Microsoft Has Balls Of Steel
-
From the AP: "Computer makers who put icons for competitors' products on the Windows XP desktop will also have to feature at least three Microsoft products, the company said Thursday." Is it just me, or does that statement ring of monopolistic intent?
Of course. They realize that the court system in the US will never be able to keep up with them, so they do what they want. Let's hope the breakup comes back on the table.
-
Of course. They realize that the court system in the US will never be able to keep up with them, so they do what they want. Let's hope the breakup comes back on the table.
I'm not sure a breakup would solve anything. If they were to separate the OS from the non-os-required utilities, MS would be free to ignore other utility manufacturers completely, citing "better deals" from a preferred vender. And you know what? There's not a damn thing anyone could do about it because it's done in business every day. The government would have better luck if then mandated that no government office or government contracter will be allowed to use Windows to conduct business, unless Microsoft unbundled ALL non-essential utilities from the OS and modified their contractual requirements regarding competing operating systems and utilities. Man, am I glad I got a Linux distro to finally install.
-
From the AP: "Computer makers who put icons for competitors' products on the Windows XP desktop will also have to feature at least three Microsoft products, the company said Thursday." Is it just me, or does that statement ring of monopolistic intent?
Simple rule of American business: It's not who's right or wrong, but who has the better lawyers. MS has no problem buying the best. Cheers, Tom "Ya got lucky, ya lucky prick" - Keith McCready
-
From the AP: "Computer makers who put icons for competitors' products on the Windows XP desktop will also have to feature at least three Microsoft products, the company said Thursday." Is it just me, or does that statement ring of monopolistic intent?
I read an interesting comment in the paper this morning, where the writer's opinion was that Microsoft was going for broke in what will likely be their last OS release unfettered by a laundry list of legal restrictions. The idea is that if this is the last time Microsoft will really be able to do unrestricted bundling of their products and services, they might as well cram every goddamn thing they can into the box and continue to play hardball with the desktop real estate. If you think about it, this sounds pretty realistic. I don't think anyone really thinks that XP will be the subject of an injunction despite the threats and rumors, but with the trial back in court and the ruling that MS is truly a monopoly unanimously upheld by the appeals court it seems likely that some type of restrictions will be imposed early next year. David
-
From the AP: "Computer makers who put icons for competitors' products on the Windows XP desktop will also have to feature at least three Microsoft products, the company said Thursday." Is it just me, or does that statement ring of monopolistic intent?
Can't see what's wrong about it? I don't understand what everyone is nagging about.. it's done in a million places in a million companies everyday.. why do we have to attack Microsoft only? My suggestion: stop nagging and enjoy whatever goods comes from that company. -- Alex Marbus www.marbus.net But then again, I could be wrong.
-
I read an interesting comment in the paper this morning, where the writer's opinion was that Microsoft was going for broke in what will likely be their last OS release unfettered by a laundry list of legal restrictions. The idea is that if this is the last time Microsoft will really be able to do unrestricted bundling of their products and services, they might as well cram every goddamn thing they can into the box and continue to play hardball with the desktop real estate. If you think about it, this sounds pretty realistic. I don't think anyone really thinks that XP will be the subject of an injunction despite the threats and rumors, but with the trial back in court and the ruling that MS is truly a monopoly unanimously upheld by the appeals court it seems likely that some type of restrictions will be imposed early next year. David
The problem I see with this is not legal, but public opinion. The lawyers will agrue until the cows come home. However the public makes up their mind more quickly, and this may now sell well there. Poor PR and public opinion probably more quickly translates into $ impact. Ed
-
Can't see what's wrong about it? I don't understand what everyone is nagging about.. it's done in a million places in a million companies everyday.. why do we have to attack Microsoft only? My suggestion: stop nagging and enjoy whatever goods comes from that company. -- Alex Marbus www.marbus.net But then again, I could be wrong.
-
From the AP: "Computer makers who put icons for competitors' products on the Windows XP desktop will also have to feature at least three Microsoft products, the company said Thursday." Is it just me, or does that statement ring of monopolistic intent?
That does sound microsoftistic monopolistic, but it must not be since Microsoft is doing it. I'm sure that, as usual, they only have the best interests of the consumers at heart. "das leid schlaft in der maschine" -Einstürzende Neubauten
-
From the AP: "Computer makers who put icons for competitors' products on the Windows XP desktop will also have to feature at least three Microsoft products, the company said Thursday." Is it just me, or does that statement ring of monopolistic intent?
Even though I am an avid defender of MS, I have come down against them on this one. Now I have for years said that IE (or to be more correct, the HTML renderer) should be part of the OS. Too many application and the OS itself use these features. But Hotmail and MSN? I don't think so. How many application developers will hook into instant messaging? Tim Smith Descartes Systems Sciences, Inc.
-
Even though I am an avid defender of MS, I have come down against them on this one. Now I have for years said that IE (or to be more correct, the HTML renderer) should be part of the OS. Too many application and the OS itself use these features. But Hotmail and MSN? I don't think so. How many application developers will hook into instant messaging? Tim Smith Descartes Systems Sciences, Inc.
>> How many application developers will hook into instant messaging We [Battleaxe Software] will. IM is a very important feature in collaboration software, and the growing popularity of MSN Messenger (plus the declining use of ICQ since the other great American monopoly aquired and capitolised on it) means that Microsoft's IM'er is the best bet at the moment. With .Net looming and IM'ing being capable on any device, you can be sure Microsoft's will be the first true mutli-platform multi-device IM'er. David Wulff dwulff@battleaxesoftware.com
-
Even though I am an avid defender of MS, I have come down against them on this one. Now I have for years said that IE (or to be more correct, the HTML renderer) should be part of the OS. Too many application and the OS itself use these features. But Hotmail and MSN? I don't think so. How many application developers will hook into instant messaging? Tim Smith Descartes Systems Sciences, Inc.
-
M$ WebBrowser component is popular doesn't mean they SHOULD be part of the OS. It exists becasue IE depends on it, not the OS. Have you tried Mozilla ActiveX component? It does pretty much the same thing as the M$ WebBroser component.
Funny, all the non-developers i've ever spoken to about IE being linked to Windows have said that it was a good thing - as did most of the developers. As far as i'm concerned Windows is Microsoft's product and they can do what they damn well want with it - even if it means adding functionality that improves the end user experience for all those users who don't have a degree in Computer Science. If that is a crime then AOL/TW really should stop pushing Microsoft so hard. A monopoly is only a monopoly in the eyes of the weaker companies. The ideal solution in my eyes is that Microsoft should call it a day. They should say "right, we made our billions, lets leave the market". And they should cease supporting all of their products at the end of their respective support periods. You'll never see the industry collapse so fast. I understand the need for an open market place, but if you are prevented from doing what the majority of your customers want because of the minority, then that is just plain wrong. If you make car tyres for a living, does that mean that Ford should stop shipping new cars with tyres on so you can sell more? What about engines or gearboxes? You'll probably say "no, because they are necessary for the car to operate". Fine, but what about CD players? They aren't necessary for the cars operation, but you don't see Panasonic sueing Ford do you? Have you tried Mozilla ActiveX component? It does pretty much the same thing as the M$ WebBroser component. Yes, but it has so much overhead. If they could only remove the dependencies that aren't needed just to render a HTML document then it would be almost usable. David Wulff dwulff@battleaxesoftware.com -------------------- P.S. They may have done so in the past couple of months since I stopped following the Mozilla project, for that very reason.
-
From the AP: "Computer makers who put icons for competitors' products on the Windows XP desktop will also have to feature at least three Microsoft products, the company said Thursday." Is it just me, or does that statement ring of monopolistic intent?
Maybe, instead of hiring legions of lawyers to sue microsoft, the government could hire legions of programmers to create a competitive OS. I mean, if the government thinks MS needs more competition, why don't they give it a try? They built the national highway system, didn't they? They put a man on the moon didn't they. How tough can a little OS be? We could call it the USOS. OR, if all the cute little social democracies of the world, such as England, Australia and Canada, could get all their Marxist Linux guys together to create a true People's OS, maybe they could give MS a run for their money. Then maybe the citizen's of the world could march gloriously into the future free of capitalist swine such as Gates. I really hate defending MS, but lawyers are not the answer. And giving the government more monopolistic power is not the answer. Technically, I agree, MS sucks. But politically, I really enjoy the spectacle of that little geek, Gates, wrestling the worlds most powerful government to the ground and kicking its butt, then daring them to come back for more. Give 'em hell, Bill!
-
Funny, all the non-developers i've ever spoken to about IE being linked to Windows have said that it was a good thing - as did most of the developers. As far as i'm concerned Windows is Microsoft's product and they can do what they damn well want with it - even if it means adding functionality that improves the end user experience for all those users who don't have a degree in Computer Science. If that is a crime then AOL/TW really should stop pushing Microsoft so hard. A monopoly is only a monopoly in the eyes of the weaker companies. The ideal solution in my eyes is that Microsoft should call it a day. They should say "right, we made our billions, lets leave the market". And they should cease supporting all of their products at the end of their respective support periods. You'll never see the industry collapse so fast. I understand the need for an open market place, but if you are prevented from doing what the majority of your customers want because of the minority, then that is just plain wrong. If you make car tyres for a living, does that mean that Ford should stop shipping new cars with tyres on so you can sell more? What about engines or gearboxes? You'll probably say "no, because they are necessary for the car to operate". Fine, but what about CD players? They aren't necessary for the cars operation, but you don't see Panasonic sueing Ford do you? Have you tried Mozilla ActiveX component? It does pretty much the same thing as the M$ WebBroser component. Yes, but it has so much overhead. If they could only remove the dependencies that aren't needed just to render a HTML document then it would be almost usable. David Wulff dwulff@battleaxesoftware.com -------------------- P.S. They may have done so in the past couple of months since I stopped following the Mozilla project, for that very reason.
I totally agree. -Matt Newman :suss:
-
Maybe, instead of hiring legions of lawyers to sue microsoft, the government could hire legions of programmers to create a competitive OS. I mean, if the government thinks MS needs more competition, why don't they give it a try? They built the national highway system, didn't they? They put a man on the moon didn't they. How tough can a little OS be? We could call it the USOS. OR, if all the cute little social democracies of the world, such as England, Australia and Canada, could get all their Marxist Linux guys together to create a true People's OS, maybe they could give MS a run for their money. Then maybe the citizen's of the world could march gloriously into the future free of capitalist swine such as Gates. I really hate defending MS, but lawyers are not the answer. And giving the government more monopolistic power is not the answer. Technically, I agree, MS sucks. But politically, I really enjoy the spectacle of that little geek, Gates, wrestling the worlds most powerful government to the ground and kicking its butt, then daring them to come back for more. Give 'em hell, Bill!
i gotta respond to this one... :) many Open Source programmers are of the opinion that one of the most important (the most important?) aspects of Open Source software is that the source code is available; this allows for independent peer review of the code. bugs, vulnerabilities and flaws are found - things are open and honest. of course this doesn't happen with every little app that JohnnyLinux writes, but the important parts - the kernel, the core networking pieces, the various daemons, sendmail, apache, etc. are all subject to a very high level of scrutiny, continuously. on the other hand, MS (and all closed source companies) has to rely on internal review, which is subject to marketing and financial pressures that can easily overwhelm and technical issues in favor of meeting delivery schedules. for stuff like network security and OS stability, i simply have more faith in peer reviewed source than i do in sales-driven development. -c ------------------------------ Smaller Animals Software, Inc. http://www.smalleranimals.com
-
i gotta respond to this one... :) many Open Source programmers are of the opinion that one of the most important (the most important?) aspects of Open Source software is that the source code is available; this allows for independent peer review of the code. bugs, vulnerabilities and flaws are found - things are open and honest. of course this doesn't happen with every little app that JohnnyLinux writes, but the important parts - the kernel, the core networking pieces, the various daemons, sendmail, apache, etc. are all subject to a very high level of scrutiny, continuously. on the other hand, MS (and all closed source companies) has to rely on internal review, which is subject to marketing and financial pressures that can easily overwhelm and technical issues in favor of meeting delivery schedules. for stuff like network security and OS stability, i simply have more faith in peer reviewed source than i do in sales-driven development. -c ------------------------------ Smaller Animals Software, Inc. http://www.smalleranimals.com
Yeah, I guess thats a little harse ;P , but you've got to admit that the open source movement draws a lot from that crowd, i.e. the people who hate MS simply because MS makes a buck. People of that persuasion just chap my ass. I think your argument is valid, peer reviewed research from any branch of human intellectual endeavor is a powerful methodolgy for the advancement of that research. However, I would point out that it is also a slow, methodical process when done correctly. If you actually want to achieve something in a feasible time frame, the notion of profit becomes an increasingly attractive model.
