Thanks to Microsoft, users will face the "unsavory prospect of two supposed standards. The truth is that only one of them is free of intellectual property encumbrances. Only one reflects multivendor support, and only one reflects openness. That standard is OpenDocument Format,"
I don't understand why you use the term "given the power" in reference to Microsoft's ability to bundle various applications into their operating system platform.
Microsoft operates as an anti-competitive monopoly. Whatever apps are set as default in Windows, that's what the vast majority of people are going to use. If those apps are based around proprietary file formats, protocols and APIs, this is creating a lock-in/lock-out situation that is anti-competitive.
Considering that Microsoft is supposed to have abated its anti-competitive practices, either the applications using proprietary or patent-encumbered methods should be removed, or Microsoft's use of proprietary file formats, APIs and protocols should be abolished.
I generally choose not to visit sites that require ActiveX plugins
Well done, neither do I - but the world is not just made up of you and me. Unfortunately I know of many companies that need to access sites that require ActiveX plugins, they have no choice.
if I restrict myself to standards alone, I will miss out on new technologies.
Standards are not the reason you would miss out on new technologies.
You'd miss out on new technologies because anti-competitive companies such as Microsoft won't develop an open standard (which would benefit the user, and increase innovation and competition). Instead these companies lock you into their software via closed 'standards' that you become dependant on.
By accepting closed 'standards' you basically help a situation that stifles innovation and healthy competition.
And finally, I see no reason for Microsoft to work to bundle third-party applications.
No, I really don't think that this is the answer. Microsoft should be forced to open up its file formats, protocols and APIs.
As others have said (and you've probably ignored their wisdom too) bundling an app doesn't force anyone to use it.
I'm happy to agree that nobody is forced to use a bundled app. I see no point in ignoring the obvious truth.
What happens when you go to play an MP3 on Windows? Up pops Windows Media Player. Are you forced to use it? No. Are you given a choice to use something else? No. What do you do? You use it.
Why not download RealPlayer or Winamp? Some people don't even know about these alternatives. Some can't be bothered downloading something else when the default is sufficient.
In fact, as long as the default is sufficient, nobody is likely to 'consider' downloading an alternative.
Furthermore, I would suggest reading my post here, concerning Microsoft's proprietary and patent-encumbered file formats, protocols and APIs.
So looking deeper into this, rather than skimming the surface, the issue of whether or not you're 'forced' to use Microsoft's bundled applications is irrelevant.
What's the point of having 5 different web browsers installed by default?
Why should Microsoft be given the power to choose which browser, IM client and media player is default?
If IE is default, you get Microsoft's proprietary ActiveX accepted by default, and certain sites are developed around this. This means that no competing browser can be used. The same goes for Microsoft's proprietary non-standard extensions, causing Websites to display incorrectly in other browsers, even though those other browsers adhere to REAL standards.
I am just saying that no legal action should tell Microsoft what or what not to bundle with their OS unless there are valid security reasons.
The main issue is concerning proprietary or patent encumbered file formats and protocols.
Perhaps Microsoft should be forced to stop bundling applications that use proprietary file formats, protocols and APIs.
Microsoft is not offering its apps for no profit when it exclusively bundles them with Windows.
Bundling has more of a purpose than giving nice free things to end users, and making it easier for them.
Microsoft adds new middleware for various reasons:
1) To encourage end-users to upgrade. 2) To make its applications become standard on Windows Desktops. 3) To enforce Microsoft's proprietary file formats/protocols. 4) To gain dominance (i.e. Netscape)
Note: with Netscape Microsoft could have sold IE at a profit, but ignored this lucrative market in favor of dominance and full control of what is supported. Microsoft added its own JRE instead of Suns, and Microsoft polluted this to cripple platform-dependance.
Unbundling media player helps no-one. It just hurts the user as they have to go out and download a media player rather than having it built in.
Allowing the bundling of Microsoft-only middleware to continue could hurt everyone, especially businesses.
Microsoft complains that Open Source hurts businesses, as it's free, but that has never stopped Microsoft from bundling.
Where does the bundling stop? Maybe the next Windows is going to include a PhotoShop clone? What happens to PhotoShop then?
When it was suggested that Microsoft bundle RealPlayer, Microsoft said that there's no need as people could just as easily download it. I guess the same logic doesn't apply to Microsoft's products?
When I buy an OS, I expect to have basic functionalty such as a web browser and media player. I would rather they bundle them but give me the opportunity to remove them.
Of course you do, so do I.
Look at Linux distros, they come with various apps. The better solution is to have various apps, and allow the user to choose which to use as default.
But is Microsoft going to bundle RealPlayer with Windows? No!
Why? Because Microsoft only bundles Microsoft apps. This is anti-competitive. That's why the judge originally suggested that Microsoft should split: having Microsoft's operating system and middleware as separate competing divisions.
If Windows came in distributions, like Linux, Windows would come bundled with other non-Microsoft apps. This would be great for innovation, and would prevent Microsoft locking in users via proprietary file formats and protocols.
So far, if Microsoft wants a particular app to become standard on the Windows desktop, it gets bundled. Any proprietary file formats or protocols used then also become standard. Users are locked into Microsoft's solutions, and competitors are locked out.
Microsoft really has to keep bundling extra apps to encourage people to upgrade, and these apps have to be popular enough to get people's attention. What gets bundled next? Office now has an accounting package bundled, rather than going to market separately and competing fairly. Is Vista going to have a PhotoShop clone bundled with it? It's possible! If Microsoft needs to get upgrades, that's the way it goes. What then happens to PhotoShop sales? Is this fair competition? What if your company makes a particular app, and Microsoft decides to bundle its own clone of it? You wouldn't feel that bundling does no harm then.
Concerning RealPlayer, when it was suggested that Microsoft should add it to Windows, Microsoft said that people could easily download it, so bundling it with Windows was unnecessary and out of the question.
Now that WMP and Messenger are to be removed, suddenly downloading a media player is such a terrible handicap!
When it was suggested that Sun's JRE should be bundled with Windows, Microsoft asked why Sun should get a free ride on Windows, and was against adding third-party software to Windows.
The 'free ride' of bundling obviously does make a big difference. Just because Microsoft owns the operating system, this doesn't mean that it should be allowed to bundle whatever it likes.
What company is going to suffer as Microsoft has to bundle another product with Windows to entice people to upgrade? Maybe a PhotoShop clone is to be bundled with Vista's successor?
Now that Microsoft can't freely use the patented method, it isn't going to pay Eolas to use its patented method, it's going to work around it.
What does Eolas gain from its patent? Nothing.
What does the end user gain from this? Nothing, except hassle (OK, clicking a dialog box isn't much of a bother, but there isn't going to be the seemless integration of components that people have been used to).
Software patents are pathetic, especially pointless ones such as this.
If everybody agrees to create work-arounds - regardless of how much hassle it gives end-users - hopefully everybody will begin to loathe software patents, and will all join up to put an end to this pathetic excuse for the stifling of software progress and ease-of-use.
Well, there's a big pow-wow about bundling right now, so obviously I'm not the only one who finds fault with this.
Of course, OEMs can add whatever third-party software they like to Windows, but we all know (or should know) about Microsofts dirty tactics that have successfully prevented this.
Man, I wish my failing business model made me worth $40+ billion, amassed billions in a disposable cash warchest, gave me a monopoly over personal computing and a good chunk of server computing, employed tens of thousands, and gave my business millions of followers...
It's not all about how much is in the bank.
Microsoft's market is saturated, it is dependant on upgrades, and people don't want to pay for upgrades so frequently.
Microsoft needs to screw people to maintain its cash flow, this is due to its failing business model. Maintaining a monopoly via proprietary file formats, APIs and protocols is becoming more difficult for Microsoft to get away with, so Microsoft is moving away from traditional software sales.
Software-as-a-service is the next big thing, renting out software is the way forward. This is a new business model.
Why do you think that Microsoft is so frustrated by google's success?
gave me a monopoly over personal computing and a good chunk of server computing
Illegal monopoly - as convicted.
and gave my business millions of followers...
And captives - those locked in via proprietary file formats, APIs and protocols.
I personally wouldn't want to amass billions of dollars by screwing people; however, each to their own.
I recognize that Microsoft is a business -- so I don't really fault them for it.
No, you can't really fault Microsoft for following successful businesses, the fault is purely down to Microsoft basing everything around its failing business model.
Microsoft allowed itself to slip into a position where it sat back and raked in the profits; then, when competition came along, and people were reluctant to upgrade for a few meagre benefits and some eye-candy, it had to get up quickly and work double-hard. Also, due to Windows not being designed with security in mind (Microsoft's words, not mine), Microsoft has had to waste more precious time trying to make Windows more secure, something that Paul Thurrott still sees as being far behind Linux/Unix.
Furthermore, I find fault with Microsoft performing its bundling act in order to ensure its success.
Microsoft is in control of Windows, and can integrate MSN search, and any other Web services, directly into Windows.
Microsoft can bundle its own anti-virus and spyware checking into Windows.
Microsoft can bundle its own accounting software with Microsoft office.
This gives people more of an incentive to upgrade Windows and Office, Microsoft's cash-cows, and harms the other businesses offering this software.
If anybody is successful in any technology market, watch out, Microsoft may come along and siphon off your income!
It's not just google, it's any successful market that relies on technology.
It's called 'playing catch-up'.
Microsoft's business model is failing, and rather than wasting precious time figuring out what new things it can do, it needs to quickly copy other successful businesses, and preferably kill them off (as usual) by leveraging its monopoly.
Treat teens with about the same respect you reserve for a mosquito and wonder why they go around shooting each other, or killing themselves.
That sounds like, "If I don't get my way I'll throw a tantrum and disrupt other people's lives".
You make it sound as if teens have such a hard life in this modern age. Actually, kids have more 'rights' now than ever before, and are almost 'untouchable'. This has lead to kids having less respect for authority, and demanding more and more respect for themselves. This is why people look at kids as some kind of pest.
It's not all kids that are like this, but most kids are going to be treated as if they are - it's human nature. Just like most teenagers see adults as some kind of pest, even though there are some adults who are sympathetic to the needs of teenagers.
We live in a society that is becoming more and more selfish, irresponsible, and where 'everybody' is lacking respect for others. If we address this, the root of the problem, there should be no need to go around emitting high pitched noises.
Are you suggesting that people who have articles published are more trustworthy than bloggers?
You can't have been reading many articles lately!
Respectable news sites are just as likely to display an article from a clueless, FUD-spreading desperado, just as much as a respectable writer.
I would suggest reading some from Rob Enderle or Laura DiDio, and make note of where their articles are published, then maybe you'll realize that there's little difference between articles and blog entries.
Besides, to suggest that somebody's opinon is not intelligent and worthy of notice, just because it's in a blog, is a bit silly.
Grudges? The past? Microsoft is still hurting people for its own gain even today.
It should be apparent that I don't like the bahavior of Microsoft, however, that should make no difference to the points I made. If you can find any flaw in any of the points I made, please let me know.
I can see that, for whatever reason, you will not consider any wrong things Microsoft has done/is doing. That's all very well where forgiveness is concerned, but to ignore things that are hurting people right now is considered callous.
I can understand the way you feel. However, I'll address the reasons why I feel the opposite:
So, would you rate Gates not make any donations at all?
I have no problem with Bill giving away his money, or the reasons he does it. That's his business.
I do have a problem with the people who pat him on the back for it, and mock those who believe he's doing it for selfish reasons.
I do have a problem with the people who turn a blind eye to the selfish, greedy things that he's done.
I do have a problem with the fact that governments benefitting from his donations feel compelled to pay back this generosity by accepting the software solutions that Bill's company is pushing.
Or I suppose just do it anonymously then? (Then again, I wonder how feasible it even is to give $258 million anonymously)
He didn't need to give it all at once. He could have sent multiple smaller anonymous donations via various means.
Why does good news need to be spun to become bad news?
Because there is somebody who makes life hard for one group of poor people, and people are praising him just because he makes life easier for another.
It's easy to forget about those who suffer when you live in peace.
We also just finished our annual company-wide Giving campaign
Ah, but I bet you didn't first go around threatening members of the public to pay you, and then use some of that money to 'donate', keeping the majority of it for yourselves.
it's hard to see so much criticism going towards folks who, regardless of reason, are spending time and money for those less fortunate.
Yes, it's hard to see anything bad in somebody who does such good...
Doesn't that make you wonder whether this is the reason why Bill does it?
Even if he didn't plan to use it to get people on-side, it's certainly had that effect; you've proved it.
MS isn't inherenty bad. They have just made more mistakes than others, but that can change.
It can change, but I doubt it's going to.
Microsoft has always been anti-competitive, and has shown a desire to domainate particular markets in any way possible - which is usually via bundling.
"Microsoft's Office Live services also represent a threat to those providing small businesses with e-mail and Web hosting services. Microsoft said that, for free, it will give businesses a domain name, a Web site with 30MB of storage and five Web-based e-mail accounts.
Any number of Web hosting firms, telecommunications companies and Internet service providers could see a chunk of business lost to Microsoft's free offer."
If anything, a lot of the money he sends goes to countries that aren't big buyers of software (like many African countries).
And its countries like these where Microsoft is pushing its software!
This is not just your average push, it's Microsoft's major pushes that we're looking at. It's in the tech news, you can read it for yourself.
India showed a big interest in Open Source, and got a bid donation from the Foundation.
Africa is showing a big interest in Open Source, and it's benefitting from the Foundation's latest big donation.
Microsoft cannot allow Open Source to become standard in these poor countries. Getting on-side with the governments of these countries is a good step towards getting them to respond positively to Microsoft's push of its software over Open Source.
If you don't believe that Microsoft is pushing Windows in these poor countries, you can't be keeping up with tech news.
Slashdot Mirror
Open doesn't mean what it should anymore.
Like in this article for example.
QUOTE:
Thanks to Microsoft, users will face the "unsavory prospect of two supposed standards. The truth is that only one of them is free of intellectual property encumbrances. Only one reflects multivendor support, and only one reflects openness. That standard is OpenDocument Format,"
"Furthermore, I would suggest reading my post here, concerning Microsoft's proprietary and patent-encumbered file formats, protocols and APIs." -- Me
The link is here.
I accidentally put in one that shows SCO's stock, as I was laughing at it at the time. Sorry.
I don't understand why you use the term "given the power" in reference to Microsoft's ability to bundle various applications into their operating system platform.
Microsoft operates as an anti-competitive monopoly. Whatever apps are set as default in Windows, that's what the vast majority of people are going to use. If those apps are based around proprietary file formats, protocols and APIs, this is creating a lock-in/lock-out situation that is anti-competitive.
Considering that Microsoft is supposed to have abated its anti-competitive practices, either the applications using proprietary or patent-encumbered methods should be removed, or Microsoft's use of proprietary file formats, APIs and protocols should be abolished.
I generally choose not to visit sites that require ActiveX plugins
Well done, neither do I - but the world is not just made up of you and me. Unfortunately I know of many companies that need to access sites that require ActiveX plugins, they have no choice.
if I restrict myself to standards alone, I will miss out on new technologies.
Standards are not the reason you would miss out on new technologies.
You'd miss out on new technologies because anti-competitive companies such as Microsoft won't develop an open standard (which would benefit the user, and increase innovation and competition). Instead these companies lock you into their software via closed 'standards' that you become dependant on.
By accepting closed 'standards' you basically help a situation that stifles innovation and healthy competition.
And finally, I see no reason for Microsoft to work to bundle third-party applications.
No, I really don't think that this is the answer. Microsoft should be forced to open up its file formats, protocols and APIs.
As others have said (and you've probably ignored their wisdom too) bundling an app doesn't force anyone to use it.
I'm happy to agree that nobody is forced to use a bundled app. I see no point in ignoring the obvious truth.
What happens when you go to play an MP3 on Windows? Up pops Windows Media Player.
Are you forced to use it? No.
Are you given a choice to use something else? No.
What do you do? You use it.
Why not download RealPlayer or Winamp? Some people don't even know about these alternatives. Some can't be bothered downloading something else when the default is sufficient.
In fact, as long as the default is sufficient, nobody is likely to 'consider' downloading an alternative.
Furthermore, I would suggest reading my post here, concerning Microsoft's proprietary and patent-encumbered file formats, protocols and APIs.
So looking deeper into this, rather than skimming the surface, the issue of whether or not you're 'forced' to use Microsoft's bundled applications is irrelevant.
What's the point of having 5 different web browsers installed by default?
Why should Microsoft be given the power to choose which browser, IM client and media player is default?
If IE is default, you get Microsoft's proprietary ActiveX accepted by default, and certain sites are developed around this. This means that no competing browser can be used. The same goes for Microsoft's proprietary non-standard extensions, causing Websites to display incorrectly in other browsers, even though those other browsers adhere to REAL standards.
I am just saying that no legal action should tell Microsoft what or what not to bundle with their OS unless there are valid security reasons.
The main issue is concerning proprietary or patent encumbered file formats and protocols.
Perhaps Microsoft should be forced to stop bundling applications that use proprietary file formats, protocols and APIs.
It's anti-competitive, and Microsoft knows this.
People are looking at this in the wrong way.
Microsoft is not offering its apps for no profit when it exclusively bundles them with Windows.
Bundling has more of a purpose than giving nice free things to end users, and making it easier for them.
Microsoft adds new middleware for various reasons:
1) To encourage end-users to upgrade.
2) To make its applications become standard on Windows Desktops.
3) To enforce Microsoft's proprietary file formats/protocols.
4) To gain dominance (i.e. Netscape)
Note: with Netscape Microsoft could have sold IE at a profit, but ignored this lucrative market in favor of dominance and full control of what is supported. Microsoft added its own JRE instead of Suns, and Microsoft polluted this to cripple platform-dependance.
I'd love to, but I run Linux.
Also check out Acrylic which is a Photoship clone.
I already have, that's my point.
As for the rest of your comment:
Please see comment here.
Unbundling media player helps no-one. It just hurts the user as they have to go out and download a media player rather than having it built in.
Allowing the bundling of Microsoft-only middleware to continue could hurt everyone, especially businesses.
Microsoft complains that Open Source hurts businesses, as it's free, but that has never stopped Microsoft from bundling.
Where does the bundling stop? Maybe the next Windows is going to include a PhotoShop clone? What happens to PhotoShop then?
When it was suggested that Microsoft bundle RealPlayer, Microsoft said that there's no need as people could just as easily download it. I guess the same logic doesn't apply to Microsoft's products?
When I buy an OS, I expect to have basic functionalty such as a web browser and media player. I would rather they bundle them but give me the opportunity to remove them.
Of course you do, so do I.
Look at Linux distros, they come with various apps. The better solution is to have various apps, and allow the user to choose which to use as default.
But is Microsoft going to bundle RealPlayer with Windows? No!
Why? Because Microsoft only bundles Microsoft apps. This is anti-competitive. That's why the judge originally suggested that Microsoft should split: having Microsoft's operating system and middleware as separate competing divisions.
If Windows came in distributions, like Linux, Windows would come bundled with other non-Microsoft apps. This would be great for innovation, and would prevent Microsoft locking in users via proprietary file formats and protocols.
So far, if Microsoft wants a particular app to become standard on the Windows desktop, it gets bundled. Any proprietary file formats or protocols used then also become standard. Users are locked into Microsoft's solutions, and competitors are locked out.
Microsoft really has to keep bundling extra apps to encourage people to upgrade, and these apps have to be popular enough to get people's attention. What gets bundled next? Office now has an accounting package bundled, rather than going to market separately and competing fairly. Is Vista going to have a PhotoShop clone bundled with it? It's possible! If Microsoft needs to get upgrades, that's the way it goes. What then happens to PhotoShop sales? Is this fair competition? What if your company makes a particular app, and Microsoft decides to bundle its own clone of it? You wouldn't feel that bundling does no harm then.
Bundling harms innovation and competition.
if Suse or Ubunto or some other linux dist suddenly becomes popular
overnight, will they get nailed for bundling 100s of apps with it?
That's not going to be an issue.
Linux distros bundle third-party apps from all over the place.
Microsoft only bundles its own software.
Can you see Microsoft agreeing to bundle RealPlayer with Windows?
Concerning RealPlayer, when it was suggested that Microsoft should add it to Windows, Microsoft said that people could easily download it, so bundling it with Windows was unnecessary and out of the question.
Now that WMP and Messenger are to be removed, suddenly downloading a media player is such a terrible handicap!
When it was suggested that Sun's JRE should be bundled with Windows, Microsoft asked why Sun should get a free ride on Windows, and was against adding third-party software to Windows.
The 'free ride' of bundling obviously does make a big difference. Just because Microsoft owns the operating system, this doesn't mean that it should be allowed to bundle whatever it likes.
What company is going to suffer as Microsoft has to bundle another product with Windows to entice people to upgrade? Maybe a PhotoShop clone is to be bundled with Vista's successor?
Now that Microsoft can't freely use the patented method, it isn't going to pay Eolas to use its patented method, it's going to work around it.
What does Eolas gain from its patent? Nothing.
What does the end user gain from this? Nothing, except hassle (OK, clicking a dialog box isn't much of a bother, but there isn't going to be the seemless integration of components that people have been used to).
Software patents are pathetic, especially pointless ones such as this.
If everybody agrees to create work-arounds - regardless of how much hassle it gives end-users - hopefully everybody will begin to loathe software patents, and will all join up to put an end to this pathetic excuse for the stifling of software progress and ease-of-use.
Copying other businesses and leveraging its monopoly is their business model.
Yes, and leveraging its monopoly via anti-competitive practices, such as proprietary file formats, APIs, protocols, and other such encumberances.
This behavior is no longer acceptable, and is being addressed
Microsoft's lock-in/lock-out business model isn't quite as reliable as it used to be.
Well, there's a big pow-wow about bundling right now, so obviously I'm not the only one who finds fault with this.
Of course, OEMs can add whatever third-party software they like to Windows, but we all know (or should know) about Microsofts dirty tactics that have successfully prevented this.
Man, I wish my failing business model made me worth $40+ billion, amassed billions in a disposable cash warchest, gave me a monopoly over personal computing and a good chunk of server computing, employed tens of thousands, and gave my business millions of followers...
It's not all about how much is in the bank.
Microsoft's market is saturated, it is dependant on upgrades, and people don't want to pay for upgrades so frequently.
Microsoft needs to screw people to maintain its cash flow, this is due to its failing business model. Maintaining a monopoly via proprietary file formats, APIs and protocols is becoming more difficult for Microsoft to get away with, so Microsoft is moving away from traditional software sales.
Software-as-a-service is the next big thing, renting out software is the way forward. This is a new business model.
Why do you think that Microsoft is so frustrated by google's success?
gave me a monopoly over personal computing and a good chunk of server computing
Illegal monopoly - as convicted.
and gave my business millions of followers...
And captives - those locked in via proprietary file formats, APIs and protocols.
I personally wouldn't want to amass billions of dollars by screwing people; however, each to their own.
I recognize that Microsoft is a business -- so I don't really fault them for it.
No, you can't really fault Microsoft for following successful businesses, the fault is purely down to Microsoft basing everything around its failing business model.
Microsoft allowed itself to slip into a position where it sat back and raked in the profits; then, when competition came along, and people were reluctant to upgrade for a few meagre benefits and some eye-candy, it had to get up quickly and work double-hard. Also, due to Windows not being designed with security in mind (Microsoft's words, not mine), Microsoft has had to waste more precious time trying to make Windows more secure, something that Paul Thurrott still sees as being far behind Linux/Unix.
Furthermore, I find fault with Microsoft performing its bundling act in order to ensure its success.
Microsoft is in control of Windows, and can integrate MSN search, and any other Web services, directly into Windows.
Microsoft can bundle its own anti-virus and spyware checking into Windows.
Microsoft can bundle its own accounting software with Microsoft office.
This gives people more of an incentive to upgrade Windows and Office, Microsoft's cash-cows, and harms the other businesses offering this software.
If anybody is successful in any technology market, watch out, Microsoft may come along and siphon off your income!
It's not just google, it's any successful market that relies on technology.
It's called 'playing catch-up'.
Microsoft's business model is failing, and rather than wasting precious time figuring out what new things it can do, it needs to quickly copy other successful businesses, and preferably kill them off (as usual) by leveraging its monopoly.
Treat teens with about the same respect you reserve for a mosquito and wonder why they go around shooting each other, or killing themselves.
That sounds like, "If I don't get my way I'll throw a tantrum and disrupt other people's lives".
You make it sound as if teens have such a hard life in this modern age. Actually, kids have more 'rights' now than ever before, and are almost 'untouchable'. This has lead to kids having less respect for authority, and demanding more and more respect for themselves. This is why people look at kids as some kind of pest.
It's not all kids that are like this, but most kids are going to be treated as if they are - it's human nature. Just like most teenagers see adults as some kind of pest, even though there are some adults who are sympathetic to the needs of teenagers.
We live in a society that is becoming more and more selfish, irresponsible, and where 'everybody' is lacking respect for others. If we address this, the root of the problem, there should be no need to go around emitting high pitched noises.
Some people don't like metal being used in bullets.
Are you suggesting that people who have articles published are more trustworthy than bloggers?
You can't have been reading many articles lately!
Respectable news sites are just as likely to display an article from a clueless, FUD-spreading desperado, just as much as a respectable writer.
I would suggest reading some from Rob Enderle or Laura DiDio, and make note of where their articles are published, then maybe you'll realize that there's little difference between articles and blog entries.
Besides, to suggest that somebody's opinon is not intelligent and worthy of notice, just because it's in a blog, is a bit silly.
Grudges? The past? Microsoft is still hurting people for its own gain even today.
It should be apparent that I don't like the bahavior of Microsoft, however, that should make no difference to the points I made. If you can find any flaw in any of the points I made, please let me know.
I can see that, for whatever reason, you will not consider any wrong things Microsoft has done/is doing. That's all very well where forgiveness is concerned, but to ignore things that are hurting people right now is considered callous.
I can understand the way you feel. However, I'll address the reasons why I feel the opposite:
So, would you rate Gates not make any donations at all?
I have no problem with Bill giving away his money, or the reasons he does it. That's his business.
I do have a problem with the people who pat him on the back for it, and mock those who believe he's doing it for selfish reasons.
I do have a problem with the people who turn a blind eye to the selfish, greedy things that he's done.
I do have a problem with the fact that governments benefitting from his donations feel compelled to pay back this generosity by accepting the software solutions that Bill's company is pushing.
Or I suppose just do it anonymously then? (Then again, I wonder how feasible it even is to give $258 million anonymously)
He didn't need to give it all at once. He could have sent multiple smaller anonymous donations via various means.
Why does good news need to be spun to become bad news?
Because there is somebody who makes life hard for one group of poor people, and people are praising him just because he makes life easier for another.
It's easy to forget about those who suffer when you live in peace.
We also just finished our annual company-wide Giving campaign
Ah, but I bet you didn't first go around threatening members of the public to pay you, and then use some of that money to 'donate', keeping the majority of it for yourselves.
it's hard to see so much criticism going towards folks who, regardless of reason, are spending time and money for those less fortunate.
Yes, it's hard to see anything bad in somebody who does such good...
Doesn't that make you wonder whether this is the reason why Bill does it?
Even if he didn't plan to use it to get people on-side, it's certainly had that effect; you've proved it.
MS isn't inherenty bad. They have just made more mistakes than others, but that can change.
It can change, but I doubt it's going to.
Microsoft has always been anti-competitive, and has shown a desire to domainate particular markets in any way possible - which is usually via bundling.
This is still going on, as shown here:
"Microsoft's Office Live services also represent a threat to those providing small businesses with e-mail and Web hosting services. Microsoft said that, for free, it will give businesses a domain name, a Web site with 30MB of storage and five Web-based e-mail accounts.
Any number of Web hosting firms, telecommunications companies and Internet service providers could see a chunk of business lost to Microsoft's free offer."
If anything, a lot of the money he sends goes to countries that aren't big buyers of software (like many African countries).
And its countries like these where Microsoft is pushing its software!
This is not just your average push, it's Microsoft's major pushes that we're looking at. It's in the tech news, you can read it for yourself.
India showed a big interest in Open Source, and got a bid donation from the Foundation.
Africa is showing a big interest in Open Source, and it's benefitting from the Foundation's latest big donation.
Microsoft cannot allow Open Source to become standard in these poor countries. Getting on-side with the governments of these countries is a good step towards getting them to respond positively to Microsoft's push of its software over Open Source.
If you don't believe that Microsoft is pushing Windows in these poor countries, you can't be keeping up with tech news.