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
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.
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!
> 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!"
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?
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.
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.
...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.