For Microsoft vs the world read Coca Cola vs Pepsi or any other gigantic
company
Can we get back to Imail please?
-----Original Message-----
From: Madscientist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thursday, September 09, 1999 8:30 PM
Subject: Re: [IMail Forum] RE:off-topic: Microsoft not violating copyright;
Netscape troubles
>I probably shouldn't do this, but how can I resist.
>
><rant>
>
>Microsoft is evil, and they should be destroyed. (Steel Magnolias
>Reference).
>
>The trouble that I have with Micro$oft, not to claim they have any kind of
>lock on this behavior, is that they consistently use their size and
>anti-competitive practices to accelerate their success and maintain their
>dominance. More specifically, their success and market dominance is based
>primarily on manipulation, theft (everybody's a little guilty of this), and
>maneuvering in and leveraging of the marketplace. Where their success is
NOT
>based is on the quality of their products.
>
>They have been shown to:
>
>* Negotiate unfair / exclusive relationships with OEMs by withdrawing
>extraordinary discounts if the OEM chooses to offer a competing product.
>
>* Create mandatory (defacto) upgrades to their operating system and other
>software for the purpose of making it incompatible with competing products.
>
>* Abuse licenses for competing technologies to manipulate industry
standards
>by leveraging their incredibly large market share.
>
>* Release incomplete products, or announce new products years in advance of
>actual delivery in order to soften or forestall the acceptance of competing
>technologies in the market place.
>
>* Create mandatory (defacto) upgrades to their operating system software
for
>the sole purpose of restricting it's capabilities so that they could
protect
>the market of their more highly priced (and nearly identical) server
>software... oh heck. Let's just say it. This one's well documented. The
only
>difference between NT workstation and NT server a while ago was the
price...
>Once folks began taking advantage of the capabilities of NT WS
(particularly
>for use on the 'web), a new service pack comes out, followed by a new
>version, which includes a few special differences amounting to less than
one
>page of source code. The sole purpose of that code difference between the
>two platforms was to insure that the Workstation version couldn't be
>effectively used as a server so that they could protect their market for
the
>server product at 4 to 5 times the price. This has _NOTHING_ to do with the
>quality of the product (as they claimed in defense) and _EVERYTHING_ to do
>with gouging the market because they had the ability to get away with it.
>
>>From the perspective of a ruthless capitalist, there is much to be admired
>at Microsoft. The have, and continue to consistently extract tremendous
>profits from their chosen market segment and to out compete all comers in
>areas where their core competencies lie.
>
>The do not, by any stretch of the imagination, create new products which
>have a consistently higher quality than their competitors. What they have
>that's great, they stole, or purchased... sometimes gobbling up entire
>competing companies leaving a wasteland in their wake.
>
>What I resent, and feel should be stopped, is that they have destroyed the
>best aspects of capitalism and the free market through artful manipulation
>to wit: the majority of IT shops purchase microsoft products because there
>is no other viable alternative, out of fear, or out of apathy rather than
>selecting it because it is the best product based on it's merits. This
>perpetuates the same market conditions.
>
>I could release a new product that would revolutionize the industry, and on
>an even playing field, my company would be vaulted to the top of the
>market... that is, of course, until M$ decides to release their plans to
>produce essentially the same product, and then quietly offers my
development
>staff two or three times what I can afford to go work for them, and then
>makes some minor modifications to their OS in the next service pack at
which
>point my software somehow begins to crash, etc... etc...
>
>As a result of their sheer dominance in the marketplace and their ability
to
>bludgeon any smaller competitors into submission or nonexistence, and
>because they have laid waste, in one way or another, to the vast majority
of
>competing products, realistic IT professionals who want to continue to put
a
>roof over their heads have to think much more than twice about recommending
>anything other than a microsoft product. This also perpetuates Microsoft's
>dominance.
>
>For those IT pros who would stick to their guns and make the best call ...
>often they have to (as we have in many cases) choose Microsoft because it
>has already been selected for them... that is, the entire administrative
>component of their company or client, not to mention the employment market
>at large is saturated with people who only know Microsoft products... As a
>result, any presentation containing an alternative choice must be
>accompanied with an explanation (more like a defense) for why the Microsoft
>product wasn't selected.
>
>This has occurred not because competing products were technically inferior
>in any way, but because the companies supporting their development were
>unable to withstand the financial punishment of a playing field highly
>skewed in Microsoft's favor.
>
>OK, so life's not fair and these "Network Effects" are not the exclusive
>property of MS... but isn't it our purpose to try and improve things?
>Shouldn't it be possible, or even desirable for new companies with better
>technology to not only compete successfully in the market place, but also
to
>attain some measure of success? Isn't it unacceptable to allow one company
>to so dominate the industry that no reasonable competitors can hope to
>survive - even if their products are superior? I think it's unreasonable.
>
>I applaud the Linux movement and open source software in general... sure
>there's a lot of sward rattling that goes on, but that's not what counts...
>when it comes down to it, these guys aren't focused on killing Microsoft as
>much as they are on improving their craft and their product. No matter
where
>you sit, better products and better technologies are good for everybody.
I'm
>glad somebody's doing something about it.
>
></rant>
>
>-Pete
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Vaughn Thurman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Thursday, September 09, 1999 1:52 PM
>Subject: Re: [IMail Forum] RE:off-topic: Microsoft not violating copyright;
>Netscape troubles
>
>
>> Wow what an interesting thread this has become!
>>
>> The inside opinions are great. I am really glad to see we have so many
>> capitalists here debating this point. Microsoft is big. Microsoft is
>> strong. Microsoft is tough to compete with, but does that make them
evil?
>> Netscape, Sun, and AOL have all faced them and lost because of their high
>> prices, bad practices, poor marketing, or even design flaws. Now they
>think
>> that Microsoft should be tied up and have it's head chopped off. This is
>> tatamount to "He is bigger and faster than the other kids because he
works
>> out all of the time and runs laps every day, he should have to play
>football
>> on his knees and with no helmet! My kid has a right to eat potato chips
>and
>> lay on the couch and still win football games!". (My son won't be going
>to
>> that school of thought!) Do talented football players create all of the
>> moves they do? No. They improve on, and/or execute more efficiently,
age
>> old moves and win games as a result. Maybe we should make the Yankees
>start
>> wearing high heels...
>>
>> I would love to see another company give MS a run for thier money, but
not
>> in court! I do not want to be stuck buying the software that lawyers
have
>> crafted! I also don't want people who think lawyers are party of the
>> development process building the next generation OS!
>>
>> Anyone who waits for the government to bring him his future has not paid
>> attention to the government's results in the past!
>>
>> As soon as IMAIL runs on Linux I will buy it. I love Linux and use it
>> everyday in many server roles, but why would the average user want to use
>> it? It takes 10 times as long to figure out how to do anything and there
>is
>> a shortage of knowledge/support available yet. That could all change if
>> they just do exactly what MS has been doing. Improve, Improve, Improve!
>So
>> far I see Sun, Netscape and AOL saying they improved upon our ideas!
They
>> must be stopped so that our rough and poorly built stuff stays on top!
>> Please cut me a break! Get back to building better mousetraps and the
>world
>> will beat your door down. Our industry is new but that age old saying
>still
>> holds true!
>>
>> </rant off>
>> -V
>>
>> Please visit http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html
>> to be removed from this list.
>>
>
>Please visit http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html
>to be removed from this list.
>
Please visit http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html
to be removed from this list.
