microsoft and their new imaging technology...should adobe be nervous?

[stevenaa]

The only new innovative software Microsoft has ever come out with is the Basic PC compiler back in the late 1970's. Every thing else Microsoft has ever produced they've either purchased outright ( PC-DOS, MS-DOS ), copied from a competitor who typically had a better product than MS eventually came out with, or outright stole resulting in Microsoft having to pay millions in fines, years after their competitor had to close their doors.

Original product............................... Microsoft's Copy

Novel..............................................Microsoft network solutions

Apple GUI based OS..........................Windows

Word Perfect....................................Word

DB3P...............................................Fox pro (purchased)

Borland C/C++...................................MS Visual C++

Borland Delphi................................... MS Visual Basic

Lotus...............................................Excel

Stacker............................................Disk Doubler (stole)

Netscape.........................................Explorer

Go Corp hand helds............................Microsoft Pocket PC, Smart Phone

Sendo's windows console....................Microsoft Pocket PC, Smart Phone

Java................................................J++, C## (stole)

PC Media Player.................................Microsoft Media Player

IPod................................................Zune

On and on.. these are just off the top of my head..

The reason why Microsoft is able to take over market share in any software niche they so choose is because they leverage their dominance in other software niches to do so..... If you find yourself competing against Microsoft two things happen to you.

(1). All the sudden your software stops working on Microsoft's Operating system usually associated with a patch Microsoft just released.

(2) Microsoft's product, unaffected by the patch is distributed to every desk top in the world automatically and without consumers choice. Oh and if the consumer tries to remove their software, The OS stops working, or your word processor stops working. Call up Microsoft help for these products the first thing they will tell you is to reinstall what you installed.

Microsoft is a cancer on the software industry and has been so for more than a decade. We no longer live in a capitalistic free market economy. We live in the United States of the 1890's when trusts control the marketplace. From Software, to Health care, to Insurance, and oil companies. It's not about competition any longer, not in this country.

If you have the misfortune to build a better mouse trap, if you attract the attention of one of the trusts; they will just take your market share away from you based solely on their power to do so; it's not reliant on them having a better product.

By your account, there is no market MS could enter that it would not be a monopoly in. They got a slice of the gaming market through innovation. Their getting a slice of the "ipod" market through innovation. Nearly every market they enter benefits from their innovation, regardles off if they developed or purchased the technology.

Getting into existing markets and exploiting opportunities that exist is not monopolistic. It is Capitalistic. They take existing technologies and make them better as well as innovate from the ground up. If it was as simple as just monopolizing a market none of their products would ever need innovation. You think Sony and Apple didn't ratchet up their development when MS entered those markets? Who do you think benefits from that? Consumers maybe?

The Zune is a perfect example. Keep your eye on it. Not an original idea, but MS will innovate it until they have a product better than the Ipod. It won't be because they are a Monopoly. It will be because they excel at identifying a marketing segment and innovating their product. I doubt they'll take a lead in market share because Ipod is well entrenched and has a good following, but you never know. If they do, I'm sure you'll have some reason how they stole the market.

[jbooma]

By your account, there is no market MS could enter that it would not be a monopoly in. They got a slice of the gaming market through innovation. Their getting a slice of the "ipod" market through innovation. Nearly every market they enter benefits from their innovation, regardles off if they developed or purchased the technology.

Getting into existing markets and exploiting opportunities that exist is not monopolistic. It is Capitalistic. They take existing technologies and make them better as well as innovate from the ground up. If it was as simple as just monopolizing a market none of their products would ever need innovation. You think Sony and Apple didn't ratchet up their development when MS entered those markets? Who do you think benefits from that? Consumers maybe?

The Zune is a perfect example. Keep your eye on it. Not an original idea, but MS will innovate it until they have a product better than the Ipod. It won't be because they are a Monopoly. It will be because they excel at identifying a marketing segment and innovating their product. I doubt they'll take a lead in market share because Ipod is well entrenched and has a good following, but you never know. If they do, I'm sure you'll have some reason how they stole the market.

:applause: :applause: :applause:

They are now taking on the VOIP and Server software markets, but I guess everyone feels that is cheating :doh:

[stevenaa]

:applause: :applause: :applause:

They are now taking on the VOIP and Server software markets, but I guess everyone feels that is cheating :doh:

They will own those markets. How you ask? By given consumers/businesses what they want.

[jbooma]

They will own those markets. How you ask? By given consumers/businesses what they want.

Also by providing the flexibility with and interaction with the pc more then what cisco can.

Ther server managment software they have coming out with Longhorn is something everyone has been asking for that have to handle a larger server farm. The ability to create sequences if certain servers fail and db's will help many companies work out disaster recovery plans.

[stevenaa]

Also by providing the flexibility with and interaction with the pc more then what cisco can.

Ther server managment software they have coming out with Longhorn is something everyone has been asking for that have to handle a larger server farm. The ability to create sequences if certain servers fail and db's will help many companies work out disaster recovery plans.

Plus there's a Core version for headless systems that has all the Gui and Explorer stuff removed. Very small security footprint. Less patching required. But you better like command line.

[JMS]

You do hate because if you didn't you would use their products because they are far superior to what is out there.

I do use their products. I have no choice but to use their products. Not because they are the best but because I have no choice. That is the definition of a Monopoly. And as you know, and as I've pointed out. Microsoft is a monopoly!!!

Microsoft isn't going anywhere. No one is stupid enough to break it up, not now a lot of companies would be hurt by this. As long as you let At&t back then nothing will happen to Microsoft, since At&t was a legit monopoly.

Microsoft lost the court case which labeled them a Monopoly. Monopolies are illegal in this country. Being labeled as such lowers the bar for every lawsuit Microsoft encounters in the future. It also opened them up for lawsuits to all 50 states on anti competitive practices and overcharging charges. Microsoft has been handing these suites piece meal. But I do think your wrong ultimately. The clock is running on them. Americans traditionally haven't put up with Monopolies and their anti competitive practices for more than a few decades. Microsoft has had their time, anybody with the political will already has the legal findings to justify breaking them up.

As for AT&T. It was founded by the US government. As such it was a quasi protectorate of the US government. This was done because it was not felt that it was economically feasible to have a commercial company lay copper wire and service all the remote locations in the country.

Sure companies were knocking down the doors to wire New York City, but nobody was doing such to wire the Allegheny Mountain region of West Virginia or the Dakota's. Thus the federal government formed AT&T and funded the universal wiring of the country and granted AT&T a monopoly in the marketplace as a quasi US government run entity.

Even so with MCI, Sprint and Voip, even if AT&T came back together they wouldn't be a monopoly any longer. AT&T was broken up and the result was that long distance charges dropped from 1.26 a minute to .02$ a minute. Within the country long distance is given for free as part of the basic service!... That's what breaking up monopolies do for the consumer.

[JMS]

I do think Google may be the only company that can compete with MS with on OS we will just have to wait. Mac has given up competing them in the business side, but are doing very well on the personal side. That is also most likely because they are working together now

You don't get it. Monopolies by definition don't compete. Literally nobody can compete with Microsoft. Not as long as Microsoft is willing to leverage there dominance in other niches against competition.

What is Google going to do if IE which runs on 95% of the desktops stops recognizing www.google.com? What is Google going to do if the OS or IE just puts a wait state into any information coming or going to www.google.com. How about if you type in www.google.com and the end user is taken to a Microsoft search engine.

Monopolies don't compete. Not by definition. They control. Microsoft has used all of the above strategies against other competitors to destroy their ability to provide services to the consumer.

[jbooma]

You don't get it. Monopolies by definition don't compete. Literally nobody can compete with Microsoft. Not as long as Microsoft is willing to leverage there dominance in other niches against competition.

What is Google going to do if IE which runs on 95% of the desktops stops recognizing www.google.com? What is Google going to do if the OS or IE just puts a wait state into any information coming or going to www.google.com. How about if you type in www.google.com and the end user is taken to a Microsoft search engine.

Monopolies don't compete. Not by definition. They control. Microsoft has used all of the above strategies against other competitors to destroy their ability to provide services to the consumer.

JMS you don't get it.

A "true" monopoly is when you have NO OTHER choices. If Microsoft was this then how can Apple, Linux, and other companies have their own OS please explain that?

Last I checked you can have a google toolbar on an IE browser

Oh if you want to think of an actual monopoly then look at the upcoming XM/Sirus merger, that my friend will be a monopoly because there are no other providers.

[Major Harris]

Similar to 3M they don't make a lot of the products, they just make the products better.

i thought that was bsf?

[PokerPacker]

JMS you don't get it.

A "true" monopoly is when you have NO OTHER choices. If Microsoft was this then how can Apple, Linux, and other companies have their own OS please explain that?

Last I checked you can have a google toolbar on an IE browser

Oh if you want to think of an actual monopoly then look at the upcoming XM/Sirus merger, that my friend will be a monopoly because there are no other providers.

i've read (can't remember where) that microsoft goes out of its way to make Microsoft office (word, excel, etc) to be incompatable with competative software. i believe Open Office was the given example. if i remember it correctly, Open Office is compatible with Microsoft office, but microsoft made it so it didn't work the other way around. why would they do that? so anyone working with computers would be forced to buy Microsoft Office to be compatible with the rest of the world. also, when games are coming out that are designed to NOT work with operating systems other than the latest version of windows, that's a monopoly tactic. what if i felt fine using linux or an older version of windows, should i have to go buy Vista just because they decided to pay a game maker to make the game only compatible with vista?

[jbooma]

JMS you do know Microsoft settled with the US which is why they never tried to break them up, or take any further legal action:

On November 2, 2001, the DOJ reached an agreement with Microsoft to settle the case. The proposed settlement required Microsoft to share its application programming interfaces with third-party companies and appoint a panel of three people who will have full access to Microsoft's systems, records, and source code for five years in order to ensure compliance. However, the DOJ did not require Microsoft to change any of its code nor prevent Microsoft from tying other software with Windows in the future. On August 5, 2002, Microsoft announced that it would make some concessions towards the proposed final settlement ahead of the judge's verdict. On November 1, 2002, Judge Kollar-Kotelly released a judgment accepting most of the proposed DOJ settlement. Nine states (California, Connecticut, Iowa, Florida, Kansas, Minnesota, Utah, Virginia and Massachusetts) and the District of Columbia (which had been pursuing the case together with the DOJ) did not agree with the settlement, arguing that it did not go far enough to curb Microsoft's anti-competitive business practices. On June 30, 2004, the U.S. appeals court unanimously approved the settlement with the Justice Department, rejecting objections from Massachusetts that the sanctions are inadequate.

The dissenting states regarded the settlement as merely a slap on the wrist. Some people in the computer industry agreed with dissenting States, especially those who advocated open source and alternatives to Microsoft. Many believed that free market competition can only be restored by government intervention to break up the Microsoft monopoly. Others believe that government intervention is antithetical to free market principles, maintaining that Microsoft was not, and is not, a coercive monopoly. Industry pundit Robert X. Cringely believes a breakup is not possible, and that "now the only way Microsoft can die is by suicide." [13] Andrew Chin, an antitrust law professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill who assisted Judge Jackson in drafting the findings of fact, wrote that the settlement gave Microsoft "a special antitrust immunity to license Windows and other 'platform software' under contractual terms that destroy freedom of competition." [14]

Microsoft's obligations under the settlement, as originally drafted, expire on November 12, 2007. [15] However, Microsoft later "agreed to consent to a two-year extension of part of the Final Judgments" dealing with communications protocol licensing, and that if the plaintiffs later wished to extend those aspects of the settlement even as far as 2012, it would not object. The plaintiffs made clear that the extension was intended to serve only to give the relevant part of the settlement "the opportunity to succeed for the period of time it was intended to cover", rather than being due to any "pattern of willful and systematic violations". The court has yet to approve the change in terms as of May 2006.[16]

[ChocolateCitySkin]

Microsoft comes out with good products. Comcast comes up with ****ty products. And you have no choice to buy them b.c. they have a monopoly. I don't personally care about microsoft.

[jbooma]

i've read (can't remember where) that microsoft goes out of its way to make Microsoft office (word, excel, etc) to be incompatable with competative software. i believe Open Office was the given example. if i remember it correctly, Open Office is compatible with Microsoft office, but microsoft made it so it didn't work the other way around. why would they do that? so anyone working with computers would be forced to buy Microsoft Office to be compatible with the rest of the world. also, when games are coming out that are designed to NOT work with operating systems other than the latest version of windows, that's a monopoly tactic. what if i felt fine using linux or an older version of windows, should i have to go buy Vista just because they decided to pay a game maker to make the game only compatible with vista?

Don't know about open office, but do know they created an office for the Mac. The other question is why do they have to? It is not like you can take an adobe file and make it something else.

[PokerPacker]

Don't know about open office, but do know they created an office for the Mac. The other question is why do they have to? It is not like you can take an adobe file and make it something else.

its not that they didn't try to make it compatible, but they went yout of their way to make it incompatible.

[JMS]

JMS you don't get it.

:doh:

A "true" monopoly is when you have NO OTHER choices. If Microsoft was this then how can Apple, Linux, and other companies have their own OS please explain that?

You are right that is the definition of a monopoly. And It is not my contention that Microsoft is a Monopoly. The court of appeals for the United States came to that conclusion after a lengthy trial in 1999.

http://money.cnn.com/1999/11/05/technology/microsoft_finding/

The argument you are using was used by Microsoft to no avail. Fact is Microsoft IS a monopoly.

Last I checked you can have a Google toolbar on an IE browser

Yeah, Microsoft hasn't turned that off yet. Do you doubt that Microsoft has the ability to nuke that tool bar or take any of the actions I originally listed?

Oh if you want to think of an actual monopoly then look at the upcoming XM/Sirus merger, that my friend will be a monopoly because there are no other providers.

:doh: , You can not honestly debate whether Microsoft is a monopoly. It's been proven in a court of law, and since being proven has been upheld in at least three other court lawsuits. Supposing Microsoft is not a Monopoly is thus unreasonable unless one is to dismiss the entire American legal system.

Secondly, It is not clear at all whether satellite radio is even a viable commercial niche. IT is not at all clear whether a single satellite radio provider which is currently penetrated fewer than 3% of cars on the road could be described as a MONOPOLY. If they are taken to court and proven to be a Monopoly. However unlikely. If they are further shown to have put 20 or so promising companies out of business based upon their monopolistic leverage; then you will have a point. Until that time, I don't think your comparison is meaningful.

[Zguy28]

JMS you don't get it.

A "true" monopoly is when you have NO OTHER choices. If Microsoft was this then how can Apple, Linux, and other companies have their own OS please explain that?

Last I checked you can have a google toolbar on an IE browser

Oh if you want to think of an actual monopoly then look at the upcoming XM/Sirus merger, that my friend will be a monopoly because there are no other providers.

Exactly. ANd look at Apple. How many of their boxes can you run Linux, Solaris, or Windows on?

Or Adobe. Adobe is the biggest bloatware company there is.

[jbooma]

The argument you are using was used by Microsoft to no avail. Fact is Microsoft IS a monopoly.

Technically they were, but not now according to the settlement they had to stop all their monopolistic ways.

Remember just because a company is labeled a monopoly at one point, does not mean it is currently, At&t for instance. Companies grow and change over time, which Microsoft has done.

[JMS]

JMS you do know Microsoft settled with the US which is why they never tried to break them up, or take any further legal action:

The justice department under Clinton prosecuted the case. After Bush came to office the Bush Administration said they didn't agree with the lawsuit and walked away from it. Judge Penfield Jackson who had heard the case and found Microsoft a Monopoly was removed from the sentencing phase. But his finding that Microsoft was a monopoly stood in place and still stands today.

The fact the Republican congress and administration didn't pursue any remedies is all about them. Not about Microsoft.

Since that has happened Microsoft is settling with states individually on their price fixing and anti competitive practices. I believe 15 states have currently received settlements. It doesn't matter though. Cause those settlements were on previous bad behaviors. Because Microsoft is a Monopoly they can continuously be hit up for continuing anti marketplace practices.

[Destino]

Looks cool but... how much RAM is he running with?

[jbooma]

Looks cool but... how much RAM is he running with?

i think some of those shots are with the new remote apps microsoft is creating, now you have to log into a box like terminal server or citrix, what ms is doing with longhorn is the actual link on your desktop will be a remote app, and no longer need to log in etc.... it is pretty cool

[JMS]

Technically they were, but not now according to the settlement they had to stop all their monopolistic ways.

Wrong. They were found to be a monopoly. They are still a monopoly regardless of future behavior. This lowered the bar for all future lawsuits against Microsoft.

The settlement did not change the legal finding that Microsoft was and is a Monopoly.

Remember just because a company is labeled a monopoly at one point, does not mean it is currently, At&t for instance. Companies grow and change over time, which Microsoft has done.

AT&T was broken up by an act of Congress. Monopolies don't spontaneously evaporate! They are legislated out of existence. Like AT&T, US Steal, Alcoa, and Morgan Bank.

[JMS]

Microsoft comes out with good products. Comcast comes up with ****ty products. And you have no choice to buy them b.c. they have a monopoly. I don't personally care about microsoft.

Comcast and other cable companies were granted an 8 to ten year monopoly on the copper networks they created. This was done in order to offset the cost of producing the networks. After the 8-10 years which is expiring now across the country, Comcast and other cable providers must allow other service providers to use their networks.

This is one of the reason why Verizon is currently laying fiber to individual homes. Because the legislation which mandates competition across copper wires doesn't apply to fiber. Thus when Verizon lays the fiber to their targeted areas, they will own a monopoly for ever to those areas. There are no laws on the books regulating fiber.

Sure you will have a great introductory rate. But once they've got you; watch out.

[PokerPacker]

Looks cool but... how much RAM is he running with?

um...?

edit: oh yeah, i forgot this thread was about an actual product!

[Corcaigh]

Looks cool but... how much RAM is he running with?

Bill Gates told me that 640k ram should be plenty. :geek:

[jbooma]

Comcast and other cable companies were granted an 8 to ten year monopoly on the copper networks they created. This was done in order to offset the cost of producing the networks. After the 8-10 years which is expiring now across the country, Comcast and other cable providers must allow other service providers to use their networks.

This is one of the reason why Verizon is currently laying fiber to individual homes. Because the legislation which mandates competition across copper wires doesn't apply to fiber. Thus when Verizon lays the fiber to their targeted areas, they will own a monopoly for ever to those areas. There are no laws on the books regulating fiber.

Sure you will have a great introductory rate. But once they've got you; watch out.

The problem (and the government does this a lot) that cable market will be outdated in the future. Verizon is smart because they know DSL can not compete and FIBER has the ability to continue to expand unlike Cable.

I hated that in Reston we were not even allowed to get DSL for the longest time. Now that FIOS is here comcast is gone

What will be interesting is what will happen with I2, and who will be responsible for creating the backbone and network once it is alllowed to go into private industry.