MS Monopoly Opinion
-
There has been a lot of press in recent months on the Microsoft monopoly case. The "Balls of Steel" topic touched on this subject. Part of the problem is that most related laws predate the PC era. What seems to be the case is that the gov is kind of trying to make up the PC rules as they go along. The question, to some extent, is where the line is that separates agressive business marketing from illegal actions. Would be interested in hearing the opinion of others. Ed
-
There has been a lot of press in recent months on the Microsoft monopoly case. The "Balls of Steel" topic touched on this subject. Part of the problem is that most related laws predate the PC era. What seems to be the case is that the gov is kind of trying to make up the PC rules as they go along. The question, to some extent, is where the line is that separates agressive business marketing from illegal actions. Would be interested in hearing the opinion of others. Ed
The line is crossed when you have a monopoly power and you make agreements that exclude others in a different market where you don't (yet) have a monopoly. For example, Microsoft would not be able to get away with telling PC manufacturers they're not allowed to install Navigator on the machine. FYI, the items where Judge Jackson found Microsoft to cross that line were all more than three years old.
Mike Sax
Sax Software Corp.
Rock Solid Components™
http://www.saxsoft.com
1-800-645-3729 -
There has been a lot of press in recent months on the Microsoft monopoly case. The "Balls of Steel" topic touched on this subject. Part of the problem is that most related laws predate the PC era. What seems to be the case is that the gov is kind of trying to make up the PC rules as they go along. The question, to some extent, is where the line is that separates agressive business marketing from illegal actions. Would be interested in hearing the opinion of others. Ed
Here's my take on the whole thing. I feel that the US government is infringing on the rights of business. The American dream has now been reworded to the extent of "You can be succesful and rich in business, but not too successful or rich". WTF?!?! I feel Windows is where it is at because of consumer support. If we the consumer didn't want windows we would have made that choice a long time ago. For instance, there are other OSes out there Macintosh, Linux, etc... if you don't like Windows go to one of those OSes! The consumer ultimately can choose to use Windows or not, it is not set in stone that they need to use it. When PC makers started offering Linux as a consumer alternative I didn't see anyone jump up at the oppurtunity and use it, some PC manufacturers are now dropping LINUX from their offerings. Is Microsoft really hurting consumers? With the bundling of Internet Explorer I feel that I got a great program at a good deal. The average price of upgrades and the total cost of the OS hasn't gone up, and yet we have a commercial strength browser in IE. If people still wanted Netscape at the time of the "browser" wars they would have elected to buy it. Even though IE was free, doesn't mean that consumers would have chosen it if it was not really that good. I mean notepad is free but I needed something more so I bought the shareware version of Notetab standard. If you're product is truly innovative and a neccesatiy people would still buy it! I think we should just leave Microsoft alone, and let them continue what they're doing, as a consumer I don't feel hurt, but I don't know what the other side of the consumer coin feels, mainly corporations and medium to large business owners, they may have a different opinion since they are under stricter rules and regulations when purchasing the OS. And if Microsoft truly has a lock on software why are their so many third party developers? Sam C ---- Systems Manager Hospitality Marketing Associates
-
There has been a lot of press in recent months on the Microsoft monopoly case. The "Balls of Steel" topic touched on this subject. Part of the problem is that most related laws predate the PC era. What seems to be the case is that the gov is kind of trying to make up the PC rules as they go along. The question, to some extent, is where the line is that separates agressive business marketing from illegal actions. Would be interested in hearing the opinion of others. Ed
In my mind, the biggest problem here is how does the current laws deal with evolutionary products. I was reading some cases at www.antitrustcases.com and it was easy to find similar cases where the companies where in violation because they maintained economic power in the industry and were making agreements tying two products together. (http://www.antitrustcases.com/summaries/504us451.html). But this Kodak example reminds me of something. Take the case of how the camera has evolved. The flash use to be a separate part of the camera. (It still is on pro-level equipment.) But these days in the consumer marker cameras have built in flashes. We can take a look at this and obviously say the flash is part of the camera now. It is obvious the flash can not be removed. But what did this inclusion of the flash do to the flashbulb industry. How many people are now out of work because of this. Well, too bad, life sucks, markets change. The problem with software is that it isn't something we can hold in our hand. It isn't as obvious when a piece of software is part of the OS. Some have made the argument that IE isn't part of the OS since it can be removed from the OS. This argument doesn't hold water since I can take a saw and remove the flash from my camera and still have a functional camera. If the rule of law was that if the OS can boot without a given piece of software then most any element of the OS could be targeted. Winsock, NTFS, security, COM, DCOM, Explorer, etc could all be removed and some form of the OS might have a good chance of still booting. But we have gotten so use to these elements of the OS be available, we consider them part of the OS. How many of you remember Trumpet Software's IP stack? (I hope I got their name right.) Those poor guys probably went out of business when MS included a IP stack with the OS. On one side, I don't like the strong-arm tactics MS uses. But on the other, it scares the living hell out of me when I think about how much the government wishes to control the content of software with a generally poor understanding of the industry. Software isn't like the steel or telephone industry. Significant changes in those industries take decades. With software, the industry can change in a few quarters. The internet revolution caught MS flat footed. Netscape really had a chance to give them a run for their money. But Netscape failed to maintain a quality product. The same was true with WordPerfect and Borland C. I was an avid user of Netscape, WordPerfect (l
-
The line is crossed when you have a monopoly power and you make agreements that exclude others in a different market where you don't (yet) have a monopoly. For example, Microsoft would not be able to get away with telling PC manufacturers they're not allowed to install Navigator on the machine. FYI, the items where Judge Jackson found Microsoft to cross that line were all more than three years old.
Mike Sax
Sax Software Corp.
Rock Solid Components™
http://www.saxsoft.com
1-800-645-3729(WOOOPS, Ment to reply to previous post) I do think that companies should be allowed to install anything on the system. AS LONG AS they don't remove anything from the OS. If they want to install netscape, great, but IE souldn't be removed. If they want to install AOL Instant Messaging, great, but MS IM shouldn't be removed. Section 1.A http://www.antitrustcases.com/summaries/504us451.html I will go to my grave defending MS wanting IE in the OS. They should be able to include it. But I also feel they can't prevent companies from installing Netscape. Tim Smith Descartes Systems Sciences, Inc.
-
(WOOOPS, Ment to reply to previous post) I do think that companies should be allowed to install anything on the system. AS LONG AS they don't remove anything from the OS. If they want to install netscape, great, but IE souldn't be removed. If they want to install AOL Instant Messaging, great, but MS IM shouldn't be removed. Section 1.A http://www.antitrustcases.com/summaries/504us451.html I will go to my grave defending MS wanting IE in the OS. They should be able to include it. But I also feel they can't prevent companies from installing Netscape. Tim Smith Descartes Systems Sciences, Inc.
If they want to install AOL Instant Messaging, great Great? You are kidding right? If they want to install AIM they should just format the drive and get it over with. Anything AOL that's ever been on any system I own or use has changed no end of settings I didn't want and it didn't need, such as constantly resetting my homepage to their's, and the only way to stop it is to manually remove all components then rerun the OS setup in repair mode. That is the reason why Netscape 6 will never run on my machine. And AOL/TW are going round saying Microsoft need to change their business practices :confused:. Though to be fair, the average AOL/AIM user wouldn't know if their monitor wasn't working... But I also feel they can't prevent companies from installing Netscape. They weren't preventing the end users from installing it, only not allowing it to ship with new machines. Is that really too harsh? Would you expect your nice new BMW to come with a Skoda badge on the front, just incase you wanted to us it instead? Customers are perfectly capable of choosing what they want to buy - depsite what the government seems to think. David Wulff dwulff@battleaxesoftware.com
-
Here's my take on the whole thing. I feel that the US government is infringing on the rights of business. The American dream has now been reworded to the extent of "You can be succesful and rich in business, but not too successful or rich". WTF?!?! I feel Windows is where it is at because of consumer support. If we the consumer didn't want windows we would have made that choice a long time ago. For instance, there are other OSes out there Macintosh, Linux, etc... if you don't like Windows go to one of those OSes! The consumer ultimately can choose to use Windows or not, it is not set in stone that they need to use it. When PC makers started offering Linux as a consumer alternative I didn't see anyone jump up at the oppurtunity and use it, some PC manufacturers are now dropping LINUX from their offerings. Is Microsoft really hurting consumers? With the bundling of Internet Explorer I feel that I got a great program at a good deal. The average price of upgrades and the total cost of the OS hasn't gone up, and yet we have a commercial strength browser in IE. If people still wanted Netscape at the time of the "browser" wars they would have elected to buy it. Even though IE was free, doesn't mean that consumers would have chosen it if it was not really that good. I mean notepad is free but I needed something more so I bought the shareware version of Notetab standard. If you're product is truly innovative and a neccesatiy people would still buy it! I think we should just leave Microsoft alone, and let them continue what they're doing, as a consumer I don't feel hurt, but I don't know what the other side of the consumer coin feels, mainly corporations and medium to large business owners, they may have a different opinion since they are under stricter rules and regulations when purchasing the OS. And if Microsoft truly has a lock on software why are their so many third party developers? Sam C ---- Systems Manager Hospitality Marketing Associates
The 'let the market decide' philosophy is as dangerous as the 'centralised enconomy' concept, but for very different reasons. Do you truly believe that companies will only act in the best interests of the consumer? In a competitive market that may be largely true - consumer pressure will not allow a company to do too many things that 'hurt' consumers. But in a monopoly market the pressure on the company is to minimize risk and cost in order to maximize profit. There must always be a role for some 'external' agent (a government regulatory authority, the courts, etc) to step in a prevent extreme abuses of monopoly power. The point is not whether Governments should have some regulation of markets - it's where to draw the line.
-
If they want to install AOL Instant Messaging, great Great? You are kidding right? If they want to install AIM they should just format the drive and get it over with. Anything AOL that's ever been on any system I own or use has changed no end of settings I didn't want and it didn't need, such as constantly resetting my homepage to their's, and the only way to stop it is to manually remove all components then rerun the OS setup in repair mode. That is the reason why Netscape 6 will never run on my machine. And AOL/TW are going round saying Microsoft need to change their business practices :confused:. Though to be fair, the average AOL/AIM user wouldn't know if their monitor wasn't working... But I also feel they can't prevent companies from installing Netscape. They weren't preventing the end users from installing it, only not allowing it to ship with new machines. Is that really too harsh? Would you expect your nice new BMW to come with a Skoda badge on the front, just incase you wanted to us it instead? Customers are perfectly capable of choosing what they want to buy - depsite what the government seems to think. David Wulff dwulff@battleaxesoftware.com
> They weren't preventing the end users from installing > it, only not allowing it to ship with new machines. Why would they not allow Netscape to be preloaded? Simple, they know that most users would just use whatever program was most accessible (on the desktop or start menu). They know that the average user will not research the available options and choose the best one. That's the same reason they want three of their icons on the desktop of XP. That is not a product surviving on its merits, but instead just because it is the most visible. I think that the issue of bundling is unimportant compared to the anti-competitive practices. If MS really does write the best software (and I am not arguing whether they do or don't), then why are they so insecure about letting other software vendors compete on a level field? "das leid schlaft in der maschine" -Einstürzende Neubauten
-
The 'let the market decide' philosophy is as dangerous as the 'centralised enconomy' concept, but for very different reasons. Do you truly believe that companies will only act in the best interests of the consumer? In a competitive market that may be largely true - consumer pressure will not allow a company to do too many things that 'hurt' consumers. But in a monopoly market the pressure on the company is to minimize risk and cost in order to maximize profit. There must always be a role for some 'external' agent (a government regulatory authority, the courts, etc) to step in a prevent extreme abuses of monopoly power. The point is not whether Governments should have some regulation of markets - it's where to draw the line.
I kind of wonder about the stated 'danger' of letting the market decide. What's dangerous about it? Let's say that Microsoft did become a true monopoly and did start charging way too much for the things they sell to the customers. What would happen? First of all, a lot of people would quit buying stuff from MS -- maybe they'd get the point and lower their prices. Secondly, a whole lot more developers would be upset with MS... and a market switch would take place. (Maybe to Linux, maybe some new OS that they decided to develop.) The only 'harm' done would have been that short period of time between people realizing that MS was charging too much, and the resulting solutions to the problem. So, my take is that the government never needs to step in to prevent monopolistic practices -- unless, of course, they are breaking other laws (like the mafia might...). John P.S. What do you think about all of the "practical monopolies" you find in small towns? One gas station, one grocery store, etc. I know for a fact that the people would drive many miles to go to a different store, if these "practical monopolies" were charging too much. (I grew up in a town like that, though these businesses weren't overcharging.)
-
I kind of wonder about the stated 'danger' of letting the market decide. What's dangerous about it? Let's say that Microsoft did become a true monopoly and did start charging way too much for the things they sell to the customers. What would happen? First of all, a lot of people would quit buying stuff from MS -- maybe they'd get the point and lower their prices. Secondly, a whole lot more developers would be upset with MS... and a market switch would take place. (Maybe to Linux, maybe some new OS that they decided to develop.) The only 'harm' done would have been that short period of time between people realizing that MS was charging too much, and the resulting solutions to the problem. So, my take is that the government never needs to step in to prevent monopolistic practices -- unless, of course, they are breaking other laws (like the mafia might...). John P.S. What do you think about all of the "practical monopolies" you find in small towns? One gas station, one grocery store, etc. I know for a fact that the people would drive many miles to go to a different store, if these "practical monopolies" were charging too much. (I grew up in a town like that, though these businesses weren't overcharging.)
You seem to assume the only 'danger' is overpricing. We have a clear example of another problem with monopolies right in front if us - Visual C++. Microsoft have crippled all the effect C++ opposition in the Windows programming market - Borland, Watcom, Symantec. They've all effectively given up competing because Microsoft was VERY aggressive in persuing this market. Nothing overly wrong with Microsoft winning out through a superior product - except that they really won because they controlled the OS API and documentation, so their compiler and libraries (MFC) were always half a step ahead of their rivals (through internal information sharing) - and because they raided the staff of rivals to 'poach' key personal. Now that Microsoft 'own' the windows C++ market, they can do what they want with it. And what they are doing is (a) taking forever to implement many supposedly 'standard' C++ features, and (b) slowly undermining the entire language throught the gradual shift to C#. This is exactly the point of the anti-trust case. Microsoft is using it's overwhelming dominance in one area (the operating system) to control another market (the programming market). Since Microsoft is the major providor of tools and documentation, they can exert an enormous amount of control over this area. Sure, somebody can come along and try to "take them one" - produce a rival C++ compiler, for example. But I wouldn't want to be the financial backer of that product! End result - we have no choice but to follow their lead. Their dominance allows them to effectively make decisions for the rest of use - we will program in C# because they will make it effectively impossible to do it any other way, not because it represents a clear advance over C++. As a final point, do you believe the market is always right? Does the market always make the 'right' choice ? Was 'VHS' a better choice than 'beta' ? Was the IBM PC a better computer (in 1985) than the Amiga? To my mind, the market values 'profit', and therefore encourages and rewards behaviour that brings 'profit' over all other considerations. The end result - some damn good ideas, that people would have benefited from, are now resting in the dustbin of history - because they failed to be 'marketed' successfully. I don't have an answer to that, but surely making a 'market' the one and only measure of 'success' and 'value' has its dangers ?
-
You seem to assume the only 'danger' is overpricing. We have a clear example of another problem with monopolies right in front if us - Visual C++. Microsoft have crippled all the effect C++ opposition in the Windows programming market - Borland, Watcom, Symantec. They've all effectively given up competing because Microsoft was VERY aggressive in persuing this market. Nothing overly wrong with Microsoft winning out through a superior product - except that they really won because they controlled the OS API and documentation, so their compiler and libraries (MFC) were always half a step ahead of their rivals (through internal information sharing) - and because they raided the staff of rivals to 'poach' key personal. Now that Microsoft 'own' the windows C++ market, they can do what they want with it. And what they are doing is (a) taking forever to implement many supposedly 'standard' C++ features, and (b) slowly undermining the entire language throught the gradual shift to C#. This is exactly the point of the anti-trust case. Microsoft is using it's overwhelming dominance in one area (the operating system) to control another market (the programming market). Since Microsoft is the major providor of tools and documentation, they can exert an enormous amount of control over this area. Sure, somebody can come along and try to "take them one" - produce a rival C++ compiler, for example. But I wouldn't want to be the financial backer of that product! End result - we have no choice but to follow their lead. Their dominance allows them to effectively make decisions for the rest of use - we will program in C# because they will make it effectively impossible to do it any other way, not because it represents a clear advance over C++. As a final point, do you believe the market is always right? Does the market always make the 'right' choice ? Was 'VHS' a better choice than 'beta' ? Was the IBM PC a better computer (in 1985) than the Amiga? To my mind, the market values 'profit', and therefore encourages and rewards behaviour that brings 'profit' over all other considerations. The end result - some damn good ideas, that people would have benefited from, are now resting in the dustbin of history - because they failed to be 'marketed' successfully. I don't have an answer to that, but surely making a 'market' the one and only measure of 'success' and 'value' has its dangers ?
Good points. I don't completely disagree with you, but I certainly believe that the dangers of government control to prevent monopolies are greater than letting a few ides get passed over because no one really thought they were all that great. I used to think the Amiga was great, and was convinced I'd never want a PC. But there wasn't anything so wonderful about the structure of the Amiga that kept new PC developments from beating it out, and Commodore's failure to market it well led to their demise. This leads to one of our points of agreement. The market requires "salesmanship", not just a good product. I don't particularly like that, but I'd certainly rather have that than more government regulations that could affect us in many more bad ways than a few nice products being passed over. It's a similar thing with the Borland/Watcom/Symantec/Visual C++ contest. Sure, MS may have been doing internal stuff to produce a better version of the compiler and IDE. However, that didn't keep Borland from doing well with its other languages. Nor did it keep any of the other companies from developing completely separate improvements that would have made their products dominant. The only true "leg up" that MS has when it comes to customers, is the tremendous amount of marketing power. As far as development goes, it has been clear for a while that MS often enjoys improving their products through great ideas _someone else_ came up with. To answer your last question. No, I don't think the market is always right. But, I do think that the end result is very rarely harmful in any way -- much less harmful that government regulations would be. John