Comments on: Microsoft Open Source Information Evening

By: etbe

etbe — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 02:08:53 +0000

AlphaG: As far as I am aware MS was not a competitor to IBM until the falling out after OS/2 1.2 was released (when MS decided to do Windows NT and IBM did OS/2 2.x). MS got it’s real start by making a deal with IBM to supply DOS – something that was helped by Bill’s parents. IBM could have prevented MS from becoming powerful by simply licensing an OS from another company.

When Novell was at it’s peak in about 1990 I believe that it was a lot smaller than MS (but I haven’t searched for market cap data).

From the first release of MS-DOS Microsoft aimed to use anti-competitive methods to gain market share.

Anti-competitive methods work at all sizes of the market. Look at “independent” petrol stations that offer the same prices within a fraction of a cent. Look at bars that have drink prices that differ by 10 cents a glass (EG bar A is 10 cents cheaper and bar B is slightly cleaner so they divide the market).

The most recent anti-competitive action that has been in the Australian news recently is two paper companies conspiring to fix prices for cardboard boxes. It’s hardly on the scale of MS.

By: AlphaG

AlphaG — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 13:15:24 +0000

You have to remember MS wasn’t a monopolist at the beginning it was a smaller competitor to many companies like Novell, Oracle, Sun and IBM who were much larger that they were, my point was through free market and capitalism (creative marketing) and just like other “big companies” were to successful.

You have to be competative against your market foes to grow to a size where anit-competative methods can possibly work

By: etbe

etbe — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 12:39:56 +0000

AlphaG: The anti-trust issue is not about being too successful, but by being successful through anti-competitive methods. Anti-trust law is about forcing fair competition when it doesn’t suit the monopolist.

By: AlphaG

AlphaG — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 02:42:41 +0000

I am surprised they are stil ltalking about this. The DOJ case 5 years back has this threat but I thought that was all settled and out of the way.

Though I probably will flamed for this, I am always interested in a Free Market/Capitalistic environment where success is measured in market share how any company can be too successful, no matter how they achieved it.

By: etbe

etbe — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 07:57:06 +0000

dave b: I believe that the MS people I spoke to like working with open source software. But they aren’t senior people. They did however quote one senior person in MS saying something positive about open source software and said that their effort has some high level support. Doing things like paying for Jeff and Pia Waugh to go to the MS HQ requires approval at high levels.

db: I had MS people treat me as a potential customer or business partner! That is a dramatic change, it’s something that I have never experienced before. The previous attitude I have got from dealings with MS was “we’re more important than you, we will do what we want and sell to your manager, Windows will be bundled on all computers that you want to buy, your opinion doesn’t matter”.

AlphaG: I agree that their current approach makes good business sense. Being nice to customers, potential customers, and influential people (which means me in this context) is always a good business strategy. It’s nice that MS realise this and are now acting in the best interests of their stock holders.

There is ongoing talk about whether MS should be split due to anti-trust issues. A split is opposed by executives and directors who don’t want to lose their status as rulers of a big corporation. It should be supported by general share-holders who want an increase in the value of their investment.

By: AlphaG

AlphaG — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 13:39:19 +0000

You have interestingly made it very somewhat more obvious on the MS game play.

At the end of the day having third party software on a Windows machine still enables them to sell an OS, require Client Access Licenses (AD authentication), free tools to talk to Exchange requries both Exchange and a Client Access License therefore the the method of access is not relevant.

Whilst it may be applauded that they are more willing to enable you to do more FOSS things, there is still a commercial reality to be included that does require license revenue. They might not get 100% of the cake but they will always get a slice, or quarter or more of you IT budget.

I also agree curent and ex MS staff are intelligent and reasonable, look at me!