GM had a relatively competition-free market?
I haven't been around long, but I remember another big competitor to GM (besides Ford) was Chrysler (still is). That's why they were called "the big 3". A smaller player that I remember from years ago was AMC (American Motors) who made Jeeps for a while. They were eventually acquired by Chrysler. I'm no expert on the market share numbers. I vaguely recall from recent retrospectives done on GM that they once had a majority share of the car market, something like 65% (don't quote me on it), but have since fallen to the mid-30s. So accepting the 65% figure for the sake of argument, that would leave 35% to split between the others, with Ford and Chrysler making up most of that, way back when. In terms of competition, there isn't even a "big 3" among the operating system manufacturers for PCs. There's just "the big 1", MS. Apple and Linux together don't even come close to the market share numbers of Ford and Chrysler in comparison to GM. Probably a better place to look for a comparison is in the web services market, among Google, MS, and Yahoo.
I think the downfall of American car manufacturers was a top-down management style, and yes, the unions. My guess is creativity was stifled within GM, rather like in the culture of IBM in the 1970s and '80s. I've heard it said that back then, at IBM, it would've taken 6 months just to ship an empty box. As I'm sure is the case with GM, there was an enormous amount of bureaucracy to wade through just to get anything done. GM and Ford are dinosaurs in the way they are organized. I'm not saying their product at a basic level is ancient, but rather their corporate structure, which was forged at a time when top-down, command and control management was seen as the best way to run a company. The unions reshaped this some, forcing the companies to provide ever higher salaries and benefits, which it's now looking like they won't be able to provide.
One of the main reasons IBM lost in the PC business is that, except for the BIOS, they left much of their IP in the hands of other companies. Once Compaq reverse-engineered the BIOS it was all over, but only because Compaq and others were able to make "clones" of IBM's PCs more cheaply than IBM did, and the fact that MS retained rights to DOS and was willing to license it to the clone makers. If others were not able to make 100% compatible PC clones, in terms of hardware and operating system software, the computer industry would be a very different place today. IBM would probably still be dominating this market as it once did. Back in the 1980s, before clones came along, there were PC "compatibles" that were kinda-sorta compatible, but they never took off. The lesson of the experience is in order for a competitor to have a chance, they either have to be a 100% compatible substitute for the incumbent, or they have to sweep in at an inflection point in the industry, and grab customers away from the incumbent with a compelling product, and hold on to them. Such instances were the transition from a command-line based environment (DOS) on the PC to a GUI-based environment (Windows, OS/2, GEOS, GEM, etc.) in the early 1990s, and again to a web-based environment (Netscape, IE) in the mid-1990s. MS won in all of these inflection points. Another one appears to be going on right now, so-called "Web 2.0", what could be called "consumer-based web services", with Google (though right now it's acting as Jonny one-note with ad-funded search), MS with MSN and "Live" services (rather directionless), and Yahoo (which is making its play in media).
In retrospect, MS basically used and outsmarted IBM. They used the opportunity IBM gave them to build up their own base of support among hardware manufacturers, ISVs, and in business. IBM believed that the real profit center was the hardware and that no one else would be able to keep up with them on that front. MS believed that the profit center was the software, and they were proved correct.
Today IBM believes that the profit center is not in the hardware or software, but in managing and providing consulting for IT operations. Hence the reason they sold off their PC unit to a Chinese company. It's been doing well with that. It's managed to raise its stock price from around $60, after the dot-com bust, to around $80 a share. It looks like its stock has been hovering between $80 and $100 for the last few years. Google has been doing very well, around $400 a share last I checked, though its stock has also topped out. Its market cap is less than half that of MSFT. So a more plausible argument is not that MS is in trouble because of commoditized software, but because of services. It's in the wrong market, though it's just beginning to address that.
"Let?s say 10 people could develop a reasonably secure OS"
I think you're rehashing the same argument that the Linux advocates have made for years, that Linux will take over because it's free/low-cost, and it's secure. Well apparently that doesn't cut it in terms of what desktop users want. It has not taken off as a desktop OS. More realistic folks than yourself who are not exactly fans of MS have said that open source is only compelling when it forges new territory, not when it follows a well-worn path.
I think Linux has managed to be compelling, because it was seen as the next generation of Unix. Likewise, Firefox has gained market share not only because it wasn't a target of attack, but also because it offered nice features that no other browser had. It wasn't a mere copy of IE.
"Office XP has a lot more features than OpenOffice, but how many of them do you actually USE?"
How many people use most of the features of OpenOffice, for that matter? This project is following a well-worn path. Look. For people who just want to write simple papers with a little formatting, different fonts, and some highlights like boldface, italic, etc., they can use Wordpad which has come with every Windows OS since Windows 3.0 (if not earlier). If people want something simple, they don't have to go anywhere to find it. And gee wilikers, it uses a standard format, RTF. For simple calculations, there's a calculator that comes with Windows. About the only thing OpenOffice does that you can't do with Windows out of the box is nice looking slide presentations. OpenOffice is basically copying MS Office, and is not as efficient a workhorse either.
People have used MS Office for the darnedest things. I didn't even think it was possible, until a few years ago, that there are many businesses who use Excel spreadsheets as databases. It does this effectively, up to a point. I personally wouldn't use it for that purpose. I wouldn't try using Calc in OpenOffice for that unless you like making a trip to the water cooler every time you open it.
"MSFT (Mr. Softie to the street) stock hit a split-adjusted peak of about $60 a share early in 2000, since mid-2002 it has never gone above $30 and, in the last year has hovered between about $24 and $28 ? not exactly a screaming bull market."
After the dot-com bust, MSFT was at around $45 a share. It split in '03 (I think), and has been in the mid- to upper-20s ever since. The reason it's gone to the lower value was due to the recent stock split. If we're comparing stock prices, I'd be more worried about Sun. Back in 2000 it was (I think) up in the mid-20s. It hit a low a couple years ago of $2.50 a share (dangerously close to a penny stock), and more recently has gotten up to $4.50, but it's hovered at $5.00 or below for the past 4 years.
"Competitors selling equivalent products for far less ? actually many competitors are simply giving away equivalent (even superior) products such as Firefox and FreeBSD."
This would seem to be infallible logic, rather like the logic that IT in the U.S. is dead because all IT jobs are going to move to India because they have billions of people (to our millions), and they work for $6 an hour. It really oversimplifies things. I've seen many OSS advocates use it, but from what I've read, the uptake has not materialized as expected for all OSS products. For the most part, larger companies have used OSS as a bargaining chip to get MS to lower its prices in contract negotiations, and MS has typically responded by lowering its prices to those customers until they buy in. I've heard more than one story (one of them first hand) about established companies that won't even consider FOSS precisely because it's free. I'm not sure what the problem is, but Sun may have provided a clue. Sun originally tried to give away StarOffice to corporations, and they weren't getting as much excitement as they expected. The reason? Customers said, "You're giving this away for free. You don't appear to have a financial incentive to support or improve the product. Therefore, we're not going to use it." So Sun decided to start selling it for $50 a copy. Interestingly they got more business customers to bite when they did that. The moral of the story is giving a product away for free does not necessarily mean that customers will clamor to get it.
Startups on the other hand are embracing OSS, mainly because of the impression it has made that it lowers the barrier to entry. You don't have to pay a lot to get the technology you need up and running. I suspect it's most often used for specific functions, such as e-mail, setting up an e-commerce site, community forums for customer feedback or intracompany collaboration, etc.
"Founders who build a company on one or two ideas become less involved in the low-level product development."
In case you missed it, Bill Gates resigned his business leadership position at MS to become Chief Software Architect in 2000, I believe, around the time the judgement came down during the antitrust proceedings that MS was a monopoly. I don't know what you mean by "low-level", but I think it's fair to say he's involved in creating the overall direction of many of their software products. From what I understand Larry Ellison got involved in a similar role at Oracle at around the same time.
I'm an applications developer, and I've used OSS in the past, and I'll use it again in the future, where I think it's practical. I refuse to use it, as it seems some do, to be politically correct, to rebel against MS. I'm more interested in getting the project finished in the quickest time possible, and so are my customers. I'm not going to make my job harder just to avoid MS. To me that's a fool's game. I know what it's like to work harder than I have to, using tools that are flexible, in some cases OSS, but which provide no assistance in configuring them to do what I want. I call it "do-it-yourself development". I like putting in some work to get a project done, but if a tool can help make the process easier, I'll use it. I don't care who it's from. To me the morality arguments that say I'm supporting a criminal monopoly that stifles innovation by using MS software are moot. If I take longer to get a project done just so I can be morally satisfied with myself, that I stuck it to The Man, is the typical customer going to be satisfied with that explanation? Are you kidding me?? Get real! If, on the other hand, they have requirements that stipulate that the software I write work on multiple platforms with minimal adjustment, then there is a definite business case for Flash, Java, or use of OSS for development of the project. I'm interested in getting the job done, not in shoving my agenda down someone else's throat.
Below I respond to past comments.
Tech Locksmith: "Eventually companies will run on hard times again and start looking around for a place to save money. I think a lot of them will ask themselves 'What has Microsoft done for us lately?' It may be too late to start learning Linux development and Linux security at that time."
You're straying into territory you know little about. I didn't really start familiarizing myself with PCs until the mid-90s. But the IBM PC came out in 1981 and took off. Was it too late for me? No. Having barely touched a PC up until then, I started developing for DOS in C right away. Later I moved to Unix (in C--was trained on that in college), and then moved back to the PC, developing for Windows in C++/MFC. Gee, Windows had been around since 1985. Was it too late for me? No.
I saw some comments about how MS has crushed all of its competitors. Not true. Here are some that have survived for years: Intuit, Apple, RealNetworks, Corel, IBM, and more recently Sun. There are some who have grown significantly even while competing with MS, like Red Hat.
jared: "Their only defense against many alternative solutions is to disseminate pure FUD about the competition (more of the same for Microsoft marketing) and hope they can scare people away from them."
I see plenty of anti-MS FUD out on the internet, though it's of a different variety: it's based on many people's experience, but not totally on facts. The biggest anti-MS marketing I see is that Windows is insecure and buggy, and that Linux or OS X are better for all things a computer is used for because they're designed better and are more secure. Part of this is based on real world perception. People have had bad experiences with Windows in the past. The difference now is Windows has more security features than it used to.
I got my training in computer science, and I don't accept the notion that either alternative OS is bug-free or 100% secure, or that all your software will magically be more secure running on either of them. Code is fallable because people write it. The fact is they haven't been truly tested in the wild the way pure Unix (not counting OS X here) or Windows has. Part of my reasoning is based on actual reports. For example, Apache, whether it's on Linux or on Windows, is easily hacked these days. True, worm attacks haven't succeeded against it, but vandals have gotten in too many times to count. It doesn't matter which OS you use. OS X does have security holes. I see the reports from time to time. The difference is the vulnerabilities are hardly ever exploited because it's not worth it to the perpetrators. What notoriety are they going to get by taking down OS X?? The point is every platform has its pluses and minuses. I reject the notion that any one is "superior" or "inferior". Each has its strengths.
whitedo: "all the Microsoft trained developers and MCSE geeks who by nature of their paid for indoctrination program become certified Microsoft product evangelists."
Technology politics is nothing new. I remember years ago I worked on a client-server Unix project. We developed it on SCO. The customer site used nothing but Solaris. We tried to convince them to let us deploy our solution for them on SCO. The sysadmins at the customer site threatened to revolt if they allowed the SCO box in. They insisted our software had to be deployed on Solaris. And so it was.
Joe McTroll: [The change to the worker contract saying that those younger than 26 can be fired w/o explanation/appeal to gov't] "This law is unlawful discriminating young people (are 24's or 25's inherently less responsible than 26's? why? which study or respected psychologist investigator determined it?) and also puts employers at mercy of employers."
You're missing the point, Joe. The reason why youth unemployment in France is so high is because companies are afraid to hire them. Why? Because it's extremely difficult to fire them. First they have to get government permission to fire anybody, and that can take a long time. I read a story several months ago about a trash collecting company who hired a young worker. The worker either showed up chronically late, or just didn't show up at all. Meanwhile the employer had to pay him. Finally the employer got fed up, made an appointment to meet with a government minister to get permission to fire him. It took a while before they could meet. Then the employer had to wait another 6 weeks while the government minister decided whether he could fire him. All the while he had to continue to pay the employee who refused to work. Then he finally got permission to fire him. After these sorts of experiences, it would cause an employer to avoid hiring ANYONE. It's just not worth it.
The reason this modification to the worker contract is positive is it will encourage companies to take a chance on young workers. If they don't work out, they can let them go easily. If they do work out, obviously they would want to keep them. Once they're past 26, then they would have to go through the difficult process to fire them. Personally, if I were them I would make it two years probationary for anybody who's hired, not just young workers. The reason being that the current proposed policy is going to lead to age discrimination. Employers are going to ask "How old are you?" If you're older than 26, tough luck. But hey, there's a 24-year-old over there. "I'll hire that person," they'll say.
jmgarvin: "First I'd like to mention Free Software does not suggest it is free, as in free beer. It means the software is free as in free intellectually."
Yes, yes. I know you guys like to talk about this, but that isn't the reason most companies adopt it. They like it because it's free, as in beer. I worked on a project last year where I used a FLOSS web control. I looked at the license, and all I was really interested in was whether it would be legal for me to use it in my project. Turns out it was, but I had to wade through paragraphs of this ideological diatribe about how "open source was about sharing" and all its other virtues. I could've cared less. I just wanted to use it. I wasn't interested in being converted.
jmgarvin: "It seems like many IT folks are so averse to choice that they'd rather stick with a kludgy OS than move to an OS with choice to it."
I moved to Windows from Unix because it has better support for RAD, both for GUI apps. and the web. Speed of development is what I'm interested in. I like to design things well, but I don't like a lot of busywork if I can avoid it.
Eclipse is the most promising OSS dev. tool I've heard about, though it appears to have limited web development capabilities.
Even better, trust Jesus Christ , the Way the Truth and the Life. Windows and Linux and MacOSX are one day going to perish in supernatural Divinely-Ordered ultrathermal destruction, but those who believe in Jesus Christ and receive His Love will enjoy being taken up to heaven and be supernaturally transformed into immortals. That beats sitting in front of a bash prompt or VS2005 project anytime 
