The Microsoft doubters are at it again. Skeptics are questioning Microsoft’s ability to deliver on the “Windows Live” strategy outlined recently by Bill Gates and Microsoft CTO Ray Ozzie. If history is a lesson, however, it’s a mistake to underestimate Microsoft, a company that has repeatedly shown an ability to catch up to competitors when it falls behind, as it often does.
Why ‘Windows Live’ Ain’t Dead Yet
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
Do you mean like they did with IE where they used their monopoly cash cow of Windows and Office income to give IE away for free. Therefore drying up all money streams for Netscape so they had to sell themselves to AOL? Is that what you mean?
Other than that, I really don’t care what MS does at all. I don’t use their products anymore because of the racketeering and monopolistic behavior which for some reason (bribes?) they keep getting away with.
What’s the use in writing a web browser if no one will use it because the competitors’ products are good and free and yours isn’t. Then, once you have written your own web browser and decided it’ll have tobe free, why not bundle it with your OS which doesn’t have a web browser yet? Without IE on Windows I wouldn’t have been able to go to mozilla.org to download FireFox, instead I would have had to buy a Cd or go to another computer with a web browser already on it to get FF.
The IE case is interesting because while MS did take advantage of bundling and breaking standards to try and build up a mass dependency on Windows and IE, without that browser I would have had to go to far more trouble to get a different browser on my computer, and eventually a different OS.
I don’t think the bundling of the browser was the problem, for that matter I don’t think it was necessarily bad at all. I think what was wrong was screwing with standards in order to entice people to break compatibility with other browsers. Microsoft could have included a different browser mind you, but as long as only one company is behind a product for the intent of promoting themselves do you think their browser would have been any less harmful?
FireFox is safe IMO because no one company is the driving force behind it, but I don’t think there was such a browser available back when Microsoft was working on the first few versions of IE.
“Without IE on Windows I wouldn’t have been able to go to mozilla.org to download FireFox, instead I would have had to buy a Cd or go to another computer with a web browser already on it to get FF. ”
Drop to the command prompt and type:
> FTP http://ftp.mozilla.org
Login anonymously, change to bin format and get the file. Install.
Yep. I’m sure every mom and pop would love that.
I don’t think the issue was that IE was bundled with the OS, it’s that *Microsoft* bundled IE with the OS. This presents a competitive disadvantage to other participants in the field (in this case browsers) because ISVs aren’t given much of a choice of what software to bundle for their users. Remember that bundling is the primary purpose of ISVs, not OS makers.
This was a major point raised in the litigation against Microsoft; basically, they were overstepping their bounds as manufacturers of an OS to artificially restrict competition in another market by presenting a disincentive to ISVs to even investigate other alternatives to the Microsoft-selected aggregate suite of software. It didn’t help their case that they also sent around a nice quantity of interoffice memos basically advertising their malicious intent.
If you were like the vast majority of consumers, you would have purchased a computer bundled with lots of third party software from an ISV. A browser would have been a part of this package, without question. That’s why this argument, though initially compelling, falls flat. It’s a non-issue. In fact, many ISVs bundled Netscape anyway, especially when shipping to large corporations who had intranets specifically designed for that other proprietary beast.
P.S. The reason Microsoft has any argument in all of this is because an OS by its very nature is a fuzzy entity. Defining one is hideously difficult and circular. This lack of clarity on what an OS is actually comprised of is also something that contributes heavily to the arguments between both sides of the MS vs. *nix debates, usability, etc.
From a Computer Science persepective, the definition of an OS isn’t quite so fuzzy. It’s when you start bringing marketing people into the equation that things start to get messy…
I don’t understand this.
MS did more than bundle IE with their operating system, they integrated it so that IE worked in tandem with the file browser.
To me this is no different than what KDE does with Konquerer. You can use another web browser, sure, just like you could with Windows, but it won’t be integrated into the GUI like Konquerer is and like IE is/was.
Now, that being said, I am no fan of Microsoft, I just think that sometimes they can do no right in the eyes of people who (like myself) do not appreciate their “crush, kill, destroy” tactics of pushing their operating system, their products and their modifications of (somewhat) globally accepted standards causing a dependency onto the consumer.
“The IE case is interesting because while MS did take advantage of bundling and breaking standards to try and build up a mass dependency on Windows and IE, without that browser I would have had to go to far more trouble to get a different browser on my computer, and eventually a different OS. ”
I guess without IE you also had to go to a lot of trouble to get Office installed? I recall the old days where you had what you needed on CD to get you started…like maybe a copy of Netscape. It wasn’t a big deal when IE did not come with Windows in the past…why would it be any different if this were still the case?
All that’s well and good, except one thing. IE had BY FAR the best standards support for a very long time.
Not when compared to Opera.
Not true. I’ve been an Opera user since 3.x and IE did used to have better standards support.
Netscape wasn’t making money from IE.
They were givig it away as well, except to businesses.
Netscape’s main revenue stream was from their webserver software.
wrong until IE was given away for free Netscape cost money. I still have the purchased box from compusa.
I happen to remember when IE 2 came out (it was shipped with Windows95).
I used Netscape before then and always downloaded it for free from their own website. Just because you bought it doesn’t mean it wasn’t for sale. You could also buy a boxed version of IE. But it was still always free.
And I say again, Netscape made most of it’s money from it’s web server software.
BTW, sorry about the typo in the first comment… but you got the drift, it seems.
The Microsoft doubters are at it again. Skeptics are questioning Microsoft’s ability to deliver on the “Windows Live” strategy outlined recently by Bill Gates and Microsoft CTO Ray Ozzie. If history is a lesson, however, it’s a mistake to underestimate Microsoft, a company that has repeatedly shown an ability to catch up to competitors when it falls behind, as it often does.
>
>
Get a clue,Eugenia. This has nothing to with Microsoft “DOUBTERS”. It has everything to do with people flat-out *NOT CARING* about the crap called Microsoft “LIVE”. Just like with .NYET and Hailstorm and other MS garbage you’re going to see the the Free Software/Open Source base basically not give a damn about MS Live, which is basically going to tork off people like you.
“Microsoft generates more income than Google does revenue.”
Wow, what a statement. If it weren’t for the 85% profit margin this statement might be a bit more shocking:
“Microsoft generates more profit than Google does revenue.”
That’s the kind of attitude that should make the DOJ leary that a child, angry that it didn’t get its way, with 40 billion dollars may go off and try to force its way on the world’s economy.
But mostly, it’s just funny and pathetic.
With 50 billion dollars in the bank, even losing billions a year still won’t be ‘failure’.
Nobody is underestimating the ability of Microsoft to lose vast sums on MS Live to do whatever it is they think they want to do with it. They probably will eliminate any competition in whatever market Live is in, since nobody else can afford to lose as much as they can.
The lesson here is that crime (e.g. monopoly abuse) pays bigtime, and the concept of a free market in software or services in any sector is gone the moment Microsoft enters it.
Nobody ‘underestimates’ any mega-corporations ability to aggressively dominate an industry sector, given the complete failure of the US government to enforce its own laws, and the pervasive corruption due to corporate bribery/lobbying.
You’re wrong on one big point here. Microsoft is a good example of free market WORKING. The fact that they can do what they do shows how free the market really is. The more the government steps in to control companies, the less free the market is.
A perfectly even playing field and perfection competition is NOT a sign of a free market. A free market should more often than not be UNequal.
Sorry, I don’t buy this at all.
How exactly is a market dominated by a single player, with enormous artificial barriers to entry, and profits from other markets used to artificially maintain this status quo free?
I mean, by your logic the Peoples Republic of China is a free country.
Because it’s NOT UNDER HEAVY REGULATION.
”
How exactly is a market dominated by a single player, with enormous artificial barriers to entry, and profits from other markets used to artificially maintain this status quo free?”
I disagree about the single player. There are tons of players these days…but they have not conviced the majority of people to switch out their desktops. Since the Linux distro’s are free, there is really no reason anybody can’t just load it up and go. At this point, even with what MS is doing to keep their installed base, you can’t say that people are not totally free to download [insert linux distro of choice or even Solaris here] and replace Windows. The free price of Linux tells me that cost of software is not the barrier at this point. Changing out back end servers for corporations may be, but don’t expect changes overnight. What we have today is the availability of a lot of quality OS choices for free, so the whole monopoly thing has a little less value IF you are not a company competing with MS on selling products (which most Linux distro’s are not).
It’s time that Linux started winning battles based on people wanting it, not by having governments mandating it be used. Having the gov. force Linux is worse than the MS monopoly. Linux is free, let the choice to use it also be free.
Freedom. Such a noble word. So there we are having the time of our life on the play ground. *Enter Stage left* The Big Bully Bill. Pushing the smaller kids around and taking lunch money because he has more _bang_for_the_buck. Mrs. Liberty should ignore the Big Bully Bill becuase everyone likes him (or are forced to be his friend becuase he is the only bully in town)? I use OSS on the MS Windows platform. This isn’t about government steping in and forcing the use of OSS over Windows it is about Monopolies (Bullies)! Money overcomes superior products much like size overcomes the wiz kid of our playground. Freedom. Such a noble word but more noble to stand and fight for it. I for one fight for your right to choose what OS or OSS to use and in our Big Bully Bill’s case if no one stopped the bully (monopoly) then we wouldn’t have freedom, period.
It’s not about making everyone in the market equal but making the rules everyone follows apply to all and be equal for all invovled. You can’t have someone above the law or above the rules just because they are succesfull. If that was the case and their was no goverment invovlment I and others ( including countries like North Korea ) could freely and anonymously buy a M1A1 tank on the “free market” at a price.
But Microsoft is forced to follow different rules because they are successful. Isn’t that now contrary to a free market?
I cant go out and murder whoever I want. Isnt that contrary to a free country?
Technically speaking, yes. Which is why totally free anything doesn’t work.
Free Market: A system in which the market forces of supply and demand determine prices and allocate available supplies, without government intervention.
Without government interventions free markets lead to monopolies as evidenced by the past in industrialized nations. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think there are any truly free markets in the world and this is a good thing. Otherwise, microsoft could viably be the only company selling any type of goods in a worst case scenario.
No. A completely free country must attempt to assure to freedom of each individual, meaning there must be laws against actions by individuals which stop the freedome of other citizens.
Murdering someone else stops their freedom, and therefore you cannot be free to do it while maintaining the free country.
Political freedom is not about being able to do anything you want.
It’s a very solid line, which most politicians will do anything they can to blur around with what-if’s to make you like their agenda.
I heard some students could do so, and guess what? they did it!
Logical sense says that if you can go away and kill you, the next door neightboor can do the same with you and your family, isn’t that a nice picture?
/sarcasm
It is–whether a pure free market can actually work, and whether or not monopolies should be regulated, is what this argument comes down to. Personally, I tend away from regulation, and I believe that the microsoft monopoly will correct itself over time (either it’ll cave in, or it’ll get cheaper/better/whatever).
-bytecoder
I agree. But there is a need to correct political influence by corporations, Microsoft or not.
“I agree. But there is a need to correct political influence by corporations, Microsoft or not.”
There is a need to take care of world hunger also. If companies want to compete with MS, then they better get started.
MS did not start in the lead, and they ousted a company with a stranglehold in the corporate server space. They had a plan, executed, and became successful. They are not the first company to do this, so I don’t suspect they will be the last, either.
As it stands, they are competing with FREE software. How can you tell me that this is a fair competition? If you offer what I do for free, I’m going to do what it takes to get you out of the game. Maybe I’ll offer my software for free until you go away? It’s called competition, and knowing your opponents’ strategy, and responding.
As I said before, I’m not so sure that MS’s monopoly is such a big deal anymore as there are many FREE linux distro’s that work fine. It may just be that they don’t work 10 times better, therefore, nobody wants to switch out. Isn’t this usually how you justify going with something else when you already have something that works? You can’t force people to chance what they “like” just because you yell very loudly that something you like works better (for you). If what you have is better, they will eventually see this, but if it’s close or not really better, they may not care as much.
Right now, Linux, as far as a desktop goes, is capable, but I wouldn’t say “better” in general. As far as I’m concerned, it’s a different way to accomplish the same thing (this is just for your average windows/non-tech user, not as a general purpose server, which I prefer Linux loads better than any MS server).
Dude, I don’t disagree with you. What I said has little to do with what you said. I simply thing corporations, including Microsoft, have too much power and influence in Government, through lobbying. That’s all.
No those rules will apply to anyone in their situation, it’s not a special treatment. Those rules were created to allow the “free” market to continue being free.
The free market in this case isn’t supposed to be any form of anarcho-capitalism, it is supposed to be a playground for companies to help stimulate the economy of a country. It is a game with some certain rules to follow, and those rules (should) apply to everyone.
If the free market would be based on anarcho-capitalism then we would still have rules, but those rules would be dynamic and certain companies would be given even more unfair treatments.
You can compare it to GPL vs. BSD. Where GPL has rules to make sure that the software stays open (in the same way the state makes sure that the market remains free) while BSD doesn’t care if you make your own closed version of the software (a much more anarchistic approach). But both GPL and BSD software goes under the name “free software”. It all boils down to what you put into the word “free”.
You seem to be mistaken by the meaning of the “free” in “free market.” It basically means that you’re free to buy and sell to whomever you want, granting the most amount of freedom–much like the BSD license. There is no room for interpretation to the “free” in “free market” as there is in the license arena, though.
-bytecoder
If monopolies force out the competition, then the market still isn’t free. How can you be free to choose when there are no other viable products to choose from?
No those rules will apply to anyone in their situation, it’s not a special treatment.
That is a contradiction.
What you’re talking about isn’t a free market. It is heavily regulated. While I’m not saying it’s a bad thing, it is not what a free market is. And by “free”, I mean the well accepted definition of free market, not the definition which someone may wish to skew to their liking.
Please explain how a market that is regulated by a monopoly participant is free?
A free market is one in which competition is the primary determinant of the price and availability of goods.
When competition, and/or the capacity to introduce competition disappears, the notion that the market is free also disappears.
No, a free market is one which little to no regulation. Competition has little to do with it, but is supposed to naturally happen in a free market.
Again, we should be going by the actual definition, not but what you think the definition should be.
It’s funny when computer geeks try to discuss like lawyers or economists… do some reaserch first… this what you call “Free Market” has failed already. Here some keywords for you: laissez faire, invisible hand, liberalism…… Remember high school History classes?
*sigh*. Why do people keep making up their own definition of free market? Is it really that hard to look up? Competition has nothing to do with it; as long as transactions aren’t regulated by the government it’s a free market.
free market
n.
An economic market in which supply and demand are not regulated or are regulated with only minor restrictions.
*sigh*. Why do people keep making up their own definition of free market?
Because that’s the nature of ideologies as apposed to the real world. The term “free market” has different definitions depending on who you ask really, because the “free market” can be applied to different political ideals. A more interesting read than your one line loose definition is the wikipedia page on the subject.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market
“A free market implies the presence of competition, although monopolies that are not maintained through coercion can be present.”
No markets are actually “free”, except maybe underground criminal markets (by their definition of ignoring any regulatory laws). Property rights is a form of government market regulation. Contract law is a form of government market regulation. Criminal Law is a form of government market regulation. Not being able to physically murder your competition is a form of government imposed regulation. Taxation laws are used to influence market. Anti-Trust laws are are used to regulate the market. A “free” market would also create price fixing and other such anti-competitive behavior.
A completely “free” market is mostly theoretical. It’s a question of how to regulate it and in what ways to regulate it in order to produce the effects we desire.
Microsoft is what is now becoming a “natural monopoly” see here http://www.investorwords.com/3209/natural_monopoly.html .
Your Electric and Natural Gas companies are “natural monopolies”. Sometimes having an industry with efficient service models in place REQUIRES a monopoly. 95% or so of the lay people don’t want anything else but proven and reliable services. Before you jump on the proven and reliable part of this think for a second that Windows is only 20 years old in the grand scheme of things and Microsoft and the whole software “industry” (I mean Industry) are only a few years older on top of that. This is an evolving process and right now Microsoft seems to be the consumer’s industry leader and will probably stay there. You have to realize their place in the industry and the utmost responsibility they have on their shoulders. This isn’t business 101 btw.
That is a contradiction.
Not really. MS is (or at least should be) getting the treatment that any company in their situation would get. Which means that MS is no exception.
The definition of free is highly individual. One persons freedom might be another persons prision.
A true free market in an idealistic sense does not exist today and will probably never exist, just as true democracy doesn’t exist. But the “free market” is generally the term used to describe western economy.
The term ‘free market’ is not meant to apply to the sellers, it’s supposed to apply to the buyer. The regulations are supposed to protect the buyer’s rights to shop freely. So, in turn, heavy regulation does equal free market when the government enforces the regulations.
Excuse me, where did you get this definition? I’ve never heard this one applied.
like .NET was before MS decided to sharpen its message to refer only to the CLR-based technologies. But Live really has no core technology, right now it seems a placeholder for the diverse bag of Google- and Salesforce.com- killers Microsoft intends to buy, develop, and roll out. Although Microsoft is built differently from those two, it doesn’t see itself as a service provider. MS wants to sell a platform and tools to third party ASPs, so the ASPs can do the dirty work of servicing end users. Hosting web teleconferences for example. But that’s much less dynamic than what Google and Salesforce are doing, really just another instance of the old packaged software delivery model.
The “leaked” memos were probably a good idea though, Microsoft needed to convince its own staff that the many of the hot projects in the company will now be based on these web-based business ideas.
Paul G
Skeptics are full of hot air. Let’s see them do better. I don’t see anything wrong with having your fingers dipped in many dishes of water.
Microsoft has always proven to take ideas and improve upon them, just as the Japanese did to us ol’ cowboys in the Automobile industry (success of Toyota anyone?, GM getting ready to go under?). Face the facts this is a knowledge based society, there’s nothing wrong with learning everything and then improving upon what was taught.
That’s the free market, that’s innovation and progress. Sounds to me like the whiners who are crying because their software didn’t cut it in the free marketplace are mad because their code is now wasted hours of hard work blood and sweat. Grow up and do better. Sun is doing it, Oracle is doing it. Why not your company? Cause a change instead of complaining about capitalism and the free market. Complaining gets you no where, hard work and adaptability to change and competitor threats get you everywhere. It’s always a broken record here, Microsoft Illegal! Microsoft BAD!
You can mod me down and go back to playing Nerf ball in the office, while your competition is working hard at work and is setting up to play a real game with you, stealing your lunch.
In-some I agree with you, but It’s not quite that simple.
GM Does not own the recipe to make petrol and prevent Toyota from using that recipe thereby locking Toyota out of the market! If computer interoperability and file exchange compatibility were free and open, then more companies could come in and offer some competition, more companies would be willing to devote more money to devolop competing products, but as it stands now, there’s no incentive, as you’re doomed to fail no matter how much better your product is!
Please learn about the Sherman Antitrust Act, and then get back to us.
Have you even been paying attention to this industry? Or are you on MS’s payroll?
Companys have cultures and they do not change easily. Look at how hard Sun has worked to change and still they have a long way to go. That said, I don’t think Microsoft really gets the net. While they are throwing money at yesterdays ideas Google will be producing tomorrows.
What i fail to understand is why people abuse Microsoft for shipping Media player when OSX also ships with iTunes and all its properietary software…. just because Microsoft is big? I will say its lame…OSX is more monopolistic since they don’t let other hardware vendors ship their OS..
Now on topic, i have used Google personalize page and live.com and i personally like live.com much better. Also http://www.ideas.live.com has some cool tools
What i fail to understand is why people abuse Microsoft for shipping Media player when OSX also ships with iTunes and all its properietary software
Actually most people do think that it’s very silly to force MS to make a version without MediaPlayer. It really isn’t solving any problems.
However, the problem isn’t that MS is a monopoly, but the fact that they abuse their monopoly status to eliminate competition.
That’s part of the definition of the economic term monopoly. Most dictionaries fail to define it correctly, but any Economics 101 professor will set you straight:
A monopoly is a group which prevents entry into a market using their controlling share.
Someone who just has the whole market isn’t necessarily bad, you’re right. In fact, only having one competitor which isn’t preventing entry is the most efficient solution. Unfortunately, everyday we have living proof that people are really greedy; and so, given the power of the whole market they will prevent entry to keep their pocketbook up.
But, of course, innocent until proven guilty.
Sabon, did you curse Apple the same way when they killed Konfabulator and in fact didn’t let 3rd party commercial companies flourish at all?
Widgets for Apple’s dashboard are easy to make, and some are even shareware – creating a market.
You bring up the example of Windows Media Player (Microsoft) and iTunes (Apple). You bring up the example of Internet Explorer and Netscape.
The issue, I should clarify, is not about bundling. Bundling two products as part of a sale is a marketing technique that has existed for years in most industries. Toothbrushes and toothpastes, Dog food and pet dish, and so on.
The issue _IS NOT_ about bundling. The issue is the aggressive anti-competitive position Microsoft has adopted in regards to the competition.
In this case, Microsoft would explicitly punish any distributor of Windows who tried to put any “competitor’s bundle” more prominent than Microsoft’s.
Additionally, Microsoft would make it impossible to “unbundle” their own added products.
If we take the example of the bundle of toothbrush and toothpaste, Microsoft’s position would not let you brush your teeth with any other toothbrush than the one included with the package. Or maybe the toothpaste would still clean your teeth, but wouldn’t leave your breath minty, and you’d be stuck with your pre-brush breath.
(Ok, I’m starting to push the analogy a bit too far).
In this case, Microsoft would punish any distributor that included Netscape installed, and shown prominently on the Desktop. Only Internet Explorer (and MSN’s icons, not AOL’s or NetZero’s or anyone’s) are allowed to be on the Desktop.
Netscape could not be the default browser, otherwise the distributor would receive Microsoft’s wrath.
If I’m not mistaken, there was a point when Microsoft forbid installing Netscape at all. At another point, Microsoft’s explicitly made that their competitor’s products would show problems for just running.
In the case of Apple, last time I checked, Apple lets you uninstall iTunes if you want. Heck, if you want the latest iTunes, you have to buy it. But if you don’t buy it, nothing wrong happens.
In case of Microsoft, if you didn’t upgrade to Internet Explorer, most future applications would plain just not work.
Right now, 2005, many many third party programs you install require you to have Internet Explorer 5.5 to work.
Apple does not require you to have Safari to be able to use any other software.
I don’t wanto to defend Apple either. They often behave more aggressively towards third parties and costumers.
But I disgress.
I won’t say it’s bad to have a browser or a media player included with the OS. Actually, it’s very convenient.
What is bad is to avoid the possibilities of your competitors to be on equal ground with you, by taking advantage of your leader position of the host product.
-PapaPitufo
My guess is that most of the people posting have benefitted from a Microsoft product recently. For example, if it wasn’t for the fact that Microsoft smashed Apple’s crappy old Mac OS 7/8/9 (all of which were more or less rubbish) we wouldn’t have OS X. If it weren’t for Windows 95 we probably wouldn’t have KDE and GNOME looking like they do. If IE didn’t kill Netscape, we wouldn’t have Firefox. Microsoft’s domination forces the industry to innovate to try and compete. Now Apple is super innovative instead of boring and stupid. Linux nerds everywhere clamor to copy the latest technology from Microsoft and make it better. Look, if it wasn’t Microsoft it would have been IBM. If it wasn’t IBM it would have been Apple. The point is that all this free market whining is ideological crap. Microsoft competed and won. They turned a very small amount of money into a huge pile of money. Now they have enough cash to buy a whole country if they wanted. The point is Microsoft is a monopoly that NEEDS to exist. If we were all based on Linux there would be 100+ operating systems that all almost work the same. It would be a zoo. If we all ran OS X then OS X wouldn’t be as secure or reliable and that would also be a problem. Also, if we all ran OS X then Apple would be a monopoly and we could hate Apple. In the end Microsoft has brought computing to the masses. They have created a standard platform for computing and made it incredibly easy to develop for. Their developer tools are among the best in the business and that alone makes them spectacular. I will agree that some of their products suck, but Apple makes less than stellar products at times too. No company is perfect. Let’s just be glad that Microsoft doesn’t own the hardware game too alright? Otherwise, then it would be a true locked down monopoly. However, isn’t it interesting that open source zealots piss and moan about Microsoft being a closed system and that free software is better, yet at the same time 99% of things in this world are CLOSED SYSTEMS and we don’t seem to mind? I mean we don’t get to mess around with the specs of burnable disc media, yet we use them and don’t complain about whoever having a monopoly. Coca-Cola and KFC won’t give me their recipies, but I still enjoy their products. I don’t know how a HDTV works or how to fix them, but I’ll be mesmerized by a huge plasma at Best Buy. The answer isn’t freedom folks. The answer isn’t monopolys. The answer is that things should just work. Microsoft has got better about making their stuff work. Maybe we should either compete with Microsoft harder to force improvement (Firefox vs IE7) or maybe we should request that Microsoft do better with our wallets. Either way, support what you want to support, but don’t think for a second that some Richard Stallman messiah type figure wouldn’t have done the same thing as Bill Gates did if they had the chance. Stallman and Linus don’t have the balls to take on IBM and Apple. Sure, they might complain in an interview, but if IBM, Google, or Red Hat turned their backs on Linux in favor of something else, Linux would fall apart. All it would take is IBM/Google to say something like “We are switching fom Linux to Windows Vista or OS X to gain reliability and usability over a undersupported operating system such as Linux.” Then, Linux would slowly die and be relegated to academic circles in the same way that DOS or MINIX or BeOS might be today. Hell, don’t be suprised if after Novell gets burned for a few more years by the underfunded “Desktop Linux” experiment, that they cash out too. It sounds like they already want to. Also, for all you Microsoft haters out there, maybe you should buy a Sony CD? Maybe Sony doesn’t have a “monopoly”, but they have been charged many times with bribing people in Music and Movies. They lock their products down worse than Microsoft. Also, if you hate on Microsoft then you shouldn’t own/use any Microsoft product, otherwise you are supporting your own hatred and that is just self-torture.
I mean we don’t get to mess around with the specs of burnable disc media, yet we use them and don’t complain about whoever having a monopoly. Coca-Cola and KFC won’t give me their recipies,
The specs for burnable disk media are sufficiently open that there are free implementations of them.
If I produce my own brand Cola (and there are some very good ones) I don’t suddenly start to vomit because consuming Coca-Cola has produced an incompatability to my system for drinking any other Cola. Further more if I start a take out chicken chain people don’t suddenly find their cars won’t enter my parking lot because they once went into a KFC lot.
BTW with regard to Sony, I dont buy any RIAA/CRIA member CD’s only indie labels on principle and for better music
Are you kidding me? MS has never innovated anything, everything they did (And do) is a copy/clone of something that was already done. IE? Stolen! Windows’ Interface? Copied.
The fact of the matter is, that the Operating System market is evolving non-stop. Macintosh is evolving, Linux is evolving, and MS just lags behind, keeping up every few years. Windows Vista brings nothing new to the air. 64 bit? Been there, done that. New “innovative” interface? Again, been there, done that. Microsoft Gadgets? Well guess what, been there, done that. By the time Vista comes out, a time that has been postponed like 3 million times, Linux and Mac users will already have much much more (Actually, they already do).
I don’t care about MS’s incompetence and inabillity to innovate. I care about the fact they take other people’s ideas and implementations, put all sorts of trademarks and patents on it, and sell it as their own amazing new ground-breaking inno-f–kin-vation.
And don’t talk about “undersupported”. The last thing you can say about MS is that they support their custommers. Heck, Windows 98/2000 users can go to hell, as far as MS is concerned. And if you have Windows 95, you’re as good as dead. What’s their support anyway? An impotent help file and an update service? Have you ever tried to get support from MS after unknowingly installing a spyware program that refuses to be unistalled through the Add/Remove Program app? f–k, it’s hell. They give you no support. They give you lousy products with no support, and your only resort is to seek third-party support, which is costly. Heck, MS made companies like Norton rich, just for being such lousy programmers. Do they give you support when you’re Windows is infected by a Virus? Heck no, you have to purchase some ass-wipe AntiVirus. I wouldn’t be suprised if AntiVirus suppliers pay MS for doing a crappy job.
On the other hand, Linux gives you free support with comprehensive manual pages, thousands of mailing lists, message boards, chat rooms, and yes, third-party organizations, which is entirely legitimate.
Do you know why certain organizations turn to Open Source for their projects, instead of to MS or other such closed-source companies? Because these companies give them NO support. MS takes a certain project, builds it, gives the buyer a binary with 1 year support, and then just vanishes into the open air. No support, no nada, and the buyer is stuck with an outdated project the can’t go anywhere. On the other hand, Open Source “contractors” give the buyer the code, and support for whatever time they give, and if the ever vanish like that, the buyer simply gives the project to another contractor. He has the code, he has everything he needs. Hence, no loss.
BTW, you’re wrong, if you wanna do something like burnable disc media, just go and purchase the specs. Everybody can do it. The fact that it costs money doesn’t make it closed.
So, don’t let anybody kid you.
Microsoft competed and won.
Err,you forget they initial were very lucky with IBM’s support.IBM owned the desktop market.
Sony is shit too,or at least the person responsible for the latest DRM.
What’s my concern is the sheer contrast with the early pioneering days where apparantly more (revolutionairy) things seem to happen with less money.
Most Biggggg companies seem to have become to much a self fullfilling prophecy.Microsoft is no exeption.
“Thank Goodness for Microsoft”, to who every wrote this long piece, it was very nicely done. I agree with pretty much everything it said.
>What’s my concern is the sheer contrast with the early >pioneering days where apparantly more (revolutionairy) >things seem to happen with less money.
The fact that I can get almost any piece of information, from anywhere on the planet is pretty revolutionary. If one went back to the mid 80s and predicted the web I am sure people would think you’d be crazy. And it only costs me 25 bucks a month.
The fact that I can get almost any piece of information, from anywhere on the planet is pretty revolutionary. If one went back to the mid 80s and predicted the web I am sure people would think you’d be crazy. And it only costs me 25 bucks a month.
Thank Goodness would be appropiate here
My point is with all the resources the very large companies have there’s relatively less innovation going on.A selffullfilling prophecy of clever agressive marketing,business strategies and lawyers protecting patents.
I think the current technology has been properly marketed let’s develop something new or at least more innovative than just another look alike release.
1) Monopolies are price-seeking.
2) Monopolies are rent-seeking.
Both are dead weight on the economy[1]. Instead of being productive, they spend vast resources on securing their monopoly[2]. The ODF fiasco is only one of many examples or rent-seeking behavior displayed by Microsoft.
Quite frankly, the Thank Goodness for Microsoft post is horribly written, and I can’t read it for more than two lines; however, I will say this: monopolies are never a good thing.
[1] Tullock G., (1967): The Welfare Costs Of Tariffs, Monopoly and Theft.
[2] Posner, R., (1975): “The Social Costs of Monopoly and Regulation” Journal of Political Economy.
That was then, this is now.
So Microsoft gave away IE for free to gain market share? Wow! Now that’s what I call “competition”! Tell me this, how free has it been for the countless average users that have shelled out a bunch of dough to their local “Geek Squads” to have all of the spyware that IE and Windows has ALLOWED to infest their machines?
Recently, MS has been, and will continue to be, spanked by Google in Internet arena. MS is being trounced by Apple in the digital music business. MS is still behind Sony in the gaming industry. MS has been toasted by Adobe and its PDF for electronic information exchange. And, if I’m not mistaken, MS still lags behind AOL in the ISP department.
The competiton has never been stronger and smarter and MS’s missteps have never been greater (can someone say, Vista!) than they are now. They won’t be on top forever.
Edited 2005-11-17 11:01
The problem with Microsoft and their monopoly has very little to do with their products. If you forget the proprietary formats argument, Microsoft has a very good line of products. It’s their marketing tactics which are the main issue. Nintendo got nailed for the same shit in the 80s and somehow Microsoft are sidestepping with incredible success, at least in North America.
I do think that when I sit down to my PC for the first time that there damn well better be a web browser on it. The problem lies in the fact Microsoft is a competitor in the Operating Systems market as well is partnered with just about every hardware vendor in the PC market.
So ‘We as a Self’ should stop observing.
The MS installed base is probably the best reason why MS is so successful, and it is the best reason why they should continue to be successful. The competition is different from any that MS has seen before though. Netscape tried to fight MS on its own turf. Emerging markets that have the potential to be much larger than the 600 million MS installed base are just as likely (possibly more) to choose Linux and take the fight out of MS territory.
the tight integration of tools like Windows Media Player and Internet Explorer
I can’t stand the way those two programs interact. That seems to be one of the stronger points in the article (product superiority/inferiority) right behind brand awareness (install base). Many nontechnical people accept MS products as-is because they don’t realize there are alternatives or they don’t know how good the alternatives can be.
MS is compared to Google (once again) in the article. Take a look at another company compared to MS. Apple doesn’t have anywhere near the resources of MS either, but their products are generally considered superior to those of MS in many instances. Apple has also been doing much better recently because their brand awareness has been growing thanks to products like the iPod. IMO the only reason that more Apple computers aren’t sold is because Apple asks for a higher margin on their products due to smaller volume. The important comparisons should be quality, brand awareness, and price. When people learn about free products that are either good enough or sometimes better, MS loses marketshare. When people use far superior products they decide that they are willing to pay for an alternative, and MS loses marketshare.
Recently, even though the percentages may seem relatively small, MS has lost more marketshare with some of its key products than it has in years. MS is concerned, and they have a reason to be. If MS isn’t careful, they could become a company like Sony. Sony has been displaced in many of their strongest markets. Now, their PlayStation products seem to be performing the best of anything in their portfolio. That doesn’t mean that Sony doesn’t make good products or that the company has failed. They just lost a lot of opportunities. That is exactly what MS doesn’t want to do.
Any of you tried this yet?
http://www.cosmopod.com
I started using it yesterday and it is fine thus far. It is adware – a sidebar appears on the left of screen with links.