Re: no Java in XP Windows

> 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.

The point being, it is perfectly legal when applied by a company that does
not have a monopoly because they do not force their customers to support the
new business venture. Their customers have a choice and can switch vendors.
MS doesn't have a profit margin of twice the industry average because they
"invest in products that people want." They have it because they control the
product that people need, and they tie to it other products they then force
their customers to buy.

> > 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?

My solution is to not let the monopolies control additional markets. The OS
monopoly should not be allowed to branch into other related markets. I don't
know that MS has been shown to have an application monopoly. I suspect that
is why the Justice Dept. felt that a two company split was enough.

But maybe I'm not really clear. I'm not saying that after they are split it
should be a free for all. MS would still need to obey the law. What I am
saying is that this split is necessary to get them to obey the law and it is
the first step in reaching a point where they do not need to be monitored to
get them to obey the law.

> > > 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.

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?

Don't pretend that this solution would suddenly make your option go away.
Right now, your bundled choices are wrapped into one big price tag for the
OS and you and I both have to pay it. But the truth is that someone
developed the protocol stack, and someone developed the compression and
backup utilities, and all that fun. Someone developed the browser, too.
There is a cost associated with that and it is part of the OS price.

So you want to use MS's, you click that option on install. I want to use
"Bob's Beta Code" for half the money, I'll click that option on install.

The difference between a breakup and no breakup is that when broken up, MS
will need to publish and provide information for _all_ vendors they want to
produce protocol stacks for their product. That way Bob has as good a shot
at producing a good product as MS Applications (or whoever). What it MS OS
decides not to? Well, then they just reduce the quality of the protocol
drivers being written, and open the door a little wider for some other OS.

But let's say the court decides protocol stacks are "part of the OS" and
we're dealing the browser. Since the browser isn't bundled with the OS any
more, well maybe it has to be sold at a price. You pick the MS one for $5,
and I choose the NS one for $4. Maybe if NS can make a few bucks they can
get their browser back in the fast lane and keep it from dying. Plus, since
people will actually be choosing between browsers, some people won't have an
IE browser on their desktop so HTML coders will have to actually consider
sticking to a standard and the HTML world might settle down. This could
actually become a real marketplace with multiple browsers supporting an
industry standard language!

> 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.

Maybe not, but it is another product I must by without a choice.

> > 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..

But in each of these situations you had a choice of NOT buying the original
product in the first place. You were not forced to buy your Jeep as there
were a variety of vehicle vendors, nor were you forced to buy your TV, nor
were you forced to buy your stereo. In each of these free market cases since
there is competition you have the option of turning down one vendor to go
with another. Since you can do that, market choices can affect the products
provided to you.

So, if enough people decide they'll pass on the Jeep because they don't want
to add the additional cost of tires to the deal, Jeep might change the
options offered.

But if nobody can pass on the Jeep because there is no other vehicle vendor,
Jeep doesn't have much incentive to change, do they? Then next year, when
you need to replace your Jeep because Jeep maintenance no longer supports
your engine and the new engines don't fit inside your chassis, and you
discover that the cost of those tires you DON'T want is now double because
they are a "bonus feature" you might be a little pissed, don't you think?

But you still can't change vendors. Why? Because there is no other vendor.
This is the problem.

>
>
> > 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?

On an ethernet card for your Wintel server. IBM knows you have the option of
swapping out their whole box for something else. They must walk the fine
line between profit margin and COO. They can charge you a million bucks for
that ethernet card if the cost of owning an NT server is two million.

> 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.

Well, I completely disagree. Splitting up the Bells had an effect. Over the
last several years we've seen them bidding against each other and competing
with each other to get into different markets.

> 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.

I am? I disagree. We are discussing a remedy for their illegal activities.

> > 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.

Hey, read that again! I said, "If Microsoft is _not_ broken up..."

> < LOT's of stuff snipped>

Oh, sure, now I'm wordy! ;-)

> Have a good night.

Thank you, and you too.

> 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
+---