Some of my own opinions have already been voiced by others, but I do have a few responses to offer:
At the time, according to the appeals court
testimony, there were approximately 100 million
Net users, which means every one could have
acquired Netscape's product if they wanted to.
Is it true that these users were not free to
choose Netscape?
Of course not. They were free to choose, just not free to use it. Sure 100 million people might have downloaded NS, but how many were able to run it without crashes once they'd done so? That's not even taking into account the thousands who downloaded the file and then couldn't find it later. You forget how confusing the Internet was to most people at that time. Refusing Netscape the right to negotiate with OEMs to distribute NS pre-installed was, without question, an enormous impediment to their market penetration. Downloads != Installations
In this time period, as the Web was exploding,
why wasn't Microsoft justified in integrating
Windows with its much-hyped OS? Wouldn't doing
otherwise prove corporate suicide?
Was Microsoft really supposed to sit back and
allow competitors to dominate this critical
market, surely threatening Windows in the
process?
I assume you meant "integrating IE" and not "integrating Windows". But in any case, of course they weren't supposed to sit back. I have a problem with the whole idea that browser integration with an OS is a bad thing. Where M$ did harm was by preventing NS from integrating their own browser in IE's stead. They did this by hiding their APIs and intentionally introducing incompatibilities over time that caused other apps to crash. WordPerfect and Corel Draw had similar problems during this same time period, I believe. If the end user had really had a choice, they would have been able to uninstall IE with no consequence or difficulty and simply plug in Netscape. I tried this very thing during that time period, and it didn't work.
Did the company ruthlessly, or illegally,
discourage competition? Did Microsoft make it
too difficult or in some cases, impossible, for
consumers to remove IE from their desktops? Did
Microsoft unfairly -- or, more to the point,
illegally --wipe out or damage potential
competitors?
Quite frankly, I can't see how anyone who's followed the case -- or worked in the IT industry within the last 4 years -- could be asking these particular questions with a straight face.
In the Corporate Republic, the land of AOL/Time-
Warner and the Disney Corp., is Microsoft really
that unusual, or even particularly predatory?
I don't see Disney striking deals intended to shut down Universal Studios or prevent them from distributing new movies. They're even in the same city, which actually encourages a symbiotic relationship. MS and Linux could easily get along this well (if both sides were willing) and enjoy the same benefits.
AOL/Time Warner's size and power is another matter entirely, but I don't know enough about them to comment on it.
Slashdot Mirror
You guys have no mercy, do you? Didn't you see LinuxGuru's pitiful, plaintive footer on their web site:
"Please do NOT link us slashdot. We do not have the bandwidth."
Have a heart!
jpt
Some of my own opinions have already been voiced by others, but I do have a few responses to offer:
At the time, according to the appeals court testimony, there were approximately 100 million Net users, which means every one could have acquired Netscape's product if they wanted to. Is it true that these users were not free to choose Netscape?
Of course not. They were free to choose, just not free to use it. Sure 100 million people might have downloaded NS, but how many were able to run it without crashes once they'd done so? That's not even taking into account the thousands who downloaded the file and then couldn't find it later. You forget how confusing the Internet was to most people at that time. Refusing Netscape the right to negotiate with OEMs to distribute NS pre-installed was, without question, an enormous impediment to their market penetration. Downloads != Installations
In this time period, as the Web was exploding, why wasn't Microsoft justified in integrating Windows with its much-hyped OS? Wouldn't doing otherwise prove corporate suicide? Was Microsoft really supposed to sit back and allow competitors to dominate this critical market, surely threatening Windows in the process?
I assume you meant "integrating IE" and not "integrating Windows". But in any case, of course they weren't supposed to sit back. I have a problem with the whole idea that browser integration with an OS is a bad thing. Where M$ did harm was by preventing NS from integrating their own browser in IE's stead. They did this by hiding their APIs and intentionally introducing incompatibilities over time that caused other apps to crash. WordPerfect and Corel Draw had similar problems during this same time period, I believe. If the end user had really had a choice, they would have been able to uninstall IE with no consequence or difficulty and simply plug in Netscape. I tried this very thing during that time period, and it didn't work.
Did the company ruthlessly, or illegally, discourage competition? Did Microsoft make it too difficult or in some cases, impossible, for consumers to remove IE from their desktops? Did Microsoft unfairly -- or, more to the point, illegally --wipe out or damage potential competitors?
Quite frankly, I can't see how anyone who's followed the case -- or worked in the IT industry within the last 4 years -- could be asking these particular questions with a straight face.
In the Corporate Republic, the land of AOL/Time- Warner and the Disney Corp., is Microsoft really that unusual, or even particularly predatory?
I don't see Disney striking deals intended to shut down Universal Studios or prevent them from distributing new movies. They're even in the same city, which actually encourages a symbiotic relationship. MS and Linux could easily get along this well (if both sides were willing) and enjoy the same benefits.
AOL/Time Warner's size and power is another matter entirely, but I don't know enough about them to comment on it.