| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Microsoft: Now What? | |
|
||
| Time: 14:09 EST/19:09 GMT | News Source: Forbes.com | Posted By: Byron Hinson | ||
|
The Justice Department announced this morning that it would not seek a court order to break up Microsoft . It also will not pursue the bundling issues in its antitrust case against the software giant. This news comes as no surprise, at least not to investors, as the price of Microsoft stock was down along with the rest of the Nasdaq Composite. But the Justice Department's announcement raises anew the question: What will the government do given the court findings that Microsoft has illegally maintained its monopoly of the operating system (OS) market? This question has barely been addressed by the parties in the case, which include 18 states as well as the Justice Department and Microsoft itself. But it comes to the forefront now as parties prepare for a status conference before U.S. District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on Sept. 14. In its statement, the Justice Department says only that it wants to obtain "prompt, effective and certain relief for consumers." That's what everyone claims to want. But what is it? | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 142 Last | Next |
The time now is
1:54:39 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 9/6/2001 5:01:42 PM |
|
Agreed.
Microsoft has long had a history of integrating features into the OS. But in most of these cases the features are of a limited nature. For many people, the limited versions are more than enough. Digital media software, CD authoring software, personal firewalls, remote control, etc. Why should these consumers be forced to pay for software that they don't really need? Look at your examples. Digital Media - Musicmatch is $30 CD Authoring - Roxio CD Creator is $100 Personal Firewall - Norton Personal Firewall is $50 Remote Control - PCAnywhere is $179 That's $350 above and beyond the cost of just the OS to just get the functionality. But while Microsoft is bundling limited functionality solutions, they aren't as full featured as those third party products. There is still a market, just maybe not as large as before because they have competition and not a market lockup. Even with WinXP, I'll probably buy Musicmatch and CD Creator, because I need the extra functionality they provide. I don't need a Personal Firewall, and I can get by with the limited remoting functionality XP provides so don't need either of those two products. Is this wrong? I buy a car, the car includes a CD player. In many cases I think that CD player is crap and I go out and buy a new one from Alpine. But does the fact that the car maker has included a CD player hurt Alpine by default? Maybe, maybe not. Certainly before cars came with radios standard there was a larger market for third party alternatives. But who should we really be thinking about? Those Third party companies, or the consumer? As a consumer, I don't mind bundling. And then people complain about the cost of Windows, even after I just pointed out they can save $350 by not having to buy third party software solutions. |
| #2 By 116 (66.68.134.68) at 9/6/2001 10:43:49 PM |
| Barrier to entry... Whatever. Does this not exist for any other industry? I don't buy this as a valid argument. What about the barrier of entry to make microprocessors. That is huge. Try competing with Intel and AMD. You will find yourself relegated to a niche market just like alternative OS's. Surely you can do better than that... |
| #3 By 1124 (165.170.128.66) at 9/7/2001 8:59:03 AM |
|
Why is everyone screaming about bundling when the DOJ said it will not pursue the bundling issues in its antitrust case against the software giant?
My answer to this question is that the other issues or so minor that no one wants to try and back up their argument by trying to use them. So they keep talking about bundling(like the stupid media(AOL)). I say charge the company for things it already fixed (like OEM contracts) and get out of their business. |
| #4 By 116 (129.116.86.41) at 9/7/2001 9:04:35 AM |
|
#17 you make it sound like there are no alternatives to windows. Lets see their is BeOS, Debian, Mandrake, Red Hat, Suse, Solaris, Mac OS 7.5-X, QNX, HP UX, Compaq Tru 64 etc... A lot of those OS are *free*. Now by your argument there should be no other competing operating systems because the barrier to entry is so high. These guys are already in the market. What happened to your little barrier for them? Consumers don't want the product and that is not MS fault. Or wait maybe it is because they made a better product. So you can basically take that argument and go back home. Surely you can do better than that. I mean we are talking about the Third Reich of software makers here right? :p
|
| #5 By 116 (66.68.134.68) at 9/7/2001 6:04:32 PM |
|
#28 "We're talking about full-fledged consumer operating systems that have the potential for growth through 3rd party applications, training, support, et... Or rather, the ability to create such an entity. "
All of the products that I listed have the ability to create such an entity. Mac OS is a full fledged consumer operating system. Be OS is a full fledged consumer operating system. The others I wouldn't classify as consumer operating systems but they meet all the requirements listed by you. All of these OS have 3rd party applications, training, support etc... I don't buy that argument at all. Fact of the matter is MS has a much bigger share of the market. But that doesn't mean there aren't alternatives or other choices. That would be a lie. RA |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 142 Last | Next |
The time now is
1:54:39 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
