Topic: Bad move for intel?

[Nemesis]

Link to first article

Chip giant Intel is betting that at least some people would. Last week, Intel cut a deal with voice over Internet Protocol provider Skype that calls for the VoIP company to provide advanced conference-calling features exclusively on PCs that run Intel chips. As long as the deal is in place, it could effectively keep customers who want to take advantage of multiperson conference calls from going with AMD-based machines.

Not surprisingly, AMD is already crying foul. AMD officials claim this is just another example of Intel using its sheer size to decide where AMD is allowed to compete, reinforcing the notion that Intel doesn't play fair. AMD charged in a 2005 antitrust compliant that Intel uses its marketing programs in a selective manner to punish companies who have used AMD's chips, or to reward companies like Dell who have cut exclusive deals with Intel--claims Intel has strongly denied.

But there are no specific instructions in Intel's current Pentium D or Core Duo chips that enhance the performance of VoIP applications, an Intel representative said. Skype is using an operation called "Get CPU ID" to identify the type of processor running on the PC. The Skype software has been preset to only accept Intel's chips as having the performance necessary to host conference calls of more than five people, the representative said.

Link to second article

Intel approached Skype with its plan to optimize code on its chips for Skype's software so users would have a good experience while hosting a multiperson conference call, Crooke said. In recent years, Intel has increasingly touted its software development resources as a competitive advantage over AMD, which also trails Intel in the marketing budget category

By choosing to work exclusively with Intel, Skype is excluding technology that is arguably more powerful than Intel's. A series of benchmark tests conducted last year  by Tom's Hardware gave an overall performance edge to AMD's dual-core chips but rated Intel's dual-core chips better in some multitasking situations.

Considering that Intel is currently in court over anti-trust actions I think that this is a highly inadvisable move not to mention anti-competitive which I am always against.

[Tus-XC]

I would actually consider it a bad move for skype, not for intel, mainly because skype will have to deal w/ any loses that result from the ensueing uproar

[Bonk]

I just don't get the whole concept of "anti-trust". It strikes me as punishment for good business everytime I see it. It strkes me as money grubbing, power hungry lawyers and judges with no real idea of how technology works. It strikes me as "Mommy! He's not playing fair! Waaahhhh!".    Its just plain silly if you ask me. Not that I disapprove of Apple getting flak over iTunes however... .  I think that the US government set a dangerous precedent with its "anti-trust" suit against Microsoft. Now, as soon as any competitor comes up with superior marketing tactics businesses feel they are entitled to clog up the courts with this crap. I just don't buy it. I think it is a meme, people just like to say "anti-trust", it must feel good or sound cool to them, or activate some kind of neurochemical addiction to a victimisation complex.

It's like - "Its a free market economy... when it suits us."

Or - "Oh my, that's too clever, we hadn't anticipated that in existing taxation schemes, we'll have to invoke the anti-trust tax."

Or perhaps most accurately - "Oh, as your biggest single customer you did not give us the volume liscening deal we wanted? Well then, we'll just recoup our costs with this anti-trust rebate"

[E_Look]

No, Bonk, don't confuse lawless, laissez faire free market economics with a lawfully, morally regulated one in which predatory, fraudulent, and economically unhealthy practices are illegal... at least in theory.

[Mr_Tricorder]

The whole idea of anti-trust laws is to keep a healthy free market healthy and free.  Once a company, like Microsoft, gains so much market share that no one else (like the UNIX family, which includes Linux and Mac) has a chance at gaining market share even if they have a superior product because MS cut off their ability to be useful ("everyone uses Windows, so we only make software for Windows" or "everyone else uses Windows so we'll use it too so we know it's compatible"), then it can dictate the pace, quality, and price of technology in order to fit its needs, not the consumers.  This procudes an unhealthy and unfree market.  It is unhealthy because the "demand" role of the consumer is diminished in importance and the "supply" role of the producer is the only real driving force of any significance.  It is unfree because any healthy and well-developed competion has been either absorbed or destroyed and any new upstart competition would easily be stifled and would only be able to generate a minute amount of demand before going under.

This is what is really scaring me about the pattern of behavior of most large technology companies of today.  They tend to outdo their competition by either buying them out or shutting them out with patents, court rulings, and deals with other companies (like what Intel is doing here), not by producing superior products.  This seriously hurts the quality and pace of technology.  After looking at some of the open source alternatives, they are leaps and bounds ahead and are almost always better quality.  In a healthy free market, open source should be ahead, not companies like Microsoft who is continually pushing back the release date of their next version of Windows while cutting features from it and deciding what to leave in based on what legal battles it can win easily (which is why I believe they cut out anti-virus but left in anti-spyware), or Symantec whose products have steadily gotten more bloated, more control-hungry, and less reliable with each new release yet is still on top of the PC security market.

[Bonk]

... predatory, fraudulent, and economically unhealthy practices ...

An excellent definition of capitalism. I'll stop there, I've already said too much.

[Mr_Tricorder]

... predatory, fraudulent, and economically unhealthy practices ...

An excellent definition of capitalism. I'll stop there, I've already said too much.

not when there is no way to legally compete
Competition is what allows capitalism to work.  Once the "winners" eliminate competion, capitalism fails.
Don't get me wrong.  I'm very pro-capitalism, but it can't run unchecked or else it will destroy itself.

[Dracho]

Capitalism can be a fox in a henhouse.  If he ever lets his appetite move from eggs to chickens, he'll eventually starve (after a huge glut of a feast).  So long as he can make himself subsist on eggs, he'll be fine, but a little bland and a little hungry.

[E_Look]

Hey, Dracho, Bonk, look here: if a fighter ignites his afterburners, boy can he zip through the sky... and FAST!  FUN!  FURIOUS!  But his ride will be shortlived by far, compared to cruising at a regular fuel burn rate.

Bonk, the whole point of having a good government is to regulate a nation.  Capitalism DOESN'T HAVE TO BE predatory, fraudulent, nor unhealthy; why do you focus on the few spectacular criminals who have tried to milk the system like the way we conservatives focus on the spirit-dampening, drive-killing, initiative-prohibiting, in short, smothering, fraudulent, unhealthy aspects of socialism?

If you must, "elements of socialistic practice" (I'd just rather call it for what it is, legal regulation of a free market so that the evil bastards don't take advantage of the freedom) must be implemented to temper the things you fear in capitalism.

(Of course, it's the evil bastards that take advantage of the inherent authoritarianism of socialism so as to freeze the common man out of its benefits; six of one, half dozen of the other.)

[Nemesis]

It's like - "Its a free market economy... when it suits us."

When one company controls the market there is no market freedom.

This is the reason patents and copyrights are supposed to be temporary.

[E_Look]

Very good point!

It's like - "Its a free market economy... when it suits us."

When one company controls the market there is no market freedom.

This is the reason patents and copyrights are supposed to be temporary.

[Just plain old Punisher]

If Linux was as easy to use as windows, I might agree.

Linux and Unix aren't for the average user.

[Mr_Tricorder]

If Linux was as easy to use as windows, I might agree.

Linux and Unix aren't for the average user.

What exactly do you mean by "easy to use"?  If you mean that Linux doesn't assume that you're a moron and that it's creators know everything that you should and shouldn't do with your computer, than you're correct.  If you mean that Linux isn't as easy for a Windows user to use because it doesn't work exactly like Windows and you have to learn the differences, then you're correct.  If you mean that it is more difficult to accomplish normal computing tasks on Linux if you have about the same level of know-how on Linux as you do on Windows regardless if you're a guru or just an average user, than you are sadly mistaken.  Just try out a Live CD Linux distro with KDE, like Slax, Knoppix, Mepis, or kubuntu and you'll see just how easy it is to use Linux.  Without any Linux background and with only a simple working knowledge of common Windows programs, I can guarantee that you'll be able to use office programs (Open Office), browse the internet (Mozilla, Firefox, and Konqueror), use an email client (kmail and Thunderbird), chat (gaim and kopete), burn CDs and DVDs (K3b), watch videos (mplayer, xine, kaffeine), listen to music (amarok, JuK), create 2D artwork (GIMP), create 3D artwork (blender), and many other things that you can do with Windows without any real difficulty or serious learning curve.  And for those who aren't afraid of using a command line, you'll find that once you get comfortable with it, it's much faster and easier to use sometimes than looking around for the right icon or the right menu or panel in the GUI.  You can't say the same about Windows.  Also, if something doesn't work right, it's a lot easier to fix it in Linux than in Windows.  For instance, I was having trouble with Blender recently after I installed it.  Whenever I clicked on the icon, it tried to open but never did.  I opened up the CLI and typed "blender" and it told me exactly what was wrong.  I needed to download a dependency.  I downloaded the package for the dependency and installed it and everything worked fine.  If I had the same problem in Windows, who knows if I would've ever figured out how to fix it.

[Nemesis]

After looking at some of the open source alternatives, they are leaps and bounds ahead and are almost always better quality.  In a healthy free market, open source should be ahead,

I'd have to say that Open Source should dominate any mature software category sometime after the category matures.  Word Processors for example are a mature category.  Once the software is mature further additions merely create bloat. 

Proprietary software may run forward rapidly driven by cash where Open Source strolls forward.  This gives an early advantage to the proprietary.  Once the pinnacle is achieved though all the proprietary does is incremental changes designed more to force upgrades (consider Office bundles - what really drives upgrades?) than to enhance the functionality of the product.  Once that pinnacle is achieved the Open Source alternative will slowly but surely close the gap.  Once the gap is closed why pay large amounts for no extra useful function when equal quality is free?

[Javora]

After looking at some of the open source alternatives, they are leaps and bounds ahead and are almost always better quality.  In a healthy free market, open source should be ahead,

I'd have to say that Open Source should dominate any mature software category sometime after the category matures.  Word Processors for example are a mature category.  Once the software is mature further additions merely create bloat. 

Proprietary software may run forward rapidly driven by cash where Open Source strolls forward.  This gives an early advantage to the proprietary.  Once the pinnacle is achieved though all the proprietary does is incremental changes designed more to force upgrades (consider Office bundles - what really drives upgrades?) than to enhance the functionality of the product.  Once that pinnacle is achieved the Open Source alternative will slowly but surely close the gap.  Once the gap is closed why pay large amounts for no extra useful function when equal quality is free?

I think you hit the nail on the head, Browser and Office software being prime examples.  I've been using Firefox for a while now and I see no reason to upgrade from Office 2000.  They both do exactly what I need them to do.  Well with two notable exceptions concerning IE.  I still have to use IE to load pictures or stuff to my on-line web space and for WinXP updates, once Firefox includes those features I will be done with IE.  Although I'm not holding my breath on the WinXP updates via Firefox.

[E_Look]

I'm still using Office 97... on a Athlon 64 running Win XP!

Hear the birdies?

<cheep cheep cheep cheep cheep>

[Just plain old Punisher]

If Linux was as easy to use as windows, I might agree.

Linux and Unix aren't for the average user.

What exactly do you mean by "easy to use"?  If you mean that Linux doesn't assume that you're a moron and that it's creators know everything that you should and shouldn't do with your computer, than you're correct.  If you mean that Linux isn't as easy for a Windows user to use because it doesn't work exactly like Windows and you have to learn the differences, then you're correct.  If you mean that it is more difficult to accomplish normal computing tasks on Linux if you have about the same level of know-how on Linux as you do on Windows regardless if you're a guru or just an average user, than you are sadly mistaken.  Just try out a Live CD Linux distro with KDE, like Slax, Knoppix, Mepis, or kubuntu and you'll see just how easy it is to use Linux.  Without any Linux background and with only a simple working knowledge of common Windows programs, I can guarantee that you'll be able to use office programs (Open Office), browse the internet (Mozilla, Firefox, and Konqueror), use an email client (kmail and Thunderbird), chat (gaim and kopete), burn CDs and DVDs (K3b), watch videos (mplayer, xine, kaffeine), listen to music (amarok, JuK), create 2D artwork (GIMP), create 3D artwork (blender), and many other things that you can do with Windows without any real difficulty or serious learning curve.  And for those who aren't afraid of using a command line, you'll find that once you get comfortable with it, it's much faster and easier to use sometimes than looking around for the right icon or the right menu or panel in the GUI.  You can't say the same about Windows.  Also, if something doesn't work right, it's a lot easier to fix it in Linux than in Windows.  For instance, I was having trouble with Blender recently after I installed it.  Whenever I clicked on the icon, it tried to open but never did.  I opened up the CLI and typed "blender" and it told me exactly what was wrong.  I needed to download a dependency.  I downloaded the package for the dependency and installed it and everything worked fine.  If I had the same problem in Windows, who knows if I would've ever figured out how to fix it.

Aparently linux doesn't give you the ability to seperate your thoughts into paragraphs =)

[Nemesis]

What exactly do you mean by "easy to use"? 

If you mean that Linux doesn't assume that you're a moron and that it's creators know everything that you should and shouldn't do with your computer, than you're correct.  If you mean that Linux isn't as easy for a Windows user to use because it doesn't work exactly like Windows and you have to learn the differences, then you're correct.  If you mean that it is more difficult to accomplish normal computing tasks on Linux if you have about the same level of know-how on Linux as you do on Windows regardless if you're a guru or just an average user, than you are sadly mistaken. 

Just try out a Live CD Linux distro with KDE, like Slax, Knoppix, Mepis, or kubuntu and you'll see just how easy it is to use Linux.  Without any Linux background and with only a simple working knowledge of common Windows programs, I can guarantee that you'll be able to use office programs (Open Office), browse the internet (Mozilla, Firefox, and Konqueror), use an email client (kmail and Thunderbird), chat (gaim and kopete), burn CDs and DVDs (K3b), watch videos (mplayer, xine, kaffeine), listen to music (amarok, JuK), create 2D artwork (GIMP), create 3D artwork (blender), and many other things that you can do with Windows without any real difficulty or serious learning curve. 

And for those who aren't afraid of using a command line, you'll find that once you get comfortable with it, it's much faster and easier to use sometimes than looking around for the right icon or the right menu or panel in the GUI.  You can't say the same about Windows. 

Also, if something doesn't work right, it's a lot easier to fix it in Linux than in Windows.  For instance, I was having trouble with Blender recently after I installed it.  Whenever I clicked on the icon, it tried to open but never did.  I opened up the CLI and typed "blender" and it told me exactly what was wrong.  I needed to download a dependency.  I downloaded the package for the dependency and installed it and everything worked fine.  If I had the same problem in Windows, who knows if I would've ever figured out how to fix it.

Just to make things a little easier for Punisher.

Just out of curiousity Punisher what things do you find too difficult under Linux vs Windows?  Or perhaps just less easy?

[FPF-DieHard]

I've never found Windows to be unstable, but I haven't bought a PC since 1997 

[Mr_Tricorder]

If Linux was as easy to use as windows, I might agree.

Linux and Unix aren't for the average user.

What exactly do you mean by "easy to use"?  If you mean that Linux doesn't assume that you're a moron and that it's creators know everything that you should and shouldn't do with your computer, than you're correct.  If you mean that Linux isn't as easy for a Windows user to use because it doesn't work exactly like Windows and you have to learn the differences, then you're correct.  If you mean that it is more difficult to accomplish normal computing tasks on Linux if you have about the same level of know-how on Linux as you do on Windows regardless if you're a guru or just an average user, than you are sadly mistaken.  Just try out a Live CD Linux distro with KDE, like Slax, Knoppix, Mepis, or kubuntu and you'll see just how easy it is to use Linux.  Without any Linux background and with only a simple working knowledge of common Windows programs, I can guarantee that you'll be able to use office programs (Open Office), browse the internet (Mozilla, Firefox, and Konqueror), use an email client (kmail and Thunderbird), chat (gaim and kopete), burn CDs and DVDs (K3b), watch videos (mplayer, xine, kaffeine), listen to music (amarok, JuK), create 2D artwork (GIMP), create 3D artwork (blender), and many other things that you can do with Windows without any real difficulty or serious learning curve.  And for those who aren't afraid of using a command line, you'll find that once you get comfortable with it, it's much faster and easier to use sometimes than looking around for the right icon or the right menu or panel in the GUI.  You can't say the same about Windows.  Also, if something doesn't work right, it's a lot easier to fix it in Linux than in Windows.  For instance, I was having trouble with Blender recently after I installed it.  Whenever I clicked on the icon, it tried to open but never did.  I opened up the CLI and typed "blender" and it told me exactly what was wrong.  I needed to download a dependency.  I downloaded the package for the dependency and installed it and everything worked fine.  If I had the same problem in Windows, who knows if I would've ever figured out how to fix it.

Aparently linux doesn't give you the ability to seperate your thoughts into paragraphs =)

sorry.  That was a three-o'clock-in-the-morning rant

[Just plain old Punisher]

What exactly do you mean by "easy to use"? 

If you mean that Linux doesn't assume that you're a moron and that it's creators know everything that you should and shouldn't do with your computer, than you're correct.  If you mean that Linux isn't as easy for a Windows user to use because it doesn't work exactly like Windows and you have to learn the differences, then you're correct.  If you mean that it is more difficult to accomplish normal computing tasks on Linux if you have about the same level of know-how on Linux as you do on Windows regardless if you're a guru or just an average user, than you are sadly mistaken. 

Just try out a Live CD Linux distro with KDE, like Slax, Knoppix, Mepis, or kubuntu and you'll see just how easy it is to use Linux.  Without any Linux background and with only a simple working knowledge of common Windows programs, I can guarantee that you'll be able to use office programs (Open Office), browse the internet (Mozilla, Firefox, and Konqueror), use an email client (kmail and Thunderbird), chat (gaim and kopete), burn CDs and DVDs (K3b), watch videos (mplayer, xine, kaffeine), listen to music (amarok, JuK), create 2D artwork (GIMP), create 3D artwork (blender), and many other things that you can do with Windows without any real difficulty or serious learning curve. 

And for those who aren't afraid of using a command line, you'll find that once you get comfortable with it, it's much faster and easier to use sometimes than looking around for the right icon or the right menu or panel in the GUI.  You can't say the same about Windows. 

Also, if something doesn't work right, it's a lot easier to fix it in Linux than in Windows.  For instance, I was having trouble with Blender recently after I installed it.  Whenever I clicked on the icon, it tried to open but never did.  I opened up the CLI and typed "blender" and it told me exactly what was wrong.  I needed to download a dependency.  I downloaded the package for the dependency and installed it and everything worked fine.  If I had the same problem in Windows, who knows if I would've ever figured out how to fix it.

Just to make things a little easier for Punisher.

Just out of curiousity Punisher what things do you find too difficult under Linux vs Windows?  Or perhaps just less easy?

There aren't anywhere near as many applications available for Linux as there are for windows. Games too. And device drivers.

Look, sure, you may like being able to recomplile the kernel whenever you feel like it, but most people just don't need to.

Linux is a nitche operating system. It will have it's market share, and most likley won't get too much bigger.

[Bonk]

So this begs the question:

Should modern businesses strive for mediocrity rather than excellence? Adequate goods and services instead of quality ones? For if your product or service is too good it will dominate the market and you will be punished.

No wonder you always hear people saying they don't make them like they used to... This is a disturbing trend.

[Just plain old Punisher]

And where do you buy your clothes and shoes?

[Nemesis]

Should modern businesses strive for mediocrity rather than excellence? Adequate goods and services instead of quality ones? For if your product or service is too good it will dominate the market and you will be punished.

Microsoft has never been known for quality.  If they were selling based on quality why was it that the ad campaigns for Win98 included how much more stable it was than Win95?  Then they did the same with XP versus Win 98 and Win2000.  Already they are going on about how Vista will be more secure than XP.  If they have been competing on qualtiy then why are they knocking the quality of their own prior products?

How did Microsoft beat DR-DOS?  By quality?  No by forcing PC manufacturers to pay per computer for MS-DOS if they wanted to sell it at a competitive price.  Since DR-DOS was therefore the price of DR-DOS + the price of MS-DOS when preinstalled DR-DOS was priced out of most of the market.  Then they used the "infamous" incompatible OS notice in their Windows beta to dissuade companies from supportting software on DR-DOS even though DR-DOS was compatible.

How did Microsoft beat BeOS?  By quality?  No by forbidding companies that sold preinstalled Windows from installing BeOS dual boot and once again forcing the per computer license to make BeOS appear more expensive just like they did to DR-DOS.

How did they beat out Lotus SmartSuite and Perfect Office?  By quality?  No by threatening to raise prices for DOS and Windows if they sold Office Suites other than MS Office bundled with their computers. 

Then of course there is the false advertising and false statements to the press.  Telling Novells customers that Novell might be leaving the network server market for example.  Citing a study showing Linux was 10x more expensive to run than Windows (the study compared Linux on a mainframe to Windows on a dual Xeon) is another.  Calling open source software viral, communist and anti-American as well.

These are the type of behaviours that have caused Microsoft to lose court battle after court battle.   Microsoft uses compulsion against the distribution channels to force the appearance of higher prices for the competitors products while ensuring that no matter what the customer actually wants to buy Microsoft gets paid.

I wish that Microsoft would compete using quality and honesty rather than compulsion and deception.

[Nemesis]

There aren't anywhere near as many applications available for Linux as there are for windows. Games too. And device drivers.

Games I will agree with you they are not yet "there" though that does show signs that things are slowly changing.  Other applications are available in enormous variety ranging all over the landscape.

Device drivers can be a pain, but they do improve and will continue to do so as long as Linux grows in market share.  They can also be a pain on Windows. 

Look, sure, you may like being able to recomplile the kernel whenever you feel like it, but most people just don't need to.

Never had to recompile a kernel myself.  Most people should never need to.  Those who do are probably the same types who wish they could do it on Windows.

Linux is a nitche operating system. It will have it's market share, and most likley won't get too much bigger.

Tell me if Linux is no threat why does Microsoft spend so much effort trying to fight it?  Just what is its niche?  They are dominant on the top 500 super computers, strong on servers and slowly growing on the desktop.  Penetration into embedded devices is on going but I don't know just how successfully. 

There is 1 super computer in the top 500 running Windows.  Microsoft subsidized it.

You might want to check out this link

Top Server Market Findings

    * Year-over-year unit shipment growth of 10.9% – the lowest unit growth in more than two years – reflects moderating unit growth in the volume server segment, more difficult compares, and a shifting product mix.

    * Linux servers posted their 12th consecutive quarter of double-digit growth, with year-over-year revenue growth of 45.1% and unit shipments up 32.1%. Customers continue to expand the role of Linux servers into an ever increasing array of workloads in both the commercial and technical segments of the market.

    * Microsoft Windows servers showed strong growth, as revenues grew 14.3% and unit shipments grew 10.9% year over year. Significantly, quarterly revenue of $4.1 billion for Windows servers represented 33.5% of overall quarterly factory revenue, as customers deploy more fully configured Windows servers for server virtualization initiatives.

    * Unix servers experienced 2.5% revenue growth year over year; however, unit shipments declined 8.7% when compared with 1Q04. Worldwide Unix revenues of $4.3 billion for the quarter reflect continued IT investment in this server market segment with particular strength in the high-end of the market.

Notice the relative growth rates.

Right now in Massachusetts a critical battle is being fought against Microsoft by the State government.  This is not a fight directly over Linux or Open Source software but over file formats.  The important aspect is that if the State wins and makes the conversion to an open standard file format for Office software they will have broken the proprietary lockin to MS Office.  Once the Office software lockin is broken and open formats are chosen then it becomes easier for the desktop to change to another OS. 

You see Massachusetts understands that what is important is not the program or the OS but the data.  So long as your data is locked into someone else's proprietary data format you are their hostage.  Massachusetts has decided to be a hostage no longer.  Once they have freed themselves companies that deal with them will be required to use the same data formats when dealing with them.  This will encourage those companies to free themselves as well.  Assuming Massachusetts is a success then other states will follow suit.  With each state and city breaking the Microsoft lockin the ability of other OSs to compete on the desktop will be enhanced.  That is why Microsoft is fighting Massachusetts tooth and nail.  They see the beginning of what just may be an avalanche that will sweep them away. 

Microsoft is afraid.  They have seen the road ahead and they believe in Linux.

[Just plain old Punisher]

Servers are always a small percentage of the total market. You'll notice the overall growth of the Linux market share has probably only grown a percentage point or two.

Linux is behind Mac, and mac is behind windows.

[Bonk]

Punisher, to satisfy your curiosity, I buy my clothes at Mark's Work Wearhouse and I got my last pair of shoes at Canadian Tire. 

Nemesis, I was not trying to defend windows product quality (You know I'm firm believer in QNX or FreeBSD when it comes to a quality OS) but rather exploring the idea in general. It seems to be the trend that if your products are successful you are punished, I do not think that this is a good thing.

[Mr_Tricorder]

Punisher, to satisfy your curiosity, I buy my clothes at Mark's Work Wearhouse and I got my last pair of shoes at Canadian Tire. 

Nemesis, I was not trying to defend windows product quality (You know I'm firm believer in QNX or FreeBSD when it comes to a quality OS) but rather exploring the idea in general. It seems to be the trend that if your products are successful you are punished, I do not think that this is a good thing.

If your products are successful because they are the best choice on the market, they you shouldn't be punished.  If your products are truly better than your competitor's products and you can beat them on quality and price on an even footing, than you shouldn't be punished.  However, Micrososft is pushing inferior products by slanting the playing field as much in their favor as possible.  What they do is unethical and many times illegal.  They are not being picked on just for being successful.  They are rightfully being punished.

[Nemesis]

Nemesis, I was not trying to defend windows product quality (You know I'm firm believer in QNX or FreeBSD when it comes to a quality OS) but rather exploring the idea in general. It seems to be the trend that if your products are successful you are punished, I do not think that this is a good thing.

It is not success that gets you punished.  It is the means of that success and what you do with it.

Lets start with MS-DOS.  How did it become dominant?

IBM goes to Microsoft and asks them to create an OS for the as yet unmarketed IBM PC.  Microsoft agrees even though they can't actually produce it because Gates knows of a company that has such an OS and he believes he can cut a deal, he does.  Microsoft licenses QDOS as MS-DOS and sublicenses it to IBM as IBM PC-DOS.  IBM choses to ship a copy with each PC and Microsoft is paid accordingly.  Along come the clones and they need a DOS that is compatible with IBM PC-DOS so they make deals with Microsoft where they pay per PC.  At this point there is no problem as people are buying the machines to run the same programs as run on the IBM PC under PC-DOS.

The next phase is where Microsofts success begins to unravel.  Digital Research creates DR-DOS.  Any large PC distributor who wants to offer DR-DOS alongside MS-DOS finds that they must pay Microsoft per machine which means that DR-DOS cannot compete because Microsoft has control of the market place.  There is no free market for DOS competitors.  This is where Microsoft goes wrong.  By controlling the market and excluding competitors they have violated the law.  If they had charged per MS-DOS sold and Digital Research had gone belly up due to lack of demand Microsoft would not have been in trouble.

There is more but it is all in the same vein.  Now on to the next phase - expanding the monopoly.

How did Microsoft Office achieve dominance?

Firstly Microsoft is alleged to have lied to competitors to convince them not to push their Word Processors onto Windows early on.  If this indeed happened it allowed Microsoft the time to create their own Office software on Windows before the competition. 

The next phase utilized the per PC payments for DOS/Windows.  Sell a competitors Office software and Microsoft boosts the per PC cost of DOS/Windows by enough to make up for the "lost" profits of not selling MS Office.  At this point Microsoft is using their illegally maintained OS monopoly to illegally obtain a monopoly in a related field.  Once the Office monopoly is illegally achieved using the OS monopoly to maintain it is illegal and that is what they did.

Other violations of Monopoly law:

Blocking PC manufacturers from installing competitors software.  Specifically done with Netscape and BeOS.

Making changes to Windows to damage the operation of competitors products.  Definitely happened in a Windows Beta to dissuade people from supporting DR-DOS.  Rumoured in other cases.  At least one internal Microsoft memo saying that they would make changes to Windows to harm the PalmOS so that WinCE would do better in the market place (after testifying in court that they never did and never would do such things).  At least one case of falsifying evidence in court.

In essence the success of Microsoft was maintained and extended by means that can be considered extortion, sabotage and blackmail. 

[Nemesis]

Servers are always a small percentage of the total market. You'll notice the overall growth of the Linux market share has probably only grown a percentage point or two.

It is one of the most lucrative sectors as well.  The strength of Linux in this field also gives the lie to the Microsoft claims that Linux is a "toy" OS.  A toy OS would not be a good server OS.

Microsoft has also worked to change the way the desktop clients communicate with the servers to make it harder for competitors to make servers to work with Windows (there is that illegally using  your monopoly to exclude competition again).

Linux is behind Mac, and mac is behind windows.

I haven't seen any credible numbers recently but the last ones I did see showed Linux just ahead of Mac.   The reason I say credible is that some organizations produce "reports" that say what they are told to say.

Two things to remember about Windows/Linux market shares.  The old per PC licensing deals mean that many machines running Linux are recorded at the retail level as running Windows even though they were never active as a Windows machine.  The other of course are all the machines running free versions of Linux don't get counted either.  These things tend to increase the apparent numbers for Microsoft and decrease them for Linux.

[Bonk]

QNX and FreeBSD both beat Linux as a quality server OS hands down.    Red Hat and Fedora make me want to puke, they're the ones MS is concerned about and to be honest I think they are as bad a product as MS in how they pander to the masses.

[Mr_Tricorder]

I can understand your sentiment towards Red Hat and Fedora, especially because of my own very short and limited experience with Fedora Core 4.  However, there are people who love them and really like the fact that you don't have to become a computer geek to use them.  Just like any other piece of software out there, some people swear by them and some people swear at them.

All of the different Linux distros, FreeBSD (and all the other BSDs), QNX, and other open source OSes are like a family.  They tend to help each other out and generally speaking what's good for one is also good for the others.

If you prefer running FreeBSD or QNX as a server over Linux or Windows, you should be perfectly free to do so.  The linux crowd won't stop you.  However, Microsoft's goal is to shut down any non-Windows OS that exists on the same kind of platform that Windows does.  That means that Microsoft has a problem with your preference to running FreeBSD or QNX and will do what it can (short of making Windows more stable and better quality) to make them a non-viable option.

[Nemesis]

An anti-Microsoft site that I found earlier today.  I haven't found any errors in things that I already knew about but there are other areas which are beyond my knowledge, especially quotes.  People on both sides may find it interesting to see what those who are really rabidly anti-Microsoft are saying.

[GE-Raven]

I am a network admin. 

We run a Novell/Groupwise Network
We also run Windows as our Main IIS and Sql Server.
We are an educational institution.

Windows is as big as it is for one main reason.  It works!  They have a huge budget for making the support of their product easy for a small department.  Most people are already familiar with it.

Sure I toyed with Red Hat nine a few years back, interesting, fun, lots of nifty little tools for fun network stuff.  All "free".   It was also enough to convince me that I would NEVER switch my end users to anything open sourced.  If I have a problem with MS Word I can look up tons of company supported documents, I can then use utilites designed for patching, updating, installing, uninstalling, etc.  I can basically support 500 workstatins with a functional staf of 4 (Helpdesk, Computer tech, and Net tech).  Sure I could do many of these things with open source, but at the end of the day the very fact it isn't "supported" by anyone because no one is paid to support it, means I will never use it.  If something doesn't work I want a vendor  and a company that is responsible to make it work.  (You would be amazed at how responsive even Microsoft is when you buy 500+ licenses of their OS, Office Suite, and other programs)

I get so tired of hearing about unfair practices.  I have seen tons of competitors that have been able to "on up" MS.  The normal result that company gets a healthy buyout by MS.  Win/Win.  They get rid of a better competitor, I get better stuff from a good company.  If Microsoft gets "too expensive" then compaines (especially small ones) will move.  My wife works at a place that uses open office (except for all the secretaries that flat out refuse).  However as my brother happens to be the tech there I can tell you they spend a hell of a lot more money on a tech department (that is larger than ours though supporting less than 1/5 the number of computers) then they would have just buying the licenses of the software.

In the end MS is a monopoly because the people want it that way.  We LIKE the software, and it works!  It isn't too hard to learn, we know who to call when it breaks, and it has the bonus of everyone knowing it because it is a monopoly.

There will always be a Niche market for all sorts of things.  If I wanted to make a free Tivo device, I would take the time and check out the options in the Unix/Linux world.  However I would be cheaper off buying a Tivo. (Considering what I think my time is worth).  That being said I still do something just for fun, and I still love the fact I made a nintendo controller work on my pc.

So as a computer savy guy that has NEVER taken a class in computers, I will say that sometimes things are succesful because they deserve to be so.  Do I think that MS might do some "questionable practices"?  Probably, but no more than the local meat market.  And an OS can't kill me.

GE-Raven

[Bonk]

I wholeheartedly agree with your analysys of MS, but Novell/Groupwise? (ack! runs screaming from thread... Novell gives me the heebie jeebies even worse than Norton)

Its a shame you experimented with RedHat and not FreeBSD or a true Unix for which the documentation base is huge and really requires no support because it works intuitively and reliably.

In summary:

MS: 
Novell:   

FreeBSD: 
RedHat:   

[Bonk]

OK, this is getting frigging ridiculous:

http://www.cbronline.com/article_news.asp?guid=9C46B7CD-67E3-46E6-A23F-6C6BEF6A1DD3


Why don't Sony and Alpine sue Ford for including CD players and radios in their automobiles?

I knew that the DoJ had set a dangerous precedent with the whole netscape thing... now anyone and his dog is free to milk the MS anti-trust cash cow...

Its absolutely stupid, If I were Bill at this point I'd be tempted to pull the plug on the works; shutdown MS altogether and retire on some isolated Carribean island.

Then what would these complainers do with their applications developed for windows? Write their own OS and development system? I think not, or they would have done so already.

Its a frickin load of crap I tell ya....

Hmmm maybe the easiest way for me to get rich is to write a half assed piece of software that MS already produces, then launch an anti-trust suit? 

 

edit: Personally, I'm much more concerned by stuff like Oracle trying to aquire MySQL... 

[Bonk]

Sure I could do many of these things with open source, but at the end of the day the very fact it isn't "supported" by anyone because no one is paid to support it, means I will never use it.

http://www.lemis.com/grog/Documentation/CFBSD/

[Bonk]

Lol, I only now realised what the original topic was really about.

My aunt asked me to scope out skype for her. After reading their terms and agreeements, and learning that it is from the makers of kazaa, I strongly reccomended that she should not install it for the continued protection of her privacy and the security of her PC.

AMD should not be concerned. I'm pretty confident that the strings attached to skype will prove too much for its longevity. (though I do have a tendency to underestimate the herd mentality of the general public...)

[Mr_Tricorder]

... though I do have a tendency to underestimate the herd mentality of the general public...

"Four legs good.  Two legs baa-aa-aad."

--George Orwell, Animal Farm

Every time someone mentions herd mentality, I think of this.  It's a pretty accurate description.

[Nemesis]

Skype hacked (link) to disable Intel dual core detector and it works fine on AMD.  As expected this was just a ploy to exclude AMD from part of the server market.

[Tus-XC]

Skype hacked (link) to disable Intel dual core detector and it works fine on AMD.  As expected this was just a ploy to exclude AMD from part of the server market.

Kinda like the anti-trust lawsuit AMD brought against intel... Even AMD admits its just to get attention...

[Nemesis]

Kinda like the anti-trust lawsuit AMD brought against intel... Even AMD admits its just to get attention...

I haven't seen that admission, do you have a link to a source?

[Tus-XC]

not atm, will have to remember where i read it first lol

[Tus-XC]

TG Daily: It has been a few months since AMD has filed an antitrust complaint against Intel. Given the media exposure of this move, do you already see an impact on your sales?

Allen: Absolutely. This really put a spotlight on the fact that AMD is very important for the market and provides people an opportunity to choose the best technology that is available. Yes, people looked into the lawsuit and our claims of their bad behavior. What is more significant, however, is the more people look at us the more they love us. People began to bring in Opteron system and benchmark them against a competitive system from Intel. We definitely have seen growing acceptance [for our systems]. Until today, 90 out of the top 100 companies have deployed Opteron systems.

http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/01/20/tgdaily_interviews_amd_q1_2006/page2.html

There we go

[Nemesis]

TG Daily: It has been a few months since AMD has filed an antitrust complaint against Intel. Given the media exposure of this move, do you already see an impact on your sales?

Allen: Absolutely. This really put a spotlight on the fact that AMD is very important for the market and provides people an opportunity to choose the best technology that is available. Yes, people looked into the lawsuit and our claims of their bad behavior. What is more significant, however, is the more people look at us the more they love us. People began to bring in Opteron system and benchmark them against a competitive system from Intel. We definitely have seen growing acceptance [for our systems]. Until today, 90 out of the top 100 companies have deployed Opteron systems.

I wouldn't interpret that as an admission that they started the lawsuit for attention.  Attention coming during the lawsuit does not mean that the lawsuit was started for attention.

Before the lawsuit AMD had chips that were competitive across the board but they couldn't sell them in quantity to laptop and server makers (where the high profit margins are).  Suddenly once the lawsuit started companies that previously refused to deal in AMD chips started to sell them, almost like they were given permission by someone who wouldn't previously allow them to sell AMD. 

It actually seems to make it more convincing that Intel was blocking AMD sales.

[Tus-XC]

TG Daily: It has been a few months since AMD has filed an antitrust complaint against Intel. Given the media exposure of this move, do you already see an impact on your sales?

Allen: Absolutely. This really put a spotlight on the fact that AMD is very important for the market and provides people an opportunity to choose the best technology that is available. Yes, people looked into the lawsuit and our claims of their bad behavior. What is more significant, however, is the more people look at us the more they love us. People began to bring in Opteron system and benchmark them against a competitive system from Intel. We definitely have seen growing acceptance [for our systems]. Until today, 90 out of the top 100 companies have deployed Opteron systems.

I would say its interpretation, and when i read this part
 "Yes, people looked into the lawsuit and our claims of their bad behavior. What is more significant, however, is the more people look at us the more they love us." it tells me the primary purpose was to get attention.  I don't know how you see it, but that was certainly my first impression.  It might not have been a direct admission, but i'm sure as hell picking up that they are descreetly implying that.

[Nemesis]

I would say its interpretation, and when i read this part
 "Yes, people looked into the lawsuit and our claims of their bad behavior. What is more significant, however, is the more people look at us the more they love us." it tells me the primary purpose was to get attention.  I don't know how you see it, but that was certainly my first impression.  It might not have been a direct admission, but i'm sure as hell picking up that they are descreetly implying that.

My interpretation is that they are saying this is one of the effects of the lawsuit.  Not that they are saying they started the lawsuit to cause this effect.  Even if it were true AMD would have to be crazy to say it during the suit.  It could bias things against them even if they had solid evidence proving their side.  At this point I would say there is not enough public information to clearly decide though I am slightly leaning towards AMD based on various things heard over the years.

Many things you do can have effects that are beneficial (or harmful) without being done to cause that effect or without your realizing in advance the effect would occur.  An old example between AMD and Intel is that for the best part of a year after the Athlon was released none of the major motherboard makers sold boards for it.  Then a reviewer of an "offbrand" motherboard pulled the manufacturers sticker off the board and saw the actual manufacturer was ASUS and wrote about that.  Shortly thereafter all the major motherboard makers started shipping boards.  For some reason none of the major motherboard makers were willing to publicly be the first one to ship Athlon motherboards.  Who would have thought that pulling a sticker off an "offbrand" motherboard would result in support for the Athlon by all the major board makers?

The rumour at the time was that Intel was threatening to cut off supplies of chipsets for making P3 motherboards.  No one could afford not to make P3 boards.  That of course would be an anti-trust violation if true.