Discussion on:
View:
Show:
MicroSoft Breakup: It appears from the allegations and the findings that MicroSoft is guilty of committing the these acts, what I question is why is the government picking on them. As a Conservative I suspect the current Administration has many subvervise aims, not only for MicroSoft but for the entire society.
_Atlas Shrugged_?: (Reference to _Atlas Shrugged_ by Ayn Rand)
As an interesting aside, what if Bill Gates just decided to close down Microsoft and walk away?
On a more serious note, who will benefit from a break up of Microsoft? Separation of functionality into various separately installable and priced modules can only lead to: stalled development and buggier code as software is rewritten, higher prices to handle the additional accounting overhead, and more confusion for the end user due to a myriad of options from two companies. And if you think Microsoft "DLL Hell" is bad now, what do you think it will be like if other companies start writing their own versions?
Microsoft's break up may allow the creation of some companies which provide duplicates of current pieces of the Windows OS. The downside is that it will harm companies that try to build software which runs on top of the integrated environment. Is there "innovation" in rewriting the same software functionality multiple times or is innovation writing new functionality which runs over a growing base of common capabilities?
As an interesting aside, what if Bill Gates just decided to close down Microsoft and walk away?
On a more serious note, who will benefit from a break up of Microsoft? Separation of functionality into various separately installable and priced modules can only lead to: stalled development and buggier code as software is rewritten, higher prices to handle the additional accounting overhead, and more confusion for the end user due to a myriad of options from two companies. And if you think Microsoft "DLL Hell" is bad now, what do you think it will be like if other companies start writing their own versions?
Microsoft's break up may allow the creation of some companies which provide duplicates of current pieces of the Windows OS. The downside is that it will harm companies that try to build software which runs on top of the integrated environment. Is there "innovation" in rewriting the same software functionality multiple times or is innovation writing new functionality which runs over a growing base of common capabilities?
Huh?: I know that this is a relatively MS-friendly site, so I'll try not to waste much breath on this.
This is not a case of anyone "picking on" Microsoft. How anyone can put forward that argument after the trial is mind boggling. The evidence of MS wrong doing was overwhelming, and included clear instances false testimony and evidence tampering. People seem to forget that this ruling has been handed down by a judge that has publicly stated his opposition to break-up remedies in the past.
Hurting Microsoft will benefit the US economy long-term. Multiple companies competing without barriers to entry will feed the tech economy and provide innovations that a monopoly has no interest in developing.
As for Microsoft's "freedom toinnovate", they've always had it and always will. Come on, people. Give me one example of a Microsoft innovation that wasn't bought, stolen, copied or reverse-engineered from someone else. Hint: Unnatural and unnecessary coupling of products is not innovation. Innovation must add something unique and useful to the marketplace.
This is not a case of anyone "picking on" Microsoft. How anyone can put forward that argument after the trial is mind boggling. The evidence of MS wrong doing was overwhelming, and included clear instances false testimony and evidence tampering. People seem to forget that this ruling has been handed down by a judge that has publicly stated his opposition to break-up remedies in the past.
Hurting Microsoft will benefit the US economy long-term. Multiple companies competing without barriers to entry will feed the tech economy and provide innovations that a monopoly has no interest in developing.
As for Microsoft's "freedom toinnovate", they've always had it and always will. Come on, people. Give me one example of a Microsoft innovation that wasn't bought, stolen, copied or reverse-engineered from someone else. Hint: Unnatural and unnecessary coupling of products is not innovation. Innovation must add something unique and useful to the marketplace.
Microsoft breakup - not a clue: Anyone who thinks a breakup of Micosoft is good for anyone hasn't a clue to what is happening in the world of technology. If Microsoft can be sued now over Windows and office, will Sun be sued next over its Java? Willthe consumer actually save any money? Will the operating systems become any more stable? If losing on appeal will Microsoft actually toss out all its plans and current work on upcoming network operating systems?
If the government should go after anyone it should be AOL! Now that would really help the consumer!
Gee, didn't this all start because Netscape felt threatened by Explorer when at the time Netscape had the majority of installations? And wasn't the consumer benefitted when both became free? So the government sued Microsoft because it was the underdog and gave the consumer something for free, we will all pay for this great government boondoggle for years to come!
If the government should go after anyone it should be AOL! Now that would really help the consumer!
Gee, didn't this all start because Netscape felt threatened by Explorer when at the time Netscape had the majority of installations? And wasn't the consumer benefitted when both became free? So the government sued Microsoft because it was the underdog and gave the consumer something for free, we will all pay for this great government boondoggle for years to come!
Two future companies: Windows & Microsoft: From what I have read about the ruling the split of Microsoft would be more like an OS division spin-off. This would be the Windows company, two products Win2k and Millenium and possibly a certification divison for Windows certified engineer. The other company is everything else Microsoft, Office, Exchange, SQL, IIS, MSN ISP, MSN web portal, hardware, all the other various software, and everything else not OS. Most people I have spoken with are picturing a 50/50 split. It sounds to me like there will still be a very large and powerful Microsoft which just no longer does OS. With the current status of the non-os products, this Microsoft would be highly dependent on the Windows company succeding. How will Windows generate enough revenue by itself? Frequent new versions; once a year, or no more free service packs, or a basic OS which you must pay for additional features to run desired software, or who knows.
_Atlas_Divested_: I have to agree with WayneM above that it does seem a lot like Atlas Shrugged - even Microsoft has a Thomas Reardon (wonder if he's related to the Hank Reardon in Atlas Shrugged?) But I really have to agree with pallan and his post: anyone who has taken the time to read the findings of fact and is still spewing Rush Limbaugh-esque diatribes about how the government is unfairly targeting Microsoft needs to READ THE SHERMAN ANTITRUST ACT. Which, by the way, was not written or enacted during the Clinton administration...
This is a good thing, really!: I think this is a really great thing for both the technology side and the financial side. I do love reading all the fire and brimstone accounts of what will happen. Better is the conspiracy theories of picking on them. Wow even comparisons to Atlas Shrugged... this just surprises me coming from technology based people. Bottom line is MS is a monopoly and they exhibit behavior that is anti competitive and this type of activity is illegal when your a monopoly. MS acts on what it needs to do to maintain that dominance. It doesn't care about us, when has a 100 Billion Dollar publicly traded company ever cared about anything other than money.
Remember Ma Bell?: I may be dating myself, but I actually remember a time when we had only one telephone company in this country (for all practical purposes). The courts determined that to be a monopoly and broke the company into two parts - local service and long distance. That was what - 30 years ago? I was still too young to appreciate dialogs about the national economy, but I bet they were similar to the dialogs going on about the breakup of Microsoft.
Admittedly, the were some growing pains after the phone company breakup. That is to be expected.
What Microsoft was doing as corporate practice was wrong, competitors that wanted to run things on PC platforms had to conform to Microsoft or die.
If/when Microsoft breaks up I hope we see the same kind of innovation in the marketplace that developed after the breakup of the great telephone company.
Admittedly, the were some growing pains after the phone company breakup. That is to be expected.
What Microsoft was doing as corporate practice was wrong, competitors that wanted to run things on PC platforms had to conform to Microsoft or die.
If/when Microsoft breaks up I hope we see the same kind of innovation in the marketplace that developed after the breakup of the great telephone company.
Cry baby Bill: Microsoft is disgusting! I find it ridiculous that the main media is giving MS so much air time. If MS would have played by the rules then Judge Jackson might not have been so harsh. Bill Gates reminds me of O.J. Simpson in that he will do anything to get out of trouble! Why don't he fess up to the following:
He punished IBM for putting the Lotus suite onto it's PC's by increasing their price some 300%.
He punished PC manufacturer's for even suggesting that Netscape was going to be on a shipped PC.
He blasted Intel for suggesting that they where interested in competing in the internet software market.
He did everything possible to disallow the Java language from suceeding in the open market.
He recently lost the caseagainst Caldera and Dr.Dos as an indication that he has been a naughty boy for decades.
The story goes on and on......Microsoft cannot be trusted to tell the truth anymore than O.J. Simpson could pass a lie detector test.
Bill could have easily settled this out of court simply by stripping the browser out of the OS. He thinks he is above the law. What really erks me is to see him up there acting like he personally invented our current technology economy.
Give me a break!
He punished IBM for putting the Lotus suite onto it's PC's by increasing their price some 300%.
He punished PC manufacturer's for even suggesting that Netscape was going to be on a shipped PC.
He blasted Intel for suggesting that they where interested in competing in the internet software market.
He did everything possible to disallow the Java language from suceeding in the open market.
He recently lost the caseagainst Caldera and Dr.Dos as an indication that he has been a naughty boy for decades.
The story goes on and on......Microsoft cannot be trusted to tell the truth anymore than O.J. Simpson could pass a lie detector test.
Bill could have easily settled this out of court simply by stripping the browser out of the OS. He thinks he is above the law. What really erks me is to see him up there acting like he personally invented our current technology economy.
Give me a break!
Microsoft monopoly: I am glad to see that Microsoft may be split up, because maybe then we will see some real development in the OS arena. It has annoyed me (and probably many more) to see the enormous increase in PC performance being eaten up by every new version of MS Windows. I would hope that Windows become open-source so that we could see some real improvement of it, and maybe light versions for 486 or small Pentium models. The way Microsoft has obsoleted older computers by increasing system requirements is an insult to old customers. You might suspect they were conspiring with hardware companies to rip-off consumers.
Re: Microsoft breakup - not a clue: The point of the breakup is not to make the OS more stable or to force MS-Apps to use other OSs etc
It it to give OTHER application producers a level playing field with the MS-Apps people.
For instance no more changing of the OS so that office "features" work better (or at all!) or to prevent competitors products from working. No more hidden APIs. Need I go on?
It it to give OTHER application producers a level playing field with the MS-Apps people.
For instance no more changing of the OS so that office "features" work better (or at all!) or to prevent competitors products from working. No more hidden APIs. Need I go on?
Bill Gates the Anti-Christ?: I equate MicroSoft to Nazi Germany. They have all their Microserfs with their logo's on their arms and shirts....Bill Gates has the only way the land of computers should travel...Just read his book----That and Mien Kampf---Both blueprints for future life according to the writer.
BG calls the Supreme Court a bunch in ingorant non Legal idiots...He is fighting the appeal to the SC because they cannot handle technical matters.
MicroSoft for years has engaged in illegal business practices and got away with it...The majority of the judges ruling had to do with MS business practices....
We have a Government in place to protect us from petty dictators and it is about time they stepped in and stopped one ofthem.... Businnesses should not have the last say on every matter.....
Look at the Microserfs (including Bill) dump millions of dollars into the pockets of the political figures to get favorable laws passed....
As far as I am conserned let BG take his toys and go away.. I could get along with Apple, Linux, OS/2, smaller more functional office suites, Novell, Unix.....Think I am too harsh---Read the current EULA on Win2000 you almost sell your soul to install a copy of it on a PC........
BG calls the Supreme Court a bunch in ingorant non Legal idiots...He is fighting the appeal to the SC because they cannot handle technical matters.
MicroSoft for years has engaged in illegal business practices and got away with it...The majority of the judges ruling had to do with MS business practices....
We have a Government in place to protect us from petty dictators and it is about time they stepped in and stopped one ofthem.... Businnesses should not have the last say on every matter.....
Look at the Microserfs (including Bill) dump millions of dollars into the pockets of the political figures to get favorable laws passed....
As far as I am conserned let BG take his toys and go away.. I could get along with Apple, Linux, OS/2, smaller more functional office suites, Novell, Unix.....Think I am too harsh---Read the current EULA on Win2000 you almost sell your soul to install a copy of it on a PC........
Two issues, not one!: Some of the opnions declared above seems to have blurred together the two issues at hand. One is whether or not Microsoft did a 'bad thing' and got their karma balanced for them or whether the guvmint is pickin' on poor Billy-Boy. The other is whether breaking them up into OS and App devisions is good or bad for us and what to predict of it. They /are/ different issues. Even if you don't agree that Microsoft violated antitrust laws, you may agree that the separation itselfis going to open up exciting opportunities like never before, even though you have to accept that some evil may come of it. And even if you think Bill /is/ the antichrist and should be personally flayed, the breakup may also be a death knell for your personal five-year plan. As for me, I applaud /both/ the finding of guilty and the Final Judgement's plan. I love it, Microsoft is now a convicted felon!
Microsoft Division: Here comes Uncle Sam thinking that private industry should run like the Govt...More buracrats, more waste...When a company does what it is supposed to do...be profitable...we should stop it immediately!! No wonder the foreign companies are kicking our butts with the import deficits...Why wont the Govt stick to what it is good at...building armies!!!!
- Keyboard Shortcuts:
- Prev
- Next
- Toggle
