Another chance to ask my favorite question: "How was M$ a monopoly?" I know this might sound like a troll, but it's a serious question. I have always been able to buy a whitebox PC with no preloaded OS. I have always been able to use a browser other than IE, for free . Just had to download one. There has always been an office product other than M$ Office available to me.
More powerful than Standard Oil? I strongly suggest you read up on Standard Oil. Start with Ron Chernow's "Titan." Worried about media concentration? Better read up on the Hearst empire (and yet another book: "The Chief" by David Nasaw).
M$ is nowhere near as powerful as those organizations were, and never has been. Yet almost every other day. people on/. rant about the M$ monopoly. Did they lose a decision by a panel of judges? Yes, so they are technically defined as a monopoly. Are judges infallible? Is anti-trust law black-and-white? And we all know the judicial system is never influenced by politics or appearances, or that AGs are never influenced by political opportunity or money.
BTW, guess we should be glad a bunch of totally altruistic AGs just recently figured out that smoking is bad for you, so states can share in the $25BB settlement, to say nothing of well connected tort lawyers...
But now the same process may be threatening Linux, via the SCO suit. (A suit which I suspect has zero merit as well.) Why did this happen? Because the money in OSS is too big to be ignored. Duh. But, somehow people on/. are shocked that the good guys might be the target of a suit without merit. Should have thought about that when M$ got sued. You can bet that as OSS succeeds, there will be more lawsuits. Most will likely be settled, like the AOL suit. If you don't like it, where were you when M$ was sued?
Right, Euros, that is. (Let's not get started about Eurodollars, though...)
So it sounds as though we agree that Germany is trying to better its employment picture (and trade balance) with Linux. Not necessarily a technical decision, but not an illegitimate one for a government...
My guess is that they will have to keep some Windows desktops around for a while to run Office macros and legacy apps. Sure would be interesting to be able to monitor the usage patterns on both systems after they make the switch.
Germany has a huge unemployment problem, and continuing to farm dMarks out to foreign companies is not going to be popular. Of all the distros out there, why SuSe? Why not RH?
Shifting the majority of the info-tech base to Linux will be a boost to the local software community in Germany. Now all they have to do is figure out which desktop they are going to use!
"Building on the PCE logo, the combination chair-computer comes in models called Peacemaker (starting at $4000) and Masterpeace ($7000)."
Who cares about license cost if you can afford this contraption? On the other hand, maybe I can afford this if I only run Linux. Will a gotta-have chair be the undoing of M$? Who woulda thunk it?
This is the best answer in the thread, and it really applies to any job for an older (not 20s) person in the tech business. People starting their careers are given a lot more leeway for screwups because:
They cost less
They can spend lots of time at work
Everyone knows everyone has to go through a learning process when they are young
So what does the older person have to offer? As mentioned in the parent, "life experience." Some examples:
"Sure the proprietary product is exactly what we want today, but they will probably drop it and the license load will price us out of the market"
"Sure the OSS product is free and we can tweak it, but it will never be done and we will spend more than you think tweaking it"
"I've dealt with person/company before, and they are great/will rip us off"
"I've been reading/. for years, I know exactly where to find the answer!" (sure-fire way to get the job, or get kicked out...!)
"Yes I can work with that type of person, let me tell you about my experience in the Zambizi..."
"Actually I have worked quite a bit with the Kabibble platform"
As long as your experience is relevant, you should be able to get a decent job. Just make sure you look for an employer that is interested in your experience. There are probably more than you think.
Right, there are more factors in their motivations than I suggested, but the bottom line is the same: losing control of the artist. It seems quite clear now that they really don't care about the consumer, the CD buyer. (You can have it our way!) The industry was vertical, controlling everything from the source through distribution, with the exception of retail outlets.
As for RIAA resistance to technical change, this has always been the case, even when the new model made more money than before. When talking about the RIAA, however, one has to be careful not to lump in all of the A&R people, who love the Internet. There's not a surplus of A&R jobs, though, so those still employed can't say anything.
I don't thing there is anything the industry can do anymore to control artists as they have in the past. Production hardware and software is becoming ever less expensive and more powerful, a boon to artists who want to self publish or just get established.
The RIAA never ceases to amaze with their stupid antics. Within a couple of days of the successful iTunes deployment, they leak this bit of lunacy. I can not think of another industry doing so much to alienate its customers, all the more amazing given that a CD is a totally discretionary purchase. How long before they cross the line and get hit with a general boycott?
The idea of launching destructive software is really mind-boggling. IANAL, but it sure seems to me that they could get hit with some massive liability lawsuits if one their destroy bots is a bit more successful than intended. Gotta admit though, it would be sweet irony to see these idiots sued out of existence.
What about Sony? While the record division is trying to impede piracy, the hardware people are abetting it by producing CD-R drives, among other things. What happens if a legit use of a Sony hardware product is impacted by a Sony Music destroy bot?
Maybe something else is going on. Perhaps the real panic in the industry is caused by the notion that a smart artist could put their files on p2p to get exposure w/o signing a record deal. If technology can improve the bargaining position of the artist before signing a deal (of their choice), the extreme reactions of the industry are a bit more understandable. NOT agreeable, however, and as stupid as one can imagine, but understandable if one takes the perspective of those who have been feeding at the music cartel trough for so long.
Dang, I was looking forward to getting an iTunes account, but now I'm conflicted. I'd like to support Apple and the artists, but I hate the idea of any money going to the RIAA overlords who should have been supporting iTunes-like products a long time ago. The pirate networks aren't really free, they just take a lot less time than going to CD store, have better selection in many cases, and allow one to sample. A good pay service with reliable connections, selection and organization, let alone the absence of all the spyware would be much preferable to the "freeware." That's why I think there is something else on the RIAA's mind - Not loss of the customer, but rather loss of the artist...
Righteeo... People seem to forget that Windows, up until NT at least was always an inferior OS compared to OS/2, MacOS, and *nix. Yet it gained dominant market share, because it was cheap and consistent for users, had the Office suite, and had great tools for developers. M$ also spent a fortune ensuring HW support, which made it even easier for the end user.
Linux/OSS is very cool, but you are right - there can really be only one flavor for the masses. But, when that happens, will the price be competitive? Is it worth it to me to save $100-$200 then find out I will waste a few days here and there with compatibility problems during the entire time I own the OS? No way. Linux is an interesting recreational/intellectual diversion, but doesn't make sense yet for my daily use of the PC. This has always been the problem with *nix - Too many flavors. Why else would a technically inferior OS gain market dominance? (Spare the me the "M$ is a monopoly" nonsense. I have always been able to buy an OS free whitebox and put any OS I wanted on it.)
Nothing has changed my mind about the best place for Linux: embedded devices, where license costs really make a difference, among other things. That's why the best Linux "desktop" today is TiVo.
Interesting point about the actual interface involved in using the language. On another note, I'm surprised none of the high mod replies mention Intellisense. (Maybe M$ trademarked it or something.)
It's highly useful regardless of language, which suggests to me that things like it are on one of the thick banches of the tree. Granted, Intellisense is more a feature of the editor than the language, but the convenience of it will likely begin influencing language design, especially since it allows you to discover features of the language/framework as you use it.
We learn natural languages through experience and context, why not the same for computer languages of the future? Intellisense must be a big waste of clock cycles since it doesn't contribute anything to the output binary, but it is very helpful for a translation process. In this way, it fits the inefficient but useful model. Same with syntax highlighting.
Will the metal benders show supposedly hipster Hollywood how to do business? Wouldn't surprise me. The CD is the automotive equivalent of the hand crank started motor. Of course supplying content in bulk will apply to any high dollar item. Homes, electronics, cars, boats, etc.
I was told once that the music industry makes a lot of money selling and distributing the CD itself, not just the content. Apparently this is a big profit center that will be eliminated with bulk distribution. My guess is that the industry will find digital distribution more profitable regardless, but in their typical fashion, they will resist common sense to the end.
The more I read/. , the more I realize *nix is just as fragmented as ever. In a few years, people will be saying "RH is fine, but I really liked <fill in fave distro name>, and after all that excitement about OSS here were are with IBM, HP, M$ and RH."
Unbelievable. If some donor came along and said, I'll give you this money but only if you use it to by M$ products, most on/. would have a fit. The more the *nix community tries stuff like this, the worse the blowback some day...
Seems to me that some of the best programmers have the ability to apply their programming skills for the benefit of others in non-tech fields. Construction is full of opportunities for software solutions; you might notice some and build an app useful to the company you work for.
Stick that on your resume and tell the interviewer that you built a solution the contruction people didn't know they needed, but wouldn't want to be without now. That will go a long way with the tech hiring managers.
Nope, WP hoisted itself by not porting to Win 3.0 for 2 years way back in the early 90s. That's how M$ got the Word market going. Doesn't change the fact that M$ should get new people on the investment committee, though.
Then again, maybe *nix has come a long way, now that it can sue itself! Hmmm... If the first sentient machine utters "I think, therefore I need representation", maybe I will take up woodworking.
If SCO hired decent lawyers, you are probably right. This shouldn't surprise anyone. I suggested to those who thought the anti-trust suit against M$ was a Good Thing that it was not. The DOJ action was largely instigated by M$ competitors, but people didn't seem to care. Now we see the result, more competition through litigation. This isn't going anywhere constructive.
You have to wonder, though, why they would spend so much money trying to leverage the Windows name/trademark. If they weren't called something similar, would people have found them? Is the b-plan focused on leveraging consumer brand confusion? Pretty big risk to take, but if they win, it will be worth it in the short run at least.
Robertson sure does like to get entangled in lawsuits, which cost his MP3.com investors a fortune. Guess he figures he will win this time.
Let's see, I was at Frys the other day and noticed Kylix and OpenOffice on the shelf, and they have a limited selection of software as it is. They also stock Redhat and SuSe. But even if they didn't have some Linux offerings, that doesn't mean there aren't any! The DOJ suit did not pave the way for Linux and Linux products. So, my question stands: "How is/was M$ a monopoly?"
Here's why I think this is important: My view is that the legal system was used by vested interests (Sun, AOL, Novell, etc.) to harass and impede a competitor (M$). There certainly were jusifications, but I don't think defining M$ as an illegal monopolist is in any way accurate. I am very concerned that this set a precedent that will define the ability to sell software as a matter of legal posture. We are already starting to see this monster raise its head in the guise of the SCO and Timeline actions. In the end, only big companies with big trademark and patent staffs will be able to jump through the hoops to get a product on the market. If this is the case, kiss OSS goodbye. Writing software will then become the equivalent of (gasp) signing a record deal as a new artist.;-(
Awwrright, I get to ask my favorite question again, especially since you mentioned Standard Oil. How is M$ a monopoly? I have been able to buy a PC without a preloaded OS for as long as there have been PCs. Linux is doing fine, OS2 has been around as longer than NT/2K, various *nixes, too. So where is/was the M$ monopoly?
I know this might seem like a troll, but no one has been able to answer my question. I think it is also very foolish to compare M$ to Standard Oil. Standard controlled virtually everything. If M$ owned all of the board manufacturers, Intel, drive makers, Dell, IBM, Cisco, HP, and most of the ISPs in the country, there might be a comparison. M$ isn't anywhere close to that kind of market dominance, obviously. Again, how is/was M$ a monopoly?
I know this will sound like a troll, but it's really more of a legal question: How exactly is M$ a monopoly? No one has given me a good answer to this yet. My basic point is this - I have always been able to buy an OS free PC and load whatever OS I wanted. So how is M$ a monopoly? Standard Oil was a monopoly because it completely controlled distribution and refining. There was NO choice! But with PCs, there has always been a choice.
Oh, get off your high horse. Microsoft was a monopoly because they controlled the market for PC operating systems
Please tell me how they did this? Once again, anyone can go out and buy a whitebox PC with no OS. That's essentially always been the case.
No one voted to make Microsoft a monopoly, it was an accident of the market
In my view, the market made a very rational choice, since M$ offered an OS that everyone supported and was cheaper than the alternatives for consumers and developers.
You would be annoyed if they charged you for leather seats on your car, even when you didn't get them, wouldn't you? That would be wrong, wouldn't it? How can you defend a company that would make you do that?
OK, go into a car dealer and ask to buy a car with no wheels, since you want to put on aftermarket wheels...Or no radio, or just primer since you want to choose your own custom color, etc, etc... If you think about it, it soon becomes apparent that the PC is probably the most user reconfigurable consumer product there is.
We don't know what else might be in their contracts in the way of penalties for not shipping Windows on a computer, because the terms are secret. If anyone reveals them, they lose their licnese to sell Windows with their computers. Are you saying that is a normal business practice? What business are you in?
This is a very common business practice. Almost every contract I have seen (and I've seen many) has a confidentiality clause.
I have yet to be convinced M$ is a monopoly. Do they have a dominant market share? Yes. Did they push the envelope with it? Yes. Did the anti-trust suit have merit, or was it essentially instigated by their competitors since they were too stupid to figure out how to compete? No and yes. BTW, did the competition come up with OSS? Of course not! Also, I don't work for M$.
Sun is yet another example of a M$ competitor that decided to sue (in this case, stir up anti-trust) instead of innovate. So, while McNealy & Co. was busy with the lawyers, OSS comes along to take Sun market share. The way I read your comment, mgmt began to realize that Solaris is too expensive, and thought of going to NT/2K servers. How expensive would that have been, given the retraining required, and purchase of all new apps? Yeesh, and they still thought M$ might be cheaper? I'm not sure this is such bad news for M$, but it's certainly bad news for Sun. McNealy brought this on his company, though.
Slashdot Mirror
Another chance to ask my favorite question: "How was M$ a monopoly?" I know this might sound like a troll, but it's a serious question. I have always been able to buy a whitebox PC with no preloaded OS. I have always been able to use a browser other than IE, for free . Just had to download one. There has always been an office product other than M$ Office available to me.
More powerful than Standard Oil? I strongly suggest you read up on Standard Oil. Start with Ron Chernow's "Titan." Worried about media concentration? Better read up on the Hearst empire (and yet another book: "The Chief" by David Nasaw).
M$ is nowhere near as powerful as those organizations were, and never has been. Yet almost every other day. people on /. rant about the M$ monopoly. Did they lose a decision by a panel of judges? Yes, so they are technically defined as a monopoly. Are judges infallible? Is anti-trust law black-and-white? And we all know the judicial system is never influenced by politics or appearances, or that AGs are never influenced by political opportunity or money.
BTW, guess we should be glad a bunch of totally altruistic AGs just recently figured out that smoking is bad for you, so states can share in the $25BB settlement, to say nothing of well connected tort lawyers...
But now the same process may be threatening Linux, via the SCO suit. (A suit which I suspect has zero merit as well.) Why did this happen? Because the money in OSS is too big to be ignored. Duh. But, somehow people on /. are shocked that the good guys might be the target of a suit without merit. Should have thought about that when M$ got sued. You can bet that as OSS succeeds, there will be more lawsuits. Most will likely be settled, like the AOL suit. If you don't like it, where were you when M$ was sued?
Right, Euros, that is. (Let's not get started about Eurodollars, though...)
So it sounds as though we agree that Germany is trying to better its employment picture (and trade balance) with Linux. Not necessarily a technical decision, but not an illegitimate one for a government...
My guess is that they will have to keep some Windows desktops around for a while to run Office macros and legacy apps. Sure would be interesting to be able to monitor the usage patterns on both systems after they make the switch.
I'm not so sure the parent post is not right.
Germany has a huge unemployment problem, and continuing to farm dMarks out to foreign companies is not going to be popular. Of all the distros out there, why SuSe? Why not RH?
Shifting the majority of the info-tech base to Linux will be a boost to the local software community in Germany. Now all they have to do is figure out which desktop they are going to use!
Someone I once new told me "If you really understand something, you can describe it mathematically."
If anything, maybe it's more interesting that that he doesn't prefer assembler. Hmmm... Maybe he will be drawn to quantum computing.
"Building on the PCE logo, the combination chair-computer comes in models called Peacemaker (starting at $4000) and Masterpeace ($7000)."
Who cares about license cost if you can afford this contraption? On the other hand, maybe I can afford this if I only run Linux. Will a gotta-have chair be the undoing of M$? Who woulda thunk it?
Your reply is a pretty good ad for
Mod parent up!
This is the best answer in the thread, and it really applies to any job for an older (not 20s) person in the tech business. People starting their careers are given a lot more leeway for screwups because:
So what does the older person have to offer? As mentioned in the parent, "life experience." Some examples:
- "Sure the proprietary product is exactly what we want today, but they will probably drop it and the license load will price us out of the market"
- "Sure the OSS product is free and we can tweak it, but it will never be done and we will spend more than you think tweaking it"
- "I've dealt with person/company before, and they are great/will rip us off"
- "I've been reading
/. for years, I know exactly where to find the answer!" (sure-fire way to get the job, or get kicked out...!) - "Yes I can work with that type of person, let me tell you about my experience in the Zambizi..."
- "Actually I have worked quite a bit with the Kabibble platform"
As long as your experience is relevant, you should be able to get a decent job. Just make sure you look for an employer that is interested in your experience. There are probably more than you think.Right, there are more factors in their motivations than I suggested, but the bottom line is the same: losing control of the artist. It seems quite clear now that they really don't care about the consumer, the CD buyer. (You can have it our way!) The industry was vertical, controlling everything from the source through distribution, with the exception of retail outlets.
As for RIAA resistance to technical change, this has always been the case, even when the new model made more money than before. When talking about the RIAA, however, one has to be careful not to lump in all of the A&R people, who love the Internet. There's not a surplus of A&R jobs, though, so those still employed can't say anything.
I don't thing there is anything the industry can do anymore to control artists as they have in the past. Production hardware and software is becoming ever less expensive and more powerful, a boon to artists who want to self publish or just get established.
The RIAA never ceases to amaze with their stupid antics. Within a couple of days of the successful iTunes deployment, they leak this bit of lunacy. I can not think of another industry doing so much to alienate its customers, all the more amazing given that a CD is a totally discretionary purchase. How long before they cross the line and get hit with a general boycott?
The idea of launching destructive software is really mind-boggling. IANAL, but it sure seems to me that they could get hit with some massive liability lawsuits if one their destroy bots is a bit more successful than intended. Gotta admit though, it would be sweet irony to see these idiots sued out of existence.
What about Sony? While the record division is trying to impede piracy, the hardware people are abetting it by producing CD-R drives, among other things. What happens if a legit use of a Sony hardware product is impacted by a Sony Music destroy bot?
Maybe something else is going on. Perhaps the real panic in the industry is caused by the notion that a smart artist could put their files on p2p to get exposure w/o signing a record deal. If technology can improve the bargaining position of the artist before signing a deal (of their choice), the extreme reactions of the industry are a bit more understandable. NOT agreeable, however, and as stupid as one can imagine, but understandable if one takes the perspective of those who have been feeding at the music cartel trough for so long.
Dang, I was looking forward to getting an iTunes account, but now I'm conflicted. I'd like to support Apple and the artists, but I hate the idea of any money going to the RIAA overlords who should have been supporting iTunes-like products a long time ago. The pirate networks aren't really free, they just take a lot less time than going to CD store, have better selection in many cases, and allow one to sample. A good pay service with reliable connections, selection and organization, let alone the absence of all the spyware would be much preferable to the "freeware." That's why I think there is something else on the RIAA's mind - Not loss of the customer, but rather loss of the artist...
Righteeo... People seem to forget that Windows, up until NT at least was always an inferior OS compared to OS/2, MacOS, and *nix. Yet it gained dominant market share, because it was cheap and consistent for users, had the Office suite, and had great tools for developers. M$ also spent a fortune ensuring HW support, which made it even easier for the end user.
Linux/OSS is very cool, but you are right - there can really be only one flavor for the masses. But, when that happens, will the price be competitive? Is it worth it to me to save $100-$200 then find out I will waste a few days here and there with compatibility problems during the entire time I own the OS? No way. Linux is an interesting recreational/intellectual diversion, but doesn't make sense yet for my daily use of the PC. This has always been the problem with *nix - Too many flavors. Why else would a technically inferior OS gain market dominance? (Spare the me the "M$ is a monopoly" nonsense. I have always been able to buy an OS free whitebox and put any OS I wanted on it.)
Nothing has changed my mind about the best place for Linux: embedded devices, where license costs really make a difference, among other things. That's why the best Linux "desktop" today is TiVo.
Interesting point about the actual interface involved in using the language. On another note, I'm surprised none of the high mod replies mention Intellisense. (Maybe M$ trademarked it or something.)
It's highly useful regardless of language, which suggests to me that things like it are on one of the thick banches of the tree. Granted, Intellisense is more a feature of the editor than the language, but the convenience of it will likely begin influencing language design, especially since it allows you to discover features of the language/framework as you use it.
We learn natural languages through experience and context, why not the same for computer languages of the future? Intellisense must be a big waste of clock cycles since it doesn't contribute anything to the output binary, but it is very helpful for a translation process. In this way, it fits the inefficient but useful model. Same with syntax highlighting.
Will the metal benders show supposedly hipster Hollywood how to do business? Wouldn't surprise me. The CD is the automotive equivalent of the hand crank started motor. Of course supplying content in bulk will apply to any high dollar item. Homes, electronics, cars, boats, etc.
I was told once that the music industry makes a lot of money selling and distributing the CD itself, not just the content. Apparently this is a big profit center that will be eliminated with bulk distribution. My guess is that the industry will find digital distribution more profitable regardless, but in their typical fashion, they will resist common sense to the end.
The more I read
Unbelievable. If some donor came along and said, I'll give you this money but only if you use it to by M$ products, most on
Seems to me that some of the best programmers have the ability to apply their programming skills for the benefit of others in non-tech fields. Construction is full of opportunities for software solutions; you might notice some and build an app useful to the company you work for.
Stick that on your resume and tell the interviewer that you built a solution the contruction people didn't know they needed, but wouldn't want to be without now. That will go a long way with the tech hiring managers.
Nope, WP hoisted itself by not porting to Win 3.0 for 2 years way back in the early 90s. That's how M$ got the Word market going. Doesn't change the fact that M$ should get new people on the investment committee, though.
:-\
OK, the *nix community brought this on...
Then again, maybe *nix has come a long way, now that it can sue itself! Hmmm... If the first sentient machine utters "I think, therefore I need representation", maybe I will take up woodworking.
If SCO hired decent lawyers, you are probably right. This shouldn't surprise anyone. I suggested to those who thought the anti-trust suit against M$ was a Good Thing that it was not. The DOJ action was largely instigated by M$ competitors, but people didn't seem to care. Now we see the result, more competition through litigation. This isn't going anywhere constructive.
You have to wonder, though, why they would spend so much money trying to leverage the Windows name/trademark. If they weren't called something similar, would people have found them? Is the b-plan focused on leveraging consumer brand confusion? Pretty big risk to take, but if they win, it will be worth it in the short run at least.
Robertson sure does like to get entangled in lawsuits, which cost his MP3.com investors a fortune. Guess he figures he will win this time.
Let's see, I was at Frys the other day and noticed Kylix and OpenOffice on the shelf, and they have a limited selection of software as it is. They also stock Redhat and SuSe. But even if they didn't have some Linux offerings, that doesn't mean there aren't any!
The DOJ suit did not pave the way for Linux and Linux products. So, my question stands: "How is/was M$ a monopoly?"
Here's why I think this is important: My view is that the legal system was used by vested interests (Sun, AOL, Novell, etc.) to harass and impede a competitor (M$). There certainly were jusifications, but I don't think defining M$ as an illegal monopolist is in any way accurate. I am very concerned that this set a precedent that will define the ability to sell software as a matter of legal posture. We are already starting to see this monster raise its head in the guise of the SCO and Timeline actions. In the end, only big companies with big trademark and patent staffs will be able to jump through the hoops to get a product on the market. If this is the case, kiss OSS goodbye. Writing software will then become the equivalent of (gasp) signing a record deal as a new artist. ;-(
Awwrright, I get to ask my favorite question again, especially since you mentioned Standard Oil. How is M$ a monopoly? I have been able to buy a PC without a preloaded OS for as long as there have been PCs. Linux is doing fine, OS2 has been around as longer than NT/2K, various *nixes, too. So where is/was the M$ monopoly?
I know this might seem like a troll, but no one has been able to answer my question. I think it is also very foolish to compare M$ to Standard Oil. Standard controlled virtually everything. If M$ owned all of the board manufacturers, Intel, drive makers, Dell, IBM, Cisco, HP, and most of the ISPs in the country, there might be a comparison. M$ isn't anywhere close to that kind of market dominance, obviously. Again, how is/was M$ a monopoly?
I know this will sound like a troll, but it's really more of a legal question: How exactly is M$ a monopoly? No one has given me a good answer to this yet. My basic point is this - I have always been able to buy an OS free PC and load whatever OS I wanted. So how is M$ a monopoly? Standard Oil was a monopoly because it completely controlled distribution and refining. There was NO choice! But with PCs, there has always been a choice.
Oh, get off your high horse. Microsoft was a monopoly because they controlled the market for PC operating systems
Please tell me how they did this? Once again, anyone can go out and buy a whitebox PC with no OS. That's essentially always been the case.
No one voted to make Microsoft a monopoly, it was an accident of the market
In my view, the market made a very rational choice, since M$ offered an OS that everyone supported and was cheaper than the alternatives for consumers and developers.
You would be annoyed if they charged you for leather seats on your car, even when you didn't get them, wouldn't you? That would be wrong, wouldn't it? How can you defend a company that would make you do that?
OK, go into a car dealer and ask to buy a car with no wheels, since you want to put on aftermarket wheels...Or no radio, or just primer since you want to choose your own custom color, etc, etc... If you think about it, it soon becomes apparent that the PC is probably the most user reconfigurable consumer product there is.
We don't know what else might be in their contracts in the way of penalties for not shipping Windows on a computer, because the terms are secret. If anyone reveals them, they lose their licnese to sell Windows with their computers. Are you saying that is a normal business practice? What business are you in?
This is a very common business practice. Almost every contract I have seen (and I've seen many) has a confidentiality clause.
I have yet to be convinced M$ is a monopoly. Do they have a dominant market share? Yes. Did they push the envelope with it? Yes. Did the anti-trust suit have merit, or was it essentially instigated by their competitors since they were too stupid to figure out how to compete? No and yes. BTW, did the competition come up with OSS? Of course not! Also, I don't work for M$.
Sun is yet another example of a M$ competitor that decided to sue (in this case, stir up anti-trust) instead of innovate. So, while McNealy & Co. was busy with the lawyers, OSS comes along to take Sun market share. The way I read your comment, mgmt began to realize that Solaris is too expensive, and thought of going to NT/2K servers. How expensive would that have been, given the retraining required, and purchase of all new apps? Yeesh, and they still thought M$ might be cheaper? I'm not sure this is such bad news for M$, but it's certainly bad news for Sun. McNealy brought this on his company, though.