News and commentary from the cross-platform scripting community.
|
||
|
Mail Starting 10/22/97 | |
The OEMs are the interface. If I want to order a PC today, it will come with Win95 preloaded. I had many friends buy PC's a few years ago. They requested that they come *WITHOUT* Win or DOS installed to save themselves some money, and so they could install OS/2. The vendors would not sell them the PC without the OS. My friends were required to buy windows when they didn't want it.
From: calvin@xmission.com (calvin);
Sent at 10/22/97; 12:28:45 PM;
Re:A Message to WashingtonThis was true of more than one vendor. I don't know what the situation is like today, but I doubt much has changed. This practice clearly impacted IBM's ability to sell OS/2.
If I do not want MSIE and I order a new computer today from Compaq or Dell, do I have a choice to excluded it? Does the inclusion of MSIE raise the cost of my computer? YOU BET!
By including MSIE in the OS, even as *integrated* software, the OS will cost more. I don't want it, but I'm stuck with buying and then *trying* to uninstall it. Netscape can't compete in that environment.
from history:
Wordperfect was the best selling word processor ever, until Windows. When MS came out with upgrades to Windows, they were followed immediately by new releases of Word. The people working on Word were, at most, a few hundred feet from the developers of Windows. Do you think developers for Word could test drive Windows versions prior to developer release? YOU BET!
Do you think that negatively impacted outside software development?
at one time the following software packages made good money:
paradox
dbase
wordperfect
lotus123
quattropro
whole bunches of pgming language packages
foxpro
word
excelwhat is left?
access
foxpro
word
excelwhy?
Norton utilities is a great product. If MS wanted to make a similar product for it's OS would Peter Norton be able to compete in the long term against the platform vendor?
What if MS made a scripting language for Windows? Who will use Frontier when MS Script comes pre-installed? Not nearly as many people as would have otherwise...sounds suspiciously like a repeat of AppleScript.
Who will use Netscape when MSIE comes preinstalled?...in 3 years, no one.
Q: Why is Windows so cheap?
A: So that you can put a MS computer in every home and on desktop.
Q: what kind of software will work best on that computer? A: MS software of course.
Is this malicious? Probably not. Is it scary? Yes. does it stifle innovation, does hurt growth in the market over the long term? Probably.
I believe that if MS OS and MS Applications were seperated, there would be more innovation and development within the computer industry. There are probably totally new ways of word processing sitting out there in some developers head, but would any VC fund a word-processing startup?
The way I see it, Microsofts grand experiment is bad for me as a user, bad for me as a developer, bad for the industry in terms of innovation, and bad for the nation because it limits competition and innovation. The bundling of MSIE isn't creating more choices.
thanks for listening.
-calvin
ps. Excel is still the best spreadsheet ever.
First of all, the people applauding the DOJ action include dozens of companies, not just Netsacpe and KP. From Sybase to Borland to Lotus and countless others, execs everywhere are watching intently and are supportive.
From: name_withheld@netscape.com;
Sent at 10/22/97; 11:22:46 AM;
Re:A Message to WashingtonSecondly, about getting our "butts in gear." Netscape is the fastest growing software company in the history of the world. After only three and a half years of operation and 11 quarters of commercial operation, we've become a $600M company on a revenue run-rate basis, which has NEVER been done before. When Microsoft was our age, three and a half years old, they were in the process of moving their 13 employees from Albuquerque NM to Bellevue WA, and their annual sales were under $1.4 million.
Our employees are pulling every ounce of energy and drive to deliver great products to our important enterprise customers. Your suggestion that somehow we're all sitting around here calling up Janet Reno to save our future is rediculously offensive. If Janet Reno wants our undivided attention, she can get it by purchasing 500 or more seats of our software and becoming an enterprise design win.
I have a change-in-rules proposal to the Microsoft Monoply Game. (You may publish but with my name withheld. )
From: (name withheld);
Sent at 10/22/97; 11:28:33 AM;
Re: A Message to WashingtonThey should be allowed to innovate anyway they choose as Ballmer asserts over and over (he said it like a machine on The Charlie Rose Show this evening). I believe Ballmer is truly sincere. He really, truly cares about his customers. Millions of them in fact.
So, if Microsoft really wants to integrate any and all application categories into a single OS release , that's fine. Let them do it. No bars, no restraints, no creative rules. Total freedom to exercise their engineering and design talents. They can innovate to their hearts delight because that's what makes them happy and their customers tell them they want them to innovate. And, in fact, they should be encouraged to create as many new releases of their OS as possible. Whether they choose to give it away or charge a modest price or a very high price, fine. Let them decide what works best for their business model. And BTW, they should be allowed to morph Java into something good and fast. That's great. Java the language needs a champion. It needs Microsoft's innovation machine.
In return for this complete freedom (with no intervention) to innovate Windows/NT, morph Java, and all with hands-off from any government agency, they will no longer be able to offer their software pre-installed, bundled (soft or hard) on any PC or system. The days of single vendor OS distribution with PC/clone box vendors is over. And, no other hardware/systems vendor will be allowed to do this type of hard disk bundling as well. No PC, Mac or Unix box will come pre-loaded with software. A hassle for consumers to be sure but at least the distribution playing field will return to the aisles, to the catalogs, to the web sites but not to the sectors on a disk drive. This is a rules change in the software game.
Finally, whatever annual R&D tax credit Microsoft claims will be eliminated entirely including any special deductions for acquisitions/mergers. This will have more impact on Redmond's "unfair practices" than anything the DOJ could ever dream up. In fact, this will give Microsoft an opportunity to ponder restraint in a very economic, rational way while assuring Microsoft's customers that their annual upgrade fees will help fund R&D expenses as much as it will provide operating profits to a wildly successful US enterprise. But taxpayers should certainly not be a "FREE" funding source for Microsoft's product development. Let their happy customers fund them.
A final thought. The Microsoft Monopoly has nothing to do with innovation. It's all about unfair practices due to a monopoly position. By any trade standards, if Microsoft were a foreign enterprise, the debate would be a xenophobic, witch hunt with all sorts of threats of tariffs and penalties and stories about lost jobs in America but it would be brutally settled quickly. Microsoft would be forever crippled. Barred from the games or worse, singled-out for ruining the game by winning too soon and too outright. Check history, we don't like foreigners winning our economic, industrial games. That's like shooting missles at biplanes. Or blowing fine cigar smoke in our face.
But this economic game ended already. What no one could have known years ago is that Microsoft would end up the winner of the PC software monopoly game. And win they did. But they did it by controlling the most fundamental distribution point ...the OS boot up sectors on every PC/clone system shipped. I would say that Ballmer was brilliant in getting Microsoft on those sectors first. How they did it doesn't really matter but the end result was total and complete victory. The OS wars ended. Microsoft got all the prize money as any winner-takes all player expects. Losers were abundant. Bitter. Sour. Poor losers (pun intended).
Everything else is history. This is Microsoft's legacy in my mind. Innovation is second in my assessment of their performance. But who cares? They became Park Place/Avenue (no pun intended). And so the software game is not that fun these days if the final move always results in landing on Park Place. A Park Place/Avenue with an infinite number of REDmond Hotels (pun very much intended). The game ended many years ago.
So what is consumer choice really all about? To me, it means that when I go to a supermarket, I have access in the aisle to the racks inorder to freely make a choice of several foods , several beverages, several flavors. The aisles are controlled by no single vendor's product exclusively. Today, that's not entirely true. Some software choices are more likely than others. In fact, chances are, your choice has already been decided behind close doors. You just need to pay a little money before you boot that system and find your prize. It's a wonderful game they play in Redmond.
i'm sure you've received a million messages already, but I just wanted to let you know that your current DaveNet has been sent 4 times already (well, I've -received- it four times so far).
From: mgarland@wso.williams.edu (Matt Garland);
Sent at 10/22/97; 2:54:25 PM;
Re:"A Message to Washington (& Comments)"I also wanted to thank you for DaveNet & Scripting News. I found the website a couple months ago, and I've been a more-than-daily visitor ever since then. I must admit that I love your lively commentary - and it helps that I agree with you most of the time.
thanks again, and keep it up.
-matt
PS - I just bought a new computer - Dell Pentium II 300 w/all the trimmings. During and right after the time I attended MacWorld in August, I was so excited about the future of the Macintosh. I've been a long-time DOS/Windows/Win95 owner, but I use Macs a lot here at Williams. I was considering replacing my 486 with a PowerComputing system. But then all hell broke loose. I don't need to be on what I see as a downward spiral. I dual boot NT (primary OS), 95, and soon-to-be Linux on my new computer, and I'm very happy.
Moral? If you want to get benchmarks of Frontier on the current top of the line in the Wintel world, let me know. :)
Capitalism is about survival of the fittest. Microsoft like Rome was not built in a day it was built while sleeping dogs looked the other way. I'm sure you know Microsofts history better than I but as I recall they established there lead with plenty of competition from products like DR. DOS, OS/2, Word Perfect, Ami Pro, Lotus 123 and companies like IBM and APPLE and for a while they were the underdog. IBM and Apple did not understand the customer and have suffered seriously as a result yet meanwhile in a society that voted for VHS over betamax we once again showed that the consumer makes the marketplace. It is about branding and product awareness.
From: awall@iagency.com (Alan Wallace);
Sent at 10/22/97; 11:31:21 AM;
Re:Microsoft & RestraintIf Washington wants the consumer to easily understand that they have a choice in Web Browsers than subsidize the marketing department for Netscape. But then lets be fair and support all of the other companies that tried to launch a browser over the last two years. After all why should competition drive a better product if Janet Reno is going to come save the day. Washington needs to take a trip to CompUSA and sign up for a basic Windows course and learn that you can uninstall IE in the ADD/REMOVE section of the Control Panel. You can also remove Solitaire just in case a Solitaire software manufacturer feels the need for the DOJ to save them as well.
I like I.E. and I also use Netscape - there is room for both and I believe it was Andreeson that first suggested that Netscape would replace the desktop. I also like the integration of the desktop and the browser but for those who believe that having I.E. preloaded on the systems they buy is unfair they can use it to download Netscape which means that all is fair in love, war and the OPEN market!
Ever since Microsoft got Web religion, I worried about all those Windows users out there who don't give a rat's ass about the Internet (whether or not they should is another issue). From here on, any upgrade of a Microsoft OS or productivity product will be burdened with all this Internet stuff that does nothing more than eat up tens of megabytes of a shrinking hard disk (will the 'integrated' browser of Win98 take the same 40-70 megabytes of my disk as today's IE4?).
From: dannyg@dannyg.com (Danny Goodman);
Sent at 10/22/97; 11:32:02 AM;
Re:A Message to WashingtonWhen it comes time for Mr/Ms Windows-as-an-island user to buy a replacement computer, the market will say it is a win for Microsoft; Microsoft will say users want Internet integration. But this poor Web-phobic user isn't voting for anything other than a data-compatible upgrade.
In the end I wondered which had more influence in prompting Microsoft's Internet flourish: customer requirements or headlines.
On today's Scripting News, Dave mentioned the possibility of a Quake-like interface to the web, and he said "Think about it." Okay, I've been thinking about that possibility ever since I first heard about VRML--no, ever since I read "Neuromancer" when it came out--and overall I like the idea. I want cyberspace to look spatial. There will no doubt be many frivolous, unnecessary, and bandwidth-wasting usages of a 3D environment, but it's not like our current 2D web is free of such problems.
From: mmcavoy@ix.netcom.com (Michael McAvoy);
Sent at 10/22/97; 11:19:52 AM;
Two things Dave said...Then in A Message to Washington Dave says "In Windows 98, Microsoft is trying to change the positioning of web browser software. Microsoft is making a bet that users want the web experience deeply integrated with all aspects of their computer use. Maybe they're wrong?"
Wow. Okay, putting these two ideas together obviously takes us to the idea of an operating system that is Quake-like. If a 3D environment makes sense on the web, it should make just as much sense when I am working on my own computer. Again, there are many instances when 3D would not make sense. I want a text file to be flat against the screen, not something I have to peer down at a virtual table-top to try to read. But just as the current GUIs gave us a more intuitive interface for not only using applications but for organizing our files and data, the same should be possible with 3D interfaces in exactly the manner that navigating Quake is more intuitive than, for example, Myst.
I don't think Microsoft is wrong in the basic concept. I believe that ultimately web browsers (or their future equivalents) will function in a continuity with operating systems. Just as I walk through my physical house, out the door and into the great wide world beyond, eventually people will want the same modeless experience with their computer/internet connection. Of course, we can easily tell when we are indoors at home. We can close and lock the doors and windows. Until we can have the same sense of security in our virtual homes, it is best that browsers & server software remain somewhat isolated from the OS.
I'm not at this time prepared to trust Microsoft to act as both building contractor and locksmith for my cyberhome.
I saw the show, too. My impression from Ballmer was that Microsoft HAS to continually pour more functionality into the desktop, or lose it's competitive edge (OEMs will start to put another operating system on their hardware).
From: Duhring@aol.com;
Sent at 10/22/97; 1:57:13 PM;
Re:A Message to WashingtonSounds like an opportunity for Be
Interesting or ironic, depending on your perspective:
From: sbhunter@osprey.smcm.edu (Scott Hunter);
Sent at 10/22/97; 11:07:02 AM;
Microsoft & the DOJSun sues Microsoft for leaving some stuff out of Java, stuff it claims the Java license requires Microsoft to include. Microsoft says it should be allowed to change Java for the better.
DOJ accuses Microsoft, in part, of withholding licences to Windows 95 from computer makers who want to leave Internet Explorer out, presumably because they want to include something better (i.e. Navigator) instead. Microsoft says IE is part of Windows 95.
My first reaction to Microsoft's plan of integrating the web with the desktop was, Right On! It sounded an awful lot like Xanadu to me, something that influenced my early thinking about computers. I read Computer Lib before I even had a computer.
From: Greg_Kucharo@NeTpower.com (Greg Kucharo);
Sent at 10/22/97; 10:37:01 AM;
Web integrationMy second reaction was, oh great Microsoft is trying to absorb the web. When I first tried installing IE 4.0 with the Active Desktop stuff I hated it. After having it installed for a week now, the thing is growing on me. The search component right on the desktop is nice, as well as the stock ticker. Having the web metaphor extend to files local and remote seems logical to me. These are not seperate programs, Microsoft is really making an attempt to move the interface to something different. It could be very cool.
1. It is not unlawful to have a monopoly. Microsoft has an OS monopoly, and it is entitled to have that monopoly.
From: dave@sherm.com (Dave Sherman);
Sent at 10/22/97; 10:21:39 AM;
Re:A Message to Washington2. If you have a monopoly in one market (e.g., OS), you cannot unfairly use the monopoly power to leverage domination in another market (e.g., browers). Keep in mind that for a spell, Microsoft was in denial that Netscape had entered an attractive market. Once Microsoft awoke, it went after Netscape's market with remarkable focus. And with a ticket price of $0.00 on its browser product, Microsoft has a serious fixation on capturing the browser market.
3. Tying the purchase of one product to the purchase of another is a general no-no under antitrust laws. Microsoft will argue that IE is Windows; DOJ will argue that they are separate products. IMHO, Microsoft wishes IE and Windows were the same product, but the marketplace reality sees IE as distinct from Windows, regardless of hyped integration features. Given Netscape's browser, it's hard to defend that IE is merely a feature set of Windows.
4. Microsoft says it is merely innovating and integrating. If that was all, I don't think the Department of Justice would have filed suit. However, where Microsoft allegedly leverages its OS domination to force IE on the desktop, it seems to be a problem. If CNN's report is accurate, I don't understand Microsoft's defense.
5. Remember that a consent decree is a negotiated settlement, a contractual obligation between DOJ and Microsoft. If Microsoft is violating the terms of that consent decree, DOJ should act promptly -- regardless of competitor complaints, the potential for competitive responses. I disagree that DOJ should await a shoot-out, then step in only as a last resort. If the offending behavior causes an impermissible distortion of marketplace, it should be set straight. Antitrust laws recognize that free markets are the best restraint of monopoly powers. When monopolists abuse their dominant market position to take unfair advantage of competitors, government must take appropriate action.
6. Using the "integration & innovation" defense, Microsoft appears to believe that it has an open invitation to incorporate any technologies into its OS umbrella, then force those techonologies upon OS licensees. If Microsoft prevails on this defense in the browser market, where does it end? Is any technology safe from assimilation? I think not.
Why is it that when Sun licenses Java to Microsoft, Microsoft balks at bundling RMI, etc, but when Microsoft licenses Windows to Gateway, it demands bundling IE?
From: mnorman@princeton.com (Michael Norman);
Sent at 10/22/97; 1:23:40 PM;
parallelsIn both cases, Microsoft leveraged it's industry position to come out on top.
Dave, I think you are correct that it is doubtful that users want to have to deal with HTML at the desktop level. However, I do think that we users want a unity of the primary tools we use all of the time...and if the web takes on the aspect of the primary application most users use, then the desktop can become a sub-aspect of the web tool ("browser" or something else).
From: mjward@Adobe.COM (Michael J. Ward);
Sent at 10/22/97; 9:28:51 AM;
unified UI theoryBut wait! What do most users want their computers to do? Run word processing and spreadsheet applications? Games? Who cares about HTML for these?... or the web, for that matter.
Is is possible that we've all been suckered into thinking that one application--web browsing--is the tail that will wag the dog? Could it be that we are **wrong**?
"Microsoft is making a bet that users want the web experience deeply integrated with all aspects of their computer use. Maybe they're wrong?"
From: mark@greenlake.com (Mark Lewin);
Sent at 10/22/97; 9:34:17 AM;
Re:A Message to WashingtonNope. Moreover, users want the TV experience deeply integrated as well. And the telephone experience. Convergence is here. Information, Communication, Entertainment, Shopping, Learning, Sharing. More please!
"The switch from the IBM PC to the Mac knocked out 1-2-3 and begat Excel."
Two things clobbered 1-2-3: Lotus' failure to deliver a quality Windows version months, years even, after Win 3.0 shipped, and their clumsy response to the Office suite concept. Ditto WordPerfect, who also suffered from myopic and paternalistic management. Looking back, why did Lotus acquire Ami instead of WP? They didn't get it.
All this squabbling about Microsoft brought a question to my mind. Do developers really want competition in the OS arena? With the rapid release schedule putting new versions of major software packages on the market every year what would happen if the developers had to produce software for 3 or 4 operating systems? Would users stand for having to re-compile there spreadsheet or word processor to make it run with their OS like in Unix land?
From: kw5449@devrycols.edu (Kevin Workman);
Sent at 10/22/97; 12:26:49 PM;
Re:A Message to WashingtonOr worse yet, what if more than one company was putting out versions of the same operating system, again like Unix? How successful was that in building hardware? I think it would be a much worse place for the average user if there was a lot of competition for the OS.
My personal vote is for deep integration, seamless integration, integration done so well I don't even recognize it as such. If that's what Microsoft were selling today it wouldn't bother me one bit. Maybe that's where they are headed. But where they are today is where the Department of Justice says they are -- attempting to use their Windows monopoly to kick Netscape (and anyone else who gets in their way) to the curb. I wonder where the middle ground is?
From: wtb@cudaworks.com (Bill Berry);
Sent at 10/22/97; 9:05:10 AM;
A Message to WashingtonNot sure about anyone else, but I love the web-browser look-and-feel aspects of windows 95 integrate d with IE 4.0. Of all the problems to come from Macintosh to Windows, the double-click has been one of the most annoying. Ahhh, but not anymore. The only time I double-click on my Wintel box is when I have a lapse of memory and forget I'm not on a Macintosh anymore.
From: jefftp@purdue.edu (Jeff T. Polczynski);
Sent at 10/22/97; 10:34:42 AM;
Re:A Message to WashingtonJeff "DOJ should look at Apple's 'big brother' licensing policies... oh, too late" T.P.