Slashdot Mirror
States Claim There is No Match for Microsoft
Bergkamp10 writes "State antitrust regulators have dismissed companies such as Google and Mozilla Corp, and software technologies such as AJAX and SaaS as "piddling players that pose no threat to Microsoft's monopoly in the operating system and browser markets".
According to the report ten US states, including California, New York and the District of Columbia have called for an extension of monitoring of Microsoft's business practices until November 2012.
They claim that little has changed in the OS and browser spaces since the 2002 antitrust case ruled against Microsoft. In their most recent brief, the states countered Microsoft's contention that Web-based companies — Google, Salesforce.com, Yahoo, eBay and others — and new Web-centric technologies constitute what Microsoft dubbed a "competitive alternative to Windows."
Not even close, said the states, claiming that while these companies' products provide functionality for users they still rely on Operating Systems and browsers — the two spaces where Microsoft dominates.
Experts were apparently even more damning, claiming competition in the market has not been restored since 2002 and that the collective powers of Google, Firefox and Web 2.0 are about as effective as a one legged man in a butt-kicking contest when it comes to unsettling Microsoft's monopoly of the market."
The governments of these states will no-doubt still gladly accept campaign contributions from Microsoft...
We won't know that there is competition in the marketplace until another monopoly has replaced Microsoft's monopoly. Just as we did not know there was competition for IBM until Microsoft's PC monopoly replaced IBM's mainframe monopoly.
As much as I don't think the antitrust monitoring should be removed, and as much as I hate to say it: Apple is hard competition.
Microsoft is Microsoft's own worst enemy. While I applaud the intentions of the Justice Department in attempting to impose a longer period of fine-grained monitoring on Microsoft's activities, I think they're missing most of the "big picture" here. Popular news and media outlets are routinely running stories about the slow adoption of Vista by major corporations and small businesses alike. New sales of Office are apparently lagging, too. Basically, the old story of "what we have now is good enough" is, in many cases, happening all over again.
My personal opinion is that by the time consumers are truly "forced" into another Microsoft upgrade cycle, viable and attractive product alternatives produced by Google and others will already be gaining significant ground. Even in the face of what many consider corrupt business practices on the part of Microsoft, the market is deciding the best route, albeit slowly. It just so happens that the market is finally starting to feel the evolutionary push of technology moving in leaps, rather than a slow progression.
512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
Isn't that... bad?
Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
I would say that to compare Microsoft in the post Sherman era they put Standard Oil and AT&T to shame. Apple as competition does nothing to change Microsoft's monopoly status. Every monopoly has competition. A monopoly is not defined by relative rather than absolute competition.
AT&T and the BEIC were *coercive* monopolists (they had access to government coercion to run out competitors). Standard Oil's a tired example that was on its way to being competed out of existence when the Sherman Act was run through Congress. Like Microsoft in the early days, they were a monopoly of infancy (the entire oil business was less than 1% of the American GDP at Standard's height), born out of the simple fact that one big company in an unproven market can gain capital more easily than a polyglot of smaller companies. Now Microsoft is simply a monopoly of inertia, dominating for the simple reason that nobody else is quite good enough yet to handle all of the use cases that people use Windows/Office for. OSX is very, very, good, but I just don't see it taking over the market while being tied to Apple's proprietary hardware (and I don't see it running on generic PC's anytime soon; a bad user experience due to poor/unsupported hardware could do much more harm than good). Linux has been "getting there" for over a decade now, and finally gaining some ground after being hidden in the server closets for the years after the IPO goldrush panned out.
Of course, the real unsettling thing is the sheer number of people who want to have their cake and eat it too. You know who I'm talking about, the people who cheer when Linux/Firefox/OO.o/Apple gets rolling in the market, and then draw back and claim that victory in the market is impossible without *forcing* Microsoft out.
Jesus is coming -- look busy!
They're a convicted monopolist, how the hell is 'monitoring' going to make a difference? Hurry up and actually do something already. The EU are imposing fines, the US is just 'monitoring' them....
I think their point is that Microsoft doesn't have significant competitors in the two areas in which they feel Microsoft had a monopoly: operating systems and browsers. Google produce neither (directly), and most of GOOG's value is in the search space, where Microsoft were never accused of having a monopoly in the first place.
Or in other words, the fact that General Electric has a market value around 340 billion dollars is irrelevant to the case against Microsoft. You could argue that Google has some relevance because all of their services are accessed via a web browser running on an OS.
That's because those were real monopolies. You can't have a monopoly that's a) based on intellectual property and not a physically limited or controlled resource and b) has no pricing power over the market they're in (Linux is free, duh). So they're nothing like those other companies not because they're amateurs, but because they're not even a monopoly and never were.
If all it comes down to is operating systems and browsers then there are alternative operating systems and alternative browsers that "do it (support standards) better than Microsoft does." I think that real crux of the complaint against Microsoft is that despite all of the Web 2.0 and other nonsense that is coming out, there still isn't a compelling reason for MOST PEOPLE to leave the Windows-centric world. For most people in the corporate world, Windows desktop and server technologies "just work" when they are deployed by people who have half a clue about the technologies that they are implementing. Just like Apple claims to not give two craps about the enterprise environment, I think that Microsoft has shown a similar philosophy toward the consumer market. So long as they keep getting those fat software contracts from governments and enterprises, they will let the consumers rot. I say more power to them. Let everyone run Apple and Linux at home. Just support an open document standard so that people can take their work home if need be and leave it at that. When it comes down to Exchange/Outlook/Office and Sharepoint server, there aren't any real alternatives that tie everything together into a seemless "workflow" (as the Apple people are so often harping about). I think that if Microsoft can setup their application stack to take input as and generate output to ODF or a similar standard, they can give on the pushing the MS Office requirement on the world. I doubt that it will happen, but that is just because they are greedy.
Viable alternatives do not break a monopoly. In fact, the failure of OS X and Linux to make significant inroads onto the desktop despite being far superior alternatives emphasizes the fact that Microsoft is still abusing its monopoly power to push their inferior product in situations where it doesn't make sense.
OMG! Wau!
The crux of the complaint against Microsoft is that they have a monopoly on operating systems and browsers, regardless of the reasons for that. It has nothing to do with whether or not other people provide standards-based technologies. The states are saying is that since the market situation hasn't changed, neither should the oversight -- that, essentially, until such time as the market diminishes their monopoly through whatever means, they will have to be monitored to ensure they don't abuse it the ways they have in the past.
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
> So it really dumbfounds and amuses me at the same time when people can sit with a straight face and claim Microsoft is some evil Monopoly.
Perhaps this exampe will cause understanding: Microsoft Windows Vista. If they can produce a product which is universally known for being terrible in multiple ways and still make bank, you should be able to see this is a hint that something is wrong. In other words, bad or even just _mediocre_ products usually have negative financial implications for businesses in a fair and balanced environment.
Exhibit A: Microsoft's game division produces the Xbox 360 which is marginally better than the original Xbox and started out with hardware problems. Without arguing the value of the Xbox 360, competition was able to produce more innovative products and since Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly in the video game industry, the normal (and good) response occurred being that they lost money. Apply this to the OS business: we don't need to argue the apparent failings of Vista because the fact is it doesn't meet consumer expectations to put it lightly. Would you expect any business to underperform or fail to meet consumer needs with one of their products and still continue to make a lot of money on that product? I don't think you would, and the reason Microsoft is able to do this is simply because the playing field isn't level (i.e. they do have a monopoly, and they're using it).
This author takes full ownership and responsibility for the unpopular opinions outlined above.
Also anti-competitive pressures on PC manufacturers to bundle Windows, anti-competitive pricing (co-marketing in particular), anti-competitive site-licensing, etc. This is there offensce.
Also network effects.
I do think you are right about the monopoly in the mind of the consumers. Everyone I know of who has been persuaded to try Linux or MacOS prefers them: but it remains hard to persuade people to try anything new (presumable because they think the learning curve is as steep as that of Windows).
there are no viable alternatives.
The thing is is there are viable alternatives however MS lobbyist keep using FUD to scare states from using these, including open source, alternatives. I'm typing this in Firefox running in Tiger, no I didn't upgrade to Leopard even though I have the dvd, on a MacBook Pro. For my office suite I use NeoOffice, the Mac centric version of Open Office. With it I can open and save documents in MS Office 2007's .docx format.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Monopolies don't require that no choice exists on an individual level, only on a larger marketwide scale. You could chose to live without a computer at all, that's a realistic personal choice but it certainly is not viable marketwide alternative.
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
The problem is not so much that MS has an OS and browser monopoly so much as that they have a monopoly on OEM bundling.
To destroy Microsoft, all one would need to do is;
1) Disallow Volume Discounts to OEMS. A standard price for Windows for all.
2) Disallow "Exclusivity" clauses in OEM contracts. OEMS should be allowed to sell whatever OS they care to without penalty.
3) Stop hiding the cost of Windows in the price of the PC. The PC hardware should be offered at $X and the purchaser then offered a selection of OS and support options to choose from.
4) Force MS to adopted accepted industry standards and disallow the use of proprietary protocols and formatswhich are designed solely as a means to lock in users to the Microsoft platform.
Do these things and Microsoft's "monopoly" would disappear within a couple of years.
"You can't fight in here, this is the war room!"
No, it exists in data formats, communication protocols and application lockin.
When we have communication protocols, document and other data formats that are open and implementable by anyone, and when we have applications that are portable across operating systems, then there'll be no monopoly.
Neither will happen while Microsoft is running the show.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
But if you take Joe Sixpack in the street, does he *really care* that Windows Media Player is playing his MP3s for him, that he happens to write his letters in Word, or that he browses the web with Internet Explorer. No, of course not - at that level, every software application he uses has to *just work* and nothing more.
And if you don't believe me, use Mozilla Firefox as an example. Quite clearly, Firefox is a far superior browser to Internet Explorer (more standards compliancy, more addons, etc.) yet it is still the minority browser. That's because Joe Sixpack simply does not care about better technology - IE does what it needs to for him so it's not even worth his while doing a 5MB download for Firefox.
Additionally, add to all of that the very clever marketing by the likes of Mcafee and Symantec, as well as Microsoft. Now when Joe Sixpack buys his PC, he has an automatic *expectation* that he is going to fork out good money for a subscription to additional anti-virus, anti-spyware or Internet security products - yet this is despite the fact that he is only having to buy these products because of the OS holes in Windows in the first place.
So please do not confuse better technology with higher popularity. FOSS software does not have huge marketing budgets or a remit to sell so many thousands of copies before it becomes profitable. The fact is that most Joe Sixpacks don't give a damn about FOSS (and why should they when they're happy using Windows and happy handing their PCs to the likes of me to "delouse" when they're so riddled with viruses and spyware) and are taken in by the glossy adverts anyway.
Microsoft knows this and (all credit to them) uses it to their advantage - otherwise how could utter dross like Vista achieve the penetration it is getting?
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
I personally just love it when avid Apple user chime in on a Microsoft monopoly issue. Please explain this to me. If Apple continues it method of marketing (which for most all of its products is extremely closed...you must buy their OS AND hardware or their iPod AND their iTunes or their phone AND the service with it), what would we all be saying if Apple had a 95% market share today? Wouldn't it be extremely monolopolistic and be taken to court as no OS or other hardware manufacturer could compete in that market AT ALL!!! At least Microsoft doesn't block other broswers from working and has an open market for CPU and hardware AND you can load other OS on the hardware that you don't have to buy from MS.
Don't you think that Apple will continue its marketing scheme? What if we lived in an alternate reality where Apple was 95% of the market? Don't you think they would be accused of the same thing but even more so? Stop your envy of market share Apple!!! You're no better in the way you do business.
jsut athnoer menagiensls ltitle psrhae for you to dcoede. Why do we wtsae our tmie dnoig tihs?
1. Good idea, but PC prices would skyrocket for a while. .doc (or .docx now) after a few upgrades kill their old files while their ODF files work fine. Provided, of course, MS doesn't sabotage the conversions and compatibility on purpose.
2. Even better. 3. Offering other OSs should still be the choice of the OEMs. 4. Disallowing proprietary formats could be going too far. Force compatibility with ODF, sure. But people will stop using
There are some great alternatives to Windows: Mac OS X and Linux, but people and businesses are still choosing windows. The problem isn't lack of competition, its humans' hesitation to adopt new technology.
Yeah, prices would skyrocket, but that's the point. Your removing the hidden cost and showing buyers that they have cheaper alternatives. You, in effect, jump start competition where it has the most affect. Money.
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
> Vista is only "universally" known for being terrible if your Universe extends to (and only to) the borders of SlashDot
More accurately, Vista _isn't_ universally known for being terrible if your universe includes only Microsoft. By universal, I mean common public opinion rather than everyone having the same opinion, and you will have a hard time arguing that common opinion _outside_ of Slashdot is positive, or perhaps you don't read other news or talk to very many people. This view isn't peculiar to Slashdot by any means; it's the general consensus you'll see from pretty much all sources.
> The Xbox 360 is doing just fine. So I'm not sure what your point was with that whole tangent.
Microsoft pledged a billion dollars for support issues alone for the Xbox 360. They planned to use the success of other products like the Zune to offset the losses attributable to their game division. I don't know what your source is, but Xbox 360 isn't doing so great. For some reason you couldn't follow this "tangent" which is simply just a supporting example of the main point: the idea that bad or mediocre products should at least lead to bad or mediocre profit. Now before anyone takes this out of context, keep in mind that I didn't specifically say the Xbox 360 is a bad or mediocre product, but rather that the competition was able to produce more innovative products and so in comparison, the Xbox 360 can be considered mediocre. Again, this example is indicative of a good and healthy environment where companies compete to produce innovative products. Competition exists!
Now, to answer your question regarding people seemingly not moving to Linux... that's the whole point. Competition doesn't exist or is somehow being stifled in the OS market. If they were on a level playing ground, Linux, being free and having the other technical advantages you yourself listed, would have a much stronger place in the market than it has today.
This author takes full ownership and responsibility for the unpopular opinions outlined above.
I don't know if there is something that I am missing here, but why is it that I can go to the store and buy the shiniest new video game with realistic physics and lighting for about 50 bucks, but if I want an office suite I have to pay $300? I am a non-programmer so maybe someone could enlighten me, but it seems that an office suite that is updated every year or so should require fewer man-hours to make than any game. My papers sure don't look any better this year than they did the last. I tried to use wordperfect, and it seemed to work worse than it did ten years ago. Isn't this the first thing the government should be looking out for? I bet Microsoft could charge $20 for Office and still make money. I mean who really cares about Internet Explorer, it's free.
MS will certainly lose market share, and will suffer greatly because of the findings against them in courts around the world. MS have a major problem. All they have is the NT kernel - they keep polishing it, but it's still the old crappy NT kernel. Windows 7 will still use that same old NT kernel...
Ubuntu will help Linux gain market share - Windows is already losing out to it in many areas. Dell will e fine - particularly since they now ship Ubuntu pre-loads!
...it's paid for by consumers who buy Windows. The cost of development is included in the price of Windows. You have the option of uninstalling it, but you don't have the option of not paying for it.
You can cheer for every punch the underdog lands even though you know they aren't going to win the fight.
Doesn't office run on OSX?
As a Linux user from 1993, I am afraid that the truth is that Windows is quite good at two areas (besides markrting and Fud): printing and sound.
I bet all users have had problems with applications like skype locking the sound card out. I bet they have had all the sorts of trouble when printing.
CUPS is a good help, and basically done it right. Pulseaudio is a configuration nightmare, so is Arts and alsa and whatever. The truth is this: we must have for sound a free desktop standard everybody and anybody must use. Werther it is promoted from an existing sound server or build a new one from default, the truth is that sound is still an area that all UNIX based desktops find lacking.
Free Desktop is quite good at making up good standards. For instance, take D-BUS: activation and instrumentation done right. Fix a good sound server, promote CUPS to a standard to be used to print from any application (instead of system ("lpr ...")), and maybe we can tell the world aloud KDE or GNOME or XFCE or whatever running under X is capable of taking on Windows.
Francisco Colaço