Text 1898, 307 rader
Skriven 2006-06-06 11:52:00 av Robert E Starr JR (2344.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: Atheists: America's m
=================================
* * * This message was from Josh Hill to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.m * * *
* * * and has been forwarded to you by Lord Time * * *
-----------------------------------------------
@MSGID: <69e982551s1prjdqmm1gvrlh08mltmg6d8@4ax.com>
@REPLY: <Kd-dnaIhFpZvmObZnZ2dnUVZ_vOdnZ2d@comcast.com>
On Sun, 4 Jun 2006 03:40:42 +0000 (UTC), "Carl" <cengman7@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>"Josh Hill" <usereplyto@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:nfh482pbp6knf8cvfdpjkh2g5qju85827c@4ax.com...
>>>> It isn't. Internet Explorer is an excellent example. When Netscape is
>>>> in business, the two companies released product after product, each
>>>> with loads of new features. But the moment Microsoft had succeeded at
>>>> driving Netscape out of business, they stopped all development.
>
>Yup, they drove a company that was giving away its product outr of business.
>A company that was funded by an ouotrageously overpriced IPO during the
>height of the internet bubble.
"Officer, arrest that man -- he just shot someone to death!"
"Nah, the guy he shot had a liver condition -- prolly woulda died
anyway."
>Also, you want to talk about taking credit for others work, consider
>Andresson.
>
>Then again... So what?
>>>> Not
>>>> only did they not develop or more likely steal (since I've never seen
>>>> them actually invent anything) any new features and technologies, they
>>>> ignored the new ones that appeared, such as tabbed browsing and RSS.
>>>> They even announced that Internet Explorer was a "mature technology"
>>>> that required no improvements.
>
>So what? A browser was never what they considered core technology. They
>got into the business in response to a perceived threat that they were going
>to
>be left behind. When they considered the threat gone, they went back to
>their core business. Until very recently, users thought it was good enough
>too.
>
>It gave Firefox and others the chance to catch up. It took a long time for
>Firefox
>to be released and most people weren't (and still aren't) screaming that IE
>is
>horrible.
I know very few people who actually know who are still using IE.
That's part of the harm of bundling: most people don't know, or don't
have the time, and will use the stuff that's on their computers, no
matter how bad.
And Microsoft is about to do it yet again, this time by making their
own search engine the default on Vista. Not only are they doing that,
but in typically underhanded fashion, they've made it unnecessarily
difficult to change the default to Google or Yahoo.
That's not competition -- it's the business equivalent of socialism.
>>>Why do you assume that MS is in the business of making a better browser
>>>for
>>>the sake of making a better browser?
>
>
>>> There are hooks such that others
>>>made add-ins that would do new things and MS encouraged it.
>>
>> Only because it had no competitive significance.
>
>This is so completely wrong you have no idea. If you wrote Windows software
>for a living you would know better.
>
>Microsofts puts hooks into almost everything it writes. You can automate
>Excel, Word, Powerpoint, Outlook, IE, and Windows itself. Almost every
>piece of software MS makes can be programmed to by developers. You can
>embed a browser into your own app in 20 minutes (literally...I did).
>
>Microsoft gives more code away than you have a clue about. They make huge
>amounts of documentation available to anyone (free). They give out SDKs,
>and now they give away a light (express) version of their compilers for
>free.
>
>They encourage writing add ons. In fact, with their IDE they have a code
>wizard that will generate the framework and most of the code for an add-in
>that works with Excel, word, or the IDE itself (I've written some of those
>too).
>
>Even if you don't want to automate Excel, word, etc...you can pass data
>dynamically with DDE or RTD. Do you have even thew slightest inkling of how
>many people do this?
>
>Josh, in this instance you don't know what your talking about. There is a
>*** huge *** advantage for them to do this.
I rather think yo misread me, which isn't surprising because I was
getting tired by the time I wrote it and said "nah" when I considered
clarifying it.
Anyway, my point was that there was no competitive disadvantage to
Microsoft from allowing others to write add-ins for their product.
Quite the contrary. OTOH, had they deemed the add-ins a threat, you
can bet they wouldn't have been there, or would have been hidden, like
the infamous undocumented calls that benefit their own applications
developers.
>> They're damned if they break the law, and all the evidence -- the
>> memos, court decision after court decision here and abroad -- says
>> that they have, repeatedly.
>>
> And lately the judge says they're conforming to the judgement.
>They paid their fines, they're within the court appointed bounds.
>Get over it.
No. The judge wanted to break the company up. He was relieved by the
appeals panel because he made the mistake of talking to freely with
the press, and the case went back to a gutless wonder who asked the
parties to settle. At that point, Microsoft's support of Bush paid
off, and the Administration corruptoids agreed to a laughably
meaningless wrist slap. I've no doubt that Microsoft has been within
the bounds of that sham settlement, just as they've complied with its
laughable EU equivalent. Though despite what you said
>> They're criminals, pure and simple, who bully their competitors.
>So does Apple. So does IBM. So does Sun.
>So do unions.
"So does Genghis, and so does Joseph, and so does Atilla . . ." Do you
think I advocate this behavior when others enrage in it?
><snip...decade old news>
Now you can argue that the letter you snipped is an aberration, or you
can try to prove that he's changed his stripes, or you can say that
the sort of behavior it depicts isn't associated with Grade A
assholes, but in a subthread that is after all about Bill Gates's
character and why I have such little respect for him you can't merely
write it off with a casual snip. So here it is again, and this time
I'll up the ante a bit by asking for a yes-no answer: do you think
that Gates's behavior, as depicted herein, is respectable or legal, as
opposed to oafish, loutish, thuggish, and low?
Seriously, Carl, there was a time when I admired Gates myself -- for
his intelligence, his drive, his toughness and business savvy. It was
behavior like this, reported in so many quarters, that changed my
opinion. And for that reason I don't think you can blow it off. That
would be like saying "What, you distrust Richard Nixon? But Watergate
happened a decade ago."
February 23, 1995
Via facsimile
Michael Spindler
Office of the President & CEO
Apple Computer, Inc.
10431 North De Anza Blvd., MS 38A
Cupertino, CA 95014
Dear Mike,
<snip>
Only yesterday did we see the February 13 letter from Mr. Stead to
Judge Sporkin. Mr. Stead failed to provide a copy of the letter to
the DOJ or Microsoft. In this letter Mr. Stead alleges that during
our January 13 meeting we threatened to discontinue our Macintosh
software if you continued to develop OpenDoc. This is also not true.
Our whole message during the meeting was about our commitment to the
Macintosh. We did not suggest that Apple should drop OpenDoc or that
we would discontinue our Macintosh development. We did say that,
as we presently understand OpenDoc, it is not clear how we can support
it in our applications. We asked that Mr. Nagel meet with Mr. Heinen
to see if OLE and OpenDoc can be brought closer together so that all
Macintosh ISVs who also develop for the Windows platform will be able
to support both OpenDoc and OLE. We believe this would be in the best
interest of the entire industry. We feel that as presently defined
OpenDoc and OLE will have very little interoperability despite what
users have been lead to expect.
<snip>
Best regards,
Bill Gates
Chairman & CEO
Michael Spindler
February 23, 1995
>>>> Then, when Firefox became popular, MS suddenly woke up and announced a
>>>> new version of IE. And so it goes in area after area. No one would
>>>> even dream of building a better word processor or spreadsheet now,
>>>> because they know that MS would use its monopoly position to drive
>>>> them out of business.
>>>
>>>OpenOffice is trying. They have a ways to go, but they also have a lot
>>>of MS hating people that are a ready to go for them.
>>
>> A tiny percentage, because it's very difficult to use anything but MS
>> software.
>
>Garbage. You can...tonight...download a free OS (one of several HUNDRED
>Linux distributions) and also download Open Office, FireFox, Thunderbird and
>others for free and have at it.
>
>I will grant you that to configure Linux can be trying sometimes, depending
>on your hardware and the distribution...but you can't blame MS for that.
First of all, most people can't do that. And second of all, even those
of us who can are typically stuck with MS software because of one or
another indispensable application. Experience taught me long ago that
using non-standard applications was a mistake in a business setting --
it just took too long to get the files up on the client's machine, and
there were always problems, and it was not something that the client
appreciated or understood. So while I would use and recommend Linux in
an appropriate application, no, I don't think you can say that it's
anything but difficult to use non-MS software. I don't even do it at
home: I would have to jump through too many hoops to do so.
>>>> Software improvements have been left to niche
>>>> companies and public groups like Mozilla.
>>>
>>>That's great! It allows the companies that are good at innovation to do
>>>it.
>>>So?
>>
>> I said "niche." We need major apps, not just little shareware apps and
>> shady file sharing protocols.
>
>Josh...See the list above. On top of that you can get one of several free
>SQL databases such as FreeSQL or MySQL. You can get all of the above
>software (except Linux of course) to run on Windows too. Most Linux
>devotees claim that is all 80% of all users ever need.
>
>You also seem to ignore that there is a HUGE amount of software written for
>the Windows platform that is tailered for business. Almost all of this is
>not written by MS. If all you notice is little niche apps that run on
>Windows besides Office, you're not looking very hard.
Big niche apps, then. Same thing. I use my share of third-party
programs -- I'm using one now -- but Microsoft has killed most
innovation in the popular ones, the word processor, spreadsheet,
browser, media player, and so on, and now they're taking aim at Google
and the makers of antivirus software, just as they did at Netscape and
Word Perfect and all the others.
Don't get me wrong: Microsoft doesn't always succeed at doing this.
They tried giving away Money, but even at that price, they couldn't
touch Quicken, and IIRC the Clinton DOJ kept them from acquiring what
they couldn't conquer. They tried forcing that asinine MSN messenger
down our throats -- I /still /have to look at that annoying icon,
though they stopped trying to make you register. MSN itself was only
marginally successful at stealing business from AOL (itself an odious
company). And if I thought hard enough, I'm sure I could come up with
some other cases in which they failed.
That being said, they've succeeded more often than they've failed,
killing DR-DOS, OS/2, so many others. In some cases, of course, these
companies would have failed anyway, but more often it was a case of
Microsoft using illegal tactics to put them in such a weakened
position that the moment they made a competitive misstep or paused to
catch their breath they were out of business (if even that). And I'm
hardly alone in thinking that: the courts have again and again found
that to be the case, have found Microsoft to have engaged in
illegalities. In fact, I don't think there's a single antitrust case
that they've won.
>>>> Even Apple survived only because Microsoft found it legally
>>>> convenient to maintain the fiction of competition while it was being
>>>> prosecuted.
>>>
>>>Yeah, those poor Apple people that decided they were going to close the
>>>platform and keep hardware prices high.
>>>
>>>Apple wass a victim of itself as much as anything else.
>>
>> They made many other mistakes as well, e.g. putting resources into the
>> Newton instead of a multitasking OS. But that has no bearing on
>> Microsoft's behavior.
>
>It has a bearing on their survival (which is the topic that you brought up).
>Microsoft had no reason to go hard after Apple because
>for many years Microsoft made muich more money on Apple software than Apple
>did. Apple has always (rather stupidly) considered itself a hardware
>company.
Never said it didn't, though I don't happen to agree with your
argument here -- I mean, MS would make the same money selling Office
if everyone ran Windows. I've long suspected that the real reason they
bailed out Apple was because they wanted some technology, or because
they were at the time under so much legal pressure for their
monopolistic behavior.
--
Josh
"I'm not going to play like I've been a person who's spent hours involved with
foreign policy.
I am who I am." - George W. Bush
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
* Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)
|