Mailbag: Microsoft Plays Monopoly
Microsoft is sounding
over the Google/Yahoo ad deal, calling it a monopoly in the making.
Coming from Microsoft, this might be ironic -- but not that surprising:
Ironic? No, it's about time. Turnabout is fair play.
This is just as ironic as when IBM got to finger-pointing at Microsoft
during the Microsoft monopoly hearings. Youngsters might not remember IBM's
own monopoly issues, but the rest of us do.
What goes around comes around. I think Microsoft is justified using the
same arguments that have been used against it -- and the results should be
the same if the legal systems are balanced as they claim.
Microsoft's enemies have used the monopoly chip against them and now they
want to turn the tables on Google. Having politicians and the courts involved
in this is not good for the consumer's pocket book or for technology innovation.
I trust the market to make the corrections needed.
After reading your comments about Microsoft, the potential Google/Yahoo
deal and the words "monopoly" and "ironic" in your column,
another word immediately came to my mind: HYPOCRITE. Kind of like the pot
calling the kettle black. Just like a terrorist calling the United States
a bunch of murderers. Kinda of like sending a fat, overweight U.S. senator
overseas to a Third World nation to investigate their poverty and hunger.
Tennessee Williams said it best in "The Rose Tattoo," Act 3: "The
only thing worse than a liar is a liar that's also a hypocrite!"
How long before we see Microsoft changing its trademark to a guy wearing
a black hat, a tuxedo and a monocle?
Microsoft has suggested that Windows 7 will pretty much be based
on Vista. Too much of a not-so-good-thing? Here's what some of you think:
Over the last months, I have read several news reports saying that Windows
7 will address the 'bloatware' that Vista has become by being more of a thin
client that can be readily expanded. Now Veghte is saying it will be built
on Vista? Did those reporters fall for more obfuscation?
As the world swings toward making more use of laptops and notebooks,
Microsoft must understand that these devices are NOT readily upgradeable to
have terabytes of RAM once Windows 7 releases. I have an old Dell Latitude
at home that I'm not throwing away just because it can't support Vista; I'm
moving to Ubuntu.
I think that Microsoft made a major stumble at the wrong time. Vista was
way late and many of the great features were stripped in order to finally
ship it. It was so slow and riddled with bugs and incompatibilities that it
got extremely bad press. At the same time, Linux was making huge strides in
compatibility and ease of use with Ubuntu, etc. A couple years ago, Linux
wasn't in a place to compete at any level with Windows, but now it is much
Microsoft making a big announcement that Windows 7 is based on Vista
so you might as well upgrade to Vista now is going to backfire on the company,
I saw in your post today that you included some Windows 7 information,
and I wanted to clarify a minor point. In your post, you write the following:
"Second -- and this is the first such official proclamation -- Veghte
stated that Windows 7 is based on Vista."
There was a post
by Chris Flores on the Windows Vista blog in May which disclosed this information.
Rick shares his thoughts on Microsoft's approach
I work in a part of the technology sector where collaboration and cooperation
are essential. In my opinion, Microsoft sets itself up for the cheap shots
in the manner it tries to collaborate or share with the technology community
at large. It's one thing to invite the technology community to participate
in the creation of a file standard, as opposed to developing a file standard
and presenting it to the technology community for ratification or acceptance.
The first approach is inviting and suggests willingness to accept outside
review and input; the latter is easily construed as an obnoxious attitude
("Here it is, take it or leave it").
Still, a powerful argument against collaboration is that development
speed suffers dramatically. Also in the mix is the fact that system changes
are best made in the design phase and not the implementation phase. So when
a non-Microsoft entity makes a valid observation or suggestion, Microsoft
can ignore it on the grounds that it would be too costly to implement, opening
itself up to criticism.
Robert is still wondering about Diane Greene's unexpected
departure from VMware:
Seems to me that EMC overlooked a significant factor in that by letting
Greene go, users who were accepting of VMware as "the best game in town"
are now going to say, "Hmm, guess I should look at Microsoft and Xen
and etc." The old law of unintended consequences may really come to bear.
And Charlie gets the final word (hopefully) on the Nick
I agree with you -- Nick Hogan is a dirt bag. Here's a rule of thumb:
There are no real heroes on "reality" TV. Most all of the participants
are either losers, wannabes, has-beens or, as you put it, dirt bags.
Tell us what you think! Leave a message below or send an e-mail to email@example.com.
Posted by Doug Barney on July 17, 2008 at 11:52 AM