| 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 |
 |
Gateway exec: Microsoft's "chilling effect" | |
|
||
| Time: 00:00 EST/05:00 GMT | News Source: CNET | Posted By: Todd Richardson | ||
|
Microsoft still wields incredible power over PC makers, despite a November settlement with the Justice Department, a Gateway executive said in written testimony filed in federal court Monday. Anthony Fama, Gateway's group counsel, said in testimony submitted by nine states and the District of Columbia that the Redmond, Wash.-based software maker can still use Windows licensing agreements and other contractual provisions to extract concessions from PC makers. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 173 Last | Next |
The time now is
2:39:02 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 61 (65.32.169.133) at 3/26/2002 10:04:32 AM |
| So don't sign the stinking contract, it's that plain and simple.... but oh yeah, if they don't sign the contract, then they can't license Windows, since MS is now being forced to have only one contract for all OEMs, rather than negotiating one with each OEM. |
| #2 By 4209 (163.192.21.3) at 3/26/2002 10:18:22 AM |
| The only time I buy PC's from anyone is for Laptops and Business. And I buy all Dell now, since Gateway screwed me over on service on my Wife's laptop. Keyboard died 2 weeks after purchase and then again 10 months later. It took them 5 weeks to fix the laptop and that is unacceptable, why would I buy from them for my company? I hope they just tank, it would be so much better for everyone. I have a three year service contract and after 10 months it still took them 5 weeks to resolve the issue. So I bought my wife a Dell Inspiron 8100 and that piece of crap Gateway sits turned off, and I will never tell anyone to buy a Gateway again. Maybe they should worry about there sales instead of the MS contract they signed. |
| #3 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 3/26/2002 11:06:51 AM |
|
It's hard to not argue that uniform contract's aren't a bad idea. Especially in light of Microsoft's dominance.
Gateway's complaint is that the pricing is volume based, and they don't sell as much as Dell... so that is unfair. |
| #4 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 3/26/2002 1:47:36 PM |
|
#10 - Because your definition of illegal means "making a better product than the competition is unfair."
|
| #5 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 3/26/2002 1:53:47 PM |
|
A couple of things: Gateway isn't just pissed about the volume licensing. They are saying that MS has many more tactics to control an OEM besides pricing that will favor the small crap box builders say volume licenser #18-20 (really nothing in comparison to #3-10), and the big whatever-MS-says guys like Dell. This isn't just a matter of jealousy for the big guys; this is stating Dell is the biggest in some part because it does whatever MS says. The Gateway lawyer went on to say: Dell does what MS says, but we serve our customers as they want to be serviced--hence, we come in conflict with MS. Hence, we don't get the same treatment as a Dell.
All of you also seem to be glossing over the bit about Gateway still needing to pay for a Win license even on a naked box. Do you all think that should still be legal? Come on. MS made a big mistake in trying to conform with the RPFJ, saying that they are in conformance, and that there is nothing illegal about the actions at the PRESeNT MOMENT. The states are taking a risk, trying to show that MS is continuing to illegally manipulate the marketplace, but it's even riskier for MS to be saying, "We're good boys... now." Also, you were observing the other day that K-K was more technilogically shrewd. Personally, I don't see this--a judge knows hearsay and new evidence when they see it, but.... Anyway, not a single piece of testimony provided by the Gateway attorney was stricken despite MS's excessive efforts. As for a shrewd judge, I haven't been shown that K-K is sharp about technology, but she sure is sharp about politics... Did anyone notice the story that she is "inviting" the DOJ to way in their opinion about whether the states have the right to pursue antitrust claims? This is oing to be fun: is the DOJ, Bush, and Ashcroft for or against states' rights? Are they for or against 15 years of federal judicial precedent? hey seem to have been supporting MS so far, which is (in my mind) good enough reason to toss the settlement as not in the public interest. The DOJ instead of saying, this is a weak and incorrect constitutional argument--like any good PROSECUTOR would have--simply said, "It's their argument to make." Well, boys, now K-K has put you in the firing line, and said, "It is their decision, but it's pretty pathetic for the federal law enforcement unit and prosecuting arm of our government to not have an opinion, argument, or concern that the DEFENDENT is attempting to undermine YOUR legal system." Oh, fun. This post was edited by sodajerk on Tuesday, March 26, 2002 at 14:48. |
| #6 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 3/26/2002 2:21:28 PM |
| Bob, what is being said about Dell has nothing to do with all those factors; Gateway is saying that by conforming to whatever MS says Dell benefits. Other OEMs, which may have a different biz model and market focus, try to deliver products for their consumers. Trying to serve this market puts Gateway in opposition to MS so they not only don't get Dell's beenfits but they are hindered in other ways--access, deals, marketing and advertising, relationships, etc... Gateway is specifically talking about the OEM relationship to the OS provider; they aren't arguing the merits of their's or Dell's biz model. The judge accepted all of this testimony, and I think it does a decent job of showing the RPFJ does not right what was found to be wrong. |
| #7 By 1896 (216.78.253.227) at 3/26/2002 3:11:19 PM |
|
#18 I bought a Gateway in 1996, everything was 3rd quality components.In order to open the box you had to unscrew ten or twelve small screws, the keyboard fell apart in less than a month, it took me five days back and forth with their technical support people to get my modem working, I had a problem with the monitor after three months, I called them and the answer I got was that specific model wasn't available anymore and I had to pay more for a new one. At that point I gave the working pieces of my system to the Salvation Army and bought a Dell; beleive me the difference was huge in every details. Furthermore note that, as everybody else here, I am not a total ignorant about what a computer is or how it works but there are million of people who don't and can't care less to learn about. They want to use a computer as thet use a toaster or a blender: plug in and push a button, period. That is the reason why Dell is more succesfull that Gateway and MS is more popular than Linux stuff.
|
| #8 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 3/26/2002 3:46:16 PM |
|
Fritz, that's great and all, but as I said, I don't care. Even if Gateway sucks, if they state that MS can apply control to pressure them into arrangements that suit MS but not Gateway's customers, that's exactly what is relevenet to the case and what the Judge wants to hear. If you can disprove or cite a pro-competitive reason for paying for licenses that aren't even shipped with a box (and the other issues raised), then that I find a useful argument. The fact that you got screwed for making a bad decision and bought a shitty product or that you can point to a better company than the one making statements doesn't tell me anything about MS's relationship with OEMs. It tells me your not addressing the issues raised. This post was edited by sodajerk on Tuesday, March 26, 2002 at 15:54. |
| #9 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 3/26/2002 3:59:38 PM |
|
The point, sodajerk, which you always seem to miss is... Prove it.
Having smaller volume than Dell is a direct factor of Gateway not responding to the consumer and building a crappy product. This has nothing to do with Microsoft, and they should not be punished for Gateway's incompetence. Now if you can show direct proof that Gateway has been harmed by Microsoft refusing to sell them copies of MS Office, then ok. I have yet to see that in this article or any of the other. i.e. the complaints do seem to be hearsay and mostly FUD. The further point is, that from my reading of the DOJs settlement they already address these issues. So you have to explain how the DOJ settlement is inadequate in this regard. I also want specifics, and recommendations... not more hearsay. As far as paying for licenses per machine, I want the specific wording of the contract which claims Gateway must do this. The way it sounds, they are doing this because they can get better volume discounts. There is also a larger issue, one which you haven't provided any good suggestions for, and that is perhaps this is a question of curbing piracy. God, I sound like a Judge. |
| #10 By 4209 (163.192.21.2) at 3/26/2002 4:09:20 PM |
| SodaJerk, It is not MS's fault that Gateway can't sell enough machines to constitute them getting a better price on volume licensing. I mean every company weather it is an OEM or a Corporation buying license has to deal with the same system. My company has to spend $4 million for licensing Office, unless we can justify saying that only a certain percentage of our 22,000 users only use Word and Excel and the rest use the full suite. Now we don't even sell the PC's we just use them, so even we have to deal with MS's ridiculous pricing. Yet we are not turning to the government and bitching. |
| #11 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 3/26/2002 4:20:50 PM |
|
soda, you don't come close to sounding like a judge; you claim this is hearsay, but I already pointed out that after tons of attempts yesterday, THE judge refused to strike any of this testimony as hearsay. It's you spreading FUD and hearsay.
None of this is exclusively related to volume pricing so I don't know why you all insist on stating this. "Volume" isn't even mentioned until the last four sentences, for Christ sake, people! Talking about FUD! I imagine there are a number of examples but one of them IN THE ARTICLE is: "Microsoft, for instance, can grant or withhold market-development funds more or less at will under the new licensing agreements. Such funds pay for a substantial part of a PC maker's television and print advertisements and can add up to huge sums. PC makers that agree to ship all PCs with Windows, for example, can receive $10 per PC in market development funds." (More on this) Another complaint relates to the fact that the RPFJ doesn't prevent retaliation. Gateway asserts that having a 2 stike rule actually increases MS's leverage to retaliate. Another complaint is: "Allowing one OEM to get a jump on advertising and distributing a new Microsoft product, particularly a new Windows product, could be particularly advantageous to that OEM and significantly disadvantageous to its competitors," Fama said. Back to the $10 marketing incentive--this is just juice that specifically should be denied from a monopolist for this very obvious reason: "In other words, Gateway must comply with this provision in order to receive any market development funds," Fama said. The discount is substantial: $10 per copy of Windows. "Since that $10 discount would apply to each copy of Windows XP that Gateway distributes during 2003, it would not be commercially practical to consider compliance...as optional," Fama testified." Your argument about the settlement is exactly the point of the unsettling states and Gateway. MS "claims" they are in compliance with the settlement because they made these licensing changes in anticipation of it, and they continue to claim that now, at the present moment, none of their actions represent anything which could be construed as monopolistic. So this testimony is directly about showing the proposal as inadequate. This "Piracy" claim is a joke and you should be disgusted by yourself for spreading it; it does not need to be refuted. This is the same argument "Give Me Hollywood $" Hollings and "Mouse Ears" Eisner are making, and I would hope we would all reject that. If you think that it should be illegal to buy a box w/o an OS, because it necessarily means the consumer is using an illegal copy of an OS, please stand up proud and say that. If you think the consumer has the choice of installling their own OS or any number of different OSes on a piece of "commodity" hardware (as you are so proud to point out) without either the OEM, or even worse the software provider--? what the Fsck? why do they get to limit my legal choices for how I use my "commodity" hardware, then don't claim MS has a legitimate reason for this provision or claim that I have to come up with some solution for piracy. I personally have always felt that property holders must protect their own IP, and not pass it on to other vendors or the consumer. And as a consumer, I feel that if there is a legal use I should not be prevented from using my goods in such a way. Because others do things illegally does not mean I lose my rights to use my goods as I choose if I continue to do so legally. Are you making an argument against that now, soda, all for the sake of defending MS? This post was edited by sodajerk on Tuesday, March 26, 2002 at 16:34. |
| #12 By 1896 (216.78.253.227) at 3/26/2002 4:31:13 PM |
|
#20 I quote from your statement #15:
Quote this is stating Dell is the biggest in some part because it does whatever MS says. The Gateway lawyer went on to say: Dell does what MS says, but we serve our customers as they want to be serviced--hence, we come in conflict with MS. Hence, we don't get the same treatment as a Dell. Unquote I made the mistake to be among those customers once and I can state that they don't serve customers as they should. Read about the customers approval rate for computer makers and see what are the numbers.. Quote from your post: If you can disprove or cite a pro-competitive reason for paying for licenses that aren't even shipped with a box (and the other issues raised), then that I find a useful argument. Unquote From the full article, published on Cnet.com, article I read, here it is the answer: Quote Microsoft, for instance, can grant or withhold market-development funds more or less at will under the new licensing agreements. Such funds pay for a substantial part of a PC maker's television and print advertisements and can add up to huge sums. PC makers that agree to ship all PCs with Windows, for example, can receive $10 per PC in market development funds Unquote Do you think that MS or Coke or Pepsi should pay your company advertisement campaign when you promote and sell competitors products? I don't think so. Just one more thing, the tone of your replies is quite often unpolite. Your opinion are worth exactly as much as mine and the ones of everybody else. If you don't care about my opinion this is your problem not mine; I care to read everybody opinion because everybody could say something that make me see a point I did not notice before etc. I am a customer and Gateway doesn't served me the way I want, therefore Gateway can not state that they are penalized because they give to customers what they want therefore they are laying. DO you have a copy of the agreement signed by Gateway? If yes could you send me a copy I can careful examine? If you don't have a copy your statements are based upon what Gateway is saying. Furthermore it seems to me that they |
| #13 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 3/26/2002 4:47:43 PM |
|
Fritz, again, customer approval or your experience do not matter to me or the issue of: does Microsoft have the ability to influence Gateway. If Gateway thinks our customers want this or that and they try to deliver this, but are prevented from doing so because of MS's incentives and retaliations... well, that's something I'm concerned about from a legal perspective, not a quality of service perspective.
Your second point still doesn't answer the question of why MS should have the right to give or deny money based on a choice by the OEM. Should MS or any company be paying for a companies marketing? No, this is one of the number one ways MS has been circumventing the law and controlling OEMs and ISVs for years. If they do do this, it's their choice. But they shouldn't be allowed to do it based on self-serving interests now that they are a adjudicated monopolist. Fritz, all of our points are opinions. What I am saying is: what value does your individual opinion of a personal event matter to a legal issue. You aren't in any way defending MS. If you don't see that, don't see that it's silly to be whining about your personal experience (when it doesn't represent every consumer's experience)... well, this nothing to refute but maybe you'll realize it's silly if I tell you so. If you don't like me telling you so, ignore it. So cover your eyes, I'm going to do it again: "I am a customer and Gateway doesn't served me the way I want, therefore Gateway can not state that they are penalized because they give to customers what they want therefore they are laying." Baloney! Youa re talking about individual experience; if Gateway says they want to ship naked boxes or boxes with Real instead of WMP or whatever because their customers want them to and they say this in a court of law without it being shown they are committing perjury, then it is TRUE. The quality of your purchase has nothing to do with the choices they are discussing making for competitors in this issue. "DO you have a copy of the agreement signed by Gateway? If yes could you send me a copy I can careful examine? If you don't have a copy your statements are based upon what Gateway is saying. Furthermore it seems to me that they" No, didn't you know that MS considers OEM contracts to be top-secret Intellectual Property? Jesus, why doesn't that suggest to anyone that that's a bit inappropriate. No one has ever been able to lay the Gateway, Dell, HP, COmpaq, etc.. contrcts side-by-side and compare them. Now, I would suppose the contract is uniform (maybe not, there's still no way to know except OEMs sharing notes) and would resemble the RPFJ, but considering the RPFJ is a 22 page document, I would guess that it's still secret what an OEM contract is (the contract is many pages longer than the RPFJ) . You run off there at the end, don't know what you're up to... This post was edited by sodajerk on Tuesday, March 26, 2002 at 16:53. |
| #14 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 3/26/2002 5:24:39 PM |
|
Bob, let's start with the obvious bias. "should MS be crippled in dealing with Gateway?" It what way would any of the cited issues cripple MS? Giving Gateway the same contract compliance clause they had previously doesn't cripple MS--MS already agreed to it before; the new provision just gives MS a retaliatory tactic. Should MS be allow to preferentially distribute marketing money based on this pseudo-piracy claim? No, as far as I know, the SSSCA still isn't passed, and as far as I know, we have no law that says MS can hold Gateway responsible for piracy--nevermind that that's a bullsh1t claim in the first place, and it's clearly a way to leverage what MS wants. In now way does any of this cripple MS.
"But the truth is, people go to Gateway to buy Windows based PCs, no one who buys a Gateway is looking for Linux or BSD or some unique third party solution Gateway might dream up with AOL or anyone else. People go to Gateway looking for Windows based PCs." That's a joke, right? Every single person in the world wants a PC configured exactly as Microsoft would ideally want it? Anything that an ISV could offer or any other OS could offer is never wanted on the box when you get it? Come on. "And I saw an awful lot of Windows XP advertising with Gateway at launch time, lots of Gateway execs glad-handing with MS execs." This justs shows that you have to kiss MS's ass and do what they want--after all it was the OEMs and ISVs and Intel that spent 70% of the Windows advertising budget. |
| #15 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 3/26/2002 5:27:06 PM |
|
sodajerk - I have an answer to that one. Microsoft stops giving $10 for every computer sold. Saves Microsoft billions, and makes Gateway happy.
Now are you going to address my questions intelligently? Exactly what uniform terms do you want Microsoft to offer? Apparently they are not allowed to have any control over their advertising budget... what else do you wish to regulate? |
| #16 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 3/26/2002 5:39:39 PM |
|
What question was that, soda? I only saw that you asked me to solve priacy and to right you out a contract. What do I want: uniform restrictions that do not have any loophole for favoritism or retaliation. These restrictions can be within a volume-based structure. Any restrictions which are designed to benefit OEMs individually should be incorporated into this uniform contract--that is, each of these OEMs may have specific issues which could be dealbreakers if they had any other option so they have negotiated these terms into the prior contracts--these restrictions should be determined and worked into the master unifrom contract.
Your suggestion of preventing MS from gtiving money to support campaigns in exchange for volume purchases is a great idea, but unfortunately, no one else is going to go for it and I'm surprised you would. Basically, MS needs to have these retaliatory tactics denied them. And I think a large part of this is marketing funds that either the OEMs have to provide to promote Windows or that MS provides the OEMs to promote their hardware--this should be stemmed, unfortunately, I think the only legal and acceptable action to the involved parties in regard to this is going to be uniformity. Note that this should not be conditioned in anyway on what software is or is not included on the hardware--wasn't that the whole point of the trial, anyway? (Right now, MS can shut off millions of dollars to anyone who doesn't ship Windows (or at least pay for the license) on a box--Bullsh1t that shouldn't be prevented based on what the court ruled.) The only issue that should be based on volume is pricing (and possibly code access), not bundling other products, nor multiple OSes, nor selling products early, or free marketing materials, or extra ad $$$, or anything that simply gives MS a leg up and leverage over the OEMs. Now, none of that sounded so insane did it? All of that seemed to address what we've been able to read of Gateway and Sony's claims, right? I didn't ask to "cripple" MS did I? I love how you say I don't answer you questions intelligently, but you drop the claim that MS should bribe OEMs w/ $10 a license in order to prevent piracy instantly, and you do nothing to appreciate that Gateway is raising several issues, the least of which is volume pricing. This post was edited by sodajerk on Tuesday, March 26, 2002 at 18:34. |
| #17 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 3/26/2002 5:45:01 PM |
| By the way, you do see that I support volume licensing--there's no way to avoid it and I know some OEMs will bitch about higher prices. And that's too bad for them. But you should also note that I am talking about incorporating all of the individual OEM clauses (which they negotiated separately for their protection) into the uniform contract--this MS would bitch about to no end, because it would deny them a lot of control and marketing and access. But for the most part, they cannot make a claim of injurious monetary damage resulting from this. They would simply be pissed that they'd have to treat all of their OEMs well. This would not cripple MS, if anything, it would simplify their legal issues with vendors. |
| #18 By 1896 (216.78.253.227) at 3/26/2002 7:08:47 PM |
| #26 the point is not what matter to you but what Gateway stated and they stated that they care for what customers want and therefore MS is "punishing " them but the truth is that they are not serving their customers well and this is the reason why their sales are getting worse and worse. About the second point I am wondering if you have any idea about how many companies pay for their customer marketing campaigns? Coca Cola and Pepsi are the first ones tat come in my mind: is this illegal? No it is not and it is not a circumvention of the law as you stated. If it was how many people in Washington shoul be indicted for lobbying? Remember that the head of the fish is the first part that begin to stink. Btw I don't whine about my experience, I make a statement exactly as the Gateway representative made his one. Bottom line is MS is a privately held company and does exactly what everybody else does or try to do in any free country with a capitalistic economy. They look for profit. Don 't IBM or Sun have enough smart people working in their companies to create a new OS? Yes they have so why don't they do it? Because it is easier to steal what someone else created. The only reason for all these stories concerning MS is because they have a huge amount of cash and lawyers manipulate things to make...a profit out of it. Note that I don' t have a problem as far as Sun or Gateway are trying to fix their cash flow problems in this way instead of coming out with a better economic model, my concerns are that they are using the Public structures and money in order to do it. |
| #19 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 3/26/2002 7:45:31 PM |
|
Fritz, let's do this AGAIN, but let's try to make it for the last time okay? What you are complaining about is the quality of hardware and the service you received, right? What the hell does that have to do with Gateway's concerns about contract restrictions about whether or not they can sell naked PCs, multi-OS boxes, other vendor software, etc... This is what they are talking about when they say MS prevents them from providing the service that their customers want. So, AGAIN, waht the hell does your bad service have to do with the fact that if Gateway sells a naked box (A, as in a single one) there operating cost will go up 50% (I don't know but I would guess that Gateway doesn't pay much more than $20 for Windows)? Oh, absolutely nothing. You are whining about an issue unrelated to this one.
You are also whining about Sun and IBM and Gateway not building an OS now? Do you know any of the story about OS/2? And, AGAIN, what does this have to do with OEM contracts? Did I ever say that providing marketing $ as part of a contract is illegal? No. What is a problem is that MS uses this exclusively to favor those OEMs who favor them and to retaliate against those OEMs who do their own thing. That's a problem for an adjudged monopolist, never mind one that was found guilty for exactly that reason. I've said this a million times too, but maybe not to you: in the USA, what is or is not legal for one company is not true for a company who is maintaining a monopoly. A monopoly cannot say, "...but, but, but THEY do it too!" because the standards change once you have enough power to either maintain or extend your monopoly. "The only reason for all these stories concerning MS is because they have a huge amount of cash and lawyers manipulate things..." Come on, these stories have been happening for 15 years, alot of people have always hated MS, alot of people and companies have been burned or destoyed by MS; this case has been going on for seven years. It's only been in the past year and a half that the softies have taken the posture of "Everybody's out to get MS; they're just suing because they can't innovate." Bull! That's what happens when you make everyone your enemy, when you try to enter everyone's niche market, when you have a monopoly... Get used to it; it's not just a trend; it's going to keep happening as long as MS is a monopoly. Also, think about that, and try to think about the companies who have won, rare that it is, against MS. Generally, there is a cash awarding or it ends in settlement, but are these really profitable cases--MS has strung these things a long for years for their entire history so that even if companies win, at the end, they are dead, near dead, or the issue is no longer relevent. People don't sue MS to make a quick buck, because it simply doesn't work out that way. They sue MS because they have to. This post was edited by sodajerk on Tuesday, March 26, 2002 at 19:48. |
| #20 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 3/26/2002 8:06:02 PM |
|
Bob, all I can say is that is definitely your personal opinion about what you want from a box--I definitely dig all the software Sony puts on their machines because MS knows dick about media creation/production. But this: "Since when a PC acts flakey users blame MS, MS should have the right to limit what an OEM can do to their product." This is exactly the claim of the OEMs, but they say they are held responsible for the flakiness of Windows. Do you remember that great HP letter that said: "We are responsible for our own customer service, and do not appreciate your dictating how to package our software installations--if there was any other option, you would not be our vendor." I think it's a bad argument because I think it's much more clear that other software is from another company and if you need support go to that other company, but these OEMs end up servicing both the other vendors software and MS's software because they are providing the box. . But if you feel it's a good argument, then maybe you are suggesting that the whole model that softies usually tout should be tossed--MS should lock the OS to their own hardware and produce it themselves. If they want to license to other companies, then they should deal with it. Is there a single piece of non-MS software that you would ever want installed on a machine running windows? If yes, then someone has to provide it, and that would be OEMs. MS can't dictate whether or not that's kosher--especially if the complaint is largely because it's a competing product which is usually the case. MS doesn't complain about stuff they don't compete with; they just block out the competitors--so the idea that it's a quality issue is a joke--it's a competition issue. If it was a real quality issue, and MS really had concerns about any and all software being poor quality on their OS but their own, then they should provide the boxes.
So to sum up: Some would disagree; the OEMs make the same argument about Windows; MS doesn't restrict because of quality isseus but because of competitors; MS can't have it both ways: saying that they provide OEMs a platform, an OS, and the OEMs have a competitive market for PCs but at the same time maintain full control of all non_OS and/or non_MS software. I think that's 4 good arguments, and I do see your point about this is interrelated--I just think it serves to show how wrong MS is. "Well, who else should spend that budget, or should MS just do away with that budget altogether? They obviously made the money available to partners who were supporting the new OS, and those partners were glad to take it. Is your contention that MS should just hand out money to any OEM regardless of the relationship they have? That's a joke, right?" My contention is this is used to favor or retaliate against OEMs based on the threat of competitors. If this is about sales, it should only be based on OS license numbers only. It should not be based on packaging other MS products. You've heard me say this all before, right? If they can't deal with this, yes, they should be restricted from providing marketing cash altogether. Tat would be even better. Does this suck for them? Yes, but oh, well, it was found that this practice maintains or extends their monopoly. This post was edited by sodajerk on Tuesday, March 26, 2002 at 20:19. |
| #21 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 3/26/2002 8:28:04 PM |
| oooooh! I guess you guys aren't going to be happy that K-K wants to look more at PDA technology. You're right, soda, K-K is a sharp cooky! |
| #22 By 1295 (216.84.210.100) at 3/26/2002 9:40:53 PM |
|
Volume discounting has nothing to do with MS's monopoly. Gateway doesn't have the volume so they don't get the discount. MS could just go out to all OEM's and say... $99 for Windows XP Home $299 for XP Prof Etc. ANYTHING else is a perk to the distributor for doing good business for MS. This is not something ANY company is entitled to do. Dell gets a better deal because they do more business. A mom and pop local computer shop doesn't get volume pricing because they don't sell as much. Its business and if anybody has a problem with it then they usually just try to sell more. In this case, however, Gateway is crying because they aren't as high volume as Dell and in turn not as "valuable" to MS therefore they don't get as many perks. This is totally common.
Now, I can imagine that the licensing contracts a while ago (mid-late 90's) weren't as "nice" and were illegal. But now is a different story. Gateway's computers SUCK. Not by just my standards as what I want as an advanced user... but by the standards of many run of the mill customers... HP/Sony/Compaq offer much better systems (omg did I say that) and dell offers the best build-on-demand systems. MS did NOTHING to Dell when they offered linux. and it didn't sell... so Dell quit doing it. Hell Dell gets perks from placing MS's logo in certain spots on their websites and how they "start the build process" in their configurator. |
| #23 By 1295 (216.84.210.100) at 3/26/2002 9:41:04 PM |
|
The only reason MS's practices TODAY hurt gateway is because gateway isn't selling alot of systems. Rather than think "Maybe we need to change something about our products" they blame MS for their short commings. This is the main tone of almost every companies complaint about MS. It is not MS's fault that no OS competes with theirs. Apple had its chance... Linux is closing in (slowly but surely). They do business like any other supplier of a specific product.
Sodajerk... I understand where you care comming from in some cases... but I think you vilify MS a little to much. People hold the most basic business practices against MS. Press releases, marketing ploys etc. I don't agree with everything MS did in the Win95 days but I find that no reason to shackle one of the most innovative companies in the world the way the 9 states want. I think their should be a government mediator who looks at each contract they sign with OEM's and that is it. That will stop them from bullying and I think that is enough. Netscape/Sun/Oracle/BeOS all died because they were late in the game and didn't have the manpower (BeOS), Brains (Sun), or Nuts (Netscape) to compete with MS. That's life. MS got in at the right time with the right mindset. We could just as easily be arguing about Apple if they had licensed their OS to hardware manufacturers... but they decided not to. If BeOs had beat MS to the punch then we would be arguing about them. It was the timing that put MS at the front. They had the money to hire the right minds and buy the right software rights to position them where they are today. And that money all came from a ass-pounded IBM when they signed a contract for a product that didn't exist. MS is good at business and even though many people think that they have "hurt" consumers we have NEVER seen any studies or proof of that fact. They have only hurt their competitors by beating them to the punch. They got beat to the punch at Java... they embraced it and built one hell of a VM for Windows... they got smacked because it was too good for windows. Now they built .Net which in time I think will kill Java. They respond with better products/services and that is why they stay on top. I'm not a softy SodayJerk... I am a person who has chosen MS and is scared to death of the government presiding over software features, source code distribution, and license agreements. I do defend MS because I think they are being treated unfairly. They did illegal things for a while but I feel that the punishment is enough in the DOJ case. I personally believe in the ability of users to choose their own software etc regardless of what's on the machine. I don't care if WMP/IE/OE/MSMSG is on the machine. I ignore it for the most part. I watch as completely computer illiterate people get new machines and download WinAmp, Real Player, yahoo/aol messengers. I believe that it is good that i can buy windows and it already comes with the basics of anything I would ever want todo with the computer. If I want something better I go buy it. I could use FTP.exe or IE to ftp something but I would rather have Rhinosoft's FTP Voyager. I do use WMP for streaming media (because its better than Real) but I use WinAmp to play MP3's etc. I use MS Messenger and AOL and Yahoo messengers because My friends are on all of them. I use IE, but also install netscape and Opera because I'm a web designer. I use WordPad on my computer at home and at work because it does everything I need. I use Outlook for my e-mail because it works the best of what I can find. But the point is I can load a machine with windows and use it to almost any extent for anything on the net right off the bat and it only costs $99. That is freaking amazing to me. They have done nothing but further computing from the start... they got rich doing it, who cares. Remember the 10th commandment. |
| #24 By 61 (65.32.169.133) at 3/27/2002 12:28:32 AM |
| This is EXACTLY why a uniform contract is bad... simply put, if an OEM such as Gateway doesn't like it, that's it, they either sign it and be able to offer Windows, or don't sign it and not be able to offer Windows. In the previous system (and a system by which ALL companies handle contracts), Gateway would say "no, we don't like provisions a, b, and c, etc..." and they would re-negotiate the terms. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 173 Last | Next |
The time now is
2:39:02 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
