Tweet
Yes, Chuck, I did mean monopoly, and I specified it as the desktop operating system. You list the AS/400 as one of the reasons Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly on the desktop. That's actually funny. If you spent any time in Linux circles, you would know that even Linux enthusiasts are having some current discussion on the viability of Linux on the desktop, and that's for the future. Nobody with any knowledge of the market gives Linux more than a percent or so of desktop market share. Unix XWindows is a desktop, and of course used widely to use Unix apps, but these apps don't even attempt to compete with Windows apps. Apple is and has always been the only competitor to Windows. What does it have? About 10% or so of the market? And Microsoft bought an interest in Apple to control even that bit of potential, plus every major Mac business app is from Microsoft. Oh that would make Microsoft a monopoly, wouldn't it? And as in most of your other statements about Microsoft, you are incorrect in your statements about the DOJ case. The DOJ sought relief from Microsoft based on monopolistic practices, and the judge granted relief in the form of an order to have the company divided up to break the monopoly, which is pending appeal. I didn't support that approach, and of course it won't work and will be reversed on appeal anyway, but nevertheless your statement is incorrect. Improving on what exists is good, but how Microsoft did it is not. A close reading of the history of Microsoft business dealings will show how they obtained their monopoly, mostly in screwing software inventors by copying the software and claiming they had been working on the concept in secret long before that. And of course if you had been in the PC software development industry that would have helped your insight. The end result, however, is that the legions of innovative PC software development companies are now gone, forced out of business by hook or by crook, and really just as much hook as crook... Ralph
-
-
Pepsi/Coke
Actually, the Justice Department did claim that MS was a monopoly. I think those were the actual words used. The monopolistic practice concerned hardware manufacturers ability to install anything on their PCs prior to sale. It was determined that MS used unfair business practices to force hardware manufacturers to use MS and MS only. This forced Digital Research (Does anyone remember DR-DOS) and other companies out of business. Even a giant like IBM was unable to compete with OS/2! Dave -
Pepsi/Coke
Yikes, Ralph, sounds like you were personally wronged.While you try to claim that MS is a monopoly, claiming it doesn't make it so. I spent a semester in graduateschool studying such business practices while working toward an MBA. We specifically studied Microsoftin the class. During that exercise it became clear that Microsoft is not a monopoly in either operating systems or desktop operating systems. In fact, it's not even part of a duopoly. Monopolies act very different from non-monopolies. While Microsoft may use predatory practices, they do NOT use monopolistic practices. If they did Win 98 would cost 10 times more than it currently does.My cable company used to be a monopoly, but GTE spent a fortune laying cable in our town and now it's not a monopoly. In fact, the original cable company, TCI (now Adelphia), raised rates everywhere in the country except in our town. Imagine that. So, as you can see, as long as there is a choice and even if it's only a duopoly, it's a good thing.We all have choices when it comes to desktop operating systems. At the last company that I worked for, of the 40 developers that worked there about 30 of them used Linux. The advancement of Windows is progressing at a furious pace. Why? Because MS is scared of Linux, and the new OS X from Apple. That's certainly a sign that a monopoly doesn't exist. The two tell tale signs of a monopoly are: 1) Stagnation in the marketplace and 2) alarming escalation of prices for no apparent reason. Neither exists in the desktop operating system. In fact, compare the desktop world to 15 years ago and you can see this is the most competitive time we've ever lived in.I do agree with you that keeping Microsoft from becoming a monopoly would be a good thing. However, our government isn't granted that ability. The anti-trust laws only allow them to end or control monopolies. They can't disrupt a business because it "might" become a monopoly.What you have describe about MS adding features from competitors has nothing to do with monopolies. It has to do with predator practices.You're right, I've never been an ISV and will choose to never be an ISV. Acompany that tries to get it's money by working in a niche market and by exploiting a weakness of the big players is taking the HUGE risk that the big company will continue to ignore that weakness. Just look at Covad and Northpoint. They saw the weakness of the Bell companies and their inability to install DSL. So, they jumped into that market in a big way. Well, Northpoint is dead and Covad is in intensive care. Anyone standing on the outside could see that the local Bells would get their flywheel going and swat down these niche players.In conclusion, a monopoly is simply defined as a company that has no competition. No matter how you try to twist the words, Microsoft is NOT a monopoly. It's clear that you're trying to vent, but you can't change the facts.chuckOpinions expressed are not necessarily those of my employer."Ralph Daugherty" <Ralph_Daugherty@forums.midrangecomputing.com> wrote in message news:1e5790d1.0@WebX.WawyahGHajS...Yes, Chuck, I did mean monopoly, and I specified it as the desktop operating system. You list the AS/400 as one of the reasons Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly on the desktop. That's actually funny. If you spent any time in Linux circles, you would know that even Linux enthusiasts are having some current discussion on the viability of Linux on the desktop, and that's for the future. Nobody with any knowledge of the market gives Linux more than a percent or so of desktop market share. Unix XWindows is a desktop, and of course used widely to use Unix apps, but these apps don't even attempt to compete with Windows apps. Apple is and has always been the only competitor to Windows. What does it have? About 10% or so of the market? And Microsoft bought an interest in Apple to control even that bit of potential, plus every major Mac business app is from Microsoft. Oh that would make Microsoft a monopoly, wouldn't it? And as in most of your other statements about Microsoft, you are incorrect in your statements about the DOJ case. The DOJ sought relief from Microsoft based on monopolistic practices, and the judge granted relief in the form of an order to have the company divided up to break the monopoly, which is pending appeal. I didn't support that approach, and of course it won't work and will be reversed on appeal anyway, but nevertheless your statement is incorrect. Improving on what exists is good, but how Microsoft did it is not. A close reading of the history of Microsoft business dealings will show how they obtained their monopoly, mostly in screwing software inventors by copying the software and claiming they had been working on the concept in secret long before that. And of course if you had been in the PC software development industry that would have helped your insight. The end result, however, is that the legions of innovative PC software development companies are now gone, forced out of business by hook or by crook, and really just as much hook as crook... RalphComment
-
Pepsi/Coke
Chuck, as I pointed out in my past post, there is serious stagnation in software development for the desktop from all but M$. Churning through iterations of the OS and Office while changing formats and withdrawing previous versions to ensure incompatability and require upgrades is not what I would call innovation. The price of all software as dropped dramatically along with hardware prices except for M$ products, where every iteration of Windows and Office costs the same year after year. Well, the world is on to that game and M$ has flamed out. They're in a spiraling churn now to move the market with some version of Windows that will catch on. Out of desperation, they've just turned to perpetual annual fees or, as an alternative, rebuy the software from scratch (original price, not an upgrade) anytime after three years. That little maneuver sunk their ship. You're right. M$ is not a monopoly. KDE and StarOffice will gel when they get their component models synched, Borland has unleashed Kylix, which is the equivalent of nuking Redmond. This despite M$ pulling Corel out of developing their Office products for Linux and stealing away the entire Delphi team in an attempt to eliminate Borland. M$ got C# out of those guys (and a Delphi'd version of VB which has the PC weinies in an uproar) and Borland still got out Delphi for Linux, that is, Kylix. The apps will start flowing, Samba works better than NT, all is open source and free, the world is good and M$ is toast. RalphComment
-
Pepsi/Coke
Ralph,>>Out of desperation, they've just turned to perpetual annual fees or, as an alternative, rebuy the>>software from scratch (original price, not an upgrade) anytime after three years.Of course, they're late to this game. IBM perfected this years ago. OS/400 is a prime example. And, almost every software vendor I use on the AS/400 charges recurring maintenance. Many software packages on the AS/400 require an upgrade feeif you upgrade your hardware. Go figure that one. One package, TAATOOLS requires a fee if you upgrade OS/400.Thehottest model for software is the ASP model. It's actually a throwback to the old service bureau days. My last employer, iFleet, was developing software to run entirely in the ASP model. The end user doesn't own the software, they rent access to it and pay a monthly fee.So, whatMS is doing isn't something new, or even out of the ordinary. It's just different than their install base is used to. It's not something they invented and not something particularly new, but because it's from Microsoft it's scrutinized to the nth degree. And, because it's from Microsoft it's regarded as evil right out of the chute. Certainly nobodyaccused iFleet as being evil for using the ASP model.>>That little maneuver sunk their ship. You're right. M$ is not a monopoly. KDE and StarOffice>>will gel when they get their component models synched, Borland has unleashed Kylix, which>>is the equivalentThe business community doesn't agree with that statement. The "free" software market is only a few steps behind the dotcom market. While many fools tried to convince us that the dotcom world was the "new" market economy, we now realize that nothing has changed: you must make a profit to survive. The "free"Linux world will soon come crashing in the same way. Their business model simply doesn't work. The IBMs of the world will eventually control the Linux marketplace.chuckOpinions expressed are not necessarily those of my employer.Comment
-
Pepsi/Coke
Chuck Ackerman wrote: During that exercise it became clear that Microsoft is not a monopoly in either operating systems or desktop operating systems There are concerns with academic freedom. What you decide in your class, has slightly less clout than decisions on the bench. You and your professor say MS is not a monopoly while the courts and the justice department say that MS is a monopoly. O.K., I thought it over, and until a higher court says otherwise, MS is a monopoly. DaveComment
-
Pepsi/Coke
The "free" Linux world will soon come crashing in the same way.
Don't you mean the "free Linux world vendors"? I hope so, because I don't think we'll ever see the "free" software movement die. Redhat, Mandrake, SUSE, etc. may not make a killing selling their "services" and in the end most of these companies may expire, but, Linux will still be "free" and OPEN. I guess IBM's plans to dump a BILLION dollars into Linux and the "free" world it resides in was all for naught..... Your prediction seems kinda funny really, since IBM seems to be admitting that selling "services" (like the Linux distributors) is where the future money is going to be made. But, you may be right that they'll all get swallowed up by Big Blue.... TerryComment
-
Pepsi/Coke
David,Yes, I was speaking in academic terms. But, of course, we programmer types use logic and see things in black and white.The courts deal with personalities and judges and juries who see things through prejudiced eyes. (Note, I'm not using prejudice in a negative term, just that humans use prior experiences, not necessarily logic, to color their decision making.) Given the climate in our judicial system, what is a monopoly one day is not a monopoly another day. It just depends on the luck of the draw of what judge you get.BTW, nothing has been decided yet. And, probably, like the IBM monopoly case that Regan had dismissed, nothing will ever come of it. Simply put, though, Microsoft does not have a monopoly in operating systems.chuckOpinions expressed are not necessarily those of my employer."David Abramowitz" <David_Abramowitz@forums.midrangecomputing.com> wrote in message news:1e5790d1.5@WebX.WawyahGHajS...Chuck Ackerman wrote: During that exercise it became clear that Microsoft is not a monopoly in either operating systems or desktop operating systems There are concerns with academic freedom. What you decide in your class, has slightly less clout than decisions on the bench. You and your professor say MS is not a monopoly while the courts and the justice department say that MS is a monopoly. O.K., I thought it over, and until a higher court says otherwise, MS is a monopoly. DaveComment
-
Pepsi/Coke
The annual maintenance fees are a non-issue and a red herring, Chuck. M$ charges in addition for the same level of professional support obtained from AS/400 software vendors. I agree the licensing model is similar, just new to the PC world. I also agree that everyone is free to decide how they will deal with it, and as you compared to AS/400, we will see large numbers (currently 65%) freeze on Office 95/97 and stay on DOS based Windows (pre-Windows XP) as large numbers of S/36 people did. The kicker has always been that as PC's were replaced, new versions of Windows, or hardware that required new versions of Windows, or software that required new versions of Windows, caused en masse upgrades. We are at a convergence point in history with M$ imposing increasingly constrained limitations and an open OS sweeping into the public eye with an open M$ format compatible Office replacement, StarOffice, readying a new, componentized release. What perfect timing. M$ will lose two thirds of their new sales but can't resort to their usual dirty tricks bag, that is, break the code or break the company. As a flood of Windows apps reaches Linux with Kylix, the backbone of M$'s monopoly is finally broken, all without any intercession on the government's part. My theory on free software is that it is software that can't sell, not that it is inferior, but it can't sell. The reason? It can't compete with a monopoly at any price. So if you have it and you can't sell it, you give it away to break the hold over the market. The interesting thing is that if the formats are different from the monopoly, you can't even give the software away. But both StarOffice and WordPerfect Office read/write M$ formats now. The convergence will be deafening.... the sound of an empire imploding. RalphComment
-
Pepsi/Coke
Yes, you're right, most of the "free Linux" vendors will get killed off. The money is in creating "wrappers" around Linux that can make a profit. Things like installers, etc. I think the Jury will be out on that market for a while. Mostpurchasers will come to grips that "free" Linux costs plenty. Especially in administrative costs.The market that will thrive, IMO, is the Linux appliance. Boxes that the consumer never modifies or never needs to touch Linux. That kind of "black box" market will be big. Products like web cache devices, web traffic distribution, set top boxes, etc.chuckOpinions expressed are not necessarily those of my employer."Terry Winchester" <Terry_Winchester@forums.midrangecomputing.com> wrote in message news:1e5790d1.6@WebX.WawyahGHajS...> The "free" Linux world will soon come crashing in the same way. Don't you mean the "free Linux world vendors"? I hope so, because I don't think we'll ever see the "free" software movement die. Redhat, Mandrake, SUSE, etc. may not make a killing selling their "services" and in the end most of these companies may expire, but, Linux will still be "free" and OPEN. I guess IBM's plans to dump a BILLION dollars into Linux and the "free" world it resides in was all for naught..... Your prediction seems kinda funny really, since IBM seems to be admitting that selling "services" (like the Linux distributors) is where the future money is going to be made. But, you may be right that they'll all get swallowed up by Big Blue.... Terry
Comment
-
Pepsi/Coke
Ralph,>>As a flood of Windows apps reaches Linux with Kylix, the backbone of M$'s monopoly>>is finally broken, all without any intercession on the government's part.Of course, if MS had a monopoly, this would be, by definition, impossible. One of the other components that defines a monopoly is that the barriers presented by the monopolist are too great for any startups to enter the market. Thanks for proving my point. ;-)I won't argue that Microsoft has huge market share and often misuse their market share, eventually to their demise. But, again by definition, even owning 100% market share doesn't make the owner a monopolist. Having barriers to prevent others from entering the market must also be present for a monopoly to exist. Clearly, as you have pointed out, they don't have that. In fact, not being a monopoly and acting like they are may be what topples MS as the market leader.You need only change the company name from MS to IBM and the decade from now to the '60s and you can probably see how the script will be played out. It's eerily similar.chuckOpinions expressed are not necessarily those of my employer.Comment
-
Pepsi/Coke
Ralph, Of course you weren't implying that Microsoft is a monopoly, were you? By any definition of the term monopoly, Microsoft doesn't even come close. If you consider the user base of Windows, Linux, Unix, OS/400, mainframe and Mac, the definition of monopoly fails. Now, consider Southern California Edison. THAT'S a monopoly! In fact, the justice dept didn't even travel that route. They only went after unfair business practices. chuck Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of my employer. "Ralph Daugherty"Comment
-
Pepsi/Coke
and lots of it...Comment
Comment