Re: no Java in XP Windows

> We're going around in circles here, and there's no way that the
conversation
> will move forward unless you're prepared to start being specific about how
> the breakup is going to accomplish your objective. ie: If it means
> preventing MS from including applications in the OS, then say so. If not,
> then tell us how it's supposed to work.

Not at all, John. I've been very specific. You, on the other hand have a
concept in mind that you cannot see around. I tell you what, so that I can
get an idea of how breaking up the company won't work (since my example of
the Bells doesn't work) please give me an example of where two companies
which are in different industries are using their monopoly control to keep
each other in monopoly position.

There might be an example, but I just couldn't think of one. See, I can't
see why one company would keep another in business. It isn't like the BoD
actually runs the day to day business of the company. If I am president of
Company A and I am running it to enhance profits then why am I babysitting
Company B?

I think your concept of the two company conspiracy is a little weak. But I
think the problem is that you don't really visualize the companies as broken
up. Or maybe you think what I mean is that once everybody is moved to two
different buildings, that counts as broken up and we can all go home.

But I see broken up as the two entities being separated into two different
groups which do not treat each other as if they are the same company. When
you say, "They'll just be the same as they are now." you are just saying,
"They aren't broken up." That is why we go around in circles. You say, "How
will breakup up change anything?" and then "They won't be broken up so it
won't change anything."

So let's try to make a little progress, okay? Will you admit that if they
were actually broken up into two separate entities that did not treat each
other as if they were the same company there would be a benefit?

In this fantasy visualization let us go to extremes and say that all the
major stockholders who were executives in either company were forced to
trade in their stock from the company they did not work for for stock in the
company they do work for so that they didn't lose dollar equity.

In this fantasy situation of two different companies, do you still feel that
the execs of Company A would risk FTC action, stockholder lawsuits, and more
actions from the Justice Dept. to help out Company B? When any disgruntled
programmer (and believe me, these programmer guys can be real whiners!)
could file his lawsuit with "I was forced to provide extra information to
Company B than I could provide to other vendors." and launch an avalanche of
litigation?

Okay, now, besides all that, it would really (finally!) be the hardware
vendors making the decisions on bundling, wouldn't it? I mean, MS OS co. now
just sells an operating system. If I am IBM PC Co. and I want to sell PCs
and I happen to already have a suite, I think I'll just bundle my own. And
my own browser, and my own TCP/IP suite, etc. If I am Gateway, I'll list
whatever I can give the best price on, and if customers choose to go with
the $40 savings by buying a non MS product, then that is what I'll ship.
Sure, some customers will have to choose browsers or email packages now, but
there will still be the option to buy the "full boat" MS Applications
package.

Now don't get the idea that I think or even intend that "Poof!" the whole
world would be non-MS products shipping everywhere! It would not. For
instance, if IBM wants Gateway to ship Smartsuite instead of Office (and I'm
just using these names as examples, okay?) then they will have to make a
financial deal plus deal with the support issues that Gateway faces in
trying to support and install multiple products.

What I am saying is that in such an environment, there would finally be the
_chance_ for these things to occur.

While a breakup would not be an overnight "world peace and prosperity" it
would be a move in the direction we need to go without creating havoc on
this industry.

After all, Microsoft didn't break all their laws on the first day of
operation. They spread it out over decades. So, putting things right will
also take time.


> > Great, you want to buy MS's solution. But I don't. I want to buy someone
> > else's solution for every single option I possibly can because
> > I'm tired of
> > being ripped off by MS, or maybe I just don't like their logo.
> >
> > Why don't I have a choice?
>
>
> In the interest of bringing some focus back to the discussion, I was going
> to cut out everything that didn't directly involve a solution, but I
> couldn't resist addressing this one. Let's be honest here Chris. Are you
> really running the Opera browser on your Windows desktop? Why not? The
> solution is certainly there, and you have the opportunity to buy it.

But John, I have already been forced to buy IE, right? When I paid for my
OS, I was forced to pay for the browser delivered with it. I had no choice
at all. So now you would like me to go and buy another solution as well. And
if there was a product for me to buy that I felt was worth using, I surely
would buy it. But I'd feel pretty ripped off because I was forced to buy IE
anyway, right?

So you feel I am dishonest because I am using the things I have been forced
to buy? John, what you are saying is that you are fine with the fact that I
am forced to support the software you want. That is the nature of our
disagreement on this issue. I have no qualms at all about allowing you to
continue to buy every crummy product MS wants to push into the market. But I
want the option of buying better products _instead_ .

But you opened the wound here, John. You want to know what really ticks me
off? When I was an OS/2 user and I wanted to buy a new computer, because of
Microsoft's illegal operations I was forced to buy a copy of Windows.
Because of their illegal packaging, I was forced to pay for the development
of their crappy, useless browser. Because _everyone_ was forced to pay for
their crappy, useless browser, the company that made a browser that I could
use and which was actually a good browser couldn't make money and lost the
ability to effectively compete. So today IE is as good or better than NS.
Not because it was supported by people who wanted to buy the product, or
even because it offered better features or was better technically, but
because MS had the ability to rip off people like me to fund it.

During the time I used OS/2, I was forced to buy more copies of Windows than
I bought of OS/2. Ripped off time and again to support a company that
actively sought to disable the platform I was using.

And then some guy comes along and says, "Honestly, Chris, don't you use the
free stuff that came with your computer?"

>
> John Taylor

I've gotta go put a band-aid on this open wound here. ;-)

Chris Rehm
javadisciple@earthlink.net
If you believe that the best technology wins the
marketplace, you haven't been paying attention.


+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---