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'."
Fishy company (Score:5, Interesting)
This is exactly what REALLY ticked me off with them (in the IT adm position no less). I put up with their marginal quality on the desktop up until this point. Sure, part of me still wished I had gone OS/2 there as well, but I digress. I certainly still remember buying PC's that I had to pay the Windows tax on ... even though they still run Linux to this day (except one actually which is one of the Netware servers).
Microsoft may some day conclude that the costs of constant regulatory battles--legal costs, fines, bad publicity, and bad relationships with governments--exceed the benefits of its Windows monopoly.
One can only hope. In the mean time it's still Linux in the data-centers and my basement for that matter. OS.X on my desktop, thank you very much. And yes, they talk NFS and not SMB with each other as well. It's faster... You know what I've learned at the offices that have agreed to run Linux and/or Mac's? Within one year it's obviously cheaper and faster than before. Almost ironical after reading all the Microsoft funded ROI type studies showing the exact oppisite. I thought something smelled fishy.
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.
Re:Fishy company (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Fishy company (Score:2)
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:Fishy company (Score:2)
Re:Fishy company (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh, puh-lease. I suppose it was the market that drove MS's decisions to put fake error messages in Windows 3.1? That it was simply a market phenomenon when MS violated their joint development agreement with IBM by telling developers to code for Windows instead of OS/2? That the consumers demanded them to exploit dozens of cooperative development agreements with all kinds of companies, which were only made to send software engineers in to steal code and then incorporate it into Windows? Remember the Stacker settlement? They were a tiny slice of the pie.
Anyone who thinks that Windows is the dominant OS because "it's just better" is fooling themselves. MS did many, many things that were at best unethical and usually illegal to obtain their dominant position in the market. They've been convicted of it, for crying out loud. Get over it: they're crooks. Just successful ones.
Re:Fishy company (Score:3, Informative)
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)
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).
Re:Troll (Score:2)
What's your point? Are you proposing that Microsoft should be subject to another set of rules than the other companies?
PS. It's "Mussolini".
Re:Troll (Score:3, Insightful)
That rather is the point of anti-trust law.
Re:Troll (Score:2, Funny)
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 no
Re:Fishy company (Score:2)
Uh, no. It was an exaggeration in the article.
No, not at all. MS did at one time require OEMs to sign contracts that they would pay for a copy of Windows for every CPU shipped, regardless of what OS was installed on the computer. The other choice was to pay full cover price for every copy of Windows, putting the OEM at a ridiculous competitive disadvantage. MS simply didn't make bulk deals on Windows licenses without that per-processor agreement. This is one
Re:Fishy company (Score:2)
I even know that they sell Windows with each PC because otherwise the company might under-count the copies of Windows sold (and, hence, short-change Microsoft...).
Still, it's an anti-competetive tactic that may well be illegal for a monopoly... IANAL, but I seem to remember this being one of the complaints against Microsoft...
Re:Fishy company (Score:2)
Re:Fishy company (Score:2)
Re:Fishy company (Score:2)
Search engines are a "low cost" change (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Chaning Browsers difficult? (Score:2)
Re:Search engines are a "low cost" change (Score:5, Informative)
Since typing the address in the search box generally brings up the link they think that is how it's done and never know better.
Trust me, these people are just using whatever is there, not changing to anything.
True story. An old man called who had recently bought a windows pc from our shop. He said he was having trouble with his computer, so I talked with him about several minor issues, helped him get the bar back to the bottom on the screen (he had it docked on the left side and expanded to half the screen), typical user. At some point I suggest he use google for searching and gave him the address.
A month later his modem went out and I went onsite for the service call, after fixing his modem I searched for cleaned off the spyware on his system and launched his browser. Msn.com. "So you didn't go for google eh?" I asked. "No I love it, I use it all the time!" he exclaimed and proceeded to tell me how great google is, I let him take the chair. I turns out he has been starting his internet use by typing www.goole.com into the MSN searchbar and then clicking it, then doing his searches from google.
The guy though msn search was where you put web addresses and google was a search engine where you search for terms. I think I tried setting google as his home page but he didn't get it, I think he ended up having a kid or grandson change it back.
Moral of the story, people are idiots. Just accept that and you will be much happier in life.
Re:Search engines are a "low cost" change (Score:2)
Too bad more vendors don't equip their consumer-level PCs with those plug-in drive trays - $20 extra? - (of course, that would create a whole other set of problems though) and offer a free, additional limited trial of Linux or another OS simply by plugging-in a different HD-in-a-tray. Don't like it/too complicated? Shut down, put the Windows tray back in, re-boot and return the smaller capacity disk and tray for a refund.
Case
Re:Search engines are a "low cost" change (Score:2)
Except that MS wants to change that. By putting their MSN toolbar on every IE window by default, they can bypass the need to even *go* to a page to search.
Re:Search engines are a "low cost" change (Score:2)
Try toolbar that searches local PC fielsystem, hotmail or outlook inbox, and/or the web and possibly news groups. That is not a low cost switching alternative.
Try installed as part of of IE, OS, outlook (and exchange) and other apps with perhaps a hidden option in a config menu that most users cant find to "hide" the searchbox (how many users still have clippy no matter how they hate it).
Again, its using pre-ins
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
Re:Go Google Go (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Go Google Go (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Go Google Go (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Go Google Go (Score:2)
A good example would be searching for information about a specific product -- say a dvd player, or a computer monitor. All you get are links to sites that aggregate links to places that sell the product.
Re:Go Google Go (Score:2)
Unless you type "-buy" at the end...
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.
The most important bits (Score:5, Informative)
1) MS might be forced to either bundle competitors (Go Ogg!) or disable Windows media (which the commission don't seem to fancy)
2) The commissioners claim to have learnt from the mistakes of other regulators when dealing with MS, and have pre-emptively included a number of 'you can't do it *this* way' examples in their recommendations
Simon
Re:The most important bits (Score:4, Interesting)
Among them is browse the web, watch movies, write papers, et al. But they most of all don't want to spend their first week downloading software, particularly if they are on a dial up.
So if Windows XP was just an OS nothing else, you would need to download/buy a browser, file decompresser, media player, text editor, calculator, personal firewall, back-up utility, the list goes on. Poor old grandma would be spending several weeks downloading programs, assuming they including a basic ftp program, which the first week would be grandma learning how to use the put command.
In the end though the end-user is going to expect the computer to come pre-installed with these things, since the margins are so low on the system builders end, that only really leaves the OS manufacturer to add these in, so it's only natural that it's including with Windows. Besides that fact, I do remember a version of Media player came with Windows 95, it was real basic, but it has been in there since then.
I don't know about anyone else, but even for myself, it's still rather annoying setting up a new computer from a CD install, installing all the apps that I have on the other computer, even if I have the install executables available, it still takes time.
Re:The most important bits (Score:2)
This also extends, at least potentially, to developers as well. The developer of some contemporary application wants to establish
Re:The most important bits (Score:2)
Except that an OEM could handle the preinstallation of those sorts of things, and when it comes to providing an app to "write papers," that is often what OEMs do. Think about it? Is MS Word--used for writing papers--bundled with Windows XP? Obviously not. Do computers from Dell, Compaq, etc. often come with W
Re:The most important bits (Score:2)
Here is an idea. How about an application lock-box that is pre-installed that has a whole host of apps ready for use once authorization is acquired (if they are not free software). You could buy access keys via net or over the phone. Gives user
Winning Battles? (Score:4, Insightful)
Just my viewpoint.
Slashdot Retribution (Score:2)
If you're extremely fortunate, you'll get the GNU/chair.
Re:Winning Battles? (Score:4, Interesting)
I can't think of much nice to say about Bush, but the Appeal's Court reversal of the break up of Microsoft was handed down in June 2001, only 6 months after Bush took office. Considering that the decision was made by appointed judges -- none of whom (AFAIK, but I'm almost positive) were appointed by Bush -- and not by the federal prosecutors or any other arm of the executive branch, I'd say that it's highly unlikely that the change of president had anything to do with this.
IMHO, politicians are corrupt (or not) regardless of ideologoy/party affiliation, but I have a slightly higher opinion of our appointed-for-life judges who don't have to answer to any special interests once they're on the bench. I don't agree with the decision to overrule the break-up of Microsoft, but I don't believe that it had anything to do with politics or bribery (insulation from the policital process does not guarantee competency, after all).
Re:Winning Battles? (Score:2)
The president has alot of sway with alot of interest groups, if he has enough to get the presidentcy (you don't really think YOU pick the president do you? Your manipulated cattle, who your manipulated to vote for is the real deciding factor) he has the ability to severely disrupt your kickbacks re
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
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:Right for the wrong reason (Score:2)
But since it is such a sure thing short selling is generally barred on tech IPO's opening day. (I suspect because the brokers haven't been stupid enough to buy any of it for you to sell).
You guys keep forgetting that it's year 2004 here (Score:2)
Search Engines, Portals, Etc. (Score:4, Interesting)
(1) Leverage monopoly to get into search engine business
(2) ??
(3) Profit!
What I've seen in practice however, is quite different. It seems as if the new users tend to get sucked into the "portal" concept when they sign up with Earthlink, MSN, etc. But as they become more Internet savvy, they migrate and spend less and less time on those sites. It's like a giant ponzi scheme... once they run out of new people to sign up, they're done.
I guess with the speed of the tech cycle right now, If Microsoft profits off of something like this for even a couple of years, then it's worth it (well, duh... Hmmm... case of the painfully obvious this morning.) Bottom line though, I think at this point Microsoft is still coming in well above negatives like costs to litigate, negative regulatory environments, bad feelings, slashdot insults, etc. Microsoft is a business, bottom line, as soon as it gets more expensive to work this way... they'll change strategies. As long as this is working, which it obviously is, they'll stick with it even if God himself came down and said stop.
Pointing to Content vs. Having Content (Score:2, Interesting)
The thing that I think most Portal Pushers miss is the difference between having content and pointing to content. New users eventually learn where the content is - even if it's just from having hundreds of bookmarks - even if they're not internet or computer savvy. By repetition even my grandma can now get to google for searching and the new york times website by typing "nyt.com" into the title bar. This is the same woman who calls me every power outage to figure out what button to push to get the "tv-pa
Re:Search Engines, Portals, Etc. (Score:2)
And as you distort those results in order to profit and are perceived to do so, those results become just so much spam.
Microsoft not thinking long term... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Microsoft not thinking long term... (Score:2)
The cost to consumer of Windows XP Home when bundled with a computer from one of the major players is about $50 [businessweek.com]. Yes the source is Balmer, so believe it as you like. As part of a $1500 computer, the price issue is pretty irrelevant. I think saying Linux is free on the desktop really won't get too many buyers to switch. The only thin
Re:Microsoft not thinking long term... (Score:2)
Since Linux is essentially free (if you have one set of CDs, you can install it as often as you want), the cost barrier is minimal. Compare this with, say, Apple. If you really like a Mac, it's going to cost you qu
Re:Microsoft not thinking long term... (Score:2)
Re:Microsoft not thinking long term... (Score:2)
So when you're buying 1,000 computers for an office building, and you're $25,000 over budget...
It sure can make a difference, and it will happen faster in government agencies, for a few reasons:
- They're more price-sensitive in a lot of things: if there's no money, there's no
Re:Microsoft not thinking long term... (Score:2)
"As soon as Linux is ready for the desktop, Microsoft is going to hell."
Fortunately for Microsoft, that's a minimum of 5 years, millions upon millions of users, and real driver and software support away.
"Nobody is going to want to pay for software let alone software which is strictly limited in variety."
So you're saying that there is more variety of software for Linux than Windows? In what?
"If Microsoft was sma
Re:Microsoft not thinking long term... (Score:2)
People generally prefer the path of least resistance over freedom - it's a basic property of humans, just like it's a basic property of water to freeze at 0 deg C in a standard atm
Linux is ready. (Score:2)
They are already there. Get you some Mepis [mepis.org] today. Mepis is a Debian based distro, much like KDE. It autoconfigures itself in a way that M$ with it's goofey propriatory reboot required drivers can only dream of. More interestingly, it has a graphical install that sticks the working and configured OS onto your hard drive. Click and drool has arived in free software and it comes clean, without security problems, and with all the goodi
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.
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:Splitting up Microsoft (Score:2)
There is little if any future for either, the future is probably in their other 5 or 6 business units, many of which are currently unprofitable.
If you split it up, are you not in effect just closing the company down? While that might be in the interests of this community, I'm not sure it does a good thing for the current customer base, the employees or the shareholders?
wow! the first line should have read... (Score:2)
Cool Search Engines (Score:5, Informative)
But one that I have really come to like is vivisimo.com, check it out, and after performing a search ecspecially take a look at the "preview" feature
Teoma is pretty darn good, too (Score:2)
"preview" feature... (Score:2)
Dan East
Again? (Score:3, Interesting)
However we hear the same thing over and over.
So I cannot begin to hold MS completely blameless.
What I cannot understand is at this point, with their huge advantage just in cash reserves, why they cannot just do the work and make the best products.
The potential they have to really do something awesome when put in contrast to their actual tactics it's just sad.
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:Its really about Real not being able to compete (Score:2)
A fine ? (Score:2, Insightful)
This time for sure! (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem with a 600 pound gorilla is that if it does not get what it wants it will beat the crap out of you until you are dead and take it anyway.
As far as their search engine is concerned, making it default will increase traffic to their site as so many windows users just go with what is already there for them. Of course we can trust MS to not filter content so bad words like Linux, Netscape, Opera, anti-trust and Mac will be available through their search engine.
And in another article in the same issue... (Score:3, Interesting)
Begin Quote
[............]
Isn't this simply a matter of Microsoft competing vigorously? The strange thing is that its products invariably succeed in PC-based markets where the dominance of Windows provides an advantage: office productivity, web-browsing, media playback and servers. Yet in other markets that have nothing to do with PCs, such as mobile phones, set-top boxes and games consoles, the company is far less successful. Odd, that.
This newspaper has long argued, and still believes, that a break-up of Microsoft is the only remedy that would have any impact on its conduct, by removing its key weapon, Windows. At the moment that seems out of the question. How else might Microsoft be stopped from illegally exploiting its monopoly? By the long-awaited rise of open-source software such as Linux, maybe, though that seems unlikely. Perhaps the company will eventually conclude that the costs, in bad publicity and constant legal battles, of maintaining its monopoly exceed the benefits, and choose to divest or open up Windows itself. But that also seems implausible when there are large monopoly rents to be had. Some day a break-up of this too-mighty firm will again have to be considered.
[end of article]
End Quote
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 com
What should be dnoe to MS (Score:4, Interesting)
2.they should be forced to make all their contracts with OEMs public and be banned from having secret contracts with OEMs.
3.they should be forced to sell OEM windows at one price and one price only to ALL OEMs.
4.they should be prohibited from restricting OEMs who ship (or want to ship, talk about shipping etc) systems with operating systems other than windows, systems with no operating system installed at all or systems containing windows in conjunction with one or more other opreating systems.
5.same as for 4. but for application software (i.e. OEM pre-installs mozilla or netscape or whatever else)
Basicly, force them open on the OEM desktop plus force them to give up the secrets that will allow their competitors (including Open Source) to talk to, interact with and share data with those products (windows, office, IE, IIS, MS servers, media player, MSN messenger and etc) that microsoft currently enjoys a monopoly on or that microsoft is currently using is monopoly power to push.
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.
Disagree (Score:4, Insightful)
Odd (Score:2)
As to taking advantage of other tech., that remains to be seen. Google took several years to get their top billing. I am going to guess that it will take a while before they catch on (or MS kills them).
Look, a new troll. (Score:2)
I quit reading the Economist article after the first paragraph gushed about how Bill Gates, "combines knightly philanthropy on an unprecedented scale with a long and impressive combat record." It's hard to admire someone who's broken the law so many times to rob everyone. The best article [salon.com] on Bill's charity was done by Salon years ago. Since then, much of his giving has been su
Re:Google is done for anyway (Score:2)
What spam? Haven't had any problems here. Can you be more specific?
2) Google has so far failed to do anything constructive about it.
Until I know what spam you're talking about, I won't be able to evaluate that point.
3) Google's new technologies just aren't that good anymore. Look at Froogle--I have yet to see it perform as well as things like PriceWatch.
Google does one thing and does it well. Froogle hasn't been all that
Re:Google is done for anyway (Score:2)
Re:Yes, your trollness. (Score:2)
I don't hate you... (Score:2, Interesting)
You know your box is "sick/ill", it spreads virii!
I can see the "infected" pass by in my serverlogs(they don't hurt me, I got a good imune system).
lets take this a little further:
Note:some maybe pesonally insulted by this analogie!
If I had AIDS and I would go fucking around without a condom, what would you think of me?
Thats about how I think of people who know their box is "sick/ill" and still use it for their everyday tasks.
needless to say this applies to most people cause most pe
Re:Why all the Micorsoft hate? (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, we're all aware of Microsoft's business practices. Yes, we're all aware of the faults in their OS code. No, I don't want to hear about it every FREAKIN' five minutes. Also, if there is such interest in Microsoft, why don't we ever hear about the good things that they do (save your "because they don't do any good things" replies)?
Take ASP.NET, for example. I've worked with JSP/Servlets, PHP, and "old-school" ASP, and nothing is better or easier to work with than ASP.NET, IMHO. Before you bad-mouth it, why don't you actually try using it? Plus, if it sucked as bad as some people on this site claim, why would Ximian, et. al. be working so hard on Mono [go-mono.org]?
All I'm saying is that there should be credit where credit is due, and that it would be nice if every nitpick associated with Microsoft didn't rate a new topic on
I know, wishful thinking.
Re:Why all the Micorsoft hate? (Score:2)
Examples? Seriously, I'm curious. Also, yes, the lock-in factor is very true, but we'll see how the Mono implementation works out. ASP.NET application code is supposed to be portable across platforms with no modification with it. If that pans out, the lock-in argument will be a moot point.
That being said, I wasn't really focusing on the lock-in, but simply the technology itself.
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:Well, really (Score:2)
Taht's not true at all. Many, many people know and do have other options. I don't use Linux because it sucks (I'm not getting into this conversation). I don't use Apple because it's overpriced, and I don't like the lock-in. Thus, I *choose* Windows.
Re:Well, really (Score:2)
That's all well and good. You're in plentiful company, with 95% of desktop machines running some flavor of Windows.
But then, since this *is* a monopoly (and we won't even get into how Windows gained monopoly status), certain rules apply. You're not allowed t
Re:Well, really (Score:5, Interesting)
Tell it to the judge, bub! Seriously, they may not meet ONE OF THE dictionary definitions of "monopoly", but they most definitely meet the LEGAL definition, which is what's important here.
And furthermore (and this is a point that proponents of both sides often seem to miss), there is nothing wrong with having a monopoly! What's illegal and wrong is abusing your monopoly position. Both Intel and Cisco have been found in court to have a monopoly in their respective markets. But both have been cleared of any charges of wrongdoing (rightfully so IMO).
talk about missing the point! (Score:2)
MS hasn't been lowering the price of anything! Prices of computer hardware and software were steadily falling long before MS got into the market, and continued to fall afterwards. MS has lowered their prices and improved their products more slowly than almost anyone else! If you think you're better off than you would have been in a competitive market, I'm sorry for you!
Re:Well, really (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Well, really (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Well, really (Score:2)
That supports the notion that Microsoft has a clear monopoly in the OS market. Which does mean they have to play by different rules in the other software markets.
On the other hand, it could be that no one's paying 4000 toman for RH 9 because they can download it f
Re:Well, really (Score:5, Funny)
If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and acts like a duck, then it's a duck. If it's able to exert monopolistic control of a market or markets, then it's a monopoly.
Re:Well, really (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Well, really (Score:2)
Re:Well, really (Score:2)
Re:Well, really (Score:2)
Except that, a whole lot of people have argued that MS didn't do anything *really* wrong in how it achieved OS market dominance, because it was for a greater good... without that standardization, we would never have gotten so far with desktop computer technology.
Now, I don't necessarily agree that it's all ok
Moderators in crack. (Score:2)
It is completely misinformed.
It has been legally established that MS, for all intents and purposes is a monopoly.
Anything else about this matter is uninformed babbling that deserves only to be rebuked as soon as such nonsense is repeated (yet once again).
Re:Dominance eh? (Score:2)
Re:Dumb arses (Score:2)
Personally, If I were google, I would try integrating into Apache, Mac, and Linux ASAP. That would force MS to deal with those environments as well.