft Office may not have some of the features OpenOffice.org users take for granted, like a built-in graphics utility, the ability to act as a front end for industrial-strength free databases like MySQL, and the ability to save your work in 30+ different Open and proprietary formats, including PDF. But Microsoft Office today is a lot better than it was 10 years ago, and the next version may even use a sort-of free XML file format that may not be as open and standardized as the OASIS Open Document Format used by OpenOffice.org, but is less closed and less proprietary than previous Microsoft file formats.
A true monopoly would not need to make these improvements in its products. It would give you whatever it wanted, at whatever price it wanted to charge. It would not be selling cut-down versions of its products at cut-rate prices in developing countries -- many of which, you may note, are rapidly turning into "software developing" countries.
Without Linux, combined with Apple's move to BSD-based Mac OS X, I doubt that Microsoft would have put much development effort into Windows. They sure didn't do much with Explorer between the time they crushed Netscape and the time when Firefox started making a big splash, did they?
The U.S. antitrust case against Microsoft wasn't about the company being a monopoly (which courts agreed that it was at the time), but about illegal misuse of that monopoly. That case was settled in a way that left Microsoft essentially unharmed, but with a judge overseeing its actions for five years, a time period that is going to end before long.
The Age of the Software Monopoly is Over
IBM tried to create a monopoly in the business desktop computer business, but failed to hold onto its market-leading position as dozens, then hundreds, and later thousands of competitors made better/faster/cheaper PCs. Even today, while Dell is the world's largest personal computer vendor, if you add up all the market share reports from major computer vendors in this C|Net article, you'll see that they account for around 60% -- not 100% -- of total sales, with smaller companies getting the rest. (And some of those companies are *really* small, like the one-man Bradenton, Florida, shop where my sailing buddy Gene just bought his latest home computer.)
The personal computer hardware business has become totally demonopolized, decentralized, democratized, and internationalized. If you have enough mechanical ability to assemble components neatly (and enough sales ability to get people to buy what you make), you can get into it yourself with a very small investment, just as Michael Dell started out reselling computer components and assembling systems in his college dorm room.
Starting a software business takes even less investment. If you're a competent programmer -- or you have a friend who is a competent programmer and you are a whiz-bang marketing person -- you have everything you need to get going. You can either produce and sell proprietary software or customize (and probably install and maintain) Free or Open Source Software for corporate clients. If the Internet is your primary sales and distribution channel, you don't need to live and work in expensive IT business hotbeds like Silicon Valley or Boston, either: JBoss, for example, is based in Atlanta, Georgia; and Digium, the company behind Asterisk, is in Huntsville, Alabama.
There are software businesses springing up all over the place. Most of them are tiny, and few of them will ever get big enough that analyst firms like Gartner or IDC will track their market share (or even notice them). But there are so many of them being started that, in aggregate, they are becoming a more significant market force than any single big software company, even Microsoft.
This doesn't mean Microsoft will be replaced next year by 100,000 startups. The company will still be around, it will still get lots of press, and -- assuming it embraces (but does not keep trying to extend and extinguish) Open Standards -- it will still be a powerful force in the software world.
But no matter what Microsoft does, it will never have a software monopoly again. Nor will any other company. The barriers to entry in the software business have become too low for that to happen, and too many skilled software developers are learning that they can earn at least as much working for themselves as they would by working for big software companies.
Small is Beautiful was a fine book title in 1973. Today, it's a fine description of the software industry's future.
-----
Have something important to say to the Slashdot community? Email roblimo at slashdot period org the complete article (or an article proposal).
If a major IT user tells a Microsoft salesperson that he or she is thinking about switching to Linux, Microsoft will usually come back with a cut-price offer, something the company never used to do. Microsoft also now sells something called Windows Starter Edition in some parts of the world -- supposedly for as low as $37 or $38 (US) in Thailand, including a basic version of Microsoft Office. In other words, Microsoft is starting to compete on price, which is not monopoly-style behavior.
This does not mean Microsoft has suddenly adopted a "let's all love one another" attitude.I believe Microsoft is getting more concerned about interoperability not out of goodness, but because of market pressure. But in the long run, as long as Microsoft stops treating every other operating system and file format as some sort of devilspawn, life is a little easier for those of us who would rather not use their products, and that's what really matters.
Microsoft Explorer No Longer Rules the Online World
A majority of desktop computer users may still run Microsoft's Internet Explorer browser, but it no longer has 95% market share. In a 2002 book, and again last year in an online article, I warned Web designers not to make IE-only sites, just as in the (distant) past I'd warned them not to make Netscape-only sites. Some listened. Some didn't.
Firefox adoption may have slowed in 2005, but it certainly hasn't stopped. Opera has become enough of a force that we hear rumors about first Google, then Microsoft, buying it. In any case, whether MSIE is currently running on 90% of all desktops or on only 70% (as a few surveys indicate), it is becoming less popular every month. Now Microsoft has decided that Explorer is no longer fit for Mac users, so its market share will drop even more. Sure, there's a new version of Explorer coming out, but it isn't going to help the millions of "legacy" Windows users who don't want to buy XP. If they want modern browser functionality, they must switch to Firefox, Opera or another non-Microsoft browser.
'The Network is the Computer'
I don't think this is quite true today, if by "the network" we're talking about applications delivered over the Internet instead of over well-maintained LANs. Back in October I explained why I don't think Internet-delivered applications are quite "there" yet. More recently, Salesforce.com had an outage that angered many of its (claimed) 350,000 subscribers. Worse, ZDNet blogger Phil Wainewright pointed out that Salesforce.com compounded the problem, and possibly made users leery of all Internet-delivered applications' claims of "99.9% reliability," by poor communication with its users.
Most of the Web 2.0 (and even Web 3.0) stuff that's getting so much hype these days is not OS-dependent. You can run things like Google Maps on Linux, Mac OS, Unix, and even Windows, using any standards-compliant browser you choose.
Even Microsoft is trying to get into the Web 2.0 game. I got a press release from their PR people that included this sentence:"And if you enjoy taking a drive to check out your neighborhood’s Christmas lights visit this great Windows Live Local developer application at http://msnsearch101.com/searchmap."
I found this online utility's behavior strange and primitive, not nearly up to the standards of Google Maps and some of the mashups based on it. "Ah," I thought, "that's probably because I'm trying to use it with Linux and Mozilla." So I turned to my one Windows (XP) computer and checked the site with both Firefox and Explorer. For some reason the map background didn't load at all in Firefox, on Windows, and its behavior in Explorer, on Windows, was just as clunky as it was in Mozilla, on Linux.
If this is supposed to be a sample of what Windows Live Local can do, I don't think Microsoft is headed for any kind of monopoly -- or even much market share -- in the online map business. Not only that, it makes me wonder how good their promised Microsoft® Office Live is going to be. If even a quarter of the rumors we've heard about Google and Sun joining up to produce a Webified version of OpenOffice.org are true, I suspect Microsoft is going to be a distant also-ran in the (inevitable) Internet-delivered office software business, too.
Hundreds of Thousands of Competitors
It's fun to play the "Google is cooler than Microsoft" game and talk about how Google, not Microsoft, has become the hot place for top-end programmers to work if they want to make their mark on the world, but even Google can only hire a tiny fraction of the world's software development talent. There are over 100,000 Open Source projects on SourceForge.net (which is owned by the same company that owns Slashdot), and SourceForge.net is but one of many Open Source and Free Software hosting services out there. There are literally millions of programmers working on Free and Open Source Software, plus countless others working on personal proprietary projects.
We've all heard -- probably too many times -- the old saw, "If you have enough monkeys banging randomly on typewriters, they will eventually type the works of William Shakespeare." This may or may not be true. But it is certain that if you put millions of programmers in front of millions of computers and let them do whatever they want, some of them will turn out brilliant, world-changing work. Even if 999 out of 1000 of our putative programmers work on established projects or never finish what they start, that still gives us thousands of potential world-changing software projects, most of which won't be developed by Google (or Microsoft) employees.
I've been to India, and the smartest programmers I met there weren't working for outsourcing mills but worked for themselves. I'm sure there are plenty of self-employed programmers in China, Brazil, Kenya, and almost everywhere else on this planet, too, and there are certainly plenty of them here in the United States. And, all over the world, millions of programmers have day jobs doing routine work for corporate employers to put food on the table, and do their "real work" at home, at night.
Neither you nor I nor Google's management nor Microsoft's management know what might be going on right now in the mind of a brilliant Saudi woman with a computer science degree who can't work outside her home because her country's laws keep her from mixing with men who aren't related to her. There may be a poorly-dressed young man coding furiously in a Beijing Internet cafe, while you read this article, whose new operating system will make all current ones obsolete -- and you may not learn about his work until it shows up in a Chinese-made $100 laptop computer.
When Bill Gates and his friends started Microsoft, it was one of very few companies that sold nothing but personal computer software, and the others were so small that Microsoft managed to buy most of its competitors -- or at least license their best work or hire away their best programmers. Back then, programmers were scarce and expensive, as were the computers they programmed on. Now there are both programmers and computers all over the world, linked together by the Internet. The Internet not only helps programmers collaborate with each other across geographic boundaries, but allows them to distribute their work without shipping physical products.
The only reason to have a software company's employees work in an office these days is control, both of employees' schedules and of what they work on. Self-motivated geniuses have no need of offices and may even resent being asked to show up at one on a regular schedule, which means that many of the world's best programmers will never work for Google, Microsoft or any other company. Instead, they'll start their own software companies or, in many cases, Open Source-based consultancies.
So Microsoft doesn't face a few dozen competitors, as it did in the 1980s, but hundreds of thousands. And these competitors are spread all over the world. This kind of competition is a lot harder to co-opt, buy out or fend off than competition from a single company, a la Netscape, or even from a group of companies as substantial as IBM, Sun, Oracle, and their computing industry peers.
Competition has Forced Microsoft to Improve its Products
Microsoft may no longer be able to hire all the top programmers it wants, but there is already plenty of talent among its 60,000-plus employees, and they have done some excellent work in recent years. Windows XP is immeasurably better and more stable than Windows ME or Windows 98. The next generation of Explorer will have many of the modern browser features that those of us who use Firefox or Opera have gotten accustomed to. Microsoft Office may not have some of the features OpenOffice.org users take for granted, like a built-in graphics utility, the ability to act as a front end for industrial-strength free databases like MySQL, and the ability to save your work in 30+ different Open and proprietary formats, including PDF. But Microsoft Office today is a lot better than it was 10 years ago, and the next version may even use a sort-of free XML file format that may not be as open and standardized as the OASIS Open Document Format used by OpenOffice.org, but is less closed and less proprietary than previous Microsoft file formats.
A true monopoly would not need to make these improvements in its products. It would give you whatever it wanted, at whatever price it wanted to charge. It would not be selling cut-down versions of its products at cut-rate prices in developing countries -- many of which, you may note, are rapidly turning into "software developing" countries.
Without Linux, combined with Apple's move to BSD-based Mac OS X, I doubt that Microsoft would have put much development effort into Windows. They sure didn't do much with Explorer between the time they crushed Netscape and the time when Firefox started making a big splash, did they?
The U.S. antitrust case against Microsoft wasn't about the company being a monopoly (which courts agreed that it was at the time), but about illegal misuse of that monopoly. That case was settled in a way that left Microsoft essentially unharmed, but with a judge overseeing its actions for five years, a time period that is going to end before long.
The Age of the Software Monopoly is Over
IBM tried to create a monopoly in the business desktop computer business, but failed to hold onto its market-leading position as dozens, then hundreds, and later thousands of competitors made better/faster/cheaper PCs. Even today, while Dell is the world's largest personal computer vendor, if you add up all the market share reports from major computer vendors in this C|Net article, you'll see that they account for around 60% -- not 100% -- of total sales, with smaller companies getting the rest. (And some of those companies are *really* small, like the one-man Bradenton, Florida, shop where my sailing buddy Gene just bought his latest home computer.)
The personal computer hardware business has become totally demonopolized, decentralized, democratized, and internationalized. If you have enough mechanical ability to assemble components neatly (and enough sales ability to get people to buy what you make), you can get into it yourself with a very small investment, just as Michael Dell started out reselling computer components and assembling systems in his college dorm room.
Starting a software business takes even less investment. If you're a competent programmer -- or you have a friend who is a competent programmer and you are a whiz-bang marketing person -- you have everything you need to get going. You can either produce and sell proprietary software or customize (and probably install and maintain) Free or Open Source Software for corporate clients. If the Internet is your primary sales and distribution channel, you don't need to live and work in expensive IT business hotbeds like Silicon Valley or Boston, either: JBoss, for example, is based in Atlanta, Georgia; and Digium, the company behind Asterisk, is in Huntsville, Alabama.
There are software businesses springing up all over the place. Most of them are tiny, and few of them will ever get big enough that analyst firms like Gartner or IDC will track their market share (or even notice them). But there are so many of them being started that, in aggregate, they are becoming a more significant market force than any single big software company, even Microsoft.
This doesn't mean Microsoft will be replaced next year by 100,000 startups. The company will still be around, it will still get lots of press, and -- assuming it embraces (but does not keep trying to extend and extinguish) Open Standards -- it will still be a powerful force in the software world.
But no matter what Microsoft does, it will never have a software monopoly again. Nor will any other company. The barriers to entry in the software business have become too low for that to happen, and too many skilled software developers are learning that they can earn at least as much working for themselves as they would by working for big software companies.
Small is Beautiful was a fine book title in 1973. Today, it's a fine description of the software industry's future.
-----
Have something important to say to the Slashdot community? Email roblimo at slashdot period org the complete article (or an article proposal).
This is the most obivious troll bullfuckingshit ever posted on this site.
since when you do fucking linux nerds care about market share and money? you have neither
lololol
Microsoft was declared a monopoly by a court in 1999, but I'm not sure if they ever fit the dictionary definition of monopoly as the submitter seems to now be holding them to:
Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service
Did Microsoft ever have exclusive control of the desktop? Sure, they had a vast majority, but exclusive control? To my knowledge, nothing ever stopped anyone from buying a Mac or running IBM's OS/2 or Linux or any other number of alternatives. I think we can all agree that Microsoft engaged in cut-throat tactics and was legally declared a monopolist but I don't think they exactly fit the dictionary definition.
A monster ate my homework!
.. yes!
How about getting rid of the Microsoft Tax on new computers as well? They may not be a monopoly anymore but why should I pay more for a computer that I don't want Windows installed on?
Microsoft is first and foremost a PC company, and in that area, where Windows still has 90% marketshare and Microsoft dictates which technologies will make it, Microsoft is still a monopoly. Just because they don't have the same kind of influence in other markets doesn't mean that times are changing...it just means Microsoft hasn't had the time to create monopolies there yet.
I believe Microsoft is getting more concerned about interoperability not out of goodness, but because of market pressure.
If you believe any company is concerned about interoperability because their hearts are filled with goodness, I've got a great business venture for you to invest in... click my PayPal link to get started.
Rex is 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
The company has over 90% market share in several segments, and has been tried and convicted of using the monopolistic powers *illegally*. The summary "why do we keep calling Microsoft a monopoly?" is silly. The article could easily have been written by a Microsoft lawyer. The headline looks to be fit for Fox News.
S
Monopoly is NOT about market share. If a product has a large market share it doesn't mean it is monopolizing the market. Monopolizing refers to the manner of conducting business which hurts other competitors.
Consensus is good, but informed dictatorship is better
If this were a comment, it'd be modded down as flamebait, troll, or overrated.
MoM++ - A Classic Expanded - [Master of Magic 1.5]
http://mompp.sourceforge.net/
The first sentence of the question says it all: Microsoft dominates the desktop. It has a monopoly of the PC OS and the Office suite. Those are very significant, costing users hundreds of dollars per machine and accounting for more than 100% of MS's profits. (More, because MS takes what it hopes will be a temporary loss on just about everything else.)
MS has moved into other areas like gaming, but that doesn't end its existing monopolies. And (not a coincidence), MS's products in those new areas are actually quite good, because it has to compete.
The one area of progres is the Web browser. Firefox (and Safari, and now Opera) really has eaten into IE's dominance, and that's good for everyone (including IE users, as it's forcing MS to start work on the browser again).
Google: A Patriot's Letter
Roblimo needs to lay of the juice over the festive season.
But in many other areas, including Web servers and supercomputing, Microsoft is just one player among many, and often a weak player at that.
Or areas like donuts, fire hydrants, day care, and garbage trucks.
Yes.
It's Xbox. Today isn't Choose Your Own Capitalization Day. That's next week.
Quoting (freely) Forrest Gump:
"Monopolist is as monopolist does."
To get a non MS operating system from any major computer vendor and see a monopoly in action.
CDE open sourced! https://sourceforge.net/projects/cdesktopenv/
While Microsoft isn't quite as untouchable as they used to be, especially with the given examples, I still consider them a monopoly.
...not to mention the fact that I could care less about a monopoly on the back-end, and I dare them to monopolize the video game console market...that's laughable at best..
...But the ~90% (number pulled out of ass) of all desktop computers (especially home desktops) running Windows (as if there was any other way to run a computer, ask Joe Sixpack) certainly, to me, constitutes a monopoly.
...it's just the leveraging of that monopoly that burns me up.
Monopoly on what? Home desktops? Certainly. Company desktops? Yes again, but losing their grip slowly. Servers? Not so much, and losing their grip quickly. Video game consoles? Not at all. Supercomputing? Nowhere close.
As a whole they may seem to paint Microsoft as becoming more diverse and, inevitably not in monopoly-position in all its new markets.
But, was it ever Microsoft having monopoly status in the first place that was the problem? No.
Has Microsoft ever successfully Monopolized any market besides its desktop market? No.
.... this monopoly status that is used to label microsoft at every turn has been pointless.
Microsoft being a monopoly isn't even the bad thing.
So what's the evil? It's Microsoft leveraging it's monopoly status, repeatedly. Almost exclusively in the desktop realm. It was tried on the server-side with major initial success, but, that momentum started waning immediately.
Sorry, but so far as I am concerned...Microsoft is still a monopoly. A monopoly that has to try new things (staying competetive, attempting to innovate, etc) to maintain their monopoly status. That may be the signs of a monopoly slipping out of their grip, but it is still a monopoly.
~Dan
Is this business venture being made for the good of the people, or just to succeed and make money?
MoM++ - A Classic Expanded - [Master of Magic 1.5]
http://mompp.sourceforge.net/
It's damn hard to run a 50-person business without Microsoft software. It's next to impossible to do so when you scale up to 100, 1000, or 10,000 people. This alone makes them a de facto monopoly as far as I'm concerned.
Microsoft never had an 'absolute monopoly' on 'computers'; I mean, mainframes, servers, and workstations were MS free for a long time. OTOH, the legal view of antitrust has to do with activities designed to create a barrier of entry and manipulation of the marketplace via control of a key market share; ie, I could be in violation of antitrust laws if I own a steel company and the only railroad into a given area, and refuse to transport steel for other companies. The legal antitrust laws have never been pointed only at textbook, dictionary 'monopolies'.
Even though I am not a Microsoft fanboy, I don't want to see them *destroyed*; I would be extremely happy to see them knocked down to the 65% desktop market share. As much as I like OSX, I don't want to see Apple in sole possession of the desktop market, and as much as I like Linux, I wouldn't want to see it become a monoculture either.
Either way, the answer is not to treat the market leader differently; if we feel that the antitrust laws perform a valuable function (which *I* do) then the laws should be designed so that it's impossible to achieve that market share, rather than change the laws for those who do achieve the neccessary market share.
Thinking outside my Head
Maybe because by the time the justice department did anything about it, it was too little, too late.
Maybe people still call them a monopoly to make Microsoft aware that they have alot of work to do yet in order to work with the industry instead of against it.
Maybe because people know that if left unchecked and unwatched, they would lobby against open standards and fair use.
Maybe because people still think of them as evil and Microsoft does little but to reinforce this belief.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
I skimmed your text and youve missed out an important point. Microsoft runs on more computers than everything else combined. Thats called having monopoly of the market share.
Think of the Windows starter edition. Most OS makers wont deliberately cripple their OS to this extent... Lindows, BeOS etc sold their OS for cheap too but never crippled it since they didnt have a chance their customers would later fork out $150 for the full version. Now THESE guys were competing.
OSX is considered secure and stable. I'd like to have one. But in all the computers at home I dont have a single OSX machine. None of my games or special apps run on apple machines, nor do they run on Linux without emulation. Here we are succumbing to the monopoly you dont think exists. Almost all machines at work are Windows too. We have a few critical apps which keep us on Windows, not our zeal for an OS that requires frequent patches and uncalled-for reboots.
Microsoft never had a real monopoly over the server market, nor on the console market. They just entered the console market, and before unix and linux servers, there was netware and as400. But the desktops out there heavily outnumber servers and consoles. Therefore Microsoft is a monopoly.
Try this. Think of having a non-Linux setup at home and at work. See how well things run for you. Next think of a completely non-Microsoft setup everywhere, home and work. Think of all the obstacles.
"Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
To my knowledge, nothing ever stopped anyone from buying a Mac or running IBM's OS/2 or Linux or any other number of alternatives.
Other than that there are hardly any apps for it? The findings of fact in United States v. Microsoft based its case largely on an "applications barrier to entry".
Good heavens, Microsoft still owns 90% of the consumer PC market. The _only_ competition there is freeware. You know a market is a monopoly when your competition has to give their product away for free to compete. Just because the scope of the competition has become larger (search, internet advertising, etc) doesn't mean they're not a Monopoly in their core market.
Take our schools and universities, for example. While some of the more academic colleges and universities around the country have the foresight to educate their students on Linux, Unix, and Mac, most pay outlandish license fees for Microsoft Windows and it's Office Suite because they feel that students will need these skills most when entering the working community. This amounts to a tax being paid by the students to Microsoft. Hence MS is publicly subsidized, and is a monopoly. It's competitors do not enjoy this.
.NET is the only proof required to show that Microsoft is still acting as a monopoly. They tell all Windows developers that they must now use .NET for all development (whether or not that's true, that's what they tell developers). And they tell people that the way to go about doing .NET development is to buy Visual Studio, usually at the cost of a few hundred dollars. Selling a platform and then selling the only means to develop on that platform is monopolistic. If it weren't thinking it's a monopoly Microsoft would know they couldn't get away with such a thing.
Any commercial platform that wishes to gain more developers gives away the basic tools with the platform (e.g. OS X, Solaris). Only a platform which believes it has a stranglehold on developers would charge for the basic tools.
Developers: We can use your help.
Microsoft is a de facto monopolist in certain markets, including the consumer desktop and many corporates. The monopoly has been handed them on a plate and they have, of course, taken it. In 1988 when I bought my first Mac, there was a bewildering array of word processors. Now there is only one, and Open Office has to copy or die. The browser share of IE is effectively 100% among non-technical users - a de facto monopoly. The market share of Windows among non-technical/specialist consumers is as near 100% as makes no odds.
At the root of this is the simple fact that computers are too difficult for Joe Public and are likely always to be so. Enough people kind of understand how Windows and its apps works that Joe Public can kind of keep things working most of the time. There is simply not the expertise out there to support multiple platforms all with significant market shares. And so long as Microsoft can keep technically competent people busy with release updates, virus checking, feature bloat resulting in user support calls for things they do not really need to do at all...it will continue.
So the answer to your post is that yes, lots of things - lack of knowledge, fear of the unknown, lack of support, existential doubt - stopped many people from buying alternatives and those things are not going away any time soon.
Pining for the fjords
Not really. If you read the article, Rob's points are pretty clear. The point isn't whether Microsoft is filled with goodness and light, but whether they actually exert monopoly power now, in December, 2005. I'm no Microsoft fan, but I have to agree with Rob. There is increasing competition in operating systems, Microsoft has been forced to change its pricing in response to the rise of Linux, and Office is facing new threats that are small right now but could be huge in a year or two.
Microsoft has had a difficult time leveraging its dominance in operating systems and office software. Look at the long uphill battle they've had with the XBox. Their record with media ventures is mixed at best. They're locked in a heated struggle with Google, and in the mean time Yahoo! is stealing a march on MSN.
Rob's piece goes against the conventional Slashdot wisdom, but it makes sense. Many Slashdotters have been arguing for some time that Microsoft reached its peak and is on a downhill slide. MS can't exert monopoly power and simultaneously be losing its grip on the industry. The times are changing. Now the question is, if Microsoft really no longer calls the shots in the industry, what does that mean for the other players like Red Hat, IBM, Apple, and Dell?
p.s. - Would any piece stating Microsoft is no longer a monopoly incur a "that was written by a Microsoft attorney" slur?
p.p.s. - What does Fox News have to do with any of this?
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
"Microsoft also now sells something called Windows Starter Edition in some parts of the world -- supposedly for as low as $37 or $38 (US) in Thailand, including a basic version of Microsoft Office. In other words, Microsoft is starting to compete on price "
Competing with whom?
They are not competing with any market competitor. They are competing with the low income of less wealthy parts of the world, compared to their relatively wealthy home base of the United States.
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
- Their failure to take the web server market-- a market they did not hold four years ago
- Their failure to take the video game market-- a market they did not hold four years ago
- Their failure to take the web search market yet-- a market they did not hold four years ago
- Massive discounts to people considering switching to alternatives.
What a load of nonsense. On points 1-3, nothing has changed since the day Microsoft was declared guilty in the netscape case. Microsoft has taken no new markets, but their monopoly power in the markets they do hold has not lessened one bit. Moreover they have used the control they hold over the markets they do have, such as the operating system and web browser markets, to stand as gatekeeper to many new web technologies, letting some die and some live based on whether adequate support was given in Microsoft Intenet Explorer.On point four, it is extremely humorous you attempt to use incidents such as Windows Starter Edition to try to claim Microsoft lacks a monopoly-- as such machinations are exactly the mechanism by which Microsoft's monopoly power is exerted! Microsoft's monopoly allows them to take actions to maintain that monopoly which would not be so easy to a commercial software company who lacked the monopoly to leverage. One of those actions has been Windows Starter Edition in thailand.
Why the hell would you want volume licensing if you are looking for open source software, seriously?
You have MANY, MANY options that don't involve paying for an OS (or any software)...
Now, to respond to this:
"Is there no easy solution to this problem that Microsoft has created?"
There is a VERY easy solution. Don't buy from people who make you buy Microsoft products. It's not a problem, you have had this option all the time. In fact, it is CHEAPER.
===
Want to avoid paying labor? Build the PC yourself. It's really easy. You buy the parts, screw them together, the manual tells you where things go... you load whatever OS you want, you generally save money on hardware...
If you can't figure out how to build a PC, I don't know why you are complaining about buying Microsoft products from Dell. Might as well consider it 'idiot tax' at that point.
MoM++ - A Classic Expanded - [Master of Magic 1.5]
http://mompp.sourceforge.net/
You must be new here.
Chances are any disscution on Slashdot will degrade into a flamewar about ID/Christianity within 14 posts.
and learn what Monopoly means.
They don't have to dominate every field to be a monopoly in an area. AT&T was broken up for being a monopoly. By the submitter's logic, AT&T was never a monopoly because is was possible to do your banking with other companies...and buy a car that wasn't made by AT&T.
It's been a while since I read an apologia for Microsoft and the assertion that it is not a monopoly. Despite the author's claims, Microsoft still engages in monopolistic practices- including one that is erroneously described as a non-monopolistic practice, which is undercutting the competition whenever possible. The original article uses a too-narrow definition of "monopoly" and then mischaracterizes classic monopolistic practices as non-monopolistic practices. The only reason to do this is to distort reality into a shape mroe to Bill Gates's liking.
The low prices offered in Asian countries is an attempt to undercut Linux growth there, as well as stem piracy.
The overall question of this article is stupid anyway, as MS never had monopolies in anything other than the desktop. That was the whole point of all the antitrust lawsuits against them, they were leveraging that into other markets.
The answer is the first sentence. Microsoft Windows still dominates the desktop. Whether their gaming console is successful, or if their ISP business sucks is *irrelevant*. All these extra factoids are at best a smoke screen so you can pretend you have a reason to ask a question any sane person knows the answer to.
OK, I will declare Microsoft "not a monopoly", in my opinion, the day that I can:
1) Walk in to any major retail chain and purchase an X86 computer
2) Without MS-Windows
3) At a significantly lower price than the same/similar model without MS-Windows
It doesn't really matter what the most "proper" definition of a monopoly is, Microsoft fits it, regardless. How would you feel if you went to buy a car and found that every car on every lot had a Sony casette radio in it? Not only did you have no other choices, you are charged the same or MORE if you try to get a car without a Sony casette radio! Sure, you could rip it out and install something else, but Sony gets your money no matter what... money that you could have used on something else. And the whole radio market suffers because of being stomped on by Sony.
Microsoft is first and foremost a PC company
Microsoft is not a PC company, it's a software company. Just like Apple is not a hardware company, it's a software company. No wait, Apple is a hardware company. Errr....
I am defenseless. Use your button. Mod me down with all of your hatred.
Was this moderated 'flamebait' for lack of an 'incoherent' tag?
Your telling me that said "mom and pop" store can get me volume pricing like Dell can? My point is why can't I just get a stripped down computer from Dell for a little cheaper, instead of having to go to a Mom and Pop store and pay more for the parts and labour? I don't think they would be willing to offer me $500 bucks for a full system with no O/S installed. Is there no easy solution to this problem that Microsoft has created?
Microsoft has not created the problem, *consumers* have created the problem. Consumers chose DOS over Mac and OS/2 1.x. Consumers chose Windows over OS/2 2.x. Consumers have voted with their wallet for computer vendors that provide the lowest prices. As you indicate these low prices are brought about by volume discounts. The per CPU charge is part of the deal that vendors *chose*. Why did they choose this, because 99.x% of customers *want* MS products and this gives them the lower prices that consumers demand.
You can be religious or cheap. If you want to be a purist then buy from Mom and Pop. Not only will your conscience be clean but you will be supporting *local* business. If you do not like the large corporation's bottom line decision making and their ignoring of minority market segments do not do business with them! Do business with the small local shops that are more responsive to your personal situation and minority market segments. To continue with the "consumers are doing it to themselves theme": Customer focused Mom and Pop shops are not being killed off by WalMart, they are being killed off by *consumers* that choose to shop at WalMart. It's the same in many markets/industries.
Arguing MS doesn't dominatate each and every major IT industry is a weak argument. The notion only suggests how bad things are. Not too insightful, i know, rather a blunt, dull reality.
Stop invalid scientific research. Ask your local scientists to feed their lab rats with a phytoestrogen-free chow.
This is boasting about how many free hosting accounts you have. There aren't anywhere near that many real projects. Most of those 100,000 "projects" are empty, or junk. Even many of those listed as "production-stable" have no content whatsoever behind them. Among the real projects, there are lots like this:
SourceForge ought to purge all the projects that have nothing behind them and have been idle for a year, but that would reduce the number that the CEO of VA Linux/Systems/Software/Burgers likes to boast about.
There's good stuff on SourceForge, but the number of real projects is probably about 10% of the claimed number.
In this post the author said, "Microsoft will usually come back with a cut-price offer, something the company never used to do".
In some form that is true. Originally Microsoft gave away the OS with the computer just so they could get their foot in the door. They got people so locked into it that they knew if they had a unique interface then people couldn't leave.
When people start to get a handle on a small application, Microsoft builds that functionality into the operating system. When someone tries to generate the same "look and feel" or just has a name somewhat like their's. They sue until they get their way.
Microsoft Always Will Be A Monopoly. They use the tactics of a monopoly and the only way to fix it is to not use or purchase their software and hardware. There are plenty of other solutions and if you have the capacity to be using another. You should be.
Firefox 2.0 - Spell Rightly.
While I agree with the gist I think it's a little early for a declaration of victory, whether it's inevitable or not. The 'axis of evil' that pushes lock-in, erosion of rights and invasion of privacy are still very strong. Before we can claim the day of the proprietary software monopoly is over IMHO the following things have to happen...
Let's list some of them.
This article reads as if somebody drafted it while drunk and didn't bother reading through it afterwards or refine it in any way. I feel sad that people are getting paid for this drivel. Slashdot, it's good that you are attempting to be more than the linkathon you've been in recent years, what with Zonks articles and this, but that doesn't mean you can publish any old drivel and expect people to lap it up. Some thought has to go into it.
accounting for more than 100% of MS's profits
Over 100%? If Microsoft has somehow managed to have it's software generate over 100% of its profit, it deserves it! It's finally pioneering into new territory! Huzzah! It has done what no other company has done before!
Before you die, you see DoubleRing...
"And even on the desktop, Linux keeps getting stronger, while Mac OS X is commonly accepted as more reliable, secure, and user-oriented than Windows. So why do we keep saying Microsoft is a monopoly?"
I'm very old and when you pull my leg that hard, there's a good chance you'll dislocate my hip.
You had me there for a second though...
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
The gov's only answer to monopolies is to break them apart. Which might have worked.
The answer was to 'force' OEM's to accept a couple of other OSs' installed their computers. Maybe an easy to use Linux and a BSD distr. And also 'force' software makers to make their programs compatible with the other OSs'.
Then YES. Microsoft is a fucking monopoly.
Microsoft owns the Desktop computing market.
They've never had a monopoly anywhere else. If you were an enterprise user, you DID have alternatives to NT and IIS. It wasn't always Linux, but there were alternatives.
However, at any point between Windows 95 and XP did you EVER have the option of buying a PC that was dual boot linux/beOS/AtheOS/*BSD/INsert OS of choice AND Windows? No? Guess what then? That's a monopoly.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
Just because they have not been able to expand the monopoly into servers and search does not mean that the monopoly goes not exist. MS Windows is still the de facto OS and development platform for the micro computer. MS is still pushing IE as the primary browser, but decreasing the platforms on which it was inevitable.
Really, nothing can be inferred until we see what happens in Vista. Will MS continue to abuse the desktop monopoly? Will we see the old tricks applied to Google? We will see true interoperability with Linux, or merely tools to allow the Unix people to continue transitioning to MS.
All the positing in the article only applies to the current situation in which MS is weak and have not been able to use thier money to destroy the compition. And even if this context, the supposition makes no sense. The MS-AOL attempted merger could only benifit MS in the sense that it could be used to destroy Google. We can only assume that AOL realized that MS uses it parnters to gain expertise, then throws them out when they are done.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
"Is Microsoft a monopoly" lol
Tabloids already discovered the 'ride it up' and 'ride it down' two bites at the cherry formula. When something is in the news you boost it (with >100 stories on Slashdot for the Xbox 360 recently), and then when that isn't working any more you 'ride it down' with exposes of it taking drugs, naked longlens shots and navel gazing 'why did we love it anyway' stories.
Let's hope the tabloid format increases sales!
Patents affectively render any alternatives irrelevant. Not every .NET library can be rewritten without patent licensing from Microsoft. And so far it appears not every library can even be called without patent licensing. A Visual Studio license is required to have access to every .NET library written by Microsoft. So good luck using anything else as a complete alternative. You may get the language but you can't get all of the libraries.
Check ECMA's requirements on patents. The license only needs to be available, not free. Also note there are patented communications protocols and document formats, so you can never have complete access to the platform without permission from Microsoft.
Developers: We can use your help.
Microsoft is most definitely still an Monopoly. It's a versy specific sector, but it's a monopoly. the idea of saying MS isn't a monopoly because it doesn't rule the world is retarded.
If Microsoft weren't a monopoly, I wouldn't own any Windows licenses and yet I own several. Death to the Microsoft tax.
It still exists as if I go to Best Buy, Dell, Circuit City and others I MUST buy Microsoft on the products presented and their is not an option to exclude it. Dell is showing a crack in the M$ armor though, I believe you can get a very high ended desktop with Linux. But I think most Linux users want something less than $1000.
This means it is a monopolistic practice called "bundling". Even though it is against the law in the US, it is not enforced.
Not only is Microsoft still a monopoly (you don't have to be a monopoly in everything to be a monopoly, Standard Oil and Bell only dominated one defined area) and WORSE than this they are a monopoly who uses that position to effectively engage in "dumping" on other segments by using monopoly revenues to subsidise new businesses. This is also against most trading rules but oddly MS get away with it.
XBox is the perfect case in point, they continue to push a non-profitable model using subsidies from the parent company in order to get to a market dominant position where they will make a profit.
God knows how this is WTO compliant let alone compliant with US and European business rules.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
why I like Google so much ... not just because it is good for searching or has lots of 'innovative' products. But because they are starting to become a monopoly on the internet-ad market. And got there in a way that ads have become invisble for me.
I don't really feel like I have an option to consider alternatives for the desktop other than windows and office. At home yes, but professionally? No. It's just not viable. Until we reach a point where it is, then yes, they have a monopoly.
Because my grand ma knows about it..
Grandparent referred to "monopolizing". Technically, monopoly refers to a state of the market where one seller has power over the market in a good or service. Monopolization[1], on the other hand, refers to a process comprising anticompetitive actions taken by a seller in the market in order to build a monopoly. You don't have to have a monopoly to monopolize, although having a monopoly opens up several techniques that a seller in an ordinary condition of monopolistic competition does not have.
[1] Called "monopolisation" in the British Commonwealth.
As long as I continue to get Microsoft Word files in the E-mail when text would have sufficied, or (when not) instead of something generically supported like PDF, *and* when people look at me funny when I try to explain that Microsoft Word isn't a general format (doesn't everybody have Word? it comes with all computers now!), Microsoft will effectively be a monopoly.
When I can request that that particular proprietary format not be used as the only or default format for broadcast E-mails without being seen as a zealot, then Microsoft may no longer be (effectively) a monopoly.
The same goes to some extent for PowerPoint files. It bugs me to no end that at scientific conferences, we're told we must use PowerPoint.
-Rob
Not every .NET library can be rewritten without patent licensing from Microsoft.
Yes they can if Microsoft has already granted a permissive patent license on the core components of the .NET framework, namely those which have been submitted to ECMA. If it turns out that System.Windows.Forms is encumbered, that just means that all new apps will be developed on Gtk# instead.
I'd agree that MS is losing a lot of the "power" that owning the desktop used to give them, but not for many of the reasons cited there.
I think, rather, "the desktop" has just becoming less important.
It's not just about who has the best search engine, either. Yahoo's *integration* of messenger, email, a friendster-style network, blogging, email/webforum groups, customized homepage, etc. is more impressively useful than whatever OS and browser I choose to access those things.
Or rather, all those sorts of things combined are becoming more of what I consider "my operating system" to be than my wallpaper or even the contents of my local hard drive.
Google is on a slightly different path, but headed in the same direction, I think. I use gmail, blogger, googlenews, google maps - their integration is pretty terrible compared to Yahoo's - as is MS' integration of the piecemeal "online apps" that it has picked up - but google's stuff just seems to work better for me and I'm already there. Whereas Yahoo's implementation is almost compelling enough to get me to switch over to it wholesale, MS is doin' what now?
Jeff Freeman
Microsoft still plays hardball. They want to be a monopolist and they try to squash anything that gets in their way. They have been bending over backwards to keep Massachusetts from adopting an open document format as a standard. There is a good chance that they tried to smear the person in charge of the MA process in the press. They have made offers to make Office formats open but these have been found to be bogus when looked at closely.
...
Clearly, what Microsoft wants is that to access the public records you have a right to get, you have to use their product. If it smells like a monopoly and it tastes like a monopoly and it feels like a monopoly
while much of his argument is terribly flawed, misguided, and wishful thinking I found this line the most amusing, and I almost started laughing out loud.
"Now Microsoft has decided that Explore is no longer fit for Mac users, so its market share will drop even more."
Wishful thinking anyone? Or is he counting the 20 people still using IE on MAC as enough market share to count?
Seriously, like any MAC users are really using IE... they are almost all using Safari or Firefox. MS dropped it because there was no point to wasting time on it for the MAC, it's a puny market and people don't want to use the product in it. Why waste the resources?
I agree an not only force them to make it cross compatible but fully cross comptable. like I can run neverwinter nights in linux... but sound options are missing and it runs slow. and there is no toolkit. driver's are especially important. all hardware manufacturer's should be forced to develop fully featured cross platform drivers. or open source there drivers. it's not like we buy hardware for drivers usually anyway. we just want good hardware that works in our os. infact I'd dare say some companies would increase sales if they open sourced there drivers. you still have to pay for the hardware, drivers are usually free.
50 might work. than try to scale up to 100, 1000, 10k people. The bad choice _is_ Microsoft.
If you add a few business units which do not have a monopolistic market share to a business which does, then the monopolistic part of the business still enjoys a monopoly.
Still today it is practically impossible in most places to buy a new PC without a Microsoft operating system. Apple? There is no real hardware choice accompanying a Mac purchase - certainly bang per buck Apple hw is expensive - and so Apple is not really a competitor as far as the average computer user is concerned.
Microsoft is still a monopoly on the desktop for all practical purposes.
Paul Beardsell
Just because you are a monopoly doesnt mean there are ZERO alternatives. It just means the alternatives are so small in marketshare compared to you that you still control the game.
Oh, and dont forget they were legally declared one.. I dont see any change in that either.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Micorsoft is a monopoly -- they have been found so in both the EU and US. They still have a stranglehold on corporate and home desktops, and produce the only office productivity software that you can use in a lot of business environments.
There is nothing wrong or illegal about being a monopoly. If you make the best baskets and control 90 percent of the market, then good on you. What is illegal is using your dominant position in one market to abuse another. If, for example, you colluded with vendors to make sure your baskets were the only ones buyers saw, or forced vendors to pay you even for every basket sold that wasn't yours, or that (for some inexplicable reason) your baskets could only hold fruit from your orchards -- that would be illegal.
So the question more properly is: Is Microsoft sill abusing its monopoly position?
The answer would appear to be that they're trying awfully hard to. Rather than giving existing security vendors more transparent help, they're building (buying) their own AV and security units. We'll see what it looks like in Longvista I guess, but it sure sound to me like using their OS monopoly to leverage a position in the security market.
Sounds kinda like what they did with WMP -- not because they care about the player but because they want to own the format. More leveraging the OS to squeeze into another market. Feel free to use whatever media player you want, but you'll need their proprietary codec from WMP (free download!) to play all the Super Media Content (TM) (which will, of course, require DRM licenses and other license fees from producers who use the format; you'll have paid for them in your Genuine Windows(TM) License). They don't want the player, they want the pipe -- and the OS can help them lock it up.
MS says they will move Office documents to xml to allow for interoperability, but not to the specification that they helped write. They will open the format to a degree slightly less than their customers want and the law requires, and deal will legal consequences as standard operating costs. Same song different decade. Bill don't care as long as those $400/seat licenses keep rolling in,
MS certainly has more competition these days, in every area the tentacles have expanded. However, it still has its original monopoly in PC desktop operating systems (and office productivity software), and is still actively leveraging that position to help itself in other markets.
Microsoft still owns 95% of the desktop computing market.
Monopolies can and do reduce prices during periods of competition in order to crush that compeition, and then raise prices later on. That is what Microsoft is doing now. It's called predatory pricing, and it has worked extremely well for Microsoft in the past, and it is a tool they will continue to use.
Microsoft's products have gotten better, but they were starting with a totally abysmal product, and their OS product is still inferior to most of their competitors in everything except applications and driver availability. Yet they continue to control the market by controlling the distribution channel. The question you should always ask is 'why can't I buy a Dell, HP, or other major brand computer with no OS with the price of Windows deducted?'. The answer is you can't because Microsoft doesn't allow it. That's the sort of power that only a monopolist can wield.
Because it took three fucking days to find a single laptop supplier willing to ship laptops without Linux, that's why. I'll accept that MS isn't a monopoly when it isn't so bloody painful to boycott them.
For the love of God, please learn to spell "ridiculous"!!!
Monopolies have EVERYTHING to do with Marketshare.
A monopoly is a company that has an overwhelming marketshare or dominance in one particular market. By having a monopoly, you have abilities open to you that you would otherwise not have. For example, if you had a monopoly on oil, you can charge almost any price for gasoline and airline fuel and not have to worry about your customers going to a competitor. They could also put additives into the gasoline so that car makers who didn't make cars the way they wanted them to would break down and make those cars "incompatible" with their gasoline. These are hypotheticals, but the point is that
A monopoly has control over a market and thus breaks the nature of proper competitive capitalism. How can a monopoly have control over something if it doesn't sell something????? And you were modded insightful?
Therefore when a company is declared a monopoly, new rules are applied to them, or they are forced to break up so they become competitive. That is what a monopoly is.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
After googling for 5 seconds i have already go know if Microsoft is a Monopoly.
http://www.bgamers.com/monopoly.htm
Clearly it is not.
but there is Brew-opoly for the men, and Chocolate-opoly the women
Microsoft itself wasn't ruled to be a monopoly, Windows was, and in a narrowly defined market. Windows was ruled to enjoy monopoly status for desktop OSes running on Intel compatible CPUs. Once the Intel Macs come out, that status will be over with.
-- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
Depending on the exact semantics you choose for the definition of 'monopoly' you may be correct. But an interesting corrolary is that our government does work to create artificial monopolies by granting patents. A patent is just a temporary, government assigned monopoly on a limited domain. But in practice, patents help propogate large monopolies by working to favor large, established companies with plenty of resources for filing patents, litigating over patents, defending patent lawsuits, etc.
Software patents are especially bad in this regard, since they tend to be overly broad and abstract. In essense, the USPTO is now allowing one individual to *own* an idea, which is - IMO - ludicrous. Reform (or eliminate) the patent system and let companies compete on real merits (customer service, product quality, support, speed of delivery, whatever) and we would be making a strong step towards eliminating harmful monopolies.
// TODO: Insert Cool Sig
The Economist recently had an article discussing Microsoft and the X-Box360, relating to the topic of innovation and monopoly.
They note that Micrsoft only appears to show it's "hidden ability" to innovate when forced to compete in sectors in which it has no monopoly.
"There is another explanation, of course. It is surely no coincidence that Microsoft's hidden ability to innovate has become apparent only in a market in which it is the underdog and faces fierce competition. Microsoft is far less innovative in its core businesses, in which it has a monopoly (in Windows) and a near monopoly (in Office). But in new markets of gaming, mobile devices and television set-top boxes, Microsft has been unable to exploit its Windows monopoly other than indirectly - it has financed the company's expensive forways into pastures new. Indeed, with mobile phones and set-top boxes, Microsoft's reputation as a monopolist counted against it, and it was, in effect, frozen out for many years. So it has had to find other ways into those markets, including -shock, horror- innovation in both technology and marketing."
The article is "The Meaning of Xbox", from the November 26th issue.
*cough* EU *cough*
Blame the user, not the software.
there are many ways to define monopoly. using an economic and legal definition MS is less monopolistic then it was in the past. the question becomes was it ever a monopoly? and further more did it ever require gov't intervention? using a market share approach to monopoly is ineffective at best and counter productive at worst. regardless of the amount of market share, the economic concern of monopoly is the ability to levee prices significantly above those of a completive price. bamoule's theory of contestable markets suggest that even if there is only one producer of a good it effects total social welfare little. more importantly is the ability for new rival firms. this is the notion of entry and exit costs. with market share debunked as a monopoly metric, it seems that price sensitivity becomes a better metric. the lerner index looks at this . when there is any price competition it suggest a lower lerner index score and thus little monopoly power. ken attula's book World War 3.0, takes a great look at the antitrust case in the 90's and askes the same question. was MS in need of govet intervention? according to ken, even the govermnt's witnesses were hard pressed to say that MS was hurting consumers on a price level (illegal use of monopoly power). and thus not violating sec. 8 of sherman. the problem with MS in the 90's where the applications of exclusive dealings contracts with computer distriubtors. the exclusive dealings are IMO anticompetitive but they are used frequently in business today with out the concern of antitrust enforcement. mostleers law (sp?), suggest that MS's market share will eventually be lost to innovation. And it was Schumpeter's "creative destruction" that created MS, ironically it will be the same force that takes them down.
Seriously, it seems that we go through this discussion every few months.
At least read the court decision. Microsoft was ruled to have a monopoly in the x86 desktop market.
Not in game consoles.
Not in the server market.
Not in the ISP market.
We may just see a hell of a lot of PC users switch to Macs
:) A BIG problem with their image. The worst part is... It's not just the image, its the actual functionality of their software. It used to be elite pc users who bitched about windows and microsoft... NOW ITS EVERYONE. The people who cant run linux... But can run a mac.
Windows Vista looks like a polished peice of shit compared to OSX's ui and Mac's highly desirable designed hardware (from a looks point of view)
Windows computers are complete security nightmares, associated with crashing, porn ware, adware, trojans, hassle...
Apple's brand is being associated with sleak, refined, stylish, hot, desirable, cool... all because of the IPOD.
Windows has a huge problem on its hands.
The only problem with Apple... the price.
Put it seems people are willing to pay that price because of the perceived classy image of Apple.
Windows Vista better be a golden egg, and not a rotten one.
XP is quickly looking like a peice of shit among the general public. Just listenign to the conversations overheard on line at the apple store... (lines that were out the door for ipods)... the interest in apple computers was a very common overheard conversation.... and the most commonly heard comment was... "I heard they dont have any of that spyware stuff, they dont crash".
If Apple can keep their IPOD image.... watch out for apple...
AND I've NEVER owned a MAC. I'm a long time pc user from the 286 years... old BBS sysop etc.............. been around for a while and I've not seen such an interest in Apple products in a long dam time.
Microsoft has a problem
> The first sentence of the question says it all: Microsoft dominates the desktop.
:)
:)
Indeed! And, in fact, the desktop is the only place they were ever officially judged to have a monopoly! (They haven't been investigated for their control of the office suite or office suite component markets--yet!) Thus, the article's comments about web servers and supercomputers are irrelevant. Ditto for the comments about gaming consoles.
Also, there seems to be a lot of confusion about the difference between the LEGAL definition of monopoly and the DICTIONARY definition of monopoly. In the US at least, the legal definition of monopoly is based on the Sherman Anti-Trust acts, and has to do with the degree of control of a market, NOT with absolute control! Basically the question under the Sherman act is, are free market forces in control of this market? Can MS still unilaterally make decisions that will absolutely force the market to move in certain directions? The answer is clearly yes. Is the pricing of their (desktop) systems controlled by market forces and competition? The answer is clearly no. In fact, the only reason there are even hints of competition still around is that some people chose the insane (from a strict free-market perspective) option of charging no money at all for their systems. In a truly free market, giving your product away for free would instantly result in such a large market share that you would probably end up under investigation for anti-trust abuse yourself. The fact that years of giving Linux (and BSD) away for free has barely caused a blip in the market just shows how strong MS's monopoly still is.
Another point many seem to miss: Microsoft's customers are primarily OEMs and resellers, NOT end-users! Sure, they have a few direct sales--you can go out and buy a retail copy of Windows at your neighborhood computer store--but the vast VAST majority of their sales are for preloads! So the question to ask is not: can Joe Schmoe go out and buy another OS for his machine; the question to ask is: can Dell or Gateway tell MS, "fuck off, we're going with your competitor from now on." Anyone who thinks the answer to this question is yes is invited to buy some shares in a little real-estate deal I have going on down in Florida.
Note that I would agree that some chinks have appeared in their armor, and MS is, perhaps, not quite AS dominant as they were a few years back, but they're still a LONG way from losing their monopoly control of the desktop market! A long, loo-o-o-ong way!
In fact, asking the question, "does MS still have a monopoly" of a bunch of techie nerds is just silly. This is a legal question, since we're dealing with the legal definition of a monopoly, and therefore, the appropriate person to ask would be a LAWYER! Asking Slashdot for a legal opinion makes about as much sense as...asking Slashdot for marital advice!
They are, by pure definition, a monopoloy. If you want the new System of a Down CD, you MUST pay Sony!
Even if you hate Sony, depise all that they do, you MUST pay them (or break the "law")
Worse, the RIAA not only uses its power to make more profit, they want laws that will legalize the monopoly and limit consumer choice!
They do this as every consumer group says this is wrong
They still own over 90% of the desktop market, with tactics that would make any 19th C. business baron proud. The recent hoo-hah over ODF in Mass. just proves they're still ready to go to the wall to defend the Windows/Office stranglehold. The rest of it is subsidiary. The server market has *always* been more heterogenous, with Big Iron and the various *ix in there. The push for Media Center PCs and XBox was to cut off Sony making the "living room PC" on their terms. The "Starter Edition" version for non-US markets is simply a marketing ploy to combat Linux on the desktop. Here in the US, it's the "Office Student Edition" you'll find at any Big Box Store for a quarter of the regular cost for Office, and how often do the cashiers check whether you're really eligible? Any interoperability work they do is to avoid additional anti-competitive charges: the terms they're asking for much of it are meant to keep out the F/OSS crowd.
I don't give a flying fluck what they are because I don't use Microsoft anyways.
Access is able to act as a front end for MS SQL. Does this work for ODBC data sources in general? If so, then that would cover MySQL, PostgreSQL, and various other things.
Yeah, Access is ten kinds of retarded, but "bad" and "nonexistent" are not the same thing.
Don't insult our intelligence.
I guess you had one too many drinks during your Xmas celebrations, but this drunkard tirade is frankly ridiculous.
Honestly, I don'tknow even where to start, so I betterlet it past, I hate to state the obious (that you clearly have missed).
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Does this poster want to make us regret (with tears ?) (on our knees ?) the endless years we had to endure Win(crap)doze with no other alternative ? and for leaving the ship like rats that now Mac OS X and Linux are there for our peace of mind ?
Does he even kwow about BeOS and others that were deliberatelly sacrified by the $ and FUD priests (sometimes even before birth) for the Almighty God to continue beeing the One and Only ?
Or is it just another "Flame War Starter" ?
WTF +4 Insightful? The post didn't even make any sense.
You said it's silly to say that Apple isn't one, without even specifying what "one" is. Are you saying it's silly of them not to be considered as a tier 1 company? Assuming that's what you were talking about, you didn't even specifiy exatly WHY you feel they're paying a Microsoft. As it was previously mentioned, they don't ship with Microsoft Office, and last I checked, they didn't own Intel either - so what's the x86 argument that you're refering to?
The operating system is not a tax. If Dell ships all of their machines with Maxtor hard drives, you are not paying a "Maxtor tax", you're paying for the part inside.
Dude, lighten up. It's just a common saying, not to be taken literal. Although when the OS can account for about %10 of the price of the computer, it doesn't seem that far off. The difference here is, if you don't like Maxtor, you can easily go with Seagate or Western Digital, and the end user won't know the difference. Try putting something other than Windows on the shelves at Office Depot. Every computer is running that pretty screen saver with the fish, and this one is running "The Matrix Code". You can pretty much guess which pc is going to sell the least.
Windows is a critical part of a computer. If you don't want that part, go build your own computer.
A MAJOR contridaction. You say Windows is a critical part of a computer - almost as if you're justifying the price. If it's that critical to a PC (as you stated), you'll need it even if you built your own PC, now wouldn't you. And Even if you didn't, it's almost pointless (from an economical standpoint) to build a pc from scratch. They've gotten so much cheaper, it's almost impossible to build your own, and have it match up with recent hardware, without using refurb or used parts (and yes I'm quite famaliar with OEM). Don't just read prices off NewEgg, try and build your own, and you'll see what I'm saying. It's hard to reason why I should do it again, when Sam's Club has an Athlon 64 3700+ with a gig of ram and a 17 inch LCD for under $1150 (not to even mention this one. They make computers so cheap, you might as well just buy one, and consider Windows free with the hardware. That makes a lot of sense, but guess what? They STILL get their money.
Microsoft plays to win. so must the opensource community. we have to fight them until we don't have to constantly reverse engineer all there source just so we can have intercompatibility. until we can go to a store and pick up a copy of whatever software we want for linux or mac or whatever OS you use. until we don't have to pay licensing for something we don't want because it comes included. Until the world realizes that using .doc isn't acceptable for a standard format because in theory only someone with word can make one, and that's $100 application. until the only supported web browsers on a page are not just netscape, IE, AOL, and if your lucky safari. until our linux drivers are just as robust as they are in windows.
Apple might use MS Office, if only for inertia and history.
Red Hat probably doesn't. Have you ever seen them posting *.doc files? The nerds there would be in revolt, and even the corporate lawyer and PR types would probably feel a bit ill.
My employer certainly doesn't use MS Office. We switched to Open Office. OK, we're only 25 people, but I really don't see how that matters.
Sun uses StarOffice and/or OpenOffice, except for compatibility testing of course. Sun is still very big.
Let's not forget "force Joe Sixpack to buy systems with those other OSes installed".
(tongue-in-cheek-mode off)
---PCJ
LOL at retarded moderators. It looks like the Linux kiddies are starting to smell their bullshit and they're getting more desperate. All these 'open source' sites are starting to post more and more delusional 'editorials' about how Linux is "poised to take off any day now" and that "Microsoft doesn't matter any more." They all follow the same pattern of hand-waving arguments with anecdotal and heavily biased evidence (if any).
Pathetic.
as seen by the fact that there is only one price for the OS, & for Office, & that that price goes in one direction - up - on a year to year basis.
Wonderful use of language in an effort to change perceptions.
MSFT isnt a Monopoly. They are a predatory abusive monopoly. Yes they are still abusing their market position as the 80% marketshare of their inferior legacy IE shows. They are still trying to abuse their marketshare as their abuse of the ECMA standards group with their draconian MS Word document format shows. They are still dumping inferior outdated products to the point where only Open Source produced by the good will of comopanies and individuals programming at home proves.
The exact market share of MSFT is not as important as their abuse of their marketshare which hinders inovation, economic growth freedom and democracy. Come back when MSFT does not have a position to abuse. Then we can talk.
Seriously, why would a modern computer manufactuer sell a computer that would force users to reboot in order to switch tasks? It's a tideous processs and most computer users would hate it. If one of the OSes will do most of what users wants (and therefore make rebooting unnecessary), then that OS will be enough for 99% of their customers. Those who do take advantage of the dual boot option will be confused/infuriated with not having their profiles/settings persist in both environments. Chances are the 1% who do want a dual boot system would end up nuking the system and setting it up themselves.
Most computer users want something easy and simplistic. Dual booting is not. In order to get it to that point a company would have to spend thousands to millions of dollars in software development, which in turn would rase the cost of the computer hundreds to thousands of dollars. Think of most of the computer users you know. Who among them would pay that much extra for a dual boot system?
An insightful, well-written, original op-ed. On Slashdot. Full of interesting and entertaining links, which add richness and depth to the story. Wow.
Thanks roblimo...you make me want to subscribe.
Stasis is death. Embrace change.
Tried KNOPPIX or UBUNTU lately? Linux has been easier and faster to install than that other OS for years now. In recent years, I have taught students how to set up a simple web server in under five minutes. Last month, my students installed a basic Linux installation on a ten year old PC. Not one student found it hard. I handed out KNOPPIX CDs to take home and only one student had a problem (resolution of a monitor). A squad of MSCEs came in and failed to install SP2 on half our Windows machines. They had no clue what went wrong with the network install on bunches of identical machines. I had a Debian mirror on our LAN and could have done the job in twenty minutes. We also have had many users that could not print or log in for months in Windows. I know XP is a darn sight better for many things than '95, but easy it is not. Ray Ozzie, on Microsoft products wrote that "complexity kills". Windows' complexity creates the holes for malware, the headaches for admins, and difficulty for installation and setup. Linux and other systems do not have this unnecessary complexity that gets in the way of doing the job.
A problem is an opportunity http://mrpogson.com
I can understand that MS has a monopoly on business desktops (nobody got fired for buying anything but Microsoft - no matter how bad it was). I work for an organisation that won't use freeware - regardless if it's better or not!! That's corporate conservatism.
... and they don't take long to install
... the reason home users are locked into Microsoft is ??? I suspect it's the same reason that we're locked into McDonalds and Nike ... because we want to belong.
.. the KDE v/s Gnome is something the Linux community should be ashamed of. This debacle makes it nigh impossible to work out how to setup or configure anything, let alone which app works with what ... Machiavelli talked about divide and conquer your opponents, not your own product!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ... "If you're using Redhat, expect at least 2 circular dependencies. Just throw your hat into the air and hope it all works..... if you're running debian, use ... etc."
Home users on the other hand are free to make their own choice. Why?
- If I buy a laptop from Dell (or other large mob), I may be forced to pay for Windows - but I can install whatever I like on the computer
- Almost everyone knows someone who can support an alternate OS (eg. Linux)
- Linux is about as useable as Windows (see my comments below on this).
So
Does this make Microsoft a monopoly? No. However, it does mean Microsoft are clever. They give us what we want. For example,
- They've shown we don't care about reliability ("oh well, another blue screen" apathy)
- They've shown we don't care about non-intuitive user interfaces (eg. have you ever tried to print change bars on a document? There are about 10 settings to adjust!!!!!!)
- They've shown we don't care about "needing faster hardware" and its associated cost from the additional bloat of each update to their products
- They've shown we don't care about "lowest common denominiator" with clippy and friends
Unfortunately, i'm personally still shying away from Linux because of:
- A lack of unified framework
- The lack of driver support (some assistance to large organisations wouldn't go astray.. ATI was bitten by changes to underlying behaviours of Linux with threading models)
- Providing comprehensive documentation that doesn't assume penultimate geekdom. The first time I tried to mount a CD device under Linux [although a long time ago], it took me a full day as a result of obscure documentation that made far too many assumptions. This documentation problem cannot be fixed until there is a unified framework (from installers to GUI frameworks), without a lot of unnecessary effort
In summary : people, you are free to choose whatever OS you like. Linux is a good alternative to Microsoft. There is no Monopoly for home users.
AC
It may not be the first or the best, but here it is.
Try to ignore it.
Oh and BTW, we bought up all the other FP's, and now you have to pay for this one.
Microsoft has always been a marginal player in Web servers, Internet servers, embedded systems, and in the gaming console market. So nothing has changed, here.
DELL, HP and other OEMs face business crippling retribution from Microsoft if they put a competeive Linux offering ON THEIR FRONT PAGE and at a COMPETITIVE price.
IF Microsoft is so sure their OS and Office products are so superior to Linux and FOSS then they shouldn't mind if DELL featured a Linux box on page 1 along side an XP ad. IN FACT, if their OS is superior they should encourage DELL and the others to feature such a Linux ad. The resulting complaints and bad PR from disgruntled Linux purchasers would be enough to end the Linux threat for good.
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
I don't think the question "is MS a monopoly?" is as relevant as "does MS ast like a monopoly?" The first is a definitional question, the second attempts to assess what's going on.
It seems that MS still has the ability to lock out competitors, reduce or eliminate software choices, pollute meaningfull standards, and ignore users.
For example, I just got a 'something's wrong with your XP license - no upgrades for you' error when I tried to upgrade XP from windowsupdate. I was given two choices: send in the original CD with the 'holographic'/authentic license number sticker along with the original receipt, or pay $150 for some kind of 'windows genuine support program'. All I did was replace a broken hard drive and put in an updated ethernet card, along with some more memory.
If MS was not able to abuse its market position, it would offer to help for free, out of fear of losing customers to a competing OS. That's clearly not the case.
So, back to the original question, 'is ms a monopoly'? I would say that in most cases, it at least acts like one. However, I also think that their grip is starting to show signs of weakening.
Nonethless, in corporate environments, MS is all but the only choice if for no other reason than most IT staff are peppered with windows admins who turn pale at the mention of linux (or Unix), and most entrenched help desk staff would shriek at the thought of supporting desktop linux. Forget the fact that those same environments have been repeatedly overrun by windows viruses that left all the non-windows boxen untouched.
"We are all geniuses when we dream"
- E.M. Cioran
Everybody talks about the OS as the lock-in for business, but it's really MS Office. So long as Office only runs in a predictable way under Windows and cannot BY DEFAULT interact seamlessly with any other app, Microsoft retains the monopoly. Businesses really don't care about the OS, what they care about is their intellectual output looking "right" without a hitch. Anybody who has dealt with the bloody mess that results from a Mac Office to PC Office conversion knows that real interoperability is a distant dream. And since "everybody" runs Office, Office and Windows become the only choice.
= 20051216153153504
Which is why killing widespread support for the Open Document Format is Microsoft's primary goal right now. You can see how MS freaked when the state of Massachusetts mandated *support* for ODF. Not that MS had to use it by default, they just had to read and write it. Not a big deal, but MS recognized it as the thin edge of the wedge for erosion of their desktop domination, and began all kinds of political dirty tricks to overturn the decision. This obscure corner of policy may be the most important fight about electronic freedom in this country.
Here's the Wiki article, read it! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenDocument
Learn more here: http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page
OR, an existing monopoly can be APPROVED defacto by the DOJ switching to the monopolist side after the monopolist loses in court.
Then, the DOJ drives a toothless "settlement" through the appeals courts. To help secure the monopoly the DOJ secures office space on the monopolist campus, where the court appointed "watchdogs" can be housed and watched by the monopolist and appropriate pressure applied to them if they see any violations. Then, the monopolist can claim they aren't a monopoly and show the DOJ seal of approval for 'proof'. Meanwhile, they keep their hands around the throats of the OEM's, ready to "cut off their air supply" if the OEMs show any signs of independence.
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
Well.... Even by the dictionary definition, Microsoft has a monopoly over Windows-compatible operating systems. The problem becomes generalizing to a greater market.
Lets say, for example, that we still had Mobile Oil. Lets say that a few people sold, say, biodiesel through alternative channels. Does this make Mobile less of a monopoly from the standpoint of the economic control that they have?
IANAL, but I think that a monopoly is defined legally in the US as a company that can effectively set the prices of their products without regard to external market forces. For example, one might be said to have a sugar monopoly when one could, say, double the price of sugar without causing an appreciable number of customers to switch to an alternative. The fact that Microsoft comes back with discounts when you threaten to switch to a competitor indicates that they are doing exactly that-- setting the prices of their products without regard to external market forces. But it also means that they are now in a position where *occasionally* this doesn't work so well. So this price-cutting behavior seems to me both evidence of monopolistic behavior on Microsoft's part and evidence of the demise of their power at the same time.
Sure, they had a vast majority, but exclusive control? To my knowledge, nothing ever stopped anyone from buying a Mac or running IBM's OS/2 or Linux or any other number of alternatives. I think we can all agree that Microsoft engaged in cut-throat tactics and was legally declared a monopolist but I don't think they exactly fit the dictionary definition.
The lawyers I hang out with are usually quick to point out that legalese is sort of like a separate language. However, here is another way to look at it. Microsoft is effectively a monopoly when *most people* believe that they have *effectively* no choice but to use Microsoft software.
Now having market power/monopoly power is not a crime. Boeing for years had a complete monopoly on extremely large passenger aircraft (i.e. the 747). Was this illegal? No. It would have been illegal only if they had used this monopoly to force other competitors out of the market (i.e. "if you buy any planes from Airbus, we won't sell you 747's"). Indeed there is nothing even evil about being a monopoly. The only issue is that we have to hold them to a higher standard of behavior due to the greater capacity they have for damaging our economy.
The problem with Microsoft is that they gained their market power through anticomepetitive means, maintained it through anticomepetitive means and hence have harmed everyone else in the process. When I became aware of the horribly unethical business practices of Microsoft, it made me ill. I worked there at the time, and I was reading about the AARD code and other absolutely unjustifiably anticomeptitive acts that Microsoft did in the years prior.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Microsoft is still a monopoly in desktop OS's. The rest of the markets mentioned are beside the point, and irrelevant.
Over 100%? If Microsoft has somehow managed to have it's software generate over 100% of its profit, it deserves it! It's finally pioneering into new territory! Huzzah! It has done what no other company has done before!
Well, considering that the xbox, among many other MS projects, loses money consitently, and Office and the OS profits make enough to both fund those projects, and create an overall profit, then yes, they do make over 100% of their profits with these products. Though, the 2x parent's wording should have been clearer if they so deigned to use that phrase.
"""
BTW, way to go with your wonderful windows-only project.
"""
It's open source, when the alpha is out, I'll put be putting the source up. When the time comes, I encourage you to make a port if you find the game to your liking. My focus is on the game, and sadly I don't have a lot of time to work on the game. If I was blessed with an abundance of time, things might be different, but even so, probably not, as I have other things I could do with that time.
So, considering many Linux users have a Windows partition or at the very least an emulator, and the project won't require very much in the way of processing power... developing under Windows seemed to make sense.
These suggestions I offered about buying mom and pop, building your own PC, etc... I made these because the person was complaining about being "forced" to buy Microsoft, not because I refuse to use Microsoft myself. Please don't take supplying an answer to mean I believe in what the answer is.
Cheers!
MoM++ - A Classic Expanded - [Master of Magic 1.5]
http://mompp.sourceforge.net/
MS still controls the OS and Office software market, sure you are not forced at gunpoint to use MS software. You just can't work with XX% of systems where XX is a number above 50 at least.
Websites still can't move beyond IE's crippled capabilities (PNG support being a personal gripe), when someone wants your CV it better be in Office Word format.
The EU is still not able to get MS to open up its specifications for such simple projects like Samba.
The day when websites can be developed to a standard and not to MS crippled browser is the day MS will no longer be a browser monopoly.
The day the samba team can just look up the specs instead of having to reverse engineer with each new windows release is the day MS will no longer be a OS monopoly.
The day I can just send a document made in my editor to anyone and they can read it will be the day that MS will no longer have an office monopoly.
The original poster has his head to far up Bill Gates ass. He talks about MS opening up for interoperability. Right, wich is why the EU is threathening with fines if they do not open up soon.
Oh well at least the MS apologists can't claim that /. never posts pro-MS posts. Pity that it is such a crap one.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Two things:
In summary, Microsoft is behaving as badly as ever: the very opposite of good corporate citizens.
I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
Can you buy a preinstalled Linux pc at
Best Buy
Walmart (at the store)
CompuUSA
Target (at the store)
Radioshack
Knart (at the store)
Any model of Dell you want with Linux instead of windows installed
Yeppp still a monopoly !!
He is a keen dancer in his spare time .... no, wait, he does that at work, too!
See http://www.msboycott.com/media/ballmer_monkey.mpg
"Cats like plain crisps"
It is not yet a fully a monopoly in the server area. This is particularily so at the the enterprise level where MS's penetration has been kept relatively low.
In the file and print server area, and now directory services area, it is in a very strong position. Here it is trying to leverage its effective desktop client monopoly into a server monopoly. This is the essence of what its dispute with the EU's monopoly commission is about.
MS has taken the open protocols for SMB, Kerberos and LDAP transformed them into the proprietary CIFS and Active Directory then deliberately engineered in incompatabilities. This is aimed at ensuring that only MS Windows servers can talk to Windows clients, in order to leverage its client side monopoly into a server side monopoly. The heroic reverse engineering of the SAMBA organization have to a consiferable extent impeded this. However a fair open playing field should be enforced by forcing MS to openly document its protocols for purposes of computer interoperability. This is what the EU is trying to do and with some claws imposing multimillion dollar daily fines (unlike the US courts that actually helped MS rather than hindered it in this area with their remdies for their finding of MS being an illegal monopoly). MS rather than acceeding to the EU requirements has been screaming "intellectual property rights" and spreading FUD that the EU is rquiring them to open up their source code rather than open up the documentation of their computer communication protocols which is really the case. This response clearly demonstrates that MS is still intent on extending its monopoly position in to new areas, and thus is still a dangerous corporate criminal.
Is the problem even that Microsoft ever had a software monopoly. I think most of the grief is that Microsoft had (or does it still have) AN OPERATING SYSTEM MONOPOLY. At the very least in the consumer/residential markets and quite possibly still does in the enterprise markets.
I don't think anyone denies that the software market is wide, wide open.
Is Windows Starter Edition sold to Americans? Talk about a red-herring. Charging what the market will bear isn't really an example of non-monopolitic behavior. Pricing is a weapon to destroy (non-free) competition with, e.g., Free MSIE while Netscape wasn't. 'Free' Windows (subsidized by Microsoft Tax) with purchase of new IBM or Compaq...
Read Heinlein's 1953 Revolt in 2100, now more than ever.
The biggest mistake people make when looking at Microsoft's monopoly is to mistake what EXACTLY the market of their monopoly is.
It's actually quite narrow, commercial closed source desktop operating systems running on x86 compatible microprocessors.
That excludes the Mac (until next year), excludes consoles, excludes LINUX, BSD...
Name me ONE viable (with more than 5% market share) commercial closed source desktop/workstation operating system that runs on Intel x86 compatible microprocessors. There aren't any. In this market Microsoft has a monopoly. Until their grip on that market is loosened there will BE no competition that you can go out and buy thats supportable as windows for your PC.
The fact that only FREE alternatives (LINUX, BSD, ect) have been able to get marketshare on x86 points to the fact that there is no capitalistic market.
Imagine what windows might be like today if another vendor had say 40% of the desktop market. It's my opinion they would not of been able to get away with all the crap (security, bugs) for as long as they have.
Last time I checked, Apple was planning to release x86 Macs sometime around June 2006. I don't know the latest schedule.
... embrace DRM. It doesn't take a crystal ball to see how this DRM thing is going to play out.
Yeah, whatever.
I just bought an IBM (or lenovo?) laptop. No way i could have bought it without donating my money to microsoft. From every reseller the same story, MS pays IBM per every laptop sold, so goes their contract and there's no way around it. I might have got it with windows XP erased, but that would have cost me extra. The same thing is with all major laptop manufacturers. Customer has no choice.
I know I'll never use XP that ships with it. When i receive the thing i will wipe the HD clean of MS shit and install debian on it.
I feel i've been screwed. But i just have to swallow it.
Don't you think that's reducing the meaning and intent of anti-trust laws too much to be meaningful?
Charging less is perfectly fine, unless you're a monopoly that's selling it's products at a loss for the purpose of driving a competitor out of business (MSIE vs Netscape). Charging more is perfectly fine, unless you are using the fact that your monopoly prevents customers from being able to go elsewhere to shaft them (common TelCo behavior WRT DSL/Cable). Charging the same is OK too, as long as you and your competitor don't conveniently rachet up the price by the same amount at the same time (see the oil cartel).
Long story short: The rules change when you gain a monopoly. They change to prevent you from using that monopoly to take advantage of customers. If you want to write your own office suite and enter the market charging $5000 a copy, that's fine - there are other choices. If MS does it, everyone is pretty much forced to follow suit because (if it were a true monopoly) there is no other choice (This disregards the effect of F/OSS, where screwing customers *too much* will make them decide that the time/effort cost of switching to F/OSS is less than the money cost of paying for the monopolist).
So, how are laws that protect consumers from something they can't protect themselves from bad?
You can point to whatever definitions you want, but the fact is, Microsoft has done everything in its power for many years now to get the entire IT industry by the balls. Sure, the article can talk about how "independant" programmers exist etc., but we all know that they're being forced to fit into the microsoft way of doing things. This is by deliberate monopolising on microsoft's part, and it's still happening. The legal action going on in South Korea and Europe is testament to that. The many small countries trying to turn away from Microsoft of testament to the problems it has caused. Still, Microsoft defies governments and legal decisions, and rather than cleaning up its act, does in one country what it couldn't get away with in another.
The simple fact is, Microsoft continues to be a pain in the IT industry's ass, and holds back innovation everywhere.
I can only assume this article was deliberately created so MS can produce it in court as a supposedly "independant" article on why Microsoft should not be fined any more. I say fine them until they learn some responsibility, and dismantle the company if they continue to harm IT as they do now.
...and it is an important but....until you can walk into any retail outlet and see ANYTHING besides 'XP inside!" and all the peripherals saying "HP ready!!", it's still a monopoly. In my area, which has 4 stores that carry computers, I have yet to see a single instance of anything other than "XP!" attached to a computer, accessory or piece of software on the shelf.
Until that bogus hardware vendor lockin is broken, the situation will remain more or less where it is at right now. Mac might gain a scosh based on slop over from iPod sales, but linus won't except in some large businesses now and then. On the homefront, games rule, and what comes pre installed on the machine rules, and that's that.
We don't have a MICROSOFT problem, we have a Dell, Gateway, HP/Compaq, Office Depot, Walmart, Sony, Toshiba, Lenovo, etc, etc, etc problem, and it's a *big* problem, and that's why it's still a monopoly.
Where can one FIND a drug that could make one SOOO-O-O DELUSIONAL??? How did we sail right past 20 years of denying that Microsoft is the Mafia on a disc to immediately asserting that they've reformed their act and become a Saint, all without ever ackowledging that they were evil in the first place?
You mean companies like Lowes, General Motors and others sued by SCO at M$'s request? Lowes, as you can see for yourself by visiting, has eliminated M$ from their desktop. You can even use one of their public terminals to apply for a job. I promise you it won't crash and waste your time. In any case, there are many big companies that have moved away from M$ crap and M$ has tried to punish them with an insane lawsuit.
The SCO case proves both that it's possible to live without M$ crap and that M$ is an anti-competitive monopoly business. Their hold is breaking, but they still have the ability to punish computer hardware makers, vendors and even users.
Oh, by the way Rob, dumping (aka competing on price) is most certainly a monopoly practice. Ask Netscape and Correl. You can also ask Correl what it's like to be on M$'s bad side as a software company.
We should also separate what we are talking about. It's not wrong to be a monopoly if you got there and stay there without use of anti-competitive laws or practices. People don't hate M$ because they are big, they hate them because M$ is evil. You can be small and evil too.
Microsoft's inability to dominate all aspects of publishing and telco does not make them any less anti-competitive any more than the Jack the Ripper's inability to kill people in all major cities made him less of a murderer. M$, through the BSA, still threatens public school systems with lawsuits and that's about as evil as you can get, short of murder.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Raise your hand if you do not have Windows installed at home or at work. (If you have it installed but don't use it, it still maintains MS's market monopoly.)
Bonus points if the OS you run is a free-market personal choice, and not because you work for a Linux company or something.
I am glad I didn't bother reading this. Someone must have got a really big present from Microsoft this Christmas.
Hey, but who am I to judge, taking favours from Big corps to make them look good is an ok practice, not tied to monopolistic behaviours!!
wtf.
#hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
The fact that Microsoft comes back with discounts when you threaten to switch to a competitor indicates that ... external market forces are coming to bear on its stratospheric profit margin. Nothing more.
Dictionary or not... ask me why do I have windows box at home. Do you know why? Because rest of the world uses word docs and powerpoint docs... and yes, OpenOffice is good but not 100% compatible and sometimes it is not simply wise to risk and make PPTs in OpenOffice if you need to make really important ppt presentation.
:-) The mood of customers can hurt M$ as well as the competition. (And I'm not saying that the autor is hired by M$)
And one more thing. If I would be microsoft I would hire some PR company that will write such as articles like this one to show that M$ is not a threat - it is not monopoly, it is simply fair company that plays fair with the competition...
Simply, dictionary or not - Microsoft is a monopoly. Otherwise, believe me, I would not have a WinBox at home!
Well, I've got to get back to work. When I stop rowing, the slave ship just goes in circles.
It's pretty safe to say that the vast majority of people who buy an x86 PC from an OEM want Windows (or at least the license) and possibly the preinstalled "experience" of that OEM's bundled software.
People who are capable of loading, configuring, and networking a non-Windows OS on an x86 PC (the vast majority of Slashdot readers) are better off building their own machines. It's cheaper than OEMs and doesn't feature the Microsoft tax.
Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, START
The initial argument is deeply flawed. "Microsoft (to my knowledge) do not sell hamburgers. Therefore, taking this into account they are not a monopoly." They *are* a monopoly on the desktop whether any of us like it or not.
In the real world (in the UK at least) a high percentage is usually considered cause for concern. If the leading supermarket here (Tesco, ca. 40% of market) was to attempt to purchase one of its competitors (e.g. Asda/Wal-mart at 20%) then the mergers and monopolies commission would step in and stop it as the combined unit would have too great a market presence and hinder fair competition.
But no, Microsoft is not 100% of the market then they are not a 'monopoly' according to the unintelligensia. The fact I cannot purchase, for example, GPS mapping upload software for a Mac but loads do it for Windows to me says loads. In a competitive market people would be developing all over and you would be able to pick the best products for the platform of your choice. The great majority of the developers write for a single platform as that is where the money is which causes a feedback loop.
Interoperability is nice and I understand why a single operating system for home use would be a good idea. Pity it is owned by a single company with the ethics and scruples of beezlebub.pP
I think the real question is is Microsoft still a monopoly, and are they a conglomorate. Yes, they are a monopoly, and unless Apple can manage to rip that monopoly out of there hands (I don't realistically see mainstream seeing any reason to ditch what they have always used for something new), they will probably be till computers in general are different. I think that the main thing they are trying to attain is becoming a conglomorate (much like Sony, and what Google is trying to do in the computer industry). We'll see how that pans out. They have had good new products, but a lot of them fade away due to doing terribly (routers, gamepads, joysticks, WebTV) and probably others I can't think of off the top of my head).
In undeveloped countries, the consumer controls the market. In capitalist America, the market controls you.
Is Microsoft Still a Monopoly?
yes
Microsoft Windows still dominates the desktop. But in many other areas, including Web servers and supercomputing, Microsoft is just one player among many, and often a weak player at that.
Rome still was an Empire, despite leaving some parts of the world untouched -- China, India etc.
Microsoft also now sells something called Windows Starter Edition in some parts of the world -- supposedly for as low as $37 or $38 (US) in Thailand, including a basic version of Microsoft Office.
Yes, i know: it's offered here in Brazil as well. It has a special feature: you can have at any one time, just 3 app windows open. Nice, huh? Well, since the only somewhat worthy apps coming with it are IE, notepad and minesweeper, i guess it's a good deal...
Microsoft is getting more concerned about interoperability
No, fuck that! It's simply stupid hype! Once Massachussets go back in their OpenDocument decision and begins to use the M$Off open xml formats crippled with tons of proprietary add-ons, there goes the niceness and interoperability...
A majority of desktop computer users may still run Microsoft's Internet Explorer browser, but it no longer has 95% market share.
Yes, it's now at a minority position of just about 90%... people don't know how to "enter" the internet if they can't see the blue e logo anywhere. They go like: "Where's the internet?"
You can run things like Google Maps on Linux, Mac OS, Unix, and even Windows, using any standards-compliant browser you choose.
too bad they're constrained in their effort by the lameass and ancient IE6.0. Though i heard IE7 will get some new-fangled CSS up to date and when it gets a 98% share again, they'll be able to put the IE team to rest for another 5 years or so, until XAML Windows only apps are all the rage...
If even a quarter of the rumors we've heard about Google and Sun joining up to produce a Webified version of OpenOffice.org are true, I suspect Microsoft is going to be a distant...
rumors, just rumors. If rumors were true, M$Off new document formats would be truly open, no trojan-horses at all...
There are over 100,000 Open Source projects on SourceForge.net
Quantity, not quality. Most are dead projects in alfa or beta stage, many are yet another text editor or something not that much original...
There may be a poorly-dressed young man coding furiously in a Beijing Internet cafe, while you read this article, whose new operating system will make all current ones obsolete -- and you may not learn about his work until it shows up in a Chinese-made $100 laptop computer.
Fuck that! What does it has anything to do with the current debate? I think you're trying to induce us to feel pityful of poor M$ and their programmers and their past ( and still going ) illegal commercial practices because it may be that some Indian guy will perhaps someday smash this great and proud American company...
When Bill Gates and his friends started Microsoft, it was one of very few companies that sold nothing but personal computer software, and the others were so small that Microsoft managed to buy most of its competitors
Well, this trend continues to this day: you simply can't have good, creative technology developed outside of M$ and they'll buy anyone and everyone they can. Rareware comes to mind as quite a recent example. Google would too, but i guess now they are more likely to be "fucking killed"...
Instead, they'll start their own software companies...
and be bought either by M$ or another behemoth ( Google included )...
You now are trying to induce us into believing there are far greater oponents to M$ than there actually are. In the software field i only see Google. AOL is more of a content provider...
Windows XP is immeasurably
I don't feel like it...
Billy G wants to rule the world, make no mistake. The only mercy might be that the bloated corpse of Microsoft will wash up on the shores of irrelevance in the next few years. Fucking pathetic group of power-mad freaks with NOOO style. Hell, even the Nazis had spiffy uniforms!!
Even if you don't use windoze, even if you're going to wipe that shit out and install linux as soon as you get home, it is extremely improbable that you will be able to buy a PC without windoze.
THAT is a fcking monopoly.
so stop hating them...:)
fallacy: "Company X lowers and raises its price according to supply and demand, so it can't be a monpoly!"
truth: A monopoly product still has a supply/demand curve. That does not make it in any way less monopolistic. The point is that with a freer market, the benefits to consumers would be greater still.
background: commonly said fallacy, but an irrelevant distraction, seductive to the ignorant, and cleverly serving the interests of concentrated corporate power over free markets.
*Microsoft* (not IBM) charged over US$1000 for the OS/2 1.x SDK back before the IBM/MS split, and they ended up screwing over a large number of potential OS/2 developers by announcing and then never releasing the last version. IBM's independent OS/2 efforts had to overcome the bad taste MS left in the mouths of developers, which made an otherwise difficult selling job even harder.
Microsoft also withheld developer resources and key Windows programming information from companies that were doing cross-platform application development.
US$300 means nothing to even a small business developer, but losing access to key developer programs can really hurt in a competitive market.
Not only did Windows have an advantage in terms of the number of applications available for it, but MS went out of its way to ensure that folks who were developing key apps for Windows kept their apps only on Windows.
WordPerfect 5.x for OS/2 died in the late beta stages as a direct result of MS actions, as did several OS/2Windows development tools like those developed by Borland and Micrografx.
Whether or not the conduct was illegal isn't too important -- the fact of the matter is that MS was quite proactive in screwing over its competition.
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
Help, help, I'm being oppressed! Come see the violence inherent in the system!
I think you misunderstood that comment (and didn't bother to read the links). The previous poster asked "Where is ALT OS for sale preinstalled that do NOT cost more then MS. Even if the OS is Linux that can be gotten for free?". I responded with "Just because other OSes aren't undercutting Microsoft and may understand economics more than you do doesn't mean it's Microsofts fault.", referring to the cost not market penetration. My implication was that if a computer manufacturer was going to offer a non-Microsoft OS because "it is better", then they should charge more because there's a cultural perception that you get what you pay for. If you offer a non-Microsoft OS because "it is free", then many people will assume it isn't as valuable as Windows. This is the idea behind price as a signal. This is probably culture senstive, so it might not apply to other countries.
I once predicted that 1997 was the peak of Microsoft power, and that it would be a long (read slow) decline from that point. I still believe that. It will still be a long road down, but I believe that in 2017 Microsoft's position of power in the computer industry will be comparable to Sun Microsystems "power" today.
Right now I would say that Microsoft is still a de-facto monopoly on the desktop, especially the corporate desktop. But Microsoft has branched out into many areas where they are not a monopoly.
Think Deeply.
I think microsoft is just realizing that it generally pays off more or atleast isn't quite as big a risk to have a finger in every proverbial pot. It's like investing, you can put all your money in one high risk stock, or spread it out into many seperate stocks.
disclaimer: I've been known to store numbers in my ass for which to dig out when quantities are required.
I was told once that Coca-Cola's CEO has a rule that noone can present a market analysis to him that shows Coca-Cola as having more than %34 of the market. When asked how Coca-Cola could possible grow their customer base he replied, "The average human consumes 64 fluid ounces a day--only 6 ounces of that is a Coca-Cola product."
You can always redefine markets to make a monopolostic company not appear so.
It's like arguing that OPEC is irrelevant because nuclear power is the coming thing or because solar is an alternative to fossil fuels.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
"I have more hit points that you can possible imagine."
I'll attribute that to Microsoft.
WRT "The Age of the Software Monopoly is Over":
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
For antitrust purposes, a monopoly doesn't mean what most people think it means. Antitrust is about behavior, not about size.
As my antitrust professor used to say, owning the only movie theater in town may be a monopoly by the dictionary definition, but it isn't an antitrust violation. Being one of two movie theaters, then buying the other one and closing it down, is.
There have been reported antitrust cases where a company actually controlled only 5-10% of the market-- but used that 5-10% to fix prices, block access to the market for new companies, or attain control of a supply chain to eliminate competitors. (I've often wondered whether Apple could get into serious antitrust trouble for supplying Apple Stores with Hot New Items faster than they do independent Apple dealers) Recall that the big issue in the DR-DOS suit involved Microsoft modifying Windows to detect DR-DOS and then not run.
Microsoft may not have the market share that it had a few years ago in certain areas. But they've definitely continued some of the behaviors that got them into trouble in the first place-- with file formats, with chat protocols, etc. It happens that the Bushies don't take antitrust enforcement very seriously, so it's been largely ignored in this country. But that doesn't mean that the potential isn't there, especially if the abuses get too egregious, for them to get whacked a whole lot harder than they were the last time.
(IAAL)
- Windows is still by far the dominant desktop software.
- Office is still by far the dominant office software.
- IE is still hovering at 85-90% of marketshare with its browser. That's more of a hold than iTunes has on the music bought online, which others are very concerned about.
It still abuses its monopolistic powers:- As late as this last Fall, Microsoft tried to strongarm vendors of machines to put Windows Media Player exclusively, though it did retract the terms.
- IE still refuses to adopt some standards like a full CSS implementation
I'm sorry, but the notion that Microsoft is no longer a monolopoly and wouldn't use it at the drop of a hat is really giving them too much credit.Please don't go to sleep and wake up to find another snarling dragon in the form of bad programming invading every desktop.
One way I'll know when Microsoft is no longer a monopoly is when I no longer have to keep myself equipped with tools for reading the Word .doc files people always send me assuming that it's some kind of standard for document interchange that everyone can read.
Microsoft will lose its monopoly soon.
:P
I just got an XBox 360, and soon after commented to my brother, "I'll never play a game on my PC again!". Too many reasons to list.
So, to surf the web, read e-mail, play iTunes... that black iMac G5 is looking nice! Plus it's got an LCD screen. Ciao windows...
I'm a 2000 man.
This is a very good argument that Microsoft is no longer a monopoly, and it makes good points, but with that said, Microsoft is still close.
Microsoft still has the vast majority of the browser market, and I have been forced to change my website(even though it was completely standards compliant before) in order to make it rendered properly in explorer when it works perfectly in Mozilla, Firefox, and Opera. I have several times been forced to write the bulk of my document in OpenOffice.org and then move to a Windows system just to make the final edits so that it would appear the way I wanted it to when I sent it to someone who was locked into MicroSoft word.
It may be true that Microsoft no longer has a true Monopoly, but they still have more influence, more power, and more users than all the other companies/Open Source Groups combined.
You've been able to get a Dell with RedHat and without Windows since at least 1999. That was when I ordered my first Linux server. After that experience I'll never order anything from Dell again. It was only luck that I figured out all the problems were Dell's and not Linux. Otherwise I'd be a huge advocate for M$.
You may have been right 10 years ago, but you're way off now. Up until around 1995 MS would license DOS per unit sold or per CPU sold. Since it was required less accounting resources (it's harder to lie about how many CPUs shipped than disks copied), MS sold DOS cheaper per-CPU. Obviously most OEMs chose the per-CPU licensing option to save money, but that meant that even if they wanted to ship a different OS, they still had to pay $20 or so for the CPU's DOS license.
They voluntarily gave up that practice with the Constent Decree, and it's no longer necessary because the registration numbers allow them to easily track how many units are sold.
The reason many high-volume OEMs charge more for machines with alternate OSes is simply that they get lots of money for preloading other crap (like QuickBooks trial version, free month of AOL, etc.) on Windows machines. Additionally, lower volume products simply have less economy of scale. Compiling drivers, creating disk images, and testing all require resources that have to be amortized over significantly smaller quantities.
dom