Re: Solving "The Microsoft Problem." - Microsoft Windows

This is a discussion on Re: Solving "The Microsoft Problem." - Microsoft Windows ; On Jul 8, 10:31 am, Thundercleets wrote: > On Jun 10, 2:32 pm, "Erich Kohl" wrote: > > A lot of people complain about Microsoft's voracious appetite (greed?) > > and monopoly position in the computer industry. It's not just ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Re: Solving "The Microsoft Problem."

  1. Re: Solving "The Microsoft Problem."

    On Jul 8, 10:31 am, Thundercleets wrote:
    > On Jun 10, 2:32 pm, "Erich Kohl" wrote:


    > > A lot of people complain about Microsoft's voracious appetite (greed?)
    > > and monopoly position in the computer industry.


    It's not just talk either. Remember that Microsoft has been
    investigated and/or prosecuted and/or sued for numerous criminal
    activities and most of these have resulted in preliminary judgements
    against Microsoft that led Microsoft to offer preemptory settlements.
    Criminal acts committed by Microsoft and ruled by judges to be
    criminal acts inlude fraud, extortion, sabotage, blackmail,
    embezzlement, theft, and obstruction of justice.

    Microsoft's top executives avoid criminal prosecution by writing
    carefully worded settlements which, in effect, grant immunity
    Microsoft and it's executives and employees in exchange for minor
    concessions and what appear to be generous settlements. Microsoft
    pays an average of $2 BILLION per YEAR in settlements and another $2
    BILLION per YEAR in LEGAL FEES in it's defense.

    Microsoft has figure out a way to make criminal activity profitable
    and avoid the usual criminal prosecutions an the same time. In other
    words, at Microsoft CRIME DOES PAY.

    > > But then it occurred to me -- how many unique operating systems can the
    > > industry support?


    Go to the grocery store. How many brands of soap to you see? Include
    all forms of soap from bar soap to dishwashing liquid to clothes
    washing detergent to shampoos and facial cleansers.

    Now imagine walking into the "Microsoft store" where you see, at most
    4 different types of lye soap made from pig fat and lye. It smells
    horrible, and makes your skin break out in hives, and your clothes
    disintigrate after 10-12 washings, but since it's the only stuff you
    can get, and it's "thrown in" with each clothing purchase, each
    haircut, and you employer gives you a bottle of the stuff along with
    your paycheck, you really don't get a chance to use anything else.
    Furthermore, the other soap makers are locked out of the market, and
    can't get any publicity for their soap. They advertize in specialty
    magazines to people whose alergies to Microsoft soap is so severe that
    they are willing to order it and have it shipped to them, and they
    even mix it themselves, mixing a concentrate with water or alcohol or
    lotion, depending on what type of soap is needed.

    The people who use this soap not only don't get allergies, their
    clothes last longer, and their hair doesn't fall out so quickly, and
    they don't have dandruff, and they actually smell nice for several
    hours. They try to tell their friends about the soap, but they are
    seen as crackpots because everybody knows that Microsoft soap is
    "Free" and they get more of it than they really need.

    What these people don't realize is that 20% of their paycheck,
    including 40% of what they spend on clothes, is going to Microsoft to
    pay for their "Free" soap. Microsoft has the clothing makers
    convinced that if they don't include the soap, nobody will buy the
    clothes. They also threaten employers by threatening to cut off their
    supply of soap, telling them that without the Microsoft soap all of
    their employees will get sick and die.

    Sounds absurd doesn't it? When you use the word Soap instead of
    software, and clothes instead of PCs, it just seems ridiculous that
    anybody would fall for a scam like that, or pay so much, or let it get
    so out of control. Yet, that's what Microsoft did for almost 30
    years, increasing our dependency on their products, expanding their
    control, and eventually forcing us to take products we didn't want or
    need, while killing off all of the competitors through criminally
    anticompetitive tactics including fraud, extortion, blackmail,
    sabotage, embezzlement, theft, and obstruction of justice.

    Had Procter and Gamble been able to pull that off, there wouldn't be
    colgate polmolive, or any of the other competitors in the market, and
    a grocery store might only have 1 isle of soap that smelled horrible,
    ruined your clothes, was toxic, and made your hair fall out.

    [snip]

    > It is M$ monopoly and wholesale code and IP theft that burns most
    > about M$ success.


    Keep in mind that Microsoft has obtained monopoly in a wide variety of
    markets, including not just the Operatign System, but nearly every
    other type of application, from text editors and word processors to
    web browsers and databases. Most of their stuff his horrible,
    incompatible with everything else, and forces companies to spend
    $TRILLIONS world-wide on wasted time and effort to support the
    proprietary Microsoft infrastructure. The costs include everything
    from malware and identity theft to manual copy/paste of documents into
    useful forms to lost documents that take forever to find, or can't be
    found, to ineffective collaboration, where a simple request can take
    weeks to get approved because it has to be written as a Word document,
    complete with way too much information, when often, a simple text
    request made via instant messaging or e-mail would provide very
    specific responses and/or requests for more information.

    > One of the main reasons M$ hates CopyLeft is that they can't rape
    > small start-ups and coders as easily as they did before.


    OSS can't be controlled, it can't be bought, it can't be stolen, and
    it can't be stopped. That creates a problem for Microsoft. Worse,
    many of Microsoft's former partners, now competitors locked out of the
    market and dependent on some huge parent company for survival (Lotus,
    WordPerfect, Borland,...) are resorting to Open Source as a way to get
    back into the market.

    Microsoft tries to lock them out, but since end-users can install it
    themselves, and there is little or no funding approval required, OSS
    is spreading very quickly. It sees that, according to a few surveys,
    FF now installed on more PCs than IE. Open Office is now running on
    more PCs than Microsoft Office.

    And yet, Microsoft is still able to extort $40 billion/year from OEMs,
    Corporations, and institutions for their "shovelware", including
    Windows, Office, and IE. Again, it seems that Microsoft's strategy is
    to starve out the competition, locking them out of the corporate and
    institutional budget. 600 million end users might install OO because
    they can do more in less time, but Microsoft still gets it's $40
    billion/year.

    > As an OS, on it's own merits Windows, in all forms, sucks.
    > M$ has never been known as being a "tight" code house so it's no
    > surprise.


    Actually, it has been Microsoft's strategy to burn as much RAM and
    hard drive and CPU as possible, because it's supposed to help force
    people into buying new computers. The irony is that Windows 98
    running on a 400 Mhz Pentium II was faster than Vista running on a
    dual-core 8 billion instruction per second Duo..

    > You can chalk-up M$ success to vendor lock-in, market intimidation and
    > graft.


    Microsoft's good fortune was fundamentally part of their unique
    understanding of copyright law just months after it was revised in
    1977 (law drafted in 1976 and put into effect in 1977). Bill's father
    understood the law, and encouraged Bill to license rather than sell
    the software, and even helped Bill write most of the early Microsoft
    licenses. Microsoft had made several million dollars licensing BASIC
    in ROM. IBM didn't find out until it was almost too late, that
    Microsoft wanted to grant IBM a nonexclusive license rather than just
    charge a big huge lump sum. It was the timing of Microsoft's proposal
    that caught them by surprise. Rather than asking for licenses up
    front, the way another vendor did, Microsof let IBM play along until
    it was too late, and then gave their price.


    > Early in 1995, the BBS was still king. Compuserve, Prodigy, AOL—these
    > were the powerhouses. Most of computer-buying America knew little, if
    > anything, about the Internet.
    >
    > Bill Gates even stated flatly at a press conference that the Internet
    > was a passing fad and unimportant.
    >
    > Certified Mail: July 2002
    > July 2002, MCP Magazine Readers



  2. Re: Solving "The Microsoft Problem."

    Rex Ballard wrote:

    > On Jul 8, 10:31 am, Thundercleets wrote:
    > > On Jun 10, 2:32 pm, "Erich Kohl" wrote:

    >
    > > > A lot of people complain about Microsoft's voracious appetite
    > > > (greed?) and monopoly position in the computer industry.

    >
    > It's not just talk either. Remember that Microsoft has been
    > investigated and/or prosecuted and/or sued for numerous criminal
    > activities and most of these have resulted in preliminary judgements
    > against Microsoft that led Microsoft to offer preemptory settlements.
    > Criminal acts committed by Microsoft and ruled by judges to be
    > criminal acts inlude fraud, extortion, sabotage, blackmail,
    > embezzlement, theft, and obstruction of justice.
    >
    > Microsoft's top executives avoid criminal prosecution by writing
    > carefully worded settlements which, in effect, grant immunity
    > Microsoft and it's executives and employees in exchange for minor
    > concessions and what appear to be generous settlements. Microsoft
    > pays an average of $2 BILLION per YEAR in settlements and another $2
    > BILLION per YEAR in LEGAL FEES in it's defense.
    >
    > Microsoft has figure out a way to make criminal activity profitable
    > and avoid the usual criminal prosecutions an the same time. In other
    > words, at Microsoft CRIME DOES PAY.
    >


    What I'd like to know is, is the amount of hot water Microsoft is in
    due to its legal troubles any greater or lesser than any other typical
    large corporation or organization?

    That's no excuse, of course. But sometimes I just wonder if Microsoft
    is put under the microscope with greater scrutiny because of their size
    and/or success.

    > > > But then it occurred to me -- how many unique operating systems
    > > > can the industry support?

    >
    > Go to the grocery store. How many brands of soap to you see? Include
    > all forms of soap from bar soap to dishwashing liquid to clothes
    > washing detergent to shampoos and facial cleansers.
    >
    > Now imagine walking into the "Microsoft store" where you see, at most
    > 4 different types of lye soap made from pig fat and lye. It smells
    > horrible, and makes your skin break out in hives, and your clothes
    > disintigrate after 10-12 washings, but since it's the only stuff you
    > can get, and it's "thrown in" with each clothing purchase, each
    > haircut, and you employer gives you a bottle of the stuff along with
    > your paycheck, you really don't get a chance to use anything else.
    > Furthermore, the other soap makers are locked out of the market, and
    > can't get any publicity for their soap. They advertize in specialty
    > magazines to people whose alergies to Microsoft soap is so severe that
    > they are willing to order it and have it shipped to them, and they
    > even mix it themselves, mixing a concentrate with water or alcohol or
    > lotion, depending on what type of soap is needed.
    >
    > The people who use this soap not only don't get allergies, their
    > clothes last longer, and their hair doesn't fall out so quickly, and
    > they don't have dandruff, and they actually smell nice for several
    > hours. They try to tell their friends about the soap, but they are
    > seen as crackpots because everybody knows that Microsoft soap is
    > "Free" and they get more of it than they really need.
    >
    > What these people don't realize is that 20% of their paycheck,
    > including 40% of what they spend on clothes, is going to Microsoft to
    > pay for their "Free" soap. Microsoft has the clothing makers
    > convinced that if they don't include the soap, nobody will buy the
    > clothes. They also threaten employers by threatening to cut off their
    > supply of soap, telling them that without the Microsoft soap all of
    > their employees will get sick and die.
    >
    > Sounds absurd doesn't it? When you use the word Soap instead of
    > software, and clothes instead of PCs, it just seems ridiculous that
    > anybody would fall for a scam like that, or pay so much, or let it get
    > so out of control. Yet, that's what Microsoft did for almost 30
    > years, increasing our dependency on their products, expanding their
    > control, and eventually forcing us to take products we didn't want or
    > need, while killing off all of the competitors through criminally
    > anticompetitive tactics including fraud, extortion, blackmail,
    > sabotage, embezzlement, theft, and obstruction of justice.
    >
    > Had Procter and Gamble been able to pull that off, there wouldn't be
    > colgate polmolive, or any of the other competitors in the market, and
    > a grocery store might only have 1 isle of soap that smelled horrible,
    > ruined your clothes, was toxic, and made your hair fall out.
    >


    That analogy is certainly thought-provoking, but as I see it, soap
    doesn't necessarily have to be compatible with other brands of soap,
    the way operating systems and applications have to be if we are going
    to continue to develop a world in which information can be freely
    exchanged.

    If grandma uses Windows XP and her grandson uses Linux, she's going to
    wonder if the photos she sends him are going to display properly on his
    computer (or vice versa).

    I suppose it's not entirely dissimilar to the situation that existed
    when CP/M was king. I was not really into computers at the time when
    that was happening, but since competing hardware manufacturers used
    this dominant operating system, people knew that their machines
    possessed a certain amount of compatibility with each other, and I'm
    sure they benefited from it.

    At any rate, even though I enjoy using Vista (and I wouldn't describe
    myself as a Microsoft-hater), I'm looking forward to playing around
    with the latest version of Ubuntu. I recently installed it on my
    system in a separate partition, and I'm very impressed. I bought a
    book on it and plan to spend more time with it. (But I must vent a
    little: It took MULTIPLE attempts at experimenting with distributions
    to find one that worked properly and the way I wanted. It wasn't any
    more of a pain to get Vista up and running properly -- probably less.)

  3. Re: Solving "The Microsoft Problem."

    On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 03:33:14 UTC, "Erich Kohl"
    wrote:

    -> What I'd like to know is, is the amount of hot water Microsoft is in
    -> due to its legal troubles any greater or lesser than any other typical
    -> large corporation or organization?
    ->
    -> That's no excuse, of course. But sometimes I just wonder if Microsoft
    -> is put under the microscope with greater scrutiny because of their size
    -> and/or success.
    ->

    Microsoft has twice been found guilty of being a predatory monopoly.
    After each negotiated settlement they promptly did whatever they
    wanted.

    No one else would do that and get away with it.

    Mark


    --
    From the eComStation of Mark Dodel

    Warpstock 2008 - Santa Cruz, California: http://www.warpstock.org
    Warpstock Europe 2008 - Düsseldorf, Germany: http://www.warpstock.eu

+ Reply to Thread