| 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 anti-spam move may harm rivals | |
|
||
| Time: 09:05 EST/14:05 GMT | News Source: Seattle PI | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
Microsoft Corp.'s move to offer stronger anti-spam technology for its e-mail server software could spell trouble for companies that are trying to build businesses on products that filter out unwanted electronic pitches. But - at least for now - Microsoft and some of its potential rivals agree that the flood of junk messages is a big enough problem that many companies and different approaches will be needed to stem the flow of unsolicited e-mail. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 217 Last | Next |
The time now is
7:38:20 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 2332 (65.221.182.2) at 11/18/2003 9:18:47 AM |
|
Microsoft is a business. Sometimes businesses harm their rivals. It's called competition.
Sigh... |
| #2 By 7711 (12.107.81.66) at 11/18/2003 10:13:45 AM |
|
Tough. That's the way business is...build a better mousetrap.
I hate spam more than almost anything else in the world, except maybe telemarketers (and they are really two different species of the same type of slime). The new Outlook 2003 spam filters are AWESOME compared to what existed before. It has yet to mis-mark a spam, and the ones it misses, I add and it doesn't miss again. If MS can come up with a solution for teh problem that is better than anyone else's, I'm all for it. |
| #3 By 61 (24.92.223.181) at 11/18/2003 3:26:25 PM |
| JWM: So basically, Microsoft should not be allowed to write applications for thier own OS? |
| #4 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 11/18/2003 4:32:31 PM |
|
JWM - Consumers expect a basic email program within the OS. Microsoft included Outlook Express. Some companies have made money by selling better email programs, or offering additions to OE to fix it's weaknesses.
At the same time anti-Microsoft people have complained that Outlook Express is crap and lacks many basic features found in those competitive email programs. So now MS is adding them. Suddenly it's unfair competition. Maybe you should explain what you think fair competition is, and whether or not you agree with the complaints regarding the tools Microsoft supplies in the OS not being full featured enough. |
| #5 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 11/18/2003 4:40:05 PM |
|
soul_revue - I'm curious how you expect to do a Bayesian filter scheme on a small sample set of an individuals mail program.
I'm not sure what approach they are using, but I'm quite certain if they used an approach which called home to the mothership they would be highly criticized. |
| #6 By 12071 (203.185.215.149) at 11/18/2003 6:46:37 PM |
|
#6, #13 Are Microsoft adding SmartScreen to OE? If not then this is a non-issue as the article only mentions them adding this into Exchange Server - therefore they are not leveraging their OS dominance. So far SmartScreen is only included in Outlook 2003, Hotmail and MSN, so they are simply adding it into Exchange Server.
#10 I think JWM meant that his gripe with Microsoft is when they DO leverage their OS dominance to promote their own product, usually in the name of innovation or to help out developers or to bring their customers a better OOBE, whatever their reasons are at the time. In this case it doesn't look like they are and the article only mentions Microsoft promoting WMP as an example of "Netscape-again" (as they call it). #13 I, as a consumer, expect proper photo editing software and 3D rendering software within the OS... when is that coming? I mean we've got already got video editing software... can't be too hard to throw in 3DS Max or Maya or Lightwave or something like that surely! |
| #7 By 1845 (67.161.212.73) at 11/18/2003 7:01:22 PM |
|
JWM, if it applies to Microsoft Windows, it also applies to Apple OS X. Microsoft has a monopoly on Intel based PCs. Apple has a monopoly on IBM power series PCs. No diff.
That said, this isn't a monopoly issue. I wonder what, in your view, is a fair thing that Microsoft can do? How is it allowed, in your view to improve its products? If you say they can't add new features to their product, you are unfair. If they improve the UI, which you've said in the past you want them to do, they are treading on Stardock's territory. If they improve spam filtering, they are treading on Brightmail. If they add compression/decompression, they tread on WinZip/WinRar, et al. What gives? From what you have said, Microsoft is not permitted to improve their products. That's just preposterous. Also, the fact that there are products that compete with Microsoft's OOTB OS offerings is very telling. People buy Outlook, Eudora, GroupWise, etc. because Outlook Express doesn't do enough. People use Real, WinAmp, MusicMatch, etc. because WMP doesn't fit their needs. People buy PhotShop, because Paint doesn't meet their needs. I say time and time again, your bias against Microsoft is too extreme. Your ideal seems to be to simply eliminate (or break up?) the company. Anything less than that will bug you. You seem completely unwilling to compromise on the issue. Final note, Judge Jackson wrote is Findings of Facts IIRC in late 1999/early 2000. It is now about three years later. There were then and still are now many options to Microsoft Windows, yet people still buy Windows and Office. Perhaps the critics should come out of the clouds and admit that the market continues to choose Windows. The market can pull the rug out from under Microsoft anytime it wants, but it continues to support Microsoft and build on the foundation of Windows. |
| #8 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 11/18/2003 7:15:49 PM |
| JWM (along with many others), I don't think you will be satisfied as long as MS does anything, other than curl up and die. Do you think they should be allowed to continue to compete as a business, or not? You imply that they should only produce and sell the OS--no other products. Then you have the Open Source movement that is putting price pressures on Windows and trying to make OSes in general a commodity. If you were running Microsoft, the company would be dead in a hurry. |
| #9 By 61 (24.92.223.181) at 11/18/2003 9:53:42 PM |
|
JWM: Why? Microsoft is not aloud to go into other markets?
If you use Apple hardware, most people are going to go Apple's own software to run on their OS because it is Apple, yet somehow the same rule does not apply. I think you need to really take a hard look at your beliefs, as they are so incredibly biased. |
| #10 By 61 (24.92.223.181) at 11/19/2003 12:11:38 AM |
|
No, the same rule would have to apply.
Apple owns the whole entire platform. When they make a piece of software it adversely effects other companies that are in the same market. People will supposedly want to use the Apple software just because Apple made the platform rather than some other company's product. |
| #11 By 2459 (24.175.137.164) at 11/19/2003 12:39:09 AM |
|
Apple owns 100% of their market, and their users are more fanatical than Windows users. Apple recently has been developing products that directly compete with current ISV products, or obtaining new products through acquisitions. In a much smaller market with users just as likely (and almost certainly) to buy products with Apple's name on them over competing products, how is it any less unfair to allow Apple to continue to add functionality to the base OS, or develop products that directly compete with ISVs? At least MS doesn't make it difficult for users to use non-MS products. iChat AV was designed around Apple's iSight camera, and users had difficulty using it with webcams they already owned. iDVD requires Apple's OEM DVD writer. Active restrictions such as these are more damaging than simple integration. When MS integrates applications that also have the capability of providing general functionality, they provide a platform API for developers (even competitors) to take advantage of and use the same services as the integrated application. If there is a competing application, that application can also take advantage of the new API and add any new features on top of ones already provided. And there's always a common interface for hardware, and user choice of hardware and software is preserved.
Regardless of the vendor, at some point, the OS has to move forward. Increasing base capability increases usefulness and provides an incentive for the user to upgrade. If the underlying infrastructure the new application uses is provided as an API, it also allows developers to easily build new applications, or add new functionality to old applications without having to invent their own implementation. The problem with many ISVs is that they depend solely upon the revenue of one product (and sometimes a shaky buisness model to go with it). If that product is along the lines of a utility in it's functionality, this isn't a good strategy. Unless your application is a game or a productivity application (and even in this case), it pays to diversify. Even if you don't lose to MS, you could lose to another entrant into the market. Last, don't forget free software, which has the potential to put all commercial competitors out of business. I personally don't see this happening any time soon, but the possibility shouldn't be ruled out. |
| #12 By 61 (24.92.223.181) at 11/19/2003 12:10:58 PM |
| Because they wanted to try to come up with something better, because Bayesian filtering is not perfect. |
| #13 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 11/19/2003 3:54:09 PM |
|
JWM - "I think any product sold by Microsoft to be ran on their OS is unfair competition. I assume it is legal because they are still doing it but I do not think it is fair. Even if MS doesn't make the tools full-featured people will use them because there from MS. Its just human nature."
Well that's just about the worst argument I have ever heard of. You're not promoting competition, you're just claiming that consumers are stupid because they aren't choosing the product you want them to choose, so you want to force the choice on them. I AM FUNDAMENTALLY OPPOSED TO THIS ATTITUDE BECAUSE IT DOES NOT HELP CONSUMERS! I don't know who you're fighting for, but it better be consumers. |
| #14 By 1845 (67.161.212.73) at 11/19/2003 3:59:56 PM |
| He's not fighting for this consumer. He's fighting against me. |
| #15 By 55917 (72.232.106.169) at 12/2/2006 6:42:31 PM |
| Great new site about gays <a href="http://www.gaysfuck.info/freenudegaymod.html">free nude gay models galleries</a>. Millions pics and movies t2}</a>! |
| #16 By 55917 (24.93.132.237) at 1/26/2007 11:31:12 AM |
| Welcome to the new site about anal sex! <a href="http://www.hot-anal.info/forcdeep.html">forced deep anal</a> Tons pics and movies! <a href="http://www.hot-anal.info/girlsget.html">girls geting anal</a> |
| #17 By 55917 (24.2.168.40) at 1/26/2007 11:31:13 AM |
| Welcome to the new site about anal sex! <a href="http://www.hot-anal.info/forcdeep.html">forced deep anal</a> Tons pics and movies! <a href="http://www.hot-anal.info/girlsget.html">girls geting anal</a> |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 217 Last | Next |
The time now is
7:38:20 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
