Gates on Apple and Antitrust

[hugheba]

Excerpt from Gates' Testimony in the Antitrust case...


"433. In addition to requiring Microsoft to auction off its Office technology to three bidders, Section 14 would require Microsoft to continue to invest, for ten years, in developing new versions of Office for the Apple's Mac OS, with "features consistent with Microsoft Office for Windows." Section 14 would obligate Microsoft to invest its resources in this way without regard to the economic or technical viability of doing so. 434. For example, if the Apple Macintosh platform were to lose share in the future—a possibility that cannot be ruled out given Apple's "near death" experience in
the mid-1990s—it would be economically inefficient for Microsoft to continue to invest in building applications for the platform. Other changes in business circumstances, such as a decision by Apple to focus on customer segments that generate little demand
for business productivity software, might also render it economically unviable to continue to build new versions of Office for the Mac. A lot can happen over ten years."

Source

[dricci]

They're the richest company in the world, you CANNOT tell me that it would hurt them that much to keep making Mac office just for the hell of it. Heck, they could GIVE IT AWAY if they wanted to! They're just a greedy MONOPOLY *gasp!*

[dlookus]

I was reading about this on News.com and found this to be rather funny:

"Under the states' proposal," Gates said, "Windows would no longer be uniform. Anyone who licensed 10,000 copies would...be able to make arbitrary changes" to the operating system.

Using a hypothetical example of separate Windows versions from AOL, Sun Microsystems and Gateway, Gates said such versions would lead to a situation where "some of the applications don't run on some of the variations. You wouldn't know which fragmented version (an application) would be compatible with."

Is it just me or is this already the case. Gates refers to Windows as if it's one OS. They're currently selling Windows:XP, 2000, CE and ME. Not to mention all the people still using Windows 98 or 95.

Anyone else see what I'm talking about?

[dricci]

I think they should be forced to port all of their software to Mac OS X and make all of their apps use open standard technology.

[rinse]

Originally posted by dricci
They're the richest company in the world, you CANNOT tell me that it would hurt them that much to keep making Mac office just for the hell of it. Heck, they could GIVE IT AWAY if they wanted to! They're just a greedy MONOPOLY *gasp!*

as a preface, let me state i am in no way defending M$... that said:

just because they could do that, doesn't mean they should have to do anything they don't want to (providing it is not against any legal binding contracts)... i mean after all they are in a capitalist society... lets not forget what companies are for. to make money.

[voice-]

sure dricci, open standards...we're talking about the re-inventors of Java and the inventors of WMV and WMA...open standards? You think they would do that?

[nkuvu]

Is it just me or is this already the case. Gates refers to Windows as if it's one OS. They're currently selling Windows:XP, 2000, CE and ME. Not to mention all the people still using Windows 98 or 95.

As well as service packs and IE installations. "This software requires WinNT service pack 6a and IE 5.0+"

[phatsharpie]

Originally posted by rinse


as a preface, let me state i am in no way defending M$... that said:

just because they could do that, doesn't mean they should have to do anything they don't want to (providing it is not against any legal binding contracts)... i mean after all they are in a capitalist society... lets not forget what companies are for. to make money.

Rinse,

I agree with you, however, there are laws in the US that disallow any large corporations from abusing their monopolistic status to prevent smaller companies from competing effectively. MS has been charged in this sense, essentially what they did before was illegal. People seem to misunderstand antitrust laws. In the US, it's perfectly legal to have a monopoly, what is illegal is to abuse that monopolistic power - i.e. forcing out smaller competitors.

The remedy has to ensure that smaller competitors can compete in the market now. It's ridiculous to say that MS shouldn't have to do anything... They broke the law! Do tax evaders have a say on what happens to them as a penalty? How about criminals? There really isn't much differences between these situations, laws have been broken, and the offenders have to face the music.

-B