I don't think so. Apple is a verticle company (I think I have my terms right), they have multiple products that work together. ie: hardware and software to work on it.
That in itself is a form of a monopoly. If memory serves a while back MS wanted to get into the hardware market but they were blocked by the govt because it would make them too powerful.
I think it is ok in Apple's case because 1) they started years and years ago. 2) thay have so little market share.
Not really. They are two totally different concepts. Why can an excellent writter not necessarily draw well? They are both classified as 'arts'...
Just because you kick ass technically, does not mean you understand all things business. The two don't go hand in hand.
Besides, using the technical term, MS is not a monopoly. It may have been labled one, but it is definitly not. If you want to own a computer you don't HAVE to use MS products. There are alternatives. Now then, MS is guilty of using their market share to impose 'monopolictic' practices on people. ie) integrating IE in windows, using tactics to prevent others from entering their corner of the market, etc...
But by no means are they truly a monopoly.
The only gas station in a town of 400 poeple is a monopoly.
The public transportation system in Chicago is a monopoly.
Whatever gas company in your region of the country is a monopoly.
MS certanly is not. Alternatives exist... but are they feasable? The problem is once you buy into MS, your options can become limited depending on what you're trying to do...
I'm not sure about this, but does the EU even have the authority to break up MS? MS is a US corperation. Granted they have the MS Europe division, but how can you break up a division into seperate companies? They would still all be owned by MS US...
That is a good point. I wish I had mod points to give you.
I'm not saying MS is a great corperation morally, but they aren't doing anything that another corperation in their place wouldn't do. And you're right. How is what Mac does different?
You know how baseball and football stadiums are being renamed to that of their biggest sponcer?
Chicago has "United Stadium" (Bulls) and "U.S. Cellular Field" (White Sox). I wonder if the EU would sell out if MS agrees to pay them 50 times the fine over 5 years.
Microsoft: So we're in agreement? 20 billion over the next 5 years? European Union: Sounds good. Microsoft: Please sign here. European Union: Lets see, where's that 'X'. Ahh, there it is. *signs* Microsoft: Pleasure doing business with you! The European Union of Microsoft: Wha, business? Sure, whatever, that's great. Where's our check?
Or they appeal and postpone and use a bunch of legal tricks to delay payment for years.
By then, who knows. Markets fluctuate, as the US pulls out of its recession, the exchange rate will too. Things could be back to how they were when the Euro was first released... 1.20 Euro may equal a dollar and they would end up saving money.
I doubt that, that is their strategy, though. The last think in MS' mind is if they can spin it to save 100 million dollars. That is just change in the pocket to them.
I know they are often grouped together, but I figured there was a different term when one referred to both. Ah well, either way, MS is hardly going to care about the verdict.
MS does not have 53 billion dollars of cash on hand. A quick look at their balance sheet shows that they only have 6.5 billion in cash right now.
That being said, they do have 42.6 billion in "short term investments", but still.
Obviously it looks a lot better for the article for the reporter to use the $53 number as opposed to the $6.5, but come on, why all the misinformation? Why must everything always be spun in such a way to make a bigger headline or a more drastic statistic?
That would be funny. Too bad there are numerous SEC laws that prevent that from happening. Anytime Willy wants to sell some stock he has to have it approved and go through a bunch of red tape. And then he can't sell more than X shares at a time...
I'm not sure on all of the rules, but they do exist to protect the 'common' investor.
Woo Hoo!! This will teach evil monopolies like MS or DeBeers not to mess with us consumers...
Pfft, yea right. Like the corperations would ever let that happen.
Check out this Reuters Article. I'm sure you can find it online, it was sent to me via 'business watch'...
If you don't want to read it, here it is in a nutshell: There are seveal processes that exist that will keep the verdict in the court system for up to 7 years before any payout has to occur. By then? Who knows...
March 22, 2004 13:26:00 (ET) By David Lawsky
BRUSSELS, March 22 (Reuters) -- Microsoft (MSFT,Trade) will win one thing after it loses a landmark EU antitrust case this week -- months and possibly years before it must do what the European Union executive orders, experts said on Monday.
The European Commission is scheduled to rule on Wednesday that Microsoft is an abusive monopolist which used the power of its dominant Windows operating system to damage competitors.
As soon as the ruling is issued, the U.S. software giant will go to court and be assured of months of delay.
Microsoft will be ordered to pay a fine of hundreds of millions of euros, the topic of an advisory committee of EU member states on Monday.
The Commission will order the company to sell a version of its operating system without Windows Media Player and to encourage computers makers to provide other audiovisual software.
And it must license information at a reasonable rate to make the low-level servers of rivals, used for printing and file services, more compatible with Windows desktop machines.
But as Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith said last week soon after settlement negotiations ended in failure: "Today is just another step in what could be a long process."
Microsoft has always made maximum use of courts to assert its rights and this will be no exception, experts say.
"There are enormous possibilities open to Microsoft to buy time," said David Wood, an antitrust lawyer for Howrey Simon.
The company will appeal the Commission ruling and ask the Court of First Instance to suspend remedies until the underlying case is decided. Until the court decides that first question the remedies are suspended.
BACK BURNER
"If they lose the application to suspend they can appeal that to the European Court of Justice. During that period -- the better part of a year -- it is likely the substantive case will be put on the back burner," Wood said.
The court case itself could take two or three years and an appeal will take an equal amount of time.
The Commission is expected to argue such a long delay will make its remedies irrelevant, because the market will have moved on and it will be too late to stop damage to other companies and to consumers.
Microsoft is expected to argue that if it is forced to carry out the remedies ordered by the Commission it cannot undo them and will suffer irreparable harm.
Some cases move on fast track, if one party agrees to narrow the issues and the Commission agrees to suspend the remedies. But that would pose no advantage for Microsoft.
"Microsoft clearly wants to have the issues examined as fully as possible. This seems to make it unlikely that they would wish to use the fast-track procedure," Wood said.
The worst case for Microsoft is that the remedies would begin to bite once an appeals court ruled they may not be suspended, which could take seven months or more.
The best case is that the remedies would be suspended until the case is finished, which could be seven years or more.
Even if the issues are suspended, the Commission is expected to move full steam ahead on two other investigations of Microsoft for business practices similar to those that got it in trouble this time.
And although the remedies may be suspended, the precedent set by the Commission in labelling Microsoft for its abuse of dominance will not disappear.
"You can expect the Commission to apply the precedent they have in their own decision in comparable cases regardless of whether the court delays the entry into force of their remedies," said Sven Voelcker, an antitrust lawyer with Wilmer, Cutler and Pickering in Brussels.
Excel? Offers nothing useful that I've seen that Open Office's spreadsheet doesn't. Or Gnumeric, for that matter.
If you think this, then you're not really using Excel.
Nero, how worked great for me. Never had any problems with it...and when I say any, I mean that. Not one coaster. I've used several other programs out there on recommendations from friends... bad bad bad.
IF you want to generalize to the tens of thousands of Windows apps...then you can do the same for linux...and most of those will suck too.
Next excuse for why people just can't live without insecure and unstable MS products???
Wow. Did you even read my post?
Business: #1 - and it is a BIG #1 - Cost.
Take a corperation like Allstate. They use windows. You expect them to migrate over to Mac? GOOD GOD!!! Do you have any idea how expensive that would be? The training, the new software, the new hardware, etc...
Average Joe: #1 Cost - Mac's are more powerful and all that good stuff, but they are so damn expensive!
#2 Software - The average joe can find EVERYTHING he wants at Best Buy.
#3 Games - Big factor on the youth front for those who have families.
I could go on to several other points, but I don't have the time... plus you are a Mac user, so it is like talking to a wall.
No, it is because Linux is a pain in the ass for the average joe to use.
It lacks the programs that people use windows for. Take my parents. They are relativly tech savey...meaning they know enough that they don't have to call me every 5 min about how to do something... So, what do they want out of it? Ease of use.
My dad loves MS Money as it does everything he needs it to do. My mom is into geneology, and there are tons of good software out there for it. They also use it for photoshop and their scanned / digital photos. etc...
The average person can sit down and get anything they want for windows and use it easily. Not the case for linux.
In other words you can say Windows "helps" the consumer by providing what they want and makes it easy to use.
In my opinion, the only thing that MS needs to do is become more secure and slightly more stable. If that were to happen, linux would have some major problems.
Slashdot Mirror
Point taken. Sounds about right.
It will be curious to see how they market / implement Longhorn knowing all of this...
I don't think so. Apple is a verticle company (I think I have my terms right), they have multiple products that work together. ie: hardware and software to work on it.
That in itself is a form of a monopoly. If memory serves a while back MS wanted to get into the hardware market but they were blocked by the govt because it would make them too powerful.
I think it is ok in Apple's case because
1) they started years and years ago.
2) thay have so little market share.
But I don't think it is apples vs. oranges.
Not really. They are two totally different concepts. Why can an excellent writter not necessarily draw well? They are both classified as 'arts'...
... but are they feasable? The problem is once you buy into MS, your options can become limited depending on what you're trying to do...
Just because you kick ass technically, does not mean you understand all things business. The two don't go hand in hand.
Besides, using the technical term, MS is not a monopoly. It may have been labled one, but it is definitly not. If you want to own a computer you don't HAVE to use MS products. There are alternatives. Now then, MS is guilty of using their market share to impose 'monopolictic' practices on people. ie) integrating IE in windows, using tactics to prevent others from entering their corner of the market, etc...
But by no means are they truly a monopoly.
The only gas station in a town of 400 poeple is a monopoly.
The public transportation system in Chicago is a monopoly.
Whatever gas company in your region of the country is a monopoly.
MS certanly is not. Alternatives exist
I think I just said the same thing twice there...
I'm not sure about this, but does the EU even have the authority to break up MS? MS is a US corperation. Granted they have the MS Europe division, but how can you break up a division into seperate companies? They would still all be owned by MS US...
Yup. Because the case is finally settled. Investors are more interested in cases like this being over with, as opposed to the actual outcome.
In other words, the unknown = scary. The outcome = safty.
Besides, they know taht 600 mil is nothing when talking about MS.
That is a good point. I wish I had mod points to give you.
I'm not saying MS is a great corperation morally, but they aren't doing anything that another corperation in their place wouldn't do. And you're right. How is what Mac does different?
You know how baseball and football stadiums are being renamed to that of their biggest sponcer?
Chicago has "United Stadium" (Bulls) and "U.S. Cellular Field" (White Sox). I wonder if the EU would sell out if MS agrees to pay them 50 times the fine over 5 years.
Microsoft: So we're in agreement? 20 billion over the next 5 years?
European Union: Sounds good.
Microsoft: Please sign here.
European Union: Lets see, where's that 'X'. Ahh, there it is. *signs*
Microsoft: Pleasure doing business with you!
The European Union of Microsoft: Wha, business? Sure, whatever, that's great. Where's our check?
Or they appeal and postpone and use a bunch of legal tricks to delay payment for years.
By then, who knows. Markets fluctuate, as the US pulls out of its recession, the exchange rate will too. Things could be back to how they were when the Euro was first released... 1.20 Euro may equal a dollar and they would end up saving money.
I doubt that, that is their strategy, though. The last think in MS' mind is if they can spin it to save 100 million dollars. That is just change in the pocket to them.
From the parent...
The fine amounts to slightly more than one percent of Microsoft's roughly $53 billion cash on hand and did not impress analysts and critics.
I know they are often grouped together, but I figured there was a different term when one referred to both. Ah well, either way, MS is hardly going to care about the verdict.
Eww...you're right.
I guess, I'm just a dirty boy.
I love how these reporters manipulate numbers.
MS does not have 53 billion dollars of cash on hand. A quick look at their balance sheet shows that they only have 6.5 billion in cash right now.
That being said, they do have 42.6 billion in "short term investments", but still.
Obviously it looks a lot better for the article for the reporter to use the $53 number as opposed to the $6.5, but come on, why all the misinformation? Why must everything always be spun in such a way to make a bigger headline or a more drastic statistic?
Bah. I hate the media.
That would be funny. Too bad there are numerous SEC laws that prevent that from happening. Anytime Willy wants to sell some stock he has to have it approved and go through a bunch of red tape. And then he can't sell more than X shares at a time...
I'm not sure on all of the rules, but they do exist to protect the 'common' investor.
Woo Hoo!! This will teach evil monopolies like MS or DeBeers not to mess with us consumers...
Pfft, yea right. Like the corperations would ever let that happen.
Check out this Reuters Article. I'm sure you can find it online, it was sent to me via 'business watch'...
If you don't want to read it, here it is in a nutshell: There are seveal processes that exist that will keep the verdict in the court system for up to 7 years before any payout has to occur. By then? Who knows...
March 22, 2004 13:26:00 (ET)
By David Lawsky
BRUSSELS, March 22 (Reuters) -- Microsoft (MSFT,Trade) will win one thing after it loses a landmark EU antitrust case this week -- months and possibly years before it must do what the European Union executive orders, experts said on Monday.
The European Commission is scheduled to rule on Wednesday that Microsoft is an abusive monopolist which used the power of its dominant Windows operating system to damage competitors.
As soon as the ruling is issued, the U.S. software giant will go to court and be assured of months of delay.
Microsoft will be ordered to pay a fine of hundreds of millions of euros, the topic of an advisory committee of EU member states on Monday.
The Commission will order the company to sell a version of its operating system without Windows Media Player and to encourage computers makers to provide other audiovisual software.
And it must license information at a reasonable rate to make the low-level servers of rivals, used for printing and file services, more compatible with Windows desktop machines.
But as Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith said last week soon after settlement negotiations ended in failure: "Today is just another step in what could be a long process."
Microsoft has always made maximum use of courts to assert its rights and this will be no exception, experts say.
"There are enormous possibilities open to Microsoft to buy time," said David Wood, an antitrust lawyer for Howrey Simon.
The company will appeal the Commission ruling and ask the Court of First Instance to suspend remedies until the underlying case is decided. Until the court decides that first question the remedies are suspended.
BACK BURNER
"If they lose the application to suspend they can appeal that to the European Court of Justice. During that period -- the better part of a year -- it is likely the substantive case will be put on the back burner," Wood said.
The court case itself could take two or three years and an appeal will take an equal amount of time.
The Commission is expected to argue such a long delay will make its remedies irrelevant, because the market will have moved on and it will be too late to stop damage to other companies and to consumers.
Microsoft is expected to argue that if it is forced to carry out the remedies ordered by the Commission it cannot undo them and will suffer irreparable harm.
Some cases move on fast track, if one party agrees to narrow the issues and the Commission agrees to suspend the remedies. But that would pose no advantage for Microsoft.
"Microsoft clearly wants to have the issues examined as fully as possible. This seems to make it unlikely that they would wish to use the fast-track procedure," Wood said.
The worst case for Microsoft is that the remedies would begin to bite once an appeals court ruled they may not be suspended, which could take seven months or more.
The best case is that the remedies would be suspended until the case is finished, which could be seven years or more.
Even if the issues are suspended, the Commission is expected to move full steam ahead on two other investigations of Microsoft for business practices similar to those that got it in trouble this time.
And although the remedies may be suspended, the precedent set by the Commission in labelling Microsoft for its abuse of dominance will not disappear.
"You can expect the Commission to apply the precedent they have in their own decision in comparable cases regardless of whether the court delays the entry into force of their remedies," said Sven Voelcker, an antitrust lawyer with Wilmer, Cutler and Pickering in Brussels.
Nice Legos... :)
Ahhh...no. They don't have 20 billion in cash. MS doesn't even have 20 billion in cash.
Do some reasearch before you blindly make statements.
Apple has has "Cash & Equivalents" of 3.4 billion (as of the end of '03). Just look at their balance sheet.
Though, I will agree, they are not doomed. They turn a profit every quarter, and last time I checked companies that post profits are not doomed.
Excel? Offers nothing useful that I've seen that Open Office's spreadsheet doesn't. Or Gnumeric, for that matter.
If you think this, then you're not really using Excel.
Nero, how worked great for me. Never had any problems with it...and when I say any, I mean that. Not one coaster. I've used several other programs out there on recommendations from friends... bad bad bad.
IF you want to generalize to the tens of thousands of Windows apps...then you can do the same for linux...and most of those will suck too.
Wow. You couldn't be further from the truth. WIndows may suck but I would say that 80% of the apps for it rock.
Excel (probably the only kick ass software MS makes) blows away any other spreadsheet program.
Easy CD Creater / Nero - much better than any linux counterparts. My friend is a die hard gentoo fan, who keeps windows around to burn CD's.
Mozilla - Hey! It is a Windows app!
Quicktime, any number of DVD playback apps, 80% of the games out there, MS Money, AIM, Photoshop, CAD, 3D Studio Max, Visual Studio... etc...
Dude, you are on crack. Knock MS, don't knock the software that runs on it.
Next excuse for why people just can't live without insecure and unstable MS products???
... plus you are a Mac user, so it is like talking to a wall.
Wow. Did you even read my post?
Business:
#1 - and it is a BIG #1 - Cost.
Take a corperation like Allstate. They use windows. You expect them to migrate over to Mac? GOOD GOD!!! Do you have any idea how expensive that would be? The training, the new software, the new hardware, etc...
Average Joe:
#1 Cost - Mac's are more powerful and all that good stuff, but they are so damn expensive!
#2 Software - The average joe can find EVERYTHING he wants at Best Buy.
#3 Games - Big factor on the youth front for those who have families.
I could go on to several other points, but I don't have the time
Windows is losing mind and marker share. WHY?
Linux is now in the running to win the marbles.
HAHAHA!!! You are awesome. I wish I had mod points so I could mod you up funny man.
*sigh* losing market share. heh.
Ok...so what would you propose?
Keep in mind that MS has standardized many things in business today, and without those standards business wouldn't be where it is today.
Also, keep in mind the cost of developing software for multiple platforms.
Don't forget the learning curve for the average user.
Please, enlighten us to a better more efficient solution.
If a user has purchased any addins for WMP it is unlikely for them to prefer another.
You are totally right. It will be very difficult for a user to press the 'play' button on another media player interface.
The learning curve will be astronomical.
Where does profit fit in here?
Sorry, didn't see the cell phone reference gay-boy.
The discussion at hand started based on land lines.
No, it is because Linux is a pain in the ass for the average joe to use.
It lacks the programs that people use windows for. Take my parents. They are relativly tech savey...meaning they know enough that they don't have to call me every 5 min about how to do something... So, what do they want out of it? Ease of use.
My dad loves MS Money as it does everything he needs it to do. My mom is into geneology, and there are tons of good software out there for it. They also use it for photoshop and their scanned / digital photos. etc...
The average person can sit down and get anything they want for windows and use it easily. Not the case for linux.
In other words you can say Windows "helps" the consumer by providing what they want and makes it easy to use.
In my opinion, the only thing that MS needs to do is become more secure and slightly more stable. If that were to happen, linux would have some major problems.