The Only Way Microsoft Can Die is by Suicide 1002
Bitseeker writes "Robert X. Cringley's latest article is online. He opens with: 'When I wrote last week about my conclusion that the legal system -- any legal system -- is unequipped to change Microsoft's monopolistic behavior, I had no idea that within 24 hours, Sun Microsystem would be throwing in the towel, trading its so-called principles for $1.95 billion in cash. So I guess I was right. Only now, a few thousand readers out there expect me to blithely produce an answer to the problem of what to do to bring Microsoft into the civilized world. Well, I say it can't be done.'"
MS committing suicide (Score:5, Interesting)
Based on the way SP2 for XP is looking they may finally be learning this lesson, but if they don't it may not be a question of running out of money and more a question of running out of customers (one leads to the other I know but they have a LOT of money to spare even without customers)
Re:If MSFT dies (Score:1, Interesting)
When the free solution becomes larger, more encompassing, takes more market share... let's say for example that Linux reaches a market share of 90%... it's free, becomes simpler, is everywhere... then the controller, that dictator will be...
And it will be good
Disagree, this assumes they fail playing catchup (Score:5, Interesting)
1. MSFT ignoring TCP IP, saying it is inferior to NetBIOS as well as charging a small fortune for a minimal add-on IP Stack ported from BSD. That was only 10 years ago. They caught up on this one
2. Same with browsers - IE 3.0 was nothing but mosaic repackaged. It took them less then 2 years to catch up.
3. Mail clients - I still remember the days when Pegasus and Eudora were the de-facto corporate standards as far as Email on windows is concerned. 3 years to get from 0% market share to 90%+ market share.
4. Microsoft ignoring wireless, thin clients, etc.
In every one of these cases they caught up before the rest of the market could do anything about them.
Erm...huh? (Score:3, Interesting)
The smartest reader of all suggested that companies be taxed on their market share so that a company like Microsoft with 90 percent share would pay a 90 percent tax rate. The nice part about this idea is that it actually would encourage competition as well as industry alliances. The naive part is that it assumes legislative resolve that does not exist and also assumes Microsoft actually pays taxes which, for the most part, it doesn't. Still, the idea is clever.
What? That's the silliest thing I ever heard. I'm as anti big-business as most moderately anti big-business people are, but taxing businesses according to market share seems stupid and doesn't give them much incentive to want to grow, as least how I see it. If you want to go after corporations, start cracking down on tax shelters and loopholes that get them out of paying anything at all.
I know MS sucks donkey balls, but changing the entire tax structure and the market just to take care of them seems a little excessive. Hell, I'm using Windows but I still have Apple and Real products on my PC. Is it really that bad?
capitalism--monopolies (Score:5, Interesting)
A lot of people in the tech industry, and in particular on Slashdot, are very anti-Microsoft. But the fact of the matter is that Microsoft has not done anything that other companies don't do on a regular basis. If anything, Microsoft is one of the better companies relative to its size (companies like Intel and IBM are far worse). If you think Microsoft is bad, you know nothing about Wal-Mart, ExonMobil, and others. A company like Walmart, for example, has far more power and is more monopolistic than Microsoft ever was. What you refer to as Microsoft's monopolistic behaviour is a total joke compared to the clout Wal-mart has over suppliers and consumers.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Re:Public Awareness (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, I'm probably much closer to "average consumer" or general public than a lot of posters here are... I know about this stuff because I have an interest in computer and tech, but I'm not really involved in it...
Then again, there have been such attempts made on various scales, yet on the whole, apathy seems to be the victor.
Is it really apathy? You need to find a way to make ordinary people understand why it matters what they run on their PC at home to check their email and surf the web, when they have to take their kids to the Dr, remember to pick up dog food on the way home, call their mother to talk about getting the family together for the weekend, pay bills... and so on and so on.
I really would love to use Linux on my home PC, and I did my best to make myself a dual boot system but I couldn't get it running on my own. There are a lot of programs I have to have that are only on Windows, so Windows it was. But I work my butt off and don't really have time to devote hours learning a new operating system, when I already know my way around Windows, and on the list of Important Things Demanding Attention in my life, it's a pretty low priority. I used Mandrake on my ex-boyfriend's computer when I was staying with him, but he was always around to fix it when something went wrong. When Windows goes nuts, I can usually manage to get things working again on my own, at least.
The main obstacles to Linux, or any alternative OS, in my opinion are making it easy to use and configure right out of the box for someone with little to know computer knowledge, like me, and not only educating people about the alternatives to the monopoly, but why they should care when there are so many other important things to worry about.
Re:Public Awareness (Score:5, Interesting)
I think there needs to be a much stronger effort by these alternatives to effectively replace Microsoft. It's not like I can just switch to Linux and automatically be happy.
Re:The smartest.... bah (Score:5, Interesting)
Imagine limiting the model. Impose the tax-levy at market share of 70% or greater. That would encourage companies to get big, but not get too big. That is, it would create a very strong incentive to not kill off too much competition.
But the problem there is that microsoft is engaged in many markets and some products that attain monopoly in their markets are given away for free... So in the case of Netscape, how would the government applied such a tax-levy?
Perhaps rather than a tax, perhaps the revocation of all patents on said companies products in the given market.
So in the event of IE's market monopoly, all patents obtained by MS related to IE's functionality would be revoked, allowing for new competition to step in and compete without having to worry about IP infringement.
But there is no silver bullet here unfortunately.
Microsoft will die in the PC OS Market. (imho) (Score:5, Interesting)
As for software, besides the XP OS so I can run video games, all most applications are open source or free. Mozilla, Thunderbird, putty, Winamp (free version), Open office, cygwin, opengaim, windows player classic. iTunes, PowerDVD and Nero are pay, but they could move to Linux easily enough.
Besides free software for PC, everything else costs for most entertainment. Xbox games, HDTV DVDs, DRM'ed CDs, whatever. Microsoft will be a monopoly in other markets.
Re:A better idea... (Score:5, Interesting)
As if it hasn't been tried a few thousand times? Every single time, Microsoft has either bought the company in question and either integrated it or disbanded it, or created enough vaporware and FUD to shut it down. Remember Go, anyone? Where do you think Visio, Excel and Exchange comes from? Developed in-house? Ha! One of the guys behind Exchange even came over and tried to "ease our transition" when Bill'n'Steve bought us [1] out. You can not out-innovate someone who buys and steals innovations for a living and has forty billion dollars to play with. It can not be done, not on the same playing field. You will have to either out-gun them (maybe IBM could, if they had a visionary to push them, which they don't) or take the fight elsewhere and play by different rules as OSS is doing.
I think Bill Gates himself has proven that it only takes someone in a garage with a damn good idea...
Jobs and Wozniak proved that. Bill never worked out of a garage, his parents were a bit too wealthy for that kind of rough start. He was speeding his Porsche down in Albuquerque from day one.
Mod me down if you wish, just an honest opinion from someone sick of hearing about Microsoft's monopoly.
Well, I'm sick of living it. And I have been for close to ten years now. Do some research and you'll know why you're hearing about it. God knows there's enough books and websites written by the ones who have gotten their de-programming and gotten out. Start with Marlin Eller and go from there.
[1] Sendit, later known as Microsoft Mobile Internet Business Group and now known as NOTHING since they killed it off, apparently just for fun. Forty billion dollars allows you to have fun like that. Laugh, dammit!
Re:hsdsafsdg (Score:1, Interesting)
I build a *lot* of PCs for friends and friends of friends of friends. Here's what I give 'em:
1) XP (Warez)
2) Firebird
3) Thunderbird
4) OpenOffice
5) AVG Antivirus
6) Ad-aware
7) Spybot S&D
Now eventually as programs like 2,3,4 become more popular and Wine for programs like Quicken improves and Linux configuration becomes less of a nightmare, the transition away from XP will be much smoother.
Re:Principles? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The smartest.... bah (Score:2, Interesting)
Imagine a world where the better you get at something the more punished you are
-----
That's not what this is about at all.
-----
is why in the hell would I even try to get market share in the first place since I now have a strong fiscal insentive NOT to try to
-----
This is about responsibility to the society. Ideally as a company gets larger and its product holds a greater amount of market share the price of that product comes down and the quality increases. That's ideal.
In reality the CEOs, VPs, executive board members, and controlling shareowners are a collective group of greed freaks who have no scruples about lecherously milking the company and the consumer base dry. There's no way around it and no law that can prevent it. We can't legislate fair play.
In order for big companies with controlling market share to fulfill their social duty it is necessary to tax them at a higher rate.
On that note, however, it'll never work. The greed driven group at the top will continue to swindle the entire system and the consumer base will end up paying even more for the product to cover for the tax. No CEO, VP, executive board member, or controlling shareowner is going to let their personal profit margin be squeezed by something as insignificant as a tax. It's easy enough to restructure the accouting ledger and pass the bill on to someone else.
Re:so what... (Score:5, Interesting)
Cars are a good example. For example I just bought a 2003 Mustang Cobra and am having problems where as others with more limited production, such as a 1995 for instance, were built with more precision(read:more attention), but cost less and have less problems?!?!.
What I see here is the beginning of the destruction of capitolism/economics/life(as we know it). Think this way... If more and more people and corps come online with the tools to make an application that makes an instant internationally accessable website then all we will see is less and less of an acutal product and more of a battle of whose the best at lying and making the most apealing ads. We all hear about this or that company claiming to focus on the customer. I'm sorry to say, CUSTOMER SERVICE IS DEAD. It's all an ad campain. Like AT&T Wireless or Time Warner Cable. I deal with many vendors everyday with my work and the average rate of satisfaction from the service received is less than 10%. Both of the above companies' ranked the #1 and #2 spot on worst expiriences with getting customer service after the sale I have had.
When was the last time you had service. What about at a chain owned business such as a fast food establishment? It's going downhill and I'm expecting the worst soon.
There is another way for MS to die... (Score:5, Interesting)
Now bear in mind that (a) there are challenges from all sides coming at Microsoft [aaxnet.com] (they have failed to gain much of a foothold in markets outside their core products of Windows and Office, both core markets now under heavy attack from Free alternatives) and (b) the price of MSFT has almost halved over the past 5 years [yahoo.com] (in fact, it was almost touching $100 a share in Feb 2000 [crn.com]) and you might just think it's not all rosy in the MSFT garden. So much so that co-founder Paul Allen sold all his MSFT stock and got out whilst the going was good. This is also why MS decided last year to pay a dividend on their stock for the first time - they have to prevent institutional investors from jumping ship. The stock setup is their one (big) weakness.
Re:death by assumption (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd been expecting Windows to crumple since 99 when it was completely obvious that the code was so huge and the company so micro-managed that no one person or group of people had any concept of the code as a whole.
I'm sure they plowed ahead on the NT-ization concept because starting from scratch is extremely costly.
Even though MS has an army of programmers, imagine the hell that would have been stirred if MS suddenly announced that Windows was being end of lifed for a shiny new MS OS?
Plus a new OS requires all the existing apps to be ported, which is costly to both MS to write and the consumer to buy/integrate.
So in this case you can see that MS is locked into it's user base just as the users to MS's proprietary formats.
If you look at Apple, they had nothing to lose when they swapped out the OS, but found a novel way to allow for backwards compatability for their own and 3rd party apps.
However, MS has a lot to lose, approx 90% worldwide desktop market share. Not that they would lose all of it, but I could imagine a major exodus to other OS's or hardware platforms. And can you think of what that would do to MS's stock price?
Personally I think they made the right call in building on what they had but over-estimated themselves and have proven to not be able to deliver on all those promises.
And with that I come full-circle to my original post on this thread.
Re:The Only Way Microsoft Can Die is by Suicide (Score:5, Interesting)
Make sure your employer pays in full for all the microsoft software they use, and book an hour on the timesheet to "reading EULAs" each time you install software on a new machine.
Just suggestions...
It will happen again (Score:3, Interesting)
How do u do it, "with great difficulty"
Re:There is another way for MS to die... (Score:2, Interesting)
Microsoft can die if shareholders (including option holders) go after Microsoft's cash and force the board to pay a large dividend. Microsoft's monopoly profit will be diverted through individual investors to investment and innovation in new platforms and technology. Microsoft will not be able to keep up with software for new platforms if the competition is taking their revenue stream through dividends and using it to compete against them.
But if a new president hikes taxes on dividends and top income then Microsoft's earnings will stay with the company and this will not happen.
Re:You nailed that "anti corporate" BS (Score:2, Interesting)
What can happen and is happening (Score:5, Interesting)
There is however a problem. The problem is that IBM existed in a different world then MS does now. IBM technology was a small world populated by the techs. MS however exist in a world in wich IT is now used mostly by non-techs. These people are far less prepared to switch from MS to Linux as before the techs switched from Mainframes to DOS.
So what can happen?
Security
One is security. So far all the security problems have been mild. Nothing really major happened. People are not going to switch because of a few virusses (I am talking the non-techs here) or because they loose a little bit of data. Just ask youreselve how many cars have been produced that were so faulty that they killed people and what happened to the companies that produced those cars? Are those companies still around their cars still selling? Right. Apathy. People are stupid, lazy, shortsighted, greedy and gullible.
A major worm that really wipes out a large percentage of windows machine would be required for a shift to take place. Is this likely? Well so far it hasn't happened. None of the worms are really destructive enough.
MS missing the boat
This is mentioned in the article and I think it is wishfull thinking. MS has missed every damn boat out there. So far without result. People do without or pay extra or pay others. Just look at tcp/ip, browsers, png support in browsers, games (once Apple was the PC with games), and many many others.
Competition
Now we are talking. Linux itself isn't really competition as linux is not competiting. If Linux is used by 1 person then it still is a 100% success.
But there are others willing to use Linux as the base from wich to launch their own offensive.
I don't think companies like IBM or Sun or HP are any real threath. They had their change and goofed. But look to the east and you will see one huge evil empire who has everything to loose by MS being dominant and nothing to gain. China may for a lot of reasons become the bastion of freedom for the west ruled by DMCA/RIAA/MPAA/MS. People always talk about the richness off MS but forget that 50billion is peanuts to goverments. America is only so corrupt because its leaders are so cheaply bought. Just look at the donations given and the profits of the companies making the donations.
China however has a rememedy for that. A bullet paid for by the relatives.
Red flag linux run on a dragon chips would be a very nice way for china to first gain independence at home and second be a nice export article to those willing to break free from Longhorn/Blackcomb or whatever.
I think this is the only real threat to MS. A country wich cannot be bought, threatned or outsold. An asian pact would also break the MS office version deadlock. Want to trade in the east? You will comply with their standards or you will not trade.
Is any of this likely to happen?
Apart from the far east revolt I doubt that anything will change soon. We live in a world where only a tiny percentage of people even can be bothered to vote. Expecting those people to lead a revolt against a company is to much.
Of course that is no excuse for those of us who know better.
This article written on Linux
The more things change... (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, as Cringley pointed out, things do eventually change. Microsoft will fall, eventually, and probably of its own accord. (Longhorn looks like a good start...)
And an observation that is not a troll, but is likely to get me modded down for the first time anyway: by 1983, I was tired of hearing people say that this was the year that *nix would start to take over. It's taken me many years to become a believer, and I have learned patience along the way.
Windows/Solaris Hybrid OS. (Score:5, Interesting)
Microsoft is positioning itself to battle linux. To do so, they cross license IP with Sun for Solaris innards with its excellent scaleability and enterprise class functionality. This means a new class Operating system derived from Solaris and Windows with quite possibly a small piece of the pie to SCO.
Meanwhile, Sun is going to migrate away from Sparc. They simply cannot compete in the proprietary CPU market. Look for them to adopt and have a hand in developing AMD processors with multi-core CPUs that run the new hybrid OS. Then Sun will market the server, workstation, Desktop based systems. Microsoft will get a cut of the hardware business as Sun gets a cut of the software business. Sco get residual license fees, and Linux gets another 10 years to catch up.
700 dollars - so what can you provide? (Score:1, Interesting)
Where is the competition for Microsoft, which has this great 90% monopoly?
MS products come with easy to use GUIs and lots of documentation.
What can you provide for 700 dollars (XP OS plus Office XP Applications) which is equivalent to this product?
If someone wants to challenge MS, they need to provide a bundle of easily managed and installed and documented software for under 700 dollars which includes:
System Management
Browsing
Document Management, Spreadsheets,
Presentation Data Production
Basic Movie Editing
XML integration
other fancy bits...
Insidious (Score:5, Interesting)
My 13yo duaghter has "computer classes" at her Middle School. Are they teaching her programming? No. Are they teaching her basic principles of technology? No.
They're teaching her Microsoft PowerPoint and FrontPage.
I'm not anti-Microsoft; in fact, their software often offers features not found in FOSS applications. PowerPoint is not evil; what's evil is how PowerPoint is used to turn complex ideas into empty summaries.
Yet I find it disquieting that the schools are teaching kids with proprietary software (probably donated) to make business presentations. Most kids don't have a resource at home who can etach them about programming and alternative software. It's not my kids I worry about so much as the corporate monoculture that they're going to live in, populated by ignorant cogs created by an assembly-line school system.
It looks like my middle daughter will follow her 15yo sister into the world of homeschooling. But what about other people's kids? In my mind, Microsoft is no better than a drug peddler, creating a dependancy in youth that leads to addiction in adulthood.
Cringley is right about one thing -- for the most part, the people who care about FOSS are those who know how to use a compiler. And the advocates of FOSS still lack the attention to users -- non-compilers -- that is required to create a valid alternative to Microsoft.
One thing I've learned from being on the frontlines of social activism -- being "right" means nothing. The success of any revolution depends on the ability to engage the passions of the common folk who do not understand (or care to understand) the issues. Geeks can look down their noses at the unwashed masses, but unless you can attract the interest of common folk, your revolution is doomed, and Microsoft wins.
Microsoft May Already be Dying (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:capitalism--monopolies (Score:3, Interesting)
Switching from Microsoft to Apple, Linux or BSD has a much higher penalty because necessary software and usability know-how must be ported.
Re:Principles? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:The Only Way Microsoft Can Die is by Suicide (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm the Senior IT Manager of a well known software company in Germany. Whenever it comes to install Windows on a workstation computer (servers are running Linux), it's the job of my assistant, because I would become seriously ill, if I would touch Windows. The other day I asked him, what he thinks about the M$ EULA and he answered: "EULA? What's that?"...
Nobody really seems to be interested in those legal stuff like EULAs and thats the reason why noone sees the evil in M$.
Re:MS committing suicide (Score:3, Interesting)
Right. Following your own link to its Business Week [businessweek.com] article origins, we read:
Re:Public Awareness (Score:5, Interesting)
I will not be modded up for this, becuase it's truth. Truth, people actively ignore.
It burns me up every time someone claims that what is written on the chains holding Linux down has anything to do with ease of use.
Have we forgotten computing history? Are we that afriad of what needs to be done, we blatantly walk straight into a wall head first with ignorance?
Ease of use, has never to this day played a role in the popularity and market dominance of a computer operating system. Or, VCR, automobile, cell phone or any other interactive device.
Maybe, the problem is, most people here used to be Macintosh haters just three or so years ago. Oh, you heard about how easy the Mac was, so easy infact trolls still try to make a wise crack about the one-button mouse. It's always been a wonder to the Mac community, how Microsoft managed to surpass Apple hiding behind the command prompt. While we all have our business and economics degrees that give us a lame authority to try to define Apples blunders, the fact remains many geeks criticized Mac users because THERE WASN'T A COMMAND LINE!
Now, we point at the crippled Windows command line interface, and cry about Linux's ease of use!
Linux's ease of use is irrelevant. I don't care how many people scream otherwise. Linux has so many other qualities that if we focus on them, we will prevail. Who here started using Linux becuase it was "easy to use"? Noone. Who here started using Linux becuase of the liberty entailed in Open Source, the efficiency of Open Source, the control? I wonder if there is a high percentage of Linux users driving cars with manual transmissions... I do! I don't find it a coincedence either! When I was concerned with ease of use, I used a Macintosh. To this day, when ease of use is heavily on my mind, I recommend a Macintosh.
Microsoft displayed that market control can be easily acheived without ease of use. Or senseable use for that matter, they still haven't mastered cut and paste. But, we don't like how they did it. So we think we are better than they are, and we should come out on top if we don't stoop to their level. That's just plain fantasy, it never pans out in the end. There's a reality here, the man willing to kick the other in the balls will always be left standing. If you want to defeat such a person, you had better drop some morals otherwise you'll be hunched over in agony.
We can do this without zealotry, blind advocacy... but we can't do it if we constantly try to find a cause to the problem, we feel most comfortable with. Linux doesn't lack 95% of the market becuase it is hard to use. Linux lacks 95% of the market becuase it's users are hunched over on the side-walk thinking they are in pain becuase their shoes weren't tied right.
missing the boat (Score:2, Interesting)
Well he misses the point that MS has learned from their mistakes! They 'missed the boat' a number of times before - (ie. the browser, java/Virtual Machines) but luckily for them they've managed to catch up. They won't make this mistake anymore, they have an answer to each and everyone that could remotely challenge their dominance - they'll embrace and acquire everything software. Just look at what they're doing around the w3c, xml, blogs, ... So look out yahoo, google, real, and others like intuit. You're next on their list. They have answers (like msn) and 53 billions $ war chest. They just did to Sun what they did to corel and others - Put them on life support, bought out their lease on life.
Very soon, as Cringley points out the difference between linux and windows will be price.
Re:capitalism--monopolies (Score:2, Interesting)
Wal-Mart doesn't even exist in Europe
ExonMobil has several good competitors here in europe, in fact I believe the biggest oil vendor in Italy is AGIP.
BP: I don't even know who they are
Please think twice next time you have to give examples.
Re:so what... (Score:3, Interesting)
And with robot I mean a real SF-like robot, like a butler-robot or anything of that complexity, not one those lawnmower robots, these can get away with "simple" software. The robo-butler would need a real OS to handle all it's tasks. (Just think about how many differend (simultaneous) steps you need to take to e.g. fill a glass).
The story of software is all but finished.
Re:The Only Way Microsoft Can Die is by Suicide (Score:3, Interesting)
The reason Microsoft has been so rich for so long is because they've been selling $5 plastic discs in a cardboard box with a stack of paper for $300. They reason they can do this is because if you buy your Windows at $5, the BSA will come and sue the crap out of you.
But what happens if suddenly even with all the lawyers in the world, they can't sue anybody simply because if they did, they're guaranteed to loose?
People would start installing all the MS products they wanted too, free from any stupid licensing schemes, reverse engineer to their hearts desire and MS revenue stream would be reduced to what they make from selling mouses. Then either the source to Windows gets released by some means and different flavors and improvements to windows start getting released, or the windows platform simply dies from stagnation.
Which solves the issue of MS being a bully in the US market. Also when foreign governments see this happen, how many governments won't make it so for their citizens to have Windows virtually free, without the fear of US trade embargoes?
Re:so what... (Score:5, Interesting)
It's a matter of choice. I bought a new 2002 Saturn SL. I have had ZERO problems and consistantly get 30+mpg in town and 40+mpg on the hiway. I deliberately chose quality over glitz, even though I feel the Saturn looks neater than the Mustang. So it is with software. Rather than choosing a flashy, highly promoted OS I selected Linux. My reward is high usability, stability and security.
Re:Public Awareness (Score:3, Interesting)
Computers may be the center of our world, but it isn't that way for the majority of people.
The way to get ordinary people to care is to give them software that they love.
They might write letters to their US Representatives on behalf of free(dom) software if something like Gaim or Firbird is threatened.
They will not write letters to their US Representatives on behalf of free(dom) software if something like emacs or mutt is threatened.
Steve
Problem UNTIL something B-A-D happens. (Score:3, Interesting)
The only way we're going to break up something like M$, or any a cash bloated behemoth (remember Unsafe at Any Speed [amazon.com]), is when something really B-A-D [sri.com] happens; like people dying as a direct result of using it; as if the /0 error had happened while the ship was under fire from terrorists...
Until then... Learn to cope with the beast.
Re:hsdsafsdg (Score:5, Interesting)
1) Mandrake
2) A listing of ad servers in the
Everything else is either included or not needed.
It costs them nothing and I donate my time. What are friends for if not that?
Re:so what... (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't think quality has gone down. My Volvo is of the hightest quality. This 12" powerbook is easily the most well-built, well-thought-out computer I've ever owned (my first was a Ti-99/4A). I don't think software quality has diminished either, frankly, considering the increase in complexity. Sure my Apple //e booted in half a second, but I couldn't edit video on it. Say all you want about sleazy marketing, but ink-jet printing is - from the perspective of the 1980's and earlier - absolutely amazing. Remember NLQ dot matrix and daisy-wheel printers? They sucked. Really. They sucked. Today you can get a laser printer for cheap. This is all power to the consumer. How about a gun analogy now, instead of a car analogy - anyone with a gun (say, a super-cheap AK) can take out the greatest master swordsman. Sad in a way, but then that's real power to the people.
Re:Public Awareness (Score:4, Interesting)
Don't think it is just with computer issues, but rather, MOST issues. Everyone has an opinion on something, most are uninformed and made out of ignorance.
When someone comes at them with something that offsets their uninformed beliefs, the first reaction is to defend at all costs their "choosen" platform. Needless to say, this doesn't work very well. However, slowly introducing people to FOSS DOES work. Infact, when people have issues with their computers, I try and use a FOSS solution when possible. Change IE/OE with Mozilla, AIM with GAIM, throw OpenOffice.org on there, etc.
The idea? eventually their #1 complaint "my software doesn't work on Linux" is a non-issue because infact, it IS cross platform.
Re:so what... (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah, sure (Score:2, Interesting)
It was a British company with the unusual distinction of ruling an entire country. It saw its birth 31. December 1600. It ruled the India over 200 years. It was dissolved 1856 by the Crown, which took over the control of the India. I think that the size and the power of the East Indian Company puts Microsoft in shame.
History has not ended. Microsoft will die eventually. If you don't belive me, just think of the East Indian Company and its fate.
Re:so what... (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, that depends on range - at close range a knife or sword-weilding opponent can carve you up before you have time to draw and fire a handgun, and long guns are awkward at point-blank range.
And it's really no different than the advantage of the bow over the sword, it's just easier to gain basic competence with a firearm.
Ease of use IS the problem. (Score:5, Interesting)
I have installed and used: Slackware, Redhat, Mandrake, Debian, Gentoo, and unsuccessfully tried to install yellowdog on an old (and apparently unsupported) Mac clone.
This is the reason I have no problem in saying that the ease of use in Linux is absolutely the reason it isn't popular. People are cheap, and they love free anything, and they'll deal with a lot of headache to save money. A free Linux desktop that was easier to use than windows would be more popular than windows. But there isn't one.
Here's the bottom line:
1. You won't win the desktop until you have a solid GUI platform where a completely encapsulated installer requires ONE COMMAND to begin the install process.
2. You won't win the desktop until you have POLISHED and COMPLETE business applications. QuickBooks, Dreamweaver, Photoshop, and the like have absolutely no equal in Linux.
3. For the above to happen, there need to be standards in Linux. It's really that simple. Windows may be bad, but it's consistent. I can write an application that will work in Windows 98, ME, 2000, and XP. Will a
If you make Linux better than windows and keep it free, it will become more popular. Just remember that 95% of your audience doesn't give a shit about games, or how fast pieces of backend code work, or how revolutionary it will be for them to have a limitlessly configurable desktop. They're at work. They want to sell things, communicate with their customers, keep track of their finances, stay organized, and then turn the thing off and go home.
antitrust won't work on Microsoft (Score:3, Interesting)
Fortunately, the open-source communtiy has an advantage Microsoft can't match; sheer collective power. No closed-source company can possibly compete with that forever, so what the open-source community needs to do is to keep plugging away, keep innovating, keep making the projects and products better and better, keep chipping away at the monolith. This community has the speed and maneuverability to be that "faster ship" Cringely refers to. But it's going to take a lot of hard work and a lot of time.
Cringly is right (Score:5, Interesting)
Microsoft is a business, it isn't run by a bunch of geeks, it is run buy a bunch of geeky businessmen who plan for the future. Business is war and cash reserves are ammunition. Microsoft is laying plans for war against all, including open source. It is good business practice.
Would Microsoft be justified in giving away free software to beat open source? Sure, they would be meeting their competition head-on. Even if everything else were equal, Microsoft would probably win because of their PR budget and their name recognition. Open Soure can't win on price alone. Open Source still has to compte in other areas as well. Areas like quality, security, ease of use, availability.
Can Open Souce beat Microsft? Maybe, maybe not. North Vietnam beat the US and that was a David vs. Goliath battle. David beat Goliath. Yes, it can be done. But the battle isn't on cost alone. It is a hearts and minds kind of battle and on that front I'm afraid that Open Source doesn't have much of a market share (yet).
I'm not trying to say that all of this is right or as it should be but I am saying that this is the way that it is. At least today.
I am concerned from a global level that Microsoft has too much power. With so much of the software market they are in a position to dictate how, where, when, and why computers are used.
I don't think this is a good thing and I think that in a sense it constitutes a global security threat. If computing becomes a Microsoft oriented mono-culture, vunerabilities in the software can (and probably will be) exploited by governments, crime syndicates, and even individuals. I'm not talking about worms and viruses here, I'm talking about people seriously interested in destroying an entities economic existance.
If for no other reason, this is a reason enough for people to work against Microsoft's owning the world!
There is another question that needs to be asked. What happens if Microsoft finds that it has reached the limits in software and in order to continue to grow it decided to diversify? We know the kind of machine it is. Perhaps, they would gobble up someone like AMD and go into building computers? Controling the hardware like they control software would allow them to grow into that industry and control it quite quickly. Especially if they made their software run better on their hardware.
Think of what Walmart has done to merchants in many a small town. When Walmart comes to town, family owned merchants (clothiers and hardware stores especially) who have been in the community for generations have simply had to close their doors. The communities don't die but there is less choice and more money leaves the community and enriches a few people in Bentonville AR.
This is the kind of thing that could happen to computing if Microsoft wins. Only it would happen on a global scale. It would mean that Microsoft would be a superpower.
90% MS mkt share.. (Score:3, Interesting)
seeing this as it is, i don't see why we get our collective panties in a twist as to what the rest of the world uses. me, i'm just smug knowing that i can do what the others can do (and probably can do it better and faster) and definetely a lot cheaper. does the 90% have *all* of the following (i mean, do they *all* have *all* of the following):
- a compiler for all imagenable languages? (gcc)
- a sound editor? (audacity)
- office tools (OOo)
- internet suite (mozilla/firefox)
- development libraries for everything ranging from crypto to i18n to what-have-you
- the list would go on and on..
for the 90% of people, to put a system like that together would cost them thousends.So, really, the MS monopoly has just kept my compititors from running a business with a superlow operating cost. hasn't kept me from running my operation on a low operating cost. if that means i'll have to break my web pages to work in IE. hey, small price to pay for that competitive advantage. All i can do is thank MS for spending all their time and money creating a coke-habit for the other 90% and letting me have this edge on them. Thank you MS!!
Re:Public Awareness (Score:5, Interesting)
In the same way ease of use is vital for unix to gain marketshare. Most of the "computer users" I know haven't the slightest idea what brand their audio or video cards are, much less where to find and install drivers. You should see how some of them freak out when I give them an install CD without an auto-run option.
The biggest problem with Linux is... (Score:2, Interesting)
The Computer industry is flawed (Score:2, Interesting)
Consider the security angle & a doomsday scena (Score:2, Interesting)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/04/07/witty_e
At least as I understood the article [not being a IT security professional or even a programmer], this analysis of the Witty worm suggests some possibilities.
Imagine if you will, a worm similar to Slammer with rapid saturation but with a self-destruct timer. The host computer is nuked at a specified time. Say 2 hours after the worm's release into the wild through some of those zombie bots the article mentions. Or if the host computer is rebooted before the deadline, on reboot the hard drive is formatted. Or the computer could be nuked 2 hours after infection.
What would happen if umpteen kazillion windows machines stopped working all at the same time, or at least within a few minutes of each other?
How do you think Microsoft's future would look, considering that Mac, Linux & Unix users would be largely unaffected? As I have explained to colleagues, friends, & acquaintences, the single most effective way to avoid these kinds of worms, viruses, et al, is to avoid Microsoft products whenever possible.
And given how much Windows' "security" model aids in the propagation of worms, AV & firewall vendors wouldn't be in much better shape either. There wouldn't be enough time to 1) become aware of the threat 2) prepare fixes & AV/firewall signatures 3) make the fix available 4) make the general computing populace aware of the necessity of applying the fix immediately 5) have enough bandwidth on hand to provide the fix to all who would need it.
Again, as I understood the article, this doesn't seem to be impossible as a matter of principle. From the article, it just looks like no one has thought of trying it yet.
While, I hope it doesn't happen, I don't see why it can't either.
Re:Public Awareness (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually a program that works in the exactly opposite direction of wine would be BEST (A program on Windows that would allow a user to run most Linux programs). The reason is that if a developer believes that development for Windows is portable to Linux has no incentive to stop developing on Windows. However, if the Linux comunity could write a program to seemlessly integrate Linux programs into a Windows environment, many developers might move over to Linux for the "kill two birds with one stone" advantage. Even things like Mozilla and OpenOffice could focus on Linux and forget about Windows (assuming the program worked perfectly) instead of having multiple backend implementations of GUI/OS specific stuff. But don't respond about cygwin since it does not provide the functionality of wine nor does it integrate into the windows environment. What I am talking about is full recognition of the Linux ABI that translates to the Windows equivilent so that a user can plop a program they programed and compiled on Linux will just run on Windows.
Re:The Computer industry is flawed (Score:5, Interesting)
Average Joe has only a handful of needs. He wants to surf the net, watch flash animations, some occasional java, send and receive email (and filter spam), open Word and/or Excel documents for viewing, editing, etc. He also wants some media software to listen to mp3's, watch streaming video of any format, and maybe the occasional game.
In the past, MacOS has done all of these things but with a prohibitive cost due to the outrageously priced hardware. Also, Joe knows nobody else with a Mac. So Apple hasn't been a viable option for the majority of users in the past....and as long as it remains the Porsche of hardware/software combos, it'll remain on the fringes.
These days, linux can do all of the things that Joe needs, but Joe still needs local support. Nobody at CompUSA, BestBuy or any local chains has any clue about linux. Joe doesn't know any local linux geeks that'll come fix something for a 6 pack of Duff. He does, however, know a friend/cousin/coworker that will come over and fix his Windows box when it inevitably gets hosed.
You can wave the linux flag all you want, and beat people over the head with it's superiority, but you have to step up when the time comes. You have to push a distro or livecd to your friends and neighbors. You have to be willing to support them when they need help. Once YOU become the local linux guru, people will feel more secure with their choice of an alternative OS. All of this is necessary because no matter how you look at it, Linux is still more complex in many ways than Windows.
I don't know how much government intervention can do. The whole DOJ-Microsoft fiasco was yet another travesty of justice, proving once again that you can buy your own justice in this country. Don't ever forget that Microsoft is 50% marketing, 30% lawfirm and 20% software.
Here's What Will Kill MS... (Score:2, Interesting)
How? Consider the computing needs of the user of the future. Primarily, they will need to read mail and browse the internet. (Oh, and play games, and DVD's, etc.) The average user won't care what operating system is underlying their equipment - you could do most of these functions with WinCE, or stripped down LINUX.
What else do you want to do?
- Run compute-intensive, graphic-intensive tasks? buy a module for that. Use a form of browser-based terminal to connect and use the service it provides.
- Storage, read, write CD/DVD/BlueLaser media? Use a network-attached storage device for that.
- Printing - use a network attached printer.
- Timer event devices?
- Web servers? - a feature of storage devices...
Watch for the complex computer to decompose into a number of devices; none of these are going to need a full Windows OS, and the functions will be so trivial that most will make do with very stripped version of public or licensed software. USB functionality will evolve into full network functionality.
When to many such devices are too prevelant, a retailer or service provider can try to impose change at their peril. Do you deliberately want to lock out 30% of your customers? What advantage would any replacement for, say, Flash as a protocol/file format have to have to displace it? Same for real networks; not to mention HTML, etc.
The whole computer succeeds for now because the cost of dedicated devices is about the same for less functionality; and the interface/protocol is not quite fixed enough. When a browser tablet can connect as easily as your pC (because every home has a home router with DHCP, the first building block in this new world order) and when that device can be made for signifcantly less than a computer - then Microsoft will truly be doomed.
Using Linux is like Buying American (Score:2, Interesting)
Many people feel that these are the right, healthy, responsible things to do on many levels, but the norms of buying global products (@ WalMart, etc) and using MS software are too entrenched and frustrating for most people to work around.
Re:Public Awareness (Score:5, Interesting)
One of the interesting comments in the article was that MS's cash reserves are big enough that they can operate for 5 years with zero revenue. That means they could give away Windows (competeing with open source), probably not run into antitrust problems since they're matching competition prices, and at the same time wipe out any other vendors that are selling at a non-zero price.
Robert X Cringley, the idiot... (Score:2, Interesting)
It's entirely possible that Microsoft will never die. So what? The problem that people have with Microsoft is not they exist, but they have an inordinately large market share (monopoly) on certain classes of software goods. If Microsoft were reduced to a tiny mom-and-pop providing tech support in Redmond, they would not have died, but neither would anyone care about them anymore. The goal isn't to "kill" Microsoft, but to fracture that huge block of marketshare into nice competitive chunks.
The reason government can't seem to do anything about Microsoft, is because it wasn't the government that gave them their monopoly. The marketplace handed out that monopoly, so it's up to the marketplace to take it back.
Some people will say that because Microsoft now has that monopoly, the marketplace cannot do anything about it, and the government must do something instead. But there's not much the government can do to stop people from choosing Windows or MSOffice. Sure, the feds could start throwing users in jail, but that's not going to go over well come next election.
The marketplace can, and will, remove the monopolist crown from Microsoft. But it won't do it today. Everybody is looking for a quick solution, but there is no quick solution, because the Microsoft monopoly wasn't created overnight. It took them ten years to get it.
Maybe it will be Linux that drives them from the thrown. Maybe it will be the Mac. Or maybe the desktop itself will go away leaving Bill Gates the king of nothing. But it won't happen today, or this month, or even this year. So stop crying about it.
However, you don't have to use Windows today. You don't have to use MSOffice this month. You don't have to buy any Microsoft product this year. You have a choice. You might not want to exercise that choice, but it is still yours to make. You can use Linux today if you don't demand a perfect Windows clone. You can use OSX today if you don't demand commodity hardware. You also have the choices of FreeBSD, NetBSD, or OpenBSD if you want a Free Software OS, or Solaris if free-beer is good enough. You can replace IExplorer with Mozilla, Opera, or Konqueror. You can replace MSOffice with OpenOffice. I won't even bother listing the dozens of suitable replacements for Media Player.
Microsoft might never die, but why should you care?
Don't worry, Microsoft can always count on BSD (Score:5, Interesting)
Richard Stallman might not be the person the best temperament to take tea with the Queen of England, but when everything is said and done, he ends up being right, which is probably the real reason so many people here hate his guts. He has been right a along, and the events we are watching just confirm this a bit more every day. And when push comes to shove, the BSD license and all the oh so helpful people that turn out software under it are Microsoft's life insurance, just as they were for Apple.
I know you are supposed to be nice to the BSD people and smile and be friends, but everytime Microsoft grinds another competitor into the dirt (bye-bye Sun) or prevails over another government (bye-bye Europeans, you could have made it count), I remember who handed Microsoft their TCP/IP stack on a platter and who knows what else, I come another step closer to the conclusion that they are part of the problem, not part of the solution. Giving Apple a free ride might be seen as an act of charity, but helping Microsoft make money...
How about RICO? (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe a lawyer in the community might want to comment on this, but mightn't the RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) apply here? It's intended to promote "the elimination of the infiltration of organized crime and racketeering into legitimate organizations operating in interstate commerce."
It'd be a bit of a stretch to construe Microsoft's behavior as extortion, but if it were, then in addition to the extortion per se, the conspiracy to commit extortion would be addressed by RICO:
(See http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cri18.htm [lectlaw.com])
There is also civil provision that allows private parties to sue for triple damages. This might incent a private party with deep pockets who was harmed to the tune of a couple of billions to turn down the "take a billion and go away" deal.
Silly logic. (Score:2, Interesting)
If he's an accountant, he should know better than this.
First, I'm betting many of those options were granted in the 1998-2000 years when everyone was option crazy. Now that the stock is half of what it used to be, those options are now worthless.
So, you're telling me MSFT has granted 53 billion in options to it's employees? Hardly. Assuming the options were granted at FMV, and assuming MSFT's stock price increases to say, $30.30 and it's $25.00 now, that means they have issued 10,000,000,000 options to employees? Give me a break.
Not only that, but those cash reserves are coupled with zero debt. A company like MSFT and it's proven revenue stream can significantly lever up. Just glancing at MSFT they made an ebitda of 12 billion, indicating to me they could probably hold debt with an interest of 4-6 billion a year. Assuming they get a 7% interest rate (that's a random guess, it's probably much lower for MSFT) that's like, 80+ billion in debt they could easily hold with their company. So, unless these dangerous outstanding options are going to have a value in excess of 120 billion, I think MSFT is just fine.
Me, I'm not even an accountant (Finance and International Relations Major) and I can give a rough estimate in looking at Yahoo's analysis of MSFT in a few seconds. *Please*, don't listen to this guy, and don't listen to me. If you want reliable information on a subject matter, go to a trusted source. Not someone with a website or with a
Quality... (Score:3, Interesting)
In a like vein, a friend of mine actually works for MS, and he is totally unable to see beyond the "shareware junk slapped together by a thousand idiots" line. He even runs an extremely successful website for a subset of car nuts, and has no interest in making his websites accessible to that 'tiny minority of nuts who don't run IE'.
He's an OK guy, but he just can't see outside of the box he's in.
Interesting note: there's another parallel between cars and computers. Toyota has been working on the "Toyota production system" for 40 years now. It is a completely different way of building cars (and everything else) and it has some amazing parallels to open source software.
The system, also called "Shingo" after the man who started it, has saved Porche from bankruptcy. Toyota makes no secret about their system, and even sends out instructors to anybody who wants them.
In a nutshell, it's continuous improvement with totally flexible production systems and just in time manufacturing.
No long production runs, because you're buried in useless parts if you make an engineering improvement. Kind of sounds like "release early, release often" doesn't it?
Software is easy to change and update, because the incremental production cost is close to zero. Physical car parts cost money, but if they're only made in runs of 1/100th the normal size, it only costs 1/100th as much in obsolete parts to change something.
Those actually in production are able to make changes in the manufacturing process to suit their own needs (required to, actually). Kind of like free software lets you make changes too.
Toyota's Shingo system and Free Software's open system do have many things in common, and it's no suprize that they're both taking huge bites out of their competition.
Toyota has an advantage, however, in that it makes oodles of money, and is competing in a still-fragmented market. MS is a behemoth, and has the power to write it's own laws in the US.
P.S. I see the above in action every day where I work (Not Toyota, just a company consiously emulating them)
A few years from now (Score:1, Interesting)
Not so fast.
Microsoft is a huge company with its foot in many different parts of the computing world. Yes, it dominates the OS market, and, for now, the browser market. But I do think that there is one company that, years from now, others will look to as a sign that Microsoft is beatable.
That company is, of course, Google. They are now recognized as the top search engine. Microsoft even tried to buy them before, and they refused. Everyone here knows about gmail...with 1 Gig of space and the ability to search through your emails with Google technology, that's quickly going to overtake Yahoo and Hotmail and become the number one free email service. How much longer until Google comes out with GIM -- Google Instant Messanger -- with search capabilities on each conversation? That could surpass AIM, Yahoo Messenger and MSN Messenger.
Google will eventually dominate the Internet world, starting with gmail. A world that Microsoft is very much a part of. Years from now every company will aspire to become the next Google. They are the one company that Microsoft will not beat out.