Google lost its recent antitrust battle with Microsoft on Tuesday when a US District Court judge overseeing latter company’s antitrust settlement declined to accept Internet search giant’s request to extend the US government oversight of Microsoft’s antitrust efforts. US District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who was scheduled to review the report in a hearing on June 26, in her ruling, refused to consider Google’s petition to have the agreement extended beyond November, when major parts of it expire.
Crying the word ‘monopoly’ is all very well, and it might even be true, but I suggest that Google starts to use the brains that it has within its organisation a bit more to work out how it can end that monopoly and ensure its future better.
The past twenty five years or so are littered with companies that simply haven’t had the intelligence or foresight to do that, and Microsoft knows it.
Or simply realise that Microsoft made a better product; need I list them…well, I might as well give two examples:
1) RealPlayer – anyone ever use it? it is riddled from top to bottom with adware and spyware, its forced registration, its poorly designed website that gives the impression you have to pay for their player. RealPlayer has dug their own grave.
2) Netscape – anyone remember Nutscrape and all the jokes made? Netscape didn’t lose marketshare because they had a ‘great product screwed over by Microsoft’ – it was a crap quality product that kept getting worse in quality, and with each release, losing more and more customers and Netscape failed to get it.
Firefox is a much better product than IE, and it has only 20/25 % of the market … being the best is not always the solution, i’m sure that if IE wasn’t included in Windows, it won’t have 75/80% of the market.
Firefox is a much better product than IE
Based on what criteria? Greater bloat and slower boot speed?
By default (i.e. with no extensions loaded) Firefox is *less* bloated than IE7, and the only reason it starts up faster (which I imagine is what you meant by “boot speed”) is that it’s not preloaded by default, like IE is with Windows.
But please, don’t let facts get in the way of your constant MS cheerleading.
Less bloated how? Not doubting you, just wondering your criteria.
I find that Firefox without extensions is more responsive than IE7.
Speed is not bloat. Lack of speed can be a byproduct of bloat, but you need to at least point out where that bloat lies.
Right. So since I’m not the first one to talk of bloat, we’ll just redirect that question to tomcat, m’kay? When he tells us how Firefox is more bloated than IE, using your metrics, then I’ll answer your question.
I found one googling.
http://lifehacker.com/software/ie7/ie7-vs-firefox-2–the-memory-usa…
From the link:
“I am running the Firefox 2 release candidate with extensions, which makes this a bit of an unfair comparison.”
Better luck next time.
“I am running the Firefox 2 release candidate with extensions, which makes this a bit of an unfair comparison.”
Better luck next time.
It’s only an unfair comparison if the vast number of users would run Firefix without extensions, which I would dispute. The fact of the matter is that extensions and extensibility are one of the big selling points of Firefox, so the point is not moot.
The point is moot, because adding extensions is the *user’s* choice. If someone likes their Firefox with 50+ extensions, they can’t then complain that it’s bloated, because they *chose* to use those extensions.
I use only a few extensions (Gmail notifier, Google Preview, Adblock Plus and Download Statusbar), and Firefox is quite snappy. It does not feel bloated at all. If anyone wants an non-bloated Firefox, all they have to do is refrain from installing every extension available plus the kitchen sink…
Extensions *are* a big selling point of Firefox, because they allow users to customize the browser to their liking. This is not bloat, it is not a flaw, it is a feature.
BTW, it was the author of the linked article herself who said the comparison was unfair. Considering she’s the one who made it, I think her opinion of the matter has a bit more weight than yours.
The point is moot, because adding extensions is the *user’s* choice. If someone likes their Firefox with 50+ extensions, they can’t then complain that it’s bloated, because they *chose* to use those extensions.
Of course they can complain, because few users have any concept of the cost of additional extensions.
I use only a few extensions
So what. You’re not the kind of user that we’re talking about.
Extensions *are* a big selling point of Firefox, because they allow users to customize the browser to their liking. This is not bloat, it is not a flaw, it is a feature.
Unless those same users understand the cost of installing a particular extension, they have no idea of how much bloat they’re introducing.
You underestimate the average user. But that’s beside the point. *You* understand it, and yet *you* were the one to make the original complain. That’s being intellectually dishonest.
Actually, most users probably don’t use that many extensions. In fact, the majority of Firefox users I know don’t use extensions at all. Not that it matters, as I’ve demonstrated above. We weren’t talking about “typical users” – that’s just you trying to change the subject because you were caught making a blatantly false statement. The fact is that Firefox is not bloated by default.
It’s not bloat if it’s functionalities they want.
Give it up. You falsely claimed that Firefox was bloated, you were called on it, and now you’re pathetically trying to change the subject.
>> Firefox is a much better product than IE
> Based on what criteria? Greater bloat and slower boot speed?
I don’t know why that post was modded down. The original poster really did not support his arguement. And the poster who replied is right about firefox. I’m sorry, I am using firefox right now, but I must admit, firefox is bloated, and it does boot slower than msie. Also, on my debian box, firefox crashes periodically.
I think firefox is more popular with developers because firefox uses real standards, whereas msft – always the antagonist – has to keep throwing a wrench in the development process with msft’s own proprietary standards.
Firefox is a much better product than IE, and it has only 20/25 % of the market … being the best is not always the solution, i’m sure that if IE wasn’t included in Windows, it won’t have 75/80% of the market.
I would say that about that many people don’t have another text editor on their machine other than Notepad either. People only start seeking alternatives when whatever they’re currently using isn’t doing the job. For most, IE7 is simply good enough. I’ve installed Firefox for several people, and virtually none of them use the tabbed browsing feature, unless it is turned on for them, and then they pretty much use it by default. None of them have any idea what an extension is.
Howabout the light firefox based distro K-meleon? it consumes less ram meaning more tabs
Gecko-based actualy
Ironically, the only reason I’ve begun using tabs in my browser is becaue IE7 often crashes if you turn them off. I’d be perfectly happy if I could just switch through tasks with alt-tab like normal without some of them deciding I can only access one of their number at a time.
ctrl-tab bro. IE7 also has an expose-like functionality for tabs, giving you a thumbnail view with ctrl-Q
I don’t use windows, but doesn’t ctrl-Q normally shut the active window?
nope, your thinking of mac.
Windows uses the far more intuitive Alt-F4
It also hasn’t been anywhere near as good as IE until recent times. Perspective, please.
Please, that is the most pathetic example I’ve ever seen – I feel sorry for the both of us after that.
The fact that marketshare is reducing is proof that there is room for improvement, Firefox is an improvement over IE, and people are moving to it, regardless of what is included by default!
Sorry, but you’ve gone from ‘can’t compete’ to ‘marketshare not reducing at a high enough speed’ – ever though that there is a explaination – enertia plus compatibility issues, or in my case, I don’t use Firefox with Vista because it is bloated, unwieldy and slow.
Firefox and IE are now pretty much neck and neck as far as features and quality. If IE7 was as bad as everyone here says, it would loose market share pretty quick simply by way of bad press.
I mean, Apple bundles Safari in OS X and yet Safari has next to no market share. A huge chunk of the Mac community swear by Firefox. Why? because Safari, for the most part, is a steaming pile of poo.
I had thought I had detected some signs that you were getting a clue, but here you go with that awful “MS cheerleading” as archiesteel puts it.
Or simply realise that Microsoft made a better product; need I list them…
Since MS is in a unique position to leverage its desktop monopoly in order to force products like Office on its clients; since it continually changes the interfaces, ABIs, and file formats; and since any company that wishes to remain compatible with it must fight for MS compatibility in the face of no open documentation, is it any wonder that (besides not always being up to scratch on opening and saving MS file formats) their businesses fall behind in improving their products in ways which do NOT involve keeping up with the Gateses?
1. Real Player on Linux works fine, I can’t say I have detected any adware or spyware. But then I haven’t detected that (barring popups) on Linux at all.
2. Netscape may have been a crap company, but you can’t use that excuse for all of them.
Not only is the fact that MS is, a posteriori, an anti-competitive, abusive company that keeps it APIs et al. to itself and leverages a closed-source, OS monopoly a matter of record, its also vastly more likely, a priori, that that would be the case than the alternative theory, viz., that any and all software developers and their associated businessmen, who choose not to be vassals of the Microsoft empire, are incompetent, lazy (expletive deletives) who just couldn’t fight the good fight against the Lord Gates. If that were true, then Borland, Oracle, MySQL and Redhat (to name four) simply would not exist today. What do they have in common? They operate in areas in which Microsoft is either not interested (Borland, Object Pascal), went up against a bigger player in the area (Oracle), or cannot monopolize (SQL databases and Unix-like systems).
Google, of course, is another example of that last category.
How does it use its monopoly to force people to use office? The argument is that since it controls the platform, Windows gives office everything it wants, while not documenting the APIs it provides so that others could use the same stuff. Office is a better product then the competition and that is why it is the defacto standard, the problem is that having control of the platform gave them an unfair competitive advantage.
File formats are a completely seperate issue from unfairly using the operating system monopoly.
His point is that people put out products on windows that are pretty shoddy, then turn around and cry monopoly when windows bundles a better one with the OS. I agree with him 100% on the two products he listed.
That I disagree with hands down. MS has most of the best talent in the world working for them, and more resources then any other software house. Not all of their successes can be brought down to leveraging their monopoly.
As for your four examples, first of all microsoft has interests in all of those areas, and offers competitive products. Visual Studio is in direct competition with Borland tools, SQL Server is in direct competition with Oracle, and Windows is in direct competition with RH. A better example would have been Adobe, or SoftImage, which operate in realms microsoft doesnt care about.
Secondly, by listing those examples you are showing that the all powerful inertia of Windows is not enough to destroy good, competing products, which is essentially what the first poster was saying.
File formats are a completely seperate issue from unfairly using the operating system monopoly.
Not really, since a company that is able and willing to leverage one is unlikely not to leverage both.
His point is that people put out products on windows that are pretty shoddy, then turn around and cry monopoly when windows bundles a better one with the OS. I agree with him 100% on the two products he listed.
Even if I agreed 100% (I agreed 50%, btw), he still uses that to argue that the example of “Nutscrape” is the case with everyone.
That I disagree with hands down. MS has most of the best talent in the world working for them, and more resources then any other software house. Not all of their successes can be brought down to leveraging their monopoly.
Then why, oh why? are so many versions of Windows utter failures? And why does it (Microsoft/Windows) survive despite them? I can quote plenty of companies who disappeared, were swallowed up, or had to morph completely to survive, within two to four years of their flagship product turning bad (WordPerfect and Commodore, for example). And yet despite DOS 4, Windows 3.0, WinME, and Vista, MS and Windows are STILL around. If Windows were made by a consortium or group of companies a la UNIX/Linux, the survival of Windows might make sense, but it isn’t and the survival of MS in the face of their multifarious failures doesn’t. Nothing screams “monopoly” like that statistic.
As for your four examples, first of all microsoft has interests in all of those areas
No, it doesn’t.
Visual Studio is in direct competition with Borland tools,
VS does not offer Delphi or any other dialect of Object Pascal, of which the former is Borland’s flagship product;
SQL Server is in direct competition with Oracle,
And as I said, is up against an older, more established player (Oracle).
and Windows is in direct competition with RH.
No it isn’t, since Windows is not a UNIX. A better example would be Sun (with Solaris), Novell, or even Mac OS X (which can “work like” a UNIX as well as “like a Macintosh”).
A better example would have been Adobe, or SoftImage, which operate in realms microsoft doesnt care about.
Yes, they would be good examples, too. But you’ve failed to disprove my point, I’m afraid.
“Then why, oh why? are so many versions of Windows utter failures?”
I can think of only one “true” Windows failure, and even that is subjective as MS more than likely made an enormous profit off of it: WinME.
“VS does not offer Delphi or any other dialect of Object Pascal, of which the former is Borland’s flagship product.”
Borland disagrees with you: http://dotnet.borland.com/
“And as I said, is up against an older, more established player (Oracle).”
Oracle’s first ‘enterprise ready’ Oracle release was 7.0 in ’92. Microsoft’s comparable release was 4.21 in ’93. They’ve both been making software since the late 70’s.
I can think of only one “true” Windows failure, and even that is subjective as MS more than likely made an enormous profit off of it: WinME.
What about Vista? And it’s not subjective at all: The fact that MS made “an enormous profit” from ME is due to their monopoly position, not to the fact that people liked it. They didn’t. And indications are that Vista is seen as even more of a joke.
Borland disagrees with you: http://dotnet.borland.com/
OK, so Delphi now runs on .NET. Which part of that means “Delphi is not a flagship Borland product”?
Oracle’s first ‘enterprise ready’ Oracle release was 7.0 in ’92. Microsoft’s comparable release was 4.21 in ’93. They’ve both been making software since the late 70’s.
Where are you getting those stats from? They’ve both been making software since the 70s, but only one of them has been making databases since the 70s, which was the crux of the issue.
I didn’t want to bring it up, but I got vista bundled with a new laptop, and have had absolutely no problems with it. The problem with vista is that it doesnt give even remotely the same experience on any hardware combination, which has traditionally been the greatest strength of windows. But I’ll tell you, I used to be a linux man during the 98/XP years cause I couldnt stand using it, and Vista managed to bring me to windows. Again, not everyone has the same experience, but plenty of people have no problem with vista, and if you are one of the lucky ones, it is a MASSIVE upgrade over XP.
I’m glad you’ve had success with Vista. I’m sure I could find people who liked ME too.
Again, not everyone has the same experience, but plenty of people have no problem with vista, and if you are one of the lucky ones, it is a MASSIVE upgrade over XP.
When people who wouldn’t even consider running Linux are going through the same kind of hoops that I would go to to get a Linux-compatible machine, in order that they can get an XP machine (and this I’ve seen with my own eyes), that’s gotta be a pretty big “if”.
Update your selves please.
Delphi is not a Borland product anymore is from CodeGear now.
And btw, they are droping WinForms support and they are going more native.
He didn’t argue that, and neither do I. All either of us said is there are plenty of examples of MS demolishing the competition through a superior product, rather then through leveraging their OS monopoly.
That is because Windows is a monopoly. We arent talking about windows, we are talking about WMP, VS, SQLServer, IE, etc
I will rephrase, Delphi and VB are in direct competition, both are kickass RAD platforms.
SQLServer isnt the joke it used to be. Oracle still is king of the very heavy load scenarios, but at this point SQLServer is damn close, and it provides many tools Oracle doesn’t.
Both provide enterprise workstations and servers, and as such, are in competition.
Your point seems to have been that a) MS successes have only been because of their platform monopoly, and b) The only way to not get crushed by said monopoly is exist in a space that MS doesn’t exist.
I don’t agree with either, while MS has put out some flops, they have also delivered some genuinely good quality products, and competition with their non-windows products isn’t hopeless. Look at FF, it isn’t close to being number 1, but it has come far enough to be a serious contender. The reason is because IE5 and IE6 were raging pieces of crap (although still better then the old netscape), and FF was a good product. Now that WMP ships with DVD codecs, we will see if Cyberlink goes out of business or not. I doubt it will, because again, PowerDVD is simply a better product.
He didn’t argue that, and neither do I. All either of us said is there are plenty of examples of MS demolishing the competition through a superior product, rather then through leveraging their OS monopoly.
If you can actually come up with an example of an MS product that was both superior and didn’t lock other companies out (through using proprietary file systems, etc.), then I’m all ears. Until then such statements are just unsubstantiated assertions.
I will rephrase, Delphi and VB are in direct competition, both are kickass RAD platforms.
Delphi and VB are NOT in direct competition, because they do not use the same language. I don’t know how else I can rephrase this.
SQLServer isnt the joke it used to be. Oracle still is king of the very heavy load scenarios, but at this point SQLServer is damn close, and it provides many tools Oracle doesn’t.
I can offer no opinion on the jokiness of SQLserver. My point is that MS went up against an established player which hasn’t made any WordPerfect-for-Windows type mistakes, which is the only reason why both MS and Oracle are in that area.
Both provide enterprise workstations and servers, and as such, are in competition.
When you twist it like that, yes. But they are entirely different animals. Your argument is akin to saying that cargo carriers and trucks are in the same market, which isn’t true.
Look at FF, it isn’t close to being number 1, but it has come far enough to be a serious contender. The reason is because IE5 and IE6 were raging pieces of crap (although still better then the old netscape), and FF was a good product. Now that WMP ships with DVD codecs, we will see if Cyberlink goes out of business or not. I doubt it will, because again, PowerDVD is simply a better product.
I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but MS can’t lock either FF or Cyberlink out with its own proprietary protocols and formats the way they do with “CIFS” and non-MS Office suites
I’m going wikipedia-nazi on your post, hope you don’t mind:
“Since MS is in a unique position to leverage its desktop monopoly in order to force products like Office on its clients; since it continually changes the interfaces [citation needed], ABIs[citation needed], and file formats[citation needed]; and since any company that wishes to remain compatible with it must fight for MS compatibility in the face of no open documentation[citation needed], is it any wonder that (besides not always being up to scratch on opening and saving MS file formats) their businesses fall behind in improving their products in ways which do NOT involve keeping up with the Gateses?
Not only is the fact that MS is, a posteriori, an anti-competitive[citation needed], abusive company that keeps it APIs et al. to itself[citation needed] and leverages a closed-source, OS monopoly a matter of record[citation needed], its also vastly more likely, a priori, that that would be the case than the alternative theory, viz., that any and all software developers and their associated businessmen, who choose not to be vassals of the Microsoft empire, are incompetent[citation needed], lazy (expletive deletives)[citation needed] who just couldn’t fight the good fight against the Lord Gates. If that were true, then Borland, Oracle, MySQL and Redhat (to name four) simply would not exist today[citation needed]. What do they have in common? They operate in areas in which Microsoft is either not interested (Borland, Object Pascal)[citation needed], went up against a bigger player in the area (Oracle)[citation needed], or cannot monopolize (SQL databases and Unix-like systems)[citation needed].”
You spout so much nonsense like it’s fact, I’m starting to believe that this is what you honestly believe yourself. I tend to think that if Microsoft didn’t exist, none of those companies would make a product half as good as it is today. For the first time in almost a decade, I think the competition in the software business is about as healthy as it’s ever been, and obviously the DOJ feels that way as well.
Edited 2007-06-27 23:47
You spout so much nonsense like it’s fact, I’m starting to believe that this is what you honestly believe yourself.
I write what I honestly believe. If you’ve got evidence I’m wrong, fine, but it’s going to take a lot more than you calling it “nonsense” and leaving it at that. After all, that’s exactly what MS shills would say, and you must know I don’t exactly agree with them all of the time, no?
I tend to think that if Microsoft didn’t exist, none of those companies would make a product half as good as it is today. For the first time in almost a decade, I think the competition in the software business is about as healthy as it’s ever been, and obviously the DOJ feels that way as well.
That could well be true; however, at least where desktop operating systems are concerned, the amount of competition available could still stand phenomenal increases.
The trend is clear, however: In markets where customers have a choice, (which basically comes down to (a) knowing they have a choice and (b) having the clout to force their vendor to give them what they want, rather than the other way around), Microsoft does only as well as the popular alternatives (Macs and Linux), at best.
Why should Microsoft make its formats known? did any of the companies Microsoft went up against 20 years ago, when it wrote Office, provide any of the required specifications for their file formats? so you’re now blaming Microsoft for certain companies laziness.
What has that got to do with the price of fish in the Sibera during winter? The issue at hand was Microsoft Windows and Real Player – address that issue, don’t bring in side shows that have nothing to with the current discussion.
Name *one* company that died because they had a good product – it was all evil Microsoft’s fault.
Interesting, Oracle buys out its competitors, and yet, no one blinks an eye around here – I guess its ‘all good’ because it runs on Linux – I mean, if it runs on Linux, then obviously the company can do no wrong!
As for Borland, they not successful; they went out and re-wrote Paradox in C++, why? just because. There was no reason for why they did it, it was the fact it was C++, had all the buzz words, they spent millions re-writing it, and the net result? they gained absolutely bloody nothing out of the whole ordeal. Where was Microsoft? zoomed far ahead of them.
As for Pascal/Delphi, it never took off because it never had the marketing muscle; like other vendors, sat around with a finger up its ass expecting people to go out finding them. Sorry, you’re selling a product, you need to get off your ass and evangelise your product and technology. Make it know to all that you make a product, its superior to anything else, and ensure that this information is spread to those who make decisions.
You know the problem with these managers – they had no balls, they had no vision, they had no charisma. They sat around expecting the ‘unwashed masses’ to come unto them. Sorry, you need to get out there, talk to customers, evangelise your products, build up hype, create a community. You need to listen to customers, when there is a trend towards something, move with it.
Look at Office – want to know why it is dominant? because the individual companies sat around dimissing Windows as a fad, Office was first on Windows, it took *years* and *years* for a viable alternative to Office to be created, through the bringing together of Quadro Pro, Wordperfect, Presentations (from Corel) and Paradox (From Borland) to actually have a viable alternative. It took IBM 6 damn years to finally turn Lotus 1-2-3 into a 32bit application for Christ sake!
But of course! I must be a Microsoft shill! because I dare to question the *stupid* decisions being made by those who ran their companies into the ground, and then turned around blaming Microsoft for bad business decisions.
I’m not saying that any other company MS fought with in the early days is any better – what I am saying is that MS will be the last of a dying breed of people who think vendor-lock in is a good idea.
Nor am I defending Oracle; I’m simply pointing out that the only reason they still exist is because MS couldn’t crush them.
As for the rest, frankly I’m sick of reading your paranoid, bitter, sanctimonious and delusional rantings on the subject of how every IT company except MS stinks to high heaven, being accused of groundlessly pointing you out as an MS shill, and then seeing those rantings and accusations modded up. It’s complete and utter bullshit.
what I am saying is that MS will be the last of a dying breed of people who think vendor-lock in is a good idea.
*blink*
Funny. I guess you’ve never seem him/her criticize Microsoft the other half of the time. Of course not, anytime someone ever defends Microsoft, they are a shill.
Get real.
Oh, I’ve seen him criticize MS alright. And then it all comes out in the wash, and suddenly in kaiwai’s world MS is whiter than white. The amount of paranoid vitriol he spews at their erstwhile competitors would make ESR blush.
Ah, so because you disagree with him when he defends Microsoft, you decide that when he doesn’t it’s completely irrelevant. How convenient.
Ah, so because you disagree with him when he defends Microsoft, you decide that when he doesn’t it’s completely irrelevant. How convenient.
My, aren’t you good at twisting words.
What I’m in fact suggesting is that he’s very much more convincing in paranoid-MS-is-da-bomb-everyone-else-is-shit mode than when he’s attempting to look balanced.
I make no claims to being “balanced”, btw. The software industry is so out of kilter that anyone claiming to be “balanced” probably doesn’t know the half of what goes on.
As for Pascal/Delphi, it never took off because it never had the marketing muscle; like other vendors, sat around with a finger up its ass expecting people to go out finding them. Sorry, you’re selling a product, you need to get off your ass and evangelise your product and technology. Make it know to all that you make a product, its superior to anything else, and ensure that this information is spread to those who make decisions.
So all software companies are supposed to act like Microsoft now and spend more resources on marketing than developing? That’s the problem with the software industry. Microsoft is really the only software company in a position to expend the kind of money that they expend on marketing. Microsoft can afford to shortchange their development efforts because they are already in a dominant position in the software industry and can simply spend more on marketing to keep it that way. It’s about profit for Microsoft, not technological superiority.
If you don’t market your product, no one will know it’s available (e.g., the portable media player market prior to iPod — the Rios, Creatives, and even Microsofts of the world failed to market the products so people knew they existed wheras Apple pummels people to death to this day with TV ads).
Also, MS doesn’t spend more on marketing vs development by a longshot. Marketing costs them millions vs the billions they spend on research and development.
If you don’t market your product, no one will know it’s available (e.g., the portable media player market prior to iPod — the Rios, Creatives, and even Microsofts of the world failed to market the products so people knew they existed wheras Apple pummels people to death to this day with TV ads)
This is obvious but what you are not understanding is that no one has the budget to compete with Microsoft’s marketing. It doesn’t matter if you spend 20 million on marketing, Microsoft will just spend 200 million.
Also, MS doesn’t spend more on marketing vs development by a longshot. Marketing costs them millions vs the billions they spend on research and development.
Not even close. MS spent 500 million just to launch Windows XP and OEM’s spent another 500 million.(1) That’s 1 billion in marketing for a product launch. What software company can compete with that?
Microsoft also spent 500 million on the Vista launch and God knows how much the OEM’s spent this time around.(2)
By the way I doubt Microsoft spends billions on developing Windows. They spend billions on R&D in general but Office and Windows are just a small part of that. Think about how much money was spent on Xbox360 R&D, nevermind Live Search, OneCare, and their research operating system. To drive the point home do you remember when MS had to drag people away from other projects to work on Vista? They weren’t spending enough time and money on their OS and it shows.
(1) http://news.com.com/2100-1001-269032.html
(2) http://www.searchviews.com/index.php/archives/2007/01/microsoft-vis…
RealPlayer – anyone ever use it? it is riddled from top to bottom with adware and spyware,….Netscape didn’t lose marketshare because they had a ‘great product screwed over by Microsoft’ – it was a crap quality product
True, which is why I modded you back up.
However, the problem that an awful lot of people don’t realise – including many people who have worked at Microsoft – is that Microsoft gets so many bites of the cherry. Microsoft could ship a crap Windows Media Player and a crap Internet Explorer (and they have) and they can get away with having as many goes at it as they like because they will both continue to be shipped with Windows.
What I was referring to is that Google is going to have to get a bit more wise and look at alternative client operating systems so that they’re not continually building on Microsoft’s base and APIs and effectively doing things on Microsoft’s terms.
Aww, thank you *blush*
But the thing was, people *still* installed Netscape, even after Explorer was integrated. I remember Xtra Internet in New Zealand back in 1996 which had an incredibly cosey relationship with Microsoft, and yet, they bundled both browsers on their CD which they gave to customers.
People still installed Netscape – the fact remains that Netscapes marketshare dropped over a long period of time; the way history revisionists here like to make out, it happened overnight all because of Microsofts big-bad-monopoly. Netscapes quality went from bad to worse, making it free was a last ditch attempt to win customers over, by that time, Netscape already had such a bad reputation for stability, IE was beginning to win converts – even long time Netscape supporters were starting to face the reality.
History revisionists here also like to make out that Microsoft started off the incompatibility wars, when in relity, people ignore the various ‘standards’ which Netscape created, and Internet Explorer had to reverse engineer to support. Everytime IE got closer to compatibility, Netscape would release a new ‘enhancement’.
Or better yet, create a good search engine that does it well. Live is an absolute joke; the first thing I do is change the default search from Live to Google. If Google is worried about Microsoft, then they’re paranoid, because it will take years to get it up to Googles search accuracy.
For me, why even *care* about the desktop; if all things are consistant, clients won’t care about searching their hard disks, their concern will be searching their datastore from their content provider – thats where Google can take a hold.
Hence, this whole API search thing is ‘much a’do about nothing’
Or simply realise that Microsoft made a better product; need I list them…well, I might as well give two examples:
Give me a break. The search thing is clearly anti-competitive, just as bundling IE and making it impossible to remove was anti-competitive.
1) RealPlayer – anyone ever use it? it is riddled from top to bottom with adware and spyware, its forced registration, its poorly designed website that gives the impression you have to pay for their player. RealPlayer has dug their own grave.
I use RealPlayer and it doesn’t have one piece of spyware in it and I never had to register anything. It’s a nice little GTK app that fits right in with my GNOME desktop. RealPlayer 10 is a vast improvement over previous iterations of RealPlayer that I agree sucked, but that doesn’t change the fact the Media Player sucked too (and still does).
2) Netscape – anyone remember Nutscrape and all the jokes made? Netscape didn’t lose marketshare because they had a ‘great product screwed over by Microsoft’ – it was a crap quality product that kept getting worse in quality, and with each release, losing more and more customers and Netscape failed to get it.
Netscape eventually morphed into what is Firefox today. I don’t think many people will agree with you that IE is better than Firefox. The only reason IE became favored by version 4.0 was because of Microsoft’s embrace and extend policies.
The article points out nicely that if the Justice Department thought Vista was anti-competitive, they wouldn’t have gotten to release like it did. From a technical standpoint, as well as a legal standpoint, Google really doesn’t have a leg to stand on. It isn’t that hard to disable the native search feature, and what would they expect from something also running in the background in a disk-intensive manner to do, use no resources? From the understanding I have of how Vista is designed and implemented, at least on this issue, Microsoft designed it in a sane way, and Google is just unhappy they can’t do things for no work for the new OS. WAAAAHHH!!!
In addition, Microsoft, in order to avoid even the least bit of appearance of impropriety, decided to give in and make a change that they really didn’t need to, and Google still threw a hissy fit, and continued with filing papers about the whole thing.
Microsoft hasn’t been correct in everything they’ve ever done, but I don’t see Google coming off any better, either, in all their decisions. Business is a strange enterprise.
edit: apparently OSNews doesn’t support combining underlining AND bold
Edited 2007-06-27 19:47
Actually, they did, otherwise MS wouldn’t have announced changes to Vista Search last week. It’s simply that the judge thought that the changes addressed the issues raised by Google.
I think it was more a case of Microsoft bending over backwards to show that they were acting in good faith; being beyond reproach. Even if they’d done nothing, there’s no guarantee that Google would’ve “won” (as you put it; this is really a loss for Google, a loss of face). Indeed, the DOJ did tell Google to take a hike even before Microsoft’s concessions, but Google was still whining to state Attorneys General. You don’t know that if the AGs had persued this that they would’ve prevailed.
Also, there’s the EU to consider. Even if the DOJ and the AGs wouldn’t have helped Google in the US, Google would’ve surely gone to the EU, a body that is predisposed to rule against Microsoft regardless of the merits of any given case. Microsoft preempts such a move by their voluntary concessions.
Edited 2007-06-27 22:56
Considering your bias towards Microsoft (and the media efforts put out by MS as we speak to spin this as a loss for Google), I’m not surprised you would present this as a loss of face for Google…but the fact remains that Microsoft *did* make changes to adress the issues raised by Google, and the judge did in fact wait to get the AGs’ opinion before ruling in this case. The concessions weren’t “voluntary”, as your spin would suggest, but rather a direct response to Google’s offensive. In other words, Google got MS to actually modify Vista (in time for the SP1 Beta, too…)
You are correct that MS probably thought of possible ramifications in the EU, which – unlike the DOJ – refuses to bend over backwards to accomodate Microsoft’s predatory business practices. That’s good. It means MS is learning that it has to play by the rules whenever it’s outside of the shelter it has bought for itself in the US.
LOL
I like how you talk of my “bias” as if you are the fountain of objectivity.
You can celebrate this as a great or minor Google victory, or devestating or minor Microsoft defeat, that’s your business. But allow me to remind you of the concessions that Microsoft is making:
http://www.zdnetasia.com/news/software/0,39044164,62022854,00.htm
Microsoft will create a mechanism whereby both computer makers and individuals will be able to choose a default desktop search program, much as they can choose a rival browser or media player, even though those technologies are built into Windows.
…
As part of the pact, Microsoft is required to do three things in relation to desktop search. First, it has to add the mechanism for computer makers and users to change the default desktop search. Second, that default search program “will be launched whenever Windows launches a new top-level window to provide search results”. That includes the Start menu, when a user selects to display results in a new window. However, in areas, such as the Windows Explorer, where Microsoft includes a search bar, Vista “will continue to display the search results using the internal Vista desktop search functionality”. Microsoft, however, must also add a link that, when clicked, will launch the default desktop search program and display that program’s results.
Finally, Microsoft will “inform” software makers, computer makers and users that “the desktop search index in Vista is designed to run in the background and cede precedence over computing resources to any other software product, including third-party desktop search products and their respective search indices”, according to the filing.
Microsoft must emphasize that there is no technical reason why computer makers and users cannot install rival desktop search programs “even if those products maintain separate indices from that operated by Windows.” Also, Microsoft will be required to provide the technical details to enable rivals to write programs that minimize the performance impact of Vista’s own search index.
I hate to break it to you, but the technical changes are minimal and not anywhere close to what Google was damanding.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070621-google-says-vista-sea…
Adding Desktop Search as a setting to the Default Settings control panel (along with the settings for default web browser, email client, IM client, and media player) is what I had predicted on another forum, and achieves nothing that Google’s own installation program couldn’t have done. (Google’s installation program could’ve turned off the Vista search service; a program has to be admin to do that, but Google’s installation program already runs with admin privileges). With the final “solution”, Vista’s deskop search isn’t turned off at all! And the “information” MS will provide is already widely known. Dell already bundles Google Desktop Search (very sad for Dell users, as it’s not in the same league as Vista’s own search) so it’s not like OEMs and whoever else didn’t know that alternative search could be used or that Vista search runs on a low-priority thread, ceding time to other running processes (which flies in the face of Google’s allegations, BTW).
So, Microsoft simply makes a more user-friendly UI to set a default search engine and informs the world of already well-known info. That’s your victory.
But you’re not seeing the forest for the trees. You’re missing the big picture. Google wasn’t after these minor changes which accomplish nothing Google’s install program couldn’t do and provides info that was already known. Google itself recognized that, so they pushed for more. And the more that they pushed for was extension of the DOJ’s oversight of Microsoft, most of which terminates this November.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070625-search-fight-continue…
That’s what this was really about, not these trivial changes to Vista. This minor issue was nothing more than a vehicle for Google’s real goal, the big prize, the big enchillada: the continued handcuffing of Microsoft by big government. That was the goal, and Google lost, big time. Microsoft (and the government, for that matter), did just enough to shut Google up. The DOJ had no interest in this case, and even the normally grandstanding AGs didn’t show much enthusiasm. The government, frankly, is tired of this anti-Microsoft stuff.
So while you may celebrate this as a victory, you’re sadly mistaken if you think Google feels the same way.
And above, I talked of a loss of face for Google. I say that because both slashdot and digg, normally Google lovers and Microsoft haters, really ripped Google to pieces over this issue. They lost a bit of street cred, and really got nothing for their troubles.
Edited 2007-06-28 14:56
I never claimed I was, but at least I don’t *constantly* defend the actions of an abusive, predatory monopolist just because I work for a company whose business depends on the Windows platform. My contributions to this site have nothing to do with personal gain, and as such that *does* make me more objective, whether you like it or not.
Which is a *good* thing. Microsoft *needs* continuous oversight, and if they hadn’t bought their way into Bush’s favors it would not have gotten off so easily. Thankfully, the Europeans will continue to make MS actually respect the laws of the countries it does business in, and curtail its predatory instincts.
I’m not celebrating this as a victory, I’m saying this isn’t a complete loss for Google. That’s quite different, but I don’t expect a MS spinster to accurately portray my words on the subject.
Yeah, because neither of these sites is subject to Microsoft’s astroturfing…
I say that because both slashdot and digg, normally Google lovers and Microsoft haters, really ripped Google to pieces over this issue.
hmm all I see on slashdot is the typical “MS is a monopoly blabla” vs “no it’s not, and it’s their OS blabla” discusion.
The only HTML/UBB tags allowed are for bold and italics.
They didn’t completely lose, since Microsoft agreed to make changes to the search subsystem last week in order to alleviate Google’s concerns. The fact that they agreed to do this meant that there were indeed some issues there.
Basically, the judge said that she trusted the government attorneys’ evaluation that the changes proposed by Microsoft last week did indeed solve the issues raised by Google. The fact that Google pressed its case forward even after those changes is in fact common legal practice (i.e. leveraging your gains in order to obtain more), and in itself isn’t anything out of the ordinary. If the positions had been reversed, Microsoft would have acted the same way.
So, all in all, Google managed to get part of what it wanted, and as such one cannot honestly say that this was a waste of time for them. It was a minor legal skirmish, which ended in a slight advantage for Google.
Or maybe they thought it better to avoid a legal battle and make a minor change that didn’t really have a negative affect on their product. Doesn’t mean they knew they were wrong.
Exactly: they wanted to avoid a legal battle and thus they agreed to make modifications to address Google’s issues. I don’t see how that can be spun into a “loss” for Google, except in the minds of Microsoft cheerleaders.
It’s only a loss in the fact that Google didn’t find the changes good enough and a Court agreed with Microsoft that the changes they made cleared any doubt of anti-trust issues.
Google didn’t really *lose* anything except an argument.
Exactly. It would have been surprising for Google to find the changes good enough, because that’s not how lawyers think. If there’s a chance that you could get more, you don’t act as if you had enough, until the judge tells you it’s enough. Again, Microsoft would have behaved the same way had the roles been reversed.
It sounds a bit cynical, and it is, but that’s the world of high-priced corporate lawyers. Seeing this makes me happy that I decided to become a video game designer instead… 🙂
At first, the title of this newspiece implied that Google was being split up.
Get Your Own Operating System.
Microsoft will always run circles round their competition until their monopoly of the desktop is broken.(if ever)
Google has failed to learn the lesson so aptly taught by Netscape and the old Novell in their battle with Microsoft: Whoever controls the desktop decides what goes on it.
Google has made billions off Linux (Every Google Server runs Linux ) but have contributed nothing back to Desktop Linux. They would rather spend their time fighting Microsoft on MS’s own turf. My take on the whole issue: Google quit whining you overgrown baby.
OR…..
Get your own operating system
Spend a few Billion dollars of your market value (Google is worth $164 billion) and invest in RedHat or Novell or Ubuntu and produce a desktop operating system that can rival or challenge Apple and Microsoft. Quit this whining already, it is getting tedious.
… invest in RedHat or Novell or Ubuntu and produce a desktop operating system that can rival or challenge Apple and Microsoft.
Several GNU/Linux distros already rival and challenge everything else available.
Quit this whining already, it is getting tedious.
As archiesteel already noted above, Google got some of what they wanted. Microsoft agreed to make changes. It wasn’t whining, it was a valid complaint. They succeeded (to a degree).
What what percentage do you no longer consider it a monopoly? 95%? 90%? 85%? Where do you draw the line and why?
I don’t think that percent itself means monopoly. Monopoly is when you prevent others from competing.
Monopoly traditionally meant you had sole control of a market. Now the definition keeps getting looser and looser to make sure Microsoft Windows can still have a monopoly.
Even if it got done to 65%, I’m sure it would still be called a monopoly.
Windows does NOT prevent others from competing. OSX and Linux are living proof. They are very viable alternatives. To say they prevent others from competing in the OS market is to deny how viable the alternatives are.
Monopoly traditionally meant you had sole control of a market. Now the definition keeps getting looser and looser to make sure Microsoft Windows can still have a monopoly.
No it doesn’t. Microsoft no longer has a monopoly in servers (hurrah) and if the recent moves by Dell (and HP?) prove successful, it might soon no longer have a monopoly on PC OSes. That does not mean, however, that it would stop using monopolistic tactics.
Windows does NOT prevent others from competing.
OK, so where Blue Hat Windows and Debian/GNU Windows? (ReactOS doesn’t count in this context as it isn’t functional). The Windows OS market, specifically, is a monopoly (in all sectors where Windows exists), and unless we somehow get to a stage where both ReactOS is viable AND Microsoft stumble hard enough to make a difference (or someone figures out how to legally and successfully come up with Debian GNU/Windows etc.*) it will be for the foreseeable lifetime of Windows operating systems.
*Bearing in mind that Debian GNU/NetBSD and /kFreeBSD don’t even seem to be viable yet, nevermind the HURD.
OSX and Linux are living proof. They are very viable alternatives. To say they prevent others from competing in the OS market is to deny how viable the alternatives are.
And to say simply that there is “competition in the OS market” is to deny how different the alternatives are from each other and from Windows. I’d be the last person to say that that is not a good thing, in some ways, but it does mean that porting from Windows to Linux is not as simple as simply packaging software as an ebuild instead of an RPM.
No it doesn’t. Microsoft no longer has a monopoly in servers (hurrah) and if the recent moves by Dell (and HP?) prove successful, it might soon no longer have a monopoly on PC OSes. That does not mean, however, that it would stop using monopolistic tactics.
Huh? When did they ever have a monopoly in servers? What I meant by my statement is that reading arguments on places like this, the definition of what constitutes a monopoly, NOT monopolistic practices, keeps getting looser.
OK, so where Blue Hat Windows and Debian/GNU Windows? (ReactOS doesn’t count in this context as it isn’t functional). The Windows OS market, specifically, is a monopoly
Wait. Are you kidding?
And to say simply that there is “competition in the OS market” is to deny how different the alternatives are from each other and from Windows. I’d be the last person to say that that is not a good thing, in some ways, but it does mean that porting from Windows to Linux is not as simple as simply packaging software as an ebuild instead of an RPM.
So you’re essentially arguing that the alternatives are not viable enough yet.
Edited 2007-06-28 13:50
When did they ever have a monopoly in servers?
They once had a monopoly on PC-based servers. Now, thanks to Linux, they don’t (and an honorable mention should go to FreeBSD, too).
When? Please provide some sources, because I’m honestly unaware of this.
And yet you tell me to “get real”? Never hear of the decline of Netware?
Please provide sources cited Microsoft as having a Monopoly in servers. Something with actual figures. This is the last time I am asking.
As expected, twenex has been unable to provide any sources for his claims.
Better luck next time buddy.
Wait. Are you kidding?
No, I’m not. Unless some other company makes a Windows-based OS I’m not aware of.
So you’re essentially arguing that the alternatives are not viable enough yet.
No, I’m essentially arguing that the alternatives are not Windows. Don’t be so obtuse.
I honestly can’t believe you are being serious here.
So Ford has no competition because no one else makes Ford cars?
Hahahahaha.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but do you have to take a Ford driving test to take a Ford? No? Gosh. Looks like you’re just deliberately missing the point, then, doesn’t it?
That doesn’t even make sense.
OK, then. Let me spell it out for you.
Fact 1. Ford is the only maker of Ford cars, but once you’ve learnt to drive, you can drive ANY car, be it a Ford, Honda, Saab, or whatever.
Fact 2. Windows is the only Windows-type OS. In order to make software for it, you have to use the Windows API. If you want to make them work in Linux (or MacOS, or Solaris, or FreeBSD), you have to rewrite so that they use the Linux, MacOS, FreeBSD… APIs. And not only is it much easier to port from Linux to Solaris or FreeBSD and back than from any of them to Windows, but also MacOS is capable of using APIs that are similar to Linux et al. And to top it all off, more than one company makes Linux, which means that even within that market you have a choice.
Now, does that make sense?
You’re talking about 2 different things. Users (“fact” 1) vs. Developers/makers (“fact” 2).
So no, it doesn’t make sense.
Once you learn to use a computer, you can generally figure out how to use Windows/Linux/OSX/etc. But there are always minor differences. Just like in a Ford vs. a Chevy, the windshield wipers might work different, the radio might have a different layout.
But the fundamental design is the same. Sit in a seat, accelerate/brake with pedals, steer with a steering wheel. Just like in the major operating systems. You launch applications with a menu or a “shell”. You manage applications using windows and some sort of task bar. You click buttons, type in text boxes.
But the fundamental design is the same. Sit in a seat, accelerate/brake with pedals, steer with a steering wheel. Just like in the major operating systems. You launch applications with a menu or a “shell”. You manage applications using windows and some sort of task bar. You click buttons, type in text boxes.
OK, well, while we’re on the subject, have you noticed how many people object when something as simple as the location of an icon or a Start menu item changes?
Besides, it’s not really comparing apples and oranges at all. If cars were like computers, some models would have a steering wheel, some a joystick, and some would have the gearshift on the roof or some such odd place.
If cars were like computers…
I would certainly like to throw a script at my car and sleep all the way to my job.
It’s probably a better idea to compare something like a steering wheel to the keyboard and/or mouse. What you use to control the system. Those are constants.
Cars are not exactly like computers, but an analogy can still be made.
“No it doesn’t. Microsoft no longer has a monopoly in servers (hurrah)”
I can’t remember a time when MS had a monopoly on servers. Novell, Banyan etc was the bigwigs in PC servers back in the day, MS never was.
Of course, MS never had a monopoly on anything even though a lot of people here (who simply don’t understand what a monopoly is and how it works) keep saying otherwise.
I can’t remember a time when MS had a monopoly on servers. Novell, Banyan etc was the bigwigs in PC servers back in the day, MS never was.
Of course, MS never had a monopoly on anything even though a lot of people here (who simply don’t understand what a monopoly is and how it works) keep saying otherwise.
Really. Then how is it that the last time I bought hardware, you couldn’t get that Windows crap off it when you bought it for love or money?
“Monopoly is when you prevent others from competing.”
A monopoly is nothing more than effectively owning a particular market segment with virtually no competition. A common example of this in the US is power companies: The majority of cities only have one choice when it comes to power providers, and thus customers are stuck with that choice, and the power company can do as they please (kind of…there are laws dictating exactly what they can and cannot do). A monopoly in itself is not illegal.
Antitrust is the area of law surrounding the illegal practices that businesses can engage in in order to take advantage of consumers, and the long and short of this is that a monopoly can exist (and prosper) so long as they aren’t breaking any antitrust laws. Here in the states (as of the time of me writing this) MS is not breaking any antitrust laws, and they certainly are not a monopoly as defined above seeing as there are dozens, even hundreds of alternative OS’s to choose from.
So please, drop the monopoly argument. The lawsuit ended years ago, and everyone has moved on. Competition in the software market is healthier than it’s ever been before, which apparently still isn’t good enough for some folks.
“Competition in the software market is healthier than it’s ever been before, which apparently still isn’t good enough for some folks.”
Well, better does not necessarily mean good. If i get seriously ill today but feel better tomorrow that doesn’t mean I don’t want to get even better.
Otherwise I agree. MS is not, and have never been, a monopoly.
MS is not, and have never been, a monopoly.
rotfl.
Its easy to slam Real and Netscape now that the fight is over, but you dont really know what they might have become if MS hadn’t crushed them. At one point, Real was decent software and if MS hadn’t tried to drive them out, they might not have had to resort to filling their app with crapware to make money. You compare IE now with Netscape of old and think Netscape never had a chance. Yet, many older versions of IE suffered from the same problems Netscape did. Netscape just didnt have a multi billion dollar empire subsidizing them like IE. We now have FireFox which is every bit as good as IE7, even inspite of the monopoly used against it.
I dont see why the oversight is ending. Nothing has changed. MS is still a monopoly, using its power over the desktop to try and dominate other markets. They still use deceit and threats to keep their market share.
“Its easy to slam Real and Netscape now that the fight is over, but you dont really know what they might have become if MS hadn’t crushed them.”
Now that’s a horrifying thought. ***shudders*** If anything, they were put out of their misery just like they should have been…MS was the proverbial shotgun for an old coonhound. MS did them a huge favor if anything.
In the end the customer ends up with bloatware and unwanted features that could confuse more than do any good to a man.
The old computerdays were more fun when people did Operating systems and other techs by ambition and for fun, i remember playing red sectors release of giana sisters on amiga
Thats the classic geekdom , this is a perfect example geekdom and businesses dont mix.
Thats the classic geekdom , this is a perfect example geekdom and businesses dont mix.
I think Redhat would beg to differ. And they can mix if they have the right recipe (a la Redhat). The other scenarios are:
Geeks, no businessmen (the original Amiga, Inc.; Foonly, et al. (makers of PDP-10 clones);
businessmen, no geeks (Atari?);
unsuccessful businessmen run roughshod over geeks (Commodore-Amiga);
marketeers and other (successful) businessmen run roughshod over geeks (Windows).
Yes. Ever since Bush Jr. got into power, there was an 180 degree about face on Microsoft and it’s monopoly. Since the start of the DOJ case, Microsoft has been investing a LOT more money into political campaigns. Using an ounce of logic, it is easy to assume that Microsoft has friends in high places, dictating what the courts do for it. I mean, let’s look at the disgrace of the current US government in the illegal sackings of US state attorney generals. Suddenly, the white house has lost all of these emails (whoops!), but the evidence is damning that the white house wanted them removed because they didn’t play the republican flag the way that Bush Jr and Co wanted them to. If the current government is prepared to spy on the ordinary populace illegally, sack attorney generals because they don’t do what the government wants, then surely making sure a judge, or judges give Microsoft what it wants isn’t too hard? I mean, Microsoft brings in a lot of money for the US economy, and the US government wouldn’t want to hurt it’s cashbox, would it?
I have not been impressed with Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly since she got into the position of managing this case. She has done absolutely nothing, but allow Microsoft to blatantly continue with its monopolistic and anti competitive behaviours.
The ordinary everyday person couldn’t care, because Microsoft has tainted the average persons thoughts to believe that Microsoft is computers (and that there are no valid alternatives). Apple has only survived by being big enough prior to Microsoft really pushing hard from a monopoly/anti competitive point of view, to avoid having its head cut off – Apple was a well known name for quite some time, people don’t forget it. New kids on the block don’t have that luxury. Do a survey, ask people if they’ve heard of Windows, OS X or Linux, or try Microsoft, Apple and Linux. Despite Linux having as many users as Apple, I think you’ll find that Apple is still better known. Oh, and Apple has had some smart products, and smart marketing campaigns, that has certainly helped it.
Furthermore, I’ll make a comment to suggest that Microsoft has illegally colluded with 3rd party software developers to not port to Linux – since there are so many hidden APIs for Windows, that are not documented, or poorly documented when they are, this could make 3rd party developer’s lives interesting and difficult. Microsoft already illegally interferes with OEM PC and laptop manufacturers, using it’s market penetration to force them into shipping Windows as the default, and ONLY choice on the computers in question.
No, Google’s complaint was fair, the system doesn’t want to touch it, because it wants to protect Microsoft. The original Judge in the DOJ case had some good ideas, but it’s plainly obvious that he was politically booted due to political interference at the highest levels.
Dave
PS I’m old enough to remember using Real Player, it used to be a good product. What happened? Microsoft started it’s own freebie, which was included with the operating system by default. Why use a 3rd party product if WMP does what you need? People stopped using/buying Real Player, and they had to make money somehow, hence malware. I don’t know why people are jumping up and down about it, the malware takes advantages of the security and reliability weaknesses inherent in the Microsoft Windows operating system design. If Windodws wasn’t a ballsed up design, malware wouldn’t have been so much of an issue. Which reminds me – the firewall/anti virus software brigade is almost entirely US owned, and developed, that’s also a big chunk of the US economy there. Imagine people mass migrating to OS X or Linux and not needing that software, the drop of income flowing into the US economy would hurt it severely. The US government doesn’t want this either…
Let’s talk about Netscape, it was a good product, far superior to IE of those days. I have no doubt that Netscape would have improved, and would have always been one step ahead of IE. Again, when Netscape started doing odd things, I heavily suspect that was again due to interference from Microsoft at a low system level. When you own the operating system and know all of its secrets, it’s easy to make a competitor’s life hard without getting caught. I mean, if Bill Gates can lie under oath (and thus commit perjury) and get away with it…anything goes…
Just another thought – we all know that Microsoft has been funding the SCO fudcase from behind the scenes, this was done deliberately to try and halt Linux adoption prior to the release of the VERY late Vista system. Even then, Microsoft dropped most of the innovative stuff from it, and it’s still a shit operating system imho. Have we seen the SEC looking at SCO for pumping and dumping schemes (blatantly obvoius)? Have we seen the SEC investigating the monies donated, oops, I mean paid by Sun and Microsoft? Have we seen the judge in the DOJ anti trust case become involved in the Microsoft FUD campaign, or its questionable monetary donations to SCO? Nope.
I really wonder what will happen with IBM crushes SCO, and then starts action against Microsoft for behind the scenes manipulation of SCO as a fud machine. Will the DOJ Judge then sit up and take an interest, or tell IBM that it’s barking up the wrong tree?
Dave
You might “know” this, but what facts make it true? Which of those facts would stand up in court? Just because Microsoft benefits from something doesn’t mean that they were really behind it. They could have just helped along something that was happening anyway (why not help someone be a thorn in the side to your competitor by giving him credence). I don’t think Microsoft is really behind the SCO case, but bought that license just to give a little bit of credence to SCO.
Which is the same thing, when you think about it. MS has no use for an SCO licence, but it is interested in any tactics it can use to kill off competitors to Windows. And it has no problem with “being economical with the facts”, like SCO have been, in order to do it.
Microsoft has an effective monopoly on desktop operating systems. Why? Because it managed to get it in the 80’s and didn’t make such big mistakes as to lose it since then. Once you own the market, vendor lock-in is your friend. It comes in two forms: proprietary fileformats and lots of proprietary 3rd party programs developed for the OS (and these also leverage proprietary fileformats ).
But how did it get its monopoly in the 80’s? In short, because the only affordable personal computers available were IBM-PC clones with MS-DOS preinstalled. This happened because Microsoft had an agreement with IBM that allowed MS to do just that, and then Compaq managed to reverse-engineer IBM’s BIOS.
From Eric Raymond’s “The Art of Unix Programming”:
“In 1981, Microsoft made its historic deal with IBM over the new IBM PC. Bill Gates bought QDOS (Quick and Dirty Operating System), a clone of CP/M that its programmer Tim Paterson had thrown together in six weeks, from Paterson’s employer Seattle Computer Products. Gates, concealing the IBM deal from Paterson and SCP, bought the rights for $50,000. He then talked IBM into allowing Microsoft to market MS-DOS separately from the PC hardware. Over the next decade, leveraging code he didn’t write made Bill Gates a multibillionaire, and business tactics even sharper than the original deal gained Microsoft a monopoly lock on desktop computing. XENIX as a product was rapidly deep-sixed, and eventually sold to SCO.”
Further details about how Microsoft’s way up is tightly coupled with IBM’s way down:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_PC_compatible