Wrong move for MS
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| r_a_trip Sep 04, 2005 7:40 AM EDT |
It seems MS just gave green light for OpenOffice.org or Sun's StarOffice. The days that MS could say "We won't support this!" and make it a no starter are long gone. If there is no reason to use MS Office, the reasons to use MS Windows are diminishing very fast too. Arrogance and complacency on their dominant position will be the downfall of MS. |
| tadelste Sep 04, 2005 8:17 AM EDT |
Sounds reasonable until you reach the point about "If there is no reason to use MS Office, the reasons to use MS Windows are diminishing very fast too." That's a bit of a leap. No one can imagine the power of Windows globally. We can double or even tripple their reports of installed Windows desktops. Microsoft's installed base is much larger than reported. The piracy pool runs higher than the paid Windows installations. In Iran, for example, they report that not a single Windows desktop has a license - yet M$ reportedly activates the users and provides patches and upgrades. As long as they do that - how does Linux stand a chance? If you study the World Trade Organization membership list, many of the 130+ member countries entered before M$ started making noise about piracy. Those member countries with massive piracy issues won't change. They may be arrogant, technology-wise they may be complacent, but from the point of view of political activism - they're neither arrogant or complacent. They may even wind up with two new pro-Microsoft judges on the Supreme Court. Mass is a win. But so was Bergen and Mexico and they turned around and went back to Microsoft. Linux advocacy isn't a spectator sport. We need Congress to break up Microsoft like they did with Bell Systems. It only took our Government 103 years to do that btw. |
| lordshipmayhem Sep 04, 2005 8:52 AM EDT |
Microsoft is suffering from the hubris of many other formerly powerful companies before it: the belief that they could dictate to the market indefinitely. I suspect that office productivity suites will continue to commiditize; in other words that the proprietary suites will lose market share to the open-source suites like OpenOffice and KOffice. I also suspect that while Microsoft fears this happening, they still think they can use their usual tools that have killed off or at least neutered so many of their previous, proprietary-software competition, in neutering or killing off the threat from Open Source. I believe they will not succeed - the software marketplace is undergoing a paradigm shift, from a concept of "shrinkwrapped software - the higher the price the better the product" to one of "hey, I want to be free to use MY data MY way." |
| tadelste Sep 04, 2005 9:01 AM EDT |
I hope you're right. |
| Abe Sep 04, 2005 10:06 AM EDT |
MS has powerful resources and will not budge easily. They are fighting for their turf and ultimately their survival. The war is intensifying. MA is leading the way on one front and we need others to open more to spread MS very thin. This is the only way we will succeed in getting rid of their abusive and destructive monopoly. It would be great if Congress can do something about it, but we can NOT depend on them. MS has it already covered like so many other institutions and organizations. What we need is more of an effort to enlighten leaders and people about the danger of MS illegal monopoly practices and the dangerous consequences from maintaining its chock hold on the IT technology and market. There are many LUGs but I don't know how effective they have been. We need more of an effort to let our state, county and city governments to know that we care about their IT expenditure and quality of service, especially at this time where many of these governments are struggling with keeping a balanced budget. We need to continuously send letters to officials like Attorney Generals, CIOs, School administrators, and every branch of government to let them know about how they could benefit from Open Standards and Open Source. We need to do that collectively to show that there is an organized groups who do have concerns and it is not a few scattered individuals. We need to let them know about what is being done or planned by other states and institutions. If they don't hear from us, they will not act on it. We need a “Get the facts” sort of a program. We need well prepared letters for many of us to send to officials. MS has their lobbying, which is legal but personally i consider it morally illegal. We need to counter this lobbying with votes which could be more powerful. I personally sent couple to my governor in Michigan. They probably didn't have much impact, but if there are many more, I am sure it will. If we keep pursuing hit and run approach, MS will counter and handle that without much troubles, but if we overwhelm MS with barrage of such letters, we will surely make a difference. For FOSS to succeed, we can't just sit and hope MS will go away, we have to work on it and show we are pursuing a novel cause that is important to us because it will improve our lives and future. Are we up to it? Any volunteers to write such letters? Are there such things on the web? |
| tadelste Sep 04, 2005 10:51 AM EDT |
|
| tadelste Sep 04, 2005 10:52 AM EDT |
>>>We need well prepared letters for many of us to send to officials. Abe - we've conducted lobbying campaign's in the past. Free Software and Linux users don't necessarily make very good activists. Also, even the best letter writing campaigns can be countered by a lobbyist in a couple of hours. Having some Microsoft employees or former employees with emails, etc. would do more good than anything. The man who blew the whistle on Microsoft in the 1990's trial, AFAIK, was under wittness protection. |
| dinotrac Sep 05, 2005 12:41 AM EDT |
Tom -- Congress did not break up the Bell system. That was done as part of a settlement between AT&T and the Department of Justice to end an antitrust suit begun in the 70s. |
| tadelste Sep 05, 2005 6:20 AM EDT |
dinotrac -- You're correct. The final nail came from the Justice Department. However, Congress did play an important part in boxing Bell systems into an uncomfortable corner. Throughout Bell's history Congress held hundreds of hearings with regard to the monopoly status. They prompted the FCC to regulate Bell and passed acts aimed directly at Bell. With our judiciary and current Justice departments, Congress might be our best hope to push for a breakup. Here's an abridged set of key actions against Bell. Willis-Graham Act in 1921 Communications Act in 1934 U.S. Department of Justice antitrust suit 1949 1956 Consent decree allowing regulation and restricting business from numerous areas including data processing Private antitrust suits against the Bell System in 1975 -76 as a result of FCC decisions US. Department of Justice in 1974 conspiracy to monopolize AT&T asked Congress to enter the debates. Holding hearings over 5 years on several bills (introduced beginning in 1976) to modify the Communications Act, Congress generated reams of paper and seemingly endless testimony. On January 8, 1982, Bell announced that the Justice Department's lawsuit had been resolved through the Bell System's agreement to divest itself of the local exchange portions of its 22 operating telephone companies. Have we seen anything like this against M$? |
| Abe Sep 05, 2005 7:21 AM EDT |
We have seen many cases against MS and I believe Congress and the Judiciary were not effective in the majority of them. As I said, MS has them covered already but I don't mean we we shouldn't try. What would be more effective and easier is to try pushing hard to enlighten elected officials, and in the process, the people involved in the IT decision making. In other word, make noise every where we can and some of it eventually will get some attentions. This effort does not cost much any way, but, it will eventually get the message to some relevant people. What are we going to lose? In my opinion, nothing. All we need is some talented writers, and I am sure some one like Tom, Dinotrac and other, with your experiences and qualifications would be ideal to do that. Myself, I am not eloquent enough. I am sure if there were well written concise letters and articles, for official not to get board reading too much, many FOSS supported would me more than happy to send them in their names. I know I will. There are many LUGs every where. All they need is to be encouraged and mobilized. Weren't the LUGS formed to do just that? The LUGS are concentrating on other people, why not include government official too? Why not get State, School, and company IT people by inviting them to some LUG seminars, meetings, presentations and possibly demonstration about what FOSS can offer? I think FOSS is now very ready for many IT areas, we should start getting more people involved somehow. |
| dinotrac Sep 05, 2005 10:20 AM EDT |
Tom - We have seen something like this against MS, but MS reacted differently from past antitrust defendants. In the past, companies reached settlements with the Justice Department. It's true that Thomas Watson, Sr. refused to settle, not believing that IBM had done anything wrong. But his son and successor, Thomas Watson, Jr, undertook a more reasonable approach to dealing with Justice. Personally, I don't know if it's necessary or sensible to split Microsoft up, but I am really angry at the current administration's hands off approach in light of the conviction. |
| tadelste Sep 06, 2005 6:45 AM EDT |
I'm extremely disappointed in the hands off approach and in their hiring Microsoft Lobbyists for things like Chief US CIO, The EU ambassador, nomination of the Chief Justice, campaigning for the governor of Mississippi. Should I go on? |
| sbergman27 Sep 06, 2005 12:54 PM EDT |
> Personally, I don't know if it's necessary or sensible to split Microsoft up, but I am really angry at the current administration's hands off approach in light of the conviction. I've never liked the dividing MS into two entities approach. The two entities would find a way to collude. Likely even three would find some way to conspire. I always liked the idea of forcing open the formats and protocols. As to the current administration's "hands off" approach, everyone who didn't see it coming please raise your hands. It's really more like "totally ignoring" the situation. The resolution of the trial was always a race against time. Time ran out before the penalty phase was concluded. We lost. (That's a slight oversimplification, I know, but practically speaking, close enough. Though it did result in the actual conviction being upheld again.) Fortunately, market forces do indeed act to normalize facets of the economy which are maladaptive". The bad news is that they sometimes act at an absolutely glacial rate. It would have been nice if the government had acted to help things along. But now we are left waiting for market forces to act. And they will. MS, or more specifically the MS upper management, (or even more specifically, Gates and Balmer) need more. More money. More power. More influence. They have 90% of the available computer users, and still they need more. China's a tough nut to crack, so they have to squeeze more out of their existing client base. It's an old story and a natural development for a monopoly which has escaped legal hazards. They are forced by necessity to dig, with a confident air, their own graves. But don't hold your breath. ;-) |
| tadelste Sep 06, 2005 7:32 PM EDT |
I guess if Ballmer and Gates would stop taking ED drugs all the time, they might calm down and stop wanting more. ;) |
| sbergman27 Sep 07, 2005 6:28 AM EDT |
Though I did focus on Gates and Balmer in my post, I believe that the underlying force is more generalized. A monopoly, in particular, a publicly traded monopoly, has a problem. They have a responsibility to their investors to grow their business and profits. And yet, they already have most of the available customers. So they have to squeeze more out of the existing customer base. At the same time, they get arrogant, overconfident, and perhaps a slight case of corporate arteriosclerosis. Meanwhile, the customers start getting tired of getting treated callously and the time is ripe for a younger, more agile competitor that has to care more about its customers to start taking hold, or for the whole market to become commoditized. If things work out well, we end up with a newly reborn "good team player" like IBM. Gates and Balmer do seem to have a certain need for more, more, more. And maybe that's typical of upper management in monopolies in general, and maybe it's not. But personal greed is not necessary for the market forces to eventually react. (But, like I said, don't hold your breath.) Since I'm already on a bit of a tirade, I may as well go ahead and spell out my view of how responsibility for any publicly exposed wrongdoing is distributed within publicly traded corporations: 1. I'm just a small investor. All I want is a fair return on my investment. Where is the evil in that? It's not my fault! I didn't even know about it! 2. I'm just an employee. I'm really sorry about what happened, but I was just doing my job! What's wrong with that? I need this check! It's not my fault! (Do a Google search for "Stanley Milgram" for a "shocking" slant on the "just doing my job" theme.) 3. I'm lower management. And I have to say that I am just an employee, too. I was only doing what the higher-ups ordered me to do. It's not my fault! 4. I'm middle management. What we did was necessary for the good of the company as a whole. It's not my fault. 5. I'm upper management. And I have a responsibility to our shareholders. They have invested their money, and deserve a fair return. There is no "fault" in this situation. We were merely carrying out our responsibility to our investors. Note that the snake just ate its tail. Also note that responsibility got completely eaten up by the rounding errors. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!