-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
____/ High Plains Thumper on Sunday 14 Aug 2011 03:11 : \____
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> High Plains Thumper on Saturday:
>>> High Plains Thumper wrote:
>>>> 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]
>>>
>>> Footnote references:
>>>
>>> [quote]
>>> 148. See California Groupâs Report on Remedial Effectiveness at 2â4
>>> (Aug. 30, 2007), New York v. Microsoft Corp., 224 F. Supp. 2d 76
>>> (D.D.C. 2002) (No. 98-1232), available at
>>> http://www.naag.org/assets/files/pdf/
>>> antitrust.2007-08-30_Filed_CA_Group_Effectiveness_Report.pdf
>>> [http://tinyurl.com/43en6fc]; see also Microsoft Corp., Annual Report
>>> (Form 10-K) at 67 (July 31, 2008), available at http://idea.sec.gov/
>>> Archives/edgar/data/789019/000119312508162768/d10k.htm. The profit
>>> margin for Microsoftâs client segment, which includes its Windows
>>> operating system, was 77% in fiscal year 2008. See id. at 23. The
>>> profit margin for Microsoftâs business division, which includes
>>> Office, was 65%. See id. at 26.
>>> [/quote]
>>>
>>>> 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]
>>>
>>> [quote]
>>> 149. See Operating System Market Share Survey, Net Applications, Dec.
>>> 2008, available at http://marketshare.hitslink.com/operating-system-
>>> market-share.aspx?qprid=8; California Groupâs Report on Remedial
>>> Effectiveness at 10 (Aug. 30, 2007), New York v. Microsoft Corp., 224
>>> F. Supp. 2d 76 (D.D.C. 2002) (No. 98-1232), available at
>>> http://www.naag.org/
>>> assets/files/pdf/antitrust.2007-08-30_Filed_CA_Group_Effectiveness_
>>> Report.pdf [http://tinyurl.com/43en6fc]. [/quote]
>>>
>>>> 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]
>>>
>>> [quote]
>>> 150. See California Groupâs Report on Remedial Effectiveness at 10
>>> (Aug. 30, 2007), New York v. Microsoft Corp., 224 F. Supp. 2d 76
>>> (D.D.C. 2002) (No. 98-1232), available at
>>> http://www.naag.org/assets/files/pdf/
>>> antitrust.2007-08-30_Filed_CA_Group_Effectiveness_Report.pdf.
>>>
>>> 151. See id.; see also Hadley Stern, Mac Updates vs. Windows Updates,
>>> OâREILLY NETWORK, May 20, 2004,
>>> http://www.oreillynet.com/mac/blog/2004/05/
>>> mac_updates_vs_windows_updates.html (contrasting Appleâs regular
>>> update schedule for its operating system with Microsoftâs and noting
>>> that âMicrosoftâs ... approach leaves innovation on a very slow
>>> timeframeâ).
>>>
>>> 152. See Robert Vamosi, Editorsâ Reviews: Windows Vista , CNET
>>> REVIEWS, Jan. 24, 2007,
>>> http://reviews.cnet.com/windows/windows-vista-home-
>>> premium/4505-3672_7-32013237.html?tag=prod.2 (labeling Vista a
>>> âwarmed- over Windows XP Home editionâ and noting that after five
>>> years of development âthereâs a definite âIs that all?â
>>> feelingâ); Ina Fried & Margaret Kane, Microsoft Revamps Its Plans for
>>> Longhorn, CNET NEWS, Aug. 27, 2004,
>>> http://www.news.com/Microsoft-revamps-its-plans-for-
>>> Longhorn/2100-1016_3-5327150.html (noting that Microsoft âhas not had
>>> a full release of its desktop operating system since Windows XP debuted
>>> in October 2001â).
>>>
>>> 153. Top Ten Terrible Tech Products, CNET CRAVE, Nov. 20, 2007,
>>> http://crave.cnet.co.uk/gadgets/0,39029552,49293700-10,00.htm. [/quote]
>>
>> It's funny to see which sites they choose to reference, e.g. ones that
>> are funded by Apple and Microsoft and partly owned by Paul Allen.
>
> Oh, I think in this case it wasn't a deliberate choosing of the sources by
> how funded but for the information that was readily available at the time.
> It does not invalidate the points in the article as a scathing report on
> the history of Microsoft's anti-competitive actions that provided monopoly
> maintenance.
Court evidence (raw materiel) can be most compelling. Comes vs Microsoft shows
a lot of Microsoft crimes.
- --
~~ 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)
iEYEARECAAYFAk5HpqwACgkQU4xAY3RXLo4btACeMr2ccjfGhpuq34deWq0gYj1C
tCgAnirnof7aQTfs5y+92IaQYa/l6MUT
=3goX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
|
