Old Monopolistic Habits Die Hard At Microsoft
from the um...-whoops dept
For years, people accused Microsoft of having the DNA of a monopolist. This was part of the argument for breaking them up -- as people said that Microsoft's attitude towards competition wouldn't let them act in any way other than as a monopoly. Recently, Microsoft has been working quite hard to change that image. However, it appears they still have a few kinks to work out. In some court documents revealed today, Microsoft told the maker of an unnamed portable digital music player that it couldn't distribute anyone else's software with the device if they wanted to distribute Microsoft's media player. The company complained, and Microsoft quickly backed down -- while also claiming that it was just a draft contract, and not one that had been thoroughly reviewed by the "no, we swear we're not a monopolist" legal staff. Still, it seems like the Justice Department is making the right move in letting this slide -- basically recognizing that it was a one-time mistake and that Microsoft quickly fixed the situation once it was brought to their attention.
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
No Subject Given
So, it's ok for Apple to do it with the iPod + iTunes crap, but MS is evil for trying it?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: No Subject Given
the ipod has tons of competitors that compete decently. microsoft competes with mac (linux doesnt count)
apple just made a good marketing decision and had some good commercials
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: No Subject Given
exactly and you can't not say it's different since apple isn't a monopoly...bullshit...they have almost a complete monopoly over the mp3 player business
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: No Subject Given
thats why they are being sued for forcing you to use iTunes...
Apple = mp3 Player Monopoly
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: No Subject Given
Well, the thing is that Apple makes both iTunes and the iPod. You're free to use other people's software (iPodLinux) on the iPod, but it's not as though the iTunes section of Apple is forcing the rest of it to distribute iTunes-compatible iPods--it's within Apple.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: No Subject Given
The big monopolies in the digital world are:
Notice what makes them so formidable, is that it's hard to imagine what a competitor can do to get around them. Even a smart, determined competitor with deep pockets can't knock any of these guys off directly, the best they can do is try to start a new industry based on a different paradigm. Can you imagine someone knocking off Apple in portable music? Sure, they've only been out there for a few years. Netscape was the big wheel in browsers for a couple years. Sony was the biggest player in electronics only a few years ago. What they don't have is an insurmountable position like the above three. And notice the above are all massive cash cows, so Microsoft and co. can afford to buy out lots of promising startups that are working on the paradigm shifts.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
I have a subject!
And apple doesn't allow distributors to distribute different OSs on a Mac. Apple doesn't let you use a different distribution of music for its IPod. Apple won't allow other MP3 players using iTunes... Apple has trade secrets and wont allow independent journalism. I've heard all this and more; Apple is a corporation too and plays by those rules, Cut Throat competition.
Game over
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: I have a subject!
Very nicely put. It has nothing to do with being a monopoly, it has to do with who's the better marketer. Who's product is most appealing.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: No Subject Given
iPod + iTunes = APPLE. MS doesn't make a mp3 player. Apple bundles their software with their player. are you stupid?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: No Subject Given
Still, iTunes is damn slick. If all monopolies were like Apple's, I'd want more of them
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: No Subject Given
Yeah well Windows + Internet Explorer + Windows Media Player = MICROSOFT, but yet everyone wants to sue MS to get them to take apart the package. All the lawmakers wanted it, but how many people have actually bought Windows XP N? How many OEMs actually sell machines with XP N?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
No Subject Given
I use iTunes to download music but I don't have an iPod, so where's the monopoly?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: No Subject Given
steve jobs is just as much a maniacal monopolist as bill gates, he's just not as smart and more of a sleazebag.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: No Subject Given
Apple isnt licensing their software at all. Thats the difference. Their product, their software. MS is licensing their software, they shouldnt be able to control the products of other peoples that simply license their software.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: No Subject Given
Monopolies are not illegal. When the courts finds one to be contrary to public good (as happened to MS), then that monopoly is declared illegal. Remedies are put in place. MS tried to violate one of the terms of the remedies handed down in its case.
Also, haven't seen where Apple told any other company it had to sell its product and could not sell someone elses. SO how is this comparable? At all.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment