It seems like typical MS FUD.

edited October 2003 in General Discussion

Comments

  • edited December 1969
    Though to what end, I can't imagine.
  • edited December 1969
    Re: It seems like typical MS FUD.

    Though to what end, I can't imagine.

    (uh, that was supposed to be a comment to Cob's message. Oops.)
  • edited December 1969
    Re: It seems like typical MS FUD.

    Though to what end, I can't imagine.

    Ah, now there's an acronym I haven't heard for a while.

    I'm also struggling to work out what would be achieved in a FUD sense of grabbing Google. As far as I'm, and many others are, concerned, Google is the only search engine around. It's basically total monopoly stuff. I wonder what will come of it.

    Then again, I'm still struggling to work out why MS was slapped with antitrust. IANAL, I guess.

    -Cob

    Microsoft and Google: Partners or Rivals?
  • edited December 1969
    Re: It seems like typical MS FUD.

    I'm also struggling to work out what would be achieved in a FUD
    sense of grabbing Google. As far as I'm, and many others are,
    concerned, Google is the only search engine around. It's
    basically total monopoly stuff. I wonder what will come of it.

    Nothing. Being a monopoly is not illegal. Using your powers as a monopoly to stifle compitition is what is illegal. I wouldn't say Google is a monopoly (they're by far the most popular, but there are tons of other search engines), but even if they were, they aren't doing anything to prevent other search engines from being successful.

    Then again, I'm still struggling to work out why MS was slapped
    with antitrust. IANAL, I guess.

    They used their position in the OS market to screw several companies, Netscape and Sun in particular. Netscape by introducing IE as part of Windows, and making several design choices that had no purpose but to try and force people into using it instead of Netscape. Sun they hosed by agreeing to licence Java, getting a look at it, writing their own version for Windows and then telling Sun to take a hike.

    -Mori
  • edited December 1969
    [b]Re: It seems like typical MS FUD.[/b]

    [quote]
    They used their position in the OS market to screw several
    companies, Netscape and Sun in particular. Netscape by
    introducing IE as part of Windows, and making several design
    choices that had no purpose but to try and force people into
    using it instead of Netscape. Sun they hosed by agreeing to
    licence Java, getting a look at it, writing their own version
    for Windows and then telling Sun to take a hike.

    [/quote]
    Yeah, and they also pressured Apple into stopping development of QuickTime for Windows. They pressured Intel into stopping development of operating-system-independent interfaces. They *raised* the price of Windows 95 just before Windows 98 came out to entice OEMs to upgrade (how many companies in a non-monopoly position would have the gall to do that?).

    They pressured IBM by not giving them the same royalty deal as Compaq unless they stopped promoting their own operating system (OS/2). When IBM refused to capitulate, they withheld their license to allow IBM to pre-install Windows 95 until 15 *minutes* before the official launch of Win95. IBM's competitors reaped the benefits of pent-up Win95 demand.

    Read the official findings of fact here.
  • edited December 1969
    Thanks for the link [vlt]

    I'll get back to you in, oh, 3 years after I've read it. Sheesh. :)

    Microsoft and Google: Partners or Rivals?
  • edited December 1969
    [b]explicitly stated[/b]

    [quote]
    Yeah, and they also pressured Apple into stopping development of
    QuickTime for Windows.

    [/quote]
    The term 'pressured' is a little vague. It could mean they were successful or that they just attempted. In this case, it was just an attempt.
    109. Jobs reserved comment during the meeting with the Microsoft representatives, but he explicitly rejected Microsoft's proposal a few weeks later. Had Apple accepted Microsoft's proposal, Microsoft would have succeeded in limiting substantially the cross-platform development of multimedia content. In addition, Apple's future success in marketing authoring tools for Windows 95 would have become dependent on Microsoft's ongoing cooperation, for those tools would have relied on the DirectX technologies under Microsoft's control.
    Just wanted to make that clear.

    [url=http://bs.bungie.org/]Bungie Sightings[/url]
  • edited December 1969
    Here's one theory...

    MS spreading rumors about wanting to partner with Google could affect advertising deals with Google competitors, which could benefit MS in other ways. For example, if MS is competing in another realm with a company that competes with Google, they promote this rumor about a partnership, which encourages advertisers to use Google rather than the common competitor of MS and Google. This hurts the revenue of their competitor in a relatively unconnected way. It also potentially drives up the value of Google, which means MS gets a value bump if/when any real deal is announced.

    This isn't just paranoia either -- MS has used this sort of tactic in the past with applications and operating system components.
Sign In or Register to comment.