I don't think that's true because so many people will still use AOL that others will want to be able to talk to their friends/family on AOL and you can't do that with MSN.</strong><hr></blockquote>
expect this to change. AOL screwed up with broadband. People are leaving AOL for broadband in droves.
As in, I can put my MSN buddies into AIM and communicate with them while I'm using AIM and they're using MSN Messenger?
Innaresting.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Did I ever say that? No not even close. I said AOL users can use MSN.. you know the program? Innaresting indeed.
[quote]<strong>
I'm not following your train of thought here. Microsoft leveraged a supposedly-inferior browser to decrease Apple's market share?
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Well it's obvious your not "following me". At that time as now.. Apple isn't a threat to MS. 95% of Mac users where using Netscape. MS wanted to do away with Netscape.. get the picture?
[quote]<strong>
I'll disagree, I liked IE 4 much better than Netscape 4 on the Mac. I still don't like IE 5 for the Mac, so maybe it's a personal preference thing.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
That is a personal preference thing. IE didn't take over the Mac's browser mkt share until
1. MS made Apple bundle IE as the default browser on the Mac OS CDs or no MS office for Apple .(talk about abusing your monopoly)
2. IE 5 came out.. and was actually better in most ways than Netscape for the Mac at the time.
[quote]<strong>
I also remember there being a fair large demand for a Mac version of Internet Explorer.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Sure.. a non-sucky version. While IE 4 for the Mac wasn't bad.. it was buggy and didn't render pages properly. Netscape was still better and more supported.
[quote]<strong>
The Netscape and Java issues are completely different.
Why would he care if Netscape was the big boy if the plan wasn't for IE to be integrated with the OS.
You're putting the cart before the horse.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
No Bill planned on bundling IE with the OS then. The integration with the OS part didn't come till Win98.
[quote]<strong>
(And QT was far from "the standard for internet media")
<hr></blockquote></strong>
It sure as hell was. (And it's still standard in most things as well as Media Player) But at the time QT WAS the standard for media on the web.
[quote]<strong>
Thanks for saying something that had nothing to do with my question.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Yes it had to do with your question. Just because MS didn't WANT to support NS.. doesn't mean it had the legality to do so. As it was proven in court.
It's not simply the fact that MS bundled IE that's the problem. It's the way they did, and the way that it's part of a larger pattern of behavior, that's the problem. Monopolies have to be held to standards of behavior that wouldn't apply to smaller companies to make up for the lack of competitive pressure. "The market" won't solve anything because if there's a monopoly in place, there's no market to begin with.<hr></blockquote>
I know this is the law, but I don't agree with it at all. If a company finds itself in a position of being a monopoly, I'm fine with that. I'd be so angry if, when a company I owned reached a certain level of market share, the government then started imposing new legislation upon me that didn't apply to my competitors.
I have absolutely no objections to Microsoft bundling Internet Explorer with Windows, or integrating the two in any way it sees fit.
Unfortunately for Microsoft, it agreed a deal with the government back in 1995 that set limits on what it could do in making its operating systems available to hardware manufacturers, and it's this agreement that the goverment has used to attack Microsoft at the bequest of its competitors.
Netscape had a belief that its software could be a platform in itself, and was somewhat naive in making that assumption. If competitors want to make inroads into Microsoft's market share, then they need to provide software that bests Microsoft's own. If this means they have to create a whole new operating system before they even start creating a rival to Office, then so be it.
And though I'm in agreement with Apple et al that the proposed solution announced last week is unfair and should be treated with contempt, neither Apple nor Netscape can complain that Microsoft "stole" market share. If they lost it, they lost it because of their own business decisions.
Belle you forget that indeed the courts found MS guilty of abusing it's monopoly powers to gain other monopolies. Indeed it was proven that it did this. This is something that is illegal. Un-American.
<strong>Belle you forget that indeed the courts found MS guilty of abusing it's monopoly powers to gain other monopolies. Indeed it was proven that it did this. This is something that is illegal. Un-American.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I understand Microsoft was found guilty of "abusing its monopoly powers", but I don't believe that those restrictions should have been placed on Microsoft in the first place. As I said, it's Microsoft's fault for agreeing to the trade limitations imposed in '95.
If managing to gain a 90% market share, then using that position to increase share in other markets is "Un-American", then I'm ashamed to hold an American passport. If it can be proven that Microsoft acted illegally outwith the confines of the 1995 agreement, I'd be less supportive of its position, but I don't think it should have been forced into that deal by the government in the first place.
If Microsoft insist that every copy of Windows sold to OEM manufacturers includes a copy of Internet Explorer, I find that perfectly acceptable. If Microsoft threatened to withdraw Windows licenses from OEM manufacturers who chose to include Lotus or Corel alternatives to Office, or who insisted on also installing Netscape on machines, then 'd feel they'd acted in an "Un-American" way. Unfortunately, the government cannot prove this to have been the case.
When did I say the settlement was a good thing or that I was on Microsoft's "side"?
(If you care to read my posts I say on two different occassions that it's a stupid deal)
Sine:
Amorph asked: "We will see in a few years what will happen. MSN works with AOL customers doesn't it?"
Use some common sense. MSN != Windows.
"You can install AIM and MSN!" - Hey wow, thanks for the newsflash genius!
[quote]<strong>Apple isn't a threat to MS. 95% of Mac users where using Netscape. MS wanted to do away with Netscape.. get the picture?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Netscape was still bundled with Macs. Mac users were all very well aware of Microsoft's nefarious dealings (it's a large part of the reason to use a Mac, after all).
Mac users almost overwhelmingly use IE now, why is that?
If I made Mozilla 0.9.3 the default on every Mac are you telling me people wouldn't download and use IE or OW?
[quote]<strong>No Bill planned on bundling IE with the OS then. The integration with the OS part didn't come till Win98. </strong><hr></blockquote>
And it wasn't until Bill wanted to integrate IE w/ the OS that people got their dander up about it.
[quote]<strong>But at the time QT WAS the standard for media on the web.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's cute.
What happened to it, then? I mean, Real is still as or more common as Windows Media format. . . QT is still around.
[quote]<strong>Just because MS didn't WANT to support NS.. doesn't mean it had the legality to do so. As it was proven in court.</strong><hr></blockquote>
MS has to legally include Netscape browsers with their OS? I'm afraid not. . .
When did I say the settlement was a good thing or that I was on Microsoft's "side"?
(If you care to read my posts I say on two different occassions that it's a stupid deal)<hr></blockquote>
dou do but then you go and criticize Apple for opposing it.
[quote]"You can install AIM and MSN!" - Hey wow, thanks for the newsflash genius!<hr></blockquote>
I think he meant that once logged onto AOL client you can use MS Messenger if you'd like. which means nothing but anyways...
[quote]Mac users almost overwhelmingly use IE now, why is that?<hr></blockquote>
1.) IE 5 for the Mac is a much better product than any netscape browser currently.
2.) netscape doesn't come with macs anymore AFAIK and if it does IE is default.
[quote]If I made Mozilla 0.9.3 the default on every Mac are you telling me people wouldn't download and use IE or OW?<hr></blockquote>
people like us are the minority. the truth is the majority uses whatever they are faced with and whatever is default.
[quote]That's cute.
What happened to it, then? I mean, Real is still as or more common as Windows Media format. . . QT is still around.<hr></blockquote>
QT was and still is the standard. I encouter QT much more often than any other format. Real would likely be 2nd with WMP third. The only weak area for quicktime IMO is streaming content where I think real still has the edge.
<strong>If a company finds itself in a position of being a monopoly, I'm fine with that. I'd be so angry if, when a company I owned reached a certain level of market share, the government then started imposing new legislation upon me that didn't apply to my competitors.</strong><hr></blockquote>It's not illegal to be a monopoly. And no extra legislation applies to monopolies. I don't think Amorph stated it quite right.
It's just that before you can argue that a company has used a monopoly anti-competitively, you have to show that they are a monopoly first.
<strong>It's not illegal to be a monopoly. And no extra legislation applies to monopolies. I don't think Amorph stated it quite right.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The 1995 agreement between Microsoft and the government was an extra piece of legislation introduced to curb Microsoft's future actions because it was a monopoly. And while the law states it's not illegal to have a monopoly, that same law can also be brought to bear on companies which are deemed to have one.
<strong>The 1995 agreement between Microsoft and the government was an extra piece of legislation introduced to curb Microsoft's future actions because it was a monopoly.</strong><hr></blockquote>It's my understanding that that settlement was based not on MS being a monopoly, but on specific practices by MS, like charging an OEM royalty fees for every computer they sold, even if it didn't have MSDOS on it. I think that was the main issue back then.
I understand Microsoft was found guilty of "abusing its monopoly powers", but I don't believe that those restrictions should have been placed on Microsoft in the first place. As I said, it's Microsoft's fault for agreeing to the trade limitations imposed in '95.
If managing to gain a 90% market share, then using that position to increase share in other markets is "Un-American", then I'm ashamed to hold an American passport. If it can be proven that Microsoft acted illegally outwith the confines of the 1995 agreement, I'd be less supportive of its position, but I don't think it should have been forced into that deal by the government in the first place.
If Microsoft insist that every copy of Windows sold to OEM manufacturers includes a copy of Internet Explorer, I find that perfectly acceptable. If Microsoft threatened to withdraw Windows licenses from OEM manufacturers who chose to include Lotus or Corel alternatives to Office, or who insisted on also installing Netscape on machines, then 'd feel they'd acted in an "Un-American" way. Unfortunately, the government cannot prove this to have been the case.
[ 11-28-2001: Message edited by: Belle ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
I know the government proved that MS refused to make Office for the Mac unless they bundled. And yes OEM's where denied Window's licenses when they wouldn't comply. See it's a bad thing when one company has a monopoly on a whole industry. Not just for consumers either.
<strong>It's my understanding that that settlement was based not on MS being a monopoly, but on specific practices by MS, like charging an OEM royalty fees for every computer they sold, even if it didn't have MSDOS on it. I think that was the main issue back then.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Among many things, it limited the type of products Microsoft could insist that PC manufacturers installed as part of the OEM Windows installation - originally intended to prevent Microsoft from forcing manufacturers to choose its business apps to supply with new machines. It was devised to stop Microsoft using its OS monopoly to create a business application one.
It was this agreement that lawyers say Microsoft broke when it started providing Internet Explorer as part of the OEM Windows installer, and why Microsoft then "integrated" it with Windows to try and bypass the agreement.
Amorph asked: "We will see in a few years what will happen. MSN works with AOL customers doesn't it?"
Use some common sense. MSN != Windows.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
MSN messenger.. that is what I was talking about. You don't need MSN to use Window's client do you? I don't think so.
[quote]<strong>
Netscape was still bundled with Macs. Mac users were all very well aware of Microsoft's nefarious dealings (it's a large part of the reason to use a Mac, after all).
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Ever install OS X? it doesn't even have Netscape on the CD In OS 9 IE was the Default web browser. You could change it to Netscape.. but IE was STILL the default.
[quote]<strong>
Mac users almost overwhelmingly use IE now, why is that?
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Cause IE 5 for OS 9 is better. I never claimed otherwise. Did I?
[quote]<strong>
If I made Mozilla 0.9.3 the default on every Mac are you telling me people wouldn't download and use IE or OW?
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Depends. The people who have no idea about such things would continue to use 0.9.3 and it's Market share would go up. Just like the people that used IE when it sucked compared to Netscape on Windows.
[quote]<strong>
What happened to it, then? I mean, Real is still as or more common as Windows Media format. . . QT is still around.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Your kidding right? Look at any new movie release previews. Are they on Real? Hell it's hard to find them for WMP let alone real.
[quote]<strong>
MS has to legally include Netscape browsers with their OS? I'm afraid not. . .
<strong>It's my understanding that that settlement was based not on MS being a monopoly, but on specific practices by MS, like charging an OEM royalty fees for every computer they sold, even if it didn't have MSDOS on it. I think that was the main issue back then.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Bing Bing! Give that man a cigar. And that is how MS gained it's monopoly too. Why buy any other OS when your going to have to pay for MS DOS in the first place?
<strong>Bing Bing! Give that man a cigar. And that is how MS gained it's monopoly too. Why buy any other OS when your going to have to pay for MS DOS in the first place?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Microsoft offered a deal whereby hardware manufacturers would get large discounts on purchases of MS-DOS if they signed an agreement which stated they'd pay a royalty fee for every computer they sold whether it had MS-DOS installed or not.
The hardware manufacturers weren't forced into doing anything. It was their choice to sign and go with Microsoft's products over alternatives like Caldera's DR-DOS.
Microsoft's deal merely said "Stick with MS-DOS and you'll get a big fat discount". I find nothing abhorrent in that. That's business.
<strong>Microsoft's deal merely said "Stick with MS-DOS and you'll get a big fat discount".</strong><hr></blockquote>Yes, PLUS we get royalties per-processor, rather than per-MSDOS license that you sell. A discount was one thing, but the agreement said, in effect, if you want to license our OS, you'll have to pay a penalty for any other OS that you want to license and sell, too. You've got to hand it to them for brilliant tactics, that's for sure.
Anyway, my point was just that MS wasn't being investigated merely for being a monopoly, it was for specific practices.
Yeah and they signed the agreement, boo-freakin'-hoo.
Netscape killed itself. If anything all the publicity from the anti-trust case should have given Netscape even more exposure. Inferior product, dead.
Netscape isn't on the OSX CD, whose fault is that? Microsoft's evil business dealings again?
[quote]<strong>Your kidding right? Look at any new movie release previews. Are they on Real? Hell it's hard to find them for WMP let alone real</strong><hr></blockquote>
Bother reading what I said?
You alluded to some evil plan of MS's to kill QT but it's still around. I said nothing of Real's dominance over one or the other. Is QT not still around? Are Windowsmedia and Real not competitive?
Here's my point:
There is nothing wrong with a company pushing their own money makers.
The very thing you want to crucify Microsoft for is what Apple and all other corporations do daily.
<strong>Yes, PLUS we get royalties per-processor, rather than per-MSDOS license that you sell. A discount was one thing, but the agreement said, in effect, if you want to license our OS, you'll have to pay a penalty for any other OS that you want to license and sell, too. You've got to hand it to them for brilliant tactics, that's for sure.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Heh, you're not kidding. I still think it's a matter for the manufacturer to decide, not the law. If the manufacturers didn't like it, they could have looked elsewhere. I would most certainly not argue that Microsoft are sly, but in most cases it appears that legal measures have been brought in after the fact to prop up naive companies.
I wonder what would have happened if Apple had offered its system software for Intel-based hardware at that time?
[quote]<strong>Anyway, my point was just that MS wasn't being investigated merely for being a monopoly, it was for specific practices.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Understood. It's hard to keep up with the different threads in this discussion. I wonder though, if Microsoft had held a 5% share at the time, would anyone have cared whether they were using such practices to increase market share?
What jobs said is exactly what i thoght when I first herd that setelment. it is just What M$ whants, to impose into the edication market and look good wail doing it (like they are giving back to the comunitys). This is totaly BS!! Why not just Make M$ pay a fin. Why have them give there monopilistc software to schools. That is just a stupid idea.
Comments
<strong>
I don't think that's true because so many people will still use AOL that others will want to be able to talk to their friends/family on AOL and you can't do that with MSN.</strong><hr></blockquote>
expect this to change. AOL screwed up with broadband. People are leaving AOL for broadband in droves.
As in, I can put my MSN buddies into AIM and communicate with them while I'm using AIM and they're using MSN Messenger?
Innaresting.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Did I ever say that? No not even close. I said AOL users can use MSN.. you know the program? Innaresting indeed.
[quote]<strong>
I'm not following your train of thought here. Microsoft leveraged a supposedly-inferior browser to decrease Apple's market share?
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Well it's obvious your not "following me". At that time as now.. Apple isn't a threat to MS. 95% of Mac users where using Netscape. MS wanted to do away with Netscape.. get the picture?
[quote]<strong>
I'll disagree, I liked IE 4 much better than Netscape 4 on the Mac. I still don't like IE 5 for the Mac, so maybe it's a personal preference thing.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
That is a personal preference thing. IE didn't take over the Mac's browser mkt share until
1. MS made Apple bundle IE as the default browser on the Mac OS CDs or no MS office for Apple .(talk about abusing your monopoly)
2. IE 5 came out.. and was actually better in most ways than Netscape for the Mac at the time.
[quote]<strong>
I also remember there being a fair large demand for a Mac version of Internet Explorer.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Sure.. a non-sucky version. While IE 4 for the Mac wasn't bad.. it was buggy and didn't render pages properly. Netscape was still better and more supported.
[quote]<strong>
The Netscape and Java issues are completely different.
Why would he care if Netscape was the big boy if the plan wasn't for IE to be integrated with the OS.
You're putting the cart before the horse.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
No Bill planned on bundling IE with the OS then. The integration with the OS part didn't come till Win98.
[quote]<strong>
(And QT was far from "the standard for internet media")
<hr></blockquote></strong>
It sure as hell was. (And it's still standard in most things as well as Media Player) But at the time QT WAS the standard for media on the web.
[quote]<strong>
Thanks for saying something that had nothing to do with my question.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Yes it had to do with your question. Just because MS didn't WANT to support NS.. doesn't mean it had the legality to do so. As it was proven in court.
[ 11-28-2001: Message edited by: Sinewave ]
[ 11-28-2001: Message edited by: Sinewave ]</p>
It's not simply the fact that MS bundled IE that's the problem. It's the way they did, and the way that it's part of a larger pattern of behavior, that's the problem. Monopolies have to be held to standards of behavior that wouldn't apply to smaller companies to make up for the lack of competitive pressure. "The market" won't solve anything because if there's a monopoly in place, there's no market to begin with.<hr></blockquote>
I know this is the law, but I don't agree with it at all. If a company finds itself in a position of being a monopoly, I'm fine with that. I'd be so angry if, when a company I owned reached a certain level of market share, the government then started imposing new legislation upon me that didn't apply to my competitors.
I have absolutely no objections to Microsoft bundling Internet Explorer with Windows, or integrating the two in any way it sees fit.
Unfortunately for Microsoft, it agreed a deal with the government back in 1995 that set limits on what it could do in making its operating systems available to hardware manufacturers, and it's this agreement that the goverment has used to attack Microsoft at the bequest of its competitors.
Netscape had a belief that its software could be a platform in itself, and was somewhat naive in making that assumption. If competitors want to make inroads into Microsoft's market share, then they need to provide software that bests Microsoft's own. If this means they have to create a whole new operating system before they even start creating a rival to Office, then so be it.
And though I'm in agreement with Apple et al that the proposed solution announced last week is unfair and should be treated with contempt, neither Apple nor Netscape can complain that Microsoft "stole" market share. If they lost it, they lost it because of their own business decisions.
<strong>Belle you forget that indeed the courts found MS guilty of abusing it's monopoly powers to gain other monopolies. Indeed it was proven that it did this. This is something that is illegal. Un-American.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I understand Microsoft was found guilty of "abusing its monopoly powers", but I don't believe that those restrictions should have been placed on Microsoft in the first place. As I said, it's Microsoft's fault for agreeing to the trade limitations imposed in '95.
If managing to gain a 90% market share, then using that position to increase share in other markets is "Un-American", then I'm ashamed to hold an American passport. If it can be proven that Microsoft acted illegally outwith the confines of the 1995 agreement, I'd be less supportive of its position, but I don't think it should have been forced into that deal by the government in the first place.
If Microsoft insist that every copy of Windows sold to OEM manufacturers includes a copy of Internet Explorer, I find that perfectly acceptable. If Microsoft threatened to withdraw Windows licenses from OEM manufacturers who chose to include Lotus or Corel alternatives to Office, or who insisted on also installing Netscape on machines, then 'd feel they'd acted in an "Un-American" way. Unfortunately, the government cannot prove this to have been the case.
[ 11-28-2001: Message edited by: Belle ]</p>
When did I say the settlement was a good thing or that I was on Microsoft's "side"?
(If you care to read my posts I say on two different occassions that it's a stupid deal)
Sine:
Amorph asked: "We will see in a few years what will happen. MSN works with AOL customers doesn't it?"
Use some common sense. MSN != Windows.
"You can install AIM and MSN!" - Hey wow, thanks for the newsflash genius!
[quote]<strong>Apple isn't a threat to MS. 95% of Mac users where using Netscape. MS wanted to do away with Netscape.. get the picture?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Netscape was still bundled with Macs. Mac users were all very well aware of Microsoft's nefarious dealings (it's a large part of the reason to use a Mac, after all).
Mac users almost overwhelmingly use IE now, why is that?
If I made Mozilla 0.9.3 the default on every Mac are you telling me people wouldn't download and use IE or OW?
[quote]<strong>No Bill planned on bundling IE with the OS then. The integration with the OS part didn't come till Win98. </strong><hr></blockquote>
And it wasn't until Bill wanted to integrate IE w/ the OS that people got their dander up about it.
[quote]<strong>But at the time QT WAS the standard for media on the web.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's cute.
What happened to it, then? I mean, Real is still as or more common as Windows Media format. . . QT is still around.
[quote]<strong>Just because MS didn't WANT to support NS.. doesn't mean it had the legality to do so. As it was proven in court.</strong><hr></blockquote>
MS has to legally include Netscape browsers with their OS? I'm afraid not. . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
applenut:
When did I say the settlement was a good thing or that I was on Microsoft's "side"?
(If you care to read my posts I say on two different occassions that it's a stupid deal)<hr></blockquote>
dou do but then you go and criticize Apple for opposing it.
[quote]"You can install AIM and MSN!" - Hey wow, thanks for the newsflash genius!<hr></blockquote>
I think he meant that once logged onto AOL client you can use MS Messenger if you'd like. which means nothing but anyways...
[quote]Mac users almost overwhelmingly use IE now, why is that?<hr></blockquote>
1.) IE 5 for the Mac is a much better product than any netscape browser currently.
2.) netscape doesn't come with macs anymore AFAIK and if it does IE is default.
[quote]If I made Mozilla 0.9.3 the default on every Mac are you telling me people wouldn't download and use IE or OW?<hr></blockquote>
people like us are the minority. the truth is the majority uses whatever they are faced with and whatever is default.
[quote]That's cute.
What happened to it, then? I mean, Real is still as or more common as Windows Media format. . . QT is still around.<hr></blockquote>
QT was and still is the standard. I encouter QT much more often than any other format. Real would likely be 2nd with WMP third. The only weak area for quicktime IMO is streaming content where I think real still has the edge.
<strong>If a company finds itself in a position of being a monopoly, I'm fine with that. I'd be so angry if, when a company I owned reached a certain level of market share, the government then started imposing new legislation upon me that didn't apply to my competitors.</strong><hr></blockquote>It's not illegal to be a monopoly. And no extra legislation applies to monopolies. I don't think Amorph stated it quite right.
It's just that before you can argue that a company has used a monopoly anti-competitively, you have to show that they are a monopoly first.
There is a difference, I think.
<strong>It's not illegal to be a monopoly. And no extra legislation applies to monopolies. I don't think Amorph stated it quite right.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The 1995 agreement between Microsoft and the government was an extra piece of legislation introduced to curb Microsoft's future actions because it was a monopoly. And while the law states it's not illegal to have a monopoly, that same law can also be brought to bear on companies which are deemed to have one.
<strong>The 1995 agreement between Microsoft and the government was an extra piece of legislation introduced to curb Microsoft's future actions because it was a monopoly.</strong><hr></blockquote>It's my understanding that that settlement was based not on MS being a monopoly, but on specific practices by MS, like charging an OEM royalty fees for every computer they sold, even if it didn't have MSDOS on it. I think that was the main issue back then.
<strong>
I understand Microsoft was found guilty of "abusing its monopoly powers", but I don't believe that those restrictions should have been placed on Microsoft in the first place. As I said, it's Microsoft's fault for agreeing to the trade limitations imposed in '95.
If managing to gain a 90% market share, then using that position to increase share in other markets is "Un-American", then I'm ashamed to hold an American passport. If it can be proven that Microsoft acted illegally outwith the confines of the 1995 agreement, I'd be less supportive of its position, but I don't think it should have been forced into that deal by the government in the first place.
If Microsoft insist that every copy of Windows sold to OEM manufacturers includes a copy of Internet Explorer, I find that perfectly acceptable. If Microsoft threatened to withdraw Windows licenses from OEM manufacturers who chose to include Lotus or Corel alternatives to Office, or who insisted on also installing Netscape on machines, then 'd feel they'd acted in an "Un-American" way. Unfortunately, the government cannot prove this to have been the case.
[ 11-28-2001: Message edited by: Belle ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
I know the government proved that MS refused to make Office for the Mac unless they bundled. And yes OEM's where denied Window's licenses when they wouldn't comply. See it's a bad thing when one company has a monopoly on a whole industry. Not just for consumers either.
<strong>It's my understanding that that settlement was based not on MS being a monopoly, but on specific practices by MS, like charging an OEM royalty fees for every computer they sold, even if it didn't have MSDOS on it. I think that was the main issue back then.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Among many things, it limited the type of products Microsoft could insist that PC manufacturers installed as part of the OEM Windows installation - originally intended to prevent Microsoft from forcing manufacturers to choose its business apps to supply with new machines. It was devised to stop Microsoft using its OS monopoly to create a business application one.
It was this agreement that lawyers say Microsoft broke when it started providing Internet Explorer as part of the OEM Windows installer, and why Microsoft then "integrated" it with Windows to try and bypass the agreement.
<strong>applenut:
Sine:
Amorph asked: "We will see in a few years what will happen. MSN works with AOL customers doesn't it?"
Use some common sense. MSN != Windows.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
MSN messenger.. that is what I was talking about. You don't need MSN to use Window's client do you? I don't think so.
[quote]<strong>
Netscape was still bundled with Macs. Mac users were all very well aware of Microsoft's nefarious dealings (it's a large part of the reason to use a Mac, after all).
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Ever install OS X? it doesn't even have Netscape on the CD In OS 9 IE was the Default web browser. You could change it to Netscape.. but IE was STILL the default.
[quote]<strong>
Mac users almost overwhelmingly use IE now, why is that?
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Cause IE 5 for OS 9 is better. I never claimed otherwise. Did I?
[quote]<strong>
If I made Mozilla 0.9.3 the default on every Mac are you telling me people wouldn't download and use IE or OW?
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Depends. The people who have no idea about such things would continue to use 0.9.3 and it's Market share would go up. Just like the people that used IE when it sucked compared to Netscape on Windows.
[quote]<strong>
What happened to it, then? I mean, Real is still as or more common as Windows Media format. . . QT is still around.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Your kidding right? Look at any new movie release previews. Are they on Real? Hell it's hard to find them for WMP let alone real.
[quote]<strong>
MS has to legally include Netscape browsers with their OS? I'm afraid not. . .
<hr></blockquote></strong>
I never said that.
<strong>It's my understanding that that settlement was based not on MS being a monopoly, but on specific practices by MS, like charging an OEM royalty fees for every computer they sold, even if it didn't have MSDOS on it. I think that was the main issue back then.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Bing Bing! Give that man a cigar. And that is how MS gained it's monopoly too. Why buy any other OS when your going to have to pay for MS DOS in the first place?
<strong>Bing Bing! Give that man a cigar. And that is how MS gained it's monopoly too. Why buy any other OS when your going to have to pay for MS DOS in the first place?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Microsoft offered a deal whereby hardware manufacturers would get large discounts on purchases of MS-DOS if they signed an agreement which stated they'd pay a royalty fee for every computer they sold whether it had MS-DOS installed or not.
The hardware manufacturers weren't forced into doing anything. It was their choice to sign and go with Microsoft's products over alternatives like Caldera's DR-DOS.
Microsoft's deal merely said "Stick with MS-DOS and you'll get a big fat discount". I find nothing abhorrent in that. That's business.
<strong>Microsoft's deal merely said "Stick with MS-DOS and you'll get a big fat discount".</strong><hr></blockquote>Yes, PLUS we get royalties per-processor, rather than per-MSDOS license that you sell. A discount was one thing, but the agreement said, in effect, if you want to license our OS, you'll have to pay a penalty for any other OS that you want to license and sell, too. You've got to hand it to them for brilliant tactics, that's for sure.
Anyway, my point was just that MS wasn't being investigated merely for being a monopoly, it was for specific practices.
Netscape killed itself. If anything all the publicity from the anti-trust case should have given Netscape even more exposure. Inferior product, dead.
Netscape isn't on the OSX CD, whose fault is that? Microsoft's evil business dealings again?
[quote]<strong>Your kidding right? Look at any new movie release previews. Are they on Real? Hell it's hard to find them for WMP let alone real</strong><hr></blockquote>
Bother reading what I said?
You alluded to some evil plan of MS's to kill QT but it's still around. I said nothing of Real's dominance over one or the other. Is QT not still around? Are Windowsmedia and Real not competitive?
Here's my point:
There is nothing wrong with a company pushing their own money makers.
The very thing you want to crucify Microsoft for is what Apple and all other corporations do daily.
<strong>Yes, PLUS we get royalties per-processor, rather than per-MSDOS license that you sell. A discount was one thing, but the agreement said, in effect, if you want to license our OS, you'll have to pay a penalty for any other OS that you want to license and sell, too. You've got to hand it to them for brilliant tactics, that's for sure.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Heh, you're not kidding. I still think it's a matter for the manufacturer to decide, not the law. If the manufacturers didn't like it, they could have looked elsewhere. I would most certainly not argue that Microsoft are sly, but in most cases it appears that legal measures have been brought in after the fact to prop up naive companies.
I wonder what would have happened if Apple had offered its system software for Intel-based hardware at that time?
[quote]<strong>Anyway, my point was just that MS wasn't being investigated merely for being a monopoly, it was for specific practices.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Understood. It's hard to keep up with the different threads in this discussion. I wonder though, if Microsoft had held a 5% share at the time, would anyone have cared whether they were using such practices to increase market share?
Well I am done venting.
<a href="http://homepage.mac.com/mikesicons/Menu3.html"; target="_blank">