|
> > My feeling is that at this time and for some time to come Microsoft has a > > tight control on the OS and desktop applications market. So, I think that > > associating either of those groups with another area of technology lets > the > > new product gain acceptance through Microsoft's ability to push it into > the > > market. > > Please reiterate. I don't think I understand what you mean. Since Microsoft has both a tight control on the OS market and a tight control on the Applications market, if you let either of the two associate closely with another area of technology they can use their position to push that technology into the marketplace using monopoly control. So I really prefer splitting off Internet technologies into another group. I think this is more important right now because there is a lot of change in how things are being done. I'd prefer it if the market could influence things rather than just MS pushing a technology on the market. > But that's the $64K question; how is a breakup going to achieve your > objective - which is essentially a dramatic reduction in marketshare for MS' > products. Actually, that isn't my objective at all. What I want is that the best technology/price/performance provider have the marketplace. I personally feel that if MS is forced to compete that they will. Look at the difference in how they have behaved in the desktop and server markets. Microsoft has spent the last 9 years readying their server software. That is what is supposed to happen. But in the desktop marketplace, they force a new technology on the market at their own timing. Holding back technology when their licensing with other companies makes it prudent, and forcing unready products on users. Now, their ability to force the desktop has influenced the server marketplace. But they are far from winning it. They compete with Unix variants and IBM's variety of OSs. All I want is to see the same form of competition exist in the low end of the marketplace. I think that the lack of competition in the desktop marketplace really hurts the server marketplace. After all, to the user, the server is no more reliable than their desktop. The server is no more feature rich than they have access to from their desktop. The server is no more user friendly than is provided by their desktop. If one server environment has the fast track to providing services to the desktop then it has an advantage in competing. > > If it does become the defacto front end, then it could be that if it is > tied > > to either of MS's other companies then this would just grow into another > > monopoly problem. > > It already is the defacto front end. This battle was won long ago. Well, yeah. Of course that is what the main focus of the antitrust suit was about. But it could be that now that Microsoft has been shown to have acted illegally, Netscape has the option now to sue for their own remedy. Remember, this suit is from the Justice department and its findings can now be used as statements of fact in lawsuits from those who were cheated by Microsoft. So it is possible that Netscape could in fact get a remedy of their own at some point that would require bundling their browser with Windows for a period of time or some such. > I think you're looking for a "fair" playing field. The problem is that > capitalism doesn't work that way. Well, I don't think so. I mean, I agree that there are always perceptions of unfairness. I think all we can do is limit how far out of bounds people go. When we see a company straying from the rules, we start our litigation. By the time we get a settlement, that guy has already looted the masses and we are opening the door for a new guy. But between the times when the market is held and looted by some goliath, we open the chance for the little guy to compete and innovate. By the way, I know that IBM has been every bit as misbehaved as any other company but I still find them to be about the best company in the world. I used to love the way IBM's R&D developed such incredible technology and the way their cross licensing deals opened the R&D channels to much smaller companies. This let the whole cross licensed marketplace develop along different lines instead of just everyone trying to invent the same thing. A lot has changed but I still like IBM quite a bit. Someday, when Microsoft isn't ripping me off every day, I may have good things to say about them. I am a forgiving Christian man. It is much easier for me to love a repentant sinner than one who continues to deny his misdeeds. ;-) > John Taylor 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 +---
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
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.