Quite frankly, I think it's a good decision, because in my opinion, Microsoft won their share of the market fair and square.
To break up Microsoft would portrait the government as the "pigs" in "Animal Farm" changing the rules everyday:
"A business should try its' best to beat all of its' competitor, therefore becoming a winner in the FREE ENTERPRISE ECONOMY. The invisible hands should be the only factor molding the trend of the market instead of the government"
and the next day, some addtional messages "magically" appeared ...
"P.S. Government reserve the right to bust your ass down! If a business is TOO successful by OUR judgement, even if the business achieve this mean by LEGAL PROCESS, we gonna come down our high chairs and kick your butt back to stone age regardless of the invisible hands!."
Businesses (Netscape, etc) that bitch for Microsoft's supposeingly "monopoly" are just a bunches of winny kids that lost a fair fight, and cried to get adult's attentions.
And what's with the "Window with IE included" fiasco? Man, people that bitch about this is like saying that Ford does not have the "right" in what brand of tires they can used for THEIR freakin' cars. Guess what, "Ford" did not sabatoge their car to "explode" if you use any other type of tires other then "Firestone", and, *gasp*, what's that you say??!! There are plenty of other tires to choose from!!?? And they're all FREE!!??
[ September 06, 2001: Message edited by: BlueElectron ]
-------------------- "George Washington said, 'I cannot tell a lie.' Richard Nixon said, 'I cannot tell the truth.' Bill Clinton said, 'I cannot tell the difference.'"
-- comedian TOM SMOTHERS, from his latest stage act with brother DICK SMOTHERS.
Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged
Saltah'na
Chinese Canadian, or 75% Commie Bastard.
Member # 33
posted
Well, in general, I agree that Microsoft should not be broken up, but for different reasons. Had the legal proceedings for Microsoft's breakup happened several years before, I would have been more supporting. But with the advent of Linux, things may change. Linux now has a foothold on the market, and now it is time to see what happens after that.
Linux could be the proverbial David toppling Microsoft the Goliath.
-------------------- "And slowly, you come to realize, it's all as it should be, you can only do so much. If you're game enough, you could place your trust in me. For the love of life, there's a tradeoff, we could lose it all but we'll go down fighting...." - David Sylvian FreeSpace 2, the greatest space sim of all time, now remastered!
posted
I'm sorry if you don't know what a monopoly is, or that a monopoly usually uses whatever they can to make sure they don't get competition.
As I recall, Netscape took their case to the government, along with a lot of other companies who were being fucked over, and the government realized that Microsoft was using an unfair advantage (any computer that had Windows installed on it had to have Microsoft's web browser installed in place of any other browser, right?)
IMHO, that is an abuse of power, and an unfair advantage over other companies. Why should, say, Gateway or Dell be forced to use Microsoft's browser instead of Netscape or something else? It makes no sense, and it's illegal, and Microsoft got what it deserved (what we all enjoyed when the bully at school got sent to detention), and it had better learn its lesson.
posted
Like I said, Ford has the right to choose the tire for its' car.
Microsoft has the right to choose what components it deem fits for Window.
Don't like Firestone? Then don't buy Ford.
Don't like Window? Buy a Mac, or wipe your comp clean to get other OS.
Dell not liking it? Go with MacOS, Linux and what if and what not. Microsoft didn't shove IE down their throat. They simply said, "Window comes with IE because we see it as a 'improvement', and if you don't like it, don't use Window."
Netscape lost because they're stupid, they could've done the same deal with Mac, or other OS makers out there, beside, they were getting their ass kicked EVEN BEFORE the IE fiasco. By the way, go to the "Add/Remove Prorgram" option, IE is listed there, which mean it would be remove if you wish.
Microsoft is big today ultimately due to the consumers, not because of monopoly.
[ September 06, 2001: Message edited by: BlueElectron ]
-------------------- "George Washington said, 'I cannot tell a lie.' Richard Nixon said, 'I cannot tell the truth.' Bill Clinton said, 'I cannot tell the difference.'"
-- comedian TOM SMOTHERS, from his latest stage act with brother DICK SMOTHERS.
Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
BE: "Window comes with IE because we see it as a 'improvement', and if you don't like it, don't use Window."
Jeff: Which is, er, illegal.
How do you figure? Microsoft owns the products it's selling, and it can sell those products in any way it pleases. It's called private property, and no government has the right to interfere.
Microsoft has done nothing that is illegal, and thus this decision is correct.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
posted
Yeah, Firestone is a poor example, from now on, it's Nissan with...Goodyear.
Anyway, Ford with Firestone is just an example to demonstrate that a Manufacture should have the right to put whatever they deem necessary for their product.
-------------------- "George Washington said, 'I cannot tell a lie.' Richard Nixon said, 'I cannot tell the truth.' Bill Clinton said, 'I cannot tell the difference.'"
-- comedian TOM SMOTHERS, from his latest stage act with brother DICK SMOTHERS.
posted
Here's the thing. Microsoft makes some of the most popular software in the world. I don't know the actual figure, but even us Mac-headz will tell you it's like 80% of the desktops in American (if not the World's) homes run some variation of Windows. That is a commanding portion of the market, and much as I'd love to trash them, they got there by shrewd business accumen(1), tremendous marketing, and producing good products(2). They worked hard and they have been rewarded. The lion's share of the home computers in the world are running Microsoft OS. I'm OK with this (3). My issues have to do with Microsoft now using this leverage to coerce people who use their OS to use their other products. Microsoft makes great products (4). They shouldn't have to resort to lead-pipe-to-knee tactics. I recognize that it's a fine line, but if you can't extract IE from Windows without crippling your web capabilities (even if you install Navigator or some other replacement browser) then I have a problem with that. If IE is truly the superior product and provided it's handled with the same aformentioned accumen, it will win out on a level playing field. That's how this market game is played, and that's what's at issue for me. How does the market benefit from Microsoft's exclusion of its competition? On a global scale, the US certainly benefits from this, but what about the advancement of computer applications development and operating systems?
If tomorrow night a guy living in his mom's basement in Witchita finishes writing his masterful open-source 'Hyperion-Tesseract Browser' which is cross-platform compatible, renders twenty-five times faster than anything out there, stable as a rock, and takes up only 808K, is his product going to stand a chance up against IE? Even with clever marketing, shrewd business leadership and a yummy candy colored interface, he's not going to be able to make his product integral to the functioning of the OS. Once MS catches wind of his new App, they will do one of three things: buy it and rebrand it into IE(5); buy it and sit on it; express concerns about its compatibility and drag their heels giving information to HTB developers who want to interface with the OS. Where is the reward for his innovation? How are the people served by this? Much as I hate to admit it, right now there is no one who can realistically compete with Microsoft in the OS business. That's not good for the market, and ultimately that's not even good for Microsoft. They are going to stay out front with innovation, and as long as they are in complete control of that pace, we the consumers are not going to be getting the best products. ____________________
1 They knew who to rip off and when...
2 god it hurts to say this
3 There's no accounting for personal taste after all, and if a huge chunk of the world's population wants to use a buggy unstable copycat OS from the totalitarians in Redmond, that's their problem. Mmmm Starbucks. (Feels so much better now)
4 I should say '...buys exceptionally terrific products, corrupts them with legacy code and releases good products.'
5 At which point it will become exclusively Win XP compatible, a tenth as fast, buggy as the everglades in August, and take up 1.3GB of drive space.
-------------------- "Nah. The 9th chevron is for changing the ringtone from "grindy-grindy chonk-chonk" to the theme tune to dallas." -Reverend42
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
OnToMars
Now on to the making of films!
Member # 621
posted
Not the issue, Jeff. Completely and totally not the issue. Start another thread if you want, but we're talking about whether Microsoft has the right to outfit their products with other products as they see fit.
They do.
::suddenly realizes he agreed with Omega and starts looking for a gun::
-------------------- If God didn't want us to fly, he wouldn't have given us Bernoulli's Principle.
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
But they do NOT have the right to deny customers the option of refitting their product with different components. If I want to change the tires of my car, I shouldn't first have to root-canal it down to the last bolt in order to replace them.
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Or to extend the metaphor to the point of ridiculousness, If Ford said you can put different tires on here, and you can drive around town just like normal, but should you decide that you want to take your new Explorer outside of the city limits with other people on board, well the car will need to have those original Goodyear tires back on.
MPDN makes a good point. Why do the tires need to be different from any other set of tires? I shouldn't need to pull the transmission to use a different set of tires.
[ September 06, 2001: Message edited by: Balaam Xumucane ]
-------------------- "Nah. The 9th chevron is for changing the ringtone from "grindy-grindy chonk-chonk" to the theme tune to dallas." -Reverend42
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
::suddenly realizes he agreed with Omega and starts looking for a gun::
Um... just whacha gonna do with that gun, Stingy?
they do NOT have the right to deny customers the option of refitting their product with different components
Yes, they do (minus contractual obligations, of course). It's their car, until you reach a mutually acceptable agreement with them to obtain it. If they don't want to put the tires you want on it, well, tough noogies. Either buy it and do it yourself, or buy another vehicle, but you can NOT force someone to change the tires on their own vehicle. The fact that something's for sale does not change its status as private property.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Da_bang80
A few sectors short of an Empire
Member # 528
posted
When you install windows to your computer. it asks you what programs you'd like installed with it as well. i believe i saw IE in there along with Outlook Express, and a few others. i find that very convenient, and it shouldn't be illegal since consumers have a choice whether or not to use it. so it's a consumer preference.
-------------------- Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change. The courage to change the things I cannot accept. And the wisdom to hide the bodies of all the people I had to kill today because they pissed me off.
posted
As of this moment, I'm using Netscape 4.7 running on Window 98 SE, I also have IE just as a bonus when Netscape crap out on me.
And yes, if I choose to, I have the option to kill IE.
So the "tire" example stands. Suppose that "Goodyear" (instead of Firestone) is the factory standard for all "Ford"'s car, but you don't want your "Ford" with "Goodyear" tires, you can:
1. Buy the car, change the tires to "Firestone", you also have the option to keep or throw away your "Goodyear".
2. Buy a "Chevy", "Nissan" or what if and what not.
And man, as I stated out earlier, Window does not "crap out" if you kill IE or have Netscape install on it.
[ September 06, 2001: Message edited by: BlueElectron ]
-------------------- "George Washington said, 'I cannot tell a lie.' Richard Nixon said, 'I cannot tell the truth.' Bill Clinton said, 'I cannot tell the difference.'"
-- comedian TOM SMOTHERS, from his latest stage act with brother DICK SMOTHERS.
Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic
