I agree with this general assessment, but there is one problem.
The core of the case originally revolved around the issue of what can be in an OS. I don't think this issue will disappear with the break up. The OS Company would probably continue to push forward into the development of IE integrated on the desktop, and perhaps even more applications we see as seperate now.
I could see a couple of years after the breakup, a new version of the OS that contains an integrated browser/word processor/spreadsheet. They could claim its enhancing the functionality of the OS and we'd be in the same place as we are now.
What could be done to prevent this situation repeating itself? Well that's the other ramification of the case. If the government gets to tell the OS Division what can be included or excluded from their operating system, then that gets into some serious legal issues for the rest of us.
I don't know the best solution to this issue. Actually, scratch that. I think the best solution would be for MS to loose their market dominance through competition from things like open source projects. I just don't think its going to happen in the short- to mid-term.
Although they have had a few (ahem!) shady practises, their virtual monopoly isn't entirely their fault.
That they have a monopoly is not the illegal issue of the lawsuit. The problem is when the use predatory pricing, price fixing, product tying, or other anti-competitive actions. To prove their case, the government has to prove they have a monopoly status before they can prove the case of anti-competitive actions. So I agree with you that the monopoly is not entirely their fault. But predatory practices are their fault. What one does with a monopoly once one has it is the issue here.
Certainly, very few hardware companies had the balls to stand up to them, even though it's clear that if they'd banded together they could have limited MS influence.
The problem with this argument is that its true -- IF all the hardware vendors had allied themselves to help limit MS's power. The problem is that any company that turned its back on such an alliance would stand to benefit greatly by reduced pricing from MS. This would allow them a competitive advantage, by being able to offer reduced prices to consumers. So in a perfect world, they would band together on principal to limit MS. But in the real one, its obvious what they did.
There have always been alternatives to NT for instance; ones which have been proven reliable over time.
You are absolutely correct. The problem is that you can have some competition and still be a monopoly. The fact that, in general, these alternatives have a very small market share, and in the arena of the consumer desktops, competition had been on the decline. This is changing thanks to GNU/Linux and the Open Source movement. But as to whether Linux will ever pose a serious market threat in consumer desktops really remains to be seen.
The important thing to note is the idea that the main thrust of this lawsuit applies to the consumer desktop and not the backoffice server side of the market.
Windows (even NT) is pretty cheap compared to much of its competition.
What operating systems are you speaking of? If we separate workstation class operating systems from the other desktops, a quick search on buy.com reveals that NT Workstation is the most expensive (around $270). For the regular Windows 95/98 (priced around $160 -- priced as a stand alone edition. You can get better prices by buying it with hardware or upgrade copy, but for comparison purposes I chose the version that would put it on equal footing), only OS/2 is more expensive (around $175). However, I would classify OS/2 in a category with Workstation or Server because of its robustness. BeOS is around $70. GNU/Linus is $1,454 (just kidding - seeing if you are still awake). So it looks like for the Intel consumer desktop platform, NT is by far the most expensive choice around. Remember predatory pricing is one of the abuses of a monopoly structure. NT's only real competition is other microsoft products.
People do have a choice now. They always have. That doesn't negate the fact that at the time of the trial, Microsoft has a virtual monopoly on the desktop market and was using that monopoly in anti-competitive practices.
I got to say, the funniest thing about Microsoft is their unwillingness or ability to support their own web browser.
I'm forced to use IE 3.02 at work and Microsoft.com is one of the sites that regularly won't display on this browser. Numerous javascript errors and finally a nice blank white page.
I think the redmond definition of innovate is along the lines of "to increase complexity and fud until all product cease to function." At least that has been the operating principle they have been laboring under.
Sorry, I patented the Nacho process years ago. The cheese is actuallly a polymer that prevents the chips from oxidizing. It comes with a nice petroleum sauce for dipping!
My mother is in the path of this storm (north florida -- jax beach). Believe me when I say that many of the people here are not interested in having a good time at florida's expense. I for one am thankful to have another venue to see what is going on there. My mother is a live aboard (great boat named touchstone). If the storm hits that section of the coast (which it probably will), then that wonderful boat will be trashed.
Besides, how is this any different than watching the news?
I'm not sure what compression you are using, but most of the songs I listen to at 128 or above sound just fine to my ear. Then again, it could be that you have a more refined ear than I.
As for superior sound formats? New standards is a familiar problem, and I'm not sure its going to be that much of a problem for retail. I don't think anything will replace MP3 as the standard (until perhaps the upcoming MP4). Like it or not, warez is the thing driving the massive MP3 movement.
Without the massive exchange of music by the warez groups, I don't think the MP3 phenomena would be even a quarter of what we see today. I believe it would of been pretty easily squashed by the record companies. When most of them forbid their signed artists to release MP3s, it would of only left the small independent musician sector to drive the standard. That being the case, music companies could of easily co-opted the standard in favor of their proprietary solutions. If you want to see this in action, take a look at the standards with electronic instruments. Beside the MIDI spec, they are completely proprietary.
Slashdot Mirror
Didn't you know that AOL patented the phonemes for "you got mail"? So also out are the phrases "Ewe got male" and "U Gought Mehl." Sorry.
I agree with this general assessment, but there is one problem.
The core of the case originally revolved around the issue of what can be in an OS. I don't think this issue will disappear with the break up. The OS Company would probably continue to push forward into the development of IE integrated on the desktop, and perhaps even more applications we see as seperate now.
I could see a couple of years after the breakup, a new version of the OS that contains an integrated browser/word processor/spreadsheet. They could claim its enhancing the functionality of the OS and we'd be in the same place as we are now.
What could be done to prevent this situation repeating itself? Well that's the other ramification of the case. If the government gets to tell the OS Division what can be included or excluded from their operating system, then that gets into some serious legal issues for the rest of us.
I don't know the best solution to this issue. Actually, scratch that. I think the best solution would be for MS to loose their market dominance through competition from things like open source projects. I just don't think its going to happen in the short- to mid-term.
Too bad Windows 2000 can't handle bad weather, otherwise it would of been the logical choice. ;)
That they have a monopoly is not the illegal issue of the lawsuit. The problem is when the use predatory pricing, price fixing, product tying, or other anti-competitive actions. To prove their case, the government has to prove they have a monopoly status before they can prove the case of anti-competitive actions. So I agree with you that the monopoly is not entirely their fault. But predatory practices are their fault. What one does with a monopoly once one has it is the issue here.
The problem with this argument is that its true -- IF all the hardware vendors had allied themselves to help limit MS's power. The problem is that any company that turned its back on such an alliance would stand to benefit greatly by reduced pricing from MS. This would allow them a competitive advantage, by being able to offer reduced prices to consumers. So in a perfect world, they would band together on principal to limit MS. But in the real one, its obvious what they did.
You are absolutely correct. The problem is that you can have some competition and still be a monopoly. The fact that, in general, these alternatives have a very small market share, and in the arena of the consumer desktops, competition had been on the decline. This is changing thanks to GNU/Linux and the Open Source movement. But as to whether Linux will ever pose a serious market threat in consumer desktops really remains to be seen.
The important thing to note is the idea that the main thrust of this lawsuit applies to the consumer desktop and not the backoffice server side of the market.
What operating systems are you speaking of? If we separate workstation class operating systems from the other desktops, a quick search on buy.com reveals that NT Workstation is the most expensive (around $270). For the regular Windows 95/98 (priced around $160 -- priced as a stand alone edition. You can get better prices by buying it with hardware or upgrade copy, but for comparison purposes I chose the version that would put it on equal footing), only OS/2 is more expensive (around $175). However, I would classify OS/2 in a category with Workstation or Server because of its robustness. BeOS is around $70. GNU/Linus is $1,454 (just kidding - seeing if you are still awake). So it looks like for the Intel consumer desktop platform, NT is by far the most expensive choice around. Remember predatory pricing is one of the abuses of a monopoly structure. NT's only real competition is other microsoft products.
People do have a choice now. They always have. That doesn't negate the fact that at the time of the trial, Microsoft has a virtual monopoly on the desktop market and was using that monopoly in anti-competitive practices.
Sheesh. I'm done.
Sork
I'm forced to use IE 3.02 at work and Microsoft.com is one of the sites that regularly won't display on this browser. Numerous javascript errors and finally a nice blank white page.
I think the redmond definition of innovate is along the lines of "to increase complexity and fud until all product cease to function." At least that has been the operating principle they have been laboring under.
---------
This space intentionally left blank
Sorry, I patented the Nacho process years ago. The cheese is actuallly a polymer that prevents the chips from oxidizing. It comes with a nice petroleum sauce for dipping!
My mother is in the path of this storm (north florida -- jax beach). Believe me when I say that many of the people here are not interested in having a good time at florida's expense. I for one am thankful to have another venue to see what is going on there. My mother is a live aboard (great boat named touchstone). If the storm hits that section of the coast (which it probably will), then that wonderful boat will be trashed.
Besides, how is this any different than watching the news?
"You got your Conservative views in my Liberal Agenda!"
"You got your Liberal Agenda into my Conservative views -- Why its delicious!"
I'm not sure what compression you are using, but most of the songs I listen to at 128 or above sound just fine to my ear. Then again, it could be that you have a more refined ear than I.
As for superior sound formats? New standards is a familiar problem, and I'm not sure its going to be that much of a problem for retail. I don't think anything will replace MP3 as the standard (until perhaps the upcoming MP4). Like it or not, warez is the thing driving the massive MP3 movement.
Without the massive exchange of music by the warez groups, I don't think the MP3 phenomena would be even a quarter of what we see today. I believe it would of been pretty easily squashed by the record companies. When most of them forbid their signed artists to release MP3s, it would of only left the small independent musician sector to drive the standard. That being the case, music companies could of easily co-opted the standard in favor of their proprietary solutions. If you want to see this in action, take a look at the standards with electronic instruments. Beside the MIDI spec, they are completely proprietary.
Anyway, i'm rambling. I'll shut up now.