posted
The Microsoft Anti-Trust case brought by the DOJ and 19 states is being argued today and tomorrow in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. If this isn't too volatile a subject, I'd like to hear everyone's opinion concerning this case.
------------------ Jim Mac '98 Silver SS #108
Posts: 1907 | From: I hope I'm not repeating myself. Again. And Again. Stop picking on me! Waaahhh!! | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
MS has an agressive policy towards compitition. That policy is kill it.
If MS proclaims you a competitor. They will attempt to leverage you out of the market by making alliances saying the computer/software mfg can only have MS products loaded and placed on the desktop (IE vs Netscape). Or will buy your company up in whole, then let everyone go while keeping the hard work they put into it (Corel office Suite).
This practice can only be accomplished by being a monopoly.
the future OS product from MS will incude a harware generated key based on your systems specs and a CD key that together generate another key to turn on the OS. To get the final key you will have to log onto MS immediatly where they will record both keys. Then when you upgrade your machine you have to do the same process over again and pay more money for a new site liscense.
MS is becoming very evil. So much so that I might start advocating theft or boycotting thier products.
posted
This particular go-round was instigated by companies who were unable to compete and decided to cry to mother government about big brother MSFT's competition. In this case, I think MSFT's monopoly (I have a hard time calling them that) wasn't such a bad thing. RealNetwork's complaint? Baseless - their product is inferior, plain and simple, from me, the user's standpoint.
Netscape? Inferior, plain and simple. I have both on my office PC and use IE exclusively except for the few functions that corporate requires me to use Netscape.
I'll be the first to say that Microsoft has never been an innovator, per se, but rather an improver of ideas . . . and they're being penalized for it.
Here's a brief list of software installed on my PCs:
MS Office 2000 Professional (home) MS Office 98 (work) MS Windows 2000 Professional (work and home) MS Windows 98 (home) MS Windows Media Player (preinstalled) Realplayer (don't use - see above, preinstalled) MS Project 2000 JASC Paint Shop Pro (home) Intuit Quicken (home) Intuit TurboTax (home) Quake3Arena (home)
There are a few software areas that Microsoft competes with, Quicken for example, but I use another company's software. Why? Because I've deemed it a better product.
My point is, there is a point at which the government should rein in a company like Microsoft, but they have attempted it too soon. John's comment about the software key has a very un-consumer friendly tone to it, and I suspect that MSFT should rethink that strategy before the government did for them. In their zealousness to stop piracy, they might overlook the image the consumer will see.
Jason Not a well thought-out answer, but discussion nonetheless.
posted
Netscape wasn't inferior until after 4.0. Thats when MS activly tried to destroy it. Thats when MS began buying people away from netscape. Thats also when MS activly told Computer mfgs that they could not place Ntescape on thier machines if they wanted to install windows or in some case have acess to MS software bundle at standard rate. The bundle price per unit went up by alot if you wanted to bundle netscape with your computer.
If you look at the Browser demographics you can see the change as MS inforced its will upon others.
Real Networks Was an increadble peice ofd Softaware. So much that MS tried to buy it many times. When they couldn't they activly made it so RN wouldn't work, or work properly.
Windows media player SUCKS. but since MS has integrated it so much that you have to leave it installed. don't get me started about the UI.
did you Visio is now owned by MS? You know why because MS project sucked till they bought Visio.
MS tried to forecfully buy Quicken, The court interjected and told MS to back off.
posted
John, I'd disagree with you on the browser - I've used Netscape & IE (and Opera) from 2.0 on - and when 3.0 came out, Netscape was inferior. Prior to that, Netscape was the better product. I actively watched the adoption polls and the download stats for both products from version to version that was tracked by CNET and others - the transition from Netscape dominance to IE dominance occurred at 3.0 . . .
The fuss over Microsoft forcing the boxmakers to not include netscape in the preinstall is hogwash - most PC buyers are savvy enough that if they want it they'll download it!
To clarify my comment regarding WMP - that is, up to 6.4, it was a good product. I too am unhappy with 7.0 and it's 'enhancements', but I'm even more unhappy with Realplayer, as I always have been. And NO, it was proven that Realplayer's problem was NOT caused by Microsoft. RealNetworks tried to pin in on MSFT because lawmakers, the courts & the court of public opinion would buy it - but they did it to themselves.
What's wrong with MS buying a good product? Companies do it every day, often because it's cheaper than starting from scratch. If MS had bought Quicken, they'd have a better product, period. Instead, they have Money, which is good, but IMO, not as good as Quicken.
posted
3.0 is when the "browser war" started IE sucked. Netscape had its problems also, but it was amuch more refined program and more stable than IE. Plus netscape was faster on DLing a page. Netscape was the dominate browser it had 70% of the users while IE had 30%. So Netscape got compliant and didn't try to advance as much. While IE took an aggresive approach realeasing tons of versions (mostly bug fixes), and started being inovovative by incoroparating the os with ActiveX(which was full of exploits and bugs). But by the time netscape had released 4.0 MS had gained in the market by being innovative and by buying talent away from Netscape.
During this same period MS marketing approached the PC vendors (HP, Compaq, Dell, Gateway, etc) and told them if they wanted the MS bundle (Works, encarta, etc), which had become a defacto standard that they could not carry competing software or would have to pay more for the OS and MS bundle. MS also told the vendors that they were not to place shortcuts or software of competitors on the desktop or suffer more fincial penalties.
You must have differnt info then I did. Because when you try to run RN software on win 98 it crashed. hacked versions of windows showed the differnce in '95 and '98. Of course it's illegal to hack the OS so it's not obmissiable into court.
The problem with MS buying a competitor is that it buys it and then kills it. MS has tons of code that it bought just to protect its own products, and never intends to use.
Your point about money is why they tried to buy quicken. It wasn't a friendly buy out (they succeded) but the law told them stop thier hostile takeover because it was a monopoly. It was a perfect example of the their slash and burn operations
MS is bad buisness, but has needed products. Was going to use innovative but they basically stole everybody elses ideas, or bullied thier way into being the only product.
The Hw and OS split from the rest of the SW would mean everybody would have an equal chance at access to the kernal, no more hidden hooks or sufficating installs like WMP
Printer-friendly view of this topic
