Storm Brewing over Microsoft on the Horizon? 310
SexyFingers writes "Robert X. Cringely, of I, Cringely discusses one of the last anti-trust lawsuit beleaguering Microsoft. It seems like Microsoft is looking bad on these bouts... words like, lie, dissemble, ignores were applied to Microsoft."
Nothing will change. (Score:4, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Nothing will change. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Nothing will change. (Score:5, Insightful)
Features of MS Office (Score:3, Interesting)
Meanwhile, back at real life (Score:3, Interesting)
It's true that MS-Word does less of them, but it's also true that it will spontaneously corrupt documents from time to time (which OpenOffice will often fix), that MS-Word's HTML editing requires extensive therapy to come within hailing distance of standard, and that its autosave (in relative terms) sucks for reliability and intrusiveness.
The advantages cut both ways, which for the price - AUD$319 (RRP, basic OEM edition) vs AUD$0 - is
Re:Small PSA: OO 1.1.3 has recently been released (Score:2)
Re:Nothing will change. (Score:5, Insightful)
BeOS. Except it doesn't exist any more because Microsoft abused it's monopoly to stop PC manufacturers from offering dual boot PCs. That's a cse in point.
Who makes a better media player?
Apple. The combination of iTunes and Quicktime.
That *does not* mean MS stuff is grandly spectacular, it just means their competitors are more litigious than they are innovative.
Not true. It ignores all the monopoly abuse that Microsoft indulged in to get where it is.
Firefox is a good example of how if a competitive product is released that people actually have a good reason to use, it will be adopted, even by people without a CS degree.
No. It's evidence that a no cost application is something that Microsoft can't cross subsidize to undercut. Opera has been better than IE for years, but costs money, or needs adware.
Be happy with your PowerBook, as I am with my Mac. But realise that the superiority of the Mac platform hasn't stopped it from dwindling to 2% of the market. You aren't going to claim that is lack of innovation too, surely?
Re:Nothing will change. (Score:2)
Re:Nothing will change. (Score:2)
Re:Nothing will change. (Score:3, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Nothing will change. (Score:5, Insightful)
When you say customers have choice, you lose all credibility.
Re:Nothing will change. (Score:2)
Re:Nothing will change. (Score:2)
And it isn't a backward economic theory. It's there for valid reasons. And again, I suggest you go and find out what they are.
Re:Nothing will change. (Score:2, Insightful)
Apple's measly 2%-5% market share disagrees with you. What is funny is that Apple has made it's own problem by cutting off the clone makers. I'd look at apple as a viable 'choice' if they hadn't done that. The hardware was good, the prices were getting more in-line with PC prices for the time, etc. Apple just couldn't stand that. They couldn't be content with being the MS of the PowerPC hardware. Stupid move, in my eyes. Yea, th
Re:Nothing will change. (Score:2)
I recently bought a G5, I was a die hard "build it yourself" type having owned a custom built pc biz for a time and wasn't about to spend 2x the money for the same hardware and did quite a bit of comparison shopping.
I first compared the G5 to a Dell configured with comparable hardware. Where ever possible I even got exact parts. . .the Dell cost a few hundred dollars more.
I was surprised, but this left the self-built pc for comparison. I built a dual opteron set-up using parts from Newegg.com (very compe
Re:Nothing will change. (Score:2)
Do you happen to own a leather bound signed copy of "Atlas Shrugged"? Only an Objectivist could be so pendantic with regard to governments and markets. If a private entity becomes powerful enough to control a market then that market is no longer 'free'. As such, it's completely spurious, or
Re:Nothing will change. (Score:2)
Re:Nothing will change. (Score:5, Insightful)
2. It's well supported
3. There's lots of software for windows
4. There's a lot of hardware compatibility
5. It's good enough for most people, despite obvious flaws
I think you forgot a few:
6. It's bundled with damn near every OEM pc made.
7. OEM's are required to purchase a windows license for every cpu sold as a result of Microsoft extortion tactics.
Combine that with the fact that 1, 2, 3, and 4 are a direct consequence of my 6 and 7 and you may begin to understand the meaning of monoply. . . probably not though.
You clearly don't get it (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not complaining about MS dropping the price.
I'm not complaining about MS dropping the price.
Are we clear on that now?
The problem is that Microsoft drop the price further iff the dealer ostracises any competitors. This is not a discount for bulk, for performance, for anything positive, this is an extra discount for telling competitors to nick off, for removing them from your advertising, catalogues etc, for shutting competitors out.
The bad effect of th
Re:Nothing will change. (Score:5, Insightful)
The stuff that is bundled with windows is bundled with windows because Microsoft said so, and that was the problem. No amount of desire, fame, or money would have allowed Dell to install Opera (or Netscape, in the specific case of the original lawsuits) on a Windows pc it was selling, thanks to Microsoft's abuse of its monopoly position.
You say "Opera should make their own OS", but thats not the same. If a Chevy dealer wants to offer a TV with the purchase of a new car, should the dealer have to make their own cars? Their own TVs?
Re:Nothing will change. (Score:4, Interesting)
And it wasn't just media apps. I could process SETI@HOME unit at twice the speed on the very same PC when using BeOS as when using Windows.
I'm a programmer. Developing software for the BeOS was a delight compared with Windows. It was a truly modern OS. Frankly the only thing better about Windows, was the amount of software already available for it. Just as that is the only advantage Windows has over OS X. There is no way that Windows was a better OS than BeOS. That's simply not the case. If you honestly thing you have enough knowledge of BeOS to disagree with me, make your case. Otherwise just accept that you are misinformed.
Yes, I run iTunes on Windows as well as OS X. It's identical. The only difference is that the Windows version uses more memory. If you have a low memory PC it'll be sluggish. But most people are fine.
I didn't mention Office suites because I didn't disagree with what you said the first time. It's the one area where Microsoft deserved to take a market. However, they did abuse their monopoly once they'd taken the market by changing the file format with every release so that customers had to pay money to upgrade whether they wanted to or not.
Come back when you do understand that cross subsidisation is a problem for monopolies. It's in the Sherman act.
Re:Nothing will change. (Score:2)
Re:Nothing will change. (Score:2)
See, the problem is that, in the presence of a sinlge dominant competitor in the market (90+% is definitely that), you have to play a perfect game in order to merely survive . (And that's if luck's with you!)
Apple had its chance and blew it and is relegated to 2%. BeOS had its chance and blew it and died. MSFT has blown many things (like Windows ME!), yet they continue to survive. Remember the Microsoft
Re:Nothing will change. (Score:5, Informative)
Cross-subsidization is one of the core items of anti-trust regulations, as it is used to maintain monopolies and screw the consumer.
Let's go back in history to the 1950s. Standard Oil (split up into Amooco, Exxon, and many others long ago) owned the gas station market in the US. If you were foolish enough to open a gas station near a Standard Oil station they would reduce their prices to below cost until you went out of business, then raise them again and rip the customers off. They could afford to do that, and ended up with little competition.
Go back another 40-50 years or so. Before refrigerators there were ice boxes. You got ice delivered to keep your beer (and other food) cold. There were ice trusts that owned the ice delivery market. If you tried to compete, same thing, they would price you out (or send Bubba and Louie to take care of you physically, things were rougher then). As soon as you were gone, prices went back up. Again, competition eliminated, so carte blance to screw the customer as they have no viable alternative, the competition has been squashed.
This is all the same now with Microsoft. You try to compete, they squeeze you out of the market in one way or another. The big pie is at risk, so they take a loss in that little area until you are dead and they dominate. They just use different tactics. Next thing you know, you are locked into a $300 OS.
Take Wordperfect. Once they squashed them (arguably with a better product in this case) they dumped the documented RTF format, and used the ever changing, proprietary, doc format. They could get away with a proprietary format as they ruled the roost. Problem is, competition is essentially locked out due to format issues.
Anyway, cross-subsidization is evil. The big guys use this to crush competition wherever it rears up. End result, few can compete, the monopolist remains the owner and screws their customers. This is why monopolies are split up or regulated. To remove this ability to screw the consumer by crushing competition. It is at the core of any capitalist system, to keep things in check.
what has changed? (Score:2)
Microsoft went a little beyond pricing (if non-M$ program sleep), but they consistently out marketed superior products. Artificially low prices are nowhere near as critical as the CPU tax for M$ domination. If there were an incentive for stores to sell non-M$ products there might actually
Re:Nothing will change. (Score:3, Informative)
"Let's go back in history to the 1950s. Standard Oil (split up into Amooco, Exxon, and many others long ago) owned the gas station market in the US. If you were foolish enough to open a gas station near a Standard Oil station they would reduce their prices to below cost until you went out of business, then raise them again and rip the customers off. They could afford to do that, and ended up with little competition."
Much the same thing happens today here in Australia, only it is more a duopoly, and it o
Re:Nothing will change. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Nothing will change. (Score:2, Funny)
Well let's look at office suites. MS didn't have a monopoly on office suites. Corel used to make one (do they still? I haven't used it since it sucked so bad it made me puke.) What else was there? It's hard to blame Office's success on exploiting a monopoly when historically you had just one competitor, and that competitor sucked.
yeah, because having access to undocuments API's didn't give MS any advantages.
I don't really remember the difference between the two back when they wre of equal market share.,
Re:Nothing will change. (Score:3, Informative)
You are basing your argument on an invalid assumption. You are probably one of those people that completely misinterpreted the (admitedly poorly worded) news stories about MS canceling Compaq's license for Windows because they chose to ship Netscape *instead* of IE. They were free to ship Netsc
Re:Nothing will change. (Score:2)
Re:Nothing will change. (Score:2)
As to your comments about iTunes and Quicktime, I don't accept them. Quicktime plays video better on my PC than WMP. I always choose the QT movie format if there is an option. If it stutters on your PC, fix your PC.
Finally interface standards and paradigms
Re:Nothing will change. (Score:2)
And your anti QT stuff is pure troll. Back under your bridge.
Re:Nothing will change. (Score:5, Interesting)
How would you compete against Microsoft?
No, really - how would you compete? Say you DO have something that's more terrifically innovative than anything Microsoft offers. And say you're an American following the American dream of trying to capitalize on a great idea and become rich, while meanwhile Microsoft has near-infinite reserves of cash and manpower and lawyers to throw against you if they see you have something which might be profitable to them.
How do you parlay your great idea into a successful business before Microsoft copies your idea, gives it away free with Windows, and chokes off the cash coming into your company? And you get extra points if you can do this without being "litigious."
Really - tell me - I want to know.
Re:Nothing will change. (Score:3, Interesting)
Provided you're not treading on their turf they probably wouldn't bother you until you become a threat.
Re:Nothing will change. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Nothing will change. (Score:3, Informative)
Maybe you should ask Quicken ?
Long list you've got there!
Re:Intuit isn't part of MS thanks to the DOJ (Score:3, Interesting)
No. Did you miss the part where MS Money "got better" ?
That wasn't competition in action.
Of course it was. Microsoft had to compete because their product wasn't as good. That they also tried to buy out the other product is irrelevant - that's *also* competition in action.
If MS had had its choice, there would be no Intuit right now.
Surely the decision whether or not to be acquired by another company should be the sole domain of the target company's sh
Re:Nothing will change. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Nothing will change. (Score:2)
Outside of the circle of people who are techy enough to read Slashdot - how many other people are using Firefox?
Are there any grandmothers out there who said, "Oh, I'd rather use Firefox than IE"?
Re:Nothing will change. (Score:5, Insightful)
Are there any grandmothers out there who said, "Oh, I'd rather use Firefox than IE"?
There are some grandmothers out there who wrote programs before MicroSoft was incorporated. Yes, my mother, the grandmother of my child, knows that IE is a bad thing. Stop being so sexist and ageist. Who do you think invented the systems you're using today?
Re:Nothing will change. (Score:2)
Puh-lease! Everyone knows MS's "innovations" are just rip-offs or stolen from their competitors/partners!
Tell that to Sun (Score:2)
PR guy: "Sun is an experienced player in IT and runs no risk in cooperation with Microsoft."
Scott McNealy: "Yes, Mr. Gates, sir, how far should I bend over?"
Re:Nothing will change. (Score:2)
Well, if the customers are being fucked, they should stop buying MS stuff. And if their business partners are being fucked, then they should stop being partners with Microsoft. And as for competitors, . . .
Yes, of course. The screwed customers should have stopped buying from Standard Oil. The business partners should have renounced deals with the major player in the market in the name of business ethics (ha ha). And the competitors, who complained loudly, were generally ignored by the government, then
Re:Nothing will change. (Score:2)
Re:Nothing will change. (Score:2, Interesting)
When new, better ideas are being squashed by cashed up companies with a weaker product to protect, it's time to realise that a change is needed in the way that these two main government bodies are operated.
A few things that are notable.
--RIAA/MPAA essentially bribing politicians
A married man's life (Score:5, Funny)
He just admitted that his wife is twice as smart as he is. She must read his column.
Bad Day (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Bad Day (Score:5, Funny)
Who would have thought that the shitty nature of their software might actually end up being Microsoft's saving grace?
Isn't this illegal? (Score:5, Interesting)
Wouldn't normally evidence that suggests that MS is doing naughty things (manipulation of evidence, etc.) invite a DoJ probe or something to see what exactly they're up to?
Or are actions like that limited to smaller companies that don't have the money to move to make problems "go away"?
Re:Isn't this illegal? (Score:2, Insightful)
Not under this administration.
Re:Isn't this illegal? (Score:2)
Re:Isn't this illegal? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Isn't this illegal? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Isn't this illegal? (Score:5, Informative)
Wrong. [snopes.com]
~Philly
Re:Isn't this illegal? (Score:4, Funny)
Well, if I the choice is between having the president in the pocket of Big Oil vs. in the pocket of Big Ketchup, I suppose that I would pick the latter. I guess I just really don't care that much if the administration sets our National Condiment Policy in closed-door meetings with industry insiders.
Smoke out the bastards (Score:5, Funny)
I'm sure that Mr. Ashcroft will haul Mr. Ballmers ass in at once and the commander in chief will withdraw 10000 troups from Iraq, for the sole purpose of surrounding the Microsof campus and arrest everybody in sight!
All property including cash assets will be seized and distributed to education and social security, since Mr. Cheeney finally sees the wrongs of his fiduciary irresponsibilities quite drastically and sees the light.
Mr. Ashcroft will set all steps in motion right after finishing his doobie in a white house crapper stall.
Just wait and see; it oughta be mighty entertaining.
Re:Smoke out the bastards (Score:2)
What TLA agency is in charge of that again?
Re:Smoke out the bastards (Score:2)
Actually, it looks more like 31% [oregon.gov].
Sounds like a true story to me. (Score:5, Interesting)
If Microsoft really 'plain lied' to the DoJ in the antitrust case, they might be 'really' convicted after all.
Ummm, they did. (Score:5, Informative)
But somethings didn't seem right on the tape. Icons were changing between screenshots. But that's okay, because Microsoft just cut out some of the boring bits, but the tape is really a tape of an actual experiment.
But then it turns out that the machines are completely wrong. Well, Microsoft said it was only a dramatization of an actual experiment.
So the judge said Microsoft could do the experiment over, but that the DoJ could watch it.
Microsoft had problems re-doing the experiment because the Microsoft engineers could not get a reliable Internet connection from the hotel room.
So, the judge finds Microsoft guilty and a monopoly, appeals, etc, new administration, case dropped.
words like, lie, dissemble, ignores were applied.. (Score:4, Interesting)
so what?
those words have been applied to any other major corporation in the world.
in fact, those words are almost an synonym for corporate america.
Re:words like, lie, dissemble, ignores were applie (Score:2)
Sure, we should all strive to be the best we can, but at the same time, we should all remember our own failings when condeming the failings of others.
Re:words like, lie, dissemble, ignores were applie (Score:2, Insightful)
IN CAPITALIST AMERICA... (Score:2, Insightful)
Ergh (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Ergh (Score:4, Funny)
comspiracy...yea, i'm not really serious about it....but it does make you wonder.
yeah so did the nazi deathcamp guards (Score:4, Insightful)
Evil great and small can happen because people turn their back because it is to inconvenient to deal with it right now.
But microsoft is an easy evil. You are not going to be shot for going after ms or any other cooperation that has gotten out of control. Yet.
But leave it like this and the common american Sci-Fi theme of evil cooperations controlling the world, odd that in capatalist america hollywood movies often have cooperations as the evil enemy, will become true.
Your strategie seems to be that Longhorn will suck. I got news for you. Every fucking windows release ever has sucked. Note that all the MS apologists are saying stuff like "Well this new release is less crap then the old one" but mostly are pointing out how good the next one will be and that all your current troubles are your fault anyway.
So go right ahead and keep supporting MS with your computer tax and blind obedience. Others are fighting by not giving MS a penny and supporting those who help break out, (Have you bought your copy of Doom3 and Opera yet?)
For those objecting to the nazis being brought in to this discussion lets not forget that they and their kind (what is the difference between "gein juden" and "whites only") were in power and doing their petty hatred and corrupting long before the famous "final solution" was put into effect. All those years people cried out in protest and people like the above poster silenced them by saying they shouldn't make a fuss and let people get on with their jobs and that it all would work out okay.
I am not saying that MS will be rounding up people or anything similar. I do foresee a future were cooperations like MS but also like media have such a huge amount of control that being critical about them becomes impossible. Already controversial movies are being boycotted and tv series cancelled because the powers that be don't like them.
MS will not be the evil but may easily be an instrument. Just as radio tv and the newspapers have become controlled by a tiny handfull of rightwingers (the same families that gave contributions to the nazis) we might loose the net as the last bastion of free expression that can be heard.
Why else should MS be pushing to make DRM into every piece of media made? Exactly why should my home movies have DRM? To protect my interests or to make sure a protest movie can be easily traced?
Tin foil hat time or not but MS was caught recording what DVD's people watched. MS said it was a mistake when people found out and asked questions. It was a mistake alright. People never should have found out or am I just paranoid?
But that is the weird thing about paranoia isn't it. Your only paranoid if your wrong. Like those people who warned of the nazis and the many other horrors before until it is to late people like you have the majority. Afterwards you cry out, why did nobody do nothing.
Re:yeah so did the nazi deathcamp guards (Score:2)
Re:Ergh (Score:2, Insightful)
Mirosoft knows that their current business model will not continue to be viable. That is why they started the process a couple
Will it matter? (Score:5, Insightful)
The government already has proven they aren't interested in doing the job that was needed, and gave Microsoft a 'pass'.
Sure they might pull out some token fine to make the people feel better, but it wont amount to anything more then a blip on the books...
Unlike ATT, when they were attacked, Microsoft has managed to take control of the situation and will in the end, win, regardless of the outcome.
Re:Will it matter? (Score:2)
That's not to say I think the current Administration would, even if it could. For a start, the election is too close.
Re:Will it matter? (Score:3, Interesting)
Also the sentence MS got was conditional on them being nice, if they haven't been nice it's back to court.
Finally nobody got tried for perjury, evidence tampering or witness tampering (intimidation). All those are crimes and all of them were comitted by employees of MS. There is no reason not to try individuals with crimes.
Everyone has a price... (Score:2)
Why government DOESN'T keep emails.... (Score:5, Informative)
Why? The Freedom of Information Act. People are always filing them (damn you! Damn your FOIA rights!) and they use that time limit as more of a defense for themselves because in the words of legal, sometimes you don't want this stuff coming up.
Given who they are, you'll understand [army.mil].
Re:Why government DOESN'T keep emails.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Secondly, you should argue against that policy. In all likelihood you never speak with anyone who has the ability to change it or even themselves ever speaks with someone with the ability to change it, but if the information is classified, it is usually exempt from FOIA, and if it isn't, you shouldn't attempt to undermine the FOIA by pre-emptively deleting stuff. In fact, short of imformation that has a need for temporary secrecy such as the evaluation of various bid
Well... (Score:2)
That's what you get for not installing all the Exhange service packs.
Odd isn't it... (Score:5, Insightful)
However, because they are mega-huge corp... they ask for the information.
It's silly to think they are going to make it easy to screw themselves.
Re:Odd isn't it...Big Haystacks. (Score:5, Interesting)
Now, the feds don't have time to sort through 50 terabytes of disk space, so they just tinker with it little by little while they delay the court case while they try to build a case. In five years they give up and maybe return your computers.
Of course, you spent $50 million dollars on that computer hardware, and were making only a modest profit on the investment - before it was confiscated. For the next five years you make nothing and go bankrupt since you're still paying the loans on the computers that you can't use. Then, when you get them back they're worthless since they're slow by modern standards and you'll need all new servers to keep up with the competition. However, you can't get a loan for new servers since you defaulted on the loan for the old ones. They go on ebay and you recover a few hundred thousand dollars for your creditors.
Sure, this is a bit of a contrived example, but you can probably use your imagination to come up with similar scenarios. The feds don't care if they don't have enough resources to analyze the evidence - it isn't costing them anything to store it until they get around to it...
The government routinely kills small businesses in the course of investigations by confiscating capital equipment. They'd never do it to Microsoft, however...
Don't be Foolish (Score:3, Interesting)
Pretty darn blunt, as such one of his best columns (Score:4, Interesting)
Normally.
However, this one has broken that mould. There were no punches pulled, and he completely nailed his colours to the mast. Good on him.
However, I'd be tempted to say that he's even made himself a target of Microsoft lawyers, as he has made allegations which could be, if false, be taken as libelous (or otherwise defamatory). (Not that I believe they are false.)
Will the posse of lethal attack-lawyers be set on him for it? Or will MS just hope it gets forgotten about as quickly as possible?
FP.
Re:Pretty darn blunt, as such one of his best colu (Score:2)
"
But you have to remember the context of the article; they way I read it, everything mentioned is in the 35 brief from Burst and the unsealed documents. He's just summarizing what's in those documents.
Re:Pretty darn blunt, as such one of his best colu (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Pretty darn blunt, as such one of his best colu (Score:2)
Yeah all Microsoft is to do is to produce evidence to point that he was being leiblous... like emails from... oops. :-/
Probably what will happen is Microsoft will go to court, and say "We've had a bad deade, and we're sory, here's our hand, go on and slap it and we'll do better ne
Liar Liar, Operating System on Fire (Score:4, Funny)
Where is this storm brewing, exactly? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Where is this storm brewing, exactly? (Score:2)
It had to happen... (Score:2)
Doesn't Apple have a pending patent on "beleaguered"? Go get 'em Steve!
Dont worry (Score:3, Insightful)
hiding evidence could . . . (Score:4, Funny)
Burst.com (Score:3, Informative)
Yahoo's last financial profile for Burst.com (2002) had the company with two employees, and nine month revenues of $150,000 set against losses of $628,000. Profile: Burst.com [yahoo.com]
Burst.com has since raised enough capital to carry it through to trial. Message from the Chairman [burst.com] You could argue that buying stock in the company is simply buying a ticket in the lawsuit lottery. Burst.com has one product and a patent portfolio, neither of which seem to be setting the world on fire. burst.com Sales [burst.com]
To consider the lawsuit as a threat to Microsoft strikes me as just plain loopy. A bit of trivia: Richard Lang's last success was as the co-founder of Go-Video and co-inventor of the Go-Video dual deck VCR. Burst.com MS Q&A [burst.com]
Re:Finally (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Finally (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:headache (Score:3, Funny)
Re:headache (Score:3, Funny)
Re:headache (Score:2)
Re:Microsoft identified as a 'payer' (Score:2)
No, this is what happens when you have management that is deathly afraid of the plaintiff being able to prove their claims in front of a jury. It's better for them to take the monetary hit and sign an agreement that says the payment is not an admission of guilt/liability.
~Philly
Re:Once again - Why Cringely? (Score:2)