Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 22.214.171.124
What are the implications to the desktop if Microsoft must strip out the middleware or really stops selling Windows?
1 AOL-Time Warner can begin to take back market share with its Netscape browser. Is this good for the consumer? We are talking AOL now. How much will the Netscape and IE browers cost?
2 Some computers will ship with Real, some QuickTime and others with MS Windows Media Player. Is this good for businesses that want to deploy video?
3 Some computers will ship with AOL's IM, others with Yahoo's and others with MSN's IM. As each competes for market share will inter-operatablity die?
4 Microsoft makes all Office products available to Free Unix or Linux systems. What will be the upgrade price that Microsoft charges?
When a middleware product doesn't work, whom do you contact to get the problem resolved? Do you call Dell or Gateway or HP because they are the integrators? You can't call MS if they have been barred from this area or stop selling Windows.
Now if the value of Windows Operating System drops, how does Microsoft pickup the slack?
1 Do they raise the prices of the Office Products?
2 Do they become a competitor to RedHat and sell Linux?
3 Do they push FreeBSD and its Business oriented licensing? (Remember they have a FreeBSD version of .NET and C# already shipping.)
I think Microsoft has 38 to 40 Billion in cash (probably wrong amount but whatever the number is, it is huge.) How will they spend it to get the company to recover from the Windows anti-trust loses?
Why are the States trying to get prior restraint against Microsoft in technology not involved in the suit except to stop this kind of major technology shift?
How much less will you be paying in the future once the economy of scale is removed from the Operating Systems market? Remember no evidence has been submitted to show how consumers will benefit from the prior restraints the States want.
I am sorry - I just cannot fathom thinking like this. I hope you will be very happy with the savings you have stuffed under your mattress...
Why would hackers waste their time with a small market-share OS? People said the same thing about Apache, and now that it is getting popular, you are starting to see Apache security threats and patches. Same with Linux. Hackers are in it for their ego - it would be like a car theif stealing a Yugo (to continue the Yugo idea). ;)
I don't mean to Mac-bash, but I don't know any other way to illustrate the fallacy of thought most Mac-enthusiasts expound. In fact, I'm grateful to Apple for the pc, the mouse, scsi, FireWire (even though Intel is going to jump over it with USB2.0), etc. I think MacOS would have a much larger market share (20% at least) if they weren't a monopoly themselves. If independent chipset makers, processor makers, etc. could bring down the price and give users more of a choice, Apple could have been way more successful than Linux...
No. I am saying that if someone breaks the law, they should not be let off the hook because of the financial interests of individuals involved. The DOJ should not be cast as some kind of morally rotten evildoer in this situation. It was Microsoft who was found guilty of illegal practices.
If Microsoft were concerned about their stock-holders' well being, why did they put their already inherently risky stock market investments at even greater risk by engaging in illegal practices that might (and did) eventually lead to the company's entanglement in this ugly legal situation?
And that's all kinda beside the point IMO, since I do not in any way shape or form think the DOJ's case against Microsoft was a major contributing factor to the "dotcom meltdown" on Wallstreet. I think that had a lot more to do with over-confident investors making the realization that they'd poured ridiculous sums of money into investments involving internet companies who were doing nothing but bleeding huge amounts of cash hand over fist with nothing resembling a sound business plan between the lot of them, and little to no promise of ever making it to serious profitability. M$/DOJ was no where near the trigger on that one.
I haven't seen a single argument that would in any way support the idea that the stock market fell because Uncle Sam was picking on Microsoft.
I don't mean to Mac-bash, but...
Market share point taken. However, that doesn't explain why Microsoft's OS *needs* to be utterly dependent on a web browser engine to function. Regardless of whether or not the Mac OS is inherently MORE insecure than Windows, or which OS attracts more virus writers, the Mac OS manages to function just fine without being welded to a web browser engine.
Making a consumer market Windows OS operate without an integrated web browser is certainly possible... it may be a PITA for Redmond's engineers, but I don't see why it isn't 100% possible. (And Gates already admitted it was, and had already been accomplished with XP Embedded.)