Any idiot could see that Microsoft did not get a fair trial here. They were denied the chance numerous times to present their full side during the trial. And when the judge wasn’t asleep, he wasn’t paying attention. He even admitted that the technology aspect was over his head.
The Sherman Anti-Trust Act really can’t be applied today without some major revisions. THAT LAW WAS WRITTEN OVER 100 YEARS AGO TO GOVERN A MARKET WHICH NO LONGER EXISTS.
Microsoft had ample opportunity to present it’s case: the trial continued for two years, and Jackson repeatedly set aside his rulings to give the two sides opportunities to settle.
Again, do you have a cite for Jackson falling asleep, or denying Microsoft a particular chance to present it’s side? I followed the trial fairly closely, and never heard either charge.
Calling me and others “idiots” may seem like the truth, as you see it, but it’s not an argument. If you’re going to convince me or others, you need to offer something more than invective.
Fair enough, I’ll admit possession of fewer facts than you, and I’ll chastise myself accordingly.
OK, granted. You did notice I was making a little joke, yes? I was not implying that the NTFS delete prompt was the reason for the error messages, but just telling an interesting (to me) anecdote.
Exactly right.
[quote]
Microsoft included obfuscated code in Windows 3.1 that checked an irrelevant difference between MS DOS and DR DOS, and displayed a spurious error message in the latter case. It’s quite obvious that this was intentional and unnecessary, as DR DOS was reported to work fine with Windows 3.1 when this warning was disabled. Apparently Microsoft thought the same, as they just settled out of court with the current owners of DR DOS for an estimated $150-$300 million. See this article for the gory technical details.
[quote]
Thank you for the link - I really like the article. Now, read through it again, and you will find several interesting facts - DR DOS had very little presence in the market, how are consumers affected? BTW, I used DR DOS, ran Windows on it, as did all the S/W developers I worked with. No sweat - I had these types of error messages with Win 3.1 on over half the apps used at the time, from over 3 dozen vendors! I have checked the facts. It ran fine. Would you like to tell me about your experience with it and how you replaced DR DOS with MS DOS? What consumers are we talking about? My customers ran every DOS version on the market - they were all buggy, but we still used them all. (I had DR DOS running in '96, '97, still worked.)
I have no special place in my heart for this kind of nonsense (from MS, putting in the unneeded code), but if you check the article you link to, there are a few specifics about predation, if MS was guilty, they should have been punished and stopped from this practice. End of story. The fact that DR DOS was hardly used should be pointed out, however. Again, my point is that if DR DOS was at the mercy of Win 3.1, they are free to escape this grip by developing their own GUI.(Several companies attempted this, including a few powerhouses like IBM and HP. No luck -MS must have done something right.) Microsoft has no obligation to provide an environment for others to succeed. Windows is their product, they can do with it as they please. I’m not saying I like what they’ve done in this case - I find it offensive, but not something to legislate.
Again, my point is they should be able to discount their product (or not) selectively. If I have a widget, and I want to favor those who will sell my widget but not my competitor’s, I should be allowed to do so.
If a body agrees on a standard, one participant (by definition) cannot change the standard without consent of all other participants - what MS did was go off on their own development path - they cannot change JAVA per se. If they do, it is no longer JAVA - it is a different technology. I have no experience with JAVA, so I cannot comment on the details, but, I do not see how they can change ‘the standard’.
Agreed. Consumers may also want an OS without a SCSI port driver if they use only IDE - so what? This is what the developer chose to do - don’t like? buy a Mac. Buy a PC and put a free version of Linux on it. Why will we tell a company how to present/install/support it’s products? BTW, did anyone make a stink when Netscape had the browser monopoly? Was anyone wondering how other companies could jump in?
Again, I cam use IE, or not. It does not have to run, unless you’re installing an application. And if MS says this is part of their GUI so be it. If people do not like it they will let them know. (Buy something else.)
I know there are some very strong points here, and I cannot dispute laws, and decisions of a Judge. I can tell you that it seems to be a very strong case of disgruntled competitors, and that MS just did not pay the right people at the right time. I sure as heck do not want to stifle new companies, and prevent competition in this industry - it’s my daily bread. I just don’t see that MS has done that, and gave you my perspective. Since I’ve been working with all these tools for the past ~20 years it may be interesting for some to hear it.
(Once again, sorry for the lengthy post.)
The pollution of the java standard by MS came from MS licencing the java trademark, then including Windows specific libraries and enhancements to Java on Win32 that made the code non-portable. The whole time, they were calling it Java; that’s why Sun sued them to stop them from using the Java trademark.
This is a case of using their desktop monopoly to extend their monopoly into another area. If you’re a Java developer, but 95% of your market is Win32 based, then there’s a practical reason to go with the polluted version, especially if it works better on the majority platform. The result is that the standard is tossed out the window, and Java itself becomes a Windows programming language. That’s embrace and extend at work, and it’s only commercially possible with a desktop monopoly.
At the very least, this attempt at polluting the Java standard has slowed, if not crippled, the development of a competitor’s product. Remember, Java scared the hell out of Microsoft because it was platform independent.
Netscape never had a monopoly on browsers (there was Mosaic, Lynx, and IE, at least), and was never in a position to use their wide market dominance to prevent competition. Even if they had a monopoly, that’s not illegal: it’s being an abusive monopoly that’s illegal.
To start, let me reemphasize that in this series of posts I’m responding to your assertion that Microsoft did not harm consumers, using concrete examples showing they did. I’m not sure if that was clear because, while my arguments have been along the lines of “Microsoft has harmed consumers by doing X,” you’ve largely been responding by saying “Microsoft has the right to do X because of Y and Z,” which is not a valid counterargument. While Microsoft’s right to do many of these things is also at issue in the trial, it is not what this argument is about.
You didn’t respond to the Intel NSP example; do you concede that Microsoft harmed consumers in that case?
Consumers were hurt because Microsoft artificially manipulated the apparent compatibility of Windows 3.1 with DR DOS, causing consumers to judge the product based on false data. To put it bluntly, they sabotaged their competitor’s product and harmed consumers by telling them that it didn’t work when in fact it did. It was a crude (in the PR sense, not the tecnological sense) attempt at FUD.
I realize that the article I linked to doesn’t discuss predation; that is not its purpose. But given the facts in the article, is there any other logical explanation for the presence of this highly obfuscated and damaging code? (Hint: the answer is no.:))
This is the “Microsoft has a right to do X because of Y and Z” argument. Do you concede that Microsoft harmed consumers by preventing OEMs from modifying the bootup sequence?
Again, this is the “Microsoft has a right to do X because of Y and Z” argument (which hansel responded to admirably, but which is not valid here). Do you concede that Microsoft harmed consumers by inhibiting cross platform Java development?
Let’s run with your SCSI driver example. For all of the detrimental features I listed above, they are several orders of magnitude less harmful for a SCSI driver than for a browser, while the benefits are of roughly the same order of magnitude. Thus, the harm to any given user is miniscule, and it makes perfect sense it include it in the OS by default. But the harm caused by the browser is likely to be large for a significant class of users. And unlike the SCSI driver, it is not necessary for the operation of the OS for any user, so shouldn’t users be given the option of (not) installing it? Moreover, the SCSI driver has a standard interface to the OS, so that it can be replaced by a different driver. Why doesn’t the browser?
(I leave unanswered the “Microsoft has a right to do X because of Y and Z” arguments.)
But “a very strong case of disgruntled competitors” != Microsoft innocent of all charges. And as hansel said earlier, claiming that Microsoft didn’t pay off the right people at the right time is just so much hot air. Either they broke the law or they didn’t. If you think that they didn’t, please present the evidence to back it up.
No to be rude, but why would Microsoft expose its anticompetitive behavior to you (or anyone else in the industry for that matter)? Although I saw hints of this type of behavior in public sources in the years prior to the lawsuit, I didn’t understand the full details of what went on until I read the documents from the trial.
Regarding the Internet browser business, I really don’t see what the fuss is about. So Micrsoft’s operating systems come with an integrated browser - so what? RH Linux comes with Netscape Navigator, Solaris 8 comes with HotJava and has Netscape Navigator included on a separate CD-ROM (notice a pattern here?). It is irrelevant whether or not you can uninstall them, you still have a choice as to which one you prefer to use.
I use Sun Solaris, with Microsoft Internet Explorer 5 and Outlook Express 5 (you read that correctly). I have found that on both Solaris 7 and Solaris 8, Internet Explorer and Outlook Express consistently outperform Netscape Navigator/Communicator in terms of speed, reliability and usability.
Even if you’re arguing that on the Microsoft operating systems the odds are stacked in Internet Explorer’s favor, you can’t possibly claim the same on Sun Microsystem’s OS.
Ergo: Internet Explorer must be a better piece of programming than Netscape, no? Therefore, the whole issue must be one of sour grapes.
Altair:
True, but non-idiots can see that the trial actually WAS fair.
tradesilicon:
Perhaps you’re not clear on the concept of ‘dominant’. It’s not synonymous with ‘only’ or ‘superior’. The IBM PC and clones were the ‘dominant’ computing platform from around 1982 or 1983. DOS was THE operating system for this platform. There were certainly a lot of other platforms out there and other OSes, but these were so fragmented that it didn’t take much for the PC/DOS platform to become the dominant. This dominance has prevailed ever since. Prior to the IBM PC, Apple probably held the dominant position, but this predates the Mac. Of all of the computing platforms that were available in that era, only the PC/DOS platform has weathered the storm - driven primarily by the momentum of it’s early dominance.
Lest you think I’m ignoring unix… I admit that unix was around in those early days, but until about 1979 unix was relegated to mainframes. In 1979 Apollo released a workstation that ran AEGIS which was one of many variants of the unix OS. Apollos were in short supply and fairly expensive, so for several years only big chip makers and heavily funded research projects were able to have them (I’m exaggerating a bit, but that characterization is not far off). They were much too expensive to use for financial applications. In 1981-82, two new players came on the market place Sun Microsystems with it’s unix based workstation and the IBM PC with it’s DOS based workstation. The Suns were still too expensive for most applications and were normally dedicated to high performance applications. The IBM PC, however was very affordable and had a numbe of applications that made it ideal for small and large businesses. IBM PCs began to quickly supplant the big mainframes in a lot of application areas. They caught on like wildfire - so much so that by 1983 they had established themselves as THE dominant computing platform. No other platform has been able to touch them since.
(Sorry for the history lesson, but it seemed apropos)
Just curious, are you trying to imply that the Mac has fallen by the way-side? Microsoft is still playing a game of “keeping up with the Joneses” when it comes to software and the new Mac dual G4 has been benchmarked at better than an equivalent 2GHz Pentium III (if such a critter existed). Also, look at the new G4 cube if your interested in true cutting edge hardware. Only 8" x 8" x 8", at > 1 GFLOP it’s faster than any Pentium based machine, and it doesn’t even need a fan!
If the public immediately perceived Windows as being a superior OS choice, why was it that Microsoft had to coerce the OEMs to install Windows rather than DOS? Why did they raise the cost of DOS sans Windows? The reason was simple. There were fewer Windows applications available. Microsoft had to force consumers to accept Windows so that it would start to be in common use so that application developers would build applications for the new OS. That’s a pretty big stick…
No one disagrees with this. All we’re saying is that Microsoft is guilty of doing exactly what you’re accusing the government of doing… Singling out successful businesses and preventing them from competing in the market. The only difference being that Microsoft used their OS to inforce their will, rather than the Sherman act.
Sorry, but Microsoft signed numerous agreements to license java. Most of these agreements were designed to prevent Microsoft (or any other company wanting to license java) from corrupting the standard. Microsoft blatently violated these contracts with the precise intent of sabotaging the universal portability of java. If Microsoft didn’t want to play by the rules, they shouldn’t have contracturally agreed to these rules… of course, then they would have never been able to use the java trademark and their product would have been a lame duck.
Altair:
Just two small points:
(1) That’s the way the US legal system works. Does the judge’s findings necessarily reflect TRUTH? No. Does the judge’s findings necessarily reflect RIGHT? By definition, Yes.
(2) The Judge’s ‘opinion’ is backed up by considerable facts.
This is an interesting opinion. On one hand, it’s irrelevant since the Sherman Act is indeed the law-of-the-land. On the other hand, the Sheramn act has seen numerous supplements to insure that it is kept up-to-date (i.e. it has seen some “major revisions”). On still another hand (Hey! Where’d that third hand come from? Ummm. Creepy…), I can see nothing in the Sherman Act that should render it non applicable in this case. Maybe you’d care to point out the flaws you think affect it’s applicability???
tradesilicon:
Actually, the mosaic source code that Navigator was based on was freely available and many potential browser builders did pop up briefly, springboarding off of the mosaic source… Netscape had one slight advantage - they were founded by the original author of mosaic. Marc Andreessen not only had a lot of insight into the mosaic code, he had a lot of foresight in where the WWW and the internet in general should be heading.
Mr. Feely wrote:
Sadly, through their bumbling incompetence and downright arrogance, Microsoft did just that in a number of cases. If the judge had not caught them out in blatent lies, Microsoft probably would have skated.
mothra:
But there are two important differences (1) PCs used to ship with Netscape as a browser choice, then Microsoft coerced OEMs to cease bundling Netscape and (2) Because of the way IE is woven into the Windows OS, it makes it difficult to remove or disable or use another browser. This has caused me several problems, personally: (a) I was unable to remove IE from my NT box without causing severe system instability, (b) I run Netscape because of security reasons, but due to IE / Netscape incompatibilities and OS hooks, Netscape is not as stable as it should be, and © sometimes IE is erroneously launched exposing my system to the security risks that I’m trying to avoid. On top of that, the IE package wastes a huge amount of disk space. Disk space costs me money. Also, even though IE is bundled, that doesn’t make it free. It’s a hidden cost - when you buy the OS, a small portion of the cost is for the browser. Why should I pay for something I don’t want? On any other platform I have control over what applications I have installed and run.
We’re doing the exact thing the trial judge did: we are approaching this case with a bunch of [perhaps twisted] pre-conceived notions about the way things should be, and basing our opinions solely on that.
Nothing will ever be accomplished like this. Hopefully Microsoft’s appeal will wind up in front of a group of judges who are willing to think and listen before they act. In the mean time, I wouldn’t complain. The trial itself has done more than enough to allow increased participation in the market by Microsoft’s competitors. That and the way Microsoft has been treated by the media is punishment enough.
Altair:
I really don’t see how you can read Jackson’s FoF and come to the conclusion that he wasn’t thinking, listening, or understanding. I frankly was plesantly surprised at his apparent comprehension of the technology matters at hand and the subtle strategies that were at play… While I may not fully agree with the requirement to break up Microsoft (which I believe actually came from the Justice Department), I have to applaud his handling of the case in every other way.
Man, I tried to stay out of this thread to prevent more of those lengthy posts, but there are a few points here that I must reply to.
hansel,
I disagree - long before IE, Netscape had the lions share of the browser market, and no one was complaining because we were glad to have the product. The complaining came from Netscape when IE came out, and actually captured market share. If Netscape came back with a stronger offering, we would not hear a peep out of them, they would have regained some market share, not seen the huge stock price drop that they did, and on we go merrily along. And I agree that abuse of monopoly status is the problem, I just claim that MS did not abuse it. Obviously, according to the court I am wrong here, but that’s my opinion.
Well, I love history, so thank you. A few points where we disagree:
IBM PCs were dominating nothing in 82,83,84. The market for the PC was miniscule, and any player in the market at that time had all the oppurtunity to take it in any direction. To say that IBM PCs were dominant and survive taday only because of their dominance back then is just plain false.
When the compatibles ran DOS, they were useful for some tasks, but hardllly close to the Mac GUI. The Mac dominated for Desktop Publishing, Word Processing, and Gaming. The PC started gaining ground with the use of Upper Memory, and when Windows provided the GUI. Novell Netware was also a force in getting PCs into corporations because it was a much superior networking technology to Appletalk. So if you look back into 82 - 84, there really was no case for DOS domination, if anything, it was inferious technology to the Mac OS, and never went anywhere - Windows did, and that’s one reasoin the PC is so widely used. The availabiliy of (and compatibility with) less expensive H/W, and thousands of applicaitons.
Mr. Feely,
I did respond once, but you simply countered and said it was illogical. I’m sorry I do not have time to research it more, and provide a logical arguement. I lose.
Thank you for the hint man, I can use all the help I can get! 
I gave you an example from my own experience and that of many customers that people kept using DR DOS with Win 3.x, and above. You ignored it and came back to say comsumers were harmed. I still say no, they were not. Please prove me wrong, with some solid facts. (Hint, you may not have any).
The ‘artificial manipulation of the apparent compatibility’ was BS - no one who wanted to use the product gave a rats ass about it, like so many other meaningless messages from MS products at the time - errors on MSs own apps and dozens of other vendors’ apps did not stop anyone from using those tools - we merely learned which erros meant real problems and which did not. Again, I am not here to evangelize MS - I had plenty of real problems with products they made, I simply say use it or replace it at your own convenience.
NO ONE OWES ANYONE A COMPUTER OS OR WP PROGRAM. THIS IS NOT A RIGHT GUARANTEED BY THE CONSTITUTION, THE BIBLE, NATURE, THE GODDESS, OR ANYONE ELSE.
I’m sorry, I cannot follow your arguement. The Browser is not required because, what? You say it should not be required? Neother is a GUI, if you ask Novell. Neither is stability, if you look at Win 3.11. Neither is compatibility with (various) hardware, if you look at a few other NOSs. So what is your point, IE should not be required? Why? If MS says ‘this is now part of our interface’ so be it. If I, as their customer, think they are nuts, I’ll let them know. Along with a few million other customers. On the other hand, maybe that’s the next big thing in OSs, browser built in. What is the difference between this, and any other feature? There are dozens of new technologies ‘built in’ to Win2K that were previously add ons from third parties (ie, I had to buy them for Win 3.5, 3.51 and 4.0, now they are free). Why are you bitching that they have included more in the OS? Don’t want to use IE, don’t use it. Want to use Netscape? Install it like always (like I do). What the heck is the problem here?
Absolutely not. Any OEM is free to do as they please with the boot up sequence, and comsumer is free to buy a Mac, any OS developer is free to add/remove/restrict features, and any argument in GD must end some time. Mine ends now.
(again, sorry for lengthy post)
Fantastic! 
tradesilicon:
Well, Microsoft had a captive audience, didn’t they. Netscape didn’t complain (at least not publically) until a while later when they found themselves suddenly being excluded from competing in the Windows platform…
Actually, Netscape did come out with a significant product improvement in order to compete with IE. Unfortunately, if you were on a Wintel machine, you were unable to appreciate it because Microsoft had booby-trapped their OS to prevent it from being loaded. We Mac folks WERE able to take advantage and appreciate the improved version. This is probably one reason why Netscape is still the dominant browser in the Mac world.
I can only assume that you were not around at that time (a young whipper snapper, no doubt). I WAS around in those days. I was an engineer and we had nearly a PC for every two people at my company and the finance folks all had PCs of their own. We were not alone, either. The US government was one of the biggest consumers of the IBM PC. I saw this trend repeated throughout many, many companies.
I did a little research and found a few facts:
Apple developed the Apple II PC in 1977. By the end of 1981, Apple Computer had managed to sell a total of around 600,000 Apple II PCs. They were considered the market leader, at the time. By the end of 1981, IBM had sold barely 100,000 PCs. By the end of 1984, Apple was just introducing the Macintosh and had just reached the landmark of 2 million Apple II PCs… However, according to Microsoft, by the end of 1984, MS-DOS was running on some 100 million PCs. In just 3 years, the IBM PC (and clones) had eclipsed the next most proliferate platform by nearly two orders of magnitude.
I hate to be rude, but if you continue to claim that the MS-DOS was not the dominant OS of that era, you simply don’t know what you’re talking about…
I ignored the experience you posted because I believe this incident, standing alone, is sufficient to conclude that Microsoft harmed consumers. Specifically, I would say that intentionally making another company’s product appear to be incompatible is inherently harmful to consumers because it causes them to make judgements about the product based on false data. Do you disagree? As to Microsoft’s intention, I would say that adding an arbitrary check that only MS DOS would pass, then encrypting and obfuscating the code and attempting to disable a debugger stepping through it, argues strongly that the code was intentionally malicious. If you can give an even halfway reasonable explanation for why this code is legitimate, I’d love to hear it.
I’m afraid Microsoft disagrees with you:
Huh? Where did this come from? We’re not arguing obligation here, we’re arguing harm to consumers.
OK, I’ll restate it. Some consumers were hurt by the forced inclusion of the browser in the OS. The forced inclusion of the browser is not inherently necessary, unlike the forced inclusion of a SCSI driver. This is because the SCSI driver is absolutely necessary for managing the hardware of some users’ computers, while a browser is not. Microsoft could have provided a defined interface between the browser and the OS so that users could swap in a different or null browser, but they didn’t.
They may be now, but they were contractually restricted from doing so in the past. There is unequivocal evidence of this in the findings of fact. If you dispute that Microsoft harmed consumers by preventing OEMs from modifying the bootup sequence, how do you explain Hewlett Packard’s letter to Microsoft that explicitly states they hurt consumers?
JoeyBlades,
Me too. Engineer? Hmmm, not then, but ‘Support Engineer’ was my title, and I did use and support computers. Everything from a mainframe to a Mac, and PC. I used some of the apps available on PCs in the mid 80s - this was a joke. I have no doubt that there were useful apps, and the 100,000 figure you stated below seems to back that up. I am saying that the fact that DOS was around then means little in todays market place. It was not dominant then when you look at the whole picture (include please all the platforms available at that time) and that any of the players at the time could have dominated the market of today. Main frames where the majority of the computing power in business, and Macs were the dominant platform for tasks better done with a GUI. Today, the PC dominates all broad categories - Corporate, Small Business, Home, etc. This is not an arguement about exact numbers of PCs vs. Mac sold in 1984
(although I am surprised about the 100 million!), rather the importance of their positioning then to todays market place. DOS was a minor player at the time, even with 100 million sold.
Please don’t worry about being rude. You know your facts, I know mine, and I’m glad to debate with an informed individual. I know the history of the PC, and Mac, and the computer industry. If not in so much detail, still plenty of info for the purposes of this discussion.
Mr Feely,
Agreed - this is the type of practice I despise, and would go after MS for, as a comsumer. I’m not sure what laws are in place for this sort of thing, and I guess the court has just ruled on that. I don’t like the idea, I’m just not sure we shoul dprosecute for it. DR DOS, on the other hand, can come back with information of their own to consumers, and expose the practise. This would be a quick remedy for both their market share and an embarassment to MS - motivation no to do it again.
I said
and you replied
Consumers are harmed if prices are made to go up, products become in scarce supply, or natural resources are kept away from production. The fact that an operating system includes any component that the developer chooses to add (add add cost for that component, hidden or otherwise) is not harming consumers. I gave other examples of OSs including things such as GUI - why is that a must? That certainly requires more resources, and we don’t complain abou that. If MS believes they’ll add value by adding IE to the interface, and you don’t believe that then get Linux, Get Netware, get a Mac, get Unix, get anything other than MS products. They don’t owe you anything. That’s what I’m saying. Complain, but don’t tell me they broke the law by doing this. (Sorry, I guess they did break the law. For the umpteenth time - I don’t think I’ve seen harm to consumers.)
I’m sorry, but you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Perhaps you have retroactively modified your memory, or perhaps you weren’t around back then, but statements like “Between 82-84 DOS was no match for the Mac” belie your expertise. Perhaps DOS sucked, but it was indeed dominant. In fact, the Mac did not exist before 1984.
Don’t you remember the television ad for the Mac? The very first one? Before the Mac saw the light of day? On Superbowl Sunday, 1984?
Let me refresh your memory.
An endless sea of automatons. People mindlessly droning away in some totalitarian factory, walking down passageways to nowhere. Televisions with images of Big Brother keeping watch over them and spewing mottos to keep them happy and mindless. Cut to a large theater filled with mindless drone humans, and a movie-size theater screen with big brother. Cut to the back of the theater - a woman dressed in Nike™ sports gear bursts in through the doors, carrying a 16 pound sledgehammer. She is pursued by stormtrooper looking police. Cut back to the movie screen and mindless bliss of the masses. Cut back to the woman - she is now halfway to the screen and she stops - extends the hammer out and whirls several times. Just before the cops get her, she releases the hammer. Cut back to the screen and watch Big Brother’s face explode into a burst of sparks as the hammer smashes the screen. The hypnotic spell is broken, freedom is returned to these hapless humans. Fade to black. Text and voice over: “On January 24th, Apple Computer will introduce Macintosh. And you will see why 1984 won’t be like “1984.””
Who do you think Big Brother was? Hint: The screen had a bluish tint. Big Blue. IBM. DOS.
Why do you think Macingirl had to hurl the hammer through the screen? To save the masses from the oppression of DOS.
At least now I know I don’t have to read any more of your posts - thanks for clarifying your level of expertise for me.
OK, you can now officially crown DOS as dominant. Go ahead.
Feel better? Read my posts again, I’ve already stated that the number of machines sold is not the major issue, after I admitted that I was surprised to see that number had been sold. I also explained that the Apple Computers, Especially the Mac, had much better GUI, and this superior technology could have just as easily dominated the market by now as MS-Windows-based PCs. DOS was not anywhere near the force Windows is today. Period.
Thanks, I love history, including TV Commercials.
I’m always grateful for hints.
Yes, of course. DOS was oppressing everyone. You drama queen, you’re telling me my posts are worthless, and you see life through TV commercials, and call it truth? Pathetic joke, you are. What do you make of the Taco Bell Doggie? Want to start the Chalupa revolution?
You never had to read the first one, it’s a voluntary MB.
So, you despise the practice, but still don’t think it harmed consumers? Deliberately making consumers who don’t know better falsely perceive that a competitor’s product is incompatible is not harmful?
Consumers are also harmed if a monopolist uses its power to prevent competition on the merits in a marketplace. But you’re right, Microsoft isn’t obligated to do anything for me, even abstaining from harming consumers… except for abiding by the laws of the federal and state governments.
The difference between the browser and your other OS feature examples is this: its forced inclusion is harmful to a significant portion of users, and by simply creating a standard interface between it and the OS its inclusion could have easily been left as a choice for users or OEMs without diminishing usability.
tradesilicon:
I think I see the problem here. You seem to be under the misguided notion that people will always choose the best product available. Unfortunately, that’s not the way the world operates. In the real world, marketshare is everything. The leaders will tend to continue to lead. Very rarely does marketshare flip-flop from one leader to another. Even in the face of far, far more superior products, it’s a lot more typical for marketshare to merely erode. The bigger the marketshare for one company, the slower it is to erode. Once you get above a certain level, the marketshare can be selfsustaining and it’s nearly impossible to cause serious erosion. That’s where Microsoft is today and they got there because of marketshare they gained in the eraly 80’s.
While that might seem illogical to you, consider the case for computers. Let’s say it’s mid 1984 and two guys want to buy computers. Joe and Dave go down to their local computer store and there’s two models to choose from. There’s the IBM PC on one hand and the Mac on the other. Joe and Dave have been around the block a few times and they know that there are a lot of PCs already out there. The Mac is cute and obviously innovative, but it’s a risk. This risk is amplified when Joe and Dave mosey over to the software section of the store. For the PC, there are hundreds of applications - for the Mac, only a few. Now Joe’s not a risk taker - his decision is clear. He chooses the PC because he likes to play games and there’s a lot of games for the PC. Also, all of his friends tell him how unreliable computers are, so he wants a platform that more people know how to fix so he can get lots of free advice. Joe goes with the flow. Dave, on the other hand, sees all of the applications he needs for the Mac and he likes the user interface. The fact that the Mac case is not as easy to open seems to suggest that it is more reliable than PCs, so Dave makes the radical choice. Two years later, both Joe and Dave are reasonably happy with their decisions. Perhaps Joe has seen that Dave’s Mac is more reliable and is easier to use. Both guys have gotten more software and some hardware perpherals, so they’ve each increased their level of investment on their chosen platform. Now it’s time to start thinking about upgrade. Do you think that Joe is going to simply throw away his investment in software and hardware to go with the superior Mac? Of course not, the tendancy is to further increase your investment in the platform you have.
Marketshare is just like money - those that ‘have’, generally get more…
I see two problems with this statement:
(1) Personal computers in the early days were no where near the force that they are today. There are a lot more televisions, cellular telephones, personal organizers, and all sorts of consumer products now than there were in those days. It’s called progress.
(2) Do you think DOS is gone? Sorry, you’ve been deceived. 99.9% of all PCs sold today, still have MS-DOS installed. You’re paying for it whether you use it or not. Since there are a handful of computers out there that actually don’t have Windows installed, in terms of installations I’d say that DOS still outnumbers Windows. If, by ‘force’, you mean everyday use, then I tend to agree - Windows is used more than DOS. Fortunately for Microsoft, their measure of success is based on the number of dollars they make from selling DOS - not the number of times it’s used…
Quick apology to you all:
My previous post was inappropriate for GD, I know better, and will refrain from any further nonsence like that. After re-reading douglips’ post and my reply, I saw the problem, and therefore post this apology.
Mr. Feely,
Deliberately fooling consumers with this kind of nonsence is harmful, you are correct, and this tyoe of nonsence should not be tolerated. I happen to think, from the many companies I’ve worked with, that it did not amount to any real damage in this case - as I’ve mentioned the DR DOS product continues to be used.
Again, I stadn by exactly what I’ve said before, the browser, like any other feature, should be included or excluded at the sole discretion of the products’ creator.
Let me use another example. MS has included a service in the currect version of Win2k called Network Load Balancing (IIRC). In previous versions this was an add-on (well 4.0 had this at a late stage, but not quite the same) from third parties who sold it for a decent price, decent meaning the third parties made good money doing so. This is used by relatively few customers. But MS decided to include the service, and now makes it part of the NOS. This is still not used by many customers, is now part of the NOS, and any third party making money only from the sale of the add-on is eother out of business, or need a new twist on the product to make it worth buying. Where’s the outcry? Where’s the law suit? I don’t see the difference. There are examples of this on almost every major upgrade og the NOS. Please tell me you can understand this point. Consumers can stop buying the product, but should not dictate in any other way how the product is made.
JoeyBlades,
Absolutely not. I am not saying anything of the kind. I said that any of the vendors playing in '84 could have taken the lions share of todays market. I said nothing about consumers buying the best product. In fact, I have said that I thought Mac had a better technology, but MS gained market share anyway - why is another story.
I disagree. In the early 80s the market for PCs in homes and corporations was no where near what it is today, and MS has created a huge pool of products, and did a tremendous marketing push to get where they are today. Certainly it helped them to have the base they did in the early 80s, but in no way did that base guarantee anything about their future. Just ask a few other companies with a base who have failed completely, because after they got the base, they just sat on it. Sorry, I disagree completely with your arguement, and also you made a complete misstatement about what I said previously.
No, I know it is not. I use it almost daily, but I except this to stop once Win2k is more predominant 9than Win NT 4.0, and Win 98). Many utilities still run on DOS. I mentioned earlier that I use MS DOS, and DR. DOS (not today, but in recent years).
tradesilicon:
No. Why is not another story. It’s precisely the point. It’s a classic case of time to market. Had the Macintosh been there first, I have no doubt that it would be the dominant platform… “But what of all those other platforms that were there before the PC?”, you ask. Those personal computer platforms were delineated from the IBM PC based on perceived function. Prior to the IBM PC those platforms were largely considered hobbyists toys. The IBM PC legitimized the use of the personal computer for business and other ‘serious’ applications which caused it to be accepted into new markets. This is not to say that Apple II’s were not used in business environments - they were, just not to the degree that IBM (who owned the big computer market at the time) was capable of attaining.
We’re in total agreement on the first case, but I didn’t think that was what we were arguing. Most definitely, today’s marketplace for computers is much bigger than it was in the early 80’s. I like to use a snowball analogy. IBM, with their PC started a snowball rolling down a huge hill. As the ball rolled on it gathered more and more snow and rolled faster and faster, gathering even more momentum. Then Apple came along tried to start a new snowball (Macintosh) rolling down the same hill on the same path and guess what - there’s not as much snow left, so it doesn’t pick up momentum as dramatically as the PC platform. (But at least, it’s high quality, high performance, snow with a superior user interface… [wink])
Where we differ in opinion is that I don’t think Microsoft got where they are from a broad product portfolio or superior marketing. I think it was mostly a matter of luck - being in the right place (IBM just after delivering a version of BASIC) at the right time (at the onset of the IBM-PC) and knowing the right guy (Tim Paterson - the author of QDOS). The rest of the story is mostly a matter of NOT making stupid decisions.
Absolutely. Smart people do dumb things. Losing marketshare is easy, capturing it from the leader is almost impossible.
Your perogative. I don’t think I misquoted you, but I may have misrepresented your assumptions…