Gates Testifies in Antitrust Suit

teamhasnoi writes "Bill Gates is testifying today in the Microsoft antitrust case. Here's the 5 page executive summary (pdf) and here's the 163-page full version (1.1 MB pdf). Bill waxes on about the early days, talks about .NET, xml, and why Microsoft should not be penalized for its role as 800 lb. Gorilla. (Developers, Developers, Developers)" Other readers point to the BBC story on Gates' testimony, as well as a similar one at Yahoo!.

Another story ...

[ProfMoriarty]

is on MSNBC [msnbc.com]

From the horse's arse...

[hendridm]

There is an HTML version [microsoft.com] of the 163-page version on Microsoft's web site.

Re:Why doesn't anyone care...

[mikefoley]

No, it's because Microsoft is classified as a monopoly. Let's put this in simple terms. Microsoft, the monopoly, has an easy in to virtually all the desktops in the WORLD. When Microsoft acquires...er.."innovates" a new widget, be it an internet browser or something else "innovative", that widget becomes a defacto standard and Microsoft has a history of taking advantage of that type of situation.

Apple can come up with iWhatever but because it's not a monopoly and doesn't own virtually all of the desktop market, its introduction of iWhatever isn't seen as a threat.

When you are a monopoly (have I made that point yet?), you must tread carefully. It's not illegal to be a monopoly, but it IS illegal to use it to your advantage at the expense of others.

Oh yea, Gates makes me ill with the "we innovate" crap. Bill, you got the best of your technology from others, primarily Digital. The only innovation Microsoft has done is marketing.

Throttling MS would hardly destroy the "ecosystem"

[elflet]

Gates' testimony basically comes down to if we can't have everything, all we built will crumble to dust. That would make many /.-ers happy, but it's unlikely to happen.

Look at Everett Rogers [iastate.edu]' work on the diffusion of innovations. Basically, once an innovation has been picked up by about 25% of the available market, network effects (people talking to each other) take over and adoption becomes virtually unstoppable. Just the use of MS Office gives Windows a thoroughly entrenched position.

Can MS be dislodged? Let's say that the various *NIX factions get organized enough to make a serious run at displacing MS Windows. Rogers lists 5 conditions that are required for an innovation to be successful, and they place alternate operating systems at a disadvantage (definitions from Rogers' site, italicized comments mine):

1. Relative advantage: the degree to which an innovation is perceived as better than the idea it supersedes. Unless an alternative can show a substantial increase in uptime, a far more attractive UI, and seamless installation, it won't play in the mass market.
2. Compatibility: the degree to which an innovation is perceived as being consistent with existing values, past experiences, and needs of potential adopters. It has to run MS Office and whatever motley collection of apps people have gathered over the years.
3. Complexity: the degree to which an innovation is perceived as difficult to understand and use. Self-explanatory.
4. Trialability: the degree to which an innovation may be experimented with on a limited basis. OK, Windows fails this too -- but people don't even know there's an alternative to be tried. Where's the *NIX equivalent of AOL's "1000 free hours" preview?
5. Observability: the degree to which the results of an innovation are visible to others. If you adopt *NIX, how will this improve your life in ways that are clearly visible to others, including (and especially) non-techies?

So, anyone want to make Gates' nightmares come true?

Re:The remedies suck

[pmz]

...from MS to Redhat to Sun, everyone bundles, is forced to, or goes out of business because that's what the customer wants.

However, the manner in which companies do the bundling varies widely. Take Solaris, for example.

Sun hides nothing when it bundles software and gives credit where it is due. They do this with Apache, Perl, Java, X Windows, and the Berkeley UNIX compatibility tools, for example. The user is never forced to use these tools, but they certainly may choose to. The only component of Solaris a person is really forced to use is the kernel. Otherwise, Solaris is very modular allowing the user to pick and choose pretty much everything else.

The same is true for Linux and the free BSDs, as well. This is not true of Windows.

The difference between Microsoft and everyone else is that Microsoft is arrogant, imposing, and rude towards its customers. Microsoft has lost the notion of working for the customers, which is why more and more people are turning away from Microsoft every day.

Companies should be bending over backwards to satisfy their customers, and they should be honest about it, too. Meanwhile, Microsoft has been steadily dropping in rank on my list of companies that have earned my business. I think it will be very soon before Microsoft drops off that list entirely.

Re:And we are to taken him seriously?

[Todd Knarr]

Ummm... What's the difference to an app making a RenderHTML( &window, &HTMLObject ) call whether the RenderHTML() implementation is in the OS or a DLL? In fact, in Windows, it is in a DLL even when it's in the OS, so the only thing that would change is which DLL it's in.

Which is the point Gates doesn't want to admit to, because as soon as he does the whole "everything must be integrated into Windows or it won't work" argument explodes and his main method of fending off competitors evaporates.

The answer about Linux is obvious

[Edmund Blackadder]

Nobody forces you to install anything that is bundled with a distro.

If you sell computers with preinstalled Linux, nobody will tell you what to install on there. You can make your own distro and bundle whatever you like in there.

And Linus will not punish oyu if you do not put Mozilla on every Linix computer.

As i said in the title this should be obvious to you, but since you are an MS troll you may need some explaining.

As far as apple is concerned there are two differences:
- apple is not a monopoly
- apple make their own hardware, and do their own preinstalls, so they are not using their market power to control other companies. They only "control" themselves.

BBC News 24 - Interview with MS Brad Smith

[Anonymous Coward]

BBC News 24 have an interview with Brad Smith, Microsoft's "Chief Councel" running on their "World Business Report" programme. It's quite amusing - some quotes:

Brad: ... After all, there's probably nobody on the planet that knows more about the PC industry than Bill Gates..."

BBC girl: It was interesting to see that on the issue of "middleware" ... Bill Gates said that it was "Technologically impossible" - I find that "interesting" given that this is one of the biggest software companies in the world, and he's known for his software "genius".

short pause...

Brad: ... the States' proposal would be impossible to comply with ... legal standard makes no sense, doesn't work in the real world ...

Worth watching, he manages to keep a straight face dispite what he's saying :)

For those that can get this quality channel, it's next on BBC news 24 at 01:30 GMT.

fast user switching on linux

[peter]

To do this with linux you can switch to another virtual terminal (CTRL+ALT+F2, for instance). If you want an X server, then start one. If you already logged in through XDM, you can still switch to a text console and log in as another user, then run startx -- :1. Then switch between your X servers with CTRL+ALT+F7,F8 (or whichever VCs you are using for your X servers.)

I sometimes do this on the family computer. I'll start an X session for myself on VC8, and leave a guest login on VC7 for the rest of the family.