"First, it criticizes Microsoft for ignoring or failing to implement standards. Then, it criticizes Microsoft for participating in the standards process and implementing standards."
Nowhere does anyone criticize Microsoft for implementing standards because they simply haven't implemented standards .
The OP criticizes Microsoft for implementing a "bastardized clone" of a standard, which is not the same thing as a standard. It is the obverse of a standard.
When browser vendors all implement the same standard markup, designers and developers only have to write web pages *once*. Designs and web applications can *flourish* because they are cheap to make and quick to appear.
When browser vendors each implement different markup languages, designers and developers suffer the nightmare of having to write and debug web pages and web applications again and again and again and again. Consumers miss out on new designs and new applications. The world is stuck in 1997, which suits Microsoft just fine since 1997 was a very profitable year for that company.
Meanwhile, for consumers, 2007 is a choice between buying Vista for more than they payed for an operating system in 1997, and buying five year old XP for the same price as they would pay for Vista! Do you get excited by that kind of choice?
"So then you agree with the DoJ and the 5 states that the thing they did vis-a-vis Microsoft worked?"
Nobody is saying the antitrust decree worked. Do you understand the basis of the court's ruling? A monopolist is not allowed to use a monopoly in one market (operating systems) to skew market share in another market (browsers).
Microsoft continues to use its o/s monopoly to skew the browser market by bundling IE with every copy of Windows. The fact that IE's market share is falling only proves how unsatisfactory consumers find Microsoft's offering.
Microsoft continues to sell record numbers of units of Windows because the rest of the industry has not been able to develop and deploy alternative computing platforms (e.g. standardized web browsers) fast enough to enable a critical mass of applications to flourish. This hobbling of innovation was Microsoft's primary intent when they worked to "cut off Netscape's air supply".
In another 10 years, standards compliant browsers may have matured enough to support Web 3.0 applications that make the Windows platform unnecessary or optional for application developers who want to reach a large audience. At that point, you would be right in saying that Microsoft's interference in the browser market has been overcome. But calculate the price: 25 years to fulfill the promise that Netscape unleashed in the 1990s.
"Internet time" has been slowed by a factor of 10 while Microsoft's revenue has been exagerated by an incalculable degree. Is that sort of justice consumers deserve?
JoelKatz, I guess you're just too subtle for me. Maybe you could explain what your actual confusion is rather than just saying "you're just too subtle for me" and just assuming everyone knows why. Seriously, I'd love to know what your issue is, but you have to make an infinite amount of effort to explain it.
Slashdot Mirror
"First, it criticizes Microsoft for ignoring or failing to implement standards. Then, it criticizes Microsoft for participating in the standards process and implementing standards."
Nowhere does anyone criticize Microsoft for implementing standards because they simply haven't implemented standards .
The OP criticizes Microsoft for implementing a "bastardized clone" of a standard, which is not the same thing as a standard. It is the obverse of a standard.
When browser vendors all implement the same standard markup, designers and developers only have to write web pages *once*. Designs and web applications can *flourish* because they are cheap to make and quick to appear.
When browser vendors each implement different markup languages, designers and developers suffer the nightmare of having to write and debug web pages and web applications again and again and again and again. Consumers miss out on new designs and new applications. The world is stuck in 1997, which suits Microsoft just fine since 1997 was a very profitable year for that company.
Meanwhile, for consumers, 2007 is a choice between buying Vista for more than they payed for an operating system in 1997, and buying five year old XP for the same price as they would pay for Vista! Do you get excited by that kind of choice?
"So then you agree with the DoJ and the 5 states that the thing they did vis-a-vis Microsoft worked?"
Nobody is saying the antitrust decree worked. Do you understand the basis of the court's ruling? A monopolist is not allowed to use a monopoly in one market (operating systems) to skew market share in another market (browsers).
Microsoft continues to use its o/s monopoly to skew the browser market by bundling IE with every copy of Windows. The fact that IE's market share is falling only proves how unsatisfactory consumers find Microsoft's offering.
Microsoft continues to sell record numbers of units of Windows because the rest of the industry has not been able to develop and deploy alternative computing platforms (e.g. standardized web browsers) fast enough to enable a critical mass of applications to flourish. This hobbling of innovation was Microsoft's primary intent when they worked to "cut off Netscape's air supply".
In another 10 years, standards compliant browsers may have matured enough to support Web 3.0 applications that make the Windows platform unnecessary or optional for application developers who want to reach a large audience. At that point, you would be right in saying that Microsoft's interference in the browser market has been overcome. But calculate the price: 25 years to fulfill the promise that Netscape unleashed in the 1990s.
"Internet time" has been slowed by a factor of 10 while Microsoft's revenue has been exagerated by an incalculable degree. Is that sort of justice consumers deserve?
JoelKatz, I guess you're just too subtle for me. Maybe you could explain what your actual confusion is rather than just saying "you're just too subtle for me" and just assuming everyone knows why. Seriously, I'd love to know what your issue is, but you have to make an infinite amount of effort to explain it.