and a link to that thread so every one can see your exact words in context: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/newreply.php?action=newreply&postid=1725413
You have stated this premise several times in this and other threads. It’s a good sound bite but at best it’s disinformation.
Libertarian:
And got it when Apple Computer released the Macintosh.
By 1986, keystroke equivalents for the File menu had standardized on Command-N for New, Command-O for Open, Command-S for Save, Command-P for Print, and Command-Q to Quit. In Open, Save, and Save As dialogs, everything always looked pretty much the same (with program-specific options arrayed around but not interfering with the standard stuff), including keystroke equivalents like Command-uparrow taking you to the enclosing folder, letters typed taking you to the folder starting with those letters, return opening a selected folder if folder is selected, otherwise saving the document, tab (back then) switching the focus to other drives.
Microsoft may have had an appreciation for the elegance of a consistent interface, but they themselves didn’t adhere to it in their Mac releases (early Microsoft Word made you use Command-SHIFT-B to get Bold and Command-SHIFT-i to get Italic at a time when all other programs used Command-B and Command-I respectively. I’ve never forgiven Microsoft or Word for that, because it ruined a developing standard).
At any rate, in 1984, if you were on a PC, you were most likely using WordPerfect to do your word processing and Lotus 123 was your spreadsheet and God help you if you wanted to draw pictures. WordPerfect’s commands were driven by F-keys, alone or in combination with Shift, Alt, or Control; (under 5.1, there was a GUI menu you could make visible but most folks didn’t know about it, and I don’t think it existed at all for WordPerfect 4.2 which was, I believe, what folks were using on the PC while we Mac users were using MacWrite or MS Word 1.0). Lotus 123, meanwhile, would display a menu, devoid of direct keystroke equivs, when you hit the slash key; you’d arrow-key to the command you wanted or (I think?) hit the starting letter and Return to implement. Chances of copying part of your Lotus spreadsheet into your WordPerfect document? Nil.
Ruling on Microsoft credit for this innovation: no fruckin way.
Hmm, it does seem possible. I mean, honestly, were there other GUIs comparable to windows during the whole time? Do you know when Apple’s OS came out which implemented it? Maybe they really didn’t have the competition they claim they were struggling against the whole time.
Apple’s GUI debuted in 1984, I believe, and set the standard; Windows 3.0, an actual graphical desktop on commodity PC hardware (not IBM PS2s), debuted in 1992. Bill Gates actually sent a secret letter to Steve Jobs several years earlier, saying that Apple should select a few reputable OEMs to clone the GUI and pre-install it on PCs, which would make the Apple desktop the de facto desktop in the PC world. Gates offered to arrange the deal. Jobs turned him down, since the operative feeling in the upper echelons at Apple was that their product was so good that they didn’t have to clone it–they would steal the market with their own hardware and desktop, and PCs would be the minority machine. What a mistake that was. Ever since, Windows was seen as a comparable desktop at a cheaper price on cheaper hardware, and Apple was on a steady decline to boutique market share.
Microsoft developed Windows as an alternative to Mac just because of this. OS/2 never had the applications, though it did have the stability. Windows 95 had only Mac as competition. Windows 98 had, theoretically, BeOS as competiton, but at that point MS had the vast majority of desktops, plus their deals with OEMs, and BeOS had a dearth of applications, so BeOS had no chance. Linux’s desktop was too primitive to be viable competition, and the OS itself was too complicated and user-unfriendly for OEMs and average users.
Linux distributions are now, IMHO, viable competition in a one on one face off. But Microsoft has a monopoly, and Linux doesn’t have access to the kinds of distribution channels it needs to go head to head.
Microsoft’s antitrust woes all come from using that desktop monopoly to create other monopolies. They earned the desktop; it’s what they’ve done with it that’s illegal.
pldennison (I’m disappointed in you, you should know better):
Oh please.
The MacOS doesn’t run on the IBM PC or its clones. For those who have forgotten or never knew, the IBM PC came first and the architecture necessary to run MS-DOS, and, later on, Windows, was reverse-engineered by companies such as Compaq, Hewlett-Packard, Dell, etc; if your computer has an Intel processor and is capable of running DOS or Windows, you can consider it a clone. OK, children of clones. IBM isn’t calling the shots here. But the platform originated with IBM, and other companies got in on the action by cloning the IBM PC.
There were no Mac clones NOT because Apple was too stupid to license its secrets while IBM wisely did so – IBM did nothing of the sort, the other companies figured out how to make PC clones with no help from IBM – but because they couldn’t figure out how to do it without stealing the proprietary ROM chip from an actual Mac.
Years later, down the pike, conventional wisdom said that the MacOS as an operating system suffered from the fact that to run it, you needed a Mac. The Microsoft operating systems, on the other hand, would run on hardware made by any of a couple dozen competing manufacturers of Intel-based PCs that were the granchildren of the IBM PC or its clones. So Apple licensed its secrets…and companies such as Power Computing and Daystar and APS proved that without having to deal with research and development issues on the same scale as Apple, and focusing tightly on the delivery of kick-ass hardware, they could put out competitively priced boxes that outdid Apple’s Macs. (At first they were neck-and-neck but several companies were announcing G3 Mac clones before Apple had its G3s available). Impact on the marketshare of the MacOS: negligible. A few companies may have bought Macs of Mac-compatibles due to the ability to comparison-shop between vendors, but mostly companies that wanted Macs rather than PCs were already predisposed to pay a bit more to get what they wanted.
And let us not forget: the IBM PC did NOT take over the corporate world because of the omnipresence of competing clones–it took over the corporate world because of the industrial strength of the IBM nameplate.
Apple killed the licensing program because the other impact it was having, aside from the negligible impact on OS share, was loss of Apple’s hardware marketshare among MacOS users. Net result: costing them money.
The “big boys” who “had a chance to go with a non-MS OS” did not get this chance from Apple unless they wanted to manufacture a hardware product totally different from anything they’d made before. The chips that make a Mac a Mac (or a Mac clone) are a totally different chip set from the ones that make an Intel-based PC a PC, from the CPU to the drive controllers and bus controllers and the rest of the IC boards. HP and IBM and Sony and Gateway could not have licensed the MacOS and sold it with existing Pavilions, Vaios, etc–they’d have had to tool up to manufacture Mac clones, a different product. (Gateway allegedly came very close to doing so, btw; IBM, manufacturer and developer of the PowerPC CPU the Mac users, also dabbled with the idea).
A more fair comparison by far would be Linux, not MacOS. And many PC manufactureres are releasing, or considering releasing, their hardware with Linux, not a Microsoft OS, preinstalled. Usually these boxes are designated as servers. The Linux OS is considered by many to be “not ready for prime time” as a desktop OS.
I was quite sure that you were passing bad information. And your cites prove it. Thank you for admitting it, and shame on you for implying (in this thread) that you didn’t.
And thank you China Guy for helping to point that out.
You seem to keep missing the premise of this whole thread. Nothing MS did was illegal at the time they did it. It was only illegal retroactively once Jackson declared that MS was a monopoly.
Lets say, for the sake of argument, that MS crossed the invisible line to monopoly in January of 1996. Now, at that time, did the goverment serve them notice that they were now a monopoly and must cease certain business practices? no the did not. So how is MS supposed to know that they need to behave differently?
What happened is that in 2000, MS was declared to have been a monopoly and then found guilty of abusing that back in the past when they didn’t know that they were one
Now, in any context other than Sherman Antitrust, ex-post-facto laws are illegal. But somehow under Sherman, this is Ok :rolleyes:
In fact, everything that MS did back then is currently legal for Apple, Sun, BeOs, IBM or anyone else other than MS.
IMO, the government should have the obligation to first have a company declared a monopoly, and it should only be allowed to try it for Sherman violations that happen AFTER that declaration. Anything else is patently unfair.
So, in answer to the OP. No, there was nothing MS could have done. To slack off when they got big because they might be looked at as a monopoly would invite a shareholder lawsuit. Especially since by any rational definition, they don’t have an OS monopoly in the first place.
It’s the subject for another thread perhaps, but the whole notion that MS has an operating system monopoly is a put-up job. There is simply no hardware platform for which there is NOT a massively dominant operating system. Intel based PC’s actually have MORE OS options that any other platform!
Virtually no-one runs anything other that MacOS on a Mac, Solaris on a Sun, Palm OS on a palm, etc. Each has a monopoly of their market if you break up the computer market in the way the DOJ did.
But people don’t by PC’s because they are PC’s, they buy them for what they can DO with them. By any reasonable definition, the Mac is a PC competitor, but not to the DOJ.
The only rational way to look at monopoly power in the computer market is to treat all machines that solve similar problems as the ‘relevant market’ for monopoly. But if you do that, the MS, while dominant, isn’t a monopoly.
tj
Are you dense? The cites prove that my mistake was saying that Microsoft threatened to double Compaq’s licensing fees, when in reality, they threatened to cancel Compaq’s licensing altogether.
Did you even read what I cited?
Marxism is a theory that offers NO useful solutions to some problems with capitalism that it fairly accurately describes. i.e., I am not a communist but…
Competition improves the quality of products and product delivery systems and whatnot but also narrows the array of competitors, thus reducing competition, until eventually a monopoly is left standing.
Through, in case you’re missing the point, no (necessary) fault of its own.
The Sherman Anti-trust act and its kin and enforcement and justice department mechanisms and whatnot are designed to correct this self-immolating tendency within capitalism. When the winners start to win a bit TOO successfully (not necessary as a result of evil business practices), they start to be held to standards that are a bit tighter than those applicable to lesser business entities. That isn’t how the laws are written–the laws say there are certain things you cannot do, regarding the monopolization of characteristics of the market that are accomplished by leveraging a pre-existing monopoly and so forth–but in practice, when the Justice Department says “Yo, Microsoft, you’re killing the competition”, it is simultaneously a congratulatory remark and a warning to lighten up on the competition because the dynamics of capitalism itself, in response to the gravity exuded by Microsoft (in this case), no longer support competition but support the centralization of market power in Microsoft’s hands, and if Microsoft takes advantage, at that point, of every business and market opportunity THAT ANY TYPICAL COMPETING COMPANY WOULD BE EXPECTED TO JUMP ALL OVER IF IT HAD THE CHANCE, it is hurting competition and is, in fact, violating the law. It has to trim its sails.
Microsoft had its gentle non-coercive tip-off warnings quite some time ago. Microsoft’s attitudes verged on “Fuck you, Dept of Justice, the days of Sherman are over and we rule”.
What could Microsoft have done? It could’ve taken the fucking hint, that’s what it could have done.
The following is part of a press release on the DOJ website, regarding the consent decree to which Microsoft agreed.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE AT
SATURDAY, JULY 16, 1994 (202) 616-2771
TDD (202) 514-1888
MICROSOFT AGREES TO END UNFAIR MONOPOLISTIC PRACTICES
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Microsoft, the world's largest and
dominant computer software company, agreed to end its illegal
monopolistic practices after the Department of Justice charged
that the company used unfair contracts that choked off
competition and preserved its monopoly position.
The company agreed to settle the charges with a consent
decree that will prohibit Microsoft from engaging in these
monopolistic practices in the future.
Every charge against them in the current anti-trust case is supported by evidence from 1994 onwards.
Did you? They did indeed threaten to cancel Compaq license, but the issue had nothing to do with Netscape. They threatened to cancel because Compaq was removing IE from the desktop. NOT because they were adding netscape.
MS had a very clear policy at that time. OEM’s could add all of the Icons they wanted to to the desktop, but they were not allowed to remove the ones that MS put there. OEM’s have never been allowed to remove componants from Windows.
Your statement was a lie in ALL of it’s particulars.
But they did take the hint. MS repeatedly modified its contracts with OEMs at the request of the DOJ. They did even more after the first suit, and even more after the second suit began.
What they refused to do then, as now. Is to allow the DOJ to decide what constitutes a useful addition to Windows.
The irony of all this is that no-one in their right mind would buy an OS without a Browser, It wasn’t like MS had a choice whether or not to supply one. They had to ship an OS with a browser or OS/2 would have eaten their lunch back in 95/96 and IBM would now be dominant.
You’re right. I am a liar. I unreservedly retract every statement I made to the effect that Microsoft threatened to punish Compaq for replacing the IE icon with Netscape’s. Microsoft did threaten to cancel Compaq’s Windows license because Compaq removed the IE icon, which violated the terms of their OEM pre-installation kit. To quote further from the findings of fact, section 204: “But when OEMs began, in the summer of 1995, to request permission to remove the Internet Explorer icon from the Windows desktop prior to shipping their PCs, Microsoft consistently and steadfastly refused”.
That they were removing it to replace it with the Netscape icon played no part, I’m sure, in Microsoft’s reason for threatening their most lucrative sales channel, and all the business that went along with it.
Nonsense.
In 1995 the DoJ and M$ signed a concent degree regulating M$ behaviour, which M$ promptedly ignored. There are lots of other things that M$ did, such as the fake error message built into Windoze 3.x to deter users from choosing DR-DOS (later Novell DOS) and the Vorbis issue, were all predatory practices.
On the contrary, they were warned. They knew.
Again, wrong.
It’s not illegal to be a monopoly. It’s illegal to leverage that position to screw others.
What kind of “rational” definition is that? :rolleyes:
Aren’t you contradicting yourself here?
Again, it’s not illegal to have a monopoly.
By the same definition, Ferrari is a competitor of, say, TransAm. Clearly that doesn’t make sense.
Hm, I am quite sure that a Cray can be used for word processing too, so should they be included as well?
No, a cray cannot be used for word processing. It isn’t a general purpose computer at all, a craw as a massive array processor that requires another computer as a front end for ALL io.
I suppose you could use the front end computer (often a Mac) for word processing, but the cray itself? no.
One other thing. the DOJ accused MS of violating the consent decree by integrated IE with Win9x. Jackson agreed, and the court of appeals reversed.
Whatever else they did, MS never violated the consent decree. The DOJ was wrong about that one.
That error message was only in the Win31 beta. It was never in any shipping version of Windows. There’s nothing predatory about requiring beta testers to test in a known environment.
Besides it was only a warning, not an error. The software would continue to run after you dismissed the message.
I don’t think many people realize the incredibly vague wording of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.
Sec1
Why doesn’t this include the price-setting that occurs naturaly with oligopolies like tobacco? How is this any different than supplier preference?
Sec2
Attempts to monopolize? Can someone explain to me how interpreting this law at face value encourages success? (with relation to the OP, of course)
Sec 3
Again, we look back to section one and ask: how does any contract ever encourage competition? A contract, almost by defenition between merchants and suppliers, excludes competition. (3 is just an extension of 1, it seems)
Did Microsoft insist that their sellers not distribute rival operating systems period? If so, I can see 1/3 being met. Did Microsoft take business moves meant to keep them ahead of any competition? Certinaly. I know of very few businesses which don’t.
The very broad wording of the Anti-Trust regs, coupled with the post facto (thanks for remembering the term!) rulings, do make me feel like MS had little choice in the matter still.
Now, forgive me for seeming dense, but do you really feel that they are obligated to sell their products to anyone? If so, is it because they are a monopoly? (remember, I do think they are one, and I do think that a monopoly in the software industry was inevitable, so they may very well fall under some new form of “natural monopoly”)
Oh, sheesh. I can understand why they might be a teensy-weensy gunshy about having a seperate OS under their shell program. Can you guess why?
hansel again, the link you provided has a very interesting tidbit:
:eek: That is pretty fucking sick, even I must say. I hope they got rid of that right quick.
However, listen to some of the things that the government wanted MS to quit doing besides:
“Obligating licensees (manufacturers of personal computers)
to purchase any minimum number of Microsoft’s operating systems;”
:rolleyes: Yeah, I wish I could take companies to court over minimum order requirements.
“Entering into any licenses with terms longer than one year
(although licensees may renew for another year on the same
terms).”
Hmmm… possibly reasonable, but I’m not so sure I think this exhibits any traits of non-competitiveness.
(among other things, read the citation if anyone wants more)
Interestingly, they conclude with: ‘Bingaman said "this settlement resolves the competitive problems created by Microsoft’s unlawful conduct quickly and effectively.’"
But it didn’t, did it?
Urban again to tejota
Nah, he was offering different perspectives to demonstrate any one of possible problems with the DOJ case.
AHunter, though I understand the sentiment of your more recent post about monopoly—anti-trust continuum, I am a bit in awe of this: “What could Microsoft have done? It could’ve taken the fucking hint, that’s what it could have done.” While I would normally applaud such a powerful and concise business decision, what exactly would that have accomplished? Who was there to take up the reigns that MS had to drop (else it wouldn’t have taken the fucking hint ;))? And what, exactly (if the sarcasm wasn’t thick enough :p) would be entailed in taking the fucking hint? Seriously— would you mind stating a few things which either the DOJ suggested to get the gummint off MS’s back, or which you feel would get them off MS’s back? I don’t expect anything earth-shatteringly in-depth. Just a few suggestions, and how you feel that they would have avoided their continued stranglehold on the industry.
It is too late for me to wade into the ALCOA case, but the resemblences are striking in many ways. Hopefully tomorrow we will have all calmed down and I’ll toss out some quotes for everyone.
As a final question to ponder, does anyone here feel it was really unreasonable to want to include a browser with an OS (nevermind the tactics for a moment)? Does anyone see the obvious parallels between “browser integration” and “shell programs” like, say, Win3 riding on DOS? How about the DOSSHELL utility from DOS 6 (and probably 5, but I never used it so can’t say)? Just a thought for now.
Never fear. MS quit doing this a long time ago. In any case, it was never a requirement. MS just gave a price break to the OEM’s who signed up.
The ‘pay twice’ never really hit PC manufacturers, though It did hit users. The big guys didn’t want to mess with the explosion of SKU’s that comes with giving users a choice of OS, so if you bought a Dell or Compaq, then you ended up with a copy of Windows that you didn’t want because Dell wouldn’t sell you a bare machine. (They still wouldn’t last time I looked).
So ‘per processor licenses’ was a much a PC manufacturer’s choice as a MS tactic.
I can tell you what Microsoft could have done, and something that’s been a pet peeve of mine, is include the standard home Microsoft Office applications as part of the O/S. If a browser is part of the standard o/s package, then I would argue that a word processor, spreadsheet and presentation software should be as well. I mean, seriously, who buys a PC with the Microsoft o/s and then doesn’t need to run at least one of the major applications (word, excel or powerpoint)?
Hansel, there’s enough stuff you can slag Microsoft for that is pretty clear cut, so there is no need to drag in hyperbole. IMHO, when someone throws in clearly groundless accusations, that can be picked apart in a heartbeat, I personally tend to ignore the rest of what they are trying to say.
Didn’t I fully and completely retract my false, deceitful, inflammatory rhetoric?
AHunter, you’re absolutely right in your more cogent exposition of the MacOS licensing history. I wanted to skip over the whole Motorola v. Intel chip business only because it would have never been useful for any of the PC-cloners to attempt to steal the Motorola chip without having an OS available or to create one of their own from the ground up. Without the OS, the chip was useless, and vice versa. So, in skipping over that aspect, I was indeed guilty of egregious oversimplification.
I think that if Apple had made both their architecture and OS available to outside manufacturers early in the game, the marketplace would be very different from what we see today.