Microsoft Dislikes Nations Trying to Escape Lock-in 616
Johnny Mnemonic writes "Reuters, link to C|Net, is reporting that Microsoft considers a possible collaboration among three Asian nations to produce their own OS "unfair". You just can't make this stuff up. Shouldn't Asian nations also have the Freedom to Innovate? Or is this merely a dodge by Microsoft to demonstrate that they really do face competition? Will they hire Boies to prosecute their case?"
Microsoft tantrums (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Microsoft tantrums (Score:5, Insightful)
No, I think this is more of an attempt to get State's attention and let them know that MS expects them to come to their aid, via the US Trade Representative.
The problem for State in this situation would be that they can't tell other governments to "let the markets" decide which software to use without also making it look like the US Gov't may be colluding with MS to provide software that can be infiltrated through back doors. Remember the "NSA_Key" fiasco? Lots of governments do too. And many of them did not buy MS's explanation.
Funniest line in the article: (Score:5, Interesting)
The only reason they might monitor the SCO situation is for humor value.
Asian countries are going to do unto MS as MS did to IBM. Let's not blame Linux, though; if not for Torvalds, the BSDs would BSOD MS soon enough.
Prediction: MS eventually splits into OS and application companies. The application arm ports the profitable bits of MS software to Linux, and continues to do decent business. The OS arm gradually tapers off, as the inexorable migration away from proprietary operating systems continues.
Re:Funniest line in the article: (Score:5, Funny)
Get this man a cookie!
Even funnier... the market *has* decided! (Score:4, Funny)
Hello? I think it just did. Hint: you're not among them. (-:
If I were a shareholder... (Score:5, Insightful)
I suspect if they did that, the result would be worth far more than the company today, we'd probably have a revival in PC innovation, and there would be a general economic revival in the tech sector.
Instead, MS is sitting on billions in cash, the stock price is in the dumper, and every foreign government is trying to dump MS. I can't believe the shareholders don't quietly ask Ballmer and Gates to step down.
And no, I am not trolling.
Re:If I were a shareholder... (Score:5, Informative)
There were probably buggy whip companies that had record revenues around the time the Model T Ford came out, or American steel mills that had record revenues just before they got their asses handed to them by foreign competition. That doesn't mean they were great stocks.
Split up Microsoft... (Score:4, Funny)
That's pretty PC-centric though. Lets not forget the XBOX. Split Microsoft into OS, App and Video Game Companies.
Well then there is the MS Smart Phones... so split Microsoft into OS, App, Video Games, and Mobile Phones.
Hmmm, that leaves MSN out. Hotmail and Passport too. OK then we need to split Microsoft into OS, App, Video Gaming, Mobile Phone and Internet Services.
Of course they make hardware too... Tablet PC's, Microsoft Mouse and Keyboards. So - oh this is it!
Split Microsoft into
OS, Applications, Video Gaming, Mobile Phones, Internet Services and Hardware Companies.
And do it quick before they start making Media Centers!!!
Re:Funniest line in the article: (Score:4, Insightful)
As a result, Windows (the operating system company) would have been marginalized quickly. Most of the benefits that the applications side of the house derived from control of the OS -- undocumented APIs, for example, that are not available to the rest of the world, or embedded functions like an HTML rendering engine -- could be realized in the middleware.
At the time, I believe my official prediction was that Bill Gates would stay with the applications company, with an unstated goal of putting the OS company out of business within five years.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Microsoft tantrums (Score:5, Insightful)
What stops them from buying other governemnts is that most first world, non-US, are multi-party (versus two party) systems. The redundancy tends to reduce the sort of abuse we see in the US.
Also, while bribery is far from eleminated in the rest of the first world, it is hardly as rampant as it is in the US. The "campaign contribution" scam is killing democracy in the US. MS can buy a senator or congressman pretty easily here simply by making "campaign contributions". In most of the first world that is, properly, treated as bribery and quite illegal.
To the "Money is speech" crowd: Money is not speech. If it were than *all* laws against bribery would be prohibited by the First Ammendment. The pathetic exucses of those bribing our officials are rediculous. "He didn't vote to give me special privilages because I gave him money. He was going to do that anyway, and I was simply expressing my support for his pro-me position financially."
Sure. And if that line of BS is acceptable why not: "I didn't bribe the policeman to let me escape. He simply has a policy of letting murderers go, and I was supporting that policy financially." Bribery is bribery.
Heart of Darkness (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Microsoft tantrums (Score:5, Insightful)
- Tony
Re:Microsoft tantrums (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, that's priceless: essentially the same software that the U.S. army is buying for $950/computer, Microsoft will sell in Thailand for $36 [com.com].
Re:Microsoft tantrums (Score:3, Informative)
MS knows what they're doing (Score:5, Insightful)
My conjecture is that they're realising that they cannot win against Free Software unless they manage to create the impression of Free Software such as GNU/Linux being "un-American" and "a threat from Asia against our economy".
Of course they'll consider it an added bonus that maybe they can get US dimplomats involved in putting pressure on foreign governments in areas like
MS "innovates" in commercial imperialism (Score:5, Interesting)
All the large consumer electronics companies have decided to standardize on linux (embedded).
All the large phone makers (Nokia, Sony Ericsson, Motorola) have very consciously decided against using MS software in their phones because they don't want MS to enter their market and screw them over. I bet Sony & IBM are working to make the PS3 such a killer console in order to stop microsoft from taking a larger market with the xbox.
If the State dept lends itself to promote microsoft they will just show themselves off as ignorant pawnsand be perceived as such by foreign govts. The US is not imperialist but MS certainly is.
Re:MS "innovates" in commercial imperialism (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe US does not look upon itself as such but she sure fits the definition. My highlight below
Def:
The belief in the desirability of) the acquisition of colonies and dependencies, or the extension of a country's influence through trade, diplomacy
Excerpted from Oxford Dictionary Copyright (C) 1998 The Learning Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Re:Microsoft tantrums (Score:5, Insightful)
How would you like it if you were a car manufacturer and suddenly a government would start producing cars and competing with you using taxpayer money?
Naturally I believe a government is free to do so if they want to. Furthermore I am sympathetic to the idea of providing citizens with a free os to ensure freedom of information etc.
However I can understand Microsoft's reaction from a business point of view.
Re:Microsoft tantrums (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft would in effect be trying to compete with a legal monopoly.
Re:Microsoft tantrums (Score:5, Insightful)
That's ridiculous, if it's open source.
Re:Microsoft tantrums (Score:5, Insightful)
IIRC, microsoft is also a monopoly, and they had (and continue to have) no problems in using that monopoly in order to gain an unfair advantage over their competitors.
Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander...
Re:Microsoft tantrums (Score:5, Interesting)
This is actually a pretty common thing. Have you noticed how evil people believe that everybody else is just like them?
Re:Microsoft tantrums (Score:3, Funny)
So, you think the asian governments are going to pay to produce millions of software CDs and flood the U.S. market with them? Seems far-fetched to me.
Re:Microsoft tantrums (Score:5, Insightful)
The $40e9 MS has in the bank, and all the cash they lose in their unprofitable divisions (which is almost all of them except Office and Windows) is all waste from the market's perspective. A truly free and fair open market does not tolerate 85% profit margins [salmar.com] for long.
Sure, what MS does makes sense from the perspective of MS. So what? "Your honor, my defense for robbing the bank is that I thought it was the easiest way to get rich." Murdering BeOS and Netscape (and a host of others) certainly was in the best interest of MS, but it wasn't legal, nor was it consistent with a company that pays lip service to competing on innovation. Sure, it would be naiive of us not to expect them to say whatever benefits them, but it would be outright stupid to take their words at face value.
of course not (Score:5, Funny)
Of course not; Microsoft likes to be in that position
Re:of course not (Score:5, Insightful)
The government *does* decide (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:of course not (Score:5, Insightful)
Consindering that MS has more money than most goverments in the world it sounds more like 'let us decide for everyone'.
SCO executives must be jubilant (Score:5, Funny)
Mmmmmmm...
Microsoft's only comeback I can think of is that, at least, they patented ones and zeroes [theonion.com].
Re:SCO executives must be jubilant (Score:3, Insightful)
Granted, MS might expand its government holdings beyond the Justice Department to include the State Department, but what is the Fed seriously going to do? Some kind of trade embargo?
all in time (Score:5, Insightful)
Redundancy is their biggest worry (Score:4, Insightful)
Their profit margins on Windows and Office are quite high, if they have to constantly undercut Linux solutions then their income from these two lines will be reduced. Problem with that scenerio is those two product lines keep the company going and allows them to take risks in other markets.
Oh... (Score:5, Funny)
Perhaps I am too close to Redmond... (Score:3, Funny)
Boies (Score:5, Funny)
Or will they hire Rumsfeld?
It is a bit unfair... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It is a bit unfair... (Score:5, Insightful)
And whats fair? There's no free trade. The US give large amounts of money to their own steel manufactures so they can compete with the EU. The EU on the other hand is doing the samen with their large importtaxes on foreign, cheaper farmer products.
My point is; there's no real free market although a lot of people strive to it. There isn't and this article is just another example of how things go along
Re:It is a bit unfair... (Score:5, Insightful)
And whats fair? There's no free trade. The US give large amounts of money to their own steel manufactures so they can compete with the EU
And this is controversial. It leads to arguments in GATT, possible trade wars, whatever. In principle, that sort of thing is generally agreed by governments to be a bad thing.
MS would be delighted to get this Asian software initiative considered to be the same kind of thing, but in fact it's not the same kind of thing at all, because this is the governments choosing domestic producers over foreign producers for government systems.
Re:It is a bit unfair... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:It is a bit unfair... (Score:4, Funny)
This is fair competition between countries (Score:4, Insightful)
Even for defence? (Score:5, Insightful)
So would it be "unfair" for, say, the Pentagon to announce it wanted to use software developed in the USA in preference to overseas products?
Re:It is a bit unfair... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's actually perfectly fair for a government to assist in creating a market for a product they need (or want), especially if existing products don't meet its needs.
Is baking your own bread a free market impediment? (Score:3, Insightful)
Is driving a car an impediment to the free market of taxi and train companies?
Get real, man.
Free market means that people have the freedom to choose which product to use, and these countries choose to make and use their own. There is nothing wrong with that, not even considering the "free market" globalization iron fist of driving poor countries into complete bankruptcy (read the book and articles from Greg Palast [gregpalast.com] for scary documentatio
How is the government any different... (Score:3, Insightful)
It *IS* the free market (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It is a bit unfair... (Score:4, Interesting)
This is a part of competition, though, even if it isn't free-market. Microsoft has had how many years to come up with a secure, and viable system for governments to use. They have been touting it for a long time, and are nearly forcing governments to use it. And suddenly they get all pissy when a government says, "Hrmm, your system isn't good enough. Neither is there any other system out there. I guess we'll have to make our own."
Governments are also Customers. If your customer isn't happy, they'll do something else to fill their need. In this case, the Customer is commissioning their own software.
It may be "unfair" because it's not free market, but then again, the customer is unhappy with the product.
MS Wants its "peers" to agree? (Score:5, Interesting)
Who exactly are Microsoft's "peers"? IBM, Sun, Sony, the Open Source "community"? On one hand MS wants to create a "government security program" that it defines and implements, on the other they want their "peers" to say that doing anything else is unfair?! Good luck!
Re:MS Wants its "peers" to agree? (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft has no "peers" ... it systematically kills them off before they can become a threat, and now wants protection.
Sorry to say this, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
Look at steel, farm goods, coding out-sourcing, skilled immigrants etc, etc.
In all these fields the US or a lot of its citizens are actively seeking to halt global competition and seeking to privilege US companies, producers and citizens.
MS are simply trying to get their piece of the action, though of course than means that they are already on a downward slope (ask any Pensylvannia steel worker about how effective trade sanctions have been at protecting the long term health of their industry).
That's only the half of it! (Score:5, Insightful)
All the potentially noble thoughts behind this free market newspeak is completely eviscerated by the subsidies of the various governments. As long as governments subsidize their local producers, there is nothing free about the market.
too strong (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sorry to say this, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
What's laughable about this is, there is no issue of protectionism anywhere to be seen. Protectionism is when a country erects trade barriers such as import duties to protect a local industry. Sponsoring R&D is not a trade barrier, it is just (hopefully) good management.
The other silly idea is that this has something to do with fair trade. Since the asian countries aren't exporting their OS, where is the trade, fair or not? Even if they were, since when did it become unfair for government and industry to collaborate on R&D?
Anyone notice the absolute contradiction? (Score:4, Insightful)
Microsoft: victims of unfairness (Score:5, Funny)
So please, try to understand their side -- those poor, misunderstood folks in Redmond need your support. Really.
It hurts their feelings when we make fun of them, and talk about the methods they use to achieve their goals in unkind ways.
C'mon, lighten up. They're good guys.
</not>
Gee... there must be an election somewhere near... (Score:4, Interesting)
Loosely translated, this means that Micro$oft hasn't contributed enough money to someone's political campaign just yet.
Microsoft is crying foul? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Microsoft is crying foul? (Score:4, Insightful)
In was really the saddest day on Earth when Judge Penfield Jackson of the MS monopoly trial opened his mouth. We've been paying for it ever since.
this makes sense (Score:5, Interesting)
People in my company really cant understand how thing like MSBLAST happen and there is nobody from MS on TV the next day apologizing (or committing seppuku =).
Now that things in the computer industry are settling down, they will slowly push Microsoft out of the picture.
Wait and see.
Re:this makes sense (Score:3, Interesting)
Where do you want to go today? (Score:5, Insightful)
Depends on the base license (Score:4, Insightful)
Microsoft needs to learn... (Score:4, Interesting)
Protectionism baseline (Score:5, Insightful)
If the Asian countries were deliberately trying to shut MS out of the private-sector market, then MS would have the beginning of a case (only the beginning, mind. There is still a reasonable case for anti-trust action like the EU is taking). Under world trade rules, etc. you're not supposed to deliberately shut out foreign competition.
BUT... It is accepted, and very common, for governments to deliberately favour their own producers for government contracts. This can be for any reason, including economic, security, and strategic considerations. Microsoft really don't have a leg to stand on on this count.
Follow up news: (Score:5, Funny)
The Microsoft Corporation recently bought themselves the USS Enterprise (The aircraft carrier) and rechristened it to the MSCACDOTNET (Microsoft Certified Aircraft Carrier Dot NET ) "William Gates the Third". Latest US satelite intel indicated the ship, along with several other recent MS aquired warships due to a sneaky clause in the license for Windows 2003 .NET server for the US navy, were last seen heading toward the Pacific. Among the ships are the MSACDOTNET William Gates the Third, the 'boomer' submarines MSC Alabama and MSC Red October along with a small flotilla of surface warships and a large convoy of freighters with Win 2k3 .NET licenses, all heading for an unknown destination.
In other news, Denzel Washington and Sean Connery have been flogged with a wet towel.
Re:Follow up news: (Score:5, Funny)
Correction - Secretary of the Navy John H. Dalton admitted that the clause was not acutally sneaky. "We never actually read the EULA. We needed to install it so we just clicked 'OK'."
-
Re:Follow up news: (Score:3, Funny)
Dude... (Score:3, Funny)
I so care about the opinion of a random nobody on the internet. Really.
Bill Gates Calls This Unfair? (Score:5, Insightful)
That said, this latest call that it's unfair for countries to divert the giant cash waterfall from MS, I find the notion preposterous. Similar arguments have been used by MS lawyers for years now to defend against accusations of shenanigans. The point being, that free market is the underlying theme and MS can't cry about the free market deciding they are too greedy, and the demand can be met on less expensive systems that don't cause massive havoc every time some child gets a hold of their latest gaping hole.
Re:Bill Gates Calls This Unfair? (Score:3, Insightful)
Remember these days well... (Score:5, Interesting)
Everywhere we are seeing seeds of discontent. The first anger Microsoft planted in its customers was when it got greedy and ended licensing that permitted you to own only as many copies of software that you actually had running. Then all of these recent "software assurance" changes have angered folks more. Companies and countries are starting to understand that they are locked in and have little choice and they are looking for ways to bail. And Microsoft's actions are starting to look more and more desperate starting to scramble to hold on to what they have. This story, the viral GPL fud, their financial backing of SCO, their desperate and failed attempts to move into other markets, etc, etc.
Oh, people will disagree with me, but where does Microsoft have left to go? Nowhere but down, and the stock market doesn't like any downward movement, even if the company *is* making billions.
And Microsoft better not disagree with this danger either, for their own good. Complacency is the first step toward irrelevance. But I honestly believe they know this is coming and are scared shitless. Gates isn't stupid.
My Version, a Day Earlier... (Score:5, Insightful)
Japan, the world's second largest economy, made a proposal at an Asian economic summit this week to build an inexpensive and trustworthy open-source operating system that would be based on a system such as Linux, which can be copied and modified freely.
"We'd like to see the market decide who the winners are in the software industry," Tom Robertson, Microsoft's Tokyo-based director for government affairs in Asia, told Reuters in a telephone interview.
I think the market IS deciding, which is going to be Microsoft's biggest problem for the next few years.
"Governments should not be in the position to decide who the winners are," Robertson said.
You know, I don't remember there being any protest from Microsoft when the US government stopped accepting RFP documents in WordPerfect format. I guess they've had a change of heart for some reason.
Full story at Netscape.com [netscape.com]
It's not the governments of Japan or China that need to be put on alert, it is our own. As Departments of State, Treasury, and the White House among others, busily archive critical documents in .DOC format that will not easily be converted to anything else in a few years, low level management of these departments need to be aware that going the "safe route" of managing everything using Microsoft tools will in hindsight only allow you to say "But everyone else around me was doing that too".
I suspect there will be more and more defectors from this way of thinking, even within the US government as time goes on. However as that happens there will also be signs of desparation from Microsoft as they try and appeal to some sort of warped patriotism that says we should all keep using overpriced, buggy and undocumented junk.
We need to stop thinking of Windows as America's software equivalent to the Boeing 7x7, and start thinking of it as America's software equivalent of the Yugo...
Q: How do you make a Yugo go faster?
A: A towtruck.
Q: What do you call the shock absorbers inside a Yugo?
A: Passengers.
lightbulb (Score:5, Funny)
Q:How many Microsoft programmers does it take to change a lightbulb?
A:None, they get Bill to declare darkness to be the international standard
MS has nothing to worry about... (Score:5, Interesting)
Look, as an example, at the *BSD world. They have lots of talented people, many of the finest minds in the *nix world, and started with a good product. Yet a "college kid" in Finland started a product that kicked their collective arses in market penetration. Why? Linux mostly avoided the bueracracy and political infighting that has plagued *BSD. (neither an opinion of the technical merits of *BSD, nor a "BSD is dying troll)
What the nations should be doing is sponsering programmers, giving them a mandate to 1) contribute to open source, 2) spend a significant fraction of that contribution making open source more available to asians. Then let those programmers participlate wherever they want. I could imagine an army of programmers working with OpenOffice.org, for instance, improving the word processing software overall, and its ability to deal with asian character sets. Others would contribute to Debian and Gentoo, creating asian language documentation and binary versions of those distributions.
MS never said "fair" (Score:3, Informative)
heh (Score:4, Funny)
That must be some ugly source code, it seems like they got a look that and ran like hell.
What happens if (when) Microsoft falls? (Score:5, Interesting)
Microsoft is no longer at the top of their game. They're still the dominant world superpower, but the world can now see that MSFT has vulnerabilities, and that we have alternatives.
As much as I'd like to see them go the way of the Roman Empire, Soviet Russia, and Enron, I'm afraid of what happens when MSFT falls. What does that do to the US economy? Does Microsoft fall with a "Splat!" like Enron and take a million jobs and half of every American's 401(k) with them, or do they quietly fade into obsoloscence like Atari [yahoo.com]?
These are the things that keep me up at night.
Re:What happens if (when) Microsoft falls? (Score:3, Insightful)
Secondly, Microsoft is hoarding cash. If Microsoft started losing money so fast that it would even manage to eat up the return on their capital investments, it would still take a long time before they'd collapse, so barring a sudden devastat
Re:What happens if (when) Microsoft falls? (Score:3, Interesting)
Surely no nation has a God-given right to export its goods to another nation if they aren't wanted there, despite past efforts by some governments.If the US loses tech jobs, it won't be because Microsoft got replaced by something better. It will be because company officers and sha
Unfair competition from Internet (Score:4, Insightful)
So if...... (Score:4, Insightful)
perhaps they'd like to consider the following:
1: Withdraw all political lobbyists from pestering politicians.
2: Stop making bri.. oops, donations to political parties.
3: ensure that all "charitable" donations are made via banks rather than press agencies
4: Stop flying the UK E-Envoy and other countries IT decision makers to Redmond for freebies, oops there I go again - conferences at which to discuss which MS products they'll be buying next.
5: Talk to the DoJ and, after offering thanks for favours done in the past agree to undergo investigation for the parts of the anti-trust trial that were dropped when the current US administration came to power.
6: Open up their file formats so that makers of third party and competing software can compete on a level playing field rather than having to reverse engineer complicated code for the sake of interop' with monopoly creating products i.e. MS Office.
7: Release the API details reqd. to make software run as quick as theirs
Until these and the manifold other issues created by MS's monopoly are dealt with maybe they's be graceful enough to SHUT THE FUCK UP about free markets, a concept that they either don't understand or have no intention of utilising.
My Supporting Interviews (Score:5, Funny)
Similarly, a press release from Orville Reddenbacker this morning claimed that "when you buy no-name popcorn, you're buying terrorism" and immediately demanded the abolition or bombing of all popcorn makers but them in order to defend America against this terrible low-priced threat. "The time for competition is over", the deceased Reddenbacker stated, the national anthem playing gloriously in the background, "We are an American institution now and must be protected from any loss of sales resulting from people buying other brands. Choice is the true enemy here. Remember this when you're voting, kids, there should be limits on freedom - especially the freedom to buy popcorn other than our new Maple Salmon flavored EZ-Popp(TM) Microwaveable popping corn, on sale now at better grocery stores near you."
The RIAA, MPAA, and SatelliteTV vendors all agreed. "Look, we all know that you'd all have bought all those 400,000 CDs, movies, and tv channels anyway if it weren't for piracy, so just cough up the money and we'll call off the dogs. Making 'mad money' is a guaranteed right that is protected by law since Dubya's been in power. It's the American Way. You love America, don't you? If you don't buy more stuff from us, we WILL press charges." Jack Valenti took it one step further. "These goddamn Chimese terrorisms ain't de worst part of dis trend either. What I tink we should do is outlaw 'playing outside'. Yup, jes tink about it. All dem little rats playing outside when dey could be enjoying a good movie or copy-protected Celine CD. De children is de REAL Boston Stranglers here, dose unAmerican little gooks. Wasting their lives playing outside in de goddam sun when dey could be supporting our economy? I don't understand kids dese days. De world is goin' straight to hell, I tell ya. Goddam nature. We'll sue God next, yeah, go for de REAL deep pockets." At this point, SCO's Darl McBride quickly took out a notepad and started scribbling furiously and then ran off, his villainous humpback swaying in the wind.
Despite the overwhelmingly good evidence the corporate shills of America had barfed forth, I thought I'd see if another view existed. So I sought out some elusive hippie culture leaders. When asked for his views, the uber-influential Richard Stallman said, "My name is GNU/RMS! Why can't you people get that right!" and starting making clucking noises and playing a flute like that little centaur guy off the Hercules cartoon. His arch-enemy Linus Torvalds quipped, "I don't get involved. Sorry.", dismissed us with a wave of his hand, and went back to his penguin burrito. Eric Raymond could not be reached for comment, as he has been at the gun club since July and is apparently not ever coming out until people start using Python to write device drivers.
The US will be left behind... (Score:4, Interesting)
It's only a matter time when the US will be the only country stuck with proprietary software, while the rest of the world will be light years a head because their tools will not be hidden and obscured.
If you think the tech economy is bad in the US now, wait about ten years! All of our technology will come from abroad.
Poster doesn't understand the arguement (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't economics class, this is the real world (Score:4, Insightful)
2) "A government's only job is to defend individual rights" is an absurdly simplistic statement. Ask any ten people in any ten countries what the primary role of government is, and you're likely to get ten answers. Americans right now might tell you the primary role of government is to safeguard its citizens. Thirty years ago, they might have told you it was to provide every citizen an equal opportunity to succeed. A hundred years ago, they might have told you it was to provide law and order. Ask someone in South Korea right now, and they may say it's to prevent war. Ask someone in China, and they might say it's to raise the standard of living.
3) There is no truly free market, though as a libertarian I'm sure you would love it to be that way. Microsoft and other high-tech companies in the US receive tremendous tax benefits and the powerful backing of government agencies and elected officials, who apply pressure on other nations during trade negotiations. It would be fantastic if there were true globalization and dropping of subsidies and barriers worldwide. But that's not the reality. Microsoft is not acting alone. They have the support of the most powerful government on earth.
4) The US government considers weapons systems used by the US military to be of strategic importance. That's why, with few exceptions, almost all key American weapons systems are built by American companies, even when there are sometimes better alternatives produced in allied nations such as Germany, Britain, Italy, or France. What would happen, for example, if the French chose to stop supplying the US with weapons systems? Now imagine yourself making decisions about the security of any country on earth other than the US. The Americans have shown how sophisticated computer-driven information systems can reduce the fog of war and create staggeringly effective results. Would you want all of your own systems to be run by American-produced computer systems that you couldn't get the source code to? Wouldn't you be worried just as the French revealed the inner workings of the air defence systems they sold Iraq, Microsoft wouldn't do the same or worse to you?
Even close allies spy on each other. Why give the overwhelmingly most powerful nation on earth an open door into the heart of everything you're doing? Sure, that might be a paranoid conclusion. But if you're in charge of a nation's security, your job is to be paranoid.
Leaders in other countries are beginning to realize that software is not just an economic issue, it's an issue of much broader strategic importance.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:There is no comparison, Keanu (Score:5, Funny)
Bill's got you guys working Saturdays, now?
Shit, I feel kind of guilty. Maybe if I acted like I believed your astroturfing bullshit during the week, he'd give you a day off every now and then.
Re:There is no comparison, Keanu (Score:5, Insightful)
How about governments paying people to make airplanes because the government needs airplanes? Governments pays lots of people money to produce things. That includes producing software to meet their needs (as well as airplanes and computer chips). I think you need to be a little clearer as to what the problem is in this case. Governments want a better operating system, governments pay for it to be produced.
Re:There is no comparison, Keanu (Score:5, Insightful)
Similarly, I think critical software is as much a national security issue as defence hardware; and in a world where the US is trusted less and less, and Microsoft hardly at all, it makes sense for other countries to ensure that they have a homegrown alternative that they can rely on.
Re:There is no comparison, Keanu (Score:3, Interesting)
Why the are you complaining about non payment for MS software in asia? When this new proposal
Re:There is no comparison, Keanu (Score:5, Insightful)
Lol and your email adress is hotmail?
Anyway.
Awh, how sad. Poor little MS gets some competition. Except that it is not some tiny startup who can be easily kept out but a trillion dollar part of the world. It sounds like you are feeling sorry for the school bully who suddenly finds himself getting beaten senseless by a 400 pound gorilla. Personally I am going hope this is going to be like any decent western. MS doing the .45 dance.
MS screwed BeOS now they are going to get screwed. Bees should not complain about being stung, thiefs should not complain about things being stolen and MS should not complain about facing competition with a bottemless warchest.
MS has had for the last decade more then enough money and resources to make themselves popular. Instead they have opted to get more and more money and make themselves hated and despised. Now they are reaping the rewards. More and more people and even whole countries are refusing to deal on their terms anymore.
It is sad that it takes goverments to put up some serious competition but that is the way it works. With small companies it is possible but with say the car industrie competition came only about with goverment sponsored companies. Japan and korea spring to mind but also europe were the marshall plans, US money after WWII, was used to setup factories that would have been very hard to do with private money. For the current steel wars, the dutch "hoogovens" got its start from US money :)
Sometimes it takes goverment intervention to dictate changes in the market. Don't forget that in the rest of the world politics are not entirly decided by corporate sponsors. Goverment sponsored promotion of certain products over established products are hardly new. Eco-tax on petrol while subsidising natural gas. Tax breaks for enviromental production, coupons for low power consumption electronics.
But back to your post. MS facing competition from huge goverments is unfair. Small business facing competition from huge MS is fair. "Call for Mr Kibo. Bill Gates wants you to report for his 4 o'clock asslicking."
Re:There is no comparison, Keanu (Score:4, Insightful)
One thing to keep in mind is that Microsoft's actions also subvert free market quite a bit IMO, I would question if there _is_ a free market for OS software, especially when all the competitors, even the free ones, can't muster ten percent combined. If the _real_ OS choices for most people are W2k, XP and coming sometime this decade, Longhorn then it _is_ time for governments to step in and start funding new alternatives or improvements for existing alternatives.
As it is, the governments really don't seem effective in curtailing the monopolist actions
Re:There is no comparison, Keanu (Score:3, Interesting)
That really depends on your viewpoint. If you (want to) see software as a commodity then a government making software is no different from an government building roads, maintaining a justice and police system or having a military. The fact that software is infinitely reproducable at virtually no cost makes software different from the other more traditional pro
Re:There is no comparison, Keanu (Score:5, Insightful)
Governments under socialist principles can and do own companies that operate at a loss to serve a better purpose. Hydro is one, even in many friendly states. The idea is that if software is a commodity, it is this commodity that ought be accessible to the public at large. It's about time that government started to incorporate computer technology in it's fold, like it would power and water technology. The freedom to create your own software under these umbrellas would be a better notion, as well.
We all know that operating systems can go on without major viral attacks and huge bugs causing havoc in the world. Linux. Mac.
So you tell me then, why is it that MS has one worldwide catastrophe every two months? It's because it's profitable for companies like Symantec and McAfee and the like to sell "protection" from the miscreants who would turn systems off if they could. That actual profit-cycle is set in a kind of catch 22.
That is the catch 22 that is going to bite Bill Gates in the arse.
Re:There is no comparison, Keanu (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:There is no comparison, Keanu (Score:5, Insightful)
You appear to disagree with all the "free trade" agreements the USA appears to have been arranging recently.
"...with an annual GDP in the 5 trillion range"
I assume you meant the combined GDPs of the combined populations of those countries. Which is very different to the amount of money their governments have to spend. And of course those governments have nothing else to spend that money on, apart from developing software (despite the USA's best efforts to accelerate a new arms race with their current level of military spending).
""compeating[sic]" with a company in the neighborhood of a thousand times smaller is not the free market."
Many of the companies Microsoft competes with in many areas are in the neighbourhood of a thousand times smaller.
Microsoft's position, and its business practises, have nothing to do with the free market.
"They should innovate"
Yeah, why don't those countries create their own damn operating system? Oh, wait.......
"But ultimately governments making software isn't a whole lot better than governments making airplanes or computer chips."
After all, the internet had absolutely nothing to do with a government agency called DARPA. And governments have never sponsored any sort of research in universities or wherever that have had anything to do with software, oh no.
"Microsoft does have a case..."
"And they probably should get the US to go to step up to the plate..."
After all, no other countries in the world should be able to do what they want, subject to their own rules (and any international treaties they happen to have signed up to), within their own countries.
"...especially considering how little of the MS software in use throughout asia was paid for."
Well if all that software had never been paid for in the first place, what on earth has Microsoft to be concerned about ? And supposing a large amount of piracy does take place there, what better means to stamp it out than by having the people of those countries come together, in the form of their governments, to design and build something to use legitimately in its place ?
Re:There is no comparison, Keanu (Score:5, Insightful)
2) The government has many, many things to do besides develop software. The money actually being earmarked for this project is the sort of amount that Microsoft could spend without noticeably affecting the balance sheets.
3) The fact is, the software Microsoft produces can never be adequate for the needs of foreign governments. Even if MS software functions perfectly, and is apparently immune to hackers, there is no way for the governments to assure themselves that the U.S. hasn't built backdoors and other spyware into it. Nor can they be sure that they will be able to support themselves in the event that Microsoft drops support. With a Linux-based OS, they can maintain it themselves, and run security audits to their hearts' content.
4) If no private entity makes a product that suits a government's needs, there is nothing wrong with them building it themselves.
5) If nobody is paying for Microsoft software over there anyways, why should Microsoft complain when the government decides to create an alternative? Perhaps because people pirating their software is better for them than people using non-Microsoft products.
Re:Free Enterprise vs. Government (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:They do have a point... (Score:3, Insightful)
Why should they be barred from doing the same if an OS doesn't meet their needs?
And why should it be any different if their "need" is to stimulate the local economy?
I'd say a government that spends it's money on