AOL and MS should be fighting over how to get customers to use their products and services. That's the way the system's supposed to work. If MS doesn't want AOL to gain the advantage, they should offer the box makers better incentives than AOL does. What MS was doing before was simply decreeing to the box makers what would go on the desktop and prohibiting them from doing the same thing with competitors products.
This shows that the finding that MS was guilty of illegally maintaining their monopoly did not come too late to have an impact. Already, AOL is seizing the opportunity to compete with MS, and others might too.
The next step should be to allow OEMs to decide which default links are set up in Internet Explorer, including the default home page. An idea: MS should be required to PAY OEMs if they want the OEM to leave some of the links pointing to MS properties.
The governing principle should be: OEMs have the right to make any changes that an end user could make. Including disabling/deleting IE, MSN, Media Player, etc. (Of course, requiring MS to make those things easily uninstallable.)
After several weeks of Microsoft bringing attention to Open Source by attacking it, trying to violate IP laws by changing web pages with Dumb Tags, and trying to drive customers to Open Source through increasingly draconian licensing provisions, Microsoft finally does something in its self interest.
By voluntarily changing their behavior and admitting that the court found them guilty of some things, they have finally done something to lessen the belief that they are an amoral entity with no regard for the law or their customers.
This is the first I heard that this law had a name, but one thing I've wondered about is why most GUI editors have scroll bars on the right and not the left, where most work is done.
I'm pretty sure NeXT had the scroll bars on the left, for this very reason.
If Apple or AOL thought for a second to try this M$ would register to sell their portion of Apple stock - causing the price to drop through the floor - they would announce a halt to Apple MS Office && Apple IE.
I believe M$ did sell their share. As for dropping Office and IE, they agreed to continue producing Mac versions for 6 years (I think they have about 3 years left).
The article says more people will listen to and respect Microsoft than Open Source advocates, but I think Microsoft is making a strategic blunder by drawing attention to their competition and transparently displaying their fear.
Mundie's argument is basically "Open Source is bad for our business model, therefore don't use it." He talks about the dangers to the SOFTWARE INDUSTRY, but never names any problems for Open Source software CUSTOMERS.
This Salon article points out that while Open Source software is bad for Microsoft, that doesn't make it bad for software customers.
Slashdot Mirror
AOL and MS should be fighting over how to get customers to use their products and services. That's the way the system's supposed to work. If MS doesn't want AOL to gain the advantage, they should offer the box makers better incentives than AOL does. What MS was doing before was simply decreeing to the box makers what would go on the desktop and prohibiting them from doing the same thing with competitors products.
This shows that the finding that MS was guilty of illegally maintaining their monopoly did not come too late to have an impact. Already, AOL is seizing the opportunity to compete with MS, and others might too.
-jimbo
As with any service which is essential to the economy, leaving network infrastructure in the hands of private companies doesn't work.
Cable TV is essential to the economy?
-jimbo
The next step should be to allow OEMs to decide which default links are set up in Internet Explorer, including the default home page. An idea: MS should be required to PAY OEMs if they want the OEM to leave some of the links pointing to MS properties.
The governing principle should be: OEMs have the right to make any changes that an end user could make. Including disabling/deleting IE, MSN, Media Player, etc. (Of course, requiring MS to make those things easily uninstallable.)
-jimbo
After several weeks of Microsoft bringing attention to Open Source by attacking it, trying to violate IP laws by changing web pages with Dumb Tags, and trying to drive customers to Open Source through increasingly draconian licensing provisions, Microsoft finally does something in its self interest.
By voluntarily changing their behavior and admitting that the court found them guilty of some things, they have finally done something to lessen the belief that they are an amoral entity with no regard for the law or their customers.
Hopefully, this is just a first step.
-jimbo
This is the first I heard that this law had a name, but one thing I've wondered about is why most GUI editors have scroll bars on the right and not the left, where most work is done.
I'm pretty sure NeXT had the scroll bars on the left, for this very reason.
-jimbo
If Apple or AOL thought for a second to try this M$ would register to sell their portion of Apple stock - causing the price to drop through the floor - they would announce a halt to Apple MS Office && Apple IE.
I believe M$ did sell their share. As for dropping Office and IE, they agreed to continue producing Mac versions for 6 years (I think they have about 3 years left).
-jimbo
The article says more people will listen to and respect Microsoft than Open Source advocates, but I think Microsoft is making a strategic blunder by drawing attention to their competition and transparently displaying their fear.
Mundie's argument is basically "Open Source is bad for our business model, therefore don't use it." He talks about the dangers to the SOFTWARE INDUSTRY, but never names any problems for Open Source software CUSTOMERS.
This Salon article points out that while Open Source software is bad for Microsoft, that doesn't make it bad for software customers.
-jimbo