| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Why Microsoft Must Control One Laptop Per Child (Technocrat.net)Why Microsoft Must Control One Laptop Per Child (Technocrat.net)Posted Jan 10, 2008 21:09 UTC (Thu) by pr1268 (subscriber, #24648)Parent article: Why Microsoft Must Control One Laptop Per Child (Technocrat.net)
Thank you, Bruce, for a concise, well-written article. The actions of Microsoft in this context only reaffirm what I've observed all along: MS in only interested in control. That is, control over consumers, control over hardware manufacturers, control over PC retailers, and control over other software vendors. Heck, they even try to exert control over programming languages (C#, J#). Despite several setbacks (OOXML, Apple's, Sun's, and Real Network's lawsuits, and two US DOJ antitrust lawsuits), Microsoft still makes every attempt to perpetuate its domineering existence in the face of increasing threats. In perspective, this may actually be a good thing, since (hopefully) MS will eventually tire of this predatory, litigious existence and change its ways. Maybe, but unlikely.
(Log in to post comments)
Microsoft goals Posted Jan 10, 2008 23:29 UTC (Thu) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] Hmmm. Control? Sadly, what Microsoft does is what every basic Economy textbook teaches. In fact I have recently learned it on a basic Economy textbook: make a product people want, market it a lot, segment your market, and discount like crazy if pressed to. That is how they are fighting free software, even when the competition costs zero and is perfectly good in most situations. You will have to agree that they are doing a good job in this tough environment.Microsoft will never change their ways. Eventually they will lose the war, as every monopoly has, but meanwhile they are going to be a tough opponent.
Microsoft goals Posted Jan 10, 2008 23:48 UTC (Thu) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link] I'd be happy if that's all they were doing. We've no problem if they fight fair. But the gaming of standards organizations is only the most recent example of their not doing so.
Microsoft goals Posted Jan 11, 2008 0:25 UTC (Fri) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] You are of course right. But it is not even clear that they need those unfair practices. Cusumano argues in "The business of software" that this is what happened in the browser wars during the late nineties: Microsoft played dirty with Netscape and won, but they would have won regardless. Netscape just had a lousy strategy.I just say: let us make it more interesting this time.
Microsoft goals Posted Jan 11, 2008 9:19 UTC (Fri) by pr1268 (subscriber, #24648) [Link] That is how they are fighting free software, even when the competition costs zero and is perfectly good in most situations. Which is good, in a way, since it demonstrates that FOSS is relatively immune to Microsoft's previous methods of fighting (extend, embrace, extinguish, acquire via buyout, or sue out of existence). ...they are doing a good job in this tough environment. Well, even that's debatable. Microsoft never ceases to amaze me at how well they keep coming up with new ways to maintain their dominance in the market. And, while I do agree with you about standard business economics, I just don't see how Microsoft has done that lately, especially the part about "make a product people want". When they first started out, yeah, sure, but nowadays it's more like "Make a product that people must have, eliminate all competition (or make people unaware that such competition exists), and then charge disproportionately high sums of money.".
Microsoft goals Posted Jan 11, 2008 11:06 UTC (Fri) by NAR (subscriber, #1313) [Link] I just don't see how Microsoft has done that lately, especially the part about "make a product people want".Maybe the Xbox? What I've seen in news, reports, etc. that it's winning over PlayStation by a big margin everywhere outside Japan.
Nope Posted Jan 11, 2008 21:27 UTC (Fri) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] Wii is what people want. XBox360 is just better pushed than PS3 - and has more games. It has nothing to do with the thing itself - it's just usual Microsoft's approach: eliminate competition by all means possible, TNEN it's time to raise price...
Microsoft goals Posted Jan 11, 2008 11:49 UTC (Fri) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] I just don't see how Microsoft has done that lately, especially the part about "make a product people want".You are right, but again we have to put the issue in perspective. Vista is not Microsoft's only product. You may not like Office or Outlook, but I have been forced at work to use several proprietary alternatives and they are even worse. Anyone using such monstrosities as Notes or SmartSuite will know what I'm speaking about; and these are only the big products. In short, Microsoft is good enough and the competition sucks more. In this respect, look at what Linux has accomplished in this negative sense: for the general public it is a hacker system, only fit for extreme geeks. When my girlfriend learned that the N800 runs Linux she was afraid that she would not be able to use it. Now she is delighted, so it was only a perception. But it is a very common perception which makes many people actively not want anything related to Linux. This is a real pity and something we should change.
Microsoft's goals Posted Jan 11, 2008 15:26 UTC (Fri) by pr1268 (subscriber, #24648) [Link] Yes, you (and NAR above) are correct; Microsoft does indeed have a portfolio of products. My earlier reply was influenced by how, for consumer PCs (excluding Apple) there's pretty much only one operating system, and Microsoft has exploited marketing schemes beyond normally-accepted business economic practices (and legal ones, also) in their quest for market domination. Their latest ploy involving hacking Windows to run on the OLPC XO (or vice versa), a special-purpose, custom-designed laptop computer built for charitable distribution seems unusually suspicious of an ulterior motive. Oh, wait. This is the same company who brow-beat HP, Compaq, Gateway, eMachines, Toshiba, Dell, Sony, and others to only sell PCs running Windows, and then gave consumers worldwide the impression that there simply wasn't any other OS available for their computer. Since the OLPC XO represents a completely new class of computer (open design and hardware), of homogeneous architecture, with production expected to be in the millions, well Microsoft can't just let that market slip by. But I could make an argument about how Microsoft's other products are extensions of their control movement - oddly enough, a lot of MS's products entered the game late, yet they somehow managed to emasculate or eliminate all competition. Netscape's Web Browser predates Internet Explorer by several years; MS Office was released just as WordPerfect's market share peaked; the X-Box was first released in 2001, six years after Sony's PlayStation and sixteen years after Nintendo NES; and, just last year, their Zune hit the market, six years after Apple's original iPod and other media players entered the market1. Microsoft is trying to take control over every aspect of consumers' digital lifestyles, but at least in the game console and portable media player markets, most consumers realize that they still have a choice. However, in the PC market, it's pretty much Microsoft Windows (and that's it) for x86 (non-Apple) PCs. But, I digress... Bruce's article resonates with me because I'm a staunch believer in consumer choice, and Microsoft has done nothing in the past 15 years but remove all vestiges of any consumer choices. His line "Microsoft's version of choice is better stated as we'll give you choice and then make you choose Microsoft." sums it up beautifully. Until consumers are provided with, and made aware of, viable alternatives2, it'll just keep being Microsoft Windows for PC operating systems, because it's, well, "good enough". I've rambled on long enough; thanks for reading. 1 One could argue that the original portable personal media player was Sony's Walkman, introduced in 1979. 2 The only commercial, proprietary OS I can recall that attempted to break into the x86 PC market during Microsoft's domination was BeOS, but they folded (er, were sold to Palm) in 2001. Linux stands a good chance of becoming a significant commercial competitor to MS Windows (thanks partly to Dell and Ubuntu) - any success Linux has in this regard will surely be due to its FOSS nature and GPL license - and MS can't embrace, extend, extinguish, acquire via buyout, or sue out of existence Linux.
Microsoft's goals Posted Jan 11, 2008 22:56 UTC (Fri) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] It is interesting that you should mention portable media players, where there is a virtual monopoly by Apple's iPod, as one where there is consumer choice. The truth of the matter is, most people want an iPod even if other companies offer more features and more openness.Indeed, if you want to look at a company which is really crazy to control your digital lifestyle, you don't have to look much further. Apple's computers are locked down, Apple's OS is proprietary and controlled and also locked down, Apple's players are remarkably closed. And Apple is crazy about controlling their market; their price-fixing strategies are legendary. (All products are sold at the recommended price point, never any lower.) And yet few people complain about their tactics, not even staunch believers in market choice. My point is that, if Microsoft tried to reach the degree of control that Apple has, the screams would be heard in the stratosphere. The same is true for many other companies (Sony, TiVo, Nokia). So there is more to it than just control.
Apple is more evil than Microsoft Posted Jan 12, 2008 2:43 UTC (Sat) by pr1268 (subscriber, #24648) [Link] Oh, don't get me started! Apple is easily twice as evil as Microsoft in regards to vendor lock-in and DRM. As this article by Mike Elgan at PCWorld suggests, Microsoft didn't deserve as big a firestorm of criticism for their predatory tactics over the years when one compares them to Apple. In fact, I was almost ready to feel a tiny amount of sympathy for Microsoft after reading that article (of course, my blood was starting to boil by then). But, Microsoft has its 93% market share to Apple's 5% (I'm totally guessing those numbers right now), so MS gets more anti-monopoly fingers pointed at them. Deal is, Apple isn't trying to hack the OLPC XO into booting OS X Leopard.
Apple is more evil than Microsoft Posted Jan 12, 2008 15:25 UTC (Sat) by jeff@uclinux.org (guest, #8024) [Link] WSJ ArticleFrom 2005, while this was still on the drawing board... "Steve Jobs, Apple Computer Inc.'s chief executive, offered to provide free copies of the company's operating system, OS X, for the machine, according to Seymour Papert, a professor emeritus at MIT who is one of the initiative's founders. "We declined because it's not open source," says Dr. Papert, noting the designers want an operating system that can be tinkered with. An Apple spokesman declined to comment."
Apple is vile, but Microsoft is dangerous Posted Jan 12, 2008 19:24 UTC (Sat) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] Apple is the most vile company in IT. No competition. Microsoft is not even close. It's the only company I know which can demand your soul in exchange to single song - quite literally (read the 20th item of the license and think about implications). But thankfully it only controls small part of the market - and I've avoided it so far (I don't have iPod or iPhone and while Mac looks good I've avoided it like a plague - exactly because I want to control my own destiny, not have Apple or Microsoft as it's master). Apple's recent expansion is quite worrysome, but it just has no degree of control Microsoft enjoys today: music and movies are downloadable for free and iTunes will never be able to compete with that, but it's hard to avoid .DOC and .XLS file nowadays. So while Apple is the most vile and repulsive company Microsoft is still the most dangerous one...
Apple is vile, but Microsoft is dangerous Posted Jan 13, 2008 1:02 UTC (Sun) by pr1268 (subscriber, #24648) [Link] One would think that such "omnipotence" clauses (as I call them) would be legally unenforceable with an unconscionability defense. Or, at least I personally hope such clauses get snuffed out by the courts! =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= IANAL, and I just learned that "unconscionability" is both (1) a legal term and (2) incorrectly reported as a misspelling by Firefox 2.0.0.11. :-)
Microsoft goals Posted Jan 11, 2008 17:01 UTC (Fri) by AJWM (guest, #15888) [Link] > make a product people want, market it a lot, While not quite mutually contradictory, if you're really making a product that people want, you don't have to market it a lot -- word of mouth will do that for you. Conversely, if you're making a product that people are only so-so about, you have to market the hell out of it to make people _think_ they want it. Microsoft does the latter.
Word of mouth Posted Jan 11, 2008 22:35 UTC (Fri) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] This kind of mentality is perfect for free software development, but it does not work so well in the commercial world. Marketing is needed to reach out to customers even for an excellent product, and word of mouth helps to spread it further.But beware: word of mouth has a life of its own and it is not always exact. Word of mouth for Microsoft products between non-geeks is, surprisingly for us geeks, quite good. Word of mouth for Linux is pretty bad: many people think it is not for a layman's desktop. (We have been saying that it is "oh so advanced" for so long and so smugly that now it is working against us.) To dispel this popular myth a good marketing campaign could actually do wonders.
Word of mouth Posted Jan 14, 2008 20:58 UTC (Mon) by flewellyn (subscriber, #5047) [Link] Marketing is needed to reach out to customers even for an excellent product, and word of mouth helps to spread it further. Absolutely; this is why Google has, since its inception, so aggressively marketed its own services. Look at all the print, radio, television, and other ads for Google search and Google products you see elsewhere; can you even count the number of commercials Google has advertising its site? Google's marketing budget has to be astronomical. There's no way that Google got where it is solely by making a superior product and then letting word of mouth do the work for it...
Word of mouth Posted Jan 15, 2008 0:45 UTC (Tue) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] Good counter-example. There are some in other sectors, like Zara in clothes: they never do any marketing either. Unfortunately it is not so common.If I tell my company that we should just rely on word of mouth they would find it very funny. I can assure you that we have some of the best products in their categories and we do most of our business over the internet; should we just wait for customers to come to us?
Word of mouth Posted Jan 15, 2008 7:24 UTC (Tue) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] Oh, and by the way: Linux has mostly got where it is just by word of mouth, so it is also a counterexample. Products like EEE confirm that people want it (or at least want what it provides) even on the desktop. Only problem is, people want Windows even more: they think Linux will be "too advanced" for them. Such rubbish keeps large portions of the general public away, which is a pity.
|
|
||||||||||||