Thread: Sun win over Microsoft

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/20...511119568.html

I cant believe this. Far out, i'd never install Java. Doesn't Mirosoft have the right to decide what they do/dont put in their OS?

not when they are a monopoly

face master is going to end up being sun's top developer, I can already tell. It's almost like those extremely insecure homophobic rednecks in my town that all become homosexual, their opinions negate over time and they become the biggest hypocrites ever.

well may be Microsoft is wrong.. But why is that generally people dislike rich companies that are very sucessfully.. is it anger and envy..

This example of group dynamics is what happens with MS. MS is dominant and has a quite aggressive way of marketing. Some people like MS, others don't care about it, but the group you hear most is the group reacting aggressively when they hear or read the word Microsoft.

If you had kept on going with the 'ms is dominant and has a quite aggressive way or marketing' you would have been on the right track with that post. Microsoft software is, in short, a monopoly, meaning most of the world's population that owns a computer uses Microsoft software (90% according to the article), we can all agree on that, that isn't a disputed fact. I'm sure you all already know this, but the real problem with MS (note I didn't use the stupid dollar sign) is what they do and don't incorporate into their software that can make or break other businesses. Ideally there should be free enterprise, where companies can freely produce products and they can compete against each other. Microsoft was only including the oldest versions of Java stinting any possible development Sun might have made with their product

Microsoft had repeatedly broken anti-trust laws by undermining Sun's Java technology and Netscape's Web browser, which together could have evolved into a competitor to its Windows monopoly

The above is bad

Microsoft has developed technology known as .Net that competes with Java. Both programs are designed to let programmers write software that runs on many kinds of operating systems and platforms.

Judge Motz wrote that if Microsoft's system was to remain dominant, "it should be because of .Net's superior qualities, not because Microsoft leveraged its PC monopoly to create market conditions in which it is unfairly advantaged."

This is good, and how it should be. Microsoft should not be dominant because they control the release of products from other companies, they should be dominant becuase they produce the best product for the consumer (which I believe they can).

Start using free GNU software guys

I'm sure you all already know this, but the real problem with MS (note I didn't use the stupid dollar sign) is what they do and don't incorporate into their software that can make or break other businesses.

That is their way of doing bussiness. They have a monopoly, there are more monopolists in the world, and I wonder if it is possible to stop a company from becoming a monopoly by laws.
MS is getting more in the news than other monopolists since they have products which are used by many people. MS is aggressive, but on the other hand one can say: other companies have not the correct answer to MS.

As you already made clear, we all now how MS behaves in this world. It is nice to discuss if MS is bad or not, but in my opinion it would be more usefull to discuss how to answer this behaviour.

I read that the German government and recently also the Dutch government are working on using Linux and software running on this platform. This is only possible if there are good alternatives for MS software.

In my opinion the only way to beat MS is companies creating software which offers the same functionality as MS software does and which can replace MS systems.

A lot of companies keep on using MS software, because their company infrastructure (file systems, communication) is MS based. It is hard to change such infrastructure, if such a change would be easy, then many companies could easily change to different infrastructures.

I don't necessarily agree that M$ should be forced to include Sun's Java with their OS; it is their OS after all. *nix doesn't come with Java (or at least you don't have to install it). I do think that Microsoft should be required to allow users to install Sun's Java without adverse effects though (which I believe was also a problem). M$ and Sun go way back, and Sun definitely deserves some compensation for what Microsoft has done to them. It will be interesting to see what happens in the next few years. All of these anti-trust suits, tough economy and the lack of .NET's success could lead to an interesting change in the market.

Why can't we all just get along?

I don't necessarily agree that M$ should be forced to include Sun's Java with their OS

But the problem is Microsoft DOES include Java, but Microsoft always included the OLDER versions only, even when Sun was releasing newer versions. This translated to a big loss for Sun.

and I wonder if it is possible to stop a company from becoming a monopoly by laws.

Umm in the United States there are laws that stop a company from being a monopoly hence all these anti trust cases and breaking microsoft into smaller companies.

Why can't we all just get along?

Well, we can, but those people running MS and Sun are managers, commercial people, their goal is to make money and make their company bigger and bigger. They see their colleagues at other companies not as their brothers and sisters, but as their enemies which they have to defeat.

Sun definitely deserves some compensation for what Microsoft has done to them.

MS will not do that and I wonder if Sun would do if it were Sun who became such an aggressive monopolist.

I wonder if they even understand what software development is. In my work I often meet commercial managers, they want a product at fixed time or fixed price, a lot of them even want both.

Umm in the United States there are laws that stop a company from being a monopoly hence all these anti trust cases and breaking microsoft into smaller companies.

Yes, but that is something different. You can stop a company from being monopolist, but I don't think you can stop a company from becoming a monopolist. The situation with MS could have been avoided by preventing MS become a monopolist, if there would exist laws for such, but I actually don't think such is realistic and possible.

Im not really sure that there is a leagal basis for this but I still think that sun deserves the compensation. I am also glad to hear that only 90% of computers have windows. I wonder what that includes though. Old apple IIs and c64s sitting around in peoples garages.

is microsoft a monopoly?-
technically no, but in a business sense- yes.

There's enough computers in this world- 10%, carrying an o.s. other than windows, which constitutes MS as NOT having a monopoly. That's why they haven't gotten broken up... yet???

Anyways, the same % of computers carry an intel pentium processor, if not more (90-95%).

Intel is more of a monopoly than microsoft, although microsoft is using their dominance in the o.s. market to try to take over other fields of the computer industry. Microsoft is disliked, and resort to very unethical business practices making it very difficult for other companies to succeed (like they could).

But not many companies are ethical as a whole. I'm very business oriented, and grew up in a business family (my fathers the ceo of his company). I have a broad understanding of business, from working several years in the field. Don't be fooled, Sun and other companies resort to the same tactics, but since they don't have the business weight that ms has- it doesn't get announced to the public like it would with ms.

MS is a very strategic business company. I would hate to see how the world would be right now if ms never released windows. It would basically be a two way fight between apple(which has no business sense) and IBM (which would be the dominant force in the computer industry had windows never been released.

Microsoft != monopoly.

The big part of a monopoly prevention is to protect the users. If we as users only have one choice, we must continue along with whatever the creator of that product does. If they charge $100 for a candy bar because they are the only makers of candy bars, then that is a monopoly that must be broken up to protect the consumer.

The thing here is this: there is a choice. Are you going to deny that? Are you going to say MS and Windows is the ONLY possibility? No. Apple, *nix, etc... Windows and MS became what it is because of the consumer. Would you sit your 80 year old grandpa down in front of a Linux machine and try to teach him how to use it? Well, good luck. Now, how about a windows machine? It will still take some time, but I'm willing to be he'll catch on much faster. Windows and MS became a "monopoly" because the consumer prefered it's software.

Now, as for Sun. Why should MS include Sun's software? I think it's nice enough that even Java 1.x is included (kinda). What is stopping the user who needs the updated java from going to Sun's website and downloading for free the new Java virtual machine? Nothing... In fact, right now I am using version 1.4.1_01 that I downloaded. Once again for free.
It's not Microsofts fault that Sun is losing profits, it's Sun's fault. Should MS be forced to include a copy of Linux with every version of Windows just to keep it "fair"? Think about that.