[Cialug] Re: MS

[cialug@cialug.org]

I don't have as much of a problem with Windows being a "monopoly" as I do other
MS products.  Let's face it, for PCs, there wasn't much of an alternative when
Windows 3.0 came out (I'm just focusing on PCs, there were other platforms, but
those had software monopolies as well).  Sure, there was DesqView, GoldTree, and
other add-ons, but something that at least purported to be an OS?  Not really. 
Was Win3 an OS?  No, but at least it was better than some of the other add-ons.
 The average user probably didn't need to leave Windows once they were in it
(unless they had a DOS-based app).  As for the actual underlying OS, DOS was
pretty much it.  There were different flavors of DOS, but in the end, they were
very much the same.  Besides, people wanted ease of use (which some translate as
GUI), and DOS wasn't it.  So it didn't matter that much if Flavor B had some
feature that MS' flavor didn't.  NT and OS/2 were still not quite ready for
prime-time, so that left Windows 3.0.

One of the problems I have with MS is the cut-throat tactics of the licensing
agreements with the PC makers.  Word was no better than Word Perfect, yet MS had
one thing going for them.  Every PC maker shipped PCs with Windows.  MS could
(and did) dictate to them, "if you want Windows, you'll have to ship these
products too, but we'll make you a great deal on both."  I once was told that
someone at Gateway told a customer that Office cost Gateway about $5.  Yet to go
out and buy it off the shelf, it was closer to $500.  Why would I (as a
consumer) buy a computer with nothing on it, go out and buy Windows, Word
Perfect, and Lotus 1-2-3, and spend at least $400 more than if I bought a
computer with Windows and Office?

Then there's the "embrace and extend" philosophy.  Let's rip off someone else's
product, change it slightly, ship it with every copy of Windows, and put the
competitors out of business.  I still hear people saying that Netscape/Mozilla
isn't a superior browser, and IE isn't a bad browser, there are bugs found in IE
because that's what people are focusing on.  While the latter may be true, I
still have issues with it.  MS is the largest software company in the world, and
all they seem to be concerned with is extending their empire.  Hey, here's an
idea, make the current products secure before taking on more!  In the browser
example, the source code that started Netscape is the same code that started IE.
 So why is it that even some of the basic stuff (such has HTML rendering) is
still buggy in IE?

Bottom line, MS still thinks of themselves as that little software company in
Redmond, instead of a global software corporation.  Small companies can get away
with a lot more than larger companies can, but MS still attempts to do the same
things as smaller companies, and somehow manages to get away with it.  I don't
think it is a particular presidential administration's fault, I think a lot of
the companies just were too afraid to go up against MS.  Remember the frivolous
lawsuits of "look-and-feel"?  No one would think about doing that today.

--
Tim W.
> Jeff Davis wrote:
> 
> > I didn't say they weren't responsible, I said they are rarely offered
> > an alternative.  You suggest this is because the consumer is not 
> > shopping around.
> > I ask you then, at which store is the average person getting offered a 
> > machine running linux?
> > What dealership do they need to visit?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Chris Hilton wrote:
> >
> >> That's true.  And if you shop for a car by buying from Ford without
> >> shopping any other dealerships you have the same problem. It's hardly
> >> fair to say the consumer isn't responsible because they aren't
> >> knowledgable enough to know where to look for alternatives.
> >> I suppose I forgot to blaim business as well, many people buy what their
> >> business uses.
> >>
> I think this gets into the shortcomings of a completely free market. The 
> strengths of a free market rest on the assumptions that the consumer 
> base is informed. But, it all kinda breaks down if you assume that the 
> consumer base can be easily misinformed. In this case, people shopping 
> for computers are not informed about the concept of an OS. They know 
> about brands hardware (to a limited degree) and resellers. 'Windows' is 
> synonomous with 'computer'; it is not an OS to them. Thus, it is 
> impossible for them to ask the question, "What OS does it run?" So they 
> physically/logically can't make an informed decision. This is why the MS 
> monopoly is bad - not because they own so much of the brainshare, but 
> because they use that ownership to stop people from being able to make 
> informed decisions.
> 
> The car market simile breaks down because it doesn't exhibit that 
> symptom of the problem. Sure, the customer didn't do their homework. 
> But, MS is banking on that, and encouraging that. Car dealerships don't 
> have that luxury. They can't blot the other dealership signs from the 
> sky so you can't see them as you drive by.
> 
> My $.02.
> 
> Chris
> _______________________________________________
> Cialug mailing list
> Cialug@cialug.org
> http://cialug.org/mailman/listinfo/cialug