Enquiring minds (ok, mind – singular) want to know what you think.
SouthernStyle
I am of two minds on this issue. I don’t particularly care for Microsoft’s tactics or products, but I also question the ability of government lawyers to make predictions on the future behavior of volatile industries.
I think that Microsoft is largely guilty of the things the DOJ accused them of. The have, IMHO, used their market dominance to bully competitors, intimidate OEM’s and generally behaved badly.
The problem I have is that I trust the government even less. So far, government meddling in industry has a somewhat checkered past.
For example, telecommunications; when AT&T was broken up, we were promised lower rates and better service. While it is true that there is more competition, I’d have to quibble with the claims of lower rates and better service.
Basically I think that Microsoft deserves to be sanctioned, but I’m not comfortable with the government’s proposed remedies.
So, no, I don’t think that Microsoft should be broken up.
gEEk
Absolutely not and I fully agree with gEEk’s assesment of the reasons why not.
Is Janet on crack?
Alright, so Microsoft is a “robber baron”. On the other hand “they provide the an effective software solution” (they don’t build the machines, Janet baby!), “at the lowest price available”. And that’s a bad thing, right?
I presume that more effective solutions are available but they do not come as cheaply and therefore are not worth the money, right Janet? I mean, if I want to drive a Mercedes but I only want to pay the price of an Ford then I will drive a Ford. And since a Ford gets me everywhere I need to go and does so cost effectively, it must be villified for doing it so successfully that most consumers choose it over a Mercedes for their corporate fleet and personal use. Makes perfect sense to me.
Is Janet on crack? I think so. Trouble is, she’s sharing it with 17 states and judge Jackson.
I see now. So competition means “Government decides which companies are too successful”. Makes perfect sense to me. :rolleyes:
Seems to me that, as far as rates go, where there is competition–specifically, long distance and cellular–rates have gone down, and quite dramatically. Making a long distance telephone call used to be a huge deal, because it cost an arm and a leg. Now I pay 7 cents/minute 24 hours per day, so I don’t think too hard about spending half an hour on the phone to my parents two time zones away. The trade-off is that I now have to pay for directory assistance, which used to be free. Since I almost never call an operator, I’m ahead of the game.
Now, local rates and service are another matter. But in that case, there is little competition yet.
On the OP, I’m a bit ambivalent. I’m skeptical that a breakup will really increase competition all that much. The OS company would still have a monopoly on the OS, and the application company would still have a monopoly on office tools. Also, if the AT&T breakup is any guide, shareholders who ended up with stock in all the baby bells made out like bandits–the broken up company ended up way more valuable than the whole. I’m nervous that the breakup would ultimately make Gates et al. even richer.
Rick
Agree with you there. Even a beakup into three: OS, Office Suite, IE browser and the rest of internet stuff would leave Microsoft as a monopoly leader on all three fronts for many years to come.
Curious about the above though. Why would you care if the minor investors in Microsoft and even it’s majority share holders got even richer. Wouldn’t that simply make them smart or lucky investors. How is that a threat to anyone? Do you honestly believe that if Bill’s current net worth were to double of triple in a year’s time after the forced split, that it would somehow be relevant on national or international level. He’s already got more money than god. Why would anyone care if he had three times that amount? I percieve that any such event would be a good thing. More people spending more money would be good for the economy in the long run.
Hey the gov’t should know a monopoly when it sees one. It is after all the biggest monopoly of them all.
The postal service is a monopoly. I know we have low rates for first class postage compared to other countries but there has been like a 300+% rate hike over the last few years. First class postage does not cost the USPS 33 cents to deliver a letter. The extra money goes to suppliment their package rates and international rates.
The post office is the only group that can legally deliver a non-urgent letter.
But I guess we do not want to break them up now do we?
Has Microsoft done what it has been accused of? Probably. But so what? Prices are low, could they be lower? Maybe, but a company acting like a true monopoly would never create a new product, they would never innovate. They would just keep selling the same product again and again. Sure Microsoft is on top, but all it takes is letting their R&D slide and another company can knock them off the heap.
Remember Lotus 1-2-3, WordStar, WordPerfect, Harvard Graphics, dBase, Paradox, Borland C, Netscape, Mosaic, etc? They were all once the King of their product, they got cocky and let their innovation slide and somebody did it better. Sure MS is the one that is now the top in most of these areas, but so freakin’ what?
Leave them alone. Let the industry decide if their products are good.
Jeffery
I agree with RickG. If Microsoft is broken up, the BabySofts (cool name, huh?) will have an advantage in their respective fields. I say, let the market take its course. Look at Linux. A small-cap company founded in Linus Thorvald’s spare time (he wrote the UNIX-based OS) has rose pretty far. And they give away their product, making money in software, service, and upgrades. If Linus can do it, anyone can. It’s all about opportunity, which you still have plenty of even if Microsoft grows. After all, a small company will always be more cost-effective than a huge one.
What did MS do wrong? I know the browser comes bundled with Win98 but no one makes me use it. Just what did they do wrong?
Linux isn’t the product of a small cap company. Linus Torvalds developed the first kernel in his spare time because he wanted a free version of Minix, a proprietary product. He put his work on the Internet, and got lots of feedback, input, and code from other developers working in their spare time, for free. Get it? The whole thing was a volunteer effort from start to finish, co-ordinated over the internet.
Over time, that development model has included thousands of volunteer developers covering various aspects of what is now called “Linux”: the kernel, plus a lot of software that’s free and is generally considered part of the core OS. Only recently have other companies gone into business selling complete collections of GNU/Linux software on CDs, Red Hat being the most notable. Those companies also now add free software to the package.
No, we don’t want to break them up. They are not attempting to use their monopoly power to move into and monopolize other markets, unlike Microsoft. Also, unlike Microsoft, they are a public corporation and subject to the oversight of governors who are chosen by the Senate to represent the public interest. I don’t know where you got the 300+% first class rate hike from; according to the historical postal rate information at http://www.usps.gov, the first class rate increased by 300+% only when comparing to the rates from 1975!
Selling the same product again and again… kind of like Windows 95, which was magically repackaged as Windows 98, Windows 98 SE, and soon to be Windows ME. Sure, there’s been some new stuff like the oh-so-useful fade-in menus, but the underlying technology hasn’t changed significantly. Microsoft has been saying for at least 5 years that they will move to a new, more stable, operating system architecture for home users, yet they haven’t. And the reason is simply because they don’t need to; they’re doing a sufficient job preserving their monopoly through other means.
Also, if you look into it, much of Microsoft’s purported innovation came either from ideas they stole from others (e.g. the Windows GUI, stolen from Apple, who stole it from Xerox PARC), or products acquired from other companies (Internet Explorer, MS DOS, PowerPoint).
The problem is that Microsoft is pulling so many strings that the much of the industry is unable to decide based on quality of product. Instead, they wind up deciding based on factors that Microsoft is able to manipulate, such as compatibility (you don’t have many choices in operating systems if you want to run the latest version of Office).
Mr. Feely
I’ve been into computers for over 20 years now and Microsoft has been with me every step of the way.
Maybe I should duck when I say this, But if it weren’t for Microsoft, I probably wouldn’t be posting this and you probably wouldn’t be reading it.
I think we (Americans) are intelligent people and if a better product were available we would grab it.
I really wonder what OS our elected officials are using and just how many of them could come up with something better.
Well golly gee Mr. Senator…It seems that the whole world (other than the Mac people) are using one OS (DUH…looks like a monopoly, let’s shut them down)!
God forbid that we should be able to understand each others systems.
Hell, just reading back over this, I think I have an insight into their thinking. If we could all speak to each other and communicate our feelings directly, then why in hell do we need them at all?
I’ll be right back, there are Two men in black knocking on my d
Ummm, before you point that finger check your facts. Every single software publishing company has done exactly what Microsoft is doing. Ever hear of version numbers for software? I know you don’t expect them to completely rewrite every line of code each time they introduce a new version.
I don’t recall Microsoft ever stating that any given flavour of OS is not stable enough for either the home or office user. Also, they don’t need to rush in with new releases because in the grand scheme of things, Windows is quite stable in either environment. It’s important to note that if you keep pulling the rug from under your customers with dramatic changes in each new release you will very quickly loose that customer base. The objective in the software industry is to maintain backwards compatibility and that’s not always as easy as it sounds. Finally, keep in mind, it’s an OS. If non Microsoft software blows up while running under Windows OS, it’s probably because they have not integrated their sofware well enough or they have bugs. You know, Microsoft is not the only company to release software with bugs.
That’s what progress is, mate. It’s taking a good idea and making it better. Sometimes it means revamping the entire concept. Most times it’s an innovative improvement. Beg, bought, borrowed or stole, Microsoft has managed to do what other have failed. The excelled in their field and are now being taken to task for it.
Microsoft, having something like 80% market share is very influential. Why should that come as a surprise to anyone? Coca Cola is very influential in the softdrink industry. IBM is very influencial in the mainframe computing industry. AT&T is very influential in the telco industry. Disney is very influential in the children’s/family film idustry. Every industry has an industry leader who is very influential in that industry. What’s shocking about that?
Much of the industry (like in any other industry) is full of morons. People who do not understand trends and technology but try to speak intelligently about it as if they are some kind of authority. If I have to read another article by some self professed techie journalist comparing the shortcommings of Access DB vs the superiority of Oracle DB I will find that author and beat them about the head and body with a blunt object. Talk about apples and oranges.
Well, compatibility is very important. We take it for granted on a daily basis because an overwhelming majority of us are using compatible systems and software. I’d love for people to experience the chaos of non compatibility just for one day. The loss in business would be beyond measurement.
There are plenty of choices of alternate OS platforms. The trick is understanding (I mean really understanding) the advantages and disadvantages of each and selecting the right one for what you need to accomplish. Many factors come into play when making that choice. Performance, compatibility and cost effectiveness being the top three. So what are you suggesting? For the sake of diversity we should all pick our OS platforms out of a hat. What the hell kind of logic is that?
Microsoft has not always been on the up and up with their competition. They used their size and market dominance to get their way on more than one occassion. They bought technologies instead of developing it themselves when it made business sense (who can fault them for that?). They released software on the market with known bugs which they provided patches for at a later date. They refused to share code with companies that they did not enter into business relationships with (what a shocker!).
In some instances they have absolutely taken unfair advantage of their superiority and for that they need to be sanctioned. But to have the gov’t, inluenced by bitter Microsoft competitors and public officials upset about not having their palms greased with campaign funds, begin to dictate how an industry leading company should be structured is far beyond reason - even for gov’t.
However Microsoft breaking the law repeatedly is ok, because its microsoft and well that makes breaking the law, stealing other peoples products, destroying the competiton through money and other stuff i forget. Microsoft definately stops technology from growing, compare software to hardware. Hardware at half what the top is selling is more than any piece of software will need. Heck I use a 266 and it has run everything fine for about 2.5 years. Is there a reason why hardware is so outstripping software?
Alot of you have said that microsoft helps compatability, however if they see a product they like on the market they use its code and just change it to windows instead of actually buying the product. “They refused to share code with companies that they did not enter into business relationships with” making it impossible for other companys to compete in the gaming area after Microsoft was big enough that no one who made a game would make it compatable for other systems.
Of course it’s not okay. They must be sanctioned for the wrongs they’ve done. No-one is arguing that. It’s just that breaking up the company is way out of line.
Care to cite an example?
Why? To what end?
[QUOTE}
Hardware at half what the top is selling is more than any piece of software will need.
[/QUOTE]
Sorry…?
You are very wise to have learned that you can hang on to hardware longer than the hardware industry would have you believe. If you mean outstripping in sales then yes, it’s because people often buy more (and more often) than they really need. Marketing is a very powerful tool my friend.
IF they actually steal the code without paying for it then they should punished and fined. Do you have documented cases where they were found guilty of actually having “stolen” code?
IF they bought the rights to the code for a price agreed upon by the seller then they can do whatever they damn well please with it. Including making it Windows compliant. Where is the wrong doing?
Microsoft, like any other company, owns the rights to their intelectual and private property. That rule is well established. If you want to work in partnership with Microsoft to develope software (games, business apps, etc…) then you are free to try to negotiate a business agreement with them. If you agree, swell. If not, maybe your idea doesn’t interest them or you are asking to have something for nothing. Either way, both parties are free to choose. Again, where’s the fault in this?
False. I am currently reading this on an SGI running IRIX, the SDMB is running on Red Hat Linux, and my previous post was from my home computer, running Red Hat Linux. At no point did this reading or posting use any product or technology created by Microsoft. In fact, almost none of the standard protocols and technologies used on the Internet were created by Microsoft.
If you want to claim that Microsoft’s products have increased the number of personal computers in use (and thereby increased the number of people accessing the Internet), then I won’t argue with you. But I will dispute the claim that this would not have happened if there was some other company in control of the home OS market.
There are two problems here: first, the technology is so arcane that most intelligent people (including many tech reporters) don’t have the technology knowledge to distinguish PR spin from facts. Second, Microsoft is trying its hardest to prevent better products from becoming available; take it from judge Jackson: “[S]ome innovations that would truly benefit consumers never occur for the sole reason that they do not coincide with Microsoft’s self-interest.”
Mr. Feely
There’s nothing shocking about Microsoft’s influence due to its monopoly market share, and I have no problem with it. The problem is Microsoft’s wielding of that influence in order to attain monopolies in other areas, like web browsers, office software, and server operating systems. Under the US antitrust laws they have a legal responsibility, which they have conveniently ignored, to refrain from using their influence in that manner.
I agree that compatibility is important. My point was that Microsoft has abused their monopoly position in the OS market to introduce gratuitous incompatibilies with other companies products (witness the DR DOS fiasco). In doing so, they have artificially forced consumers (to their detriment) to make decisons based on things other than product quality.
I disagree. Microsoft has shown, through its evasion of the principles of its earlier consent decree, that conduct remedies will not be sufficient to prevent it from taking advantage of its monopoly. The only feasible solution is one where market forces act to prevent abuse; that being a restructuring. I also find your political analysis lacking, given that public opinion is running 2-1 against a breakup of the company.
Mr. Feely
Under the government proposal, Bill Gates, Paul Allen, et al., will not own parts of all of the companies in the event of a split. Each have to own part of one company, and none of the rest. Also, none of the companies resulting from the split-up and may collaborate with each other for at least three years. (I think the way the judge is going, he may split Microsoft into 6 parts.) If the split is imposed on the other stockholders as well, including the municipal funds holding Microsoft stock, we might see an unexpected backlash against the government when those funds drop in value and cities all of a sudden go default in pensions.
Mr. Feely
Welcome to the board.
Perhaps I should have been a little more clear in my post. I realize that Microsoft played a very small (if not nonexistant) part in the actual creation of the internet.
However, in the early days I believe the net was mainly used by universitys and scientist to trade information and was not of much use for us “average Joes”
In order for the masses to use this already established technology, we needed a widely distributed OS that we could understand and use on a daily basis, and that’s where microsoft came in.
If we could snap our fingers and make Windows disappear, I wonder how many of us would be lost? Certainly I, for one.
Thanks for correcting me.