Off topic...but the "remedy" of the DOJ settlement with Microsoft is not to eliminate the monopoly. Antitrust law is intended to (1) prevent abuse of monopoly power and/or (2) once abuse has taken place, put into place a remedy that prevents future abuse.
Who could possibly mod this comment as insightful? The guy obviously doesn't have a clue what the issue is here. There is no suggestion that Google broke the law. The request from the DOJ is to gather information regarding child porn on the internet. While I can see why Google might be concerned about trade secrets being exposed, they're clearly on the wrong side of this issue. If they can help the govt fight child porn but making their log files available in a way that doesn't compromise trade secrets then they should do so.
Also, FYI, the govt isn't asking for any personallhy identifiable information. They just want to see general information about searches relating to child porn.
Anyone who has any mod points, mod this guy/gal down.
I think this is a funny question. Corporations aren't people. While consumers (and other businesses, govt's etc.) should be "trusted" to deliver good products or services and live within the law, their primary obligation is to deliver value to their shareholders - which means maximizing growth and profit. Anyone who wants to "trust" a company like a person is barking up the wrong tree.
That said, I am personally concerned about what Google could do with the data they have about their users. When push comes to shove, they'll use the data in a way that helps the company grow and make profit. They can put their "do no harm" motto to good use in PR and probably even believe it but when it comes right down to it they're most obligated to do no evil to their shareholders.
So let me get this straight. Sony of PS1 and PS2 fame, Sony the company that dominates the video gaming industry, Sony the company that laughed off Microsoft's XBOX Live plans...is now playing catch up? Microsoft, the company that always follows, the company that never innovates, the company that only copies...is the leader?
Next thing you know, Apple will buy an old style media company.... Oh wait...
Bill Gates' father lead a big push in Washington (DC and State) to try to stop the republicans from lowering the inheritance tax for wealthy people. Bill senior's point - which I'm sure is shared by Bill Jr. - is that it is wrong for the super wealthy to hand such a large portion of their wealth down to their families. The republicans - who like to refer to the inheritance tax as the "death tax" argue that the tax hurts small business owners, forcing them to sell the business b/c of taxes. This is a canard. The laws can be written to protect against those scenarios. For the super wealthy like Gates and Jobs, there's certainly no issue of their families going broke b/c of taxes.
BTW, this has probably been posted elsewhere but Bill junior in on the record as saying that he plans to give away almost all of his wealth rather than hand it down to his kids. That way the money gets to be wisely spent by their foundation rather than by the US Govt.
Yeah, I knew that. I voted for him. Clearly my post was in jest. I'm actually a good "D" but still think that government is best left to things like defense, paving road and taking care of people who can't take care of themselves.
I think we should leave all technology decisions up to politicians. They know what's best for the rest of us. As a matter of fact, I'm thinking of putting up a Web site to encourage companies like Google, IBM, Microsoft and Apple to put politicians on all of their boards so that we're sure to get what's best for the people. Clearly in this case the Korean's are ahead of us!
I actually believe them when they say they discard the data. Apple has never give me any reason to question their "corporate honesty" - if there is such a thing. However, that still doesn't address the problem. They should have an "opt in" policy (like Windows Media Player) rather than an "opt out" policy. It's the right thing to do.
When you install WMP, by default it does NOT collect any user information. You have to "Opt in."
In this case MSFT policy better than Apple's
on
iTunes is Malware?
·
· Score: 1
I'm not a conspiracy theorist like many (most?)/. folks. Believe it or not, when you're willing to share some personal information (by opting in), companies can provide you with better services. Some would argue that if Apple can recommend songs that you might be interested in based on music you already listen then you're getting some value. Many of you probably have Tivo. Tivo recommends shows that Tivo thinks you might like based on what you record. Some might hate it or think their recommendations are lame but others might discover shows that they actually like.
The problem here is that Apple appears to have an "opt out" approach where they use the information UNLESS you disable certain functions. Microsoft, on the other hand, defaults to NOT collecting any information. You have to "opt in." To confirm this I just re-installed Windows Media Player 10. During the installation process I see the following:
1. Long/onerous EULA:) 2. Fairly long installation process.. 3. A very clear screen where I set my privacy options with "Send unique player ID to content providers" unchecked. The "Customer Experience Improvement Program" check box - which sends player usage datea to Microsoft - is also unchecked. This UI also has a prominent link to "More information about your privacy options" that spells it all out very clearly.
Perhaps Apple can in fact learn a few things from Microsoft?
Try instaling Windows Media Player. By default, Microsoft does NOT collect any data. You have to "opt in." Apple's approach seem to be that you have to "opt out."
No. You're referring to advertising agencies. They hire artists and copy writers. "Advertising company" may have confused you. Google is like a magazine. They sell advertising like a magazine does...albeit much more profitably and at greater scale.
You're confused. Microsoft is a software company. Google is an advertising company. Big difference. Google makes just slightly over 0 percent of their revenue from selling software.
Don't look now but server applications - including databases - are the fastest growing part of Microsoft's revenue and profit. SQL Server by itself would be one of the largest software companies in the world. Sure, operating systems and productivity software are still the biggest but they're growing more slowly.
Huh? Google's (overpriced?) stock price somehow makes them a more important competitor than IBM? That's a prettys illy argument if that's what you're trying to say. If MSFT let the market valuations of other companies drive their business strategy they'd be...what's the word...a bad company. Market valuation does not a good company make. Google might be a good company b/c they have a neat search engine that's driving a fast growing advertising business. Google competes with MSN Search which is a fraction of Microsoft's revenue and a smaller fraction of their profit. I'm sure MSFT will work hard to compete better in Search-based advertising. But until Google expands their business beyond Search-based advertising they're a blip on Microsoft's radar. IBM, on the other hand, competes with Microsoft in their core businesses - application servers, databases and operating systems.
I can hear the cries: "But wait! Google's building a platform for a 'new generation' of Web based applications that are going to eat away at Microsoft's core franchises! Just wait!" Ok, I'll wait and see when that actually happens. Kinda reminds me of Larry Ellison and Scott McNealy's brilliant predictions that the world is going to be taken over by dumb terminals.
If you have time, this is a pretty interesting video of two of the inventors of Singularity. They go into some detail on their motivations for doing the work, what they're learning from the prototype etc.
Nonsense. The Lindows/Linspire case was never resolved. The reasons for that are irrelevant. Until the trademark is deemed invalid (hint: it will never happen) the trademark stands and this guy has no standing whatsoever. Unless of course he decides to sue Microsoft and tries to overturn the trademark.
FWIW, Judge Coughenauer would not have been the last word on this even if the Lindows case had actually been ruled on.
Informative? Give me a break. This is a total nonsense posting. In reply...
1. He was infringing on their trademark. Despite various challenges over the years, the Windows trademark is strong and defensible. No individual or company can name a product Windows FOO except Microsoft.
2. Microsoft didn't lie to anybody. All they did was protect their trademark. If they didn't they'd be irresponsible.
3. Where was the bullying? The way a company protects a trademark is to send a letter (from a lawyer) notifying the infringing party that they cannot use the trademark. What would you have had them do? Ignore it? If they did that then their shareholders would sue Microsoft!
He didn't need to "sign away" any rights. He had no rights in the first place. Microsoft has a trademark on Windows in almost every country in the world. When you own a trademark you own the rights to use the name in your product names. Nobody except Microsoft can name a product Windows FOO (where FOO is absolutely ANYTHING). This guy, if he had wanted to, would have been absolutely free to use the Windows trademark referentially - as in "Defender for Windows." This is no different than if someone wanted to use any other trademark. Should I be allowed to design a music player product and call it "Sony MP3 Player?" No, because Sony Corp owns the the trademark to word "Sony."
This is a total non-issue. This guy had absolutely no rights in the first place. To top if off, Microsoft would have been operating recklessly if they DIDN'T stop the guy form using the Windows Defender name, even if they didn't want to use the same name for their own product.
Move along.
>only when they can use their number 1 weapon: abuse of desktop monopoly. otherwise they suck, hence their inability to deal with Google or the iPod.
Really? What about Excel beating out 1-2-3 or Visicalc? What about Word beating out WordPerfect? That all happened a long time ago, before they were ever accused of monopolistic abuse. And don't trot out the old conspiracy theories that MSFT conspired to make 1-2-3 break. Even former Lotus execs agree that's an urban legend.
How about a different market? Say, sever operating systems? MSFT was nowhere in the server OS business and came out with NT. Eventually NT became a pretty good product and they beat out Netware and Unix (except, more recently, Linux). That success certainly didn't come about because of any monopoly power. What about SQL Server? Again, MSFT built SQL Server over a period of years to the point where, by itself, it would be one of the biggest software companies in the world if it were a separate company.
MSFT often succeeds because they're persistent. They don't give up and almost always eventually win...eventually. I'm not saying that will happen in Search but I wouldn't put it past them. MSFT has only bee in the search business for six or eight months and they're 3rd in share. Do you think they'll have LESS marketshare in five years? If so, I have a bridge I want to sell you.
I did google it. This apparently well-researched story includes confirmation from several Lotus insiders that thethis is an urban myth. Lotus was perhaps Microsoft's most important customers. Why woudl they sabatoge their product? It just doesn't make sense.
http://www.proudlyserving.com/archives/2005/08/dos _aint_done_t.html
Just because some dumbass might have said something like that doesn't make it true. DOS would have never been a success if it didn't provide a reasonable platform for many many non-Microsoft applications.
It's easy to list companies that you have legitimate gripes with and say they're anti-consumer. But I can just as easily list good companies that are pro consumer and make loads of money because of it. Here are a few off the top of my head.
McDonalds is pro consumer because they provide a decent product in (usually) clean restaurants with with quick and polite service. People go to McDonalds over and over not because they have the best food but because the overall experience is positive. And the company makes lots of $$ in the process.
Amazon is pro consumer becaues they offer a huge selection of products at reasonable prices and save me time because I don't have to drive to the store to make my purchase.
Proctor & Gamble is pro consumer because I can buy a gigantic container of Tide at my local Costco (another pro consumer company) for next to nothing.
I can even take a stab at some of your examples of anti consumer companies.
Comcast is pro-consumer because they made a DVR that is good enough to make me willing to drop my more expensive Tivo subscription.
Standard Oil is/was pro consumer because they made gasoline incredibly cheap by building thousands of refineries. They were obviously anti-competitive but that's different than being anti-consumer.
I don't know a lot about Ameritech but do know they're a phone service provider. If they're not sufficiently pro consumer then they will eventually go out of business. Phone service - especially residential phone service - is becoming increasingly competitive. The companies that survive will be the companies that please their customers.
Slashdot Mirror
Off topic...but the "remedy" of the DOJ settlement with Microsoft is not to eliminate the monopoly. Antitrust law is intended to (1) prevent abuse of monopoly power and/or (2) once abuse has taken place, put into place a remedy that prevents future abuse.
Who could possibly mod this comment as insightful? The guy obviously doesn't have a clue what the issue is here. There is no suggestion that Google broke the law. The request from the DOJ is to gather information regarding child porn on the internet. While I can see why Google might be concerned about trade secrets being exposed, they're clearly on the wrong side of this issue. If they can help the govt fight child porn but making their log files available in a way that doesn't compromise trade secrets then they should do so. Also, FYI, the govt isn't asking for any personallhy identifiable information. They just want to see general information about searches relating to child porn. Anyone who has any mod points, mod this guy/gal down.
I think this is a funny question. Corporations aren't people. While consumers (and other businesses, govt's etc.) should be "trusted" to deliver good products or services and live within the law, their primary obligation is to deliver value to their shareholders - which means maximizing growth and profit. Anyone who wants to "trust" a company like a person is barking up the wrong tree. That said, I am personally concerned about what Google could do with the data they have about their users. When push comes to shove, they'll use the data in a way that helps the company grow and make profit. They can put their "do no harm" motto to good use in PR and probably even believe it but when it comes right down to it they're most obligated to do no evil to their shareholders.
So let me get this straight. Sony of PS1 and PS2 fame, Sony the company that dominates the video gaming industry, Sony the company that laughed off Microsoft's XBOX Live plans...is now playing catch up? Microsoft, the company that always follows, the company that never innovates, the company that only copies...is the leader? Next thing you know, Apple will buy an old style media company.... Oh wait...
Bill Gates' father lead a big push in Washington (DC and State) to try to stop the republicans from lowering the inheritance tax for wealthy people. Bill senior's point - which I'm sure is shared by Bill Jr. - is that it is wrong for the super wealthy to hand such a large portion of their wealth down to their families. The republicans - who like to refer to the inheritance tax as the "death tax" argue that the tax hurts small business owners, forcing them to sell the business b/c of taxes. This is a canard. The laws can be written to protect against those scenarios. For the super wealthy like Gates and Jobs, there's certainly no issue of their families going broke b/c of taxes.
BTW, this has probably been posted elsewhere but Bill junior in on the record as saying that he plans to give away almost all of his wealth rather than hand it down to his kids. That way the money gets to be wisely spent by their foundation rather than by the US Govt.
Yeah, I knew that. I voted for him. Clearly my post was in jest. I'm actually a good "D" but still think that government is best left to things like defense, paving road and taking care of people who can't take care of themselves.
I think we should leave all technology decisions up to politicians. They know what's best for the rest of us. As a matter of fact, I'm thinking of putting up a Web site to encourage companies like Google, IBM, Microsoft and Apple to put politicians on all of their boards so that we're sure to get what's best for the people. Clearly in this case the Korean's are ahead of us!
I actually believe them when they say they discard the data. Apple has never give me any reason to question their "corporate honesty" - if there is such a thing. However, that still doesn't address the problem. They should have an "opt in" policy (like Windows Media Player) rather than an "opt out" policy. It's the right thing to do.
When you install WMP, by default it does NOT collect any user information. You have to "Opt in."
I'm not a conspiracy theorist like many (most?) /. folks. Believe it or not, when you're willing to share some personal information (by opting in), companies can provide you with better services. Some would argue that if Apple can recommend songs that you might be interested in based on music you already listen then you're getting some value. Many of you probably have Tivo. Tivo recommends shows that Tivo thinks you might like based on what you record. Some might hate it or think their recommendations are lame but others might discover shows that they actually like.
:)
The problem here is that Apple appears to have an "opt out" approach where they use the information UNLESS you disable certain functions. Microsoft, on the other hand, defaults to NOT collecting any information. You have to "opt in." To confirm this I just re-installed Windows Media Player 10. During the installation process I see the following:
1. Long/onerous EULA
2. Fairly long installation process..
3. A very clear screen where I set my privacy options with "Send unique player ID to content providers" unchecked. The "Customer Experience Improvement Program" check box - which sends player usage datea to Microsoft - is also unchecked. This UI also has a prominent link to "More information about your privacy options" that spells it all out very clearly.
Perhaps Apple can in fact learn a few things from Microsoft?
Try instaling Windows Media Player. By default, Microsoft does NOT collect any data. You have to "opt in." Apple's approach seem to be that you have to "opt out."
No. You're referring to advertising agencies. They hire artists and copy writers. "Advertising company" may have confused you. Google is like a magazine. They sell advertising like a magazine does...albeit much more profitably and at greater scale.
You're confused. Microsoft is a software company. Google is an advertising company. Big difference. Google makes just slightly over 0 percent of their revenue from selling software.
Don't look now but server applications - including databases - are the fastest growing part of Microsoft's revenue and profit. SQL Server by itself would be one of the largest software companies in the world. Sure, operating systems and productivity software are still the biggest but they're growing more slowly.
Huh? Google's (overpriced?) stock price somehow makes them a more important competitor than IBM? That's a prettys illy argument if that's what you're trying to say. If MSFT let the market valuations of other companies drive their business strategy they'd be...what's the word...a bad company. Market valuation does not a good company make. Google might be a good company b/c they have a neat search engine that's driving a fast growing advertising business. Google competes with MSN Search which is a fraction of Microsoft's revenue and a smaller fraction of their profit. I'm sure MSFT will work hard to compete better in Search-based advertising. But until Google expands their business beyond Search-based advertising they're a blip on Microsoft's radar. IBM, on the other hand, competes with Microsoft in their core businesses - application servers, databases and operating systems.
I can hear the cries: "But wait! Google's building a platform for a 'new generation' of Web based applications that are going to eat away at Microsoft's core franchises! Just wait!" Ok, I'll wait and see when that actually happens. Kinda reminds me of Larry Ellison and Scott McNealy's brilliant predictions that the world is going to be taken over by dumb terminals.
PS. If Google hits $600...SHORT THE STOCK!
If you have time, this is a pretty interesting video of two of the inventors of Singularity. They go into some detail on their motivations for doing the work, what they're learning from the prototype etc.
0 2
http://channel9.msdn.com/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=683
I politely say, you're cluless. Microsoft has many trademarks including:
Microsoft(r)
Windows(r)
Windows Media(r)
Windows Vista(tm)
Windows NT(r)
The list goes on. The Windows trademark has never been ruled invalid. The Lindows case was never completed.
Nonsense. The Lindows/Linspire case was never resolved. The reasons for that are irrelevant. Until the trademark is deemed invalid (hint: it will never happen) the trademark stands and this guy has no standing whatsoever. Unless of course he decides to sue Microsoft and tries to overturn the trademark.
FWIW, Judge Coughenauer would not have been the last word on this even if the Lindows case had actually been ruled on.
Informative? Give me a break. This is a total nonsense posting. In reply...
1. He was infringing on their trademark. Despite various challenges over the years, the Windows trademark is strong and defensible. No individual or company can name a product Windows FOO except Microsoft.
2. Microsoft didn't lie to anybody. All they did was protect their trademark. If they didn't they'd be irresponsible.
3. Where was the bullying? The way a company protects a trademark is to send a letter (from a lawyer) notifying the infringing party that they cannot use the trademark. What would you have had them do? Ignore it? If they did that then their shareholders would sue Microsoft!
He didn't need to "sign away" any rights. He had no rights in the first place. Microsoft has a trademark on Windows in almost every country in the world. When you own a trademark you own the rights to use the name in your product names. Nobody except Microsoft can name a product Windows FOO (where FOO is absolutely ANYTHING). This guy, if he had wanted to, would have been absolutely free to use the Windows trademark referentially - as in "Defender for Windows." This is no different than if someone wanted to use any other trademark. Should I be allowed to design a music player product and call it "Sony MP3 Player?" No, because Sony Corp owns the the trademark to word "Sony." This is a total non-issue. This guy had absolutely no rights in the first place. To top if off, Microsoft would have been operating recklessly if they DIDN'T stop the guy form using the Windows Defender name, even if they didn't want to use the same name for their own product. Move along.
>only when they can use their number 1 weapon: abuse of desktop monopoly. otherwise they suck, hence their inability to deal with Google or the iPod.
Really? What about Excel beating out 1-2-3 or Visicalc? What about Word beating out WordPerfect? That all happened a long time ago, before they were ever accused of monopolistic abuse. And don't trot out the old conspiracy theories that MSFT conspired to make 1-2-3 break. Even former Lotus execs agree that's an urban legend.
How about a different market? Say, sever operating systems? MSFT was nowhere in the server OS business and came out with NT. Eventually NT became a pretty good product and they beat out Netware and Unix (except, more recently, Linux). That success certainly didn't come about because of any monopoly power. What about SQL Server? Again, MSFT built SQL Server over a period of years to the point where, by itself, it would be one of the biggest software companies in the world if it were a separate company.
MSFT often succeeds because they're persistent. They don't give up and almost always eventually win...eventually. I'm not saying that will happen in Search but I wouldn't put it past them. MSFT has only bee in the search business for six or eight months and they're 3rd in share. Do you think they'll have LESS marketshare in five years? If so, I have a bridge I want to sell you.
I did google it. This apparently well-researched story includes confirmation from several Lotus insiders that thethis is an urban myth. Lotus was perhaps Microsoft's most important customers. Why woudl they sabatoge their product? It just doesn't make sense. http://www.proudlyserving.com/archives/2005/08/dos _aint_done_t.html
BTW, I suggest you read this. http://www.proudlyserving.com/archives/2005/08/dos _aint_done_t.html
Just because some dumbass might have said something like that doesn't make it true. DOS would have never been a success if it didn't provide a reasonable platform for many many non-Microsoft applications.
It's easy to list companies that you have legitimate gripes with and say they're anti-consumer. But I can just as easily list good companies that are pro consumer and make loads of money because of it. Here are a few off the top of my head. McDonalds is pro consumer because they provide a decent product in (usually) clean restaurants with with quick and polite service. People go to McDonalds over and over not because they have the best food but because the overall experience is positive. And the company makes lots of $$ in the process. Amazon is pro consumer becaues they offer a huge selection of products at reasonable prices and save me time because I don't have to drive to the store to make my purchase. Proctor & Gamble is pro consumer because I can buy a gigantic container of Tide at my local Costco (another pro consumer company) for next to nothing. I can even take a stab at some of your examples of anti consumer companies. Comcast is pro-consumer because they made a DVR that is good enough to make me willing to drop my more expensive Tivo subscription. Standard Oil is/was pro consumer because they made gasoline incredibly cheap by building thousands of refineries. They were obviously anti-competitive but that's different than being anti-consumer. I don't know a lot about Ameritech but do know they're a phone service provider. If they're not sufficiently pro consumer then they will eventually go out of business. Phone service - especially residential phone service - is becoming increasingly competitive. The companies that survive will be the companies that please their customers.