Hello Toy,
Great ... and I have work to do, laundry to get done, and other chores so that I can leave on my vacation ... and you reply. ;-)
I figured that this was going to be a good thread of discussion and thoroughly explore the subject ...
> 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.
I'll have to re-read my posts and try to determine the areas of emotion. If they were "first throws" then I apologize, but if they were in defense to attacks on logic then they aren't emotion ... it's pure sarcasm. ;-)
> 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.
I won't buy this argument. There are too many demonstrations of the "small guy" easily beating the "big guy". Size is no matter when nimble minds are at work. Let's just try to look at where Microsoft came from. When I first played with Microsoft products (while using CP/M) they were no one. IBM was how big? And who invented the PC? And who created the PC industry? And who was unable to defeat their nimble opponent in the PC software business? Wow ... who would have imagined that IBM, with all their market leadership, technology, wealth, people, dominance, and (disputed) monopoly would be defeated (ok ... maybe equaled?) by a bunch of geeks at a company called Microsoft? What types of corporate budgets and cashflow did IBM control in the '80s compared to Microsoft? Nope ... I don't buy it ...
> 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.).
I believe that this only will work if the *customer* can honestly believe that the committee will deliver. And that is where the conflicts come in. It starts as a good idea, but then each company involved must figure out which piece of the pie it is willing to settle for within each buying customer. If this doesn't occur, then the companies recognize that although they are "theoretically" partners they must now compete for the same set of buying customers. So then they start to think through the value add that is going to make them better ... hiding their trump card to close the sales ... having sales reps competing in accounts ... and oops, where did the "partners" go? How much WebSphere is IBM going to be selling on NetWare?
On the other hand, loose organizations of the "standards bodies" mean that a certain level of compatibility exists. A playing field that the customer enjoys. Upon which companies compete against each other.
> 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.
But that's the case ... it's not a "controlled committee" that creates an RFC or proposed standard. It's anyone who wants to ... any company that wants to. And it's open for anyone ... including Microsoft ... to join. Microsoft has offered to open the whole Instant Messaging discussion to the IETF IMPP Working Group ... is AOL joining them at the table?
> 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.
Well, let's look at the Internet today ... which of the following was developed or "dictated" by Microsoft?
Ethernet, ATM, TCP/IP, PPP, DNS, DHCP, SLP, SMTP, POP3, IMPA4, HTTP, HTML, XML, FTP, ICP, MP3, RealMedia, QuickTime, ...
I'm lost at trying to find the "standard", that they have dictated and/or abused, that I use every day. Almost none. Well ... my desktop, which wraps all these into user-friendly (most of the time) implementations of these standards. Yes ... they seem to have a good set of engineers who crank out great implementations of other peoples ideas ... I say good for them.
They sure blew it with MSN when they wanted to "dictate" the future of networked computing ... but after the Internet was realized, they knew how to capitalize on it ... by creating the best (good enough) implementations of the applications that people want to use.
> 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.
So how much is enough? Let's look at Novell. Are you saying that Novell should settle for it's current market share? Should is grab 10% of the directory marketspace? Or 50%? Or is 90% ok for Novell because ... ??? Is there a limit that should be set on how many of the earths population that should be allowed to be in Novell directories? Also, since when was the objective to be "for the good of the industry"?
I believe that any company will slow down when it hits a wall ... and to me it's obvious that Microsoft has now hit a wall that it must deal with. And after bouncing, what are you proposing they should do? Sit in their "place" in the market? How do you define that place? How much is enough? How much it too much?
> 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.
I agree that Microsoft included new features and standards support into Windows when they added IE. (I actually *do* think that the browser is a natural extension of the OS ...) To me this is just like car manufacturers now adding cell phones into automobiles. You could argue that this might destroy the market for add-on cell phones ... and a cell phone can be argued to have nothing to do with a car. Or we could pick CD players in cars ... or air conditioners ... now bike racks ...
When is it that a company is not allowed to add functionality to it's products? Just because it's detrimental to a potential competitor? What if I *want* this convienence? I like the fact that when I installed computers for people in my family, I didn't have to worry about running around grabbing various software to create a complete system. It's all there. And I *still* have the option to buy or obtain other software if I feel it's superior ...
> 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.
Yep ... it took me a long time to start using IE in addition to Netscape. What I've found is that Netscape took a "multi-platform" or "least common-denominator" approach. The product had poor OS integration because *Netscape* made that decision. Microsoft, on the other hand, wanted to find a way to capitalize on the large number of VB programmers, the MFC libraries, and the features of the OS ... and so IE was born, evolved, was free (oh yeah ... Netscape was free also, until they realized that they needed to figure out a way to make money ... too bad they hadn't thought about that ...) and grew. No one forces people to use IE ... but it sure is handy to get a browser with your OS ... just like calculator. Which makes me think ... who protected the HP and TI calculator businesses? Why was IBM allowed to build PCs? ;-)
> 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.
I don't agree that the example that you cite is a "clear violation" ... I believe that any vendor should be allowed to include any enhancements to it's products. Cars should allowed to include cell phones as standard features. TVs should be allowed to include cable-ready tuners. Microsoft should allowed to include a browser.
And Novell should allowed to include, for FREE, a Web Server, FTP Server, DNS Server, DHCP Server, Multi-Protocol Routing Software, LDAP Server, Directory Services, Tape Backup Software, 5-User Oracle Database Server, Btrieve Database Server, PKI Encryption Technologies, Directory-Based Client OS Management Software, Software Inventory Tools, Software Distribution Tools, and on and on ... all for free. In the OS. As part of the package.
> 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?
I agree that some specific actions that Microsoft did were crossing the boundary. I haven't seen you mention any of them here ...
> 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?
Unrelated? You now are going to sit there and explain to me that a browser, the very interface through which you explore hyperlinked network resources and content, is unrelated to ... what? Come on ... who are you kidding here? If I were to follow your logic, then the TCP/IP stack is unrelated to the OS. I guess that WordPad is also unrelated, and Calculator, and on and on ... heck ... rip it all out.
> 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.
So you are talking about Oracle? Or RealNetworks? Or is it SAP? Or maybe it's BEA? Adobe? How many do you want me to list? (Or what about IBM? Are you referring to Novell?) Yep ... the world is a brutal place ... people lose. Companies lose. But not all of them. Not the ones that think ...
And when you think about these poor dead companies, have you looked at all the ideas, companies, products and services that Microsoft has "grown"?
> 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?
They have missed countless opportunities, and release failures. What about good old Bob? You are exactly right ... they have made errors ... and are very good at learning from them. Too bad that many other people and companies aren't ...
> 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.
Obviously, the other explanation and definition is that it wasn't so critical and fundamental! Ever thought about it that way? Just like IBM was able to survive just fine when they had to turn the company around and get back on track. Just like Novell was able to survive until Eric came on board to get things on track.
> 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.
As long as they could positively identify him or her. Correct? Or at IBM would mere accusation be good enough? Would the IBM laywers maybe think through the issues of an employee lawsuit? Liable?
> 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?
Which one? You make a gross assumption that the exact employee could be identified. Not a workstation ... but the person at the workstation at the exact moment of transmission ... and that the clock hadn't been tampered with ... and so on and so on. There are so many computers throughout Novell, if someone decided to approach one to send something there is no way that they could identify who the employee was. And to make the allegations ... what type of lawsuit would the company draw?
Besides that, are you trying to tell me that you aren't knowledgable enough to know how to do something like this and not be traceable? Come on ... walk into the lobby computer and send a quick e-mail? A friends office? Maybe there were several people in the room ... who's going to "cop out" to exactly what happened? You overly trivialize the investigation process ... maybe at IBM they track you like an animal ... I know they don't at Novell ...
> From everything I have heard from MSFT, they seem to be
> conditioanlly defending this person and excusing his actions.
I have not seen anyone defend the employee's actions ... but I have seen the question about AOL's proprietary lock on their messaging ... and their blatant efforts to break Microsoft software. I saw a question back to AOL about using a known bug in the software (a buffer overflow bug) to update software on a customers desktop with out letting them know ...
> 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.
Wow ... now this is getting really deep and needs to be examined by the X-Files people ... employees have now lost all free-will ... have no ability to possess their own morals and values ... amazing.
> 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. :)))))
Yep ... likewise ... ;-)
> thanks again for the stimulating response and for getting th blood
> moving on this board. Its always a pleasure Big Guy!
As always ... some good points and perspectives ...
Scott C. Lemon |
