In Article: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/microsoft/2003861478_microsoft31.html
<quote>
Dueling reports from the government lawyers overseeing Microsoft's
aging
antitrust settlement paint very different pictures of the current
status of the
marketplace that the company dominated when it was hauled into court
as
a monopolist almost a decade ago.
A contingent of states, lead by California, said the final judgment
in the
case has not loosened Microsoft's control. But federal lawyers said
the
sanctions have fostered more competition.
The 2001 antitrust settlement imposed requirements on how Microsoft
runs its Windows operating-system business.
But the California group's report to U.S. District Judge Colleen
Kollar-Kotelly
said the judgment "clearly has had little or no discernible impact in
the
marketplace as measured by the most commonly used metric - market
shares."
</quote>
One really has to look at how the market has been affected by the
settlement.
True, Firefox has been downloaded into about 500 million computers,
but Netscape
has all but disappeared. The corporation was purchased by AOL, and
Microsoft made
a deal with AOL that prevented AOL from enhancing Netscape directly.
As a result,
Netscape, it's sites, and it's technology has all but disappeared.
In order to get 40% of the market, Firefox had to give away every
single copy. The
main feature was the improved security of NOT running ActiveX controls
and other
virus spreading technologies. Still, every Windows PC is sold with IE
pre-installed
as a crucial part of the operating system. Furthermore, the DLLs used
by IE, including
about 85% of the IE code, are loaded when almost any Microsoft
bundleware applicaiton
is run. The operating system reluctantly surrenders available RAM to
other applications,
increasing the first time run load time of competitor and 3rd party
applications.
Sun has managed to get Java pre-installed by OEMs, but only because
Microsoft has made
it part of their standard image. Microsoft still offers total control
of the OEM channel. When
Microsoft lost the case with Sun, and was unable to install Java, they
attempted to promote
C# as a substitute, but the corporate world didn't really like C# that
much. Meanwhile,
they were getting Java as part of Firefox and OpenOffice. Microsoft
decided that the
"strategic concession" of putting Java on the desktop
Microsoft has extended their monopoly control of the market -
expanding into music, video,
and 3D Video games. In each area, Microsoft has completely
disregarded the ruling of the
appeals court, which explicitly stated that even though the monopoly
was legal, using the
monopoly power to extend into other markets - would not be legal.
Linux has become very popular with end users, but Microsoft still
doesn't make it easy for them.
OEMs are still unable to get required approvals for advertising that
lets Linux users know that
a PC is capable of running Linux, or even which peripherals work with
Linux, or even which
models and devices do NOT work with Linux. This would be a direct
violation of the clause
in the settlements that forbid Microsoft from interfering with OEM
efforts to market Linux on PCs.
On the other hand, OEMs are building more of their machines to be
"Linux Ready".
Dell, HP, Toshiba, and Lenovo have all publicly announced the ability
of certain models
to run Linux, and even offered to sell the machines with Linux, but
the information related
to this capability was removed from web sites as a result of Microsoft
interference.
Apple's Mac with OS/X has been acknowledged as far superior to Windows
XP or Vista by
numerous reviewers. Most reviewers of Vista, even those with
relatively positive reviews,
have often closed with "But I'd rather have a Mac". Mac sales have
been so brisk that
stores carrying Apple products often have to sell their display
models. Apple can't keep
up with demand.
This hasn't stopped Microsoft from preventing the OEMs such as Dell,
HP, Lenovo, Gateway,
and Sony from offering machines with Linux capabilities that could
provide the best features of
OS/X.
Virtualization has made it technically possible and practical to run
Linux and Windows on the
same physical machine. Many end-users run such configurations.
Microsoft still forces
the OEMs to install, Windows, only Windows, and nothing but Windows.
Records made
public during the Ohio vs Microsoft case also showed that Microsoft
deliberately defied
the Antitrust settlement.
Microsoft was supposed to permit OEMs to offer previous versions of
Windows,
but almost from the beginning of the release of XP, Microsoft made it
virtually
impossible for OEMs to ship machines with previous versions, such as
Windows
2000 instead. When they couldn't directly pressure the OEMs, they
went after
the corporate customers, telling them that if they did not sign XP
licenses,
and switch to XP, they would no longer receive support.
During nearly every review, the DOJ has thwarted all attempts by other
Attorneys
general to raise issues related to the case. The concensus among the
states
was that Microsoft was openly defying the settlement, yet the DOJ
repeatedly
defied them, claiming that there were "no problems". Clearly,
Microsoft's substantial
contributions to George W Bush's $30 million War Chest during the 2000
campaign
have "paid off" in spades.
Ironically, the DOJ has even assisted Microsoft in it's monopoly
efforts. They have
tried to prevent or delay mergers that would strengthen Microsoft's
competitors.
At this point, it's pretty much useless to hope that the courts will
do anything
to assure a competitive marketplace. On the other hand, the end
users, corporate
customers, and OEMs are all beginning to plan their "post settlement"
strategy.
Many were hoping that the court would extend all provisions of the
settlement for
another 4-5 years, assuring that a less "friendly" administration
would be able
to actually enforce the spirit and intent of the settlement. It's
pretty clear
that this is not going to happen. Even the disclosure requirements
have been
implemented in a manner designed to prevent competition. Those who
want
to review the protocols documents must sign nondisclosure agreements
which
prevent them from using the protocols in Linux, OSS products, and
other
"Non Microsoft" platforms.
With court intervention pretty much out of the picture, the OEMs have
been
subverting Microsoft covertly. HP began the process by offering 64
bit processors
and OpenGL graphics cards at a time when Microsoft only ran 32 bits,
and
needed DirectX video cards for their 3D graphics. IBM (now Lenovo)
made nearly
all of their PCs "Linux Ready".
Virtualization has become much easier for end users as well. VMWare
and Xen have
made it possible to run both Linux and Windows on the same desktop, at
the same
time. VMware has also eased the transition by releasing VMWare
Converter, which
can take a fully configured Windows desktop and generate a
functionally identical
VMWare "Image" which can be run from VMWare Player.
Sam Palmisano has publicly announced the goal of having IBM employees
running
Linux by the end of 2007. Many of these employees will be using
virtualized desktops
that allow them to run both Linux and Windows XP or Windows 2000 on
the same
desktop. Using Linux as the "host" operating system has many
advantages,
including being faster, having virtual desktops, better memory and
disk management
and caching, and easier back-up and recovery of Windows "images".
Still, a substantial number of employees will still be using XP as the
primary OS
with Linux as the secondary.
Other companies, including Bank of America, HSBC, Deutche Bank, JPMC,
MetLife, Prudential, and many other fortune 500 corporations appear to
have
similar plans in place, and have prepared to migrate to Linux/XP
instead of Vista.
|
|
