backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 83 comment(s) - last by matriarch wolf.. on Feb 27 at 3:12 PM
The Feds tell Microsoft they will be watching them

Despite the circus-like atmosphere punctuated with laugh-inducing testimony, United States v. Microsoft, which went to trial in 1998, remains one of the landmark federal court decisions of the 90's.  It paved the way for other government bodies worldwide, such as the European Union, to successfully pursue antitrust cases against Microsoft and other electronics giants like Intel.

Microsoft and the government reached a settlement in which Microsoft agreed to grant third-party developers access to its application-programming-interface and additionally give a court appointed panel of three people full access to it's systems, records, and source code for five years in order to ensure compliance.

The oversight was supposed to expire November 12, 2007, but the court was not entirely satisfied with Microsoft's progress, so it decided to meet again to evaluate a possible extension to oversight if Microsoft was found not to be fully complying.

The decision reached by the federal court, presided by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, was that Microsoft, while making significant steps to comply, seriously fell short of compliance in releasing information on its protocols to its competitors.

The result is that Microsoft will have to endure two more years of monitoring from federal agents (expiring November 12, 2009) assuming the company behaves.  Judge Kollar-Kotelly said she made the final decision based on "the extreme and unforeseen delay in the availability of complete, accurate, and useable technical documentation relating to the communications protocols that Microsoft is required to make available to licensees under Section III.E of the Final Judgments."

Seven states -- California, Connecticut, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota and Massachusetts, and the District of Columbia -- pushed hard to extend the oversight five more years, claiming Microsoft still operates like a monopoly.

The extension stems from the fact that section III.E of the final 2002 judgment required Microsoft to release quality technical documentation on its interfaces and protocols.  This documentation was expected to be released by February 2003.  But 2003 came and went with no signs of any significant effort to produce documentation.

Judge Kollar-Kotelly explains, "More than five years later, the technical documentation is still not available to licensees in a complete, useable, and certifiably accurate form, despite the fact that III.E was intended to be the ‘most forward-looking provision’ in the Court’s remedy."

Though acknowledging that this documentation would be time intensive to produce, she blasted Microsoft, saying it was fully culpable for "this inexcusable delay ... Practically speaking, Microsoft has never complied with § III.E" she concluded.

She did note signs of progress towards producing the required documentation, but said they were too little, too late, and thus was compelled to renew the oversight.  She reminded observers not to view the extended oversight as sanctions, but rather, "a means to allow the respective provisions of the Final Judgments the opportunity to operate together towards maximizing Section III.E’s pro-competitive potential."

Microsoft's Brad Smith, its senior vice president and general counsel, tried to put a cheery face on the glum news for his company stating that Microsoft was "gratified that the court recognized our extensive efforts to work cooperatively with the large number of government agencies involved. We built Windows Vista in compliance with these rules, and we will continue to adhere to the decree’s requirements," he stated.

Antitrust litigation, including a $180 million settlement with Iowa, continues to plague Microsoft.  Still, Microsoft shows little signs of slowing down, continuing to expand its presence in the video game industry with the Xbox 360, and the portable music industry with its Zune player line.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Typical Microsoft.
By TerranMagistrate on 1/31/2008 12:58:21 PM , Rating: 2
Five years should be more than sufficient to release the requested information to third party developers.

Perhaps for the benefit of consumers and everyone in general Micrsoft should have gone the way of Standard Oil by now.




RE: Typical Microsoft.
By TomZ on 1/31/2008 1:10:56 PM , Rating: 4
I challenge you to tell me one company or open source project that has better documentation of its APIs, protocols, and file formats than Microsoft. Go ahead...

And not to mention the breadth of software that Microsoft offers...

I just laugh when anti-trust regulators and zealots like yourself try to hold Microsoft to some totally unrealistic level of documentation perfection where you want every bit of software fully documented inside and out, when the reality is that Microsoft is far and ahead of everyone else in that area already.

If I am a third-party trying to develop a highly integrated product that goes beyond the public APIs and other documentation that Microsoft provides, then I would plan to do it the old-fashioned way...by reverse engineering and doing "real work." The problem these days is that these companies want everything handed to them on a silver platter without having to invest in actual R&D - they want Microsoft to do their work for them.


RE: Typical Microsoft.
By TerranMagistrate on 1/31/08, Rating: 0
RE: Typical Microsoft.
By FITCamaro on 1/31/2008 3:30:49 PM , Rating: 2
Software Market in general.

IBM

Microsoft's documentation of its APIs is outstanding. No maybe not at the extreme low level of the OS, but things like that shouldn't have to be made publicly available for free. Charging a license fee for that kind of info is standard practice in the software industry. But because Microsoft is so huge they should be treated differently? No.

And Microsoft isn't a super hero so knock of the Spiderman quotes.


RE: Typical Microsoft.
By mars777 on 2/1/2008 5:21:00 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
But because Microsoft is so huge they should be treated differently? No.


Ehm, yes. Thats because anti trust laws exist.


RE: Typical Microsoft.
By ElFenix on 2/1/2008 2:30:32 PM , Rating: 2
this is about providing documentation to the licensees. they've paid for the license. MS isn't providing them the documentation that they agreed to provide.


RE: Typical Microsoft.
By Jack Ripoff on 1/31/2008 1:33:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I challenge you to tell me one company or open source project that has better documentation of its APIs, protocols, and file formats than Microsoft. Go ahead...

They don't have to. Most of them use standard APIs (POSIX, X11), protocols (NFS, FTP), file formats (TeX, SVG), etc.

There are lots of third-party POSIX implementations around (BSD, Cygwin, Linux), but only one struggling third-party Win32 implementation (Wine). There are thousands of FTP implementations, but only one struggling SMB/CIFS implementation (Samba). There are plenty of SVG implementations, but only a handful of WMF implementations (Batik). If Microsoft's stuff were as well documented as you say they are, things wouldn't be this way. Reality speaks for itself: the facts clearly aren't on your side.


RE: Typical Microsoft.
By TomZ on 1/31/2008 1:47:59 PM , Rating: 1
On the other hand, there could also be fewer MS-compatible implementations because there is simply no market need for such products. For example, what is the practical value to investing R&D in a Win32-clone/compatibility layer like Wine when Windows is so readily available and so cheap?

And I would also point out to you that so-called "standard APIs" are rarely if ever a "true standard" in the sense that they are perfectly interoperable. In reality, most of the standards documentation sucks because they omit key details, with implementers having to reverse-engineer existing implementations. So how is this any different than with Microsoft? At least Microsoft has better documentation, compared with its peers.

I work with this kind of stuff all day long, so it's pretty easy for me to see beyond the politics and rhetoric. The reality is that coding against Microsoft systems is far easier than any other platform, period.


RE: Typical Microsoft.
By eye smite on 1/31/08, Rating: 0
RE: Typical Microsoft.
By EntreHoras on 1/31/2008 3:49:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I wish they would just break up Microsoft and force Gates to sell off divisions of it like they did with the Bell company on telephones all those decades ago.


Yeah... The New AT&T anyone? Bigger, Badder, Meaner.


RE: Typical Microsoft.
By Ringold on 1/31/2008 4:02:45 PM , Rating: 3
That could make sense.. if Gates were running it. Which he isn't, nor has he been for a little while.


RE: Typical Microsoft.
By eye smite on 1/31/08, Rating: 0
RE: Typical Microsoft.
By TomZ on 1/31/08, Rating: 0
RE: Typical Microsoft.
By matriarch wolf on 2/27/2008 3:12:29 PM , Rating: 2
It's obvious he does know what he's talking about.


RE: Typical Microsoft.
By trisct on 2/1/2008 10:01:01 AM , Rating: 2
Coding to Microsoft is easier, if you are running under Microsoft OS and tools. This isn't because their API is well documented, its because the tools do a good job of hiding the fact that it isn't. The API documentation should be just as useful if you aren't running under Windows.

Most of Microsoft's API "documentation" is in the form of call headers, which is already in the .dll files, and is extracted by toolkits to put in helpful popups. Not that this is a bad thing, but it isn't a replacement for real API documentation, its more like dangling a toy to distract developers from the fact that the real documentation is missing - Oooh, look at the pretty shiny thing...

You can still get the job done, but it isn't made as straightforward as it ought to be from an OS vendor. They should be dying to tell you how their stuff works, not hiding it behind their skirts. The available docs seldom go into how things work, just provide some examples of how to call them. That's not enough, and is probably what the expert panel is objecting to. You can't treat an entire OS like a trade secret, thats monopolistic operation.


RE: Typical Microsoft.
By TomZ on 2/1/2008 10:14:54 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Most of Microsoft's API "documentation" is in the form of call headers, which is already in the .dll files, and is extracted by toolkits to put in helpful popups

Absolutely incorrect and/or outright lie. Microsoft has incredible documentation on their APIs which goes far beyond what you describe. Maybe you're not familiar with it, but you can browse it online for free:

http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/default.a...

Choose your topic and drill down. There's probably a million pages of documentation there.

In addition to the Microsoft platforms, I've also developed on a number of other platforms for many years, and nobody I'm aware of comes close to the quality and quantity of documentation that Microsoft provides.


RE: Typical Microsoft.
By Jack Ripoff on 2/1/2008 12:06:25 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Microsoft has incredible documentation on their APIs which goes far beyond what you describe.

I wonder why the Wine team is having such a hard time reverse-engineering all those APIs then...


RE: Typical Microsoft.
By TomZ on 2/1/2008 12:23:26 PM , Rating: 2
Probably because the API defines the interface, not the implementation. Remember, that's what API stands for - application programming interface . The Wine devs have to figure out the implementation on their own.

People creating Win32 emulators will always have a hard time because it is a large, deep, API with a long history over a number of OS releases, and a lot of code under it. It's an inherently hard job.


RE: Typical Microsoft.
By Jack Ripoff on 2/1/2008 12:06:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Coding to Microsoft is easier, if you are running under Microsoft OS and tools.

When you code with Microsoft's tools, you code only for Windows. Software written with those tools is very unlikely to be cross-platform.

Writing code for a specific platform is always easier than writing portable code.


RE: Typical Microsoft.
By TomZ on 2/1/2008 12:30:32 PM , Rating: 1
It's true that most users of Microsoft tools choose to target the Microsoft platform, mainly because that is what is required for the job they are trying to get done.

But there is no reason that Microsoft tools cannot be used for cross-platform work. For example, Microsoft's Visual C++ can be used to develop portable C++ applications that be compiled and run on nearly any OS/hardware combination.


RE: Typical Microsoft.
By Etsp on 1/31/2008 1:44:41 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I just laugh when anti-trust regulators and zealots like yourself try to hold Microsoft to some totally unrealistic level of documentation perfection where you want every bit of software fully documented inside and out
I fully believe that this sort of documentation would greatly benefit not only competitors, but Microsoft themselves. Which is why I'm sure that a lot of this documentation already exists...a project as massive as windows vista would most certainly need a great deal of documentation, much more than what this court ruling requires.

I'm not sure why you are so dedicated to siding with Microsoft that it appears that you feel that they can do no wrong, or when they do wrong, that it wasn't as bad as people make it sound. I try to be pretty neutral about things, I am not a Linux fan boy... I can barely even use it...(same with Mac) I do program for my education, and my IDE of choice is Visual Studio 2005.

Please do not try to dismiss what I say based on the opinion that I am 'anti-Microsoft' as this is simply not true. The only software companies I would say I am against are EA Games, and AOL. (Then again, these days who isn't anti-EA and AOL...)


RE: Typical Microsoft.
By TomZ on 1/31/2008 1:56:50 PM , Rating: 3
I see it like this - a business should invest in documentation up and to the point of supporting its internal documentation requirements as well as supporting customers developing applications using the platform.

But it should not be required to invest in additional documentation in order to make it easier for competitors to reduce the platform developer's market share. In other words, a company should not be forced to invest against its own best interests. That would be very unfair. That type of documentation should be developed and paid for by the competitor itself.

This is the reason that I am against the documentation requirements that the EU has imposed upon Microsoft, because I believe the EU is asking Microsoft to produce documentation that will be harmful to itself for the benefit of its competitors. Considering that the requests are all being initiated by Microsoft's main competitors, I don't think my logic is far off.


RE: Typical Microsoft.
By TerranMagistrate on 1/31/2008 2:09:05 PM , Rating: 3
But it should not be required to invest in additional documentation in order to make it easier for competitors to reduce the platform developer's market share. In other words, a company should not be forced to invest against its own best interests. That would be very unfair. That type of documentation should be developed and paid for by the competitor itself.

When a company has the marketshare that Microsoft does, providing such documentation should be an obligation. You speak as if MS is competing neck and neck with its competitors. Could your MS fanboyism make you that delusional?


RE: Typical Microsoft.
By InternetGeek on 1/31/2008 2:21:06 PM , Rating: 3
I agree with him. All MS needs to do is tell developers how to interact with their OS, access the different APIs, and provide a few technical examples.

It seems to me most other companies want bigger access to the inner details just to come up with their own "me-too" stuff. Or just to be able to complain to have MS include some other API that'd do the work for them.

It's not a matter of size. It's a matter of what's fair and what's not. No one asks for the same kind of stuff from Adobe about flash or acrobat, not even Photoshop, which are de facto standards on their own. Same goes for Java for which JVM is not open source at all. Sun did publish how to use, a few APIs (barely documented) and that's it.


RE: Typical Microsoft.
By FITCamaro on 1/31/2008 3:35:22 PM , Rating: 3
Exactly. That's all they should be responsible for. How about something like PDF? I don't see anyone suing Adobe for how poor its interoperability is. I mean Microsoft was all set to integrate PDF support into Office 2007. Then Adobe comes and says they want fees which they don't charge anyone else. When Microsoft says no and makes it a simple download, everyone screams bloody murder that Microsoft doesn't have the support out of the box.


RE: Typical Microsoft.
By TomZ on 1/31/2008 2:22:19 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not aware of any anti-trust laws that enforce the type of principle that you are illustrating, are you?

And I also don't see how this would help competition - I only see that this type of documentation would help competitors , and if you remember, the point of anti-trust regulation is the former, not the latter.


RE: Typical Microsoft.
By Ringold on 1/31/2008 2:49:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
When a company has the marketshare that Microsoft does, providing such documentation should be an obligation.


Market share does not automatically run afoul of good economic policy. Other criteria must be met for a monopoly to have a dangerous lock on a market. The tests that most immediately come to mind:

1) No close equivalents: Failure. Apple and linux widely exist and can be used on the same hardware for the most part.

2) High barriers to entry: Failure. I could go create my own linux distribution and seed a torrent right now.

3) Special resource: Failure. There is no special raw material or technology required to make an OS that only MS controls, and no government mandate that only MS can produce an OS.

The market outcome reflects, instead, two things. Microsoft's products are simply more widely preferred, possibly because Linux is a pain in the ass and Apple restricts itself to its own hardware. The second outcome is probably the economies of scale that occur when a single platform achieves some degree of critical mass.

Microsoft could, speaking of that, qualify as a natural monopoly; a downward sloping average total cost curve. It's massive size allows it to invest in R&D that a constellation of smaller firms couldn't dream of. And again, its users get the economies of scale that exist with a shared platform.

Some of that was more important, however, during the 90s than it is now. Apple manages to have a nice OS with a fraction of the market size. All thats left, really, is the original explination: Microsoft is simply the best competitor in the field. Apple and linux need only to step up their game.

In case that's too hard to comprehend, imagine only two car companies in the world: one releases a Pinto, the other a Camry. The Camry achieves 90% market share, the Pinto 10%. You'd have the superior firm destroyed or regulated in to the ground simply because nobody wants the crap produced by the other firm. That's not attacking monopolies, that's just sour grapes.


RE: Typical Microsoft.
By AlphaVirus on 2/1/2008 10:30:51 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
In case that's too hard to comprehend, imagine only two car companies in the world: one releases a Pinto, the other a Camry. The Camry achieves 90% market share, the Pinto 10%. You'd have the superior firm destroyed or regulated in to the ground simply because nobody wants the crap produced by the other firm. That's not attacking monopolies, that's just sour grapes.


Perfectly stated.

I do not see why people keep rating TomZ down when what he says is true and easy to understand. And Ringold you sumarized the whole argument just right.

Microsoft does not owe them 2 more years and surely not 5 more. If they (the plaintiff) really wanted all of those documents, they could have pressed harder to get it out of Microsoft. And how much do they expect to get from MS anyways, the blueprints on the restroom Bill Gates uses or something.

This is one time I actually hope MS wins against.


RE: Typical Microsoft.
By iFX on 1/31/2008 3:24:39 PM , Rating: 2
BlahBlahBlah.

Any time some zealot talks about taking something from MS they always claim it's for the consumer. Bullshit. It's for money, plain and simple. People are just as greedy as Microsoft and are looking for a handout.


RE: Typical Microsoft.
By twnorows on 2/1/08, Rating: 0
RE: Typical Microsoft.
By beepandbop on 2/3/2008 12:28:46 AM , Rating: 2
If you mean to say that this huge corporation is damaging, you're echoing the same, primitive and paranoid thinking process that dominated the 1890's and even into the 20th century; corporations are harmful and raise prices.

However, studies conducted recently suggested otherwise. Such as the price of kerosene, oil, and other such stuff that actually went down to these corporations. I'm not saying they're perfect, competition is number 1, but corporations are only evil to paranoids and those who are unaware of economics and history.


Hehe...
By Hare on 1/31/2008 12:41:15 PM , Rating: 2
Those European sosialists just want money from Microsoft! Oh, wait?




RE: Hehe...
By TomZ on 1/31/2008 12:45:03 PM , Rating: 1
If you read the article, you will note that it is about extending oversight an additional 2 years, not about extorting hundreds of millions or possibly billions of dollars from Microsoft, as the EU regulators seem intent on doing.


RE: Hehe...
By Strunf on 1/31/2008 1:11:34 PM , Rating: 5
MS is based in the US soo hmm the US already racked more from MS than the EU did...


RE: Hehe...
By TomZ on 1/31/2008 1:25:24 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not sure I see your point. Are you saying Microsoft only pays taxes in the US? That would be completely wrong. Last I checked, Microsoft was a global company operating in all regions of the world, and nearly all countries as well.


RE: Hehe...
By Strunf on 1/31/2008 6:36:54 PM , Rating: 2
Its siege is in the US so yes it only pays the US taxes... why do you think so many companies have their headquarters in Switzerland or other countries with a more favorable tax system while having no real business there...


RE: Hehe...
By TomZ on 1/31/2008 7:17:42 PM , Rating: 1
That's silly - I'm sure that Microsoft pays taxes in all the regions they operate in. For example, payroll taxes, real estate taxes, etc. all would be paid to the local governments. There's no magic exemption just because they are incorporated in the US.


RE: Hehe...
By tjr508 on 2/1/2008 11:00:30 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly,
The only way MS would benefit from moving overseas it that it could do business with embargo countries like Iran, Syria, Cuba, etc.


RE: Hehe...
By Strunf on 2/1/2008 3:38:35 PM , Rating: 2
That's not silly that's the way things are... I can't believe someone actually questions this when so many companies play the "find the lower tax system" game.

Actually what I said isn't entirely correct has MS can pretty much declare its profits in other countries like Ireland where the taxes are lower, so even MS plays the game...


RE: Hehe...
By helios220 on 1/31/2008 1:24:11 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Those European sosialists just want money from Microsoft! Oh, wait?


While it may not be blatantly obvious, it seemed somewhat so to me that he was attempting to be sarcastic. After all of the recent news regarding Microsoft and the EU, everyone is usually quick to jump to their standard positions about the EU being commies or US imperialism or whatever other B.S. people get off on, this seemed more of a commentary on people's rush to jump to conclusions.

But good job on proving him wrong...


RE: Hehe...
By TomZ on 1/31/2008 1:28:17 PM , Rating: 2
You might be right, but I doubt it, because I'm reacting not just to the post that he wrote here today, but also to the history of posts that Hare has written which tend to be pro-EU and anti-MS.


RE: Hehe...
By Hare on 1/31/2008 2:20:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:

While it may not be blatantly obvious, it seemed somewhat so to me that he was attempting to be sarcastic. After all of the recent news regarding Microsoft and the EU, everyone is usually quick to jump to their standard positions about the EU being commies or US imperialism or whatever other B.S. people get off on, this seemed more of a commentary on people's rush to jump to conclusions.

But good job on proving him wrong...

Thank you. I thought it was quite obvious... Of course I was being sarcastic ...

It's not just the EU that keeps a close eye on MS. All other MS articles are filled with comments claiming that the EU is just after MS for no real reason. I quess the US also did this without a reason...

Ps. TomZ, I'm definately not anti-MS nor can I see how I'm pro EU. I don't approve all actions that the EU has taken but I do understand that certain rules only apply to monopolies and that's why MS receives "special attention". It's good for healthy competition.


Other Companies
By arkkane on 1/31/2008 2:17:24 PM , Rating: 2
What is the standard that other companies such as Apple are required to put out these documents to the public?




RE: Other Companies
By Hare on 1/31/2008 2:23:38 PM , Rating: 2
Apple uses quite a lot of open source software so it's basically already out there. Or did you have something in your mind? I can't think of any APIs etc that Apple wouldn't let third parties use (or at least document them well enough to be feasible for use).


RE: Other Companies
By sviola on 1/31/2008 3:06:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Apple uses quite a lot of open source software so it's basically already out there. Or did you have something in your mind? I can't think of any APIs etc that Apple wouldn't let third parties use (or at least document them well enough to be feasible for use).


Really? That's fantastic news...I should just run to Apple homepage and get all data and start developing for the Iphone!!...Oh sorry, can't do...Apple is gonna break Iphone with third party software...sorry, my bad for forgetting...


RE: Other Companies
By Hare on 1/31/2008 3:17:38 PM , Rating: 2
Actually they are releasing an SDK in a few weeks and the possibility of installing third party apps to a device has nothing to do with the topic.


RE: Other Companies
By TomZ on 1/31/2008 3:37:55 PM , Rating: 2
Huh? It's entirely relevant. You asserted and implied that since Apple was based off of a lot of open source, that Apple doesn't have a duty to document their interfaces. But the iPhone (and a number of other Apple products) clearly are not as open as you would imply, as evidenced by Apple's ability to lock out third-party develoment on their platforms.


A monopoly on its last legs
By JosefTor on 1/31/2008 5:53:14 PM , Rating: 2
First off... I know Microsoft is a monopoly. The thing is though... they seem to be coming under pressure from all sides now. I don't see why regulation (in this case) is necessary because I for one feel bad for Microsoft. They are losing their top leadership, Mac OS and Apple overall is increasing market share quickly, Vista is not the success it was hailed to be and the only saving grace is Windows 7 which looks to be vastly different. On the console front they don't have that great of a lineup this year and with the price of the PS3 coming down and with their hot games hitting this year they have pressure there. On the Zune front it seems like the Touch is vastly more sought after as it is more innovative. Microsoft may be a monopoly but... I think they are like Rome before they clasped. I wish Europe would lay off their regulation and give them a break.




RE: A monopoly on its last legs
By just4U on 2/1/2008 8:05:13 AM , Rating: 2
Microsoft isn't a monopoly. They left that behind quite sometime ago. These days they are what every Monopoly would aspire to be ......

.... a neccesity.

There is no real way to accually compete with them. Oh yeah, there's the dreamers out there in the linus world, and shoot Apple has always had delusions of grandeur but still. The only way to take MS down would be to dismantle them and that would probably do way more harm then good.

As to the money grab .. I think it's wrong. From my understanding Microsoft has bent over backwards to be reasonable with the EU but mmm they don't want a inch or two they want several miles. (so to speak)

I also feel bad for them in a way. Im not big on all this OS stuff but from what I understand (from people who appear to know these things better) we needed a univeral type OS to push forward to what we have now in the computing industry, which has progressed leaps and bounds thru the years. MS hasn't stifled this growth but rather, fostered it. Sure they've made a pile a money, Yes they are a dominant force in the industry and when their founder dies, he's giving must of his share back to the world... so I see that as monumental. 500 years from now, Bill Gates will probably be recognized as a "great man".

Hard to believe right now I know, but I think that's how history will see him.


RE: A monopoly on its last legs
By Aloonatic on 2/1/2008 9:35:49 AM , Rating: 2
Microsoft isn't a monopoly, but it has convinced the world that it is a necessity (and no one could ever compete), when in fact it isn't, in the home environment anyway.

There is a place for a much more simple OS as there are a lot of people who simply want to check their eBay account, send photos of their grand kids to every e-mail address they happen to have handy and write the odd letter to the editor of their local newspaper or councillor.

If someone can make a simple device, maybe one build into a TV or like a simple console that can do these things they will be golden.

No need for transparent interfaces or pivot tables for a lot of home users.

Business on the other hand, yeah, MS is a necessity (unless you drink cappuccinos all day and have floppy hair, you know who you are you cool dudes with your graphic designs and such) and since win2000 a lot of peoples lives have been made a lot easier and MS should be applauded for it, not berated at every turn.

Home and professional editions of software are a step in the right direction, IMHO, but it's not quite there yet.

One of the big problems (which I'm not sure how much you can blame MS for this) is how there may be a lot of choice in types of OS, but PC World (shop in the UK which sells PCs to anyone who can;t make their own or wait for DELL to deliver) are only interested in keeping it as simple as possible and will only stock one OS in store (vista home premium) and then the monopoly argument is started up again.

For home users, maybe a machine that can be plugged into a home TV (pref HDTV) with a web browser, a way to connect a key board and mouse, a way of getting pictures off of your camera, and a way to send it to your family and friends via e-mail and type the odd letter and print it out.

If Sony could knock up a half decent word processor and e-mail client they could be laughing with the PS3?

Sorry if I'm rambling, I'm at work, writing when I can :)


RE: A monopoly on its last legs
By AlphaVirus on 2/1/2008 10:51:41 AM , Rating: 2
I can both agree and disagree with you.

I can agree that that would be cool to have an OS that can compete with MS's Windows.
I have to disagree that a OS thats can simply allow people to
quote:
check their eBay account, send photos of their grand kids to every e-mail address they happen to have handy and write the odd letter to the editor of their local newspaper or councillor.

This is taking a step backward. People these days are looking for bigger and better. People want something that is flashy (hence Apple becoming so popular and considered 'hip').

Also lets not forget security, which I am sure MS invests millions in R&D just to keep up. OSX does have a 7% marketshare or whatever but even at that small a marketshare its getting into a lot of trouble. Could you imagine how it would hold up having say 40% of marketshare.

The point is that MS is really the necessity for both home and business users. Unless they give their ownership to some random company, MS is here to stay.


RE: A monopoly on its last legs
By Aloonatic on 2/1/2008 1:53:52 PM , Rating: 2
I know what you mean, bigger and better is good, don;t get me wrong.

But out of my family, perhaps my brother and I would go for the bigger and better option.

My mother, father, grand mother and uncles don't need that and only get confused by change.

So out of the home market (in my family, granted) only about 20% of the users are keen on the latest and greatest, the rest would be happy using one simple OS till the end of time. Flashy isn't an issue for them.

Security is a given and shouldn't be something that is used to black mail users into buying a completely new OS.

Whilst MS is the easiest for home at the moment they're not far from being knocked off of their perch, if only someone was to put some seriouse effort into it.

The sad thing for Apple is that they seem hell bent on being the weird kid outsider that's different for the sake of being different.

If they wanted to they could be more main stream and have a greater market share of home OS but you get the feeling that that is not what they want.


Well
By JakLee on 1/31/2008 12:54:41 PM , Rating: 2
I worked for MS back in late 90's early 00's & when they were most under the gun, they were the BEST company to work for. We had 1 rule, make the customer happy as possible. I was doing gaming/hardware/home software support (oh yeah, game support was AWESOME, I remember calling my mom & telling her she was wrong about telling me I would never get a good job if I played video games all the time!) & Microsofts number 1 professed goal was customer satisfaction. We still had to follow some rules & had stats to keep track of. I know though that nothing was taboo though when it came to fixing stuff. We actually had a guy mail us his machine & our Lab worked on it for 3 days to get it working!!!! However once the pressure moved off in ~ 03-04, we were all laid off & our jobs were sent to india (I can understand from the financial standpoint, we were making $18 hour, they are making $18 a day). The customer satisfaction dipped but the Fed was laying off so MS didn't really mind.




Democracy seems useless
By qwertyz on 2/1/2008 3:25:29 AM , Rating: 1
I see that the actual role of a democratic government is to force people not to buy the best products.




RE: Democracy seems useless
By qwertyz on 2/1/2008 3:40:06 AM , Rating: 1
After all what's the point of selling 2 concurent products which one of them is clearly worse than the other instead of selling a single product which is the best of those 2.

Selling 2 concurent products is like u wish the consumer to chose the worse one.


what's the harm
By EnzoFX on 2/1/2008 10:40:25 AM , Rating: 2
the govt. is supposed to step in when there's harm, but if people have trouble proving the harm, then shouldn't they back off. To ask MS to do something that'll help out its competitors is just stupid. One thing is to stop anti-competitive tactics, another thing is to just force MS to potentially hurt itself. Ridiculous. Why not ask this of apple? oh, because it's not a monopoly, ok, so then what, we wait for it to be one, then the govt. can do something about it? But then, who's going to prove the harm in that? I agree with TomZ, some ppl are quick to turn their backs on MS.




I thought...
By Eckstein on 1/31/08, Rating: -1
RE: I thought...
By TomZ on 1/31/2008 2:27:48 PM , Rating: 1
Unlike the EU, the US government is not pursuing any unreasonable actions against Microsoft - that is the difference. Fining the company hundreds of millions of dollars because Microsoft's competitors didn't have enough documentation on Microsoft's internal protocols so they could compete against them is a far cry different than extending the oversight by an additional 2 years, which frankly is no big deal. Government oversight is not a negative for Microsoft, now is it?


RE: I thought...
By Eckstein on 1/31/2008 2:55:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Fining the company hundreds of millions of dollars because Microsoft's competitors didn't have enough documentation on Microsoft's internal protocols so they could compete against them
Kid, try to learn about the substance before ranting on something!

The first antitrust suit against MS lead by the EU commission was related to the SUN servermarket lawsuit and the illegal bundling practices.
The RESULT was a fine and the demand to disclose interface documentation, which MS didn't obey to (which then resulted into further fines).

Now you might forgot that the US antitrust commission already convicted MS on monopolization according to the SAA and a splitting of the company was taken in prospect.
However the commission head changed with the new government in the nation of lobbyism and all what was left was a lash settlement.

It's funny that those who blame the EU for acting socialistic, also blame the ruling against M$.
Too bad that the whole point is about perserving a free market, but those idiots are simply too narrow minded to comprehend this!


RE: I thought...
By TomZ on 1/31/2008 3:06:58 PM , Rating: 1
The point that you, and the EU, fail to grasp is that the purpose of anti-trust regulation is to preserve and ensure competition, not to be a benefit to individual competitors. Sure, Microsoft's competitors were harmed by Microsoft, but where was it ever proved that Microsoft's marketshare in desktop harmed consumers in any way? This is the point that EU failed to ever demonstrate - instead, they seem to be focusing on coming to the aid of one or more of Microsoft's competitors.

In the US, the new administration realized this, which is why you saw most of the actions against Microsoft dropped.


RE: I thought...
By Eckstein on 1/31/2008 3:15:50 PM , Rating: 1
This is simply naive.
A monopolization is per definition destroying the market and thus the consumer.

So you are obviously a socialist who is against free markets.
Well, an economy will NEVER work this way in the real world!


RE: I thought...
By TomZ on 1/31/2008 3:21:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
A monopolization is per definition destroying the market and thus the consumer.

If I am naive, then you are being simple. Please explain, for example, how the Windows desktop monopoly has harmed consumers. Monopoly is not always a bad thing.
quote:
A monopolization is per definition destroying the market and thus the consumer.

That's quite funny, actually - I've never been called a socialist before. Anyone who knows me or is familiar with my posts here could tell you that nothing is further from the truth.
quote:
Well, an economy will NEVER work this way in the real world!

In the real world, we have lots of monopolies operating in our fully-functioning enonomies around the world. The proof is in the pudding, as they say.


RE: I thought...
By Eckstein on 1/31/2008 3:44:39 PM , Rating: 5
Ever heard about the stagnation of web standards after Netscape was destroyed?!

Do you realize that you pay several times as much for a Windows license compared to it's only competitor MacOS, even though most experts agree that MacOS is at least as good?

Don't you see the lack of innovation with Vista?

Do you realise that MS cashes in hundreds of BILLIONS USD from users with an OS that experienced users often think of inferior to its predecessor?

Are you aware about the fact that the support lifespan for Microsoft products declined proportionally with the termination of competition?!

There are endless more things.
A lack of a free market ALWAYS hinders the economy!


RE: I thought...
By TomZ on 1/31/08, Rating: -1
RE: I thought...
By Eckstein on 1/31/2008 4:01:28 PM , Rating: 2
Windows Vista Ultimate: $259.95
Mac OS X v10.5 Leopard: $129.00

You must be extremely narrow minded to not accept that a monopoly ALWAYS hurts the economy.
Don't be an asshat!


RE: I thought...
By TomZ on 1/31/2008 4:15:31 PM , Rating: 2
Interesting. Instead of comparing apples and oranges like you do, why don't you try to prove your point by looking at how the price of Windows has changed as a function of time, as Windows went from 0 to 90% marketshare.

Hint: the price has basically stayed the same.

The price differential between Vista and OS-X follows the perceived value consumers see between the two. That's how prices are set. Remember that Vista runs 100-1000X the number of apps as OS-X, and supports 100-1000X the number of devices.

If Vista cost $1000, then your argument would be made. But it doesn't.


RE: I thought...
By Eckstein on 1/31/2008 4:23:18 PM , Rating: 2
Kid, no. Windows did cost less than a hundred dollar until 3.10! (there is a famous commercial where this disgusting Mr. Ballmer advertises for this OS.)

Claiming that more applications and drivers run on MS OSs is simply laugable.

I will stop this to participate in this infantile conversation.
That you are not able to comprehend that monopolization always hurts the economical drive is your problem not mine.


RE: I thought...
By AmbroseAthan on 1/31/2008 5:07:07 PM , Rating: 2
Please forgive me if I am wrong, but doesn't OSX cost around $129 with each new version? While I don't think anyone would have gotten every update since 2002, if I paid about ~$250 in '02 for XP, and then 5 years later bought Vista for ~$250, there is a very long self-life; each is expected to last a couple of years.

OSX in that same time frame, to upgrade to each version, would cost ~$645, and if history is to be expected to continue, OSX x10.6 will come out next May, for another $129.

In the long run, for single systems, Windows is more cost effective. I admit, Apple's family license is very nice though.


RE: I thought...
By CollegeTechGuy on 1/31/2008 6:18:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Claiming that more applications and drivers run on MS OSs is simply laugable.


I think it is pretty common knowledge that most software on the market is made for Windows. There are very, VERY few programs that are OS X only that are not programmed by Apple themselves. Why else would Apple now offer the ability to run Windows as a bootable or on top of OS X itself. Simply put, because Apple users are hindered to the number of pieces of software they can use if they don't have Windows.

Now don't get me wrong, i'm not a big Microsoft fan, however I do not see it as Microsoft's fault for becoming the giant it is. All the PC manufacturers chose to use Windows, and many of the Software companies out there chose to put their software on a windows platform. And I also do not see it as Microsoft's job to provide any kind of documentation of protocols to their competitors. Coca-Cola doesn't tell Pepsi their recipe for Coke, and vice versa. Thats where the EU is making a mistake in their claims of being a monopoly.


RE: I thought...
By Ringold on 1/31/2008 4:18:38 PM , Rating: 1
Stop trolling TomZ, be a man, and dare to demonstrate as fact that Microsoft meets the standards of a dangerous monopoly as enumerated in my own post. All you've done with him is rant about nebulous "free markets" and call him an asshat. Very productive.

Microsoft, if anything, qualifies as a natural monopoly, and even that is pretty weak here in 2008 due to the fact that Leopard is of such high quality from a much smaller firm. A natural monopoly does not hurt the economy; if you busted up water utilities, for example, they'd all have to duplicate certain costs and consumers would have to pay for that. Again though, the natural monopoly definition applies less each passing day.

I'm sticking to my guns that Microsoft has the market share that it does not because it meets the classical definition of a monopoly (even in market share %, its an oligopolist) because Linux, as all non-fanboys agree, sucks, and Apple refuses to allow Leopard to install on non-Apple hardware.

By the way, your concept of a free market is so far off I'll help you with a snippet out of wikipedia:

quote:
Free markets contrast sharply with controlled markets, in which governments directly or indirectly regulate prices or supplies, distorting market signals.


You build a computer. You look at OS options; MS, Linux. You're alone in your office, no soldier has a gun telling you to pick one or the other; it's just you and two products. The vast majority of people, at the moment, choose Microsoft as the better product -- even though linux is "free". That is a free market.


RE: I thought...
By Eckstein on 1/31/08, Rating: 0
RE: I thought...
By TomZ on 1/31/2008 5:23:44 PM , Rating: 2
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black...

Have a great day!


RE: I thought...
By TomZ on 1/31/2008 5:32:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black...

Just to be clear, this response was meant for Eckstein. It's hard to tell that based on the intenting limit on DT.


RE: I thought...
By lompocus on 1/31/2008 6:55:53 PM , Rating: 1
Eckstein, you start with obvious US hate and end with Microsoft being an evil monopoly.

The OS is not as good as apple but has a wider audience already. If you want to go into the professional industy and want efficiency YOU GO APPLE OS! If you want video gaming, PDA's, little things, a computer for your grandpa, etc., YOU WANT WINDOWS!

But wait, now I remember: you also believe in that 1-world-order thing, and that we're all going to die to "Serve our micro$ overlords" right?

Besides, I <3 Crysis on vista dx10! It's just spectacular. And I have a mac too. and I dual boot linux on my windows machine.

So NYA.


RE: I thought...
By Ringold on 1/31/2008 8:06:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
!!!ROFL!!!


The only thing funny about any of that is that I expected a sunbstantive response.

I'll never learn to not feed the trolls, I guess.


RE: I thought...
By copiedright on 1/31/2008 8:12:56 PM , Rating: 2
ACTUALLY...

Microsoft is not a natural monopoly.
In fact the OS market is clearly a Monopolistic Competition.
And since firm charges above marginal cost, social equilibrium is not met. But its better than an Oligopoly.

The problem with Microsoft is Tying or Bundling. Which is clearly a non competitive action.

And for all those who know nothing about micro-economics:
Competition is a very good thing, our whole system is based around fair competition, that's why 'cheating' such as Price Fixing or Tying products is illegal.

Microsoft is clearly limiting competition.


RE: I thought...
By Ringold on 2/1/2008 11:18:55 AM , Rating: 2
No firm is perfectly competitive, almost none price at marginal cost, and almost all firms exert pricing power on the market -- social equilibrium therefore is never met.

Bundling is not illegal and price fixing is impossible with a monopoly , by definition!!! How can Microsoft price fix with itself? As for product tying, that also falls flat on its face. You buy Windows as a stand-alone product (with various things bundled in to it -- like a car and cell phone). You are then not forced to use Office or OneCare or whatever else they publish. One can choose OpenOffice and NOD32, for example.

As for bundling -- thats such a widely used tactic across all markets that it's silly to even make. Look at the Firefox market share; clearly, it means little for competition. Last time I downloaded a linux distro it came with a ton of junk right off the bat as well, far more then Windows. I suppose air conditioner manufacturers should go after Ford, GM, Toyota and Honda for bundling air conditioning units in to most every car they make. By the way, as the wiki entry manages to bring up, there is plenty of economists that think tying is in fact beneficial.

You also completely failed to show how Microsoft is not some form of natural monopoly, nor did you show that competition is in fact not taking place. I reaffirm that competition exits; linux simply is garbage for the home computer and Apple chooses not to sell it's product to the mass market. Not to even mention, you didn't bring up at all the fate of consumers when a large company with economies of scale gets blasted in to pieces. That is the purpose of anti-trust laws; consumer protection, not competitor protection.

Thanks though for sounding like a principles of micro book though and trotting out "competition is good."


RE: I thought...
By AlphaVirus on 2/1/2008 11:22:21 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Windows Vista Ultimate: $259.95, Mac OS X v10.5 Leopard: $129.00

I would like to see you install OSX on anything other than a MAC, so that price is being offset to the hardware of a mac. Vista is much more compatible with everything across the world and is much more accepted by both home and business users.
You stated the Ultimate version to try and further prove your point but in fact further hurt it to the knowing.

A visit to Amazon shows a new copy of Vista can be had for $150 (a $150 difference from what you stated) and the cheapest copy of OSX on Amazon is $110 ($20 difference).

So lets conclude this pointless post of yours,
Vista is not $260
MicroCenter - $150
http://www.microcenter.com/single_product_results....
Frys - $185
http://shop2.outpost.com/product/5120226;jsessioni...

Vista supports a world of more things and is more versatile.

What else are you going to spew out to try and bash MS.


RE: I thought...
By AlphaVirus on 2/1/2008 11:34:46 AM , Rating: 1
Oh yeah I forgot to mention, those links from MicroCenter and Frys are for the Ultimate edition.

For the Home Premium edition which would be more suitable for the average user.
NewEgg - $110
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8...
Bestbuy - Home premium Upgrade - $160
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp;jsessionid...

Disclaimer:
The use of different websites is to avoid being called biased with my pricing.


RE: I thought...
By Ringold on 1/31/2008 2:34:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why no U.S. of A. hate comment here?


Seems fairly obvious to me.. The US is monitoring and providing oversight, the EU is in effect applying a series of lump-sum taxes specifically for Microsoft. Pretty massive difference.


RE: I thought...
By sviola on 1/31/2008 3:03:57 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Antitrust litigation, including a $180 million settlement with Iowa, continues to plague Microsoft.


I didn't know Iowa was in the EU...don't you hate when these pesky european communists are always trying to milk some cash out of MS?.... ¬¬


RE: I thought...
By FITCamaro on 1/31/2008 3:43:17 PM , Rating: 2
Yes and that lawsuit was also BS just like the EU's.


RE: I thought...
By TomZ on 1/31/2008 3:51:48 PM , Rating: 1
Specifically, Iowa failed to identify how consumers were harmed by Microsoft's monopoly.


"Nowadays you can buy a CPU cheaper than the CPU fan." -- Unnamed AMD executive

DailyTech Poll
Which web browser do you use on your primary personal machine? 






44 Comments









botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki