A Look at Microsoft's Regulatory Problems 302
jrexilius writes: "The Economist has a great article on the state of the EUs anti-trust case against microsoft, background, and future troubles with google. One interesting comment was 'Microsoft is preparing to use its dominance in web-browser and operating-system software to promote itself in yet another separate market--search engines this time'."
Search engines are a "low cost" change (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Fishy company (Score:5, Insightful)
Which, of course, is an exaggeration. Any such requirements come from the deal your shop has signed with Microsoft. If the contract stipulates that in order to get OEM discounts you must sell MS Windows with every piece of complete hardware you sell, that's a perfectly reasonable clause.
Go Google Go (Score:5, Insightful)
In the land of pirating with ease... the man who holds the data, not the software, will win.
Bill isn't dumb... and realizes this; thus, the push into the search engine world.
One more reason that I really like google.
Davak
In some ways, Bill Gates is poor. (Score:5, Insightful)
As far as I know, Microsoft has only made money in areas where the company has a temporary monopoly, or where being aggressive temporarily makes a profit.
Microsoft has a history of bad management, especially in thinking that the company can be aggressive toward customers, without paying any penalty.
If someone had a monopoly on water, he would make so much money that he would make Bill Gates look poor in just a few days. To unskilled observers, temporary monopolies make those associated with them look like skilled businesspeople.
When you are a billionaire, what is your biggest need? Is is to make more money? No, your biggest need is for connectedness with other people. By his aggressive behavior, Bill Gates has enforced disconnectedness, and he is in that sense a poor man.
Re:Go Google Go (Score:5, Insightful)
Winning Battles? (Score:4, Insightful)
Just my viewpoint.
Disagree (Score:4, Insightful)
How Microsoft Will Attack Google (Score:5, Insightful)
The next step, inevitably, will be to integrate such search functions into Windows, on the grounds that it constitutes a core technology that should be part of the operating system. In his keynote speech at last November's Comdex show in Las Vegas, Mr Gates demonstrated a prototype technology called "Stuff I've Seen" which does just that. It allows computer users to search for context-specific words in e-mails and in recently visited web pages, as well as in documents on their computers.
Microsoft has it's reaches into the majority of homes and businesses in the world. As broadband always-on internet becomes more popular, more and more services will really be clicks to other sites.
Here I describe one of the ways that microsoft uses this in the new version of Word as a translation machine. [tech-recipes.com] The information goes out onto the internet and word brings you back the information pretty seemlessly.
This is where Microsoft knows how to crush their enemies. By using easy clicks with integration, they can direct people to Microsoft search, translation, music, or whatever.
As the article states, before long your searches and data will be references my Windows software in multiple ways. Windows doesn't just want the web integrated into your system... they want their web integrated into your system.
Davak
Re:Fishy company (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well, really (Score:5, Insightful)
You are confused about what they have a monopoly IN. Multiple courts ruled that they were in fact a monopoly. You seem to be under the false impression it is for being a PC monopoly - far from it.
They have become a defacto OS monopoly - while there are other choices, they leverage their market share to ensure you can't, shouldn't, or won't want to use a competitors product.
Good companies encourage you to choose their product OVER the competitors, monopolies discourage competitors products through control, price gouging, and more.
Re:Go Google Go (Score:5, Insightful)
Google has the data.
Netscape had a physical piece of software.
Google has one (the?) largest collection of web data indexed. One way they use and abuse this is the way they can give such targetted ads on web sites.
Their little text-based ads rock the socks off other ads... Is it because people just are drawn to the little google boxes full of text? No... it's because the ads so closely related to what's on the page.
Data is going to rule. Even microsoft realizes that google has beaten them to the punch.
Could google screw up (like netscape)? Sure! Right now however... they are sitting pretty.
Davak
Re:Fishy company (Score:1, Insightful)
Uh, no. It was an exaggeration in the article.
my OEM did NOT want to sign such a contract and comply, but was cornered into doing so.
No, your OEM did not want to sign the contract but good business sense made him do it. It was not someone from Microsoft holding gun to his head or eastern-european thugs (if you'll excuse the stereotype) threatening to break his bones if he didn't comply.
Complaining about how OEMs are forced to sell Windows is just like complaining about how you're forced to hike your prices when the memory prices worldwide go up. It's the market, stupid.
Obviously you simply just do not "get it" and am willing to bet that you're sitting there on a Windows box and not Linux or OS X. Pussy.
Hehe... I "got it" already in the early 1990s. I just grew out of the OSS bigot phase in the mid 1990s.
Right now I run Linux on my file server and Windows XP for all-things-desktop side by side. I hope you'll get over it too soon and see that Windows is a perfectly good desktop OS.
Re:Well, really (Score:3, Insightful)
Nothing Really Changes (Score:3, Insightful)
_Of course_ Microsoft will continue to use their position in the desktop world to compete against their competitors. They always have, and they always will. The fact ist the legal system moves at a much slower pace than technology. It's a simple formula:
1) Use monopoly to compete against competitors now.
2) Drag out law suits for as long as possible
3) Make token settlement like coupons which continue to expand Windows penetration
4) Profit & repeat.
Re:Search engines are a "low cost" change (Score:5, Insightful)
To quote the article now:
[Google] accounts for 35% of search-engine visits--compared with 28% for Yahoo!, 16% for AOL and 15% for Microsoft's MSN
Do you really think that 31% of the population feels that Microsoft and AOL searches are better than google?
No. Users do not know better. They just click, and click, and click -- until they find their answer. You and I and most of slashdot knows that google would probably give you the answer quicker and better. 31% of the people out there just blindly search with whatever the easiest search option is...
Now Word and other Microsoft programs send information to various web sites to get translations, directions, and other additional information.
MS and AOL may not be able to win by pointing users to their products; however, they can drain enough money from the rest of the field to drive some better products into the poor house.
Davak
Re:Troll (Score:3, Insightful)
That rather is the point of anti-trust law.
Splitting up Microsoft (Score:4, Insightful)
If history is any guide, it is not difficult to predict which of these two paths Microsoft will take. On the other hand, there are a few examples of companies that have begun as monopolies and actually ended up increasing the value of the company faster after being forced to give up their monopoly position. For example, after the breakup of AT&T in 1982, the companies formed as a result have grown much more quikly. According to this article at Businessweek
So... Microsoft splitting itself up would be good not only for consumers and competitors, but perhaps also for its stockholders.
Re:Fishy company (Score:2, Insightful)
if you are an oem, small or large, prepared to buck the establishment?
then be prepared to die.
if you don't play ball, you're not playing at all.
Microsoft still controlls the playing field.
Competition is great for all of us...till somebody finally really wins.
with 40billion in general liquidity, 40billion estimated worth of the founder, and 40billion estimated worth of the next several officers combined(after the founder)...I think we know who has won.
and it's not the public...hell it's not even the stockholders.
Its really about Real not being able to compete (Score:5, Insightful)
With Windows Media 9 Microsoft really started shining in the Media Player arena and Real instead of competing wants to run crying to momma. Get a clue Real! If you hadn't abused your users with the intrusive crap of player you had then no one would have looked for alternatives. As long as WMP was inferior, Real was in fact the one abusing its dominant position by shoving a pathetically intrusive player on its users. Guess what they did when they had an alternative? Real squandered away its lead when real (pun intended) competition was coming its way. I guess it was sheer haughtiness on its part that it thought no one could beat it. When it has finally woken up and realised that no one is going to give it a second chance, then guess what happens. WMP9 is what decimated Real since its a much superior product overall compared to Real. Now the irony is that WMP9 is not bundled with any OS but is a separate download. Yet inspite of that its usage is skyrocketing.
The other story in all this is how Apple has been able to keep QuickTime alive and not face Real's fate. Well the QuickTime player also does some bad things (like adding itself to runonce reg key) but overall it respects its users a lot more. QuickTime and Windows Media are now the most dominant Media technologies on the net. So how come Apple is not complaining about Windows Media? How are they able to hold on to the market? Clue to Real: They actually compete. They care about their users and make a better player or better codecs (Apple has very good support for MPEG4). This whole media player tying issue looks like some kind of EU vendetta against a large US company. In fact the original case wasn't even about this till Real went crying to the EU comission. Makes me sick. What next? Tying of WordPad to Windows will become illegal since that hurts AbiWord? How silly can people get really.
Re:Go Google Go (Score:2, Insightful)
Right for the wrong reason (Score:4, Insightful)
You should hold off buying google when they go IPO because everybody else will be buying... and the price will be way too high.
After a while, the stock will come back down to a fair market price... and that will be when you should buy.
This has happened before when Yahoo and other hot companies have gone public.
Davak
Re:Fishy company (Score:2, Insightful)
No, thier not. But they sure as hell are forcing people to pay for it, even when thier not using it.
"As a matter of fact, Microsoft hasn't bought or litigated another OS out of the market."
Sure, if you dont consider OS/2 and BeOS to be operating systems.
Check youre facts before you spew.
Re:Fishy company (Score:5, Insightful)
There's also nothing unfair about a monopoly per se. Many monopolies exist, and they're not neccessarily evil. Nor are monopolies per se illegal. In Microsoft's case, it was the leveraging of the monopoly that was deemed illegal, *not* the monopoly per se.
The point I'm trying to make is that if you get into the situation where you want to sell a product (a PC), and that without striking a deal with the supplier of a part of that product (the OS) you will go out of business, simply means that there's no competition and the supplier possesses a de fact monopoly.
Re:Fishy company (Score:5, Insightful)
This does however not mean that monopolies should be left alone, as at some point such a monopoly will start hurting. This is why there are different sets of rules for monopolists versus competitors in a market. For one, barriers to entry must go. One barrier to entry is the Microsoft tax we're discussing currently. It's been set up when MS was on its way to becoming a monopoly, but now that it is has succeeded, the barrier must go. With such barriers in place, there is simply no possibility of a competitor to enter the market, let alone succeed. It's a simple case of making sure that any PC vendor has access to the same pricing of windows as their competitors. MS can still set the price, but cannot play favours. They lost that privilige once they won.
Re:Search engines are a "low cost" change (Score:1, Insightful)
http://www.comscore.com/about/clients.asp
and obviously Google is missing, while the other 3 "search engines" owners are there. I'd venture an educated and conservative guess over 60% of all the searches are done throuh Google.
A fine ? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Fishy company (Score:5, Insightful)
Except for those pesky antitrust laws, sure.
The FTC (Federal Trade Commission) and DOJ (Department of Justice) got Microsoft into trouble for exclusive OEM deals back in 1994 [wired.com].
The OEM exclusive licensing was part of the FTC investigation [stanford.edu]. From that link
The FTC and DOJ didn't consider per-processor licensing to be "perfectly reasonable". Microsoft settled out of court rather than go to trial; they knew they would lose.
That settlement led to the Microsoft Consent Decree. Basically Microsoft promised never to do it again. This attracted criticism from Judge Sporkin who said:
Of course, Microsoft violated the Consent Decree in 1997 in order to destroy a new company called Netscape. The Consent Decree was worthless (as many people said it was).
MSonopoly + FUD = less innovation and opportunity (Score:2, Insightful)
IMHO, governments adopting Linux is the ray of light through the clouds. If I target my applications to that market, then I need not fear MS. Sure, I will have to compete with all the rest of you. But we will compete as equals in a free market, not as weaklings against a bully.
Live long, and prosper!
Linux is ready now (Score:1, Insightful)
Ummm, I have Linux on my desktop and it runs better than WinXP ever could. It could use more drivers for better Plug and Play but it is ready. Real question is: are users ready for Linux?
Open Standard Laws would solve MS Monoply (Score:3, Insightful)
Methods how to implement such data storage formats and application communication protocols could be perhaps patented, copyrighted or a trade secret. But NOT the data storage formats and application communication protocols.
This is the only effective solution to the artificial bearers Microsoft has put in place to protect its Monopoly. This is not a Microsoft problem per say. Microsoft is just the best example of this problem.
The Europe as the European Union is able to and should apply this law retroactively in to all Union Countries. This will give competitors to Microsoft sufficient market to be "economically" successful. The European Union can not force other or even suggest other countries outside the Union follow suit. And I strongly doubt that the US will be happy about this, because United States protected Microsoft because it is HUGE US company with even large political weight. However United States no longer controls the world. So I expect several Counties in Asia with large manufacturing and internal markets to adopt the European approach.