how do you think this will affect the computer industry and the economy?
If Microsoft is ultimately forced to break up into two, personally, I think that’ll be very bad. The software on both ends is going to be buggier.
Having the same developers develop the OS and the applications for that very OS is Microsoft’s fuel.
If those developers are not on the same playing field, applications will take longer to be produced and will not integrate as well into the OS.
I think this thread will go into Great Debates in about another 5 minutes.
vandal: You don’t know what you’re talking about. Microsoft already claims that there is an internal wall between OS and Apps developers, so that they can’t take advantage of undocumented calls. So why are they saying that innovation will end if there is an external wall? Hmm…
Now, if the company is split into two, the OS part will have to publish good documentation for the Apps part to write good apps. With that documentation, other companies will also be able to write good apps.
Furthermore, if they don’t have to be tied to windows, the apps might get ported to other operating systems (Linux being the most critical example).
I saw an item on the Drudge Report last week that intimated MS might just move to Canada. Curious if anyone thinks that could actually work…
I am confident that Klein represented the interests of the People and that the judge understood the facts, the issues, and the law and made a correct decision.
However, I find it hard to predict how splitting MS in two will ultimately affect the computer industry and the economy. But I suspect that emarkp is right, it will be a GOOD THING.
Microsoft split? I don’t think that there’ll be a huge shift in the economy. Bill Gates, after all, will still be running both companies (he’s the #1 stockholder, and when there’s two companies, he’ll STILL be #1 stockholder for both). What I don’t like is that the Justice Department shut Microsoft down with minimal evidence. MS suppressed Netscape, or did Netscape just make a crappy product? MS suppressed Wordperfect, or did Wordperfect 9 just suck? (I can tell you from personal experience that it does).
Compare MS’s “monopoly” to the classical monopolies back in the day… Standard Oil, for example. Did Microsoft have a large share of the market? Yup. All the market? Nope. Were they able to control prices? Nope. If they had, they’d have disappeared.
Microsoft had lots of POTENTIAL to become a monopoly… is that a crime? Hell no. They also had lots of potential to continue changing the world (which only the most die-hard Mac and Linux enthusiasts will dispute).
Ultimately, this will hurt the consumer by suppressing a workable platform geared towards the average user. It’ll all be knocked back a decade.
Rather than getting off on a rant here, I just want to point out one pet peeve.
Ever since this trial began, Bill Gates’ and every other MS person who’s spoken in public about the issue has used the word ‘innovate’ as a basic force in what Microsoft does and why it should be left alone to continue.
As a long-time user of MS products, the only one where I would say that they were truly innovative was Bob – which was a horrible failure in the market. As far as I know, every other product they’ve produced has been based, at least conceptually, on an idea taken from somebody else’s product. Quicken begat Money, Wordperfect and others begat Word, Lotus begat Excel, X-Windows and the Mac OS begat Windows, the list goes on and on.
Does anybody have examples of something MS did that was actually innovative?
vandal:
I’m not sure that’s possible. [wink]
Sequent:
Hell, Microsoft could buy Canada… or maybe a small country in nicer climes…
Canada has pretty strong anti trust laws, too - plus strong trade relations with the US. Canada makes no sense at all. Microsoft could choose to go to another country, but I think the US government would just respond with trade restrictions and shut them down.
If I were Bill Gates, I would just accept the judgement, cut my losses, rather than waste money on appeal. Gates could actually form a third company that handles the sales, marketing, finance, and other common infrastructure activities for both “MS-OS” and “MS-APP”. Then he could form a limited partnership between the three companies and it’s back to business as usual.
SPOOFE:
Oh, I think there’s a lot of evidence. Microsoft has been under investigation for years and have judgements and recommendations to change their business practices. The problem is that Bill Gates always responds just like a little bully kid when he gets caught. He get’s that hurt look on his face, like “What did I do wrong?” then just keeps right on pushing the other kids around.
Given that Netscape is the most popular browser on other platforms, I’d say it’s not a matter of Netscape being a crappy product. In fact, since Internet Explorer refuses to adhere to the Java standard (a different lawsuit) - I’d say Microsoft clearly had the inferior product. Also consider that originally the Windows OS had booby traps to make it very difficult to switch from IE to another browser - this is a classic case of supressing the competition.
The crime is not in Microsoft’s success in gaining 90-some percent of the OS market, the crime is in using that position to leverage market share in other spaces. Think about it from Netscape’s perspective. They had a superior product; it was the defacto standard; they were quickly positioning themselves to be the market leader; they did everything right… Then the leading OS maker decides they want to play in that business space; they modify the OS to break their competition; then they bundle in their own product built-in to the OS.
It seems to me that what Microsoft is all about is making sure the world does not change… Microsoft wants… needs to insure that other operating systems don’t steal away their market share. The way Microsoft has chosen to guard against that is by threading applications into their OS making it impossible for the user to decouple the OS from the tools and making it difficult for users to change OS platforms. Personally, I think that’s an OK strategy, as long as they avoid direct sabotage. Unfortunately, Microsoft couldn’t resist the urge to play big brother. They were warned several times and finally the justice department decided that they had to take action. Microsoft could have restructured their business practices a long time ago and avoided all of this. Instead they chose to milk it for all they could get.
You make the same argument that Bill Gates does. Frankly I find it arrogant and/or narrow minded to assume that Microsoft is the only company capable of developing a workable OS and applications for the Intel architecture. If the Microsoft monopoly does come to an end, I think that would be the best thing to happen to the PC… the problem is, I don’t think it’s going to end. I think the Microsoft monopoly will continue unabated - just a different paint job.
aramis:
MSDOS
No wait… that was CPM… nevermind.
Actually, PowerPoint may be an example of what you’re looking for… or was this stolen from something else?
Let me just make a few quick comments before my ire is raised too much.
First off as split will benefit no one. All it means is that the Office suite will not longer be developed with windows in mind, making the compatibility a little less functional. Now true, all the API’s are available publicly, but that’s not the same as having the developers of windows 2 buildings over to say “how does this work”.
As for the “making office available for other platforms than windows” argument, some of you may have heard of Macintosh. Office is available in other platforms. It’s not available for Linux because MS doesn’t WANT to make it for Linux. Linux is a sinking ship, just read the article in SmartReseller from May 22, 2000. The reason? It’s not stable, it source is available making is a security risk and no one develops for it. Corel released it’s wordperfect suite for Linux… the reason people don’t want to use that? It’s inferior to Office. The reason Office is so good is the interaction with the rest of MS.
As for there being ample evidwence to split the company. Remember the isse here originally had nothing to do with anything but product pricing to OEM’s and the inclusion of Internet Explorer with Windows.
The judge’s ruling sets that MS can’t give preferential pricing to OEM’s (this was based on volume of products) now all OEm’s will get the same price… now if the company spits… do you think this will be a low price? They will have to make all their money off Windows… so now no OEM’s will get a price break and everyone will end up paying more… that REALLY helps consumers.
As a general rule, all this lawsuit is doing for the industry is breaking up a company that creates a wide array of products and offers a lot of abilit for other companies to create interworking apps using it’s technology. It also makes all other companies that have a primary hold in their technology ripe for anti-trust suits… Cisco, Oracle, AOL… all of these could just as easily fall prey to the same fate.
All in all, i’m disgusted that comapnies cannot be free to succeed and make profits without being attacked.
Of course for all the Linux proponents, this is a funny time… they feel their OS of choice can now flourish. Let me just make one statement, Linux will never be the home operating system of choice. So long as people need to use AOL to use the internet the complexities of Linux will hamper it’s ability to be a home OS. Try to picture your Grandmother using Linux, or your non-computer educated parents.
I think this is a harsh punishment that is not warranted, and that all in all, the industry will end up suffering.
It’s about time. Every time I buy their operating system its the same price everywhere all the time.Why pay $90 for an operating system thats worth about $25?
Windoze is buggy, too.
As it happens, I’m reading “Titan”, the biography of J.D. Rockefeller. Turns out that Standard Oil NEVER controlled all the market. There were three markets in question
Oil Production - At peak, Standard Oil produced 33% of crude oil from U.S. wells. This was a later development.
Oil Refining - Standard Oil refined, at peak, 88% of oil refined in the U.S. :o Haven’t gotten in the book where gasoline becomes the big seller.
Retailing - Standard Oil never developed retailing outlets on a large scale for kerosene (the first source of its wealth).
Anywhoo, back to SPOOFE’s comparison:
-
Monopoly does not mean a company is the producer of every single unit of a particular product. It does mean that the company can control prices and can use its market power to prevent potential competitors from entering the market. Microsoft does that, so it’s a monopoly in certain markets (OP being the most obvious).
-
Microsoft can control prices. Price control does not mean charging as high as they want. What it does mean is the ability to use price as a weapon against both the consumer and potential competitors. Quite often (as in Standard Oil’s case), the monopolist actually reduces the price so as to increase the market and make it unprofitable for other competitors to enter the market. In Microsoft’s case, their most obvious use of pricing power was to increase the price of their old OP whenever they had just introducted a new OP.
So, Microsoft is a monopoly, as was Standard Oil. What the real debate is about is that monopolies present BENEFITS to consumers, as well as liabilities. Standard Oil dropped the price of kerosene by huge amounts, as well as ensuring a stable supply and a safe, unadulterated product. The argument against Standard Oil was that, without its anticompetitive practices, kerosene might have been cheaper, safer, and more plentiful.
So, with monopolies, consumers get stability (and decent prices), against the possibility that competitors would be innovators. My vote is for competitors, but I see the logic of the other side.
V.
Come again?
The issue here is compatibility. Plain and simple. Using Microsoft products in a Microsoft OS just works well. Plus, it’s a hell of a lot cheaper.
There’s a lot of integration with Microsoft products. When you buy Windows NT, you not only get an OS, but a browser, a server, and a whole plethora of other middleware (an ASP enviornment, IIS, etc.).
You break up Microsoft and you end up paying more in the long run.
I have to agree with JoeyBlades (as usual when it comes to computer issues).
Did anybody else notice Microsoft defender BurnMeUp is a software trainer from Redmond, WA? Bill’s bestest buddy are ya? 
My position actually had nothing to do with it, I don’t think the govt shpould be involved.
Then again most people are on one side or the other… the Linux slaves who are only interested in seeing their “pet os” start try to survive on one side… the rest of the industry on the other.
Insofar as Microsoft and IBM both worked on OS/2, I don’t know how innovative Microsoft has been. I will say, though, that they have done a helluva job standardizing the industry, which used to be absolute chaos when it came to formats, styles, etc.
FWIW, I have a few computers (read: geek), and I run OS/2, Linux, and Windows 98. The fact of the matter is that they’re all good alternatives to each other. The real problem with MS is that they could never make an OS better than everything else, just something adequete. Who knows, maybe MSOS will be able to devote enough time to squashing problems so that I can have one standard OS on everything that can run OS/2 and Linux (and why not MacOS, BeOS, etc.) apps. It might happen…
SPOOFE Bo Diddly:
You haven’t been following the case obviously. One of the clauses in the Government’s proposal is that the execs can’t hold stock in more than one of the companies. So Bill will run one, but not the other. Quoting from the final judgement text:
BurnMeUp:
Apple is now in Gates’ back pocket, at least on the Office front. The only reason for that deal was so that MS could have more influence over Apple.
As for Linux: unstable–do you mean runtime stability or development stability? I’ve seen claims for both being better on Linux. In my experience running it, it seems more stable than Windows.
As for the claim that MS doesn’t WANT to make office for Linux…Of course not. Why would they want to undermine Windows? However, the Apps company would probably no like to be tied down to one OS–I’d expect them to improve the Mac offering and port to Linux as well.
It is true that Linux has a long way to go before becoming a mass-market OS. However, one of the things it will need is more apps. The MS breakup can only help that.
As for Linux being a “sinking ship”–your pronouncements of the future are as unlikely to me as those of people who claim that Linux will take over the world.
I think the split may cause some short term problems but it was absolutely essential if computers are really to continue evolving. As Mr. Sheepshead mentioned, Microsoft made a very essential contribution to the computer’s development by standardizing the industry. But they have never been much of an innovator no matter how much they plead the right to innovate, so now it is time for those who can innovate the industry further to get a fair shot in the marketplace otherwise all we will ever have are souped-up versions of Windows 95.
Well, sure, on paper, that’s how it’ll be, but we all know what’s going to happen.
[QUOTE]
**
SPOOFE Bo Diddly:
[quote]
As for Linux: unstable–do you mean runtime stability or development stability? I’ve seen claims for both being better on Linux. In my experience running it, it seems more stable than Windows.
[\quote]
I referr to instability due to a mass availablility of the entire source code, making is incredibly easy for folks to be able to tap into the data.
again, Linux cannot undermine windows on the home front. Lunix is way too archaic for the bulk of users.
BurnMeUp:
So what you’re saying is that this will put the makers of Microsoft Office on a more equal footing with the rest of the applications developers for Windows in the world? I’m pretty sure that’s the general idea. The anti-trust theory is that this might be a bad thing for consumers in the short run, but will be a good thing for competitors, and this translates into good things for consumers in the long run. If you’re arguing that “MS-APP” won’t be able to compete in a fair market then you’re really making the argument that they haven’t been playing fair all along…
It’s not really the same thing, is it? MS-Office for the Mac doesn’t directly entice users of Windows to buy fewer copies of Windows. If Office were available on Linux, this would cause direct conflict of interest with the Windows group - Microsoft would be shooting itself in the foot. Many years ago, Microsoft announced that it would be discontinuing it’s support for Office on the Mac platform. Perhaps they thought they could pressure Mac users to abandon their platforms in favor of Windows. There were certainly some discussions of anti-trust at that time, but ultimately Microsoft bowed to economic pressures. Within a very short time, the Mac developers responded with Wingz as a competitive spreadsheet program, WriteNow as a word processor, and Deneba added presentation capabilities to Canvas. I think Microsoft saw that there was ample competition to fill they gap they intended to leave and decided that they would rather have the revenue from Office on the Mac platform. Interestingly, Wingz and WriteNow were squeezed out of the market as soon as Microsoft re-entered. Canvas continued to do well, but that’s because it was a multi function application that didn’t compete head-to-head with Microsoft products. [Sorry for the history lesson, but I thought is was relevant]
I rarely come right out and tell people that they don’t know what they are talking about, but in your case I’ll make an exception. Linux is just unix. Unix has been around for a long time and has grown gracefully over the years. Until something radically different and fantastically superior comes along (I’m not aware of anything in the works) unix will be around. As long as unix is here, most mainstream hardware platforms are going to need to run it. Linux is the best thing going and it’s going pretty strong. Stability? Security? Stability and security or lack of it, rather, doesn’t seem to have cripled the Windows OS much. Here’s where I tell you that you don’t know what you’re talking about… Most of the most secure computer systems run unix as the OS. It can be very, very secure. One of the main reasons for the strength of unix security is open source.
Right. See if you can follow this. I’m an OEM. I want to bundle some software with the PCs that I sell to give me a competitive advantage. I decide that the internet is cool, so I want to bundle a browser. At first, all goes well. Then Microsoft decides that they want to play in the browser market and start bundling IE with Windows. As an OEM, my first reaction is, “Great, more software is better for me”. But later I find that my old browser no longer works because of changes to the Windows OS. I could stop bundling it, but that might cause some friction to some of my customers because maybe they buy a lot of machines and they don’t want to run one browser on some and IE on others… Also, there’s the little matter of the licensing agreement that I have with my browser vendor. I go to them and say, “You have to fix your product to run on the new version of Windows”. They say, “We’d love to, but it appears that Microsoft have intentionally broken the interface to our product and since they are now producing a competeing product, they’re not motivated to help us out…”
Linux is still young, there’s a lot of room to grow and it’s growing fast. Actually, my grandmother would probably get by just fine with Linux - using the desktop/X windowing wrappers. She may never have to grep, but then neither do most Windows users. Plus, my grandmother would certainly be in a lot better shape trying to use Linux today than MS-DOS in the early 90s.