On Jul 31, 12:51 am, 7 <website_has_em...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Rex Ballard wrote:
> > The store had also figured out how to get around Microsoft's objection
> > to a side-by-side comparison, by turning off all of the computers and
> > locking them into displays which prevented anyone from typing on the
> > keyboards.
> That is interesting.
> Micoshaft interferes with consumer choice by interfering with
> how you make your choices!!!!
This is actually old news. Back in 1994, Microsoft considered OS2/
Warp to be a serious threat to NT 4.0 and Windows 3.1, and they feared
that Warp might get too much of a foothold in the marketplace and
might be a threat to the "soon to be released" Windows 95.
Microsoft began making public announcements to the effect that they
were going to more aggressively "Protect their tradmarks and logos".
Privately, via direct mail, Microsoft sent letters to all of their
"Microsoft Authorized Resellers" (pretty much any store that sold PCs
that ran Windows), and told them that displaying PCs that ran Windows
3.1 right next to PCs that ran Warp was "Damaging to the brand", and
that if a store wanted to display PCs running OS/2 they would have to
turn off all PCs running Windows and remove all display materials
showing the Windows Logo and Windows trademark together. The
retailers were told that they had to get Microsoft's written
permission for any activities that might damage the Microsoft brand.
About that same time, Microsoft sent similar letters telling the OEMs
that they were concerned about advertizements that were damaging to
the Microsoft Brand. They were told that they needed to get written
approvial for any ads in which Microsoft's logos and trademarks were
used. Ads that were "Microsoft Only" took less than an hour to
approve, ads that showed the ability to run Warp, OS/2, or SCO Unix
generally "got lost in the hopper", often the approvals came way to
late to meet the publisher's deadline, or never came back at all.
Even when something was approved, Microsoft had changes to the ad
content they wanted, and since these changes were unpredictable, it
pretty much made it impossible for a PC maker like Dell, who had been
selling PCs with both Windows 3.1 and SCO Unix, to advertise both
options in the same magazine, let alone the same ad.
This wasn't a new precedent. Car dealerships would generally get a
franchise for one particular manufacturer, and were expected to limit
theri advertisements of brand new cars to that particular brand. For
example, you wouldn't see a Ford dealer advertising a good deal on
brand new Chevrolet's. Often a manufacturer, such as General Moters,
for a slightly higher monthly fee, would let you offer the family of
cars, such as Chevy, Pontiac, GMC.
Today we do see Auto-Malls where you can choose from GM, Ford, Toyota,
and Honda in a single dealership, but even then, the inventories are
isolated from each other, and it's almost like 4 separate dealerships.
The practice of "Brand Protection" isn't illegal, however, in the DOJ
and EU settlements, Microsoft had agreed to not interfere with
attempts to market competitor Operating systems such as Linux. In the
US, Microsoft has continued to use "pocket veto" power to prevent the
OEMs from advertising Linux and No-OS or Free-DOS machines, and to
keep retailers from putting Linux and OS/X machines on display right
next to Windows machines.
Even in stores that display both Mac and Windows machines, the Mac
machines are kept, at minimum, in a separate isle, to prevent a direct
side-by-side comparison, in many cases, the Mac machines are even in a
separate part of the store, almost like two separate stores.
> These and other sharp business practices need to be outlawed!
Actually they are protected by trademark law. Though Microsoft is
more "creative" than most companies in it's writing and enforcement of
both copyright and trademark licenses. The irony is that Microsoft
uses "Plain English" fooling decision makers into thinking that they
can understand the contract without a lawyer. It's often not until
after they've approved the licenses, violated them without realizing
it, and received notice from Microsoft of the violation, that they
discover that their interpretation was wrong and irrelevant, that
Microsoft's interpretation, as the author of the license is the one
that takes precedence. Often, it isn't until that point that they
contact a lawyer, and find out that they are screwed.
> The EU regulators are asleep drunk on tax payer's money as usual.
> When I go into a store, I can compare varieties of tomatoes,
> potatoes, onions and grapes. I can pick up and inspect red
> grapes, black grapes, green grapes and I can choose on quality
> and purpose through inspection.
Which may be one of the reasons that this major retailer is willing to
openly defy Microsoft and put these "alternative solutions" on
display, and let the shoppers make their comparisons and see real
value for themselves. The store I want to was similar to a Mier's or
a Super WalMart, with the Grocery Store on the first floor, and the
department store on the second floor, and in any given product, there
was lots of choice and comparison, often with the lowest priced items
being as much as 70% lower than the highest priced (usually American)
item.
> If micoshaft if directly interfering the how consumers are allowed
> to choose by preventing them and the suppliers from comparison
> directly on the shop floor, then its market distortion
The courts can help to equalize the market, but ultimately it's the
Market who has to be willing to stand up for the rights of their
customers. Microsoft may want to take away choice from the end user,
but it's ultimately the OEMs and Retailers who permit the monopoly to
exist and persist.
Maybe, from 1991 to 2006, it was profitable to enable the monopoly.
But with the release of Vista, retailersr have been getting hurt
badly. Some, such as CompUSA have closed their retail stores
completely. Others, such as Best Buy, Circuit City, and even WalMart,
have simply stopped reordering inventory, cut their staff, and pretty
much left the PC displays looking more like a war zone.
Linux has created a whole new PC market. Vista needs at least 2
gigabytes of memory, preferably 4, to even function in the most basic
ways. You have to pay extra for Microsoft Office, and most of the
other major applications cost extra.
Linux on the other hand, can be fully functional with as little as 512
meg, but runs really nice on 1 Gig of RAM, and includes lots of extra
software, including the ability to upgrade to commercial versions of
some of the more popular applications.
In the past, HP, Compaq, IBM, and Dell wanted to sell as much hardware
as possible and get a premium price for it. As long as paying $35 for
Windows meant an additional $500 to $700 in profit on a PC that cost
about $300-$500 to make, everybody was happy to spend a few extra
bucks for Windows, even if the end user didn't actually want Windows.
Vista changed the landscape. Suddenly, a Vista machine that performed
"as well as" the XP machine the buyer already owned cost about $1000
to make. The initial asking prices for Vista machines was close to
$2000 per laptop and $1200-1500 per desktop machine. But lack of
demand, graphics that appeared in advertising but not on the
computers, and the inability to run theri favorite XP programs on
Vista caused the prices of Vista systems to drop to as low as $500 per
laptop and $250 per desktop. In effect, the retailers and OEMs were
losing money on every Vista machine sold.
So it's not so surprising that Acer, ASUS, Dell, and several of the
companies who were knocked out of the top 5 by Apple, who is still
selling desktop machines for $1500 and laptops for $2,000 AND are now
the number 3 PC maker by volume, are less willing to take the nickles
and dimes Microsoft was offering for exclusionary clauses. Instead,
these OEMs are saying "OK, we'll pay a little more for the machines we
sell with Vista, but we will be selling a bunch of machines with Linux
or No OS instead. They've also opted to pay the price of Vista
Business Edition for a single license that can be shipped as Vista
Home Premium, Vista Business Edition, or Windows XP.
They have also opted not to accept discounts offered for giving
Microsoft exclusive control of the boot-up sequence. Now they are
insisting on the ability to choose the configuration, including
installing Linux as the primary OS and Vista or XP as a VM.
Many corporations have already "locked in" XP, getting Licenses that
can be transferred to any machine they buy, including Linux machines
running XP in a virtual machine. Even service customers have opted
for more flexibility rather than deeper discounts.
> and the EU consumer protection and regulatory systems needs to parachute in
> save the consumer from distorted marketing practices by fining Micoshaft
> and participating retailers billions until they remove the system.
About the only thing the EU could do that would actually have direct
impact on Microsoft's ability to negotiate, would be to set quotas.
On the other hand, Microsoft can slit their own throats by trying to
force-feed an unpopular product to OEMs, Retailers, and Corporate IT
Departments.
Microsoft was successful in the "Force Feed" of XP, because the
corporate customers were not prepared. They had not planned ahead,
and had not established a bargaining position that would give them
alternatives in the long run.
When they tried the same tactic with Vista, IT executives had been
planning for almost 6 years on how they would deal with another
attempted force-feed of Windows/Office upgrades. The Linux community
and the Apple Mac community had shown them lots of alternatives, all
of which were superior to an "All Microsoft" Solution.
It's a pretty strong indicator when Microsoft's top executives start
leaving just before they are scheduled to start making forward looking
statements that are SEC regulated. Could it be that Steve Ballmer
wanted them to paint a rosy picture when they knew that the outlook
was very bleak? Could it be that they decided it was better to cash
in their chips and walk away from the table, rather than risk 5-20
years in federal prison for securities fraud?
Perhaps they even decided that it would be easier to cooperate with
authorities if they weren't bound by the Microsoft NDAs they signed as
employees. This way they can cash in their options AND cooperate with
the regulators.
My guess is that Negotiations with the OEMs did not go as smoothly as
they had in previous years, and that Microsoft was scrambling to make
sure that they still had a seat at the table.
Microsoft may claim to have sold 180 million Licenses, but PC sales,
especially Vista PC sales, are down sharply, and the players have
changed. Now, Dell, is trying to make sure that Mac doesn't move into
#2 slot. HP has been subsidizing their PC business, Gateway is gone,
and Acer has never been that close with Microsoft. IBM is dumping
their PC interests and Lenovo is also not as intimate with Microsoft
as IBM was. Toshiba and Sony are probably looking at their market
positions as well, and realizing that Vista isn't cutting it.
The success of the ASUS EEE, and Mac OS/X shows that people are hungry
for really new and different, but Vista isn't cutting it. I would
guess that the OEMS are pretty much of the mind that the time has come
for Linux to take center stage.
|
|
