1118: "Microsoft"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
Quicksilver
Posts: 437
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 6:21 am UTC

1118: "Microsoft"

Postby Quicksilver » Mon Oct 08, 2012 4:03 am UTC

Image
Alt text:"Facebook, Apple, and Google all got away with their monopolist power grabs because they don't have any 'S's in their names for critics to snarkily replace with '$'s."
Or did they?

User avatar
rhomboidal
Posts: 801
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 5:25 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: 1118: "Microsoft"

Postby rhomboidal » Mon Oct 08, 2012 4:05 am UTC

Apparently, being a power-amassing monopoly isn't nearly as vile a crime as having a nerdy name.

User avatar
DieJay
Posts: 93
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 4:45 pm UTC
Location: here be dragons
Contact:

Re: 1118: "Microsoft"

Postby DieJay » Mon Oct 08, 2012 4:14 am UTC

I guess you could change the "c" of Facebook by a cent sign, though.

Heheh, Fa¢ebook...
Proud Duct-Tape Programmer since 2000.
"More computing sins are committed in the name of efficiency (without necessarily achieving it) than for any other single reason - including blind stupidity."
-W.A. Wulf

JetstreamGW
Posts: 40
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2011 5:22 am UTC

Re: 1118: "Microsoft"

Postby JetstreamGW » Mon Oct 08, 2012 4:15 am UTC

Of course the difference (regarding Facebook and Apple anyway) is their consistent failure to REALLY corner the market. I can't speak to Google but he's probably right about them.


Either way, Facebook is hated as much as it's loved and Apple is starting to revert to its usual niche market as other products begin to compete.

someguy385
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 4:15 am UTC

Re: 1118: "Microsoft"

Postby someguy385 » Mon Oct 08, 2012 4:20 am UTC

Sure, they're safe in the US, but the Europeans are going to crack down on Appl€, Googl€, and Fac€book any day now.

jfriesne
Posts: 25
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 8:00 am UTC

Re: 1118: "Microsoft"

Postby jfriesne » Mon Oct 08, 2012 4:26 am UTC

I'm probably just bitter because I was a big BeOS fan back in the day, but it seems to me that today's behemoths (Apple, Google, Amazon, etc) aren't problematic in quite the same way that Microsoft was in the '90s. In particular, today's tech companies generally compete by developing and selling better products for cheaper -- '90s Microsoft, on the other hand, liked to compete by using its size and hegemony to shut its competitors out of the market.

Today's cable and media companies, OTOH, seem very much to like the "cut off the other guy's air supply" model, if/when they can get away with it.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 1118: "Microsoft"

Postby sardia » Mon Oct 08, 2012 4:31 am UTC

JetstreamGW wrote:Of course the difference (regarding Facebook and Apple anyway) is their consistent failure to REALLY corner the market. I can't speak to Google but he's probably right about them.


Either way, Facebook is hated as much as it's loved and Apple is starting to revert to its usual niche market as other products begin to compete.

Lol, Apple is raping the US smartphone market, and the tablet market doesn't exist. There is only the ipad market as it sits atop the skulls of other tablets.

User avatar
Djehutynakht
Posts: 1546
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 1:37 am UTC

Re: 1118: "Microsoft"

Postby Djehutynakht » Mon Oct 08, 2012 4:33 am UTC

I applaud Randall for making his sarcastic statement. I agree with him.


Perhaps I really just don't like two out of three of the mentioned companies, but still.. I'm not a big fan. We need to re-nip at the bud.

User avatar
glasnt
Posts: 539
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2008 5:18 am UTC
Location: SQUEE!

Re: 1118: "Microsoft"

Postby glasnt » Mon Oct 08, 2012 4:35 am UTC

Or you could do other substitutions or insertions, e.g. Farcebook or.. (can't think of anything for the others yet...)

ghlargh
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2011 1:44 pm UTC

Re: 1118: "Microsoft"

Postby ghlargh » Mon Oct 08, 2012 4:48 am UTC

Well, the difference now to then is that Micro$oft (hihi) had an actual near monopoly of the market, if they had gotten away with bundling their own browser with their own standards, then changing the standards to where the internet could only be browsed with their proprietary software they could have excluded anyone else from the market.

They were actually closer than people realize, there were pages that could only be browsed with IE, and independent sites set up filters that only allowed IE.

Today we have OSX, *nix, windows and a bunch of different mobile OS's that all have web browsers, you couldn't make the same attempt today since the other parties wouldn't make the same changes.

User avatar
Linux0s
Posts: 247
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 7:34 pm UTC

Re: 1118: "Microsoft"

Postby Linux0s » Mon Oct 08, 2012 4:58 am UTC

It's funny because it's true. :D
If the male mind truly were a machine it would consist of a shaft and a bushing.

pushingrobot
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:20 am UTC

Re: 1118: "Microsoft"

Postby pushingrobot » Mon Oct 08, 2012 5:20 am UTC

Yep, it's important to keep in mind a few things:

  • Monopolies aren't illegal. Using a monopoly to invade a separate market and kill your competition is illegal.
  • Companies can do as they please with their own products (unless by doing so they violate the previous point).
  • Apple, Google, and Facebook only control about two-thirds of any market, which hardly constitute monopolies.
  • Unlike Microsoft killing Netscape (and the third-party browser market), Apple, Google, or Facebook have not driven their competition out of business or curtailed customer choice in any practical way.

themel
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2011 5:53 am UTC

Re: 1118: "Microsoft"

Postby themel » Mon Oct 08, 2012 5:35 am UTC

This is a dumb strawman comparison. They finally got the lawsuit on the browser thing to stick, but that's a bit like Al Capone being convicted for tax evasion. Microsoft exhibited startingly bad monopolist behaviour in so many instances that it's really too tedious for me now to go and dig out all the late 90s/early 2000s cases and enumerate them here. The current Apple situation is getting a bit similar with all the IP litigation and finger-in-every-pie mentality, but they're still a couple of years away from being a M$-scale threat because the smartphone market is not a monopoly (thanks, Google) and tablets aren't that relevant in the somewhat important enterprise market yet.

Facebook is a bit of a natural monopoly with the network effects, but I don't see them running around trying to get websites to remove Google +1 buttons or Twitter links from their news stories. More or less the same for Google, who as far as this deluded fanboy here can ascertain seem to be fairly good at sticking to the "don't be evil" thing.

User avatar
The Scyphozoa
Posts: 2871
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 6:33 pm UTC
Location: Sector 5

Re: 1118: "Microsoft"

Postby The Scyphozoa » Mon Oct 08, 2012 5:36 am UTC

Don't hate them for bundling their browser with their OS.

Hate them for advertising their browser with dubstep.
Image
3rdtry wrote:If there ever is another World War, I hope they at least have the decency to call it "World War 2: Episode One"

doogly wrote:murder is a subset of being mean

ThemePark
Posts: 450
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2008 5:42 pm UTC
Location: Århus, Denmark

Re: 1118: "Microsoft"

Postby ThemePark » Mon Oct 08, 2012 6:07 am UTC

Randall...

I love you, man. <3

ghlargh wrote:Well, the difference now to then is that Micro$oft (hihi) had an actual near monopoly of the market, if they had gotten away with bundling their own browser with their own standards, then changing the standards to where the internet could only be browsed with their proprietary software they could have excluded anyone else from the market.

They were actually closer than people realize, there were pages that could only be browsed with IE, and independent sites set up filters that only allowed IE.

Today we have OSX, *nix, windows and a bunch of different mobile OS's that all have web browsers, you couldn't make the same attempt today since the other parties wouldn't make the same changes.


No. The reality is that IE has been hated as a browser by many a web developer, simply because it didn't follow coding standards forever, so you had to make code especially to make your website work with IE. Websites were made that were OPTIMIZED for use with IE, just as there were websites optimized for Netscape Navigator, and today Firefox, and also optimized for certain screen resolutions.
I have traveled from 1979 to be a member of the unofficial board Council of Elders. Phear M3

DracoDeVis
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 4:48 am UTC

Re: 1118: "Microsoft"

Postby DracoDeVis » Mon Oct 08, 2012 6:21 am UTC

sardia wrote:
JetstreamGW wrote:Of course the difference (regarding Facebook and Apple anyway) is their consistent failure to REALLY corner the market. I can't speak to Google but he's probably right about them.


Either way, Facebook is hated as much as it's loved and Apple is starting to revert to its usual niche market as other products begin to compete.

Lol, Apple is raping the US smartphone market, and the tablet market doesn't exist. There is only the ipad market as it sits atop the skulls of other tablets.

I would hardly call 33% "raping". Worldwide is even lower at 17%, compared to Android's 68%. They're a bit better off with tablets, but even then Apple has 52% to Android's 48%. And it doesn't surprise me. Same thing happened with the PC market. Apple would only allow their OS on their own hardware, where as Microsoft will let you install Windows on anything, as long as you pay for it. Result? Apple has a 12% market share.

And as far as I have been able to dig up, these are the latest numbers.

User avatar
jalohones
Posts: 59
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2011 5:12 am UTC

Re: 1118: "Microsoft"

Postby jalohones » Mon Oct 08, 2012 6:25 am UTC

glasnt wrote:Or you could do other substitutions or insertions, e.g. Farcebook or.. (can't think of anything for the others yet...)


Faceborg!

User avatar
akirjazi
Posts: 36
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 1:04 pm UTC
Location: Macedonia
Contact:

Re: 1118: "Microsoft"

Postby akirjazi » Mon Oct 08, 2012 6:32 am UTC

But they all have E which can be readily substituted with €... C'mon people, get with the program...

arthurd006_5
Posts: 98
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 9:49 am UTC

Re: 1118: "Microsoft"

Postby arthurd006_5 » Mon Oct 08, 2012 6:37 am UTC

jfriesne wrote:... today's tech companies generally compete by developing and selling better products for cheaper ...

Ish. The US patent system will have gotten what it deserves when there is no smartphone that can lawfully be sold in the USA.

jpk
Posts: 607
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 7:33 am UTC

Re: 1118: "Microsoft"

Postby jpk » Mon Oct 08, 2012 6:47 am UTC

glasnt wrote:Or you could do other substitutions or insertions, e.g. Farcebook or.. (can't think of anything for the others yet...)


Crapple and Screw-gle come to mind, if you want to be crude.


Since they're going technical, we might as well go crude...

collegestudent22
Posts: 256
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 5:36 am UTC

Re: 1118: "Microsoft"

Postby collegestudent22 » Mon Oct 08, 2012 6:51 am UTC

ghlargh wrote:Well, the difference now to then is that Micro$oft (hihi) had an actual near monopoly of the market


A near monopoly that meant:

  • lack of a restrictive monopoly in any of its products or services--the market was wide open for anyone to enter and indeed there were four or five competing operating systems out there (many of which still exist in some form in the market)
  • not getting the government to erect legal barriers to entry by others, as some of the "Robber Barons" did (the actual bad ones)
  • the market was narrowly defined in the legal proceedings to "single user desktop PCs that use an Intel-compatible chip", thus shutting out a large portion of the computing market (not sure how you could go narrower in making a monopoly than that - except by limiting the market definition to "computers running a Microsoft OS")

and so on.

Microsoft had no monopoly. Never has. And the scary result of it "driving Netscape out of business" with its bundled web browser is gasp! A highly competitive market for free browsers, including not only IE, but Chrome, Firefox, Opera, Safari (for a time), and many more! This evil must be expunged!

scotandrsn
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 6:31 am UTC

Re: 1118: "Microsoft"

Postby scotandrsn » Mon Oct 08, 2012 6:58 am UTC

Swing and a miss on this one, XKCD.

First of all, the comic implies that the action against Microsoft was ultimately successful, which it was not. The case was thrown out due to judicial misconduct, and then dropped by the new (as of 2001) presidential administration. Any lack of monopolistic practices on the part of microsoft over the last decade has to due with their not wanting to attract government attention again, and their inability to dominate in the emerging search and mobile markets.

Second of all, the suit wasn't about the fact that the OS and the browser came bundled together. It was that they were so tightly bound together at the software level that it was difficult to use another browser with the same level of performance. If you want to have your final bit of fun with an old PC running Windows 98, 2000 or even XP, try uninstalling IE as though it was just another software program and see how the OS runs, if it does. or look up the documentation of the case that reveals internal Microsoft communication indicating their intention to render the use of Netscape Navigator on Windows 98 "a jarring experience".

But even that wasn't the root of the problem. It was the fact that the bundling the browser and the OS so tightly together was part of their move to prevent adoption of the Netscape browser or the Java programming language to the extent that either of them could make good on their then known efforts to expand into the OS markets.

Comparing that situation to the iPhone, for example is laughable. You can obtain any number of free browsers for the platform, even though it comes bundled with just one. And Apple's brief attempt to force everyone to blow the dust off their Objective-C programming guides blew up in their faces.

User avatar
Oflick
Posts: 138
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2008 2:27 am UTC
Location: Sydney, California, France

Re: 1118: "Microsoft"

Postby Oflick » Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:14 am UTC

I liked today's comic. The comics have been a bit hit and miss recently, but I liked the simple joke here.

Kit.
Posts: 1117
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:14 pm UTC

Re: 1118: "Microsoft"

Postby Kit. » Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:32 am UTC

"Remember when we prosecuted Microsoft for bundling a browser with an OS" - did you?

I remember when Microsoft was prosecuted for coercing hardware vendors and ISPs (f.ex AOL) into stopping their business with the competing browsers' vendors.

User avatar
Red Hal
Magically Delicious
Posts: 1445
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2007 2:42 pm UTC

Re: 1118: "Microsoft"

Postby Red Hal » Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:39 am UTC

sardia wrote:
JetstreamGW wrote:Of course the difference (regarding Facebook and Apple anyway) is their consistent failure to REALLY corner the market. I can't speak to Google but he's probably right about them.


Either way, Facebook is hated as much as it's loved and Apple is starting to revert to its usual niche market as other products begin to compete.

Lol, Apple is raping the US smartphone market, and the tablet market doesn't exist. There is only the ipad market as it sits atop the skulls of other tablets.
Sardia, I would appreciate it if you wouldn't use 'rape' in this context, please.
Lost Greatest Silent Baby X Y Z. "There is no one who loves pain itself, who seeks after it and wants to have it, simply because it is pain..."

Daimon
Posts: 189
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2012 10:24 pm UTC

Re: 1118: "Microsoft"

Postby Daimon » Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:40 am UTC

Does anyone remember this site? http://toastytech.com/evil/

Looks like it was made in the 90's.

Salt
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:31 am UTC

Re: 1118: "Microsoft"

Postby Salt » Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:49 am UTC

collegestudent22 wrote:
ghlargh wrote:Well, the difference now to then is that Micro$oft (hihi) had an actual near monopoly of the market


A near monopoly that meant:

[list]
[*]lack of a restrictive monopoly in any of its products or services--the market was wide open for anyone to enter and indeed there were four or five competing operating systems out there (many of which still exist in some form in the market)


Right, that's why every nearly damn PC OEM bundles Windows and basically cow-tow to MS demands. So there were other OS ... but none of them viable for the masses because 90% of all software is written for Windows!

not getting the government to erect legal barriers to entry by others, as some of the "Robber Barons" did (the actual bad ones)


They didn't need the government. They managed to do it themselves via vendor lock-in.

Microsoft had no monopoly. Never has.


Nope, MS still has a monopoly - in two markets in fact OS and Office software. They are about to get a third one in video games if their main competitor there, Sony, folds.

MS is still as big of a threat as ever. It was fortunate for us that Gates decide to retire and his successor, while as ruthless and mercenary as him, is not quite as sharp and has let the competition run right pass them leaving them to playing catch up.

And the scary result of it "driving Netscape out of business" with its bundled web browser is gasp! A highly competitive market for free browsers, including not only IE, but Chrome, Firefox, Opera, Safari (for a time), and many more! This evil must be expunged!


I would like to see you say that when the company you build with your blood and sweat crashes to the ground because MS bundled your bread and butter product into their OS (effectively forcing users to buy their version of the product; What you think developing IE is free?) and start strong-arming your customers (OEMs ... etc.) to stop buying from you.

User avatar
AvatarIII
Posts: 2098
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 12:28 pm UTC
Location: W.Sussex, UK

Re: 1118: "Microsoft"

Postby AvatarIII » Mon Oct 08, 2012 8:04 am UTC

sardia wrote:
JetstreamGW wrote:Of course the difference (regarding Facebook and Apple anyway) is their consistent failure to REALLY corner the market. I can't speak to Google but he's probably right about them.


Either way, Facebook is hated as much as it's loved and Apple is starting to revert to its usual niche market as other products begin to compete.

Lol, Apple is raping the US smartphone market, and the tablet market doesn't exist. There is only the ipad market as it sits atop the skulls of other tablets.

The problem is that the word "iPad", to the layman is synonymous with "tablet", much like the word "Hoover" was and still is to a degree synonymous with "vacuum cleaner", what the tablet market needs to do is embrace the ipad term and make is so rather than people thinking "Tablet = the iPad", get people to think "iPad = any Tablet"
it took a few years for anyone but apple to do well in the mp3 player market, same with smart phones, and the same will be true with tablets too.
as with both before it, the early adopters will go apple because that's all there is, but as other companies try to compete, later adopters will have a larger choice and Apple will end up with a smaller market share.... in the end. we just have to get there first
I think the Amazon Fire is probably the next best hope to get people out of thinking "tablet = iPad" since Amazon themselves are a force to be reckoned with, and have almost as good a market share and product awareness in ereaders as Apple have in tablets.

Liggliluff
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 8:10 am UTC

Re: 1118: "Microsoft"

Postby Liggliluff » Mon Oct 08, 2012 8:11 am UTC

Microsoft aren't even allowed to include Windows Media Player in the European release (marked as N).

casanunda
Posts: 10
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 8:07 am UTC

Re: 1118: "Microsoft"

Postby casanunda » Mon Oct 08, 2012 8:16 am UTC

From a British point of view we have Stirling which handily looks like an upper case e. Hello APPL£, GOOGL£, FAC£BOOK.

Thankyou

Technical Ben
Posts: 2986
Joined: Tue May 27, 2008 10:42 pm UTC

Re: 1118: "Microsoft"

Postby Technical Ben » Mon Oct 08, 2012 8:17 am UTC

scotandrsn wrote:Swing and a miss on this one, XKCD.

Spoiler:
First of all, the comic implies that the action against Microsoft was ultimately successful, which it was not. The case was thrown out due to judicial misconduct, and then dropped by the new (as of 2001) presidential administration. Any lack of monopolistic practices on the part of microsoft over the last decade has to due with their not wanting to attract government attention again, and their inability to dominate in the emerging search and mobile markets.

Second of all, the suit wasn't about the fact that the OS and the browser came bundled together. It was that they were so tightly bound together at the software level that it was difficult to use another browser with the same level of performance. If you want to have your final bit of fun with an old PC running Windows 98, 2000 or even XP, try uninstalling IE as though it was just another software program and see how the OS runs, if it does. or look up the documentation of the case that reveals internal Microsoft communication indicating their intention to render the use of Netscape Navigator on Windows 98 "a jarring experience".

But even that wasn't the root of the problem. It was the fact that the bundling the browser and the OS so tightly together was part of their move to prevent adoption of the Netscape browser or the Java programming language to the extent that either of them could make good on their then known efforts to expand into the OS markets.

Comparing that situation to the iPhone, for example is laughable. You can obtain any number of free browsers for the platform, even though it comes bundled with just one. And Apple's brief attempt to force everyone to blow the dust off their Objective-C programming guides blew up in their faces.


You do know that no iPhone browser can use the same API as Safari? That most browsers are Safari reskins? I see no difference really except Apple get let off because it is propriety hardware. MS are following suit and bundling everything together again (hello Metro) but get around the monopoly cries by trying to get their own hardware in there to boot too (Xbox/Surface etc).
It's all physics and stamp collecting.
It's not a particle or a wave. It's just an exchange.

kurkosdr
Posts: 17
Joined: Thu May 20, 2010 4:51 pm UTC

Re: 1118: "Microsoft"

Postby kurkosdr » Mon Oct 08, 2012 8:22 am UTC

ghlargh wrote:Well, the difference now to then is that Micro$oft (hihi) had an actual near monopoly of the market, if they had gotten away with bundling their own browser with their own standards, then changing the standards to where the internet could only be browsed with their proprietary software they could have excluded anyone else from the market.

They were actually closer than people realize, there were pages that could only be browsed with IE, and independent sites set up filters that only allowed IE.

Today we have OSX, *nix, windows and a bunch. of different mobile OS's that all have web browsers, you couldn't make the same attempt today since the other parties wouldn't make the same changes.


Exactly. Microsoft got closer into converting the internet into a made-for-IE experience than most want to admit.

But Microsoft's real evil was doc, xls and ppt. The reason governments won't touch on that is becquse it would mean they would have to go after the other closed defacto standards, like DVD-Video and iTunes, which would mean going after DRM...

JeromeWest
Posts: 46
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 9:47 am UTC

Re: 1118: "Microsoft"

Postby JeromeWest » Mon Oct 08, 2012 8:49 am UTC

Who? Oh, you mean ₣a¢€boo₭, A₱₱৳€ and ₲oog৳€?

User avatar
mojacardave
Posts: 346
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2011 1:01 pm UTC

Re: 1118: "Microsoft"

Postby mojacardave » Mon Oct 08, 2012 9:01 am UTC

Firstly - I know I'm supposed to hate monopolies and that they aren't good for development (or cost of services - though in the case of Facebook & Google the services are mostly free anyway). Still it would be so much easier from a coding/management point of view if everybody in the world could be guaranteed to use the same browser, OS, tablet, mobile, social network, email host, IM provider etc.

Secondly - whilst I understand Apple and (kind of) Google being on the list, as providers of a hardware and profitable technology, I'm not sure that Facebook should be subject to the same anti-monopoly controls. It's a hole in the market that they identified and exploited, and provided the solution for free, and the only reason that it works properly is because everybody uses the same system. People WANT a monopoly in the social networking area. It's not one of those things where you can just 'pick a provider': if your friends split themselves across the services, you have to subscribe to them all to stay in touch with everybody. Outside the tech-world, who's going to bother with that? I do dislike the way that Facebook is starting to impose itself across the web, to try to make people who wouldn't normally care about social networking sign up, but that's not really the same issue.

Thirdly - how can Apple and Google be on the same list (with Microsoft also mentioned)? They're direct competitors in most sectors - so it's not like any can really be said to have a 'monopoly'. Of those three, only Google really has a monopoly of any market, and that's in search engine provision, which again, is a free service, so not a massive consumer issue.

Fourthly - the mentions in this thread of Apple having a tablet monopoly, or people equating iPad with tablet. Well... yeah, because when the iPad first came out, nobody really expected it, and quite a few people couldn't really see the point of a 'laptop without a keyboard' (personally I still can't). The tablet market is relatively young. Even Apple is still only on their second generation, and most other manufacturers are still on their first attempts.

Zamite
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 1:26 pm UTC

Re: 1118: "Microsoft"

Postby Zamite » Mon Oct 08, 2012 9:11 am UTC

And then you realize Microsoft name could easily have been named TinyFloppy....

User avatar
Max™
Posts: 1792
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 4:21 am UTC
Location: mu

Re: 1118: "Microsoft"

Postby Max™ » Mon Oct 08, 2012 9:32 am UTC

Shouldn't this comic thread be moved to religious wars?

I'm disappointed people are discussing Microsoft evils and leaving out "Fear Uncertainty and Doubt", or FUD, which was and is their strategy regarding other OSes, Linux in particular.

Google is the most benign evil overlord you could ask for, Facebook won't even let you type "fbpurity.com" in a chat message, and Apple is busy trying to sue Euclid for infringing on their efforts to patent geometry.
mu

wormywyrm
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 10:29 am UTC

Re: 1118: "Microsoft"

Postby wormywyrm » Mon Oct 08, 2012 9:37 am UTC

This probably doesn't speak to microsoft well as a business but it seems they are surprisingly ethical as a company, pushing back against monopolies, at least for the last decade or so... I never followed this stuff until about 10 years ago.

They invested to keep their rival apple alive back when they had the market, they pushed against sony and nintendo shortly after sega dropped out of the console race, they invested in their zune when the ipod seemed to be the only viable luxury mp3 player, they are now investing in barnes and noble as it struggles to survive digitally against amazon's kindle, they are pushing bing when google has all but monopolized search, they are creating viable alternative apple and google for phones...

I still feel like the consensus is that microsoft doesn't care.

I don't have a huge opinion, but the thing I like about microsoft is Bill Gates. He really is an amazing philanthropist and if you have free time I highly recommend reading his gatesfiles website and blog. It is great. I think it is really sad that he does not get more attention for all his amazing work.

wormywyrm
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 10:29 am UTC

Re: 1118: "Microsoft"

Postby wormywyrm » Mon Oct 08, 2012 9:44 am UTC

mojacardave wrote:... I'm not sure that Facebook should be subject to the same anti-monopoly controls. It's a hole in the market that they identified and exploited, and provided the solution for free, and the only reason that it works properly is because everybody uses the same system. People WANT a monopoly in the social networking area. It's not one of those things where you can just 'pick a provider': if your friends split themselves across the services, you have to subscribe to them all to stay in touch with everybody. Outside the tech-world, who's going to bother with that? I do dislike the way that Facebook is starting to impose itself across the web, to try to make people who wouldn't normally care about social networking sign up, but that's not really the same issue.

Thirdly - how can Apple and Google be on the same list (with Microsoft also mentioned)? They're direct competitors in most sectors - so it's not like any can really be said to have a 'monopoly'. Of those three, only Google really has a monopoly of any market, and that's in search engine provision, which again, is a free service, so not a massive consumer issue.

Fourthly - the mentions in this thread of Apple having a tablet monopoly, or people equating iPad with tablet. Well... yeah, because when the iPad first came out, nobody really expected it, and quite a few people couldn't really see the point of a 'laptop without a keyboard' (personally I still can't). The tablet market is relatively young. Even Apple is still only on their second generation, and most other manufacturers are still on their first attempts.


I don't think people want a social network monopoly.. What they want is an easy way to socially network. I think ideally (and where this will probably move to) various networks will be bundled into one place. Like microsoft's "people" service, where you can see facebook and twitter feed together side by side, integrated. That would be just as good/better than using one social network.

I would argue that apple has the market pinned on mp3 players for a while there if not now still. You really still cannot find a better MP3 player, unless better=cheaper. I haven't bought one for a couple years though so maybe I have not seen whats on the market lately. As far as apple monopolizing tablet market? Can you really monopolize a market that doesn't exist yet...? Apple is pushing the tablet market into existence. As I understand it there are a hugeee # of android tablets sold already too, and if you count all tablets sold in last 10 years maybe some windows ones and with the upcoming influx of windows 8/RT tablets... Well if apple has over 50% share of tablet market right now that will not last for long, and I think they don't have over 50% now, I think I have seen the statistic.

User avatar
warmachine
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 8:56 am UTC

Re: 1118: "Microsoft"

Postby warmachine » Mon Oct 08, 2012 9:53 am UTC

Wake me when it's impractical or difficult for an advertiser to advertise on other popular sites, or for an app writer to write for another popular smartphone or tablet OS, or for a user to use a rival, comprehensive search engine. Wake me when a tech company spends half a billion dollars developing and marketing something with no hope of revenue, even as a loss leader for other products, and its board doesn't fire the CEO. Wake me when a tech company orders a major manufacturer and partner to stop bundling a particular product or have its profit margins destroyed. Wake me when a tech company mangles two products together for no good technical reason, to the point where its engineers beg to re-separate them, just to hurt a rival product.

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 3099
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1118: "Microsoft"

Postby orthogon » Mon Oct 08, 2012 10:10 am UTC

casanunda wrote:From a British point of view we have Stirling which handily looks like an upper case e. Hello APPL£, GOOGL£, FAC£BOOK.

Thankyou


I agree it looks quite like an "E", but strictly speaking it's actually a capital "L". So you could say GOOG£E and APP£E?

Still, there's something about the way the "S" falls in "Microsoft" that makes the substitution work better. Maybe because it's at the start of a syllable, or maybe because it has a proper phonetic value unlike the "E"s.

I'm not expressing an opinion on the relative merits of the companies. They're all in the business of making money, but they've all made the world a better place in the process.
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 91 guests