Microsoft wins!!!
September 6, 2001 7:57 AM   Subscribe

Microsoft wins!!!
posted by Steven Den Beste (71 comments total)

 
wondering if the justice department has received any contributions recently.
posted by chrisroberts at 8:02 AM on September 6, 2001


Does this mean another round of "Ballmer blowing out his voicebox" videos? - I can't wait!
posted by hotdoughnutsnow at 8:03 AM on September 6, 2001


Was there ever really any doubt? Especially after the election.

BTW, that picture of Gates is priceless.
posted by jpoulos at 8:06 AM on September 6, 2001


what an amazing picture of Bill.
posted by dogmatic at 8:08 AM on September 6, 2001


Oh my God. That picture. Speaks volumes.

Judge Jackson should have kept his mouth shut. I bet he has is foot in there now, though.
posted by adampsyche at 8:11 AM on September 6, 2001


Cunts.
posted by holgate at 8:13 AM on September 6, 2001


That picture was probably taken during the XP release party. It's not his reaction to the news.
posted by timothompson at 8:14 AM on September 6, 2001


They took that photo out of context.
posted by waxpancake at 8:14 AM on September 6, 2001


It still speaks volumes. Now maybe if the EU and Korea can just convict the bastards and break up the company...[Dr. Evil voice]...riiiiiigghhtt.
posted by adampsyche at 8:17 AM on September 6, 2001


I wouldn't necessarily say Microsoft has won, per se. It just sounds like the Justice Department has decided not to pursue the breakup of MS, which never seemed like all that feasible of an idea in the first place. What I wonder now, though, is what is the government planning on doing about it? Even in spite of Jackson's obvious bias, the appellate court decided that the company really was unfairly leveraging their monopoly power, so.. now what?
posted by zempf at 8:18 AM on September 6, 2001


ha ha ha! 62 days until i take over the world!!!
posted by dogmatic at 8:19 AM on September 6, 2001


I'm not surprised there's no breakup, but I'm left wondering at this line:

The department also said it will not pursue the bundling issues

what does that mean, exactly? does that mean they are totally rolling over, and will be seeking NO remedies? which, alas, wouldn't surprise me.

okay, so I just checked out the CNN story - which doesn't sound as bleak as I was afraid of. DoJ is going to try for the restrictions that Jackson wanted (as stop-gap to breakup, at that point).

I'm still doubtful, and must concur with chrisroberts' cynicism.
posted by epersonae at 8:27 AM on September 6, 2001


Just wait until the water supply becomes tainted with XP...maybe you will have to be a HailStorm user to drink from public works from now on....
posted by adampsyche at 8:31 AM on September 6, 2001


I think that really the important thing is that it upheld the decision that Microsoft had, and abused, monopoly status. This should leave the door open for enough lawsuits to drain the company of every penny.
posted by jbelshaw at 8:34 AM on September 6, 2001


Breakup was never practical; breaking the company up into two or three companies with equal access to the intellectual property would have taken years and probalby would have destroyed the company entirely; there's no way such a remedy would have stood up to appeal. (Antitrust remedies aren't about punishment but about relief, and the interests of stockholders are part of the consideration.)

Breakup into MSOSCo and MSAppsCo would merely have taken one monopoly and turned it into two.

Bundling is the big part of this. Microsoft has now been given everything it always said it wanted, and will now be give away things it no longer cares about. It will continue to be free to bundle.

What I suspect you're going to see in the agreement is uniform pricing for all vendors and end to certain restrictons previously imposed on the licensees, which are both minor concessions for Microsoft at this point.

The wildcard here is the state Attorney's general. Will they go along with this or decide to pursue the case on their own?

(By the way, JBelshaw, Microsoft does indeed have a lot o fmoney, and also a lot of lawyers. There's a good chance that it will be able to legally outlast nearly all plaintiffs.)
posted by Steven Den Beste at 8:55 AM on September 6, 2001


A small step toward the DoJ actually living up to its name. The message a breakup would have sent to up-and-coming businesses -- let alone the obvious injustice to MS -- would have been terrible.
posted by mw at 9:02 AM on September 6, 2001


"The message a breakup would have sent to up-and-coming businesses"

What message? That's it's wrong to use a monopoly to steamroll all competitors and threaten venders? You sir are on goofers.
posted by y6y6y6 at 9:23 AM on September 6, 2001


(By the way, JBelshaw, Microsoft does indeed have a lot o fmoney, and also a lot of lawyers. There's a good chance that it will be able to legally outlast nearly all plaintiffs.)

Which is where the EU comes in: given that they stood in the way of Jack Welch and the GE/Honeywell merger, they certainly have to clout to pursue their own cases against Microsoft.

You're right, though: bundling is the key here. Hailstorm and .NET are going to be more insidious than cancer.
posted by holgate at 9:27 AM on September 6, 2001


mw - The idea that what Microsoft is doing is good business just because it works is bull.

It works so well because it's unfair. The consumer suffers. Innovation suffers. And yes, the economy suffers. Tying computers and the Internet to the proprietary wimps of one company is bad. Very bad. The fact that it's made Bill Gates rich does not make it good.
posted by y6y6y6 at 9:33 AM on September 6, 2001


Didn't Bob Cringely predict this back in 1999?
posted by mathowie at 9:33 AM on September 6, 2001


Wow! I really hate Microsoft, and use none of their stuff (on my personal machines), but I am so glad for this news. That lawsuit was such garbage, I hope it flickers out completely soon.
posted by thirteen at 9:33 AM on September 6, 2001


"whims" Damn it.
posted by y6y6y6 at 9:33 AM on September 6, 2001


Actually, I thought wimps worked pretty well.
posted by kingjeff at 9:42 AM on September 6, 2001


The state Attorneys General are going along with it.

The EU is an interesting question, one I've thought about. The EU only has jurisdiction because Microsoft products are sold there. If faced either with an EU order to break up or a decision to not sell their products in Europe, which do you thinK Microsoft would choose?

And the next question would be this: How long after an effective boycott of sales of all PC products to Europe before the EU changed its mind? It's no longer possible to run a modern First-World economy without a constant flow of new PCs.

Actually, what would happen in that case would be a massive grey market, but as unauthorized sales it would no longer grant the EU jurisdiction and thus the EU would no longer have the power to order a breakup.

I'm not sure of the extent to which the EU actually would have the ability to order a breakup anyway. It isn't capable fo getting a direct court order since it doesn't have jurisdiction in the US, where Microsoft is incorporated. I believe the extent of its regulatory power is its ability to order a boycott. In other words, if after such an order Microsoft didn't break up the EU wouldn't permit its products to be sold in Europe -- which basically would hurt the EU much more than Microsoft. Microsoft would lose about a quarter of its sales but the EU economy would collapse.
posted by Steven Den Beste at 9:58 AM on September 6, 2001


Guys get real. Microsoft is the Government.
posted by betobeto at 9:59 AM on September 6, 2001


If the entire European economy is in thrall to Microsoft, then that's the best argument for restricting them/breaking 'em up that I've ever heard.
posted by darukaru at 10:05 AM on September 6, 2001


Wohoo!
posted by dagny at 10:08 AM on September 6, 2001


Yay, good ole Bill. Nerds unite!

Off topic, but I always thought NandoTimes was some sort of spoof news site so I've never bothered reading their stories. But, on seeing this true one, obviously not..
posted by wackybrit at 10:19 AM on September 6, 2001


Nando is a straight news site, and it has the advantage of keeping its old stories online and linkable. Yahoo rolls them into the bit bucket in two weeks, which is why I don't link there.
posted by Steven Den Beste at 10:31 AM on September 6, 2001


what is gates doing with that AOL CD?
posted by quonsar at 10:40 AM on September 6, 2001


The consumer suffers. Innovation suffers.

Where you been the past 10 years? I don't see any lack of innovation in the tech sector - dotcom bubble or not. There are other monopolies or impending ones that have been much more onerous in their actions (1,2) than MS.
posted by owillis at 10:48 AM on September 6, 2001


There's very little innovation in the desktop market which is where Microsoft dominates. Quick, what new functionality (that you as user care about) appeared in the path from Window 95 to 98 to XP? There's a bit more innovation in the server market where Microsoft has less of a monopoly but most of that innovation is driven by the web. There's a huge amount of innovation in the net where Microsoft has much less of a presence. The volume of innovation in the net is large because; the use of the net by the general public is relatively new, there was a huge amount of capital thrown at it, and the web's core uses open, standards based tech.
posted by rdr at 11:04 AM on September 6, 2001


Dunno about you owillis, but I've been in the software industry for the last ten years, and I'm increasingly depressed by the complete lack of innovation I see there. There have been no new kinds of application since the web browser. Aside from perpetual re-chroming, very little has changed in the operating systems world, either.

I'm sure there have been many far more damaging monopolies than Microsoft's, but I certainly have seen a steady drop in the creativity and ingenuity applied to commercial software design over the last fifteen years, and I can't help but notice that this runs in parallel with Microsoft's increasing dominance of both operating systems and application software markets.

The ruling doesn't matter, anyway. If they'd done something about it five or six years ago, there might have been a chance to remedy some of the abuses, but there's no way to recall the past. Microsoft has won, their greed and shady tactics paid off, and there's no way to gain back the diversity now lost.

-Mars (yes, I'm bitter)
posted by Mars Saxman at 11:07 AM on September 6, 2001


wondering if the justice department has received any contributions recently.

Microsoft gave $4,617,726 to political parties in the last election cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. 47% went to Democrats, 53% to Republicans.

John "AC" Kelly of Microsoft donated $100,000 to the Bush Inaugural


posted by bkdelong at 11:15 AM on September 6, 2001


Mars, have all of the good ideas for desktop applications been hatched and now will just be refined over time? Can you (or anyone) name any killer apps yet to be developed for the desktop? If not, then I think that's the reason behind the perceived lack of innovation. Maybe all the standard desktop needs is word processing, spreadsheet, presentation, browser, design (CAD & artistic). At risk of being redundant (and ignorant of other good apps other people use), I say it's all been done, and Microsoft is simply the best at creating, refining, and marketing a comprehensive, integrated suite to satisfy most desktop needs. To me, that's not monopolistic, but capitalistic. Sure, they've employed some shady tactics along the way, but most people (luddites to semi-luddites such as myself) want smooth, simple integration between programs. The next frontier: embedded, Ben, embedded.
posted by msacheson at 11:19 AM on September 6, 2001


mw: The message a breakup would have sent to up-and-coming businesses --

like Netscape? The problem with the monopoly is that "up-and-coming businesses" are being crushed, rather than competed with.
posted by swell at 11:26 AM on September 6, 2001


Steven: I don't think the EU would push for the break-up of MS, but they'd definitely take on the bundling issues, especially if they regard Hailstorm as a "browser". The EU has little power to divide corporate entities, but it's good at preventing their consolidation and aggregation of the market.
posted by holgate at 11:32 AM on September 6, 2001


Wow, I didn't think people would react this way. I see it completely differently.

The DoJ has a pretty strong case, and MS has been found guilty. Now they're just trying to work out a punishment. Because of Jackson's behavior, the case against MS got a pretty big black eye, and the DoJ understands this better than anyone.

So what they're doing is trimming the fat from their requested punishment. If they tried to shoot the moon (breaking MS up) they wouldn't get anywhere. However, by aiming lower, they can focus and attack with a much higher degree of success.

No one really thought a breakup would work, did they? The DoJ is just positioning itself to strike.
posted by jragon at 11:34 AM on September 6, 2001


"There have been no new kinds of application since the web browser."

There's filesharing, MP3 players, instant messaging, and internet telephony to name a few.

But "new kinds of applications" don't flow like water anyway. Innovation does not come on demand, and the presense of a company that dominates existing application types will not affect the development of new types. (Netscape was scuttled by a management that didn't know what it was doing.)

There's also the problem of "done" software. The word processor, for example, is "done" - there aren't really any more features you can add that aren't trivial. The biggest whoop-de-do has been the adoption of XML as a file format (lead by Microsoft and Star Office). Indeed, let's take Star Office - its development thrust consists of copying Microsoft Office as hard and fast as its tiny little legs can carry it. Same can be said of alternative PC desktops like GNOME and KDE. (GNOME only recently got anti-aliased fonts, which have been in Windows since 1995).

Likewise, PC operating systems are pretty much "done". The next revolutions aren't likely to be on PC hardware anymore (until 64-bit hardware becomes common), but in other devices. Microsoft did not inhibit the rise of Palm (but Palm's ineptitude and stagnation is what will allow Microsoft to pass them). Nor are the vendors of embedded software feeling any heat. (Seen Windows on any cell phones, lately?)

Innovation is alive and well. It just moved to where the action is.
posted by wenham at 11:35 AM on September 6, 2001


Can you (or anyone) name any killer apps yet to be developed for the desktop?

Yes: an information manager that brings the principles of Lotus Agenda into the 21st century. A writers' tool (and no, Word doesn't count). A decent filing system. The current desktop environment (whether Microsoft, Mac or UNIXy) is built on foundations that still represent the mental vocabulary of programmers, not domestic users. They're foundations of bare, jagged metal.
posted by holgate at 11:35 AM on September 6, 2001


At one point, Netscape essentially had a monopoly in the browser market and was trying to leverage that into dominance of the server market. Hell, their browser would even display a special label for the Location field when you connected to a site running a Netscape server. Every Web site is a location, but only Netscape servers were NetSites.

it's good when Netscape does it, though!
posted by kindall at 11:38 AM on September 6, 2001


And the next question would be this: How long after an effective boycott of sales of all PC products to Europe before the EU changed its mind? It's no longer possible to run a modern First-World economy without a constant flow of new PCs.

What does this have to do with anything? Most PC parts come from Taiwan, not the US. And I suppose if the EU banned Microsoft from selling their wares, they could simply allow warzing (although I doubt it).

But it's ridiculous to assume that the economy of an entire continent would collapse without Microsoft's products...
posted by delmoi at 11:45 AM on September 6, 2001


I say it's all been done, and Microsoft is simply the best at creating, refining, and marketing a comprehensive, integrated suite to satisfy most desktop needs.

I don't believe that MS has created, refined, or marketed anything. They outright stole their operating systems and designs and then reached market share first. After that, if you wanted to do business with other businesses you had to use Microsoft.

None of the killer apps you mentioned were created by Microsoft, not even refined the least bit.

I just read lately that MS is making Internet Explorer less able to run JAVA, obviously to the users detriment, obviously to screw SUN.
posted by xammerboy at 11:51 AM on September 6, 2001


"I just read lately that MS is making Internet Explorer less able to run JAVA, obviously to the users detriment, obviously to screw SUN"

You may recall that Sun took Microsoft to court a couple of years ago and demanded that they remove their JVM from Windows. Well... now they have. Poor Scott McNealy, what a chump.
posted by wenham at 11:53 AM on September 6, 2001


And on the claim that the removal of Java is "obviously to the users detriment," I'd disagree. There are little more than toys which Java enables a user to run on the desktop. Java never happened as a client-side thing, it turned out to be adopted at the server end instead. And that side of the pipe is completely unaffected by the removal of the JVM from IE.

Java had five years to produce anything worth running on the desktop PC. Corel's office suite was scrapped, Lotus's e-suite was scrapped, Javagator was scrapped. What's left? Moneydance?
posted by wenham at 11:57 AM on September 6, 2001


I just read lately that MS is making Internet Explorer less able to run JAVA, obviously to the users detriment, obviously to screw SUN.

Sun sued MS, now they're whining when they got what they asked for, just like Netscape and Real did when Microsoft's products got on par with them.
posted by owillis at 11:58 AM on September 6, 2001


Is the question "should Microsoft own what they own?" Nobody has to use their stuff. Users get what they want, and all Microsoft really offers is standard and (not in the true sense) stability. If you are worried about innovation, that is what open source is for. There is nothing stopping people from having the computers they want, and it is unreasonable to think you can decide what a company can sell. Everytime Microsoft bloats, I am that much happier that I don't use their stuff. Unhappy people, get yourself a Mac or some Linux and watch the show.
posted by thirteen at 12:19 PM on September 6, 2001


If you are worried about innovation, that is what open source is for.
Although come to think of it, what real innovations are coming out of the open-source movement lately, anyway? Most of the darlings of the movement can be described pretty simply as 'the open-source version of closed-source X'. Like, Ogg Vorbis is the open-source version of MP3. PNG: the open-source version of GIF. KDE: the open-source versions of the Windows GUI. Mozilla: the open-source version of Netscape. Hell, even GNU originally started as 'the open-source version of UNIX tools'. The only really new thing I can think of in the past year or two was Gnutella--and I doubt it would ever have happened were it not for Napster.
Innovation still seems to come out of the big company laboratories--open source acts more as a polishing mechanism. Evolution, not revolution.
posted by darukaru at 12:38 PM on September 6, 2001


I'm doin' great on my OSX machine for personal projects, but to work in the computer industry, you need to work with Windows, and that's what annoys me.
posted by jragon at 12:39 PM on September 6, 2001


Maybe they're just planning on releasing the 9x/NT4/NT5/XP source code.

"So what distribution of windows are you running today?"
posted by skallas at 12:43 PM on September 6, 2001


Ahh...Microsoft. The company it's so chic to hate.
Personally, I don't want to go back to the days when you had 5 different vendors producing all the software you used, none of it was compatible, and you never knew what combination was going to make your computer die.
I work with MS Win2000 server/exchange every day, rolling it out to new companies, and you know what, THE COMPANIES LIKE IT. It's easy, it's integrated, it all works together. It's easy to administer (which UNIX guys HATE cuz it's not rocket science anymore.) They just like it. I haven't worked alot with XP yet, but I hear good things about it.
There's still competition, and it's the nature of capitalism that some companies go under. Personally, I never used Netscape..I hated it even when I had a choice.
posted by aacheson at 12:46 PM on September 6, 2001


Personally, I don't want to go back to the days when you had 5 different vendors producing all the software you used, none of it was compatible, and you never knew what combination was going to make your computer die.

Yeah, it's much better to have 5 different versions of software from the same company, none of which is compatible, and you never know when the company's software is going to make your computer die.

Personally, I wouldn't care much about Microsoft's evil scheme for world domination if the company produced reliable software.
posted by rcade at 1:01 PM on September 6, 2001


It's easy to administer (which UNIX guys HATE cuz it's not rocket science anymore.)

That is actually a problem. There are now 'MS Certified' admins out there who don't keep up with patches, hotfixes, and other security issues. Because it's "easy", and keeping up on security issues wasn't on the test. Code Red anyone???
posted by tj at 1:01 PM on September 6, 2001


wenham: My University (Michigan) now uses a Java applet as its main gateway to class registration. That's far from a trivial client-side usage of Java even if it's not important in the grand scheme of things. Also, what about chat sites, notably Yahoo Chat? Chat may be mostly entertainment but it's certainly not a "toy".

Don't get me wrong, I agree that Java has more than failed to live up to its expectations, but I don't think its client-side accomplishments can be simply written off.
posted by caveday at 1:10 PM on September 6, 2001


blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.
posted by Satapher at 1:20 PM on September 6, 2001


I work with MS Win2000 server/exchange every day, rolling it out to new companies, and you know what, THE COMPANIES LIKE IT. It's easy, it's integrated, it all works together. It's easy to administer (which UNIX guys HATE cuz it's not rocket science anymore.)

Oh, jeez, that is so full of nonsense that I don't even know where to begin.

Anyone that claims that any Windoze system are easier to manage is someone who doesn't have to administer more than a few dozen systems and keep them in sync. That, or they have way, way too much personnel overhead.

Claiming you can manage a few thousand MS systems easily means you are smoking ... something. And you aren't sharing.

As to the "easier to manage" claim - yeah, right. Those registry entries are SO user-friendly.

BTW, I do installations of both Windows and UNIX based systems. Sometimes Windows is the right answer - usually if it is a small company that only has a few servers, especially if that company has low-end, inexperienced administrators. It's a toolbox, and I do try to use the right tool for the customer. I'm not even going touch the fact that the same hardware can handle twice the load if you use a non-MS operating system...

UNIX is user friendly. It's just picky about who its friends are.
posted by hadashi at 1:21 PM on September 6, 2001


blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.

Oh yeah? Blah!

heh.

It's all about what your needs are. So me thinks. For some things I need Windows. For some I prefer Linux. For some, I like GUI. For others, give me a bash shell. The whole thing about XP that pisses me off is that darned registration thing. And the high price for the Professional version, which has all the cool tools.
posted by adampsyche at 1:26 PM on September 6, 2001


"My University (Michigan) now uses a Java applet as its main gateway to class registration"

If there's another way to register for a class, then it's even further marginalized than it already is by the fact that it's an extremely small-niche program. And correct me if I'm wrong, but you only have to register for a class once - so the student won't even depend on it for day-to-day use. Class registration isn't something you need Java to solve. Nor is chat.

These aren't sufficient justifications for keeping a JVM, or even including one in the first place. Microsoft obviously made this move for political reasons, but they also removed a maintenance expense. And IE is, after all, provided gratis.
posted by wenham at 1:28 PM on September 6, 2001


From all the applications that MS is bundling into the OS, you wouldn't think they've ever heard of maintenance expense.
posted by harmful at 1:53 PM on September 6, 2001


I agree that client side java wasn't very useful but I also think that theres's a good chance that when wireless finally takes off you'll see client side java take off with it.
posted by rdr at 2:32 PM on September 6, 2001


But then that doesn't have anything to do with Java in IE.
posted by wenham at 2:36 PM on September 6, 2001


"There is nothing stopping people from having the computers they want,"

What if the computers they want don't exist? Seriously.

If I want to buy a digital camera I have a huge range of choice for brands, features, price, etc. Same with car stereo. And manufacturers are *constantly* trying to outdo each other to come up with the next "must have" product.

With Windows XP we now have "the most important upgrade since Windows 95", which is basically Windows 95 that doesn't crash. Oh, and it now requires a 1 gig install. Great.

My folks aren't tech savvy (so no Linux) and they want lots of software options (so no Mac). They have one choice. One.
posted by y6y6y6 at 3:06 PM on September 6, 2001


Y6Y6Y6, there is not now and never has been a right for a consumer to find exactly the product he wants. I can't go to GM and demand that they design a car to my specification (i.e. 3 wheels instead of 4).

The only privilege that consumers have is to make a decision whether to buy or not buy what exists.

If what they want doesn't exist, in computers or cars or cosmetics, then they are out of luck. That is how it always has been.
posted by Steven Den Beste at 3:09 PM on September 6, 2001


what real innovations are coming out of the open-source movement lately, anyway?

hmmmmm....PHP, anyone? I didn't intend to become a PHP evangelist, or by extension, an open-source evangelist (I used to use ASP), but...
-it's free
-it runs on almost any platform you could name (except Netware, darn it)
-it's easy to get started but deep enough to do all sorts of crazy things
-I love the manual...can you imagine comments on a MS product's manual?

on another note, I was in Office Depot last week, and had this small revelation:

Windows 2k + Office XP: over $700 (and they only come separately)

Red Hat Linux + Star Office: $70

I'm jumping from the Windows boat, I think, at least at home. (might keep one of 3 boxes w/Windows so I can play Sims)

and Steven - bad analogy. if I don't like one of GM's SUVs, I can always buy a Toyota Prius, or a Daewoo Nubira, or a Mazda Miata, etc., etc.
posted by epersonae at 4:16 PM on September 6, 2001


they want lots of software options (so no Mac)
This is more Apple's fault for holding onto the OS/Hardware so tightly. Why should people make software for the Mac?
posted by owillis at 4:22 PM on September 6, 2001


well -- in all honesty, netscape really blew it. whining and bitching about ms's 'monopoly' and what're their answer? netscape 6, the most bloated app ever created for viewing a goddamn website. it's like the guy on basketball team and bitches about the starters and when he goes in, he totally fucks up and has to sit down again.

i have very little, if any, company loyalty. i use whatever helps me accomplish my work quickly and easily. that's all i really care about. if the label says 'microsoft,' so what?

besides -- i haven't paid for software in about 6 years, hehheh. bless hotline.

wait -- i DID pay for a few games.
posted by aenemated at 4:38 PM on September 6, 2001


epersonae, Steven's analogy is fine.

What if I want an SUV with wheels like monster trucks, goes 0-60 in 5 seconds and has mileage as good as a Focus? I'm shit out of luck.

If you don't like Windows, you can always buy a Mac or a Linux box. But what if you want an OS that's perfectly stable, fast, easy to use AND has a lot of software options? Then may be you're asking a little too much. A perfect product doesn't exist. Each system has its own advantages/disadvantages, and Windows is not any more imperfect than its competitor. You, as a consumer, has no right to insist on forcing a company to produce better products. You only have the right to choose whom your wallet belongs to.
posted by VeGiTo at 4:40 PM on September 6, 2001


epersonae, thanks for reminding me of the programming/scripting languages--for some reason I have a blind spot in my mind which doesn't let me think of them as 'applications', and so I overlook them. Considering I'm a big Python fan, I hereby kick myself in the rear. *whump*
posted by darukaru at 5:07 PM on September 6, 2001



You, as a consumer, has no right to insist on forcing a company to produce better products. You only have the right to choose whom your wallet belongs to.


Late stage monolopy capitalism. Maybe I might learn something from reading Das Kapital after all.
posted by rdr at 5:40 PM on September 6, 2001


"This should leave the door open for enough lawsuits to drain the company of every penny."

BWAHAHAH. COMEDY GOLD!
posted by jcterminal at 5:52 PM on September 6, 2001


<childish scoff> Hah. PHP. Just Perl with makeup. </childish scoff>

But seriously, AOL Time Warner scares me a lot more than Microsoft does. At least Microsoft doesn't have direct control over a large abount of television (except MSNBC), movies and magazines.

And Microsoft isn't unbeatable. They haven't done so well in the handheld market (although I can't see why, their CE machines are far superior to the Palms I've seen).. and while they're making steady gains in the server market, I doubt they'll ever dominate it.

Everyone thinks that monopolies can't fall.. but if that was the case we'd all be driving Mercedes, drinking Coca-Cola and buying books from Amazon. Oops, my argument just crashed to the ground..
posted by wackybrit at 7:23 PM on September 6, 2001


« Older So that's how cricket is played!...  |  mommy, where'd the rainbow fla... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments