• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

[NEWS] Is Microsoft Still a Monopoly?

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.

Mr.Guvernment

Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Well, i do agree with what is said below, are they really a monopoly still?

In EU they are being forced to remove products from THEIR software that THEY made and now possibly being forced to put in 3rd party parts!

I think that is unreal - that is like tell Coke, they have to sell Pepsi in their vending machines... ?

I think people are going to far against Microsoft and simply want to see them fail, then when another company cant provide and innovate like MS has done - and you can not deny that, then they will cry about the other companies being a monopoly....

whine whine whine, is that all people do these days?


+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Is Microsoft Still a Monopoly? |
| from the the-times-they-are-a-changing dept. |
| posted by Roblimo on Monday December 26, @12:48 (Editorial) |
| http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/12/26/1414209 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+

Microsoft Windows still dominates the desktop. But in many other areas,
including Web servers and supercomputing, Microsoft is just one player
among many, and often a weak player at that. On the gaming side, despite
the latest xBox getting all kinds of media buzz as "the" console to buy,
Sony's Playstation outsells the xBox at least two to one, and many
analysts expect Sony to widen that gap even more when Playstation 3 comes
out in the Spring of 2006. On the Internet, MSN and MSN Search are so far
behind AOL and Google that it isn't funny. And even on the desktop, Linux
keeps getting stronger, while Mac OS X is commonly accepted as more
reliable, secure, and user-oriented than Windows. So why do we keep
saying Microsoft is a monopoly?

This story continues at:
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/12/26/1414209

Discuss this story at:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=05/12/26/1414209
 
M$ is a monopoly but it shouldn't be forced to change its products or change components of the products.
No other company can make new OS as every software and game out there is made to run on XP or some other form of Windows.
 
Microsoft made their own problem in Europe. The thought they were so big and powerful that governments could not tell them what to do. They are finding out that is not the case. Good! If governments do not control giant corporations then giant corporations will control governments. This has happened in the USA and it's not a pretty picture.
 
Your Coke and Pepsi analogy is weak.... That fact there's Coke AND Pepsi is the simple reason why. There's no Microsoft AND ________ really.

When Microsoft pulls crap like not being able to uninstall Media Player then they deserve what they get in a litigation sense.

If your overall premise is "are they a monopoly still" then I would ask other questions rather than start off that way
 
Are they still a monopoly? Yes. Do they deserve to be? Yes.

I agree with the comments Mr.Guvernment made, but they do corner the market in the whole Operating system thing. Who else is going to challenge a company that large? Personally I like Microsoft, don't have a problem with them at all.

Just because you can't uninstall the obstructive media player, doesn't mean you have to use it (I prefer media player classic or VLC)
 
Is it MS fualt that NO one can come together to create a competitive O/S ?

no, so why should they be punished for the lack of someone else's ability?

My analogy isnt weak really

Mac O/S
Linux
Lindows

there are other system out there - but why arent they better? cause people arent making them better

Linux - HOW many linux developers are out there? probably ALOT more then MS has yet they cant come togethe as 1 and make something better.

i know this is not true to all linux users, but i think far too many have fat ego's and think.

"well, why help out Fedora, i am going to make my own version of linux!"

"Why make an easier installer - i dont need it! so lets make it a pain in the *** to install some drivers"


There could be a better solution then windows - if people in the "OpenSource" community pulled together a little more and made it.

Fedora is a step in the right direction but persnally - until Linux has an easier way like the .exe /.msi to install programs - it will never become main stream.

Is it MS fault that Linux Gaming is weak? Nope, it is Linux's fualt i always thought for changing too often, for their being SO many various of linux.

K, what company of linux should we design our game for today? Debian? redhat? slackware?

Linux community needs to get it arse in gear and when it does, it can take over MS.

And forcing a company to change their product is BS - MS didnt run any government - MS offered a better product for the task and provided it.

I am sure the Government of the world would LOVE to pay $0 for an O/S - so why arent they on Linux? must be some dam good reasons why.......


P.S - you CAN uninstall Media player / messeneger - even remove most links to IE simply by editing one .inf file.
 
i would love to see some threats - back to the article, look where MS is not a monopoly and is getting their arses handed to them ?

Server market
Search engines

so all they got is the desktop O/S - i am sure some other things, but go back a few years and most servers in the world were--- MS based....
 
I wouldn't add the Xbox into the mix, video games are and always have been, very weird products and they don't fit with other products very well. Nintendo was huge, then Sega kicked Nintendo off #1, then Sony kicked Nintendo AND Sega in the balls, M$ is now trying to do the same to Sony. However both companies are HUGELY powerful with massive incomes from many other sources, aside from gaming consoles.

M$ is a monopoly when it comes to operating systems. Yes they innovate, yes computers now are SO easy to use compared to ones 10-20 years ago. However, when it comes to QUALITY, STABILITY, Microsoft suffers. For example, I had a driver problem (there were no conflicts in device manager) however I could not boot to windows normally, only in safe mode. A GOOD operating system would not let a driver problem bring it down like that. What Windows SHOULD be designed to do is, if a driver refuses to load, terminate it and either load a generic driver or don't load a driver at all for that device. My driver problem was with 3rd party SATA/PATA drivers that wouldn't load. So XP, instead of LOCKING UP while booting, just terminate those drivers and LOAD YOUR OWN PATA/SATA DRIVERS!!
Also, there is this talk of trusted computing, that is TOTAL BS. An OS's JOB is it RUN a computer, NOT lock the user out of files or programs that "aren't legal".
It's like car makers designing speed limiters in cars for 70MPH under the justification that "well if you are going faster than 70MPH, then it's illegal so you shouldn't do that. So we will be ******** and won't let you".
It is a person's DECISION to do illegal activities. If they want to run illegal software and media, let them. They may get caught, they may not, but the point is an operating system's PRIMARY job is to be the buffer between USER and HARDWARE and allow both systems to communicate. It is NOT to limit what the USER can open and use.
There are much worse things a person can do besides downloading MP3s and a couple programs. Besides all that, downloading MP3s is LEGAL in Canada, so what do we do when the new Windows doesn't allow us to open MP3s, even though it is 100% LEGAL in our country?!!!!
I am not for software and movie piracy, but that doesn't mean i'm for trusted computing either :argue: :argue: :bang head
 
bro, all this bitching about microsoft does this microsoft does that, they can do whatever the hell they want, its there product, there idea, they own it. there a monopoly cuz they made the best product.
 
Amarkarian said:
bro, all this bitching about microsoft does this microsoft does that, they can do whatever the hell they want, its there product, there idea, they own it. there a monopoly cuz they made the best product.



I have to laugh. A company doesn't become powerful simply because they make good products. It's a large part, sure, but not the whole picture. M$'s marketing, buy-outs and stealing was all timed just wonderfully to force a monopoly. As a single example, the MS-DOS installed on the very first IBM PCs was NOT written by Microsoft. There are dozens more examples of why Microsoft is not a good company.
Don't get me wrong, I actually like XP and think it's the best OS Microsoft has ever come out with, but Linux is still the BETTER operating system hands down.
The only reason so many more people like XP is because it is SO easy to use. It is NOT, read this over many times, XP is NOT the better operating system! It's just easy to use and EVERYTHING has support for it. When something has 95% market share, it doesn't have to be the best product, and XP most certainly isn't.
 
dfonda said:
I want them to be a monopoly....Its hard enough keeping all my crap running right with out competition! :)

YES!!! Can you imagine what software developers would do if there were 2 completely different popular OSes on the desktop market, each controlling half? Or worse, 3? You'd HOPE they'd write for all of them... You'd end up with ports on games, and developers signing agreements for an OS to write for them only, much like 'xbox only' games, and 'ps2 only' games. Shoot, there are productivity apps that are buggy and not stable right now... I can't imagine the developer having to worry about different platforms stability too. ::shivers::

Current Joe Schmoes don't even know how to use all of windows' features as it is, I'd be worried if their job places switched platforms or something... at least 80% of the current computer using population would have to learn something entirely new, and I know I wouldn't want to teach a 40 year old to learn new tricks, changing everything he's ever known and gotten used to, just so the gov't would STFU. Still can't get people to RTFM, can you image 3 manuals?!?!

I like the desktop OS market as it is right now... Servers and other markets can go to other OSes for all I care.
 
K15 said:
I have to laugh. A company doesn't become powerful simply because they make good products. It's a large part, sure, but not the whole picture. M$'s marketing, buy-outs and stealing was all timed just wonderfully to force a monopoly. As a single example, the MS-DOS installed on the very first IBM PCs was NOT written by Microsoft. There are dozens more examples of why Microsoft is not a good company.
Don't get me wrong, I actually like XP and think it's the best OS Microsoft has ever come out with, but Linux is still the BETTER operating system hands down.
The only reason so many more people like XP is because it is SO easy to use. It is NOT, read this over many times, XP is NOT the better operating system! It's just easy to use and EVERYTHING has support for it. When something has 95% market share, it doesn't have to be the best product, and XP most certainly isn't.

Easiest and most efficient = better to me... the desktop user. I don't want to be a coder just to be able to browse the internet and play games, that's for people with much more time on their hands. I like the simplicity and broad range of compatibility... until something comes along that can do what windows has done in terms of compatibility and ease of use, it's clear what I'll be using. Enough headaches and hair pulling as it is, I don't want anymore, just because I didn't put the ; in the right place.
 
mdameron said:
Easiest and most efficient = better to me... the desktop user. I don't want to be a coder just to be able to browse the internet and play games, that's for people with much more time on their hands. I like the simplicity and broad range of compatibility... until something comes along that can do what windows has done in terms of compatibility and ease of use, it's clear what I'll be using. Enough headaches and hair pulling as it is, I don't want anymore, just because I didn't put the ; in the right place.



Easiest, maybe. Most efficient, absolutely not. Linux is incredibly easy to use. It comes with any program you would need (Firefox, GAIM, XMMS etc) has quite a bit of software and driver support now. Also in terms of efficiency, Linux uses WAY less RAM than XP does, WAY less. Almost everything is as point-and-click as it is in XP. File copying, internet browsing, working with pictures, files, programs etc. Sure there IS a lot more complex ways of working with it, but you don't have to do that to use it.
Linux Knoppix had driver support for my 5 year old Pentium 3 just fine as well as my new rig in my sig (rhyme :) Pop the CD in, reboot and there it comes, with everything running fine. Open Firefox, web page right there with zero set up. Open XMMS and it plays my Winamp playlists just fine.

Anyhow, if you like XP, fine, but if you are calling XP the best, I SURELY hope you have tried Linux (or at least OSX). Calling something the best when you haven't used the alternatives doesn't make much sense.
 
AT&T is an example of a monopoly that was handled by the government. At one time they were the Phone Company. Look at all the competition and innovation that resulted from their breakup.

Why do you think Microsoft is so rich? Because it is a monopoly. If there really was real competition then Windows and other Microsoft products would be cheaper and perhaps even better. Microsoft only improves its products when forced to. Before the DOJ and other government entities stepped in Microsoft was moving toward a subscription service for all its products. Instead of buying a license and upgrading when were ready you would be forced to pay a monthly subscription. Microsoft was doing this for two reasons: 1) people were not upgrading to new versions fast enough, and 2) they wanted a more predictable and steady cash flow to make their stock holders happier. Microsoft also has been participating in a lot of practices to kill competition. This is what laws involving monopolies were supposed to prevent. Unfortunately the government had waited so long that doing anything now would help in the long run but hurt the US economy a lot in the short run. All the penalties they have received so far have been only slaps on the wrist. If Microsoft had been broken up years ago by the government then maybe we would have been better off. Maybe not. Laws that govern monopolies were never meant to make things easier for us. After all long distance was a lot easier to deal with when AT&T owned it but preserving competition and innovation was something that needed to be preserved.
 
Personally I tend to think it's their software and they can do with it as they like. It is up to us if we choose to use that software. The thing about all this is though, I don't think MS really created itself a monoply on the market. Though the 3rd party programs and joe six pack have. The fact is that MS has controlled a large maybe to large % of the market for some time, the result of this is that no programs are devolped for other OSes and in turn Joe Six pack does not bother trying to mess with another OS. I mean after all why would he, the dell he just bought already has XP on it and can run everything he wants it to. The main reason I do not see this as a monopoly is by def a monopoly is exclusive control or rights to something. Though MS does have a large % of the market they do not have exclusive rights to the market and are really doing nothing more then selling their software bundled with some other their other programs. Which I think anyone who is trying to run a business would do, after all it makes sense to give your customers the power they need and in turn giving that power through your own programs. Anyway it's late here so most of what I just said probably makes no sense so let me just sum it up saying. Though MS controls the vast majority of the computer market, they do not by definition have a monopoly and are really just promoting thier software like any business does. They just happened to be lucky enough right now to be pre installed on every dell and HP system that leaves the shelves. That in turn could be related to an old monolpoly they had on the market, though that does not mean they are still mopolizing the market, simply riding the the shock wave of their previouse doings.
 
Having exclusive control is not required. Think about this "The Clayton Antitrust Act defined more clearly what constituted illegal restraint of trade. The act outlawed price discrimination that gave certain buyers an advantage over others; forbade agreements in which manufacturers sell only to dealers who agree not to sell a rival manufacturer's products...".

When Microsoft did not like that Netscape had a bigger market share at one time. Did they compete fairly by making a better browser and convince people to buy it? No, they undercut Netscape by giving away Internet Explorer and forcing computer manufactuers to have it on the desktop and forbid them from installing a competing browser instead.

Forcing computer manufacturers to only install Windows on their computers also violated the The Clayton Antitrust Act. It is a mute point now since there is no REAL competition to Windows. (Do not harp about linux. I have used it for almost ten years. It is a long way from being on the same level of usability and support as Windows).
 
Back