Scott,
You make for a very aggressive devil's advocate but unfortunately I have to disagree with many of your statements.
By the way - you seem to have become pretty emotional yourself on this topic. This is unusual for you as you normally are pretty cool-headed.
But THANKS for the stimulating (poking at logic) conversation. It wakes this board up a bit. Why do you think I sit and post on the MSFT board soooo much?
So lets get into your logic Scott....
(PS just for the real dumb ones out there that need to be told - everything on this posting - is based on my personal opinions - as is the case on all the other posts of mine)
First:
As it should be. Just as Microsoft should be worried about Novell closing the door on Active Directory and controlling the distributed naming, and security,
of all networked devices.
You are functionally correct BUT MSFT's fear of NOVL is not even close to the same magnitude of a small single industry company standing under the foot of an elephant who can use its HUGE wealth and shier influence alone to destroy its competitor. This has nothing to do with competition fears anymore. So the dispute on your comment is that you failed to mention the magnitude of worry for a company like AOL vs a company like MSFT.
In fact, this point brings me right a later point you made in repsonse to me...
I don't agree that tightly controlled committee work is the way to go ...
It is this grouping of industry players that puts enough size against MSFT so that instead of an elephant trying to step on an ant, its now an elephant trying to step on another elephant. This raises the bar of worry magnitude for MSFT - a magnitude that they dont have against that one little ant (in this case AOL - in the last case Netscape - in the previous case Caldera, Stac, etc. etc. etc.).
Ohh, by the way, these conrolled committees as you called them - they are the same groups that give you and Frederick that Open Source, Open Standards, and "Unlocking" in the industry that you feel is the "winning" strategy. I agree with you 200% that open or industry agreed-to standards are in the best interests of the entire industry and the end-consumer! But how do you feel your vision is going to happen if MSFT's overwhelming power in the industry can dictate these standards without credible challenge? These committees are manditory for your successful vision to happen - otherwise the standards will be dictate and pushed by MSFT. And I hope you see from history that MSFT's decision on setting these standards have motives that
are almost always in the interests of their "Take over the world" goal and not for the good of the industry.
Next:
Regarding the Innocent till proven Guilty issue you brought up. In a court of law - I would agree that the term is correct, but this is not a case of whether MSFT did or didn't perform illegal acts. MSFT clearly put their "near-zero" marketshare browser into their obviously Desktop OS monopoly product (please dont make a silly statement now that their Desktop OS is not deemed a monopoly - that would be a laugher for the whole board Scott) and made it a free and conveniently available product. From that point on, Netscape's marketshare plumeted! Exactly how how does NSCP respond to this? MSFT's browser - until recently - wasnt even on par to NSCP's. So product superiority was not the reason for NSCP's marketshare loss. I dont give a hoot what the outcome of the DOJ trial is Scott, that action alone was a clear violation of Anti-trust laws. If MSFT's tons of lawyer money and political pressure somehow gets them an innocent verdict means squat! They were guilty in much of the industry's eyes. So I hold to my statement based on this logic - MSFT did perform illegal acts IMO - the question is, will they get away with it?
So with that said, explain this statement of yours...
but in general I don't agree with many of the silly arguments that I've heard. I'm not convinced that Microsoft has done much more than to capitalize on the errors of their competitors.
Exactly what errors did NSCP do when MSFT capitalized on its desktop monoploy to overtake marketshare in an unrelated technology? What mistake did this small up-start company make? While your at it, explain the other dead corpes or near dead victims that MSFT has left behind because MSFT pulled purely immoral and unethical practices on them by weilding their desktop monopoly. These same practices WOULD NOT have been successful without MSFT's monopoly Scott. Be honest with yourself on this one.
You talk about MSFT taking advantage of other company's mistakes. Well, what about MSFT's mistake of missing the whole Internet play and browser market? I will put it to you that MSFT is successful now dispite its countless mistakes simply because of its shier size. It can decide almost at will when to get into something and they can easily correct their countless fumbles because of their mass. Exactly how many companies in the industry can have one of their critical & fundamental products be delayed by YEARS and still have this huge fumble not fatally hurt their company's future? Answer me that Scott.
NEXT:
The employee posting as a fake consultant. Let me ask you this Scott. You come from NOVL... if Eric Schmidt and NOVL were to find out in public that one of their employees pulled this stunt, would you think that he/she would be employed by NOVL for much longer. I can say with little doubt that IBM would have fired him. It was an unethical act and not one that a company with any image to uphold would tolerate. I wonder if MSFT fired this employee? From everything I have heard from MSFT, they seem to be conditioanlly defending this person and excusing his actions. I stand corrected if MSFT has fired him, but I would be surprised. I dont care if MSFT didnt publicly admit to encouraging him or if they even were involved in the act in any way - the point is that the employees learned what actions their employer has performed in the past to "win at any cost" and therefore, MSFT was involved even though they might not have even known about it. Get my point? The MSFT culture had encouraged this act.
WHEW!!! I am getting sores on my fingers so I will stop here. I think I gave you more than enough to chew on Scott. :)))))
thanks again for the stimulating response and for getting th blood moving on this board. Its always a pleasure Big Guy!
Cheers!
Toy |
