RE: no Java in XP Windows

Chris,


> Well, I really think the point is that if you reach the time when they are
> two companies, then it isn't a matter of "MS" any more. Company A and
> Company B both have a self interest in profit, right? If you are an
> operating system vendor and one company offers you a product for $4 and
> someone else offers it for $3, you surely must consider the price
> difference, right?

Consider, sure. Accept, not by a long shot. I do some work for an
organization that consists of multiple independent companies that have
common majority shareholders. Each company is concerned with it's own
profitability, but never at the expense of the organization has a whole.


> It is not just between the company and its shareholders when the company
> chooses to pass the expense on, through its monopoly, to users who do not
> wish to buy those particular products.


This practice is not limited to MS, or to monopoly's in general. It occurs
in virtually every industry that I can think of. It's simply reinvesting
profits in research & development. MS just happens to be extraordinarily
good at it. They invest in the products that people actually want.

MS Passport is a good example. This will catch on like wildfire. Why? One
reason is that people are sick & tired of having to keep track of a dozen
(or more) different passwords. The industry as a whole hasn't taken steps to
solve this most basic of usability issues, and that's left a wide open
opportunity for MS. Of course, they're not stupid, so they're going to milk
Passport for all it's worth.

>
> This is the same as if my water utility decided to go into the lawn
> maintenance business because they feel it is a related field. So
> they launch
> a big drive to install sprinkler systems tied to all the water lines. To
> fund it, they just jack up the price of water and services to
> their customer
> base.


I understand what you're saying, but we're veering off the focus of the
discussion again, which is to determine what effect, if any, will breaking
up the company have on their business practices. We're all in agreement that
MS has a monopoly. The problem is that once you split the company, by your
own admission, they will remain a monopoly.

The water utility is a government sanctioned monopoly. Along with that
priviledge, goes an accompanying set of responsibilities and rules that they
must abide by. Without accompanying rules on their business practices, a
split off Windows division will be just as dangerous as they've always been.

So then it comes down to what measures you can take to prevent them from
abusing that monopoly. In other words, what rules should you impose on them.
As I understand it, your solution is to prevent them from bundling any
applications into the operating system. Is this correct?


> > As a consumer, I don't see how forcing me to buy individual pieces of a
> > solution (TCP/IP stack, disk compression, backup etc.), and
> trying to make
> > them all work together is a benefit. In fact, it goes against
> some of the
> > very principles that this community (AS/400) values so highly. Aren't we
> > regularily preaching the virtues of a fully integrated system?
>
> So then we agree! After all, What Microsoft has been doing for years is in
> fact forcing you to buy individual pieces of a solution (TCP/IP
> stack, disk
> compression, backup, etc.) all bundled with their operating
> system.

Huh? We're not even on the same page. What I'm saying is that I don't want
to choose an TCP/IP stack, disk compression, etc., and be left with the
responsibility of making sure that they all work together. I *want* MS to
provide those essential services within the OS; to make them work; and to
support them.

If someone else comes along with a product that is substantially better than
what I can find in the OS, then it might still be worth my while to go to
the trouble, and expense of implementing it. There are many good examples of
this working in practice, one of which is the backup utility that I
mentioned. MS has one in the OS that serves my personal needs adequately,
yet I still ended up buying ArcServe to run at the office. To be sure, Ms
Backup is not causing anyone who sells that type of software to lose sleep.


> You have
> never had the choice of not buying the components you didn't want and
> instead buying them from another vendor.

Only partially true. I have to pay for everything that's included in
Windows, but that doesn't stop me from replacing it with a better component.
Once again, this is common in every industry:

- I prefer to run Yokohama tires on my Jeep, but I had to buy the Michelins
that came with it, then replace them at additional expense.

- I'm not crazy about the remote control that came with my TV, but the store
wouldn't discount the price if I didn't take it.

- I like the Blaupunkt stereo that I had installed in the Jeep, but I'd
prefer a Pioneer CD changer. Guess what? Yup - no can do.

etc..etc..etc..


> Yes, we do regularly preach the benefits of a fully integrated system. The
> difference is, the iSeries isn't a monopoly.

But it is. Just on a smaller scale. If I don't like IBM's price on it's
ethernet card, where am I going to find a competitive product?

> That is because, John, you seem to treat splitting the company up as
> something that "hurts" Microsoft and fail to identify with the two new
> entities as separate companies. Surely it won't be an overnight happening.

Let me clear up something that you seem to be confused about. I'm not in the
least bit worried about what you do to hurt MS. I'm concerned that what you
do isn't going to have *any* effect on MS.


> There is no doubt that it will take time to reach two separate operating
> companies. But that should not hurt Microsoft in any way. After all, if MS
> Applications is the best choice for bundling, then that is the way the OS
> company should go. MS Applications would be free to continue its
> practice of
> only supporting Windows and Apple.

You don't have the luxury of time. You're concentrating on a battle that's
already won, and you're allowing MS to distract you while they concentrate
on the bigger prize ahead.

> If Microsoft is not broken up, then there will need to be government
> oversite. They have been found to be a monopoly that illegally operates.
> They can be regulated the way AT&T was when they were a monopoly.
> That would
> mean a court would decide on their pricing, how much access they needed to
> give to outside vendors, how much access needs to be given to their
> competitors, what lines of business they can move into, etc.

So then, we really *are* talking about court imposed restrictions on their
operating practices. The first time I suggested this, you disagreed. I think
we need to reach a definitive consensus on this issue. Either we're talking
about restricting their business practices, simply breaking them up, or a
combination of the two. The discussion can't move forward until we agree on
the subject.


< LOT's of stuff snipped>


I don't mean to ignore your other points, vis-a-vis politics and so forth.
It's just that I'm tired, and I need to get some sleep now. :) I'm sure that
we'll find some reason to debate those side-issues in a future thread.


Have a good night.


John Taylor

+---
| 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
+---