| 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 |
 |
Expert Lists Goals of a Microsoft Penalty | |
|
||
| Time: 11:25 EST/16:25 GMT | News Source: New York Times | Posted By: Byron Hinson | ||
|
Antitrust sanctions against the Microsoft Corporation should seek to repair the damage the company's illegal conduct did to competition and consumers in addition to preventing a repetition of its misdeeds, an economics expert told a federal judge yesterday. Prof. Carl Shapiro, an economist who served as the expert witness for nine states seeking broader regulations of Microsoft's business practices, spelled out for the first time in the current hearing the economic rationale behind several of the states' proposals. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 330 Last | Next |
The time now is
8:14:03 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 6253 (12.237.192.187) at 4/12/2002 2:15:08 PM |
|
#3, your scenario works for traditional monopolies like electric utilities. Not only do you have to buy your electricity from them today, but you also have to buy it again from them next month. In the absence of regulation, they have no incentive to make their plants cleaner, safer, more efficient.
But the scenario doesn't apply Microsoft. Microsoft has been providing absolutely free bug fixes and even new capabilities like WinSock 2, DCOM, IE, Windows Scripting, MDAC, etc. for people who bought Windows in August 1995. They didn't have to pay again in September, October, November, etc. They can keep using Windows 95 as long as they want. Microsoft isn't going to shut off their OS like the electric utility can shut off your service. To compete with the electric utility, not only do I have to spend millions on a plant, but I also have to tap into the wires that feed existing buildings. I can't do that without the monopoly's cooperation. That's the barrier. But I can write a new OS with nothing more than a $500 PC and post it on the Internet for little/nothing and reach an audience of millions. The gotcha is that I need to have plenty of skill, and I need to create something good enough that millions would be interested in it. The plain simple fact is that none of Microsoft's competitors have been able to muster the skill and quality to compete. The notion of Windows Desktop placement being a killer has been debunked again and again. Why isn't MSN the leading ISP? Why weren't IE "Channels" a big hit? Simple: they weren't good enough. The PC software industry is competitive, so a product must be good to make it, regardless of placement. Many OEMs ship preloaded Microsoft Works on low-end machines, but end users promptly replace it with Office. (Heck, most capable users wipe out OEM pre-loads and re-install everything they want.) If preloaded software with the Microsoft name were automatically accepted, Microsoft Works would be a huge hit. But it's simply medicore software. |
| #2 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 4/12/2002 4:20:17 PM |
|
"But the scenario doesn't apply Microsoft. Microsoft has been providing absolutely free bug fixes and even new capabilities like WinSock 2, DCOM, IE, Windows Scripting, MDAC, etc. for people who bought Windows in August 1995. They didn't have to pay again in September, October, November, etc. They can keep using Windows 95 as long as they want. Microsoft isn't going to shut off their OS like the electric utility can shut off your service."
Isn't that (plus the source of the remedies being competitotrs) the crux of MS's argument today. If you don't let us do what we want, we will shut down and pack up? Just because MS improves it's products doesn't mean it's not a monopoly. Just because thye had some failures doesn't negate the importance of the distribution channels provied by the OS. You are completing ignoring the application barrier to entry, a basic tenet excepted by all sides of the case. It is absurd to suggest that you could develop an OS and have amillion users--you cannot doing that without app development, developers, users, 3rd parties... If this is so feasible, point me to an OS that has accomplished this? #5, Why doesn't hotmail count just because it's free? |
| #3 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 4/12/2002 6:09:26 PM |
| No, no, no, that's an overly simplified view Coach. In other words, the only way a company could ever be a monopoly, EVER, is if their products disappeared from existence the moment they raised their prices or pulled them from the market? Are you serious? Just because one consumer bought one thing once doesn't mean the marketplace is STATIC--new consumers need to buy something, at some point point, you want to upgrade or renew.... I don't know Coach you're arguments are getting very silly now. It has to do if whether there is an alternative product, not if you could keep using the product you are already using. |
| #4 By 6253 (64.204.105.166) at 4/12/2002 7:02:10 PM |
|
Sodajerk, new consumers can look at the available choices at the time they enter the market, buy what they prefer, and then use it forever. And there have always been available choices, whether CP/M-86, DR-DOS, GEM, Geos, OS/2, FreeBSD, Linux, Solaris, BeOS, etc.
When people say that those choices aren't viable choices, what they really mean is that those choices aren't equal in quality and benefit. That's not Microsoft's fault. It also shouldn't be required for Microsoft to roll over and play dead when someone wants to compete with Windows. Competition requires two sides. As for the application barrier to entry, that's why MS-DOS supported a portion of the CP/M API. But it didn't have to support 100% of the API exactly the way that CP/M did. And every new version of MS-DOS and Windows have evolved the API in ways that have broken even some of Microsoft's own applications. So the argument that Microsoft's API isn't open doesn't jive with the tens of thousands of API calls which are thoroughly documented in the Platform SDK and MSDN Library. Anyone can make their OS as compatible with Windows as they choose, subject to their abilities and resources. People make noise when they find one API that a documentation writer overlooked, which Excel might use for trivial cosmetic purposes, but where's the credit given for the reams of APIs which make Windows the most open and most technically clonable OS ever? The fact is: cloning an OS isn't a trivial thing, and Microsoft's competitors simply haven't been up to the task. Where's the clones of OS/400? |
| #5 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 4/12/2002 7:10:31 PM |
|
holedup, you aren't understanding what I mean by application barrier to entry--you are ignoring things that even MS has accepted at this point. The app barrier has nothing to do with developing apps on Windows; it has to do with the fact that over time as MS's marketshare grew, the vast majority of the applications and development focused on MS. Even MS accepts this part of the court rulings. The court's also ruled that it was clear and evident that superior products could and have existed but because development has centered around MS for the last ten years, that technology will not have a chance. It's called a monopoly--just because there are other things known as OSes, does not mean they are an alternative to Windows. Since you don't know these things or except them as adjudged facts and accepted facts by MS even at this point, I don't know if you could ever understand the argument. But I guess you aren't interested in understanding that MS with their high profile and powerful lawyers had their opportunity to argue they weren't a monopoly (they did so much, much more effectively than you), and yet the District Court and an en banc unanimous Appeals Court ruled they were. I guess I'd be willing to try to explain it if you really wanted to know. If you want to continue living in dream land and believe that MS is not a monopoly, have fun. This post was edited by sodajerk on Friday, April 12, 2002 at 19:19. |
| #6 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 4/12/2002 7:28:55 PM |
|
I am convinced sodajerk posts only to hear himself think.
|
| #7 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 4/12/2002 7:30:40 PM |
| I am convinced you appreciate my argument, hence no rebuttal, just bitterness. (just kidding) |
| #8 By 3653 (65.190.70.73) at 4/12/2002 8:15:52 PM |
| ACTIVEWIN, rather than ban sodajerkoff... could you just add an IGNORE feature for those of us who have read 1 too many of sodajerk's "thoughts". |
| #9 By 3653 (65.190.70.73) at 4/12/2002 8:17:07 PM |
| also, may i ask the background of the whole "sodablue" and "sodajerk" names? Who was spiting who? |
| #10 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 4/12/2002 8:21:29 PM |
| you don't know how to email to AW, mooresa56? Are you posting under every story this comment? Well, if you'd like to know, when I would post as an anon way back, soda would trail me, saying that I had constipation problems and various other silly and obnoxious remarks. Wherever I would post, these stupid comments would show up no matter what I was saying. So I chose to adobt an id, and I chose as my name sodajerk. Why are people so enraged by "jerk"--I think it makes for a quaint screen name even without the back story. |
| #11 By 3339 (64.175.42.36) at 4/12/2002 10:08:59 PM |
| No, I didn't say that hotmail was involved, I just think it's absurd that you pick one of their crappy products, and say it's not dominant so they are not a monopoly. But then you point out a product that is the dominant web mail, but seem to dismiss it just because it is free. That seems absurd as well--particularly when this case started over a free product. That was my point. |
| #12 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 4/12/2002 11:16:52 PM |
|
mooresa56 - sodajerk used to post the same old inane crap, only anonymously. I kept asking her to choose a name, and since I frequently shredded her arguments and made her look silly she decided to mock me by choosing the name she did.
Ohwell, I guess I should be flatter to have a stalker. |
| #13 By 6253 (12.237.192.187) at 4/13/2002 1:57:05 PM |
|
Sodajerk, you understand far less than you realize. I choose not to pick out all the horrible language errors you make, but they are not simple typos; it is clear that you don't have enough a grasp of the English language to understand squat about the legal proceedings. Microsoft hasn't "accepted" (not "excepted") anything other than the extent to which it is necessary to address court procedures. You're right that the court has made rulings. That doesn't mean those rulings are absolutely right; that's why appeals exist, and rulings are overturned. The current proceedings are based upon the current rulings, and procedurally, they must be assumed in order to participate in continued proceedings.
First, you make the assumption that the definition of a monopoly is absolute. It is not. You make the assumption that a monopoly is illegal. It is not. I understand what I'm arguing, and whether I make a case better or worse than Microsoft's attorneys in a court is irrelevant because it was never my intent to try. You have miserably failed to make any point about application barriers to entry. My point is that many operating systems can run a wide range of Windows applications today, and you can often even choose from several mechanisms for doing so. So the fact that much of app development has centered on Windows is irrelevant because you can run the results of that development on virtually any OS you choose. Sure, there are exceptional apps that have problems, but we're back to the reason that MS-DOS didn't have to duplicate all of CP/M's API; you don't really need 100.00% compatibility to be successful in displacing an OS with an installed application base. What the competing operating systems have failed to do is offer a compelling reason for people to switch. Compatibility with existing apps removes the negative barriers, but doesn't provide positive motivation. Nobody has provided a good enough product. They spend too much hot air talking about how great their programming approach is, but people don't buy programming approaches; they buy products which meet their desires. Microsoft is the only major vendor sinking big bucks year after year into usability testing, customer surveys, etc. Microsoft will write inelegant, illogical code without a second thought, if that's what it takes to satisfy a paying customer. Open source is largely still writing code for the gratification--often self-gratification--of geeks. No one has ever been as successful as Microsoft in putting together people and processes to produce and promote products, so our legal system is having a hard time understanding how there can be so many incompetent competitors in an industry. It doesn't make sense, so judges are tempted to conclude that Microsoft couldn't possibly be successful without breaking the law. If you actually read the Findings of Fact, you'll see that there are enormous leaps of faith required to associate the verifiable evidence with the supposedly indisputable findings. |
| #14 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 4/13/2002 4:46:16 PM |
|
holedup - Well said!
I would like to add, on the point of compatibility, that it is usually the bane of the competing product than a helpful feature. OS/2 died because of it's Windows 3.1 compatibility, but more importantly it was very difficult to write native OS/2 apps and so there was nothing compelling to keep users with that platform compared to Windows NT 4.0. As you said, it all boils down to whether the competition offers something compelling for the end user. Linux, which frequently comes up, offers only one thing... cost. But the cost difference is not particularly compelling in light of it's complete lack of functionality in areas most important to end users. |
| #15 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 4/14/2002 6:53:59 PM |
|
It's interesting to see anti-MS zealots define "real competition" as "weakening the quality of the software Microsoft produces so incompetent developers have a chance."
These are the same people who have suggested for the past 10 years that Michael Jordan be forced to carry 50 pounds of lead weights around his belt in order to promote fair competition on the basketball court... |
| #16 By 5444 (208.180.245.59) at 4/14/2002 6:59:12 PM |
|
#31,
Have you read the proposal offered by the states. They are talking about a modular Windows. and that it is to fix all the OS's on the market today. So basically from win9x to winxp. But the main one is the complete removal of IE from the OS. read, all of the DLL's associated with IE. Which will break 100's if not thousands of aps that rely on this. What companies like netscape/aol want is the ability to replace the html renderer of the OS. While I agree that you should have your own choice of a browser, I don't believe that a competing company should have the ability to replace the OS version of the renderer. Unless it of course can provide full functionality that is needed in the OS. I persnoally, given the history of Netscape, and Sun wouldn't want them to provide the basic functionality of the HTML renderer for example. or SUN's notorisly piss poor implementation of the JVM. While I don't run all MS stuff for things that I need. I use Winamp over MS version of the same. And since I use the internet, I am forced to get Reals POS player, and quicktime for those sites that require it. (and I am starting to visit those sites alot less in the process, because of it) Oh and BTW, WMM and WMP are both not on my system. A very easy perusal of the Inet provides information on how to remove them. Hell with about 80% of the people I deal with in Customer Support, I doubt even if the ability to remove it was in the OS. they wouldn't know how without askign CS how to remove it. I would say that 90% of the consumers don't really care if it is loaded on. Most appriciate having not to pay extra for basic support, and most move on to more capable programs if they are truely interested in the media they use. But by all accounts, going to a moduliar windows. will Make the OS and systems more expensive. one, it will make development costs much higher. which will drive up the costs of software in general. And a modular system will become mute in the long run. because Vendors that have presented a look and feel to its customers will want to keep that look and feel. So most vendors will force reloading IE for instance to provide the enviroment of the past. or any of a multitude of items that competitors want to remove from the OS. Either that or roll thier own, which drives up development costs. And consumers make the decisions on what is bought and what isn't. Linux is gaining ground slowly. But when Linux was offered as an option, very few bought the systems configured that way. El |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 330 Last | Next |
The time now is
8:14:03 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
