Making a Federal Case out of it--Microsoft

[Rod Hagen]

What should be done about Microsoft: dissolve it, split it up, fine it, leave it alone and just let capitalism work itself out?

 

-Hagen

 

http://www.rodhagen.com

"So I've noticed your house smells of

feces, and not just monkey feces

either"

[BuckyXTC]

Hi Rod:

 

I'm not a big Microsoft fan (all Apple here) so I'm probably not the best person to answer this question, but I think the arrogance of Microsoft has put them in their current fix, and something needs to be done to address that. Guess my first choice would be to break them up, second choice a real stiff fine.

BuckyXTC

 

>What should be done about Microsoft:

> dissolve it, split it

>up, fine it, leave it

>alone and just let capitalism

>work itself out?

>

>-Hagen

>

>http://www.rodhagen.com

>"So I've noticed your house smells

>of

>feces, and not just monkey feces

>

>either"

[+ deej]

Breakups have historically not worked. Look at the utter mess that are the Baby Bells. (Not that they wouldn't be as much of a mess under one umbrella, but....)

 

Splitting Microsoft into "operating system" and "application" companies makes little sense at all. Much of what you, the end-user, see in an "application" is actually a shared resource provided by the operating system. Ever save a file? That dialog comes from the OS, not from the application (most of the time).

 

It's exactly the same in the Macintosh world, and in the Linux world. In fact, the Mac world pre-dates Microsoft in this way. In other words, it's not just Microsoft.

 

I think they should be penalized when they're caught in unfair business practices, as should any domineering force in any marketplace. The problem becomes "how?". Fines are useless.

 

Remember when MS was slapped with a $1 million/day fine? The Chicago Tribune business section ran a little calculation that revealed that if Bill Gates personally covered that fine, he'd be flat broke in exactly 150 years if he didn't earn another dollar in those 150 years.

 

So, with economics on that scale what's a suitable penalty? Restrict them from certain markets? That's a restriction of fair trade. How would you react if you were suddenly restricted to seeing clients only in NYC or LA? You'd squawk about unfair trade practices.

 

I really don't know the answer here, but I'm against splitting them up for purely technology reasons. There needs to be a penalty, but what?!?!?!?!

 

(disclaimer: I've made a lot of money off Microsoft products over the last 20 years.)

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

>What should be done about Microsoft:

 

Turn it into a glass factory... :-(

 

To paraphrase a 2 inch headline from the late 70's in a local university student newspaper about a conservative Democratic governor --

 

Microsoft Blows Dead Goats

 

I believe this turned out to be the penultimate edition of the paper.

 

I'll be back on this one when I form a more definite opinion.

 

(Will this get me moderated??)

[Guest JT]

>What should be done about Microsoft:

> dissolve it, split it

>up, fine it, leave it

>alone and just let capitalism

>work itself out?

>

>-Hagen

 

Pump it! Inflate it! Change it to MacroHard! ;-)

 

JT

[+ deej]

>(Will this get me moderated??)

 

Only if you post Bill Gates' personal phone number. ;-)

[Guest cmp]

Bill Gates hires a hooker (a foxy lady, as he is either straight or still in denial). After the encounter, he sums it up: "Now I know what a blowjob is." The rebuttal: "Now I know what Micro and Soft are."

[ready182]

1. Well, if I am ever convicted of a crime, I hope the judge will let me negotiate my own penalty just like Microsoft is now being allowed to.

 

2. I would like to suggest a class action suit -- everyone who ever used Microsoft's defective products (including all versions of Windows dating back to version 1.0) vs. Microsoft. Let's sue for pain, sufffering, lost productivity, mental distress, and inability to achieve a boner.

 

3. Make it a felony to manufacture and sell a microcomputer operating system that takes longer than 60 seconds to boot.

 

4. All costs and losses incurred related to computer viruses should be directly chargable to Microsoft -- yes it is their fault.

5. Make it a law that every time your PC crashes Microsoft owes you $20.00.

6. For destroying innovation in the microcomputer software industry, Bill Gates should be sentenced to the blue screen of death.

7. Could we please have a moment of silence for Stacker, Ashton-Tate, Novell, Banyan Vines, LanTastic, Xerox, Wordstar, Borland, Netscape, RealPlayer, Adobe, Apple, Linux, and all the other true innovators in the industry unfairly screwed and too often killed by Microsoft's illegal tactics.

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

ready,

 

Thanks for putting substance to my headline ( especially #7) -- I didn't have the patience. :-)

[+ deej]

Gosh, what a chip on the shoulder you've got! How do you ever get out of bed in the morning and face the world through all that bitterness?

 

>2. I would like to

>suggest a class action suit

>-- everyone who ever used

>Microsoft's defective products (including all

>versions of Windows dating back

>to version 1.0) vs. Microsoft.

> Let's sue for pain,

>sufffering, lost productivity, mental distress,

>and inability to achieve a

>boner.

 

You do have an alternative. You could just stop using the products and use something like the Mac which *never* crashes (LOL).

 

I have news for you, sir. There are very few certainties in life. We have death, taxes, and software will have bugs.

 

>4. All costs and losses

>incurred related to computer viruses

>should be directly chargable to

>Microsoft -- yes it is

>their fault.

 

Bullshit. Viruses (and cranckpots) pre-date even Microsoft.

 

> 7. Could we please

>have a moment of silence

>for Stacker, Ashton-Tate, Novell, Banyan

>Vines, LanTastic, Xerox, Wordstar, Borland,

>Netscape, RealPlayer, Adobe, Apple, Linux,

>and all the other true

>innovators in the industry unfairly

>screwed and too often killed

>by Microsoft's illegal tactics.

 

Interesting list of companies. Last I looked, most were still going strong.

 

Ashton-Tate killed itself when it did such a horrid job with dBase IV. Borland then bought A-T, in a corporate move that was very close to suicide. Borland has, however, recovered and is doing fine after regurgitating dBase and going through two name changes.

 

Haven't heard anything about LanTastic in years, but they always were "also ran". Real, Adobe, Apple, Linux (not a company by the way), Netscape, Novell, and most certainly Xerox are all still in business and by all indications healthy.

 

Lessee. Apple stole its interface from research done at Xerox's PARC. (As did anyone who uses a mouse.) Netscape's flagship product was based on public domain (and public funded) work done at NCSA at the University of Illinois. Ashton-Tate actually lost their copyright on dBase (their flagship product) at one point because it was deemed a derivative work (which it was).

 

And you're holding these companies up as someone Microsoft has screwed? They've done their own share of the screwing, honey. Mostly to themselves.

[Guest Merlin]

Much of what Microsoft is accused of has been beneficial to the public to a large extent. If its opponents had their way, purchaser would have to buy, separately, a processing system, a web browser, a word processor, etc. and pay separately for them. The biggest accusation against MS is that it packages all of them into its processing system--with a chilling effect on competition. People will be reluctant to make the effort to develop new softwares if they know MS will simply offer a similar product with its processing system. But the public would probably rather have it included in the Processing system, and it is not fair to portray MS for competing with a superior product.

The public benefits form the existence of a dominant processing system. The result is that all software is designed to be compatible with it. If there were a number of equal systems, consumers would be limited to software compatible with their particular system. There was a time not too many years ago when some software would simply not be available to some consumers because they had the wrong system. There was a time when buyers of video tapes had to be sure it was VCR or Beta to conform to their machine, and it seemed like the best tapes always fit the other machine. When VCR won out that problem ceased and videos became a bigger business.

[BuckyXTC]

Hey deej:

 

While I luv you and think you're the cat's meow here...I think I probably lean toward Ready182 and Tampa Yankee on this one. I'm a Mac user since the original little 128K machine. I'm one of those "Mac" true believers but willing to hear and listen to legitimate issues raised from both sides of the Mac vs PC debate, which seems to go on ad infinitum.

 

My particular distaste for Microsoft hss been amply fed by issues of poor pruduct support for software Microsoft developed for the Mac which I purchased and used once upon a time, long, long ago in a galaxy far away.......

 

To their credit, I am also grateful that Microsoft developed some of the first decent software for the Mac that helped that platform get off the ground. The first version of Word for Mac was definitely superior to Apple's MacWrite. Sadly, it wasn't long before subsequent upgrades for Word for Mac became less Mac-ish and more Windowish....something I didn't care for. And the upgrades were grossly overpriced, especially for a word processor upgrade. I wouldn't have batted an eyelash at a $200 upgrade fee for some of the high-end graphics programs I use.....but, as I remember, Microsoft wanted something in that range for a Word for Mac upgrade, and it simply wasn't worth it.

BuckyXTC

[+ deej]

>To their credit, I am also

>grateful that Microsoft developed some

>of the first decent software

>for the Mac that helped

>that platform get off the

>ground. The first version

>of Word for Mac was

>definitely superior to Apple's MacWrite.

> Sadly, it wasn't long

>before subsequent upgrades for Word

>for Mac became less Mac-ish

>and more Windowish....something I didn't

>care for. And the

>upgrades were grossly overpriced,

 

I'll agree with you on MS's Mac products. Of course, since Windows has been my primary platform I appreciate the common look and feel. (I *did* spend several years programming on the Mac.)

 

The reason their Mac products look Windows-ish is simple economics. There's not enough of a Mac market any more to justify a complete rewrite of Word (or Excel, or...) to remove its reliance on Windows resources. It was easier and cheaper to duplicate the Windows resources on the Mac. ;-)

 

And, of course, Microsoft isn't overly interested in supporting a competing platform. Should that platform ever skyrocket in popularity, you bet they'll be there and looking Mac-ish. Several years ago, I heard they had a huge team secretly working on Office for Java in case Java really got hot. But until there's major money in it, their investment will be minimal.

 

It's bu$ine$$.

[Guest cmp]

There is a better board than this one for the discussion on the zillion ways in which Microsoft sucks:

 

http://www.sucks500.com/cgi-bin/forumdisplay.cgi?action=topics&forum=Microsoft+Sucks&number=307&DaysPrune=1000&SUBMIT=Go

[+ deej]

That's a little bit of a simplification.

 

The BIG charge against Microsoft, and I agree they should be punished for it, is unfair trade practices. They used their position as the dominant OS vendor to force choices on vendors and therefore consumers. That is wrong. Somehow, public perception made the case out to be all about bundling IE with Windows. That wasn't the core of the case.

 

I personally know a salesman who lost a HUGE government sale of laptops. The spec called for having Netscape installed as the default browser. The Microsoft attorneys popped in at the last moment and said "according to your Windows license agreement, that's an extra $5 per unit". Socking consumers an extra $5 per unit for a free download is manipulating the marketplace.

 

The thing that irks me about the case is that NOBODY on the government side (lawyers, judges, etc.) has any idea how computers work or how software is made. IE is nothing but a different "face" on Windows Explorer which has been around forever. (Don't believe me? Open up Windows Explorer and type http://www.male4malescorts.com in the address bar.)

 

All they did was leverage a navigation engine they'd already written and put a new face on it so it would "look" like what people expect a browser to look like. When you open "My Computer" it's the same engine as well, with a different face. They shouldn't be legislated into not using technology they've already developed.

 

They SHOULD be held accountable for unfairly manipulating the marketplace.

[ready182]

re: "Bullshit. Viruses (and cranckpots) pre-date even Microsoft."

 

Ok - I'm interested. Prove your comment that viruses pre-date even Microsoft. We all know crankpots do.

 

Forewarned that I will hold you to the true definition of a virus, versus trojan horses or worms, which everyone knows are not the same.

 

Or, if you are in the mood to learn something "honey" <by the way I find your use of the word unnecessarily arrogant and condescending>, ask me nice and maybe I'll teach you why viruses are Microsoft's fault.

[ready182]

"The thing that irks me about the case is that NOBODY on the government side (lawyers, judges, etc.) has any idea how computers work or how software is made. IE is nothing but a different "face" on Windows Explorer which has been around forever. (Don't believe me? Open up Windows Explorer and type http://www.male4malescorts.com in the address bar.)

 

All they did was leverage a navigation engine they'd already written and put a new face on it so it would "look" like what people expect a browser to look like. When you open "My Computer" it's the same engine as well, with a different face. They shouldn't be legislated into not using technology they've already developed.

"

 

Yeah right -- and that all happened the day after Al Gore Invented the Internet. You get your paychecks from Redmond?

[+ deej]

>Yeah right -- and that all

>happened the day after Al

>Gore Invented the Internet.

> You get your paychecks

>from Redmond?

 

For starters, it's none of your fucking business where I get my paychecks from. But I said in my first post on this thread that I've made a lot of money off Microsoft technology over the last 15 years.

 

In fact I *have* been paid by Microsoft from time to time as an independent contractor, trainer, and courseware author. Yes, I've trained Microsoft personnel on their own technology.

 

I've had close access to their product development teams during these times. I know what's under the hood in many cases better than they do, and clearly better than you do.

 

You can joke about Al Gore inventing the internet all you want, but it was the Senator from Tennessee (Gore) who was primary sponsor of the bill that funded much of what we know today as the internet. He has a bit of a legitimate claim there. Where's yours?

 

If you want to talk about BUSINESS PRACTICES and appropriate penalties, I'm all for it. If you just want to toss around sour grapes about products, talk to the hand.

[Guest Merlin]

Not everything you and I might think is unfair is a violation of the antitrust laws. They are designed to protect competition, not competitors.

[N.N.]

>I have news for you, sir.

>There are very few certainties

>in life. We have death,

>taxes, and software will have

>bugs.

 

Yes, but if you encounter a bug in a Micros--t product,

you're fucked. You can file a bug report (which they

often won't even acknowledge that they received), and

wait for them to fix it some day (maybe).

 

Open source lets you fix or enhance a piece of software

yourself. A Micros--t product, on the other hand, is like

a car with the hood welded shut; forget about doing

anything to it.

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

Microsoft built some very good applications software in the early days and they were first on the block with an operating system that supported the range of capabilities (well almost) on the 808x Intel processors. This provided ‘the base’ for the hundreds (to become thousands) of game software applications that flooded the market. Then IBM tried to strong-arm their in with their Big Blue label and collapsed of their own weight. In response to the IBM onslaught MS GAVE their DOS away by allowing free installation on new computer purchases. What better way to succeed than the ancient Trojan Horse. Meanwhile Apple creates the better mousetrap thanks to theft of technology from Xerox and others. But Apple puts its nose in the air (with pricing and so does Motorola) and waits for the mountain to come to Mohammed… and waits and waits. In the mean time Mr. Gates, not being a dolt, recognizes that Apple/Mac OS is the wave of the future and sets out to dress DOS in a rip-off Mac OS dress. The dress is built of cast iron, not titanium or even aluminum, and DOS can barely carry the load. TO make a case that attempted to mask the rip-off MS made some design decisions that were definitely inferior to the MAC OS design. The rest is history; the legacy has to be lived with by Microsoft even though they eventually replaced the DOS foundation. The applications software base just keeps growing, as does MS. They will own the world eventually – they already own big chunk of it now (value wise anyway). This MS/MAC Scenario is a rerun, in some ways, of the Betamax – VHS war (another case where superior technology lost to superior marketing) with the same outcome but much more perilous to consumers.

 

The analogy – you live on an Island and MS owns the only grocery store and also the shipping rights to that Island. You pay for food whatever price they decide to set and you get whatever they decide to stock – albeit today’s produce or that from last week. It won’t take long to adjust the shipping arrivals to account for product depletion rates rather than product freshness. But with Microsoft they have more leverage – every upgrade brings with it a massive infusion of cash so they are in a position to create their own demand – nice if you can do it – which you can if there are no competitors. And their upgrades are the primary vehicle for fixing bugs in the previous release – which costs you an upgrade fee. You’d think that upgrades should be fixed for no charge since you thought you were buying a working application (well, no one is this naïve anymore). When is the last time that MS provided free bug fixes that did not involve a security or virus issue.

 

Look, Microsoft and AOL didn’t get to where they are for no reason. They do some things very well; those that they don’t do well they do piss-poorly IMHO. While the initial MS software was high quality, as their share of the market increased they tried to become all things to everyone. Packing more and more on to a solid framework until it started to crack under the stress (big RAM, slow performance, and increased bugs). They respond slowly to those issues as PR demands not because of customer service, unless you are a very very BIG customer, maybe. MS admits this by their policy IMHO – they, for the most part refuse to offer tech support for Windows rather referring you to your hardware vendor. Because their product is so widely distributed and there are always several know bugs and their documentation is not always adequate for that that works – can you imagine the size of the tech support staff they would need to respond to calls – imagine the two WTC towers in Redmond.

 

I have said my piece and more here… so I leave with one final comment. Would any of this be different is Apple was in the driver’s seat? NO, with the possible exception of a little better quality… maybe and that prospect is dubious if they became the 500 pound gorilla. The real problem is having one supplier with disproportionate control of the market.

[+ deej]

RE: re: "Bullshit. Viruses (and cranckpots) pre-date even Microsoft."

 

>Ok - I'm interested. Prove

>your comment that viruses pre-date

>even Microsoft. We all

>know crankpots do.

 

http://www.bocklabs.wisc.edu/~janda/sladehis.html