Re: No Microsoft Breakup

On Friday 07 September 2001 09:20 am, Jim Damato wrote:
> >So, basically, to you whatever the vendor says is part of the OS covers
> > it. If they throw in a monitor and a pair of boots as "part of the OS,"
> > then
> they
> >are part of the OS?
>
> Of course not.  This is silly.  We're talking about software, remember?
>
> >But what is "integrating the browser with the OS?" Just because I compile
>
> the
>
> >dlls for the browser and include them with the OS doesn't make it any more
>
> a
>
> >part of the OS than if Netscape compiled those dlls and included them with
> >the OS.
>
> You're deliberately oversimplifying -- They made IE the default
> presentation for the OS desktop and file/folder explorer.

I am not over simplifying. IE is a seperate application, running on the OS.
Just like any other file manager utility from Norton or any other browser
from Netscape or whatever. So why can't NS be my default presentation for the
OS?

Actually, this was part of the trial. Microsoft stated that IE could not be
uninstalled without crippling the system. The DoJ had an "expert" run
uninstall and remove it. As you know, that only takes a couple of minutes.
Microsoft said that to really uninstall it would mean deleting all the shared
dlls. Jackson didn't buy that argument. He found that the computer and OS
could run fine without IE. Thus he felt it was a seperate item.

> >To me, just because a vendor charges for something as part of the base OS
> >doesn't make it "part of the OS."
>
> My short answer is "Does too, Does too".

Then why are you saying that is limited to software? Why can't a monitor be
part of the OS or comfy boots? If your criteria for making something "part of
the OS" is that the vendor charges for it as part, then why would you be
offended if it included non-software. When IBM started including voice
technology with OS/2, they started shipping a microphone with it so people
could navigate the OS and the web with voice. Didn't that make the microphone
part of the OS by your standard?

> I could start a whole 'nuther thread on this.  There are thin OS's such as
> DOS and Unix, and there are OS's of varying thickness such as VMS, OS/390,
> OS/400, MPE.  Coming from an AS/400 environment I expect a lot from my
> operating systems.  I think that Unix is an unfortunate anomaly -- it's
> growth has been stunted by the standards that define and govern it.  VMS
> was an example of what could happen if Unix were allowed to grow as a
> proprietary OS.  It had better onboard disk management, process/job/work
> management, etc.  I'd be interested to see where it could have gone.
> Likewise, I'm interested in seeing where Windows will go as they add
> features to their OS.  To me an operating system is a broad term.  If
> Microsoft enhances Windows to include a database, performance monitoring,
> print formatting, change management, or web security I'll be perfectly
> willing to accept them as part of the OS.  If Unix standardized on a single
> file system I'd be positively ecstatic, even if five third party file
> system vendors went Chapter 11.

That and the rest of your post is pretty clear. It isn't that you have a good
idea what is or isn't an operating system. You pretty much look at it as what
software is bundled together to run your hardware. If that includes word
processing it doesn't occur to you that really isn't part of the OS.

And that is fine. My only point to you would be that you stop and consider
how this affects a monopolized marketplace. If anti-trust laws didn't stop
monopolies from bundling the kitchen sink with their product, how far would
kitchen sink technology go?

In this case specifically, Microsoft didn't invent the browser. How
interested do you suppose they would have been in inventing such a tool? If
not for Netscape, how far would this technology have gone?

With Netscape eliminated and the opportunity for any other vendor to build a
better browser and market it eliminated (since browsers are just part of the
os, right?) how far do you think the technology will advance in the future?

I express these questions to you to give you an idea of why I disagree with
your statement that Microsoft's bundling of IE with their OS wasn't a dubious
business practice. It was/is a practice intended to eliminate a threat to
their OS monopoly.

I accept that we disagree and respect your opinion.

> Here again you're talking about the rest of the case, not my original
> point. The Windows monopoly was in full force by the time they integrated
> IE.  This illustrates the dangers of the monopoly, not that IE was the
> cause of the monopoly.  You're saying that Microsoft can't upgrade and
> improve their operating system because people have no where else to go.  If
> there weren't competition for the AS/400 system would it be unfair for them
> to
> bundle/integrate DB2/400?  Since there's no competition for Windows systems
> will it be unfair when they bundle/integrate SQL Server and try to put
> Oracle out of business?

Yes on both. If there were no competition for the AS/400, it would indeed be
wrong for them to be bundling so much with the OS. I think the AS/400 is a
wonderful, powerful machine and environment. I don't think it would be nearly
as good if IBM didn't have to compete with so much in the market. As
consumers, we would all lose if there were not competing products.

Currently, there are alternatives to NT server. So I'm not sure it really
counts if they bundle now. That is a different market than the desktop.

> You're right, I don't have a strong idea of the nuts and bolts of the case.
> Still you've dragged the entire case and all the evils of Microsoft in
> against my three line statement.  I think 90% of your argument is well
> beyond the scope of mine.  The integration vs. bundling discussion is
> pretty interesting, as are the pros and cons of an integrated presentation
> environment.  The "what is an OS?" question logically follows.  I think the
> foregone conclusion of "is Microsoft an evil, twisted monopoly?" just gets
> in the way.

In my defense, I think we got there because you stated that you didn't feel
they had actually done the bundling to eliminate Netscape but rather to
enhance their product. I felt that was a very relevant consideration and
pointed to the case regarding that.

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