MSNBC

No details yet...but someone's backing down and it isn't Microsoft.

--Dave

Kennedy Assasinated in Dallas... details at eleven.

We, as consumers, are offically screwed.

Moscow in flames, missiles headed for New York. More at eleven.

Nobody is stopping a competitor from entering the PC OS market. Apple could easily port the MacOS for PCs and immediately compete with Microsoft.

Sure, it wouldn't be easy or cheap, but the fact that MS has no competitors is not their fault.

Don't get me started on Linux. Give me a break. Computer geeks just don't have a clue on how to make a consumer-level OS.

The fact that 'MS has no competitors' is a bit of a stretch, but their dominance is entirely due to consumers. Windows may be the worst OS ever, except for all the others. MacOS is certainly competitive in ease of use and application support (games a notable exception), but consumers seem to want a monopoly. I don't know how many times I've heard people say they bought their home computers based on the type they use at work.

I think it's delusional to suggest MS has ever screwed consumers. Anyone remember what WordPerfect for DOS cost? Anyone remember how much it sucked? Should I post a jpg of a keyboard template for it?

MS has screwed many competitors, mostly by offering consumers better deals.

---

Quote:

Sure, it wouldn't be easy or cheap, but the fact that MS has no competitors is not their fault.

---

'Sure, it wouldn't be easy or cheap, but the fact that MS has no competitors is not their fault.'

'MS has screwed many competitors, mostly by offering consumers better deals.'

Doesn't matter. A company with a monopoly position causes economic harm just by existing, to some extent.

The key is that they not be allowed to abuse their position. Microsoft already has, according to the courts.

I wasn't really in favor of a breakup, but I don't like they way they tie potentially lucrative lines of business to their OS and thereby eliminate the competition.

They did it with the browser and it looks like they want to do it with multimedia. I'd like to see all that stuff unhooked from the OS.

Yeah, I agree with Mark. What's the most damaging thing about MS? That they use their monopoly position in the OS market to get monopoly positions in other markets (Office Applications, Web Browsing, Web Servers, etc.)

The logical solution is to strip them down to an OS company, but this trial has never been all too much about logic. The damages to customers from their MS Office monopoly has been a lot worse so far than that from their IE monopoly.

Well here's the question for debate:

At what point does adding a new feature to Windows become anti-competitive? Is it just because there is a competing product being sold at retail? Is adding IE to Windows not OK but adding a defragmenter OK? What about CD-ROM burning software? Image manipulation? Firewalls?

Everyone thought that Intel's graphics chips would mean the end of the third-party graphics card market. Of course Intel would only bundle their own chips on their own motherboards and force everyone out and then unbundle and raise their prices. Well, we all know what happened with that.

This was always the big question for me. I'm not sure what the answer is, but I'm damn sure I don't want the government deciding.

"Doesn't matter. A company with a monopoly position causes economic harm just by existing, to some extent."

This is patently untrue, although it is a common belief among Americans. Some monopolies are natural, and even beneficial to consumers. Which is why anti-trust laws were not written to punish monopolies, but rather the abuse of of the power that a monopoly affords.

People who worry about silly monopoly trials that really don't harm the consumer and the awaited breakup would actually harm the consumer (see: AT&T) have heads spontaneously combust.

Film at 11.

"Office Applications, Web Browsing, Web Servers, etc."

I'd argue that they have a monopoly (or a near monopoly) on office apps simply because they make the best office apps. Everyone bitched about them using their monopolistic position to force IE on consumers, and maybe they even did, but the reality is that IE is also a better product than anything the competition is offering. How many people here are using Netscape 6? Be honest.

I'd hardly paint MS as an innocent babe in the woods, but the image of MS as the consumer-crushing developer of crappy software is also underserved. They got to where they are today, at least in part, by making software that people like and use.

That's what I meant, Ben. Yes, some monopolies like public utilities benefit consumers, but only when they're regulated. Imagine what the local water and power companies would do if they were unregulated.

The vast majority of monopolies damage consumers and inherently lead to abusive use of monopoly power. I literally can't think of any good ones other than utilities, since land infrastructure is more or less the only resource finite enough to make a monopoly natural.

For example, the MS monopoly helps consumers to some extent because everyone can easily exchange files. However, you could get the same effect from universal XML-style file formats and still have OS competition. Etc, etc.

'I'd hardly paint MS as an innocent babe in the woods, but the image of MS as the consumer-crushing developer of crappy software is also underserved. They got to where they are today, at least in part, by making software that people like and use.'

Sure, Office rocks, but I'm highly suspicious that the reason it's so great now is that the developer team for it is two buildings over from the OS design team, the same for IE.

If you look at the history of both products, both were pretty crappy at start. Then, as the releases piled up, their competitors stagnated while MS improved their product both through actual quality improvements and changing the OS to improve the product. Office 95 started the reallly high-gear version of this: look at Outlook, which doesn't really resemble a separate application anymore as much as an OS expansion pack.

Where do you assign the blame? Even if IE & Office had stayed completely unintegrated, Wordperfect & Netscape still blew it. You get into all sorts of interesting issues, though - did Netscape start to stink because they spent so much time on legal issues related to IE? Did they half-give up because it was obvious they could never beat MS's FUD, integration, and embrace-and-extend? I'll admit I know nothing of Wordperfect's history, though.

Expect this to play out all over again with Real. Ugh, I sound like Slashdot.

'Is adding IE to Windows not OK but adding a defragmenter OK? What about CD-ROM burning software? Image manipulation? Firewalls?'

In order, no, yes, yes, no, yes. I'll be damned if I know why I intuitively think those are the answers, though. There's a good definition out there somewhere, but I'll damned if I can give a good description of it.

I think the greatest potential for abuse of Microsoft's position is their proposed switch to a subscription service. There's no way they could do this if there was real competition.

With the nebulous names for questionable Windows features these days, I'd say it's pretty difficult to determine which, if any, would be marketable if introduced by a new company.

I'm still in favor of Microsoft paying a big fat fine for the way they illegaly squashed Netscape a few years ago. Microsoft released their browser for free, then threatened the PC manufacturers to keep Netscape off the Windows desktop or suffer financial penalties.

Microsoft is, and always will be, king of the PC. They're never going to fall. It's the leader of the next new technology that will topple the king, provided Microsoft doesn't find a way to bundle it with Windows.

Well, the multimedia stuff is potentially a money-maker. Paying someone to have your digital photos developed, buying MP3s, pay-per-view streaming movies, etc. Microsoft wants to be in the middle of all those transactions and grab a piece of them.

So they add-in more and more multimedia capability, make it harder for others to be compatible (RealPlayer, for example), and so on.

It's stuff like that which worries me. It's probably too late at this point, but it would have been nice if a lot of those things had been uncoupled from the OS and at install the user was given the choice of installing Windows Media Player or RealPlayer or something else.

They could have done the same thing with the browsers back when Netscape was still in the game. Pick the one you want to use at install instead of having IE be the default.

"Imagine what the local water and power companies would do if they were unregulated."

Imagine if what they *actually* did was continually improve the products they supplied and add features, while reducing costs.

That's what it looks like MS has done to me. Yes, they *could* (try to) take advantage of the situation, but I think they believe they don't have such a 'monopoly' and they'd quickly lose their dominant position to a superior and/or cheaper alternative. I think they're right.

If you want them to unbundle 'extras', don't forget Notepad, Paintbrush, fonts, printer drivers, networking, tcp/ip, the gui and so on. MS and many others have had operating systems without all those doodads forced upon us poor consumers.

If Windows had stronger competition, maybe we'd have even more stuff even cheaper. But can anyone think of any product in any industry that has been improved as much as Microsoft's operating system over the last 10 years?

Apple 'abused' their early stranglehold on the GUI computer market and charged huge premiums and were slow to improve it. They have been punished. The same will happen to MS if they ever try to exploit their market share like that.

I would really love to see some competition for PC OS's, but only if it didn't create a standards battle. Look what the competition between 3dfx and Nvidia did to graphics technology over the last three years, and the competition between Intel and AMD has caused PC prices to fall through the floor (in fact making the Windows license fee close to the highest-costing single component!).

If there were competition you know MS would double the rate at which they innovate, and prices would drop. I still don't understand why some big company with a ton of dough doesn't try to make it happen, but I also can't figure out why Sony has given Nintendo a license to print money with Game Boy stuff, either.

Imagine this:

Max Payne only runs on MacOS
Mechwarrior 5 is coming out for BeOS
Duke Nukem Forever on Linux
Dark age of Camelot only runs in WinXP
and your office suite of choice requires SunOS

There's diversity. Now what?

I don't mind that there's one "main platform" and
I can dual-boot into Mandrake when I want to "get
real". However, if all OS's were treated as
equal, we'd have such a fractured environment that
the software economy would get pretty rotten.
Now, if everybody suddenly decided to shift to
another OS, that would be fine with me... but at
the moment, and the forseeable future, MS has the
largest standing library of software. Unless you
come out with a killer-app that everyone MUST have
and it's not available in MS, you're not going to
dethrone them without killing them first.

"Imagine if what they *actually* did was continually improve the products they supplied and add features, while reducing costs."

Microsoft has raised the cost of of their OS with XP.

The difference is that the utilities get you with a monthly charge. Microsoft has to get you by coming up with something better each iteration, which they're having more and more trouble doing, and which is why they want to move to a subscription model.

I just want other companies to have a fair chance to compete. I don't want the leading digital photo developer, for example, to be the company that Microsoft herds users toward.

"Imagine if what they *actually* did was continually improve the products they supplied and add features, while reducing costs."

MS hasn't reduced costs. They've kept coming out with new features, yes, but didn't the DOJ estimate that MS keeps its prices 25-50% higher on new OS purchases than it would with a real competitor?

"Max Payne only runs on MacOS
Mechwarrior 5 is coming out for BeOS
Duke Nukem Forever on Linux
Dark age of Camelot only runs in WinXP
and your office suite of choice requires SunOS"

Are you sure this would happen? The console market has this to some extent, but it's hasn't been ever really been a "mess." All the good games end up on every platform it's profitable to produce them for.

The bottom line is that Microsoft was found guilty of illegally abusing its monopoly. They need to be penalized, there needs to be a remedy applied, and steps need to be taken so that they don't do it again.

Hopefully they'll play fair now that the DOJ and 19 states are going to be watching them.

---

Quote:

Microsoft has raised the cost of of their OS with XP.

---

Just to be clear, the findings of the courts, DOJ, or just about any lawyer are of no interest to me. Those deal with the law, I prefer logic, and the two unfortunately differ in many instances. MS obviously has to contend with the law, and probably will suffer some penalties from this case, though I think they'll be pretty insignificant.

So when I say 'monopoly' I don't mean the legal term. I mean "there are no viable alternatives", which I think is untrue regarding Windows.

The DOJ study sounds like something they'd present regarding the antitrust case, but I'd love to hear their reasoning.

DOS version upgrades cost $50. 16 bit Windows upgrades cost $50. When the two were effectively combined with Windows 95, upgrade prices went to a fairly predictable $100. Full non-upgrade versions have been double those prices as long as I can remember. At what point did MS 'monopolize' computer operating systems? Was it with DOS 5.0? If not - and remember, DR DOS was very direct competition and Amiga and Mac had significant market share then - why weren't those prices lower?

What's the upgrade price for OS X?

What does Red Hat charge for retail Linux packages, and how does their R&D investment compare to Microsoft's?

"The difference is that the utilities get you with a monthly charge."

Whatchoo talkin' bout, Mark? I've not tried XP yet, but I've not heard of any monthly charge for it. Are you referring to Office XP subscriptions?

"I just want other companies to have a fair chance to compete."

That's very nice of you, but all I care about is getting great products for cheap. MS can destroy as many corporations as they like as long as they deliver. Any others with greater and cheaper products are certainly welcome to destroy MS, too, I'm selfish but impartial.

Dave, they raised the price of the upgrade $10.

"The difference is that the utilities get you with a monthly charge."

"Whatchoo talkin' bout, Mark? I've not tried XP yet, but I've not heard of any monthly charge for it. Are you referring to Office XP subscriptions?"

I was referring to Microsoft's adding features to the OS. The point I was making was that they have to add value to the OS to entice people to upgrade, unlike the water or gas companies. Someone was comparing the Microsoft OS monopoly to those and saying that Microsoft was better because the continually added value. They add value because that's the only way they'll get existing customers to repurchase.

As you probably know, Microsoft wants to move to a subscription plan. In other words, they want it to be more like the water and gas plans where they get either a monthly or annual payment.


"I just want other companies to have a fair chance to compete."

"That's very nice of you, but all I care about is getting great products for cheap. MS can destroy as many corporations as they like as long as they deliver. Any others with greater and cheaper products are certainly welcome to destroy MS, too, I'm selfish but impartial."

So what happens if they destroy everyone and then raise their prices? Or even don't raise their prices but then no longer improve the product?

What would happen if your electric company was free to set their service at any price they wanted?

The market forces that bring pressure to bear to produce cheap prices and/or innovation have a harder time working on monopolies. Would Intel chips be as cheap if AMD wasn't around?

"Someone was comparing the Microsoft OS monopoly to those and saying that Microsoft was better because the continually added value. They add value because that's the only way they'll get existing customers to repurchase."

That is a very true and important statement. I think it is also mutually exclusive to having a (logical) monopoly. 'Existing customers' are the majority of their market, and none of us 'has to' buy MS software. A concept that it sounds like the MS lawyers didn't make clear enough is that they not only compete with other companies, they compete with old versions of their own products. Win9x is formidable competition, even for XP.

"[What happens if they] don't raise their prices but then no longer improve the product?"

As you imply above, no one buys the non-improved versions.

"So what happens if they destroy everyone and then raise their prices?"

Two things. First, once this happens, I think government intervention could be appropriate. Yes, I'm saying we should wait until they screw people before the government should get involved. I think it's absurd to consider punishing anyone who *could* rip off or otherwise harm people.

But before that would happen or take effect, I think they'd lose their 'monopoly'. There is very little barrier to entry to build a software company of any sort. It's not at all like utility companies that have to physically run wires and pipes across the country, and were given special property rights by the government to do so. The barrier with PC operating system market is that there's a very good and very cheap product already available in that category.

"What would happen if your electric company was free to set their service at any price they wanted?"

They're a special case and an actual government created and maintained monopoly. They were given rights of way to build their networks by governments. If competitors are allowed to use that same infrastructure, I think deregulation is fine.

"Would Intel chips be as cheap if AMD wasn't around?"

Certainly not. They'd probably be slower and more expensive. So what is it that created competition in the PC CPU market that hasn't happened with operating systems? Intel's had some pretty ruthless tactics, squeezing vendors who don't use them exclusively among other things.

AMD didn't need the government to hold Intel back. They were simply able to offer a product that is generally a little better and/or cheaper than the Intel product.

"AMD didn't need the government to hold Intel back. They were simply able to offer a product that is generally a little better and/or cheaper than the Intel product."

The difference is that the CPU isn't important. They're pretty much interchangeable, so the market doesn't care. The OS is another matter. It's hard for you and me to work together if we don't run the same OS. The market does care about the OS and the market wants to flock to one and ignore the others.

Microsoft has a monopoly in part because the market wants a standard. As long as the market wants this, it will be hard to dislodge Microsoft. I think it would take something extraordinary to replace Microsoft.

"Two things. First, once this happens, I think government intervention could be appropriate. Yes, I'm saying we should wait until they screw people before the government should get involved. I think it's absurd to consider punishing anyone who *could* rip off or otherwise harm people."

Well, they already did screw people. They forced OEMs to not offer Netscape. Now they want to force OEMs to put MSN on the desktop if they put AOL there too. What does MSN have to do with the functionality of the OS? Nothing, but Microsoft still wants to dictate. AOL has to pay for that placement. Microsoft wants it for free.

And yes, I know these are murky issues, but you can see Microsoft's general stance. The OS is theirs and they feel they can use it to promote their other products and services. The problem is, how does the competition get equal "air time" in these situations?

"But before that would happen or take effect, I think they'd lose their 'monopoly'. There is very little barrier to entry to build a software company of any sort. It's not at all like utility companies that have to physically run wires and pipes across the country, and were given special property rights by the government to do so. The barrier with PC operating system market is that there's a very good and very cheap product already available in that category."

There's also the network effect and costs of matching the relevant spec to overcome the network effect. The entrenched market advantage of everyone using the same platform is pretty substantial, and is a very high barrier to significant entry.

The network effect for Intel wasn't all that high. Competitors can black-box a processor to run Windows in a perfectly legal fashion for not that much money, comparatively. That Intel dominated for so long is more a function of how completely incompetent their competitors were (everything before the AMD Duron) than overwhelming technical superiority of their product or monopoly power, I think.

Annoyingly, blackboxing Windows is a couple orders of magnitude in cost beyond that of doing the same for a P4. To write a Wine-level emulator doesn't take much, but I think it's close to impossible to profitably do a commercial version. Now that I think about it, I don't think it'd get you that much; you can't legally copy IE or Windows Media Player, and with MS integration eventually you *would* need to do so.

I agree with Mark: you *really* can't come up with a justification for integrating MS Messenger other than "they can put whatever they want in the OS."

This case has really frustrated me since its inception, as there's no good analogies. Augh.

Actually, Mark, I think they lowered the price from $109 to $99. At least that's what the WSJ is reporting.

"Yes, some monopolies like public utilities benefit consumers, but only when they're regulated. Imagine what the local water and power companies would do if they were unregulated."

Well, in my case (Vermont, Green Mountain Power), they would avoid going bankrupt. I don't really believe that government regulation helps utilities (or consumers) much, to be honest. It artificially insulates consumers from market forces, which in turn discourages healthy practices such as conservation. Why conserve energy when energy is so damn cheap? That's how California got where it is today.

"For example, the MS monopoly helps consumers to some extent because everyone can easily exchange files. However, you could get the same effect from universal XML-style file formats and still have OS competition. Etc, etc."

Microsoft's monopoly has benefited consumers because consumers want universal standards where operating systems are involved. There used to be more operating systems out there, now there aren't. Consumers chose that, not Microsoft. Corporations, on the other hand, will never fully support standards that encourage competition, as you suggest, because that just doesn't make any sense from a business standpoint. If other OSs do everything that yours does, why would consumers choose yours?

Hell, look at the HTML "standard," and then look at all the proprietary stuff that browser makers have integrated into their products over the years. They do that because providing a product that's better is a higher priority than making a product that complies with the standard. Ultimately someone is going to break away from the standard, and if by doing so they can create a better product, then consumers will support THEM as the new standard.

"Where do you assign the blame?"

Why assign any at all? I like Office. I could care less that MS is driving Netscape out of business, because IE is a better product. That's what confuses me so much about the MS legal hearings--all the focus seems to be on how MS's actions have hurt their competitors, and I really don't care. Too bad for them. Antitrust laws were made to protect consumers, not corporations. This consumer is perfectly happy with the current state of affairs.

If it were a case where there were all sorts of better products out there, but I couldn't use them because Windows throws all sorts of hurdles in the way in order to bolster support for Office, I would feel differently. But that's not the case, and I don't. I could easily choose to use another word processor, for instance, but Word is the best one out there.

"I still don't understand why some big company with a ton of dough doesn't try to make it happen"

I do. Microsoft spends six billion dollars a year on R&D. When you say "a ton of dough," that's not an exaggeration. In fact, it's almost an understatement.

"So what happens if they destroy everyone and then raise their prices? Or even don't raise their prices but then no longer improve the product?"

Exactly what happened to Apple when they did the same thing.

Bill Gates often says that he believes that Microsoft's position of industry leader is not a given. And I agree--it isn't. Things can change awfully fast in this industry.

"I could easily choose to use another word processor, for instance, but Word is the best one out there."

That's about the only part of Ben's statement that I disagree with. WordPerfect still has a presence in the legal community, and I'd say the last couple of iterations of it are superior to Word 2000 (I haven't tried Word XP yet). Word is much better than it used to be, but it still feels "stiff" to me--still forces me to do things the MicroSoft way rather than my way. In my work I use a lot of hanging indents and a lot of different page numberings within the document, both of which are a snap with WordPerfect and a gigantic pain in the ass with Word. The worst part, however, is that I do a lot of editing and assembling of documents from different authors who all do their own thing (Just try getting law school faculty to follow standards. You'll find it in the author's manual under the heading "Herding Cats"). So I wind up with documents with all sorts of font and formatting changes. Without a decent reveal codes function, weeding this stuff out of a Word document can be nightmarish.

That being said, WordPerfect's presence in the legal market (the one place it had a measure of success in staving off MicroSoft) is starting to erode rapidly. As more law firms share documents electronically with clients who use only Office, they are switching over at a rapidly increasing rate.

And with that I return to my job of explaining to the faculty why we can no longer support their beloved WordPerfect version 5.1.

"The difference is that the CPU isn't important. They're pretty much interchangeable, so the market doesn't care."

That compatibility is no accident. A competing OS would need to do effectively the same thing - work with all existing stuff. That's what got MS DOS off the ground and I think is overlooked as a source of MS's success. Their backwards compatibility was much better than OS/2's. It's also a big reason why Windows "sucks" in very general terms - until recently they were actually concerned about running DOS and Win16 programs.

DOS supported the APIs of the then dominant OS - christ, I can't even remember the name of it right now. Windows supports DOS APIs.

"Well, they already did screw people. They forced OEMs to not offer Netscape."

I'm sure Johnny Cochran would make something of that, but that failed to harm me. I was still able to get & use Netscape (thanks to tools MS provided). Even a few years ago, I preferred IE though.

Here's a great side point: Netscape's browser was NOT ALWAYS FREE. Microsoft is the reason it became free, even for commercial use. Do you think companies would be better off paying $50 per seat for a web browser?

IE has essentially owned the browser market for a couple of years. IF they were to start charging $100 a seat for it, I'd be harmed by their actions in the browser market. Until then, they're my new best friend.

"I agree with Mark: you *really* can't come up with a justification for integrating MS Messenger other than 'they can put whatever they want in the OS.'"

I can. I write software. I had to hack together my own simple peer to peer 'messaging' functionality for users of my application to notify each other of work requested or completed. Mine is lame and there are sporadic reports that sometimes it keeps repeating a message over and over. If this functionality were built in to my target OSes, it would have been a lot less work and no doubt been technically superior. I looked around for freeware libraries or code samples, but could only find commercial packages with onerous per seat licensing schemes.

This is the same reason it's very good to have a browser 'integrated' with the OS. A lot of applications use this to easily render HTML pages or even embed pretty full web browser functionality.

"It's hard for you and me to work together if we don't run the same OS."

I know this is the overwhelmingly prevailing notion, which makes its validity sort of irrelevant. But I disagree strongly with it. There are plenty of common data formats and networking technologies. Even MS provides many OSes, we use most of them where I work.

Back when I was a tech writer I experienced plenty of compatibility problems trying to deal with Mac files in an MS world. Believe me, it's there. Yes, in a general sense, you can share data, but it's often hard to share *work*. A lot of the file formats are incompatible so it's a real pain the ass to send projects back and forth. It's much simpler if everyone's running the same OS and same word processor.

As to abusing a monopolistic position, I'm surprised that so many of you aren't upset that Microsoft strongarmed OEMs into not offering Netscape. So you like IE better? Fine, but next time MS may illegally crush a competitor who's products you do like better. You can't pick and choose when to apply the law based on your personal likes and dislikes.

"As to abusing a monopolistic position, I'm surprised that so many of you aren't upset that Microsoft strongarmed OEMs into not offering Netscape. So you like IE better? Fine, but next time MS may illegally crush a competitor who's products you do like better. You can't pick and choose when to apply the law based on your personal likes and dislikes."

Good point. I remember reading an interview with Steve Case some months after AOL acquired Netscape. The interviewer asked him why AOL hadn't changed over Netscape since, after all, it now owned that browser. Case's response was they couldn't because then they wouldn't be able to get into OEMs. You're right, Mark. If that's not abusing your monopoly position, I don't know what is.

My day job is at a printing company where we assemble appendices and format briefs for appellate courts.

I'm entirely familiar with the screams of disbelief and agony I hear coming from offices where folks are trying to get poorly formatted Word files, or those from older versions of Word, to fit exacting court standards. For applications like these it seems WordPerfect is the superior product but as Jason points out law firms are slowly moving over to where their clients are. Microsoft is like a 300 ft ameoba that just oozes over and assimiliates, by sheer mass, anything it touches.

---

Quote:

Case's response was they couldn't because then they wouldn't be able to get into OEMs.

---

"I'm sure this is just another way to justify not using a crappy browser."

Which is the bottom line. You believe all that crap about Netscape being a decent product that should have succeeded on its own merits? You try using it then.

"That really sounds like a horseshit response from Mr. Case."

Not the way I understand it. MicroSoft's OEM contracts all specified that if you used any browser other than IE you couldn't get your icon in the OEM.

At any rate, the real reason AOL bought Netscape wasn't for the browser or for legal games. They bought it because, even if everybody was switching to IE, Netscape.com was still not only one of the most visited sights on the Web, it was the one that a whole lot of users had set as their default home page. In other words, they bought it as a portal to grab users who weren't entering the Web through AOL.

"The problem is, how does the competition get equal "air time" in these situations?"

But how does the competition *not* have equal air time? Anyone can install any software they want on Windows. There's not a "oops, we don't allow you to install another browser" dialog that pops up when you run Netscape's installer.

On the other hand, arguing that MS should bundle a half-dozen alternatives from their competitors into their own OS borders on insanity. Isn't having free downloads via the web open enough? Maybe they should put a 2nd and 3rd CD in the box with dozens of trial versions of competitors' software?

The biggest challenge here relates to the issue brought up in the XP thread-- to wit, the OEM market is the only one that matters. People don't want to be bothered with downloading, buying, installing a bunch of crap. The average user hates dicking around with their computer. Joe Sixpack basically wants a fixed function box-- something they can open, get their work done, and not have to think about it at ALL beyond that.

So I'd argue the biggest enemy to this process is really the consumer, not microsoft. How do we legislate that?

Here's an interesting corrolary that might compare, I'm not sure.

When I bought my new car, it came with a whole bunch of stuff pre-installed. Speakers, stereo, headlamps, wheels, rims, tires, etc.

I didn't make a choice to have those brands in my car, and VW didn't offer me an option of which brand of car stereo I could have installed in my car. It was all just bundled together at the sticker price and I either bought it or didn't.

Of course, I can go to Car Toys and get all of these things changed, for a price. But of course that means money and time and most people don't do it.

How is this different from Windows? How is Windows different from any car chasis? Sure there is more competition for cars, but no matter where you go, no car manufacturer offers you that level of options. They all are given the right to bundle other "non-core" products into their cars.

And if consumers wanted it any differently they'd demand it. If consumers really wanted to deal with the hassle of choosing between 30 different browsers, Internet messaging services, firewalls, GUIs, mail clients, etc., they'd demand it.

"But how does the competition *not* have equal air time? Anyone can install any software they want on Windows. There's not a "oops, we don't allow you to install another browser" dialog that pops up when you run Netscape's installer."

Because being part of the default Windows install is a huge marketing advantage since Windows is the defacto OS monopoly.

You don't think something that automatically installs with Windows doesn't have a tremendous advantage over an application that you have to download and install? Which one would you expect to be the market leader?

It looks to me like anything Microsoft will bundle into the OS will simply wipe any competing third party product. If it adds value for the consumer without raising the price, that's good. It's just that Microsoft can't be allowed to abuse their position like they did with the Netscape stuff.

"The biggest challenge here relates to the issue brought up in the XP thread-- to wit, the OEM market is the only one that matters. People don't want to be bothered with downloading, buying, installing a bunch of crap. The average user hates dicking around with their computer."

Yeah, I agree, and right now the OEMs have been fighting with Microsoft about what gets displayed on the desktop. Microsoft is trying to strongarm them into having the MSN icon in the desktop.

"So I'd argue the biggest enemy to this process is really the consumer, not microsoft. How do we legislate that?"

Well, for one, you don't allow Microsoft to tell the OEMs what to do just because they have the OEMs over a barrel. For another, you just have to watch Microsoft closely. If they want to dump Java, they'd better make a very good argument for doing so. Third, you need to open up the source code to third parties so they can compete on equal footing.

Jeff Atwood:

"On the other hand, arguing that MS should bundle a half-dozen alternatives from their competitors into their own OS borders on insanity. Isn't having free downloads via the web open enough? Maybe they should put a 2nd and 3rd CD in the box with dozens of trial versions of competitors' software?"

The problem is that MicroSoft's OEM contracts went well beyond what they (MicroSoft) "bundled with their OS." They're OEM contract prohibited Dell, HP, Compaq, Falcon Northwest, or Mom and Pop PC manufacturer from ADDING TO THE DESKTOP icons for any ISP that didn't use IE as the browser that was part of the ISP's installation.

Dave Long:

"Just include the damn browser in the AOL installation and oh happy day, you are using the browser your company makes instead of IE!"

See above. This is exactly what Microsoft's OEM contract prohibited. How could Microsoft enforce that? Easy. They found out that Ma & Pa ISP's installation included Netscape. The informed Dell, HP, etc. that, if they added a Ma & Pa icon to the desktop Microsoft would cut them off. You can bet that Dell, HP, etc. made damn sure that Ma & Pa's installation used only IE.

"The average user hates dicking around with their computer. Joe Sixpack basically wants a fixed function box-- something they can open, get their work done, and not have to think about it at ALL beyond that."

You're right. The average buyer, let's say the person who sees the Dell ads on TV and decides to buy one, also would like it to come equipped with a word processor (and it usually comes with some version of Microsoft Office), a money handling app (and it usually comes equipped with Microsoft Money), a paint program, games, a photo album and printing program, an encyclopedia for the kids (and it usually comes with Encarta,) a map program, an email program (and it will usually come with Outlook or Outlook Express), a usenet news reading program (again, it comes with Outlook Express,) and more. The average user would like the computer loaded with everything and not have to install or buy anything. But that's faulty logic, to say that therefore MS should be allowed to bundle all of those items into the OS. Also, I imagine it's probably not a coincidence that Dell and others load the computers up with Microsoft software and don't offer an alternative encyclopedia, for example.

I talked a while back with some designers of a couple of the newsreaders out there (e.g., Agent, Gravity.) They said that it was very difficult to invest a lot into building better newsreaders as long as every computer came loaded up with Outlook Express. How difficult do you think it is to get someone to buy a computer encyclopedia when Encarta comes on every computer? And is it a coincidence that all of these applications that come bundled on PCs are from the same guys that make the OS? Any way you look at it, Microsoft has a huge advantage that in many ways discourages competition - legal or not.

"It's just that Microsoft can't be allowed to abuse their position like they did with the Netscape stuff."

I have a difficult time getting too worked up over that, whether the abuse was real or not. They pushed an inferior product out of the market--one that was likely on its way out anyway. Yeah, they probably broke some laws doing it, and yeah, they should be punished. But punishing Microsoft should be second priority to not hurting the consumer--let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater. It's not like I'm going to use Netscape over IE in protest, because quite frankly, Netscape sucks.

Adam's car analogy is an interesting one. What if consumers are okay with Microsoft's monopoly? Where does the government's responsibility lie in that case? Protecting Netscape (or whomever) against the will of the consumer?

"Well, for one, you don't allow Microsoft to tell the OEMs what to do just because they have the OEMs over a barrel."

But now you are making Microsoft play by rules that no other company has to play by. Let's be honest--that sort of behavior isn't exclusive to Microsoft--everyone does it. Microsoft just happens to do it better by virtue of the fact that they sell a product that people really want. Apple employs very similar business strategies, but you don't see people getting all worked up about it.

"Third, you need to open up the source code to third parties so they can compete on equal footing."

Do all other software manufacturers have to do that, too? Because quite frankly, I find this concept ethically undefensible. Just because Microsoft is successful, they have to help their competitors try to run them out of business? That's just goofy.

"But that's faulty logic, to say that therefore MS should be allowed to bundle all of those items into the OS."

Why? Because they recognized a consumer demand and tried to fulfill it? You may not want all that stuff integrated in your operating system, just like I don't want to buy a car with all the funky electronic crap that's just bound to eventually break. But I can hardly fault Ford for offering all that stuff, because other people do want it.

Sorta OT, but i still use Netscape.. mainly Messenger from 4.75, I cant stand Outlook Express... its so bloated and having to go to preferences for everything... i still prefer Messenger for Usenet as well! Though I browse with IE 5+....

also, Microsoft owns us all.... a piece of pie.

etc

"I have a difficult time getting too worked up over that, whether the abuse was real or not. They pushed an inferior product out of the market--one that was likely on its way out anyway. Yeah, they probably broke some laws doing it, and yeah, they should be punished. But punishing Microsoft should be second priority to not hurting the consumer--let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater. It's not like I'm going to use Netscape over IE in protest, because quite frankly, Netscape sucks."

At the beginning Netscape wasn't inferior to IE. Had Microsoft not used strongarm tactics to limit the distribution of Netscape, perhaps the company would have had a better chance of building a better, more competitive browser. It's hard to know.

Besides, punishing and forcing a remedy on Microsoft and policing them in the future isn't punishing the consumer. You still get IE. No one's taking that away from you. Trying to ensure that there's as much fair competition as possible should benefit us consumers.

"But now you are making Microsoft play by rules that no other company has to play by. Let's be honest--that sort of behavior isn't exclusive to Microsoft--everyone does it. Microsoft just happens to do it better by virtue of the fact that they sell a product that people really want. Apple employs very similar business strategies, but you don't see people getting all worked up about it."

Oh really? I seem to recall some contributors to this forum getting all worked up about Sony reps. destroying X-Box displays at Best Buy. I simply don't understand the "I like Microsoft products, so give them a pass" philosophy that seems so prevalent here. The way I see it the problem isn't so much that forced an inferior product--Netscape--it's that they've created a complete disincentive for anyone to even try to market a superior product. They've creating a playing field where that product wouldn't have a chance.

"Why? Because they recognized a consumer demand and tried to fulfill it?"

Where the hell was this "demand?" It's more like they created the demand by removing any choice.

I'll tell you something else, the superiority of IE is something that only a relative few, very sophisticated users notice. I work with users who run the entire spectrum from very sophisticated to not knowing where the computer's on/off switch is. 99.9 per cent wouldn't know the differences between IE and Netscape if you hit them over the head with them. They use IE because that's what comes with their PC. Period.

"I have a difficult time getting too worked up over that, whether the abuse was real or not. They pushed an inferior product out of the market--one that was likely on its way out anyway. Yeah, they probably broke some laws doing it, and yeah, they should be punished. But punishing Microsoft should be second priority to not hurting the consumer--let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater. It's not like I'm going to use Netscape over IE in protest, because quite frankly, Netscape sucks."

In your opinion (mine, now, also - but it's still our opinions.) I used Netscape and preferred it for a long time - I frankly only switched to IE because it was clearly becoming the standard, websites were becoming optimized for it, etc. But this abuse was real, it was oppressive, and I do get worked up over it, and the product that was the subject of the abuse is irrelevant. Netscape was enough of a competitor that Microsoft felt they needed to abuse their OS position to kill it off.

Here's the problem - I'm a huge fan of capitalism. I hate the concept that because someone becomes very successful (legally) that they should somehow be punished, whether it's MS or some rich business owner. However, legal or not, it hurts us as computer users if Microsoft uses it's OS practical monopoly to drive competitors out of the market. Today I can purchase Nero - but if they, and Feurio, etc. are driven out of the market because MS has a CD burning utility built into the OS, we lose the advantage of applications being advanced due to competition. The same for any other applications. Legal or not. You may not want a car that has digital gauges and all that crap on it - but if Ford is the only car manufacturer because all the others have been driven out of the marketplace, you may not have a choice. And if Ford owned the fuel supply for the world, and changed it's content every year so that only it's cars could use it... ugh, that's a crappy analogy but maybe someone else can take it and make it relevant. :)

I agree with Jeff. What's important is that other businesses can compete in a realistic way. If they can't, then in the long run we have a problem.

Right now we consumers are a bit insulated because Microsoft has to continue to add value to their products like Office and Windows to get us to repurchase them. Microsoft is competing with itself in a lot of ways.

But look at what Microsoft is proposing. They want to move to a system where we simply pay them a fee every year to use their software. If this ever gets put in place, and there's no real competition for Office and Windows, why should Microsoft continue to try to innovate? What guarantees us consumers that we'll get improved products?

"For applications like these it seems WordPerfect is the superior product but as Jason points out law firms are slowly moving over to where their clients are. Microsoft is like a 300 ft ameoba that just oozes over and assimiliates, by sheer mass, anything it touches."

When I was a tech writer, we used Framemaker to create our documents. Eventually, we switched to Word, which was vastly inferior for creating multi-file books. It just got to be too hard to deal with the rest of the business world that couldn't handle native Framemaker files. We spent too much time converting and reformatting that we finally decided to go with Word, and christ, what a pig that program can be when you want to do document layout and management instead of simple letters and reports.

This example is not offered to say that Microsoft sucks. It's just an example of how difficult it is to not use their products. I can't imagine anyone investing money to build a better word processor at this point, so any innovation will have to come from Microsoft.

---

Quote:

If this ever gets put in place, and there's no real competition for Office and Windows, why should Microsoft continue to try to innovate? What guarantees us consumers that we'll get improved products?

---

"At the beginning Netscape wasn't inferior to IE."

True.

"Had Microsoft not used strongarm tactics to limit the distribution of Netscape, perhaps the company would have had a better chance of building a better, more competitive browser."

Here I disagree. It's not like Netscape stagnated and disappeared for lack of funding. They released their new version, and it took the browser in a direction that nobody cared to go. I could as easily argue that if Netscape had continued to meet my needs, I'd still be using it. I used to, after all.

"Where the hell was this "demand?" It's more like they created the demand by removing any choice."

To be clear, I agree that they should not be allowed to strongarm OEMs into only including their stuff on systems. I think that everyone should play by that rule. But as several people (including a few who disagree with me) pointed out, there is most certainly a demand among the average consumer for a computer that comes with everything they need.

"But this abuse was real, it was oppressive, and I do get worked up over it, and the product that was the subject of the abuse is irrelevant."

Let me alter my previous statment, then. The abuse is worth getting worked up over. The demise of Netscape as the dominant browser is not.


"If this ever gets put in place, and there's no real competition for Office and Windows, why should Microsoft continue to try to innovate?"

Because you don't have to buy it. If consumers don't want to pay a fee, they won't. They'll keep on using Windows Whatever, and to hell with Microsoft's new OS. As you continually point out, it's not like we NEED a new OS every year. And guess what? Software developers will follow the market, they don't just blindly follow where Microsoft leads. If consumers refuse to adopt subscription Windows, then developers will continue to develop for whatever they are using, and that will be that. Microsoft has had flops before--remember Bob?


"Oh really? I seem to recall some contributors to this forum getting all worked up about Sony reps. destroying X-Box displays at Best Buy."

Huh... that wasn't me. That's the first I've heard of it.

"I simply don't understand the "I like Microsoft products, so give them a pass" philosophy that seems so prevalent here."

I don't advocate that at all. By the same token, I also don't advocate the "you should hate all of Microsoft's products, even though you don't" philosophy. I don't like all of their products, certainly, and there are improvements I'd like to see made to the ones I do like. But I do refuse to single them out because of their Machiavellian business practices. Because most of the other companies in this industry do the same damn things. And the ones that don't would, if they could.

"Because most of the other companies in this industry do the same damn things. And the ones that don't would, if they could."

And that's where effective enforcement of the Antitrust laws come in. It's obviously not necessary for the government to go after those who "can't" because they don't have a significant effect on the American consumer. Microsoft does. It doesn't matter whether one regards them as villains or not, they HAVE monopoly power and that fact alone makes them worthy subjects of the Antitrust laws. When it comes to monopoly power I don't really care if Bill Gates' motivation is to kill off competitors or to save the world through Windows. The Justice Department's antitrust division job is to allow competition to have a chance. In that regard, I personally favor a conduct remedy over a breakup. I just want other software publishers to have a fair crack at the OEMs.

I'm sure you're right about motivations. Would it surprise me if, say, Strategy First wanted to do to EA what Microsoft did to Netscape? No. But I don't care because they don't have the power to do that.

"Oh really? I seem to recall some contributors to this forum getting all worked up about Sony reps. destroying X-Box displays at Best Buy."

Huh... that wasn't me. That's the first I've heard of it."

It's been mentioned in other threads. Kind of interesting to see Microsoft being the victim of somebody else's market muscle.

"Waitaminnit...you argued before that Office '97 was all you need. You've claimed a number of times that XP holds nothing in it that would make you upgrade. So why do you, a consumer, care if the products improve?!"

What I said was that there wasn't anything in later versions of Office I needed. I'm all up for Microsoft putting out a new version that has new features that make a significant difference in the way I use Word. Then I'll happily balance cost vs. benefit and make my decision.

Until then, I'm happy with Office 97. I just hope Microsoft doesn't make it obsolete by making it incompatible with future versions of Office.

"...If consumers refuse to adopt subscription Windows, then developers will continue to develop for whatever they are using, and that will be that. Microsoft has had flops before--remember Bob?"

It's just a unique situation. There really aren't a lot of alternatives to Windows. Most of us who use our computers for business purposes have to run Windows. It may be that my choice will be to subscribe with Microsoft or find new work.

As to getting the marketplace to adopt a subscription plan, it might be as simple as no longer giving OEMs a version of Windows that was non-subscription. Then the PC makers will have a tough choice. Load the boxes wtih Linux or the subscription version of Windows? Microsoft would probably give away the first year's subscription for free, too, to make the initial purchase more attractive.

It's easy enough to see Microsoft gradually pushing subscriptions this way and reaching critical mass with them. Then it's at a point where you're either on board or not.

Anyway, I hope it never comes to subscription Windows or Linux as the only real choices for the mass market. Perhaps Microsoft will always let users buy the OS outright and then just try to get its subscription service going by offering more value. That's the way it should be. People should subscribe because it's a better deal than buying outright, not because it's the only deal available.

"Yes, some monopolies like public utilities benefit consumers, but only when they're regulated. Imagine what the local water and power companies would do if they were unregulated."

Well, in my case (Vermont, Green Mountain Power), they would avoid going bankrupt. I don't really believe that government regulation helps utilities (or consumers) much, to be honest. It artificially insulates consumers from market forces, which in turn discourages healthy practices such as conservation. Why conserve energy when energy is so damn cheap? That's how California got where it is today.

California's problems were entirely due to the wholesale side of energy production was deregulated (buying from plants), while the retail side (selling to customers) wasn't. Ergo, you have to sell power for less than you buy it from, and you go bankrupt. I don't think there's any larger issues there.

Really, though, imagine a water utility with no regulation whatsoever. They'll charge the absolute maximum they can get away with - it wouldn't surprise me if it's 10 times the amount I pay for water today. The need for water and the cost for competitors to enter the market are both really high.

So, which do we go with? Profiteering or inefficiency?

"Why assign (blame) any at all? I like Office. I could care less that MS is driving Netscape out of business, because IE is a better product. That's what confuses me so much about the MS legal hearings--all the focus seems to be on how MS's actions have hurt their competitors, and I really don't care. Too bad for them. Antitrust laws were made to protect consumers, not corporations. This consumer is perfectly happy with the current state of affairs."

Consumers are happy with the state of affairs because they don't know how much extra they're being charged for their OS, and how much innovation in various markets is being killed off by MS.

As an aside, does anyone remember disk compression? That market is toast now.

"As an aside, does anyone remember disk compression? That market is toast now."

Yeah, when I do full installs of all my games, including 4 and 5 CD games like the Infinity engine games, and I can't even get my hard drive half full, disk compression becomes a pretty moot point.

The disk compression companies got hit with a one-two punch. Microsoft bundled it for free with their OS, and about that same time hard drive prices started dropping through the floor.

Chances are if drive prices hadn't dropped the third parties would have been unable to compete anyway. How do you compete with free?

At least that one company (Stacker?) sued Microsoft for copyright infringement (or theft of technology or something) and won. Heh.

"Today I can purchase Nero - but if they, and Feurio, etc. are driven out of the market because MS has a CD burning utility built into the OS, we lose the advantage of applications being advanced due to competition."

Or you could argue that aftermarket features like CD-R burning logically become part of the standard OS, because the CD-R is the new floppy drive. This is the evolution of the PC at work. Stop that, and you've stopped something very important to the future of the PC. You need to consider your position very carefully.

"but if Ford is the only car manufacturer because all the others have been driven out of the marketplace"

Go buy a Mac, or install Linux. Those are the other "automakers". Don't complain because all the aftermarket parts are mostly for Ford vehicles. That's not Ford's fault.

The auto analogy is, IMO, an excellent one. You get power windows and a bunch of other crap because the car has evolved to the point that those are just considered standard features. Now airbags and ABS brakes are too. Ditto for the OS.

"Waitaminnit...you argued before that Office '97 was all you need. You've claimed a number of times that XP holds nothing in it that would make you upgrade. So why do you, a consumer, care if the products improve?!"

If anything, Mr. Asher is living proof of the "consumer is the problem" theory. Even if there is something better out there, consumers AREN'T INTERESTED. They just want the status quo.

"Because most of the other companies in this industry do the same damn things. And the ones that don't would, if they could."

Yeah, welcome to the new boss. Same as the old boss. Maybe even worse. Can you imagine a world where Sun, Apple, or IBM was in the position that MS is? Microsoft is practically a fuzzy bunny compared to some of those guys.

"Go buy a Mac, or install Linux. Those are the other "automakers". Don't complain because all the aftermarket parts are mostly for Ford vehicles. That's not Ford's fault."

The problem is that the aftermarket is disappearing and being swallowed up by Microsoft. They own the Office market, they killed Netscape, dropping Java will have a serious affect on a lot of rival apps like RealPlayer, etc. It's not like a lot of third parties are building apps that Microsoft is purchasing to include in Windows. The auto analogy doesn't hold.

Heck, a word processor is vital. Why doesn't Microsoft build Word into Windows if they're intent on making the OS do more? I'd probably upgrade to XP if Word XP was built in for the $99.

"If anything, Mr. Asher is living proof of the "consumer is the problem" theory. Even if there is something better out there, consumers AREN'T INTERESTED. They just want the status quo."

I'm happy to upgrade if I see enough value. I just purchased ME earlier in the year, and I purchased 95 and then 982E previously. I'm just not as easily dazzled as some consumers apparently are. I see value in XP, but I don't think it's worth $100.

But keep leading the cheer, Wumpus.

>Microsoft is practically a fuzzy bunny compared to some of those guys.

Um, are we talking about the Microsoft located in Redmond, Washington, or is this some other Microsoft that's located in happy fairy land where the trees are made of chocolate?

Microsoft has shown time and time again they will do whatever it takes to win. As an example, their launching of IE had nothing to do with wanting to be a player in the browser market and everything to do with preventing Netscape's browser from eventually becoming a large competitor in the OS space. Remember Gate's comment about the Internet? That attitude changed real quick when they realized that Netscape was spreading like a wildfire.

I like most of MS's products. Their Sidewinder is the best gamepad for the PC and I love Office XP. But to believe that MS is any different than Apple, or Sun, or IBM in terms of business practices strikes me as rather naive. All of those companies would sell consumers up the river in a second if they thought they could make a dollar doing so.

"All of those companies would sell consumers up the river in a second if they thought they could make a dollar doing so."

Unlike those companies, Microsoft is actually vested in the future of the PC. Think back to Microsoft's first product.

"I'd probably upgrade to XP if Word XP was built in for the $99."

I told you consumers were part of the problem. ;)

"The problem is that the aftermarket is disappearing"

So those CompUSA shelves loaded with Windows-compatible software don't actually exist?

And for the love of Pete, Java isn't disabled. It's just something that has to be downloaded like Flash. It happens automatically. Java code (NOT JavaScript, two totally different things) appearing on a website is quite rare-- it really doesn't matter to the vast majority of websites. I know a global conspiracy is more fun, but the simplest reason is far more likely.

>Unlike those companies, Microsoft is actually vested in the future of the PC. Think back to Microsoft's first product.

That makes no sense; that's like saying Apple's business practices should be ignored because they're vested in the future of the Mac. Or that Ma Bell shouldn't have been broken up because they're vested in the future of the telephone.

Of course Microsoft is vested in the PC's future, but that doesn't change the fact that they put their interests--not the interests of the consumer--first. Need evidence of this? Look at their current pressure on businesses to join their "Software Assurance", which puts companies in a contract where they agree to upgrade their MS software when MS tells them to; in exchange, the companies get a discount on licensing fee. Those companies that opt out of this program will be forced to pay higher fees.

"But look at what Microsoft is proposing. They want to move to a system where we simply pay them a fee every year to use their software. If this ever gets put in place, and there's no real competition for Office and Windows, why should Microsoft continue to try to innovate? What guarantees us consumers that we'll get improved products?"

No guarantee whatsoever. But if MS has this supposed 'monopoly', why have they continued to improve their products so far? Did they just *now* achieve 'monopoly' status? Was the release of WinME the day they turned into a monopoly? The day IBM gave them the DOS contract? I really think it's a preposterous notion that we've all been stripped of any choice for PC operating system. My Mac geek friends (OK, friend, but he's a really big geek) would beg to differ.

I think you're right, they will have a tough time selling subscriptions. I think they'll wind up abandoning the plan. We don't need the government's "help" for that to happen.

"Heck, a word processor is vital. Why doesn't Microsoft build Word into Windows if they're intent on making the OS do more? I'd probably upgrade to XP if Word XP was built in for the $99."

WordPad is supposedly built from Word 2.0 for Windows, with some notable features stripped out. Frankly, it's plenty of word processor for most purposes. I think it compares favorably to WordPerfect 4.2 era word processors (retailing for $300-$500).

That was before the word processors started screwing us by bundling spelling and grammar checkers and such. Wasn't it better when we had a thriving market of competing utilities that had awkward integration and additional hundreds of dollars in costs? Now you can't even remove the spell checker from Word without disabling it entirely!

"No guarantee whatsoever. But if MS has this supposed 'monopoly', why have they continued to improve their products so far? Did they just *now* achieve 'monopoly' status?"

I dunno -- ask the courts. An army of Microsoft lawyers failed to convince them that they weren't a monopoly and hadn't acted illegally.

Why have they continued to improve their OS? Because they want us to repurchase the OS every year or two. They can't very well expect us to if they don't improve it. Let's hope that their revenue will continue to hinge on them having to convince us that a newer version is better and worth our money rather than simply getting us to agree to rent the OS.

"WordPad is supposedly built from Word 2.0 for Windows, with some notable features stripped out. Frankly, it's plenty of word processor for most purposes."

They could easily add a few features and make it quite a bit nicer. It would make a new version of the OS that much more attractive.

"Or you could argue that aftermarket features like CD-R burning logically become part of the standard OS, because the CD-R is the new floppy drive. This is the evolution of the PC at work. Stop that, and you've stopped something very important to the future of the PC. You need to consider your position very carefully."

Good Heavens! I didn't realize that the CD-R was becoming endangered because Microsoft had not included an inbedded application! No wonder no one has or uses CD-RW systems. And those that have them simply look at them and sigh and wish they had a way to use them. Why, it's the very existence of the PC that MS has in mind here! How utterly blind of me!

While there are some good counter-points going back and forth here, that, Wumpus, was simply silly. I believe the term is "reaching."

I don't want - repeat, DON'T want - competing, semi-compatible OS's. Been there, done that, got the T-shirts. But how many of us really want to only have one choice in CD writing software, mail readers, media players, newsreaders, encyclopedias, word processors, spreadsheets, and on and on? How is that a good thing? Microsoft has the power to drive developers out of the marketplace. If someone thinks that vital to the future of the PC - well, that's too stupid to respond to. There'a a lot of grey between the black and white - there are some things that make sense to bundle into the OS, but when we no longer have a choice of CD writing software (and these little guys are the type of developers who can be blown away) there's a problem. Any time that our software choices become more limited, we lose. Legal or not, whether it's MS or not.

I consider myself a pretty advanced user, and find writing to CDs tedious because it's not integrated with the OS. I used to download MP3s from Napster with my 56k modem instead of ripping my own CDs. I found it more convenient. Since Napster shut down, I still haven't copied any of my own CDs. There are a bunch I want to simply copy to have at home & work, but even though I think my Nero software is pretty good, I consider it a hassle.

My work computer came with some software for its CD burner. I made sure the software was compatible with Windows 2000 and reformatted the ME system for 2000. Now I can't use the CD writer because the install CD looks for some stupid key file that was buried somewhere on the ME installation. "This software is only for HP PCs" the installer tells me. It should add "...that haven't been reformatted".

Life will certainly be better for me when CD media can be treated like any other.

Is a TCP/IP stack vital to the future of the PC? Did you prefer when each ISP and internet app tried to install its own? There used to be a market for those products, which I think MS has killed. Do you think we're worse off for that?

I don't think MS integrating cd-burning is bad for consumers; I'm all for that, as long as you can install whatever 3rd party product to do it instead.

However, along with that MS is trying to force us into WMA, which is bad for consumers. They'll insist you can't have one without the other, of course.

Just because the utility is bundled with the OS doesn't mean that it will be better. My concern is that CD burning apps will be knocked off the market, then if you don't like the way the MS app does it, or want to do something that the MS app doesn't do (and I'll be shocked if it has the capabilities of, say, a Fuerio), too bad.

With Nero or even Adaptec's weak program, if all you want to do is copy to a CD like you would a floppy or HD, you can. It's dead drag and drop simple.

I hear you, however, on the complications of uninstalling apps and conflicts. I HATE the registry system employed by Windows - it's incredible how many system errors are a result of stuff that is in the registry that shouldn't be.

"I don't think MS integrating cd-burning is bad for consumers; I'm all for that, as long as you can install whatever 3rd party product to do it instead."

The only reason it could be bad is if it results in there being no 3rd party products to install.

What's inherently wrong with WMA? I think it sounds better than MP3. It's also smaller...

--Dave

I'm not wearing any pants. Film at 11.

"However, along with that MS is trying to force us into WMA, which is bad for consumers."

Except that, at low bitrates (up to 128kbps), WMA actually sounds a lot better than MP3.. as in IE vs. Netscape, god forbid anyone muddy the waters of discussion with the minor point that MS is offering a superior technology.

And MS went out of their way to let third parties offer "XP content packs" which enable DVD and MP3 support. Look! Small vendors given hundreds of thousands of dollars selling add-ins for Windows, and all with Microsoft's blessing.

http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-6575795.html

Isn't this what you guys want? Now you're crying because Microsoft ISN'T bundling functionality. Can't have it both ways, folks.

Before anyone starts: MP3 is just as proprietary as WMA. FhG owns it and it's patented. Look it up if you don't believe me.

And for god's sake Xaroc put on some pants.

'Before anyone starts: MP3 is just as proprietary as WMA. FhG owns it and it's patented. Look it up if you don't believe me.'

So? Frauenhoffer doesn't run a monopoly OS company.

I load up that link and it says "Microsoft to charge for MP3 ripping." So, MS's rejoinder to accusations of tying their OS to a preferential media format is to charge extra for other formats, instead of just including them.

Weather of not Microsoft is a monopoly, i dont think it has the sweeping powers many think it does. think back to the begining of the summer and what you were paying for gas. it was estimated that prices would rise more(as high as 3 bucks) people were outraged and while the goverment had talks about what to do about it (leading to nowhere) demand for gas fell drasticly. now the prices are back to around where they were before the hikes...

The whole court thing is another way for the liberals to take away the consumers powers and come out the good guys, as they slowy convert us to socalism.


The eye of Thundera protect you.
ShiningOne

Cleve? Is that you?

"The only reason it could be bad is if it results in there being no 3rd party products to install."

The only reason that would actually be bad is if the bundled MS version were somehow inadequate. If it's not, you bet it will kill off 3rd party products. 'Choice' is not in and of itself superior to 'only one option'.

"I load up that link and it says "Microsoft to charge for MP3 ripping." So, MS's rejoinder to accusations of tying their OS to a preferential media format is to charge extra for other formats, instead of just including them."

MP3 is a special case, as it's is the property of Frauenhoffer, and they don't allow use without paying a per user royalty fee. If it were an 'open' standard, or at least one that wasn't patented and licensed for such a fee, maybe MS would support it.

Nero does the same thing with their CD software. MP3 encoding is not included, and you have to pay extra ($15 as I recall) to get it.

It's disappointing, but it is FhG's property. Has MS spoiled us so we're offended by FhG's licensing fees?

"The only reason that would actually be bad is if the bundled MS version were somehow inadequate. If it's not, you bet it will kill off 3rd party products. 'Choice' is not in and of itself superior to 'only one option'."

Here we'll disagree. The MS option plus other options is vastly preferred in my mind. First, what you and I may consider to be "better" isn't neccessarily better for everyone. Secondly, when you kill off other developers you not only kill off their current products, but you kill off their future developments. I can't see the downside of having options, but I can certainly see the downside of not having options.