Scrapps:
At the risk of prolonging this discussion, I'm going to inject my personal complaint against Microsoft's business practices.
Back in April 1991, I decided it was time to upgrade to a new powerhouse Dell 386 system (25 MHz processor, 150 MB HD, 4MB memory. 5 1/4 & 3 1/2 floppies, 40 MB tape drive - I'd forgotten until I looked it up that I paid $6500 for that baby, currently sitting in the basement!). MSDOS v4.x was a whopping $120 extra, and Microsoft's then office software (I forget what was in the bundle) was around a $250 extra. Because all my legal clients used WordPerfect and Lotus 123 (both had around 65% market share vs Microsoft's Word and Excel products), I told Dell I didn't want Microsoft's stuff, and I got the $250 taken off the price, and installed my own software. There was choice, and I didn't have to pay for something I didn't want.
Fast forward to January 1996, time to upgrade that clunky old 286 to a new Dell Pentium 133MHz system (still running). "Bundled" Microsoft software was WIN 95 and MS Office or MS Works (or whatever they were called then). Again I declined the Microsoft Office stuff, but this time I only got a nominal amount deducted - I forget the amount, but it was less than $100, much less than the cost of the retail software. Still some choice, but apparently I had to pay something for it.
On to June 1997, when I bought a new Dell laptop to replace the IBM lemon that had failed for the fourth time in three years. Corel had taken over WP from Novell, who had fallen flat because they never got out a WIN 95 version, but Corel had zipped out a WIN 95 WP Office version in no time and were threatening to stem MS Office's growing market share. This time there was no option - I had to take the machine with WIN 95, the IE browser, and MS Office 97. According to Dell, their license agreement with Microsoft required them to install MS Office with every OEM copy of WIN 95. Since I had my own version of WIN 95 and was (am) still using WP Office and Netscape, I asked Dell if I could take the laptop w/o the OS and do all the software myself? OK said Dell, but the price is the same - presumably because of the Microsoft "per Intel processor sold" vs. "per installation" pricing. Choice, but no real choice.
The point of course is that Microsoft used its monopoly of the OS market to force its application software and browser onto every OEM installation of WIN 95, whether customers wanted it or not, and customers had to pay, whether they liked it or not. If you wanted the OS installed, you got the Microsoft applications, and if you didn't, you got no price break.
With those kinds of strong arm monopolistic pricing agreements with Microsoft, it's small wonder that Lotus, Corel, Borland and others couldn't cut OEM deals with the major PC suppliers at any price, despite the fact that product reviews showed them all top be comparable to Microsoft's stuff. Microsoft effectively put its application software competition out of business through this kind of activity. The same approach by Microsoft in the early 1990's put the few competing OS's that were around or that arose out of business.
I'd have no beef with Microsoft if they'd stacked their products up in the market place against the competition, performance and price wise. But they went way beyond that approach.
It's unfortunate that the anti-trust laws are the only legal means to put a stop to this kind of activity, it's like taking a sledge hammer to a panel nail. I can't see the point in breaking Microsoft up, but what other means are available to prevent Microsoft from illegally stifling competition in future markets?
Just a personal view point.
David T. |
