posted
"Under threat of daily fines by European Union antitrust regulators, Microsoft Corp. agreed Wednesday to let competitors examine some of the blueprints to its flagship Windows operating system... Software developers will have to pay an unspecified amount for the right to inspect the source code and will be prohibited from publicly disseminating the information. And Microsoft won't make the entire Windows source code available — only the portions dealing with communications between servers."
posted
I'm not sure how I feel about this. On the one hand, compatibility is good, and shutting apps out of the market by making their code incompatible with yours isn't good for business (?), but I thought that's what APIs were for?
On the other hand, the code is MS's private property. Companies do have alternatives to both Open Source OSs and,er, unOpen Source OSs should they care to take advantage of them. So, MS doesn't truly have a monopoly.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, as the article mentioned, this kind of thing isn't new. MS has opened up some of its code already.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
SS: in the economic sense MS most definitely has a monopoly. Simple test: were Microsoft to make a few more copies of Windows and try to sell them at the same price, would people buy them? No, not even at a somewhat lowered price, which means MS has considerable monopoly power.
Of course, most firms have at least a little monopoly power -- whether you focus on a firm's monopoly power or its competitive behavior depends on what you're studying.
So there may be situations where MS acts somewhat like a competitive market member, but I can't think of any. Just having other, vaguely similar products isn't enough, particularly as OS X and the more traditional *nixes aren't all that similar, so its disingenuous to call them competition in the same market, because they're not. "Operating system" is not a specific product, and will remain not a specific product as long as there are such broad differences between them.
The Linux distros and BSDs could be called similar enough to be thought of as the same product in most situations, so there's plenty of competition there. OS X is in some ways a monopoly case, but Apple's pricing behaviors clearly demonstrate a relatively flat demand compared to MS, meaning they act more like a competitive market member.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: SS: in the economic sense MS most definitely has a monopoly. Simple test: were Microsoft to make a few more copies of Windows and try to sell them at the same price, would people buy them? No, not even at a somewhat lowered price, which means MS has considerable monopoly power.
Huh? I don't see how MS is a monopoly when there are several flavors of Unix (including Solaris and AIX) outside of Linux (which is a market force of its own) for servers, and Macs or Linux PC's for workstations. It is possible to set up a business class network without any Microsoft products at all.
Just because they are the dominent market force for workstations and home computing doesn't make them a monopoly. Frankly, if MS was as willing as Apple has been to restrict what compatabilities and hardware that would be available to the users, then their OS wouldn't be the kludge that it is. However, it is the ability to slap Windows an almost any kind of PC platform that gave it its huge boost in the 90's. Apple, on the other hand, restricted their OS to a very limited (albeit slightly better) hardware base.
A monopoly is when there's only one choice. That is not the case with regards to OS's.
Posts: 218 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
WntrMute: economists consider monopoly power to be where an individual firm has a sloped demand curve. It doesn't matter how many (candidate) partial substitutes there are.
The colloquial definition of a monopoly is not particularly useful, and is not enshrined in the law, which most definitely does not say "where there's only one choice".
Of course, in a very real sense people only have one choice for a product like Windows -- think of all the vast differences between Windows and the *nixes; there are lots of important things (running certain applications, for instance) you can only do on one or the other -- that's proof positive they are not the same product, which is how you count if there's only one in economics. But that's not directly relevant to being a monopoly.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"However, it is the ability to slap Windows an almost any kind of PC platform that gave it its huge boost in the 90's"
Not really. Bill Gates is a business genius and worked at getting the foothold he did. There were other OS'es similar to DOS and Windows that ran on x86 that did not succeed, and it wasn't because Windows was a better product that they are practically non-existant today.
In fact, Microsoft tricked the stupid 90's Apple into signing away the rights to GUI. That is, Apple sued MS over Windows and made a deal. Apple sued MS again because they weren't keeping the deal, only to realize MS put something in the original deal that let them do whatever they wanted. It was a very stupid thing for Apple to have done, business wise.
I think the only reason *nix has survived is because it has a role in servers and Universities that MS couldn't conquer. Not that they don't try. MS regularly gives away their software or computers to markets they are trying to take over. (this is why I think their previous Justice Department "settlement" is a bunch of B.S.)
That is why the school of computing at my campus has Windows lab machines at all. They were practically given to them. The school prefers plain Unix (not even Mac OS X because of the cost and "who needs a stinkin GUI? vi can do everything you need").
Making more of Windows open source makes me breathe slightly easier. As a Mac user, I am constantly aware of the whims of Microsoft, as it could lock the Mac out of using certain technologies.
For example, they just dropped Windows Media Player support for Mac. I can only wonder what they are planning to do as this looks like a precursor to announcing their own video store (like Apple's iTunes Music/Video Store) and Apple users will not be able to use it. If MS made their code governing the code open source, then I would breathe easier.
The opposite could be said about Apple. It's Quicktime isn't open source, there isn't an official Linux version. And certainly they aren't letting other vendors in on their iPod/iTunes Music Store.
quote: In fact, Microsoft tricked the stupid 90's Apple into signing away the rights to GUI. That is, Apple sued MS over Windows and made a deal. Apple sued MS again because they weren't keeping the deal, only to realize MS put something in the original deal that let them do whatever they wanted. It was a very stupid thing for Apple to have done, business wise.
I wasn't aware that Apple had exclusive rights to the gui interface at any point in time. Can you link this for my own personal education?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Yeah, I had heard that both Jobs and Gates had gotten the gui idea from PARC. On reading over your link, I'm not sure that the statement 'Apple signed away the rights to GUI' is accurate, so much as that Gates copied/stole/was inspired by a lot of stuff that Apple did.
The information in your link is somewhat confusing. From reading it over, I get the impression that the person writing it wants us to believe that the gui was, as you claim, the sole providence of Apple, ie 'the look and feel', and MS only puts out its gui OS because of its succesful lawsuits against Apple.
I guess my question is, if that's so, how can anyone put out a gui these days without violating Apple's copyright? Where does OS/2 (which I know gates was involved with) and the Amiga come into all of this?
It's all very convoluted.
(By the way, I hope I'm not coming off too antagonistic. I'm enjoying this conversation with you.)
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was wondering how Amiga fit too. And even C64 and GEOS. (I don't know much about OS/2 except I think Gates betrayed IBM...?) I guess because Gates had the source code to Mac OS it became worse of an issue? I don't know.
There are also software patents. Companies can patent just about everything. You would be surprised. The iPod is facing a patent issue. Blackberry is being threatened with being shut down over a patent issue.
Anyway, my point was that saying Windows ran on all kinds of hardware is not really the reason it is in the position it is in.
Storm - I didn't think you were being antagonistic. Bringing up the issues only helps because I'm sure I've heard (and believe) more than a normal share of lies, and so I go and look it up on the web, and everytime I'm quite surprised what I learn.
For example, I read bio's on Bill Gates and they are full of love and praise, and even I have to adjust what I think because the bio's can't be all lies. But you lookup some of the lawsuit stuff, and you see a totally different side of MS, so you know there is an untold story in the bio's...
Anyway, the bio I read a long time ago (that I can't find now) said that Gates was raised to be a ruthless business monster. Of course, nothing else says that...
And I just read something that he has given more than 20%.. (30% even?) of his money away, does make things a bit different. But being the richest person alive... I don't know.
My mom always said being filthy rich is as obsecene as being a bum (or something like that). Meaning, rich isn't the goal.
1983 [January] Commodore introduces the SX-64, the first color portable computer. Weight is 10.5 kg. It incorporates a 5-inch color monitor and one or two 5.25 inch floppy drive. Price is US$1600.
Posts: 1209 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
human, I only used a trs-80, atari 800, and a commodore 64. Games only, of course. I also owned a pong console when I was a nipper, and I remember my step-mother bringing home one of the first laptops, a monster about the size of a suitcase ,with the insides encased in foam rubber, that had its own modem, that you would shloop the handset of a phone in to dial into her main frame.
quote: Anyway, my point was that saying Windows ran on all kinds of hardware is not really the reason it is in the position it is in.
I get what you are saying, and Gates' deviousness is legendary, but the fact that Windows ran on all kinds of hardware is pretty significant, wouldn't you say? Didn't it make a PC cheaper than an Apple by thousands of dollars, human? And, if guis are, as it appears, something that almost any company can use, it would seem to me that this severely limits the viability of macs.
I am constantly amazed at how accessible computers are now to the average joe in terms of price, usability and power, how even the cheapest (used 1 gig machines for under a $100!) can run most of the software that's out there now.
While I don't know intellectual copyright from a hole in the ground, I think we can all thank our lucky stars that 'the look and feel' of the Apple has not been so strictly enforced.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I get what you are saying, and Gates' deviousness is legendary, but the fact that Windows ran on all kinds of hardware is pretty significant, wouldn't you say? Didn't it make a PC cheaper than an Apple by thousands of dollars, human? And, if guis are, as it appears, something that almost any company can use, it would seem to me that this severely limits the viability of macs.
Sure it is significant. To consumers. But to companies? I don't think it is as much. Gates was always a businessman. The first program he wrote was a payroll app. He hit it big because IBM, the guys who made business computers, used his OS on their cheap computers. It should be noted that IBM most likely wanted the PC to fail, and I hear that is one reason why they picked Gates, because they thought it was junk and would discourage companies from using it and instead buying mainframes. Boy were they wrong.
quote:I am constantly amazed at how accessible computers are now to the average joe in terms of price, usability and power, how even the cheapest (used 1 gig machines for under a $100!) can run most of the software that's out there now.
I've always been curious. What is the total cost of ownership (TCO) for those $100 computers? I honestly have no idea but I constantly hear that Mac TCO is lower than PC's. And is that $100 with rebates? I hear rebates are actually really deceptive as you can hardly get them because the companies that give them out have all kinds of loopholes.
quote:While I don't know intellectual copyright from a hole in the ground, I think we can all thank our lucky stars that 'the look and feel' of the Apple has not been so strictly enforced. [/QB]
It wouldn't change things that much, except who has the money. IBM is richer than snot because they *do* own patents on technology used in every computer. So every computer maker pays IBM a percentage of every computer sold. If the same had happened with Apple and the GUI, it would mean Apple would be much richer than it is.
But I'm not so much a fan of Apple as I am Steve Jobs. Sure, he is an egotistical jerk, but I like the products he makes. I figure it serves the 1985 Apple right for giving away the rights to the GUI. I doubt they would have done anything decent with it anyway as they didn't really do anything right until they bought NeXT and thus put Steve Jobs back in Apple's fold, where he then went on to resurrect the company and eventually take it over.
I just wish they hadn't given it away so that Gates could take over as I think he is a snake and I am constantly wondering how he is going to hurt me next.
But I've been reading business literature lately, and well, the description of Gates describes all successful business people. So it only makes sense that someone like Gates would rise up and fill the shoes Gates currently fills.
Now that I think about it, I think the only thing that is really unique is Steve Jobs. People like Gates are probably dime a dozen. But where is there another Steve Jobs? (Just speculating)
Posts: 1209 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: I've always been curious. What is the total cost of ownership (TCO) for those $100 computers? I honestly have no idea but I constantly hear that Mac TCO is lower than PC's. And is that $100 with rebates? I hear rebates are actually really deceptive as you can hardly get them because the companies that give them out have all kinds of loopholes.
Thase are systems that I've seen used. You can't buy older systems from places like Dell, etc. My experience with used stuff is that it works until it doesn't, which is to say who knows? I keep everything that I stop using for this reason.
quote: Now that I think about it, I think the only thing that is really unique is Steve Jobs. People like Gates are probably dime a dozen. But where is there another Steve Jobs? (Just speculating)
I don't know. I am not heavily into the history of PCs, who invented what, as you can probably tell. I know IBM and Xerox came out with a metric buttload of patents for things. I know MS patents things quite frequently, as does Apple. Given the incestuous nature of IT, who can really say who is a genius and who isn't?
The problem with getting into discussions of who started what where, and who is a genius, is that you run into all kinds of hyperbole that makes it difficult to really say who deserves what. You say that Gates shouldn't have stolen Apple's ideas, and I can see where you are coming from, but I wouldn't be suprised if Apple has had its own share of lawsuits directed at it for copyright infringment. The blackberry suit as a recent example. All I know is that competition = good, and in this respect, I support the lawsuits against MS because it would seem to open the market. However, in this respect, I think MS's (to use your term) theft from Apple is a good, too.
In the end, I freely admit that I know nothing about the reality of intellectual copyright stuff. So, I think I'm going to bow out of this aspect of the conversation.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't know. I am not heavily into the history of PCs...
In the end, I freely admit that I know nothing about the reality of intellectual copyright stuff. So, I think I'm going to bow out of this aspect of the conversation. [/QB]
Heh... I don't really know either. I just google stuff when you bring it up. In fact, that was kinda why I liked the converstation because it gave me a reason to look it up.
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Of course, in a very real sense people only have one choice for a product like Windows -- think of all the vast differences between Windows and the *nixes; there are lots of important things (running certain applications, for instance) you can only do on one or the other -- that's proof positive they are not the same product, which is how you count if there's only one in economics. But that's not directly relevant to being a monopoly.
Of course there's only one source for Windows. There's also only one source for a Civic, one source for a Lays potato chip, or one source for a Whopper. Just because only Windows can run Word for Windows doesn't mean that a *nix is unable to also run a GUI or a word processor (there are in fact several very good ones available, and in a pinch you can get a Windows emulator and run Word through that. But why would you?) There are car accessories that are only usable on a Civic, after all.
I also think your argument about MS 'making additional copies available' is inapplicable, because at the moment there is nothing restraining sales of Windows OS's in an artificial way that would make that argument at all meaningful.
Also, both Apple and MicroSoft stole their ideas from Xerox PARC fair and square. Xerox had a chance to revolutionize things, but blew it. The company that attempted to create a monopoly was Apple, with their refusal to open up their hardware.
Posts: 218 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
What if there were only one source of cars. That is the more correct analogy.
quote:The company that attempted to create a monopoly was Apple, with their refusal to open up their hardware.
But they did license their hardware.
Licensing of hardware was not why MS dominated. It was luck (which is sometimes defined as opportunity meeting preparation--and Gates was prepared), and guile.
The problem with MS is that they used (still use?) their dominant position to illegally sabotage other companies. Who uses Netscape anymore?
There have been so many lawsuits against MS it is unbelievable. There are so many in fact, hearing of new ones doesn't even mean anything anymore.
Posts: 1209 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
WntrMute: but a civic is a very good substitute for other things (similarly for chips, et cetera), while *nix is not a good substitute (in the economic sense) for Windows in many situations. Are you familiar with the concept of an economic substitute?
Its clear you're not familiar with the basic economics of monopolies. In a competitive market, the per-firm demand curve is pretty much flat, meaning firms can produce a good deal more copies at the competitive price and sell them. That MS is not capable of doing this automatically means they possess monopoly power. Its not even up in the air; ask any economist if MS has considerable monopoly power and they'll say heck yeah. Its matter of basic definition, not anything that's particularly contestable.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Er, I wasn't in confusion that software/hardware could be patented, or couldn't think of examples of things that had been patented, so much as when something was not derivative enough to be said to be totally in the province of one company such that another company could not use it, which is kind of what I think the lawsuit between MS and Apple came down to. Or are you just using my 'ignorance' as an excuse to show a cool new Apple product?
Further, I recognize that Apple comes up with a lot of patents. So does MS.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
