× The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.


  • Subject: Re: no Java in XP Windows
  • From: "James W. Kilgore" <eMail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 19:25:18 -0700
  • Organization: Progressive Data Systems, Inc.

Chris,

This is one of those few times that I must disagree. :(

From my viewpoint, breaking up Microsoft into multiple companies will
not accomplish anything other than there would be two companies strong
arming the manufacturers.

Here's how Microsoft got the leverage they did (at least this is the way
I heard it):

At the retail level a consumer could buy DOS/Win3.1 for $99.
The retailer could buy it for $60.

Now in contract negotiations with PC manufacturers, Microsoft gave them
only two choices: 1) Pay us $30 for DOS/Win3.1, but you must pay it for
each and every machine you manufacture, whether you load DOS/Win3.1 on
it or not, or 2) Pay $60 for each machine that you actually load it on
just like any other retailer.

What this did was three things, 1) In a hot competitive market, it only
took one PC manufacturer to sign this $30 deal to gain enough
competitive edge that all the rest had to follow suit. 2)  It created a
disincentive for the PC manufacturer to care about any other flavor DOS
or competitive OS, and finally 3) (this is what I believe violates the
Sherman Antitrust Act) It forced any consumer to pay for a Microsoft
product whether they wanted it or not.

Just as a side note, it is my understanding that a consumer can not be
forced to buy a secondary, unwanted, product in order to acquire the
primary product.

Microsoft's defense in their contract was that noone "forced" them to
sign it, so it was the manufacturers, not Microsoft, that catapulted
them to the position they now hold.

By breaking Microsoft into two separate companies, there is nothing to
prevent the OS division from continuing the above practice while the
Apps division creates a similar pricing structure.

We would them have two amoebas.  Two very large amoebas.

J. Kilgore

Chris Rehm wrote:
> 
> Why, thanks for asking!
> 
> The point of breaking them up is to allow other companies equal access to
> opportunities to bundle with the operating system.
>
+---
| 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
+---

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...

Follow-Ups:
Replies:

Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.