-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
____/ High Plains Thumper on Sunday 14 Aug 2011 03:14 : \____
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> High Plains Thumper on Saturday:
>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>
>>>> A foundation for the desktop â one apple, two ideas
>>>>
>>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>>>> The story of the free software desktop is littered with what-ifs and
>>>>> might-have-beens. The desktop has been 'good enough' for years, and
>>>>> can boast some considerable success stories, but has yet to make a
>>>>> significant breakthrough.
>>>>>
>>>>> On the face of it, the free software desktop should be an easy
>>>>> choice. The average GNU/Linux desktop costs little, looks good and
>>>>> performs well, and offers a real opportunity to break the upgrade
>>>>> cycle. Cost, security, scalability and versatility are persuasive
>>>>> arguments for the free desktop, but other factors have worked against
>>>>> the uptake of Linux at the corporate level.
>>>>>
>>>>> Inertia among users is usually given as the reason and users are made
>>>>> to take the blame, but perhaps there are simpler explanations. The
>>>>> desktop has been left in the hands of the Linux companies, and the
>>>>> Linux companies are many and small.
>>>> `----
>>>>
>>>> http://www.h-online.com/open/features/A-foundation-for-the-desktop-one-apple-two-ideas-1318177.html
>>>
>>> The one thing that is missing from this article is the anticompetitive
>>> actions against Linux and competing software companies to promote and
>>> maintain Microsoft technologies, as summarised in:
>>>
>>> http://www.ecis.eu/documents/Finalversion_Consumerchoicepaper.pdf
>>>
>>> [quote]
>>> V. MICROSOFTâS MONOPOLIES HAVE HARMED CONSUMERS
>>>
>>> Microsoftâs conduct has allowed it to protect its monopolies,
>>> which
>>> has led to a lack of choice, higher prices, and less innovation than
>>> would otherwise have prevailed in a competitive marketplace. The
>>> barriers to entry surrounding Microsoftâs core monopolies remain very
>>> high, and Microsoftâs market shares and profit margins in desktop
>>> operating systems, office productivity suites, and browsers have
>>> continued to reflect its overwhelming monopoly power in these
>>> markets.[148] In short, Microsoftâs misconduct has harmed and
>>> continues to harm consumers significantly.
>>>
>>> A. Microsoftâs Operating System Monopoly Has Harmed Consumers
>>> For fifteen years, Microsoftâs share of desktop operating systems has
>>> remained above 90%.[149] In 2002, when the Final Judgment in United
>>> States v. Microsoft was entered, Windows XP was the most common desktop
>>> operating system.[150] Microsoft did not release a successor to Windows
>>> XP until 2007, when it released Windows Vista.[151] Even then, the
>>> âVistaâ that Microsoft released lacked the most significant
>>> features that Microsoft had initially promised, and reviewers labeled
>>> it as little more than an incremental improvement.[152] CNet News, a
>>> leading computer industry publication, ranked Microsoftâs Windows
>>> Vista in its âTop Ten Terrible Tech Products.â[153] Even Microsoft
>>> recognizes that its stronghold on operating systems has harmed
>>> consumers:
>>>
>>> The Windows API is ... so deeply embedded in the source code of
>>> many Windows apps that there is a huge switching cost to using a
>>> different operating system instead. ... It is this switching cost
>>> that has given customers the patience to stick with Windows
>>> through all our mistakes, our buggy drivers, our high TCO, our
>>> lack of a sexy vision at times, and many other difficulties...
>>> Customers constantly evaluate other desktop platforms, [but] it
>>> would be so much work to move over that they hope we just improve
>>> Windows rather than force them to move. In short, without this
>>> exclusive franchise called the Windows API, we would have been
>>> dead a long time ago.[154]
>>>
>>> Microsoftâs tactics to prolong its operating system monopoly
>>> through
>>> means other than competition on the merits go hand-in-hand with its
>>> admitted lack of innovation.
>>>
>>> 154. EC Decision, supra note 52, Â 463 (citing an internal Microsoft
>>> memo drafted for Bill Gates by C++ General Manager Aaron Contorer and
>>> dated Feb. 21, 1997).
>>> [/quote]
>>
>> I don't think the article delves into these issues as they would
>> complicate the article. The author is a known strong critic of
>> Microsoft.
>
> Perhaps not, but the anti-competitive nature of Microsoft's monopoly
> maintenance did in fact affect adoption of the Linux and other operating
> system desktops.
Microsoft failed to stop it on the server and it is now using anticompetitive
practice to impede it in phones and tablets, having done so (at its own expense)
when it comes to sub-notebooks.
- --
~~ Best of wishes
Dr. Roy S. Schestowitz (Ph.D. Medical Biophysics), Imaging Researcher
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU/Linux administration | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Editor @ http://techrights.org & Broadcaster @ http://bytesmedia.co.uk/
GPL-licensed 3-D Othello @ http://othellomaster.com
Non-profit search engine proposal @ http://iuron.com
Contact E-mail address (direct): s at schestowitz dot com
Contact Internet phone (SIP): schestowitz@xxxxxxxxx (24/7)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAk5HpnEACgkQU4xAY3RXLo4WhgCfYBD06867tZrtPxTGiCy33IwX
OA4AoKfX+/fjr8Ha1+eMoaJWfthlxxsS
=S1yB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
|
