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."

14 of 533 comments (clear)

  1. Money! by subl33t · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The governments of these states will no-doubt still gladly accept campaign contributions from Microsoft...

  2. We will know when... by QuietLagoon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  3. No OS competition? by coppro · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:No OS competition? by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Pondering that quote, I really don't want the world of computing to go back to the way things were back in the early 1980s. There were so many types of computer systems and operating systems to choose from. Shall I buy a TRS-80? IBM PC? Amiga? Apple Macintosh? Atari ST? It was really annoying. Right now, we're realistically down to Windows and Mac OS (Yes, I'm typing this on a Linux machine), and that's much better than the jungle we had back then.


      Part of the problem back in those days, particular from the late 1970s through the mid-1980s was that sharing of information was quite difficult between platforms. Create a file on a Commodore 64 and you'd probably have a bitch of a time transferring it to someone running an Apple 2 or a TRS-80 Model IV. Yes, we had some widely used operating systems like CP/M, but they tended to run on more expensive hardware than the home computers of that period. Even if you had a modem, it was probably 150 or 300baud, which made non-trivial file transfers a rather excruciating experience.

      By the end of the 1980s and into the early 1990s, we had faster 2400bps and 14.4k modems, LAN hardware had come down in price quite a bit allowing heterogenerous networks, and the need for interoperability in the small and mid-sized business markets pretty much weeded the systems that didn't play well together, not to mention platforms that didn't have decent business and/or desktop publishing software. Good systems like the Amiga died a slow death, leaving us with Microsoft's dominant position and Apple in an extremely distant second.

      However, the fact is that we have a platform-independent networking system in TCP/IP and its various child protocols like HTTP, the need for document interoperability has dispensed with a lot of the weird ASCII dialects that had plagued earlier generations of computer users. We are at a point where we could probably do reasonably well with a large number of platforms, providing that they adhere to some basic standards. Does it matter now whether you compose a document in ODF in OpenOffice.org, open and modify it in KOffice, and then send it off to Bob using some other ODF-compliant wordprocessor? It shouldn't, but Microsoft has pursued a consistent policy of undermining any attempt at open standards, right down to silly little ones like messing up bottom posting of email.

      A healthy market, with open standards and basic compliance to them, could support any number of hardware platforms and operating systems. An extremely large number of hardware platforms have been using *nix and enjoying this for decades, but Microsoft has stunted the PC, and everyone ends up having to reverse engineer their protocols and formats, and playing a constant game of catch-up. That's not the way it should be. Systems should compete on their merits, not on how effectively the companies that create them can create lock-in.
      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  4. I agree by Alexx+K · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Unfortunately, however, no matter how much people monitor and complain, the corperate-friendly USA will just give them a slap on the wrist and say, "Bad Microsoft! Now if you'll excuse me, I've got to get back ot using internet Explorer and Windows Messenger, and bombing those damn terrorists!"

    --
    Don't mind the extra X. Alex
  5. Own worst enemy. by palegray.net · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  6. Enough 'Monitoring' already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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....

  7. Re:So help me understand.. by Khakionion · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!
  8. Re:Market Capitalization tells another story by Gr8Apes · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I was always surprised that MS wasn't also slammed for Office. It is, after all, the sole reason they are a monopoly in the other 2 spaces.

    Exchange exists as it does not because it's the best email/calendaring server, because it's not, but because it offered a better environment than Notes and met the X.500 requirements the government set out, well, sort of, they're actually not compliant, but that's a different story, something to do with case sensitivity....

    There's far better email servers out there, and far better clients than Outlook, and far better calendaring servers. There's just not a client that ties them together as well yet, and that's a shame.

    And just to bring it back on topic - the states are right - nothing has yet changed in the desktop space - MS is still the dominant by far player, the OS has yet to be replaced. (Hints of what might come after Vista are presaged by the wonders of the likes of cio.com, if you believe them. IE, by sole virtue of being "part" of the OS, is the dominant browser, but its market share appears to be rapidly falling over the past year or so, and may (hopefully) show the future trend of the OS. If you've tried the latest release of OOo, then you'll know that OOo is a viable replacement for Office, and a welcome one considering the pain that O2007 is causing some of us at least that are forced to use it.

    I will predict that in the next 3-4 years, the landscape will change radically. MS will still be a powerhouse, but will just be the 400 pound gorilla, being much chastised and otherwise reduced from its former 800 pound size. ODF will probably become the standard, whether MS wants it to or not, and Office will fall rather rapidly from its perch. Look for this to happen within 12 months of 02003 being EOL'd and unsupported. Look for Apple to make further inroads in market share, as more and more people buy their laptops. Watch Dell implode as it loses the top spot. Watch Linux, probably in the form of Ubuntu, finally make inroads in marketshare, and possibly even into the business workspace. All this by the end of 2010.

    Rather than mod me down - care to make your own predictions?

    --
    The cesspool just got a check and balance.
  9. Re:Market Capitalization tells another story by NMerriam · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  10. Re:Market Capitalization tells another story by suckmysav · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!"
  11. Alternate Reality Check!!! by gsgriffin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?
  12. What about word processors? by dank+zappingly · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  13. The KEY to breaking Microsoft's monopoly.... by HerculesMO · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Is *NOT* the operating system. We all know that Apple makes a better OS. Linux *could be* a better OS if it had some more polish (sorry /.ers).

    You need to break the monopoly of financial and other business institutions relying on Excel and Microsoft Office. Don't tell me about Pages or Keynote or whatever other software there is. Sure, it's easy to use, very pretty... but Office is a product that Microsoft doesn't fuck around with, and produces (and I'm waiting for my hateful comments) -- AWESOMELY. It's the best software that Microsoft makes. Office 2007 is a great step forward in usability, stability, intelligence, and workflow. You can't interoperate your Pages information with your Keynote information, or vice versa. But in Excel, highlight some cells, copy, and dump it into a fully editable Word document. Then take a Visio diagram and dump it into the same Word Doc -- still editable. Collaborate easily on Sharepoint (now also part of Office). With Groove, you collaborate even further at the same time. And it's all stable, clean, and simple to use software with a powerful macro language (though I'm sure it's not the best) that allows you to automate and get information from different APIs (just walk into any financial institution and you'll see HUGE spreadsheets that download information out of Reuters and Bloomberg, email folks about updates, send updates to Blackberries formatted properly, etc).

    Break THAT monopoly, and Windows won't even matter.

    And don't mention Open Office. It's a joke compared to MS Office right now.

    --
    The price is always right if someone else is paying.