Re: No Microsoft Breakup

[Chris Rehm <javadisciple@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thursday 06 September 2001 09:17 am, Jim Damato wrote:
> I agree, though with the browser it should be a non-issue.  The browser was
> once a software product, now it's an interface.  I think that eventually we
> should reach a point where we don't conspicuously "launch" the browser.
> Whether you're pulling up a spreadsheet or an app or a web page or a folder
> the interface should be a seamless integration of the OS and the desktop.
>
> Bundling Word, Excel, or PowerPoint while making it difficult for
> competitors to develop alternative products is one thing.  To me the
> browser is on it's way to becoming a part of the operating system --
> something that competitors shouldn't need to develop.  Maybe it's like
> wanting to develop a different command prompt for DOS.

Which is exactly the point. The browser is an interface accessing remote
machines. When the browser was invented, it created a threat to the Windows
monopoly. But because Netscape couldn't bundle they could not stop Microsoft
from stealing this market from them. Thus allowing the monopoly power over
the OS market to be used to crush innovation. Once the browser threat is
under control, use the control of the browser market to further destroy
threats, like say, eliminating non-Microsoft technologies.

The browser is, essentially, a high level language interpreter. I don't see
any way to say that is "part of the OS." I also don't see any reason why
companies wishing to compete with IE shouldn't be allowed equal access to the
Windows API and to the opportunity to bundle with the OS.

> Do you think there's a difference between bundling and integration?

Yes. They need not be mutually inclusive nor exclusive.

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