What you're saying is that if Microsoft made the best damn software in the world and sold excellent, elegant hardware and were *still* an evil monopoly, everyone would like them?
What I'm saying is that if Microsoft made the best damn software in the world and sold excellent, elegant hardware then they would, by definition, not be an evil monopoly. They would be a benevolent monopoly.
There are lots of benevolent monopolies. Adobe has a virtual monopoly on photo retouching software. Avid has a virtual monopoly on video editing systems. MultiGen has a virtual monopoly on real-time image generators. Why are these monopolies not evil? Because their products are all really, really good.
Oh, it's news all right. It's just that the way the submission was worded basically amounts to flamebait. Behold the flame war-- well, flame skirmish, anyway-- that has sprung up because of it?
Read my lips, dude: Rendezvous only works over the local link. It does not, cannot, work across routers.
Can you imagine an Internet in which every application sent out a network-wide multicast packet every time it wanted to poll for available services? Fire and brimstone! Mass hysteria!
Wouldn't one of the reasons that iCommune got pulled is because Apple is probably building in Rendezvous support for iTunes into iTunes 4?
Rendezvous-savvy iTunes and iCommune won't do the same things. iCommune works over the Internet and lets you download songs from arbitrary hosts identified by URL. Rendezvous-savvy iTunes will merely let you play songs stored on another computer over the local network segment; it won't work over the Internet, and it won't let you download song files.
I bought a nice new car at the dealership down the block. Decided I wanted more firepower, so I outfitted it with a.50 caliber machine gun. Someone from the dealership saw my machine gun, and called the police.
You're free to make whatever plugins for iTunes you like... so long as you don't break the rules. Trading music this way is, right or wrong, still illegal, so this plug-in was very much against the rules. This is spelled out in the iTunes SDK documentation. If you don't like it, don't use it.
To be fair, I don't think the poster was saying anything about prices, but rather the ability to extend the funcionality of a product.
Not your product, dude. Apple didn't create iTunes so people could illegally (right or wrong, it is definitely still illegal) exchange music files. And because Apple created it, they have the right to tell you not to do that with it. If you don't like it-- and obviously some people don't-- then you should write your own MP3 library manager.
It bothers me that people-- not you, but others-- actually use the word "free" in this context. Are you free to do whatever you want with other people's stuff? Um... no. That's the beginning and the end of the discussion, guys.
They're a company that sells stuff and makes money just like any other.
Oh, a little bit yes and a little bit no.
Apple is a company, yes. They sell stuff and make money, yes. Just like any other? Not exactly.
Microsoft's products are, at best, just good enough. Though they try, Microsoft doesn't really innovate very much. Microsoft isn't concerned with making the user experience pleasant.
Apple is just the opposite. Most people (given a few notable exceptions) respect that, and appreciate it.
Look at it this way. Macs are slower (yeah, they really are, dollar for dollar) and more expensive than PC's... and yet millions of people use 'em anyway. Doesn't that tell you something?
Assert away. But federal courts have repeatedly found otherwise.
Wrong. The courts have found that Microsoft illegally abused their monopoly power. These things happened after Microsoft had already achieved their monopolies. So to say that Microsoft "got where they are today" through illegal or unethical behavior is not supported by any finding of any court, anywhere.
Most serious competition Microsoft has seen in their core businesses (OS and Office) have been seen off by use of monopoly power. The only notable exception, Linux, is free.
Have you not been paying attention lately? Just last week, Apple announced a direct competitor to one of the Office products. Apple is becoming a very serious competitor to Microsoft. Not so much Linux, because of the fractured nature of the product, the really appalling user experience, and the business-hostile nature of the politics behind it.
If Microsoft is too big for anybody else to compete with, then breaking them up is an obvious solution.
Yeah, in the same sense that drowning a baby because it cries is an obvious solution. Breaking Microsoft up would be a very drastic move on the part of the government, and we'd better be able to justify it pretty damn well. If Microsoft were doing something very serious, like defrauding their shareholders or something, that would be one thing. But violations of the antitrust laws-- laws that admittedly apply to different companies in different ways, depending on their position in the market-- are a different thing altogether.
Why not? Remember when we measured everything in terms of floppies? I still remember being told that a CD could hold as much data as 444 floppies. (A number like that tends to stick in the old brain.)
Of course - the submitter of this story didn't even start to give enough information and apparently doesn't want to show his face here to provide more.
It seems more likely to me that the submitter got the answers that he needed and went on about his business.
I wonder what Jobs, who we know already has a bit of a vicious streak, says about Microsoft in private?
In private? Hell! What he says in public makes for pretty good reading. Remember this gem?
The only problem with Microsoft is they just have no taste... I don't mean that in a small way-- I mean that in a big way, in the sense that they don't think of original ideas, and they don't bring much culture into their product. So I guess I am saddened, not by Microsoft's success-- I have no problem with their success; they've earned their success for the most part-- I have a problem with the fact that they just make really third-rate products.
One is that once a company has a monopoly, the standards for their behavior change.
Yes, but twitter argued that Microsoft got where it is through illegal or unethical behavior. I assert that this isn't true. Microsoft didn't start breaking the rules until they got so big that a different set of rules applied to them, and tactics that they used legally yesterday (metaphorically) became illegal for them today.
But once a company becomes so large that they need not fear others, then they stop feeling the pressure of competition.
All other things being equal, this is true. But a monopoly like Microsoft's is kind of like the Roman empire. It's big and it seems strong from the outside, but there are barbarians at the gate just waiting to get in. I think it's an inaccurate statement to say that Microsoft doesn't feel the pressure of competition. They're trying like hell to stay one step ahead of the competition.
Ironically, Microsoft's biggest competitor is Microsoft. Windows XP has shown a very disappointing uptake rate for no other reason than that Windows 2000 is good enough for most users. In that case, Microsoft has to develop a product that is good enough to beat their own best product from two years ago. That's a competitive pressure of a different sort entirely.
But whatever the situation, the fact remains that we (as a culture) have never come up with a good way to keep companies from getting too big, or to make them small again once they've gotten too big. It doesn't seem right to just say, "Okay, Messers Gates and Balmer and the rest of you Microsoft shareholder, you have enough money now. Dissolve the company and go do something else for a change."
So my point still stands. Until we can come up with a better way to run the economy-- including better ways to enforce existing antitrust laws, should we still think they're good things to have on the books-- whining about Microsoft will get us nowhere.
I wish I had remembered this earlier; I would have posted it then. About a year and a half ago, the Dallas Observer (one of those "let's all pretend we're not owned by a giant soulless corporation" alternative weeklys) posted a positively high-larious article about Digital Convergence, the Belo Corporation, and our friend Mr. Philyaw... er, Mr. Pulitzer. Mr. Whatever Person.
It's short, funny, and worth a read. And it mentions uses a Simpsons reference to advance the story, so it's got to be cool.
Because this article will be off the front page soon, meaning nobody is going to see it, I'll post this little tidbit in my journal as well. That way the Teeming Horde (i.e., my fans) will get a chance to read and laugh and live and love!
If it were not for bogus software patents and outrageous copyright abuse, fostered in part by Mr. Gates, M$ would be nothing today.
Let us be perfectly clear on this. Microsoft got where they are today by acting like a business, and doing so completely within the rules. It was only when they got to a place where they could push people around that they started... well, pushing people around.
If you don't like a competitive market, that's just fine. You're a grown-up (presumably) who is entitled to his own opinions. But a competitive market is what we have, and companies like Microsoft and Wal-Mart bubble up to the top because they're really good at being competitive.
Is it good that most computers use software by Microsoft, and that most retail sales go through Wal-Mart? No, not really. And yet we let the competitive market system stand. Why? Because it's better than every other type of system that's ever been tried.
If you can think of a better way to run an economy, by all means say so. If you can't, then kindly shut the fuck up. Okay? Thanks so much.
I met a traveler from an antique land Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone Stand in the desert. Near them, on the sand, Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown, And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command, Tell that its sculptor well those passions read, Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things, The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed, And on the pedestal these words appear: "My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings: Look upon my works, ye Mighty, and despair!" Nothing beside remains. Round the decay Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare The lone and level sands stretch far away.
Yeah, I saw that, too. I'd like to know who considers giving the damn things away to everybody who subscribes to Wired and-- what was the other one? Fortune? Popular Science? Something or other.
Shit, dude, if I give away my inventions, can I achieve "unprecedented market saturation" too?
Don't bother clicking, y'all. This bozo doesn't deserve the notoriety that a good Slashdotting would bring. Here's the funniest part, smart quotes endumbened but all typos left intact. Just look upon his works, ye mighty, and despair:
Who Is J. Hutton Pulitzer?
J. Hutton Pulitzer is one of the most prolific independent Inventors of modern times and of the new millennium. His obvious "Invention and Passion Gene" seems to date back to his Royal German Ancestry as early as 1492 in the development of what is now modern Germany. Known for being "ahead of his time" in vision, thought and product development. J. Hutton has created many "first". One notable being the first syndicated television program in the world to combine simultaneous broadcast via Television, Radio and the Internet. His highly rated, award winning and acclaimed program, Net Talk Live!, which broadcast a record 245 original episodes, created a network of over 700 TV stations (ABC, NBC, FOX, CBS, WB and many Independent stations) and 200 radio stations-- Coast To Coast! In a format that is now copied by all the major networks, J. Hutton's show was broadcast to over 1.5 million TV homes worldwide on cable and broadcast television. His creation paved the way to the integration of various broadcast mediums around one syndicated theme. A sought after public speaker and industry trade writer, J. Hutton Pulitzer has presented his teachings to audiences as large as 45,000 and he has been guest lecturer and featured speaker/panelist at such prestigious educational institutions as Harvard Business School, Stanford University, The Cato Institute, University of Michigan, University of Texas, The C.E.O.'s Roundtable and corporations such as American Airlines, Radio Shack, Microsoft, NBC, Merrill Lynch, Bear Stearns and many others.
No, I don't believe so. The point of bundling a framework with your application is to prevent a change in a system framework from breaking your app. In Windows-land this is sometimes called "DLL hell." So your app will always use a bundled framework, if available.
I agree that simply bunging it in a landfill is only slightly better than chucking it out your car window (and there should be litter-wardens who can give you a ticket for doing so!)
Just goes to show you that life is a more dynamic thing than most people give it credit for being. Mutations happen all the time. Mutations are common in human beings, as a matter of fact. We just never (or rarely) notice them because we're in a fairly non-competitive environment. If we were suddenly to find ourselves in a harsh environment, the die-off would be massive and the survivors would be the ones with the minute genetic abnormalities that gave them a slight advantage over the rest of us.
In fact, this process happens all the time, but we're not usually aware of it. There is a theory-- maybe it's better to call it a hypothesis at this stage-- that goes to explain why AIDS is having such a devastating effect on Africa. The people who live in Europe, central Asia, Australia, and the Americas are descended from the survivors of the bubonic plague epidemic in the middle ages. In 1348, one out of four Europeans was killed by the disease. Some of the survivors were just lucky; others were naturally immune to the disease. So the people who live in Europe, central Asia, Australia, and the Americas today have a fair chance of being genetically immune to the bubonic plague.
The theory (or hypothesis) is that this genetic trait also confers upon its carriers either a total immunity to, or a significant resistance to, HIV.
In Africa, on the other hand, there was no outbreak of plague to cause this culling. The people in Africa have no particular tendency toward immunity to plague, and consequently are more susceptable to infection by HIV and eventual death from AIDS than are the Europeans and ex-Europeans.
Like I said, it's just a hypothesis. But even if it's false, it's still plausible, and really interesting because of it.
Slashdot Mirror
What you're saying is that if Microsoft made the best damn software in the world and sold excellent, elegant hardware and were *still* an evil monopoly, everyone would like them?
What I'm saying is that if Microsoft made the best damn software in the world and sold excellent, elegant hardware then they would, by definition, not be an evil monopoly. They would be a benevolent monopoly.
There are lots of benevolent monopolies. Adobe has a virtual monopoly on photo retouching software. Avid has a virtual monopoly on video editing systems. MultiGen has a virtual monopoly on real-time image generators. Why are these monopolies not evil? Because their products are all really, really good.
Oh, it's news all right. It's just that the way the submission was worded basically amounts to flamebait. Behold the flame war-- well, flame skirmish, anyway-- that has sprung up because of it?
Read my lips, dude: Rendezvous only works over the local link. It does not, cannot, work across routers.
Can you imagine an Internet in which every application sent out a network-wide multicast packet every time it wanted to poll for available services? Fire and brimstone! Mass hysteria!
You can buy a cassette ... and you can make a copy of the songs on that cassette and LEGALLY give a copy to your friend.
... but it's not clear.
No, you can't. Where did you get that idea?
Now, if you make a copy of a CD and put it on another CD, can you LEGALLY give it to your friend?
No.
Now if you make a copy of that CD and put it on your computer and make it available to other people, can you LEGALLY give it to them?
No.
There's the line
Seems crystal-clear to me. "It's against the law to give away copies of copyrighted materials." Hmm. No ambiguity there.
These questions need clarification in the law.
Your understanding of the law needs clarification.
Wouldn't one of the reasons that iCommune got pulled is because Apple is probably building in Rendezvous support for iTunes into iTunes 4?
Rendezvous-savvy iTunes and iCommune won't do the same things. iCommune works over the Internet and lets you download songs from arbitrary hosts identified by URL. Rendezvous-savvy iTunes will merely let you play songs stored on another computer over the local network segment; it won't work over the Internet, and it won't let you download song files.
I bought a nice new car at the dealership down the block. Decided I wanted more firepower, so I outfitted it with a .50 caliber machine gun. Someone from the dealership saw my machine gun, and called the police.
You're free to make whatever plugins for iTunes you like... so long as you don't break the rules. Trading music this way is, right or wrong, still illegal, so this plug-in was very much against the rules. This is spelled out in the iTunes SDK documentation. If you don't like it, don't use it.
To be fair, I don't think the poster was saying anything about prices, but rather the ability to extend the funcionality of a product.
Not your product, dude. Apple didn't create iTunes so people could illegally (right or wrong, it is definitely still illegal) exchange music files. And because Apple created it, they have the right to tell you not to do that with it. If you don't like it-- and obviously some people don't-- then you should write your own MP3 library manager.
It bothers me that people-- not you, but others-- actually use the word "free" in this context. Are you free to do whatever you want with other people's stuff? Um... no. That's the beginning and the end of the discussion, guys.
They're a company that sells stuff and makes money just like any other.
Oh, a little bit yes and a little bit no.
Apple is a company, yes. They sell stuff and make money, yes. Just like any other? Not exactly.
Microsoft's products are, at best, just good enough. Though they try, Microsoft doesn't really innovate very much. Microsoft isn't concerned with making the user experience pleasant.
Apple is just the opposite. Most people (given a few notable exceptions) respect that, and appreciate it.
Look at it this way. Macs are slower (yeah, they really are, dollar for dollar) and more expensive than PC's... and yet millions of people use 'em anyway. Doesn't that tell you something?
Assert away. But federal courts have repeatedly found otherwise.
Wrong. The courts have found that Microsoft illegally abused their monopoly power. These things happened after Microsoft had already achieved their monopolies. So to say that Microsoft "got where they are today" through illegal or unethical behavior is not supported by any finding of any court, anywhere.
Most serious competition Microsoft has seen in their core businesses (OS and Office) have been seen off by use of monopoly power. The only notable exception, Linux, is free.
Have you not been paying attention lately? Just last week, Apple announced a direct competitor to one of the Office products. Apple is becoming a very serious competitor to Microsoft. Not so much Linux, because of the fractured nature of the product, the really appalling user experience, and the business-hostile nature of the politics behind it.
If Microsoft is too big for anybody else to compete with, then breaking them up is an obvious solution.
Yeah, in the same sense that drowning a baby because it cries is an obvious solution. Breaking Microsoft up would be a very drastic move on the part of the government, and we'd better be able to justify it pretty damn well. If Microsoft were doing something very serious, like defrauding their shareholders or something, that would be one thing. But violations of the antitrust laws-- laws that admittedly apply to different companies in different ways, depending on their position in the market-- are a different thing altogether.
For those of you using sane units, this is about 250 gigabits per cm^2.
;-)
That's 2,412.1 petanybbles per acre, for those of you who prefer units with a little character.
Why not? Remember when we measured everything in terms of floppies? I still remember being told that a CD could hold as much data as 444 floppies. (A number like that tends to stick in the old brain.)
Of course - the submitter of this story didn't even start to give enough information and apparently doesn't want to show his face here to provide more.
It seems more likely to me that the submitter got the answers that he needed and went on about his business.
Microsoft puts out products that are "good enough". Apple puts out products that are "great". This means Apple will always be a niche player.
You say "niche player." I say "most influential computer company in history, and one of the most influential companies in any industry."
In private? Hell! What he says in public makes for pretty good reading. Remember this gem?
One is that once a company has a monopoly, the standards for their behavior change.
Yes, but twitter argued that Microsoft got where it is through illegal or unethical behavior. I assert that this isn't true. Microsoft didn't start breaking the rules until they got so big that a different set of rules applied to them, and tactics that they used legally yesterday (metaphorically) became illegal for them today.
But once a company becomes so large that they need not fear others, then they stop feeling the pressure of competition.
All other things being equal, this is true. But a monopoly like Microsoft's is kind of like the Roman empire. It's big and it seems strong from the outside, but there are barbarians at the gate just waiting to get in. I think it's an inaccurate statement to say that Microsoft doesn't feel the pressure of competition. They're trying like hell to stay one step ahead of the competition.
Ironically, Microsoft's biggest competitor is Microsoft. Windows XP has shown a very disappointing uptake rate for no other reason than that Windows 2000 is good enough for most users. In that case, Microsoft has to develop a product that is good enough to beat their own best product from two years ago. That's a competitive pressure of a different sort entirely.
But whatever the situation, the fact remains that we (as a culture) have never come up with a good way to keep companies from getting too big, or to make them small again once they've gotten too big. It doesn't seem right to just say, "Okay, Messers Gates and Balmer and the rest of you Microsoft shareholder, you have enough money now. Dissolve the company and go do something else for a change."
So my point still stands. Until we can come up with a better way to run the economy-- including better ways to enforce existing antitrust laws, should we still think they're good things to have on the books-- whining about Microsoft will get us nowhere.
I wish I had remembered this earlier; I would have posted it then. About a year and a half ago, the Dallas Observer (one of those "let's all pretend we're not owned by a giant soulless corporation" alternative weeklys) posted a positively high-larious article about Digital Convergence, the Belo Corporation, and our friend Mr. Philyaw... er, Mr. Pulitzer. Mr. Whatever Person.
It's short, funny, and worth a read. And it mentions uses a Simpsons reference to advance the story, so it's got to be cool.
Because this article will be off the front page soon, meaning nobody is going to see it, I'll post this little tidbit in my journal as well. That way the Teeming Horde (i.e., my fans) will get a chance to read and laugh and live and love!
You rock, Bungi. If I hadn't already posted in this thread, I'd mod you up.
If it were not for bogus software patents and outrageous copyright abuse, fostered in part by Mr. Gates, M$ would be nothing today.
Let us be perfectly clear on this. Microsoft got where they are today by acting like a business, and doing so completely within the rules. It was only when they got to a place where they could push people around that they started... well, pushing people around.
If you don't like a competitive market, that's just fine. You're a grown-up (presumably) who is entitled to his own opinions. But a competitive market is what we have, and companies like Microsoft and Wal-Mart bubble up to the top because they're really good at being competitive.
Is it good that most computers use software by Microsoft, and that most retail sales go through Wal-Mart? No, not really. And yet we let the competitive market system stand. Why? Because it's better than every other type of system that's ever been tried.
If you can think of a better way to run an economy, by all means say so. If you can't, then kindly shut the fuck up. Okay? Thanks so much.
I met a traveler from an antique land
Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read,
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed,
And on the pedestal these words appear:
"My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:
Look upon my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.
-- Ozymandias, Percy Bysshe Shelly
Yeah, I saw that, too. I'd like to know who considers giving the damn things away to everybody who subscribes to Wired and-- what was the other one? Fortune? Popular Science? Something or other.
Shit, dude, if I give away my inventions, can I achieve "unprecedented market saturation" too?
It is a variation of Asteroids, As are ALL drop from the sky games, Tetris et al.
Asteroids? No. I think you're thinking of Missile Command.
No, I don't believe so. The point of bundling a framework with your application is to prevent a change in a system framework from breaking your app. In Windows-land this is sometimes called "DLL hell." So your app will always use a bundled framework, if available.
I agree that simply bunging it in a landfill is only slightly better than chucking it out your car window (and there should be litter-wardens who can give you a ticket for doing so!)
There are. They're called "police officers."
Just goes to show you that life is a more dynamic thing than most people give it credit for being. Mutations happen all the time. Mutations are common in human beings, as a matter of fact. We just never (or rarely) notice them because we're in a fairly non-competitive environment. If we were suddenly to find ourselves in a harsh environment, the die-off would be massive and the survivors would be the ones with the minute genetic abnormalities that gave them a slight advantage over the rest of us.
In fact, this process happens all the time, but we're not usually aware of it. There is a theory-- maybe it's better to call it a hypothesis at this stage-- that goes to explain why AIDS is having such a devastating effect on Africa. The people who live in Europe, central Asia, Australia, and the Americas are descended from the survivors of the bubonic plague epidemic in the middle ages. In 1348, one out of four Europeans was killed by the disease. Some of the survivors were just lucky; others were naturally immune to the disease. So the people who live in Europe, central Asia, Australia, and the Americas today have a fair chance of being genetically immune to the bubonic plague.
The theory (or hypothesis) is that this genetic trait also confers upon its carriers either a total immunity to, or a significant resistance to, HIV.
In Africa, on the other hand, there was no outbreak of plague to cause this culling. The people in Africa have no particular tendency toward immunity to plague, and consequently are more susceptable to infection by HIV and eventual death from AIDS than are the Europeans and ex-Europeans.
Like I said, it's just a hypothesis. But even if it's false, it's still plausible, and really interesting because of it.