“Microsoft’s biggest threat isn’t Linux, OpenOffice, or any piece of software at all–its themselves. Over the last eighteen months two distinctly different Microsoft cultures have emerged, often in opposition to each other. “ You can get the full article over at Sudhian Media.
Microsoft didn’t pursue this for the pleasure of making inconvience with their customers. Hollywood (and the RIAA) would only allow a large release in Internet content if there is proper DRM. Microsoft knows this is a profitable venture, so it signs itself in.
But I doubt this would lead to the downfall of the company. If anything, it would make it harder for customers to leave Windows. Unless they are not all that atracted to movies and music..
If the author is such a proponent of fair use, should he know also that never once was the license of Windows allows fair use. The software industry always see itself as a media industry thus only complying with laws for that industry. So just like movies and music and books, software deserve to have fair use too.
from the article…
>Its not Linux Microsoft can’t stand–its competition.
he’s absolutely right. ms can’t stand a fair fight.
and the sweet irony is that they’ll go too far and screw
themselves just like they’ve screwed everybody else.
bring on DRM, bring on OS authentication, bring on restriced
licensing, bring on spyware, etc, etc, etc. the result is that
people will look elsewhere, and when they do, they’ll realise
that MS has *NOTHING* on anyone. All they have is a mallet
to beat others down.
The author is one of the authors who enjoy bashing Microsoft, and make money out of it. The article doesn’t have any value. Here is one funny statement.
A wonderful offering by Microsoft to donate thousands of ancient PC’s running Windows 3.1 or even (gasp) Windows 95 to schools all across America in a move that would not only seed America’s education system with a plethora of outdated, useless equipment but (coincidentally) take shots at Apple’s market share. Really, the Apple angle is incidental, but the level of equipment MS’s supposedly generous offering would extend is beyond contempt. You’re telling me a company with forty billion dollars in cash reserves cannot afford to at least extend new PC’s?
What he essentially says is that, if MS has lots of money they should have bought better equipment. He seems to know how to best spend money of Microsoft, as if he is the accountant of the company. He also doesn’t consider or explain how this money is settled for this donation, and why Windows 3.1 and old computers are selected. Maybe this is the best solution overall, given the amount of money available. If he complains about the amount of money available, then why he doesn’t contribute himself to this cause.
He complains that this is a shot to the Apple’s market share, which is already eroding without this donation, but then he also complains about the quality of the equipment. He seems to compare windows 3.1 with Mac os X. He also doesn’t even talk about the fact that these schools are too poor to afford computers.
Actually he is saying that Microsoft is CHEAP. They are, they do as little as possible and blow it up as if they were the best company on earth. (Which they by far are not.)
Never expect it to be one. If you recieve a donation from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, take it as sincere. But if you recieve a donation from Microsoft, expect it to be a business move.
Besides, on the donations, Microsoft couldn’t care less if the schools couldn’t use the computers. They want to erode Apple’s market share. Faster. But if I was the reciever’s end, I couldn’t care less. My old primary school still uses Windows 3.1 on 486s, still run their educational applications fine. I don’t see how I couldn’t run applications fine if I had Windows 3.1 or Windows 95.
Unless of course, I was teaching a group of geeks.
Oh come on, windows 3.1 might be the best solution? What a load of rubbish. Win3.1 just doesn’t fit anymore even when it was all we had we hated it, XP will happily run in an older environment (and run the older apps) while supporting all the new hardware and features that comes with new PCs. There is no argument for installed old hardware and (very) old software (which MS doesn support anymore) in schools.
This just sounds like another small-mined person defending MS because he hasn’t the knowledge or motivation to learn anything else.
A 486 is a perfectly useful piece of hardware. It could be used as a mail server or a web server or an automated network monitoring station, etc. It could be used as a fully functional build platform or put into a small cluster or learn PVM and cluster programming. All this could be done in our schools, but it is not. And I don’t care if they ever teach kids how to make use of computer technology. The less educational our schools are the less competition I’ll have in finding a well paying job. So I hope you’re children grow up retarded. What do you have to say to that?
If I were you I wouldn’t want my kids learning how to use windows, I’d want them to learn how to use computers. There’s a huge difference.
“If I were you I wouldn’t want my kids learning how to use windows, I’d want them to learn how to use computers. There’s a huge difference.”
Well said!
Yeah right, their just playing it both sides, they say “Suuuure, we agree” to RIAA while they are distributing xp sp1 through kazaa, in the end, they’ll do whatever turns profitable, its not like they care. Besides DRM is an american (as in U.S. of A.) law, it doesn’t apply to rest of the world (yet).
Anyone who downgrades Windows 3.1 to bash Microsoft is ignorant, cause there are people out there who are so poor that they would like to have at least this technology. I think it is despicable to critize Microsoft to bash them for providing this help to people.
Just to point how stupid these MS bashers are, and the fact that they always critize MS no matter what, just remember the news that Office 11 wouldn’t support Windows 95. Bashers came up with the idea that, MS has to support Windows 95 because there are people still use that. They find Windows 95 to worthy to support, but they don’t find Windows 3.1 worthy to give to poor schools.
Also note that, these bashers usually don’t propose an alternative solution. They probably never made a contribution themselves. Their main motivation is to bash. They don’t contribute anything at all.
If MS contributes better technology, it becomes anti-competitive, if they contribute this technology, it is still anti-competitive against more expensive Apple products, and yet they critize MS for providing this technology. That’s the mindset that will only hurt consumers, poor people and will only benefit Apple and more expensive competitors.
Beware that, MS bashers are not really hurting MS, they are actually hurting consumers, us.
A machine running Windows 3.1 or Windows 95 does have one decent use, that not even Microsoft could sabotage …
Dumb Terminals!
Yes, it’s certainly bad for consumers to have choice in the marketplace. This is why up until very recently, for example, you couldn’t get a large selection of imported beers in Florida because there were only a few legal bottle shapes and sizes–coincidentally, the ones used by big brewers, who constantly lobbied to keep that regulation in place on the grounds that too much choice would confuse consumers. Yes, seriously. And, hey, don’t you think that’s a good reason for the industry not to separate broadband infrastructure from broadband service? Why, if you’re given a choice of cable modem providers, you might get confused. It hurts consumers! It’s just awful that if you get DSL you might have the ability to select another ISP than your phone company, isn’t it? No wonder DSL hasn’t taken off. That devil choice thing is hurting consumers!
Yep, you’re absolutely right. Those MS Bashers may be under the illusion that consumer choice is integral to the proper function of a market. Where could they possibly have gotten such a crazy idea?
The Liberal/Socialist left wing code word “bashing” is a pitiful attempt at rebuttal in an argument. A vain attempt to support an unworkable stance. Microsoft has been found guilty of monopolistic behavior by the U.S Courts.
Any competent professional in the computer industry has surely been a victim of their unethical practices at one time or another. My company has and that is a one of the primary reasons we are converting to Linux. Another is in light of the recent financial scandals of Wall Street Accounting firms an investigation into Microsoft’s accounting practices shows them to be a high risk. The company hasn’t made a profit since 1995 and is in fact bankrupt if standart accounting practices are applied. The company has tens upon tens of billions of dollars in out standing obligations that will have to be paid, quickly depleting the reported “$40B in the bank”.
This author has hit the nail squarely on the head. For those of you who haven’t seen the light yet, I hope you are treated mercifully by Microsoft in the end.
>>Anyone who downgrades Windows 3.1 to bash Microsoft
>>is ignorant…blah, blah, blah…
>>Beware that, MS bashers are not really hurting MS,
>>they are actually hurting consumers, us.
Wow!! ha ha, good joke.
I’m a consumer too, and since when you speak for me???
Speak for yourself, because I don’t want to be “defended” by somebody like you or I may end up using a donated old computer with windows 3.1!
Listen it is not enough for MS to have infighting. It is not enough for MS to fumble the ball. They did a bit on the rise of the Internet and that did not kill the company because the competition gave them all the time in the world to adapt. It takes two things to kill a monopoly like MS.
1. Microsoft must fumble not once but a few times in ways that seriously impact their customer base (not just consumers but more importantly the HW OEM market).
2. The competition like linux and Apple must continue to improve and provide a sustainable alternative to attract the ticked off consumers. ie the OEM market for linux must expand or it will always be an alternative OS. No real home consumer re-installs a new OS.
If MS just fumbles then consumers with fuss and whine but they will stick with the monopoly because they no other real choice.
If competition approves but MS does NOT fumble in some serious way the OSes can remain fringe or niche players but the monopoly will stand.
Only when both occur will any real change in the market share be apparent.
I use MSOS at work and home. I use Linux-OS only at home.
Linux does help promote a greater understanding of the FM (F___ Magic) computer technology. I did my first punch card in 1973, my first email with @… in 1982. I have not done any programming in years, but I am real good at making H&S stuff & shit work when no one wants to touch the mess, unique, or new. So, yep I know what will help you students learn about computers and technology.
Linux is by far the better way to go! MSOS and Linux-OS are about equal when you count the pros&cons as a desktop and/or laptop user, but MSOS is a black-hole for imparting knowledge to non-expert users about technology beyond MS-products. MS is OS+App focused not user focused. Linux is performance focused more than novice-user focused.
My biggest grip about MSOS is they want you to do everything their way … MS-Word,PPT,… templates are just one example out of many including .net-BS.
J.D.Bailey
Reality is a self-induced hallucination.
Lipstick on a pig is still a pig wearing lipstick.
Windows and Microsoft sucks no matter what anyone says.
That’s right: Microsoft sucks. Big time.
I’ve been Microsoft-free since 1994 and have saved THOUSANDS of dollars in software costs.
If you like using Microsoft products and paying for its software, fine.
But I’m entitled to my opinion.
>Anyone who downgrades Windows 3.1 to bash Microsoft is >ignorant, cause there are people out there who are so poor >that they would like to have at least this technology. I >think it is despicable to critize Microsoft to bash them for >providing this help to people.
Those people don’t need computers, they need a second job. I don’t even understand the rest of your message…what does this mean?:
>If MS contributes better technology, it becomes >anti-competitive, if they contribute this technology, it is >still anti-competitive against more expensive Apple >products, and yet they critize MS for providing this >technology.
Who is they? The “bashers?”. How is contributing technology anti-competitive? Do you even know what anti-competitive means?
The fact is, unless there was something in it for Microsoft,they don’t want any part of it. Do you think they sit around and think about how they can give stuff away for nothing? Hell no, they have a business to run and investors to satisfy. I don’t bash Microsoft because they help people, I bash them because they are full of shit when they do it. I wish they would just tell the truth instead of sugar coating everything with marketing speak. I like my bullshit right out in the open where I can get a good whif.
So long OSNews…..this site has become a joke now with all the people bitching at each other.
Do people bitch at each other about the cars they drive….no….they’re all different……its kinda the same thing with an OS….everyone like soemthing different so stop bitching at people becuase they use something else that you may or may not like.
>>The Liberal/Socialist left wing code word “bashing” is a pitiful attempt at rebuttal in an argument.
errr..what? I don’t see how Liberals or Socialism have anything to do with this matter. I am of the same mind as you on the topic, but surely your method in reaching that viewpoint was ill-conceived. Firstly yes, I agree that most staunch advocates of Microsoft often simply add “Microsoft-bashing” to their statements, and make vague assertions and flail their appendages wildly. However, this has nothing to do with “left-wing” politics, and in fact, most of their government supporters are either 1) supporters of other big business, or 2) politicians local to Western Washington.
So long OSNews…..this site has become a joke now with all the people bitching at each other.
Do people bitch at each other about the cars they drive….no….they’re all different……its kinda the same thing with an OS….everyone like soemthing different so stop bitching at people becuase they use something else that you may or may not like.
Yeah, just all of these cars can get you to the same place the same way. In the OS world, 90% of the roads you can only drive on with microsoft cars! because the tires are made of some special material and the asphalt, is a secret kind which burns the tires from other cars.
>Who is they? The “bashers?”. How is contributing technology >anti-competitive? Do you even know what anti-competitive >means?
i think what he’s trying to say that MS is bashed no matter what they do. if they contribute something for free they get bad mouthed. if they do it outright as profit they get bad mouthed just the same. these ‘bashers’ just don’t give MS a break no matter what they do. granted, they have done some bad things and continue to do them but if you fail to acknowledge any of the good they occasionally do then what incentive do they have to change their ways?
>I wish they would just tell the truth instead of sugar >coating everything with marketing speak. I like my bullshit >right out in the open where I can get a good whif.
they are a company and that is how companies work. i hate it as well but that is reality and it isn’t going to change. you have to learn to look through the BS for yourself and educate those around you to the practices as well.
i don’t mean to rant about it but i get tired of listening to the leet linux community about how evil MS is and how great linux is. linux obviously has it’s own shortcomings or else it would have a greater market share. i think it’ll be a great OS oneday. until it’s as easy to use for somebody as computer illiterate as the folks i deal with on a daily basis it isn’t going to be a force in the consumer market at all. i really hope that changes soon so i have a legitiment reason to leave MS and its products.
>Yeah, just all of these cars can get you to the same place the same way. In the OS world, 90% of the roads you can only drive on with microsoft cars! because the tires are made of some special material and the asphalt, is a secret kind which burns the tires from other cars.<
give me a break……if you dont like MS just dont use it.
It’s all really simple… Micro$oft has the money, technology and know how to provide educators with computers and software that is up to par to todays standards and that promotes future development within new generations of computer users.
Would it hurt their bottom line? No, they could easily put computers and Windoze in every school in North America, including Mexico and Canada, and still only scratch their 40 billion dollar bank account.
Would it hurt their market share? No, investors know what seeding is all about and would most likely look forward to the gains 10 years down the road.
While 486’s are still perfectly usable, Windows 3.1 is an offense to the intelligence of the next generation when M$ can easily do better with absolutely no additional costs. If anything, M$ just hurts themselves by dumping used equipment on the educational system. Ask M$ how much an XP disc costs to produce and distribute, or whether it really costs them more whether they pre-install 3.1 0r 98 or XP, which it doesn’t. Go to your local computer store and ask how much a new budget priced computer costs, retail. Then again, everyone here already knows.
This really isn’t about bashing, it’s about disgust. Corporate Micro$oft is just a cheap monopolist who doesn’t give a damn about individual rights and privacy. Heck, they don’t even seem to care about their own reputation, as they dig themselves deeper and deeper in legal cases. In this case, all they want is a place to dump their garbage. Even though I’m a Linux user, which runs fabulous on a 486, I really admire Apple and their approach with the educational system. At least Apple has a little class, as well a visible level of corporate integrity and responsibility, far more than Micro$oft will ever have.
You are absolutly correct, and your comment was an excellent post! …except for one little thing. Everyone knows that its the Conservative/Corporate right wing code, not left wing, and it truly is another of their vain attempts to support unworkable stances.
If the right-wing good ‘ol boys wern’t in power, then maybe Microsoft wouldn’t have gotten off with virtually no consequences for their illeagal actions.
Privoxy03 posted:
— “The Liberal/Socialist left wing code word “bashing” is a pitiful attempt at rebuttal in an argument. A vain attempt to support an unworkable stance. Microsoft has been found guilty of monopolistic behavior by the U.S Courts.
Any competent professional in the computer industry has surely been a victim of their unethical practices at one time or another. My company has and that is a one of the primary reasons we are converting to Linux. Another is in light of the recent financial scandals of Wall Street Accounting firms an investigation into Microsoft’s accounting practices shows them to be a high risk. The company hasn’t made a profit since 1995 and is in fact bankrupt if standart accounting practices are applied. The company has tens upon tens of billions of dollars in out standing obligations that will have to be paid, quickly depleting the reported “$40B in the bank”.
This author has hit the nail squarely on the head. For those of you who haven’t seen the light yet, I hope you are treated mercifully by Microsoft in the end.” —
I just realized it wasn’t very clear, but my above post was in response to Privoxy03.
Bashers don’t get this but I am not a MS supporter. In fact I like Linux, I use it too, I develop on it, I develop for it. I also use Windows, use it, occasionally develop on it, and more occasionally develop for it.
For me bashing means usually lack of intelligence. It is not really saying negative things. It is usually saying negative things so blindly that, usually what you say is really not true at all. It is also not critizing. It is mostly like trolling, not questioning, not knowing what’s going on, not asking questions, not knowing the answers, but yet having a strong idea about the issue and stating a strong idea about it. It is the mindset which allows the politicians to lie and manipulate people. It is also the mindset which allows media to control people.
You may hate MS. You may critize MS for long list of reasons. I also don’t like MS too. But bashers are different creatures. They don’t really care about the argument, they may not even know what they are talking about. They know that they hate MS for several (some of them surely understandable) reasons. But they don’t see the whole picture.
While they hate MS for certain reasons, they don’t hate Apple for the very same reasons. They don’t think about that. While they critize MS for licensing plans, they don’t talk about Oracle’s plans. While they hate MS for proprietary formats, they don’t hate AOL because of their proprietary protocols.
I don’t think that it has anything to do with right wing or left wing thing. It effects both, but it has a less effect on the left though.
Sergio
You have labeled dozens of people “bashers” as the sole rebuttal to their arguments. Then you just assert they are “bashers” because they lack intelligence in their criticism of MS. But you never engage their points. Why don’t you try answering the substance of their claims? You would be a lot more persuasive. The point of this board is educating people. If you feel you have something to add, then educate us.
For a start here’s please rebut this point: a monopoly almost by definition is bad for consumers because a monopolist does not have to fight to get customers, doesn’t have to innovate, doesn’t have to lower prices, doesn’t have to do a damn thing except make money. MS got it’s monopoly sort of fair and square, but they have been found by the courts all the way up to the Supreme Court, through a long process of fact digging and fact finding, to have illegally attempted to maintain that monopoly. When it would be better for consumers for their NOT TO BE A MONOPOLY.
Also, MS does not embrace open communication standards and file formats. Every MS standard (Word files, WMedia, even their proprietary file serving protocal that had to be reverse engineered) is bad for consumers because it eliminates choice: They have to use windows or forgo communicating with the world. This is bad for consumers. Please explain how it isn’t, without simply calling me stupid and lacking intelligence.
Sergio,
Here’s some more substance for you to rebut if you would like.
You argue that people don’t complain about similar conduct by other companies, e.g., AOL proprietary formats. The biggest reason for this is that AOL is subject to major competition as as ISP – it has no monopoly there – and even in chat protocols, it only has a lead (I heard this), there are other protocols. If they raise their price to high, people could switch protocols. It’s a lot harder to switch off windows. Also, I would say that chat is just a little thing compared to an OS monopoly – it has much bigger implications.
Sure we can point to other companies, Adobe for example with it’s native photoshop files, etc. However, even in Photoshop you can work with jpegs exclusively if you want. But again, for most products, Adobe has competition (Quark vs indesign).
MS just has a bad track record. Adobe doesn’t. Apple doesn’t. It embraces open formats and protocols (because it has to – it can’t force their own on the world and suffer when MS does so).
MS has done a lot of good for consumers too. Yes, for sure. But we should criticize the bad, no?
The existence of Apple is good thing because it’s the only somewhat viable alternative to Windows. MS has to improve things to kind of keep up with Apple – e.g., putting in Windows over DOS in response to the Mac, now MS’s new digital hub software in response to Apple’s, moviemaker 1 & 2 in response to iMovie.
So it seems pretty clear that the existence of Apple is good for consumers. Therefore, from purely practical standpoint, almost anything apple does that helps it stay alive is good for consumers, including the great mass of windows users. Rebut that one, friend. And don’t just call me stupid.
I meant Apple is the only somewhat viable alternative to windows currently for regular joe users. Linux is an alternative for businesses and even many more technically inclined home users, or home users with limited needs (web, email, etc.). I hope ISVs like Adobe start writing apps for Linux so that it is an alternative for regular joes, and that some technical crap still in Linux is worked out, like software installs.
Sergio,
I have Linux, XP & MacOSX at home and I use which every is best for the task at hand. I can agree with you that MS bashing is not constructive, but neither is defending them without answering the points raised.
Fact is, MS have a huge advantage over other companies, they own the desktop os & the most popular desktop office suite, that alone gives them huge revinues. No problem with that, what I (and many others) have a problem with is the underhand and downright illegal practices that they use to maintain that position. Remember what they did to Netscape (“cut off their air supply”) ?
This isn’t good for anyone, you mention Apple & Oracle, but if I am unhappy with them I can go somewhere else, but I’m forced to buy MS licenses with every PC and my company is forced into software purchases we neither need nor want.
Blindly supporting a company is as bad as blindly bashing them, either enter in the debate with some valid points or get lost.
No I didn’t label lots of people as bashers, people who critize MS don’t become bashers automatically. I do consider you a basher and a troll though.
re:scott
Sorry but why do you tell me not to support MS blindly. I don’t support MS blindly. I never did. My previous post is a direct evidence to that. If you think that I am simply supporting MS blindly even after reading that post, you are speaking politically, rather than honestly.
There are people out there who talk against MS, the reasons why people shouldn’t buy MS products, I am trying to present the other points so that people make concious decisions. If a person is pissed off by MS and then buys an Apple, he doesn’t bring competition to the market. He simply funds Apple’s bottomline. Apple is not better than MS in any sense. They will use any means to make more money and they do. If a person switches to linux, because he/she thinks that it is as easy as Windows, he will be screwed, because I know it is harder to use Linux. So people has to see these too. Nobody has the right to hide these details.
This isn’t good for anyone, you mention Apple & Oracle, but if I am unhappy with them I can go somewhere else, but I’m forced to buy MS licenses with every PC and my company is forced into software purchases we neither need nor want.
Unless you are a troll, this statement is probably because of your ignorance. There is nothing that forces you to buy PCs with MS licenses. You think that you are forced to buy MS licenses, even that’s not the case. You then come here and complain about it which doesn’t exist.
Also if you are unhappy with Apple, where will you go? MS or Linux. If you are unhappy with MS where will you go? Apple or Linux. Linux is an alternative to both of them. Also if you are unhappy with Apple, you can’t go so quickly to another platform, you have spent quite a lot of money on Apple hardware.
You just say you can’t switch if you are on MS, but you can switch if you are on Apple. It just doesn’t make any sense. If that makes sense then Apple’s switch ads don’t make sense.
It seems like you desperately want to complain about MS. You don’t care much about the facts. You just want to show the point that, you have to use MS.
and even in chat protocols, it only has a lead (I heard this), there are other protocols.
Both ICQ and AIM, both owned by AOL Time Warner can be considered a monopoly together. Or a few % short. And if MSN (and perhaps Yahoo, I’m not sure) didn’t have AOL compatiblity, it wouldn’t be this far. ANd even with the AOL compatiblity, it isn’t perfect.
As much as I wish the ability to talk with my ICQ and AIM friends on a different clients, I can actually see AOL’s point of view. They spent millions of dollars promoting the networks, and now they are suppose to willingly let go of their competitive egde?
Adobe for example with it’s native photoshop files, etc. However, even in Photoshop you can work with jpegs exclusively if you want.
The same argument can be used with MS Office, you can use WordPerfect 5.0 or RTF formats exclusively if you want.
But again, for most products, Adobe has competition (Quark vs indesign).
I always thought Quark was against Illustrator, and Indesign against MS Publisher…. oh I don’t know. Anyway,for most products, Microsoft have competition (XBOX vs. PS/2 and Game Cube, MSN vs. AOL, Encarta vs Britanicca, MS’ mouses and keyboards vs Logitech, Windows server OS vs Linux and UNIX, .NET Framework vs. Java….)
MS just has a bad track record. Adobe doesn’t.
Right. Being the first company to use a stupid law (the DMCA) against a person that wrote a certain application outside America? Or using patents given by a incompetent office against their archrival in hopes that it would get their competitor’s products pulled from the market?
MS has a bad press record. Adobe has less bad PR.
Apple doesn’t.
Charging OS X users a full price for the Jaguar update that should be 10.0 in the first place? Killing clones mainly because it couldn’t keep up with them in terms of quality, speed and price? Destroying any remaining hope for PowerPC on the desktop by trying to control it?
To me, Apple is a mini-Microsoft. In many ways worse than Microsoft.
It embraces open formats and protocols (because it has to – it can’t force their own on the world and suffer when MS does so).
Can you open a Photoshop file in any of its competitor’s product without it coming out bad? Yes, Apple may support open formats and standards, but look at their market share. Less than 4% and shrinking, they are in no position in making propreitary stuff. If they were say 20% or 10%, trust me, you wouldn’t see them supporting standards.
So you are right, it can’t force their own on the world. But does Adobe or Apple suffer directly from Microsoft anti-open stance? Nope. (Besides, as said earlier, Adobe isn’t at all for open standards and formats, it only supports them when they can benefit directly from it, like PDF and SVG. But for other establish stuff, like Flash, they don’t support it).
So going back to the beginning of your message
Here’s some more substance [snip]
So much for substance, heh?
But we should criticize the bad, no?
Oh, when we criticize the bad of Apple, you lash out against us.
The existence of Apple is good thing because it’s the only somewhat viable alternative to Windows.
I much rather have my money end up in the coffers of Microsoft then to pay a huge premium for Apple hardware. And that similar sentiment is played out by most other consumers.
putting in Windows over DOS in response to the Mac
While Windows over DOS was kinda a response to the Mac, don’t get too high over this (Presentation Manager, BTW, was IBM and Microsoft’s answer to Macintosh, BTW). Windows came at a time where other companies were profiting from making software like this.
now MS’s new digital hub software in response to Apple’s, moviemaker 1 & 2 in response to iMovie.
Wow, you mention one thing, and think that is Microsoft’s official line. I’m not sure about version 2, but the first version in Windows XP (the only one I tried) is very similar, UI-wise, to Sony’s solution (name?), and not with iMovie itself. Remember, it was Sony that came up with this first (albeit at first it was three seperate apps, now it is one).
So it seems pretty clear that the existence of Apple is good for consumers.
True, I agree. Any competition is good. Apple had copied a lot from Microsoft, and that’s good too. But I disagree with your mantra that Apple is good, MS evil, and that Apple is better for consumers than MS.
I meant Apple is the only somewhat viable alternative to windows currently for regular joe users. Linux is an alternative for businesses and even many more technically inclined home users, or home users with limited needs (web, email, etc.).
It would be unlikely Linux being a viable altenative for many Windows business machines. In some small niches, yes. But overall, their standing in the corporate market is smaller than Apple’s in the consumer market.
And as for home users with limited needs, again I don’t think Linux is a viable altenative. Plainly putting it, it isn’t as easy as Windows or Mac. It takes a regular consumer barely 10 minutes to set up his computer, plug in the phone line and get online, but on Linux, often times it is a little harder than that.
scott, normally I would try to resist this form of messages because it had been my nth time writing it, but the heck with it anyway.
Remember what they did to Netscape (“cut off their air supply”) ?
Netscape is actually a sore loser.
Netscape was a browser developed for consumers specifically, unlike IE which was first developed mainly for developers. The edge was that it was simply easier for ISPs to use IE over Netscape.
It’s technical handicaps can be seen later on. For example, why didn’t AOL switch to Netscape even though they know that having one icon on the desktop wouldn’t increase their sales all that much. Why not? Because they can’t.
So what did Netscape do (which they started before AOL bought them), they literary drop their current products and started a long 4-year rewrite. Any business grad would tell you that doing this, though matter how strong the competition is, can ultimately lead to death.
The only updates they made for their current browsers was bug fixes, fixes to run in newer operating systems, security fixes and some new features to allow more compatibility with new websites. None of the updates did anything to rectify problems with Netscape, which has a growing list of wanted features available on IE, and also did nothing to help improve the slow speeds of Netscape.
Now, let’s focus on the rewrite, known as Netscape 5.0 or Mozilla. If you look at Mozilla’s timeline, you can understand why Netscape couldn’t survive Microsoft’s onslaught. There were literary no management. How many times did it change course for stupid technical reasons? I lost count. The reason why it took more than 4 years is because of that.
Opera manage to rewrite its rendering engine within months without actually compromizing on its Opera 6.x delivery, why can’t Netscape? Had Netscape had proper management, I doubt they would be this far back.
of course, there were some stupid investments, like in iPlanet, which was totally unpopular and never made a huge profit in the first place. Or how about Netscape 6.0 which send a lot of diehard Netscape fans finding for a different browser (me, I went for Opera)
Besides, Real have been through a lot more than netscape in terms of Microsoft preassure, why are they still leading their market? Blaming Netscape’s downfall on Microsoft solely is bad. Microsoft supplied the bullets, Netscape shot themselves.
To Rajan
You say: “Oh, when we criticize the bad of Apple, you lash out against us.”
No, go ahead and criticize. I may have a problem with the facts, but not criticism itself. Apple is not perfect. However, as I said, their existence is positive for consumers, and they are just barely hanging on, so if they need to charge for some upgrades to hang on, that ultimately is good for consumers. They are not highly profitable, ergo they are not overcharging. They just cost more, presumably because their costs are higher esp. R&D compared to innovation-less Dell.
I said: “The existence of Apple is good thing because it’s the only somewhat viable alternative to Windows.
Then you said “I much rather have my money end up in the coffers of Microsoft then to pay a huge premium for Apple hardware. And that similar sentiment is played out by most other consumers.”
This doesn’t address my point. Yes, most people would rather pay less and pay to MS. Still, those people benefit from Apple being as some kind of attenuated, but nevertheless effective, competition to MS. Monopolies are horrible for consumers – they don’t need to do anything to win customers. MS doesn’t have to do anything to win customers. That’s just plain bad for consumers. However, they will lose customers (though a small number) to Apple if they don’t keep up and Apple is still around. Thus, Apple gone equals bad for consumers.
You say: “True, I agree. Any competition is good. Apple had copied a lot from Microsoft, and that’s good too. But I disagree with your mantra that Apple is good, MS evil, and that Apple is better for consumers than MS.”
Except that’s not my position. That’s your characterization. You are in error. Since it’s ME that defines MY position, not you, let me explain:
I don’t give a rat’s ass about who is “good” or “bad” or “evil”. I think moralistic crap like that is just a fog. I care only about the practical realities of the situation.
From a practical standpoint, MONOPOLIES are almost always very bad for consumers. MS has a monopoly (for all practical purposes). Anything MS does to perpetuate that monopoly is good for its bottom line, but bad for consumers — because, again, monopolies are simply bad for consumers.
So I will criticize, bash MS for doing things that perpetuate their monopoly. got it?
Apple doesn’t have a monopoly. So nothing it does can perpetuate a monopoly. Small potato crap like charging for Jaguar – it only helps them survive and their survival is good for consumers. Apple is not highly profitable. Thus, anything it charges that helps them stay alive is good for consumers, even consumers that choose windows. In fact, those windows users benefit without even having to pay for Jaguar or anything else and they are 97 percent of the consumers, remember?
Some people say that what is good for consumers it to fund companies with bad products that are about to go bankrupt, just to make sure that there is no monopoly. Hehehehe. That’s just funny. They want you to spend money on products which are worse than the other one, just to make sure that there is a choice for you. A bad choice, but a choice. They want for your good of course.
)) That’s more funny of course. I have to spend extra money so that a mismanaged company can not make good products and it is about to go bankrupt. I have to pay the missteps of Steve Jobs? No way. It is better for Apple to go bankrupt, instead of making money out of a situation they have created.
When you look at the history, Apple had a great opportunity. They screwed up everything. They had big advantage. They certainly deserve to go bankrupt. If only Microsoft didn’t support them, they would already be bankrupt.
OK, so your first “point” is that Apple makes bad products. Funny how Apple products have been getting rave reviews for lots of people, and people are switching. Lots and lots of people believe the mac is better. OK, so maybe only 3 percent, but they think the mac is better for them.
For those that don’t think the mac is better, which I think is wrong (except for gamers, DIY types and organizations with PC caretaking staff) then buy windows and let the 3 percent who think it is better pay for apple’s existence.
By the way Sergio, you don’t dispute that:
(1) monopolies are inherently bad for consumers;
(2) MS has tried to perpetuate that monopoloy, which is bad for consumers;
(3) Apple as an alternative is a good thing to have as competition (albeit a limited one) for MS.
Guess you had nothing to rebut those points.
Article: “A wonderful offering by Microsoft to donate thousands of ancient PC’s running Windows 3.1 or even (gasp) Windows 95 to schools all across America in a move that would not only seed America’s education system with a plethora of outdated, useless equipment but (coincidentally) take shots at Apple’s market share. Really, the Apple angle is incidental, but the level of equipment MS’s supposedly generous offering would extend is beyond contempt. You’re telling me a company with forty billion dollars in cash reserves cannot afford to at least extend new PC’s?”
I find it very hard to believe that MSFT was trying to foist Windows 3.1/95 era technology into schools recently. MSFT itself actually hates those old products and wants to get that old code base out of the marketplace ASAP (they will be officially cutting support for Win95/98/Me in the not-too-distant future in order to force upgrades, I guarantee you).
MSFT wants to see a Windows 2000/XP world and every donation of software that I have ever seen them make recently to schools, NGO’s, non-profits, charities, etc. has generally been their latest and best products. I think that the above statement in the article has to be bullshit…CMIIW. I am all for dishing out criticism wherever it is due, but I think that this particular item is probably mistaken.
Bill Gates Announces Microsoft Grants to Support Technology Education Programs in South Florida
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2001/jul01/07-09southflado…
“Microsoft’s software upgrades for Booker T. Washington Senior High School will enable the installation of Office XP on all 600 computers at the school.”
“As part of the Microsoft-Dell Partners in Education Program, Microsoft and Dell donated 100 Dell Optiplex desktop computers, preinstalled with the latest Microsoft® software, to schools in the Broward, Palm Beach, Miami-Dade and St. Lucie districts.”
Students, Teachers Welcome Office XP Educational Discount As a Way to Bring It Home
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2001/nov01/11-12officex…
“Since late October, Microsoft Office XP Standard for Students and Teachers has been available to parents and teachers for US$149 — almost 70 percent below the regular price. Retail stores selling the software in the U.S. include: Best Buy, Circuit City, CompUSA, Costco, Fry’s Electronics, Gamestop, Microcenter, OfficeDepot, OfficeMax, Sam’s Club, Staples and Target.”
And look at this press release from 1996…
MICROSOFT ANNOUNCES SPECIAL WINDOWS 95 PRICE FOR EDUCATION — $19.95 – TO CONTINUE WINDOWS MOMENTUM IN K-12 SCHOOLS
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/1996/apr96/momprf.asp
Beat that, Apple.
Many folks talk about “evil monopolies” without a very important distinction. A monopoly is NOT illegal per se. What if in fact you have the best product around, and consumers CHOOSE your product 100%? You’ll have a legal monopoly. That’s not bad for consumers in the sense of the “fault” of the monopoly company that their competitors didn’t come up with better products. A monopoly is bad when it is an ILLEGAL monopoly – when they get customers 100% (or close to) not because their product is superior and freely CHOSEN by consumers, but because they have crippled their competitors through illegal competition-restraining methods. Analogy – Michael Jordan being (once upon a time) the best b-ball player does not mean you should ban him – he wins fair and square. What would be bad for the game, is if Michael Jordan won only because he made other players wear lead weights. So, let us never lose sight of the distinction of LEGAL monopoly which is not bad per se for the consumers and ILLEGAL monopoly which definitely is bad. The U.S. legal system makes a distinction between the two. It specifically ALLOWS for legal monopolies and PROSECUTES illegal monopolies (or is supposed to). So, next time, don’t complain about “monopoly”, but about “ILLEGAL monopoly”. Monopolies as such are NOT *inherently* bad for consumers – if you are an inventor and happen to invent something wonderful that NOBODY ELSE offers, your monopoly is not “inherently” bad for consumers, as long as you did not restrain others from inventing. Similarly, if amongst the competitors your product is so far superior that the rest have only 1% of the market purely due to the superiority of your product, that too is not “inherently” bad for the consumer. So there.
No, go ahead and criticize. I may have a problem with the facts
Most of my opinion against Apple is just that, a opinion. Many times it is interlace with facts, but opinions is how you see the facts. And to be frank, it is quite hard to bash Apple’s without getting products without getting into a fight with you.
Apple doesn’t have a monopoly.
Actually, we wouldn’t know. It is however in my opinion that Apple has a monopoly in the PPC workstation market cause they have more than 70% of the market. However, there isn’t a government body going through every company seeing if it is a monopoly or not. It takes a lawsuit, like Netscape vs. Microsoft, to establish that the company is indeed, legally, a monopoly.
The reason why nobody sued Apple is because the returns is small. Suing Microsoft is a much better target, IMHO.
I don’t give a rat’s ass about who is “good” or “bad” or “evil”.
That differs a lot from your previous mantra against Microsoft, which you used moral values against them. I’m not for moral values either. I’d say Apple is a bad company. however, if I find their products better for me than their competitors, I have no problem buying it.
MONOPOLIES are almost always very bad for consumers.
I disagree. For the majority, i don’t see how they are hurt by having Internet Explorer instead of Netscape Communicator. I however agree that government-sponsored monopolies (Ma Bell was once this) are bad for consumers.
Sure, more choice would be better for consumers, but by forcing Microsoft to lower their competitive egde just for competition, I don’t think these competition would be good for consumers in the long term.
So BTW, Microsoft shouldn’t improve their product? Cause if they do, they are maintaining their monopoly, bad… bad….
Sergio “You think that you are forced to buy MS licenses, even that’s not the case. You then come here and complain about it which doesn’t exist. ”
Sorry Sergio, but you’re wrong here, I am an IT manager for large corp and MS’s changes to their licenesing have forced many to enter into agreements that they wouldn’t if the usual full license and then upgrades were still available. Now don’t get me wrong, I can understand that MS wish to change to a subscription type license otherwise they may find their revenues dipping as companies choose not to upgrade Windows/MSOffice because they are happy with the version they run. I just don’t want to be forced into it, sure as a company we could have decided to ditch MSOffice but that’s unrealistic at the moment, such a project will have to be looked at in great detail before we would even attempt it – so we were effectivly forced into signing up.
Likewise I’m forced into paying an operating system license with each PC even though I have all I need, you try getting Dell or Compaq to provide a PC without a windows license, they can’t because MS force them too. Sure, again I could get out of this by buying PCs from smaller companies, but as a global corp we wish to have global standards so thats not really an option anymore.
As a consumer, I use XP at home and I think its pretty good – MS OfficeXP is an excellent product (both on PC & Mac). MS products aren’t bad at all, whats bad is the way that they go about ensuring that they maintain their position. I agree with the comments about Netscapes bad management, and I think that the browser MS give us now is very good. But its a downright lie to say that it cannot be seperated from the operating system as MS said in court.
At the end of the day, like many consumers/IT managers I just want choice, MS want me to have 1 choice, them. I’m never going to be comfertable with that attitude. I could at least respect it if they simply produced great products and let the market decide, but Netscape, Java, Lindows etc shows hat MS don’t want to play fair or legal, they want to win at any cost.
Anyway – Happy New year to everyone !
Rajan: “So BTW, Microsoft shouldn’t improve their product? Cause if they do, they are maintaining their monopoly, bad… bad….”
they can do that, but anything else they do to perpetuate a monopoly is wrong (i.e., anticompetitive conduct). sometimes it can be hard to distinguish between what is legitimate product improvement versus anticompetitive conduct, but we have to try. the law has been doing so for decades and it works OK.
As an aside here a quote that points out the usefulness of Apple:
“Frankly, Apple has no choice. With 5 percent of the PC market, its niche status dictates aggressive, creative product development. Apple needs to pull the kind of rabbits out of its hat in 2003 that it did in 2002 merely to survive, but the company’s recent history suggests it will do just that.”
A monopolist has no such incentive. But look, I’m not that worried about MS. Things have a way of working out. Linux is just a response to what is in fact an unsustainable situation – one company owning the standard for PCs. It’s ending. It’s unnatural. It’s just a matter of time. Apple by the way is just a sideshow to this more fundamental change that will occur. I suppose it will always be what it is now – kind of a more expensive leading edge implementer of new stuff. MS is now trying to become the same in response to linux. we’ll see how that works out
This goes out to all of you who talk about MS being a monopoly and choice being good for consumers …
For starters, my guess is that those of you who are doing the bitching probably don’t like Windows. If you did, you wouldn’t be complaining, would you?
Therefore, I am fairly certain that if you were honest with the rest of us (and possibly to yourselves as well), you would admit that what you really want is to have Windows removed completely off the desktop top and have it replaced with something else (Mac, Linux, whatever.) I don’t know about the rest of you, but that doesn’t sound like choice to me.
I would be willing to be anybody $1,000 that if the tables were turned and tomorrow you could only get Linux with 95% of computers sold instead of Windows, we wouldn’t hear as much of a peep out of the MS bashers, except shouts of joy. You see, choice only matters when whatever you like isn’t dominating the market.
Regarding the licensing issue you are right, but I wasn’t wrong. Because from your initial statement was talking about licenses that come with PCs, not software licenses that you normally buy. Now you are talking about a different matter and you are correct in the sense that this new licensing program is not good for consumers. You can critize MS for this as much as you want, remembering the fact that though this is a natural move for MS, and I predict many software companies has to move in this direction, or they will have serious financial problems. This is not an MS only issue though. Oracle was selling similar and actually more outrageous licenses long time ago. This is the way software industry go, otherwise they will not survive. I don’t like it, and I also don’t want to accept it. Consumers should do something about it.
Regarding PCs you buy from Compaq and Dell, you may want to know that they are not forced into selling PCs with MS windows only. They are free to put anything they want. You are mistaken on that issue. There were news about Dell putting a very old DOS clone into their PCs. So it is not because of MS, but because of Dell and Compaq. You should complain to them.
I could at least respect it if they simply produced great products and let the market decide, but Netscape, Java, Lindows etc shows hat MS don’t want to play fair or legal, they want to win at any cost.
You are mistaken on all of these. The fact that you name Lindows here in itself show that you just post random accusations here. There is nothing wrong regarding Netscape or Java, but the fact that you are accusing MS for not playing legal or fair with regard to competition with Lindows is just simply uncomprehensible. I don’t know how you can even attempt to accuse MS for this. On the contrary the fact that Lindows use “Lindows” name to get a better name recognition, since Windows is a widely known name itself is not fair.
At the end of the day, I think people who are stuck with the idea that MS is evil will think that forever, no matter how much they test the limits of stupidity.
“At the end of the day, I think people who are stuck with the idea that MS is evil will think that forever, no matter how much they test the limits of stupidity.”
No sorry thats not true, I don’t think that MS are evil, but I do think that they will use whatever means they can to keep themselves at the top. Hey don’t take my word, ask the US legal system which happens to agree, fairly regularly it seems.
One day you PC people will wake from your slumber. Windows is a poor quality product. It’s that way in large part because MS has a monopoly.
MS simply don’t need to make it better (at least not until LInux is a viable option for regular joes). When there’s no competition, why make it better?
For most people, you have to buy windows, better or not. Apple is too expensive for many, and there’s downsides like less games, no build it yourself, etc. So the crap of windows continues.
Meanwhile more and more people are waking up. See this article:
New year, new focus on genius of Macs
January 01, 2003
AL FASOLDT
STAFF WRITER
I’m a switcher.
http://www.syracuse.com/news/poststandard/index.ssf?/base/news-0/10…
Hey don’t take my word, ask the US legal system which happens to agree, fairly regularly it seems.
That’s the troll answer I was expecting. Once you see there is no escape, just point to the legal decision which has nothing to do with what we were dicussing. e.g. lindows issue which has nothing to do with the court decision. You want to do what states tried to do in the court, that is using a court decision, make unrelated charges against MS.
You are pretty much hopeless when it comes to referring to the court decision. You sort of accuse someone who is convicted of a minor issue with a murder charge.
All of these look funny to me. That’s why I say it is easy to manipulate people, because people don’t question much when it comes to finding the real facts. It is obvious that you are not worried much about whether you know the facts. You are lazy when it comes to finding out the truth, and you are right in the sense that since you will sound right whenever you accuse MS, why should you spend time to understand the truth.
“see there is no escape..”
yeah right, you’re not that smart. The point I was making was about MS attitude and behaviour and the court rulings were relevant. Lindows was simply one example, Java & Netscape are more important ones, as I said before you just picked up on the Lindows one because it was easier to defend.
If you want to use Lindows then OK, my point is that its another company that MS tried to bully. What was interesting about that case was that the judge felt that MS should have no right to copyright the windows name, let along attempt to bully another company which had a similar sounding name.
But hey, you live in your own world and call people Trolls if it makes you feel better. As for the truth, you’ve been quoting your version of it the whole time, I just can’t be bothered pointing it out to a fool like you. e.g. the compaq Dell license, I buy over $250,000 worth of PCs every year and I’ve pressed both of them repeatedly and both have answered that they can’t do it. Remember star wars the MacOS on Intel? When Apple showed it to Dell he said “yeah nice but I have to include a copy of windows with every PC regardless so not interested”. So get your facts right, I actually work in IT, I don’t quote an article on getting PC without licenses, I’ve tried and I can’t – truth, not what you read in a mag that makes you feel better about your closed point of view.
Today C|Net reports that Lindows CEO donated money to hack XBox. Just to let some very important IT guys who actually work in IT know more about Lindows.
scott if you really work in IT, it is even more embarassing that you claim Dell is forced to include Windows. Dell is selling Linux boxes, and you tell me that you have pressured them to sell boxes without Windows. You are either another troll, or … I just wish your company good luck.
” scott if you really work in IT, it is even more embarassing that you claim Dell is forced to include Windows. Dell is selling Linux boxes, and you tell me that you have pressured them to sell boxes without Windows.”
Checked again in case my info was out of date (we used Compaq exclusivly in 2002) and no, on standard desktop models you still had to pick a MS license. I know you can order servers with Linux and I suspect some workstation class desktops, but for the vast majority we’re forced again…of course, I’m in the UK, if you are in a different country it could be different there.
Microsoft was trying to “bully” a company run by a guy that know how to do serious hype, claiming his product, named “LindowsOS”, very similar to Windows, to run Windows applications. Microsoft spent millions, perhaps billions in trying to make Windows a recognizable brand. And Robertson just comes along and hijacks it. Interesting.
As for no right, before Microsoft, was there any OS product with a name similar to Windows prior to Microsoft?
Besides, if Dell was forced to include a version of Windows with every PC, why even before the court forced Microsoft to release the OEMs, Dell had Linux machines? Heck, for some time, they had an option for Linux-only for every PC they sold (but dropped that for consumer machines and much of the corporate machines due to lack of demand).
If Dell was truly forced to sell Windows with each PC is makes, then the courts somehow would have got the wind of it already.
One day you PC people will wake from your slumber. Windows is a poor quality product. It’s that way in large part because MS has a monopoly.
Yeah it is. So what do I do? Use Linux. Great, but the bleeding egde, which has all the features, is completely not stable. Then what about Mac OS X? Slow, unresponsive, only for expensive slow hardware. What about BeOS? No drivers, no software, nothing.
To me, Windows is rather high in quality. Sure, they have a lot of security hole, because prior to the release, they couldn’t care less about security. But notice, even without their monopoly taken away from them, they are working to fix security problems in future versions of Windows.
For most people, you have to buy windows, better or not.
For a lot of people I know, they could use Linux. but they have no reason to, so they just stick to Windows.
Apple is too expensive for many
And that’s a fault of Microsoft?
there’s downsides like less games, no build it yourself
Most computer users I know don’t really have big gigantic needs for games, I think games on Macs are quite sufficient. As for DIY machines, not many fancy that. Many get it from a OEM instead. So the main reason is actually the first one you given. Price, price, price.
Meanwhile more and more people are waking up.
Duh. Maybe I should wake up from my dream and face the nightmare by buying a Mac…
“If Dell was truly forced to sell Windows with each PC is makes, then the courts somehow would have got the wind of it already.”
Not forced exactly, just that to get the best deal on windows they agreed to make sure every PC shipped with one….which amounts to the same thing when you compete on price.