“Not long ago, I went to Washington for a dinner given by a friend. She wanted to commemorate the fifth anniversary of the end of the Microsoft antitrust trial, which she had covered for a news agency and I had covered for Fortune magazine,” Joseph Nocera writes for The New York Times.
“The trial… woke Microsoft up to the fact that it was truly hated in Silicon Valley. It’s been trying to make nice ever since. It has settled a series of private antitrust suits – for some $3.5 billion – brought by rivals like Sun Microsystems. And it has worked assiduously to turn former enemies into allies. (Sun, which now holds joint news conferences with Microsoft, is a prime example.) At Microsoft, there is a lot less ‘my way or the highway’ than there used to be,” Nocera writes. “This is not an insignificant change – but it’s not what the antitrust trial was really about. The central issue was whether the company had an inalienable right to bundle new software products – a browser, a media player, antivirus software, a ‘ham sandwich,’ as Microsoft once put it – into its operating system. Whenever it does so, of course, it gives itself a huge home-court advantage: its software is suddenly available on over 90 percent of the world’s PC’s, and is usually the ‘default’ product as well.”
Nocera writes, “During the trial, Microsoft argued that when it added features to Windows it was helping consumers. To the company, its right to ‘innovate’ – as it invariably called the practice – was sacrosanct. The government argued that folding its version of a competitor’s product into its monopoly operating system was a deeply anticompetitive act. And here’s something that might surprise you: The Microsoft trial did not settle this critical question.”
Full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: That journalists hold parties to commemorate the anniversaries of trials they’ve covered is fairly scary in and of itself. Back to thrust of the article: Nocera questions whether Microsoft’s Windows monopoly can do to Google what they did to Netscape, if Microsoft decides to include Internet search in Windows Longhorn. Nocera writes, “Microsoft has Windows. That’s the main thing that hasn’t changed in the wake of the antitrust trial. That used to be enough. We’re going to find out if it still is.”
Of course the trial settled nothing. Everybody got hung up on the stupid browser thing instead of focusing on the strong arm business practices of this predator monopoly.
If it uses the same engine as MSN search, then no – it won’t affect the majority of windows users. MSN search sucks. Nowhere near as many results as Google and most of their results are irrelevent. Simply put: if users find can’t find what they are looking for with Longshot search or whatever they call it, they will revert back to Google, Yahoo or another search engine.
Of course it will. These days, MS has no choice- they are a huge monopoly. In a sense, they’re their own worse enemy- by ultimately leading themselves into an obusive monopoly position, every technology that they provide for their customers will step on the toes of some other company who is trying to do the same. MS has enormous resources ($$$$$), and as such, can buy themselves into pretty much any position they want.
The two money-making products coming out of Redmond are Office and Windows. EVERY other technology lost money last year, as well as year over year (xbox, .net, MSN, etc). But since they have $40 billion in the bank, they can afford to take losses to keep these products competing in their respective markets. This is an unfair advantage- their products are used by over 90% of the world (in some instances), and yet they offer no proportional advantage over other similar products, and in many cases, offer an inferior product.
People are invariably tied to Office (esp the .doc format), and WMA will prove to be a similar circumstance for consumers in the future. Are they better formats? Doubt it. But millions will use them because they have to, or because they don’t know any better.
MS can undercut the competition for similar reasons.
I agreed with the original DOJ decision- split Windows and Office. That would have forced Office to compete in its respective market, without the Windows revenue. Other than that, it’s a Microsoft world, and we just have to deal with it.
Microsoft is a “criminal” predator monopoly. They truly have shown no remorse for their past or current sins, and (ask the EU) they continue to sin. They know the advantage of “search” in all its incarnations and will do what they can to wreak havoc against Google.
Microsoft’s days as the all-powerful monopolist are numbered. Their major successes are Windows and Office, both cash cows. Anyone competing directly against either is usually crushed. Elsewhere, Redmond has left a river flowing with red ink.
Already, more nimble, alert and active competitors are doing well. Apple. Google. Linux. Once Linux solves their fragmentation with a unified desktop interface (and installation), Microsoft will be severely damaged.
As it is, their market share erosion will merely continue unabated, slow, steadily draining the company. Currently, the company continues to miss revenue and profit objectives.
The Redmond FUD machine is running overtime to counter Apple’s bold media and music initiatives and Linux’s advancements into business.
Desperation has settled into the cocooned minds of the OS behemoth and they’ve now begun attacking their cohorts and confidants. Chipmaker Intel is first to feel the wrath as Microsot breaks tradition and pushes hardware using IBM (Toshiba, Sony, Apple, et al) chips.
PC makers are in Microsoft’s targets as the Xbox is nothing more than a PC without a keyboard or monitor yet could become a fast, cheap way for Microsoft to sell hardware, too.
Tera Patricks
Mac360.com
Doesn’t Apple package ilife (with new systems) and safari, quicktime, dashboard, and other applications into osx releases? Granted the apps kick much booty, but i fail to see how this is any different then what Microsoft is doing.
“Doesn’t Apple package ilife (with new systems) and safari, quicktime, dashboard, and other applications into osx releases? Granted the apps kick much booty, but i fail to see how this is any different then what Microsoft is doing.”
You can delete everyone of those aformentioned apps and not worry about your system being effected – with the exception of Dashboard and QuickTime frameworks – the QT Player can be deleted. The reason for the latter two is because Dashboard (and Exposé) rely on the dock and QuickTime frameworks are used by tons of apps – Finder, Mail, Safari and many third-party products.
What MS has done is intergrate (as in unseperable) products like IE and Windows Media Player into the OS. Big difference.
Also, you have remember that Apple has the postition of Dell and MS (yucky comparison). That is to say they make the OS and sell the system. This allow them to bundle whatever software they want to on their systems – much like Dell does (but better).
Frankly, it’s Microsoft’s operating system and they should be able to do whatever the hell they want with it. Besides, packaging stuff with the OS always backfires on you – look at what happened to IE. They bundled IE, competing browsers fell out of the mainstream, IE had no appreciable competition and therefore languished for a long time while alternative browsers gradually improved. Now IE sucks beyond all comprehension and kickass browsers like Firefox and Safari are positioned to dominate the browser arena. (I hesitate to call it a market.)
y’know what what is difference of Miscrsoft pre-installing Windows Media Player and Apple pre-installing iTunes???
Entirely Possible – based on past record.
Good Sir Java – you are kidding right?! 90% of Windows users out there don’t realize that alternative browsers exist! IE is the only thing they know and use …
macdaknife and Amin: The difference is that MS has a monopoly position in the OS market.
Personally, I think MS should be allowed to bundle whatever they want as part of the OS. But as inaminit said in the first post, as an OS monopoly, it is illegal for MS to force hardware mfrs to pay for Windows on units which did not have Windows installed, or to force the hardware mfrs to not bundle competing software by threatening to take away Windows or to pay more for Windows. And MS should not be allowed to steal technology from its small company partners in order to put in the OS.
If the paradigm shift were to become a tsunami and Apple gained 85% market share in the next 5 years, would the fact that they design the hardware and software keep them from being considered an evil monopoly?
When you click Slideshow in Mail, it opens iPhoto automatically. There are plenty of instances where many of the Apple apps are integrated into one another and into the OS.
I am a true lover and proponent of Apple’s products, but I don’t feel that they are as inseparable as we’d like to think.
Could Apple be sued for bundling all of its software “ilife” and other apps into its operating system?
“Could Apple be sued for bundling all of its software “ilife” and other apps into its operating system?”
Correct me if I’m wrong please (I don’t have Tiger) but I don’t believe that Apple bundles iLife with Mac OS X installations at all. Apple does bundle it with their new computers though, which is totally different from what M$ does. It is exactly the same as bundled software on any PC OEM like HP or Dell.
Further, these apps are separable from the OS, unlike most of the M$ apps.
–mAc
in case you guys don’t get the underlying message: a substandard service WILL become the default/status quo if MS has its way. As such, the Windows monopoly, and MS’ ability to bundle Apps and chain them to the OS, rather than offer them as optional downloads which can easily be removed from the computer, for example, is their path to success.
where would the Xbox be without msn messenger integration into xbox live?
where would msn.com be if it werent set as default webpage in Internet Explorer, or integrated into MSN messenger, which feeds off Hotmail, which feeds off Outlook Express which is bundled and locked to the OS.
Oops, that was a doozy. Am I forgetting some of their stuff? Solitaire perhaps.
One wonders how MS Office ever became the standard. Perhaps Microsoft bundled it in a MS PACKAGE FOR BUSINESSES in the early 90’s and it’s been the standard ever since…
PS> The idea that MS WOULDN’T use it’s Windows monopoly to beat Google shows a little naivety on the author’s part. It’s their business model.
Mac Warrior..
In Tiger, though, Apple has integrated iLife into many of the systems features, things like integration with Mail and .mac means that Apple, too, is benefitting from its own little monopoly.
Any time you CTRL-click on a media file you’ll find wonderful menu items related to media apps as well as quicktime.
wonderful, but shitty for anyone trying to start up an iLife-killer.
Oh and for the record, the question posed by this article has been answered:
In the MSN Search Add-on and in 2007 with Longhorn, MS is definitely integrating web search into the OS to kill off Google. Their ‘Spotlight, wrong corner’ functionality includes web searches as well as HD searches.
I wonder how they’re going to do that.. I mean, if you type the letter ‘a’ surely they’re not going to display the top 20 matches of the ENTIRE INTERNET.
Maybe it just won’t be as smooth as Spotlight, maybe you have to hit enter after you enter the whole word..
What I find interesting about the M$ monopoly is that it came to be because the average consumer paid for its products before they knew what they wanted. Home computing was in its infancy and people bought simply because they could. The idea of choice in computing was limited because the idea of computing was limited.
Standard Oil became a monopoly very clearly: people knew what they wanted and they bought from the only one giving it to them. But at that time, people understood oil. It wasn’t as if you could choose to run your vehicle on bricks, or chocolate bonbons.
If the world started fresh today choosing an operating system or computer “type,” seems to me that expectations would be considerably different. If not, they are all clearly wrong and I am right. As always.
“In Tiger, though, Apple has integrated iLife into many of the systems features, things like integration with Mail and .mac means that Apple, too, is benefitting from its own little monopoly.”
There is nothing wrong with integrating between different apps and/or services from the same company. This is how value is added to a product. (Doesn’t Adobe do this? (I’m not totally sure)).
“Any time you CTRL-click on a media file you’ll find wonderful menu items related to media apps as well as quicktime.”
I’m not entirely sure about what you’re referring to, but anytime I click on a ‘.mov’ file (for example) I can ‘open with:’ QuickTime Player, Grapher, iTunes, MPlayer OS X 2, RealPlayer or VLC.
——–
To Crouching Tiger…
If Apple didn’t change the way their apps work in a way that hurt third-parties, no.
*When you click the slideshow button in Mail, it does NOT open iPhoto. It does the slideshow on its own. I don’t know what would happen if iPhoto was not on your computer, but I would imagine that you wouldn’t be able to add an image from Mail to iPhoto – that’s all.
I’m so sorry, but if you don’t want to use WMA then don’t use Windows. It’s that simple. I remember when this was all about Netscape, also very sorry but that is a function of the operating syste (weather or not directly tied to the core system). It is a feature none the less, and if you don’t want to use it then don’t. But look at apple and let’s say spring loaded folders feature. I could say that Apple is not allowing for third party software developers to implement their own feature set for spring loaded folders. Or even better, Safari, people are going to use it, weather or not they know better. This is a stupid argument. It’s not Apple’s or Microsoft’s fault that they develop an operating system, and bundle software with it. Or what about the Dock, I could simply say that this peace of software (yes the dock is software) is unfairly bundled with Apple’s operating system and not allowing fair rang of competition with other competitors who make similar products. (yes there are other peaces of software that do the same thing as the dock, in a sense). Or iTunes, that’s unfair bundled too, it’s unfair for competition. Or is it? How about Apple just ship the OS and NONE of the programs; including the utilities like Disk Utility, Activity Monitor, etc and DVD/CD burning capabilities of the finder.
Yes, I hate MS, but they did NOTHING wrong, except have an advantage, not an unfair advantage but an advantage none the less but that is not their fault that people bought the OS which has it bundled. It was still the consumers option to use the OS in the first place. And no, I don’t even own a PC (I do have VPC). If a consumer is unhappy with using IE, or the WMA format or the .doc format, then they should shoot them selves in foot for getting a PC in the first place, but most people don’t give a hoot. And if the consumer doesn’t give a hoot, then what makes anyone think they are going to go out and find some third party developer replacement? I’m sorry but saying that it’s unfair if the consumers are lazy and don’t want to go hunting for SIMPLE things like Web browsers, music players, or the dock/taskbar, is stupid. If you don’t want the OS and it’s features then DON”T BUY IT. It’s a packaged deal. Live with it. This one will come back to us “Apple Lovers” with all the free iApps. So hush.
Unfortuneately I agree with AC.
If Apple continues at this rate… it will find itself on a very thin line.
Hopefully they will play their cards right because bad things shouldn’t happen to such good computer companies.
My other post isn’t showing up so forgive me if I’m making a double post:
I do disagree with AC about one thing, however:
MS did have many illegal, immoral, and down right wrong business practices, far beyond something that can be justified as consumer laziness.
You go too far if you try and dismiss it all.
The Apple issue about bundles should not arise because they make the computer and its software. They are a complete computer and software company and ms is a software company. So they sell a operating system, but if they bundle it with all this other software that is where the foul play comes in. Its OS should compete with all OS’s on the market and IE and Office should compete seperatly and not hide in a bundle to help it become supreme. But with Apple, since you they are a complete computer manufacturer They can bundle their computer with the software they choose just as Dell And HP already does.
Apple does not sell its OS to other computer companies. If they did and bundled all the stuff the computer comes with ( iLife…..) with their OS they would be wrong also.
The other software companies just want the Computer manufacturers to have a choice in the matter of what to bundle not have ms make that choice for them
Let me add that iLife is not bundled with the Tiger OS.