| 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: 'We'd have been dead a long time ago without Windows APIs' | |
|
||
| Time: 09:31 EST/14:31 GMT | News Source: ZDNet UK | Posted By: Brian Kvalheim | ||
|
The European Competition's decision on the Microsoft ruling was released on Thursday by the Wall Street Journal, which obtained a leaked copy of the report that was prepared for Microsoft. The 300-page document, now available on the European Commission Web site, contains some fascinating insights into Microsoft's culture and business practices in the form of direct quotes from internal emails sent by the company's senior executives. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 160 Last | Next |
The time now is
10:30:59 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 12071 (203.217.76.227) at 4/23/2004 1:03:59 PM |
|
#1 "This would be completely different if Microsoft was an English company!"
Calm down, there's no need to be picking on the UK just because they happen to have reported on something that Microsoft's senior executives stated! The issue of vendor lockin, through the use of proprietary API's in this case is no different to any other company (whether they're a US based company or not). Many commerical companies try to lock you in through their own proprietary API's, e.g. Borland, different J2EE providers with their own "extensions" etc etc. |
| #2 By 12071 (203.217.76.227) at 4/23/2004 1:21:02 PM |
| That's my point, you're trying to make this a "they're anti-US" issue, which may or may not be true. If you think back to the start of the US DOJ case (i.e. the DOJ under the Clinton Administration), I think you'll find that they wanted to try and break Microsoft up into pieces - something far worse than the EU enforcing it's own regulations in the EU and EU only. Sure the Bush Administration's DOJ only gave Microsoft a slap on the wrist, but this is not how it was in the beginning. |
| #3 By 21912 (24.205.202.246) at 4/23/2004 1:29:52 PM |
|
I don't think anyone is blaming Microsoft for creating the Windows API, but it certainly gives rise to some of the unique conditions that have helped Microsoft build its monopoly. Quoting from the internal email authored by a Microsoft manager in 1997:
"It is this switching cost that has given the customers the patience to stick with Windows through all our mistakes, our buggy drivers, our high TCO [total cost of ownership], our lack of a sexy vision at times, and many other difficulties […] Customers constantly evaluate other desktop platforms, [but] it would be so much work to move over that they hope we just improve Windows rather than force them to move. In short, without this exclusive franchise called the Windows API, we would have been dead a long time ago." |
| #4 By 21912 (24.205.202.246) at 4/23/2004 4:14:57 PM |
|
(#6) Mr. Dee, you sum up extremely well why the software industry, like few other industries, lends itself to actually seeking a natural monopoly. At a certain point, market share begets more market share for the sake of interoperability and common user experience.
The biggest downfall comes when a monopoly holder seeks to leverage that market dominance in promoting its interests in new areas. This is a natural tendency for any company. Some might even argue that it is the basic fiduciary duty to stockholders to use every possible advantage to enhance shareholder value. (#7) Parkker, you keep emphasizing the EU's use of the phrase "near monopoly." Since you seem to have such low regard for the EU, why not rely on the U.S. District Court's finding that Microsoft is a monopoly? That finding was made in an American court and lacks the equivocation of those Europeans that seems to cause you such dismay (hehe). This post was edited by GaryM on Friday, April 23, 2004 at 17:18. |
| #5 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 4/23/2004 5:28:36 PM |
|
kabuki - "The issue of vendor lockin, through the use of proprietary API's in this case is no different to any other company "
Or GNU for that matter. Anybody familiar with the Unix OSS world knows that one of GNU's ulterior motives is to produce tools such as gcc, gmake, etc. which have extensions in them making you incapable of compiling your software with anything other than GNU tools. This started happening sometime in the mid 90's with the proliferation of Linux, but it became increasingly more difficult to compile OSS software using the vendor supplied compilers and tools from Sun, etc. because of the incorporated proprietary GNU extensions. |
| #6 By 12071 (203.217.76.227) at 4/24/2004 2:29:55 AM |
|
#9 Yes, adding your own extensions is usually done to lock people in. That's no different to anyone doing this, which is why Microsoft doing this is nothing new - you just need to be aware of the fact that by using non-standard extensions, you are locking yourself in.
#10 "haven't they been punished already?" They were punished? Really? Where? In the EU? No, then it's irrelevant! "European software companies rich enough to bribe the commissioners" You mean the same way American companies bribe/donate? Get over this whole EU vs US thing, the EU is fining a company for practises that is performed in the EU, they are not fining them because they are a company from country x. |
| #7 By 21912 (24.205.202.246) at 4/24/2004 2:04:14 PM |
|
You're right, Parkker, there's nothing particularly wrong with including a basic media player as an adjunct to an OS, the way SUSE and Mandrake do. In Microsoft's case, however, it happens to be a media player with a particular company's proprietary Digital Rights Management system. By embedding their DRM media system into the Windows operating sysem, Microsoft has achieved a far higher market penetration than any other company (such as Real or Apple) can ever possibly achieve. Anti-trust law refers to this as leveraging its monopoly power.
Unfortunately, the court system is particularly ill-equipped to deal with high tech monopolies. The same appellate system that's designed to deliver "ultimate justice" serves merely to delay the final binding decision relating to fast-moving markets until the question becomes moot. This DRM issue will become moot before Microsoft has exhausted its appeals. Microsoft is laying the foundation for what may be the closest thing we'll see to a digital tollbooth on the internet. Americans have consistently proven that they are quite willing to pay for entertainment. Unfortunately for Microsoft, they seem increasingly unwilling to continue paying for new and improved software. Microsoft is looking for new revenue streams, and embedding its DRM system into Windows is a crucial step to them. Why do you think they're fighting so hard for it? The fight isn't over some little media player as you suggest, their fight is for an early, advantaged position in future media distribution and tools. Did you really think they were fighting for you, the little consumer? |
| #8 By 135 (208.186.90.168) at 4/25/2004 8:43:12 PM |
|
GaryM - "By embedding their DRM media system into the Windows operating sysem, Microsoft has achieved a far higher market penetration than any other company (such as Real or Apple) can ever possibly achieve."
This argument is based upon an assumption which history does not support. "Unfortunately for Microsoft, they seem increasingly unwilling to continue paying for new and improved software. Microsoft is looking for new revenue streams, and embedding its DRM system into Windows is a crucial step to them." If customers perceive no value, they will not buy it. I do not have a problem with advocacy for or against a technology. I do have a problem with people attempting to use the government to manipulate the marketplace to favor technologies which are of lesser value to the consumer. "Did you really think they were fighting for you, the little consumer? " I assume you are talking about the government here. The anti-Trust lawsuits against Microsoft have unfortunately been promoted primarily by competitors rather than by consumers. The law is supposed to exist for the consumers benefit, not the competitors. |
| #9 By 21912 (24.205.202.246) at 4/26/2004 1:43:58 AM |
|
(in addition to an excellent rebuttal by Halcyon-X12)...
#14 Sodablue wrote: "This argument is based upon an assumption which history does not support." Correct, but neither does history reject it. It's my assumption, and I'll stand by it unless Windows itself becomes insignificant. Only then will Windows "features" such as Microsoft DRM not already be on the overwhelming majority of desktops. "If customers perceive no value, they will not buy it." Right again, and I'm no more surprised than you that customers continue to find value in Windows. That's the very reason why it's such an excellent fulcrum for MS to use. "The law is supposed to exist for the consumers benefit, not the competitors." Sometimes this is the hardest case to make to average consumers, especially regarding things like predatory pricing. A consumer sees a pricetag of zero and compares it to a pricetag of X dollars, and has an obvious preference. Then, the producer of the second product sends all his employees packing, the producer of the free product now controls the market, and the biggest casualties are market fairness and the innovation that's driven by competition. I agree that the real effects can be extremely difficult to gauge, and in the end, sometimes you have to rely on a simple principle. Unfortunately, principles often seem like a weak argument... |
| #10 By 868449 (27.159.225.82) at 12/6/2012 7:33:35 AM |
|
An impressive share, I just given this onto a colleague who was performing a little analysis on this. And he in fact purchased me breakfast mainly because I located it for him.. smile. So let me reword that: Thnx for the treat! But yeah Thnkx for spending the time to discuss this, I feel strongly about it and adore reading alot more on this subject. If attainable, as you turn into expertise, would you mind updating your blog with far more details? It truly is highly useful for me. Huge thumb up for this weblog post!
<a href=http://www.discount-airjordans.com/air-jordan-shoes-c-145.html>buy jordans china</a> <a href=http://www.foreverairjordans.com/air-jordan-shoes-c-145.html>retro jordans for cheap</a> |
| #11 By 958138 (110.85.114.19) at 12/15/2012 3:12:00 PM |
|
Nike formal release Cheap Kobe 7 Shoes System Supreme. Its unique Kobe VII can customize <a href=http://www.lebronoutlet.com><b>Lebron Outlet</b></a> system breaks through the single product of almost Nike Zoom Kobe VII<>] read, through the interchangeable speed module and <a href=http://www.airmaxshoes365.com><b>Air Max Shoes</b></a> power module, different style of basketball for the user to provide a variety of performance choice. The two modules have different buffer and supporting function, make the player can according to your own style of custom adjustment. Cheap Kobe Shoes concentrated before generations of dacheng, science and technology absolutely beyond dispute, perhaps not just technological issue of Nike +, but this one basketball shoes can make you wear two or three years, <a href=http://www.cheapnikekobe7.com><b>Cheap Kobe Shoes</b></a> and have good slow shock resistance and protective. The technique to be used mainly include: NIKE ZOOM KOBE VII SYSTEM, PHYLON insole, fiber thin nylon consisting of the FLYWIRE, etc. These are now the <a href=http://www.cheapnikeairgriffey.com><b>Cheap Air Griffey</b></a> latest Nike technology, absolute give you different feeling.  With speed beyondFor speed type player, Cheap Kobe VII system speed module equipped with PHYLON insole and front and rear palm parts of the NIKE Zoom air units, provide quick response buffer. At the same time, with low help stretch topline design, make shoes can provide better support to ankle. Speed module using joint feet comfortable package design, abandon the traditional tongue and shoes inner sleeve, make shoes more light.
YJREED12 |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 160 Last | Next |
The time now is
10:30:59 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
