idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Awww, gbaji's getting angry. Apparently he doesn't like when you call him on switching directions and then claiming that's the way he's been going all along, Joph.
That would sting a lot more if it wasn't for the fact that anyone with a greater than 2nd grade reading level could clearly see that I was attempting to get people to name monopolies and then show them that those monopolies existed/grew/thrived/whatever because
of government action and not because of an absence of it. Clearly that has been the case even with MS, right? Their business practices have gotten more abusive since that lawsuit, not less.
And MS is probably the best case argument for a big monopolistic company arising with a minimum of government intervention. They're the rare case of a company getting that big in an industry before the government shows up to make them "play ball". But feel free to continue to believe that the government helped us out in this case. Cause that's hysterical from where I'm sitting.
The result of the case against Microsoft were requirements on them designed to specifically combat their domination of the browser market, by sharing their API with third party companies.
shared its API with third party companies. It had been doing that for nearly a decade before the ruling (since the Windows3x days really). How the **** do you think anyone ever wrote any code which ran in Windows in the first place? Requiring them to do something they already did may look good on paper, but it really had no effect at all.
What MS has always been in the practice of doing, however, is changing
its API(s) periodically and in ways which their own internal software development methodology could take advantage of, while leaving competitors having to scramble to write a patch to make their competing software work. Um... I hate to tell this to you, but MS still does that today. It never stopped doing this. People just got better at updating their competing code (largely a result of a move away from big corp competition to the various opensource methods). It had nothing to do with the judgment in that suit.
If you are honestly going to sit there and pretend that this wasn't incredibly important for the eventual development of Firefox, Chrome, and Safari, then you are a fool.
Somehow I'm not shaking in my boots over you calling me a fool when I know literally 200 times more about this subject than you do. I'm not "pretending" that the MS ruling had nothing to do with the rise of those other browsers, I know that it had nothing to do with it
. What had the most to do with the rise of those browsers was the shift from a "competing company" model, to a "open software" model. You can't compete with MS head on. No one could. And the judgment didn't change that. You work around MS's model by not playing their game.
Why do you suppose that pretty much every direct competitor to MS has disappeared from the computer market *since* that ruling? What has replaced them is a host of smaller companies distributing builds of open software, which collectively can compete with MS (sorta). The original competitors have all had to move into other niche markets to stay solvent.
When was the last time you actually paid for a browser? Think about that.
Furthermore, they are now unable to sabotage other browser developers by breaking (or otherwise interfering with the operation of) competing browsers. This ensures an open market for them, since they don't use subscriptions anymore.
Nah. They still do that. Never stopped doing that. What happened was that while a traditionally modeled company could not make adjustments to changes in Windows fast enough to keep their products working, the open software devs can do it within hours of any change. You may have missed it, but there was a bit of a battle in the mid 2000s, with MS releasing changes regularly with the same "break everyone else" result, but it didn't work. MS realized that it cost it too much money to keep making changes, when some guy sitting in his bedroom slippers could release code to "fix" their adjustment immediately afterwards. MS can't compete against "free", so it stopped trying.
Again though, that didn't have anything to do with the lawsuit. Had the government's actions actually limited MS's power to control the market, they'd still have actual real competition today. But they really don't. Not in the context of earning money and market share they don't. Edited, Dec 1st 2011 7:32pm by gbaji