Re: I disagree.

Post #7,212 by addison 8/30/01 11:38:00 AM Reply	Re: I disagree. As we know, having a monopoly isn't illegal. It's using monopoly power to destroy competition, extend monopoly power into other areas, etc., which are illegal. Under current laws, yes, exactly. (I disclaim laws, because there's several hypotheticals you can use here, no laws, current laws, laws that ought to be, etc). Couldn't you apply the same statement you're making to Standard Oil or US Steel? "If Standard Oil went out of buisness, they could easily be replaced with little disruption." I don't think so. Because with those monopolies, there were HUGE infrastructure issues. Real property. Not electrons. Had SO gone belly-up, there would have been years to get the infratstructure back to that level. (Which by now would have been as "short term" as the Great Depression is to us. :)). Compare that to PCs. Microsoft makes software for commodity hardware. Novell, UNIX, OS/2 - all of whom can fill the requisite OS requirement. Yes, this might impact apps, and app development (to varying degrees). But even more importantly - if Microsoft ceases to exist tomorrow - Windows still runs. There isn't a (until hailstorm) connection needed from your PC to Redmond to let it run. If SO stopped refining - then soon the tanks would be dry. Steel stopped producing - the channels dried up. THAT is the single, biggest reason why Microsoft's monopoly is tenuous... You can stop upgrading TODAY. Move to another platform, on your same hardware. (And why Microsoft is so fearful of web services and Java, anything that further makes that a fluid transition). But Windows will work, during the distruption/transition. Not so with the "traditional" monopolies. Why not? It's just oil/steel/whatever. Refining/forging is well-known technology. Etc. But it takes a massive amount of money to get into it. Building a plant to deal with SO (who for purposes of argument, just went belly-up, and for legal reasons the plants they hve are closed) would take years, and lots of money. Cisco Systems could easily be replaced by another firm too... They could, even more easily than Microsoft. And trust me - they say that to you in lots of meetings. :) Cisco's replaced (fairly seamlessly) enough OTHER vendors... that they know that. :) And as a result, they work hard to have other reasons than just their name and lock-in... (Cisco support is very well regarded, and I've had many good experiences with it). The problem with monopolies isn't that they can't easily be replaced, IMO. Not the whole problem, no. and you're right on the disruption they cause. Cisco and Microsoft are pretty good comparisions. Both have a dominant market share. Who's repressing technology? Which is trying to prevent new tech from showing up? From my time at Cisco - they're quite happy to be competed with. They relish it. They want to kick your ass if you try - but please do try. And if you are doing really really well, well, Cisco might just offer you a ton of cash (and options) and buy you out, and keep selling your product. (AFAIK, they've never purchased "defensively" as M$ has done, and shelved products). In short, sometimes the market needs help to control extreme concentrations of market power Yes. Hense the anti-trust laws. And their slow, ineffective use against Microsoft being proper. (if only they'd do it right). But what I'm saying is - long term, Microsoft would lose their monopoly due to the power of the market. But the damage in the short term is why we have the laws, even if the market will fix it - later. Addison
Post #7,217 by Andrew Grygus 8/30/01 12:02:42 PM Reply	The infrastructure would still be there . . . . . (as would the trained employees and managers). It would simply be taken over by other companies, just as happens today when a company fails. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #7,230 by addison 8/30/01 1:31:49 PM Reply	That's a "presume" not a "simply". (as would the trained employees and managers). It would simply be taken over by other companies, just as happens today when a company fails. That's not what happens. Usually there's bankruptcy hearings, courts, auctions - and in the meantime - that capital isn't usable. And that's months/years of meantimes. Its not just handed to someone else (presuming there's someone there to do it, and in a monopoly situation, there (usually) isn't). The plants might be there, there might be the trucks, etc... But they aren't going about daily business. Addison
Post #7,235 by CRConrad 8/30/01 1:55:20 PM Reply	What's Microsoft's ratio of "plants, trucks, etc"... ...to employees, and how many years are employees usually tied up in "bankruptcy hearings, courts, auctions"? Sorry, Add, but you're wrong. You just want to see some mystic property of corporations, imbued into them by the holy Market[], that makes them fundamentally different from governments and other organizations. They aren't; it's all just more or less equivalent ways of organizing human endeavour. Neither do corporations differ very much from other organization types (governments, churches, armies, football associations, etc), nor are economic market forces much different from other forces that shape society and the organizations in it (religions, culture, fashions, fads, etc). Nor are they necessarily even the most important ones. Individuals, they say, should "eat to live, not live to eat". The same goes for society* -- and the economy isn't all of society; it's just how society "eats". []: What is* it with so many Americans, that they want to see something so utterly profound and "different" about markets (and, to an only slightly lesser degree, corporations) than everything else in society? Have you guys strarted some new "Church Of The Founding Fathers" religion over there (without, apparently, really realizing it yourselves), or WTF? Christian R. Conrad The Man Who Knows Fucking Everything
Post #7,236 by addison 8/30/01 2:16:00 PM Reply	Erm. I think you got mixed up. Sorry, Add, but you're wrong. You just want to see some mystic property of corporations, imbued into them by the holy Market[], that makes them fundamentally different from governments and other organizations. And this is wrong by a ratio that doesn't affect anything why? I didn't say anything mystical about Corporations. I said that they, in the long term, would be brought to heel by the market. So if you're going to correct me, you might want to actually GET what I'm saying down first. Corporations are fundamentally different from governments, however. By definition. I shouldn't have to go into the details as to why. For the very first start - they're in business to make money. Governments are "in business" to provide services. Neither do corporations differ very much from other organization types (governments, churches, armies, football associations, etc),* Sorry, CRC, but you'll find little support there. You're right that they're one way to organize effort. That's about where it ends. Governments - see above. Churches - Um. Yeah. They've got a lot in common with corporations and government. What is* it with so many Americans, that they want to see something so utterly profound and "different" about markets (and, to an only slightly lesser degree, corporations)* Stop confusing the two. What is it? Its called "history". And economic theory. Name me a case where in the long term, the market didn't bring things back into equilibrium, barring governmental involvement. As to the first sentance - Andrew's presumption that in case of a (legal) major disruption, it would have been "business as usual" for prior monopolies flies in the face of history and procedure. Thus, Microsoft is more quickly removable, with less even short-term impact, than SO, or AS, or even AT&T. (Notice, this is NOT ME saying that they SHOULD NOT BE trustbusted.) Addison
Post #7,272 by a6l6e6x 8/30/01 5:02:12 PM Reply	Counterexample. Have you heard of Boston Chicken? That was a company whose restaurants had been renamed to Boston Market. You still see them, but they are now owned by McDonalds (technically a subsidiary of McDonalds). The stockholders got zip after the bankruptcy process. Most Boston Market customers never knew anything happened. [link\|http://retailindustry.about.com/library/weekly/aa120299a.htm\|Link.] A stockholder for while, and despite a loss, I bailed out before the bitter end. Alex Life is a comedy for those who think and a tragedy for those who feel. -- Anne Frank
Post #7,449 by Decco Dave 9/1/01 11:28:08 AM Reply	SOAP " (And why Microsoft is so fearful of web services and Java, anything that further makes that a fluid transition). " Rather than being fearful of Web services MS is embracing the concept using technologies like SOAP and XML. Keep in mind that MS created SOAP and that it is now being adopted by other vendors including MS competitors. SOAP allows services running on other platforms to be consumed by MS based applications and vice versa over the Net. MS dumped Java and created C# because they could not co-opt the language. Sun reserved that right to themselves. MS has opened their application language environment in .NET by creating a common intermediate language and execution facility. Make no mistake, MS would not be headed in this direction if they didn't think they could dominate the market and make a buck doing it.
Post #7,452 by addison 9/1/01 11:56:40 AM Reply	Needs more washing Rather than being fearful of Web services MS is embracing the concept using technologies like SOAP and XML. Microsoft is terrified of Web Services. That's why they're trying to create MS-only web services. MS dumped Java and created C# because they could not co-opt the language. Co-opt is for what? Java allows you to swap the backend... Microsoft would have to compete with everybody else. Like I said. That's what scares 'em. Make no mistake, MS would not be headed in this direction if they didn't think they could dominate the market and make a buck doing it. Yes, and they're trying to force lock-in. They certainly want to make a buck - but more importantly, they don't want to have to compete with other vendors on performance. Addison
Post #7,607 by Decco Dave 9/3/01 11:16:10 PM Reply	Re: Needs more washing "Microsoft is terrified of Web Services." That's why they are marketing Web services so heavily? They are scared of it so they market it? Afraid I can't see the logic in that position. No doubt in the MS ideal, Web services are all MS-only. But, they certainly haven't moved in that direction. On the contrary they have made a big push to build SOAP and XML into their products. Re: Java, MS wanted to change Java to create their own unique, version yet still call it Java. Sun said no way, took them to court and won. Sun wants no competition from other vendors for the Java franchise.
Post #7,613 by addison 9/4/01 12:53:45 AM Reply	Needs a LOT more washing. That's why they are marketing Web services so heavily? They are scared of it so they market it? Their version(s). Yes. The interoperatability is still in question, to say the least. But, they certainly haven't moved in that direction. On the contrary they have made a big push to build SOAP and XML into their products. On the contrary? Ok, so can you show me the Microsoft documentation for non-microsoft interoperation? I don't know it doesn't exist, but my limited experience would indicate that you're repeating their PR. Re: Java, MS wanted to change Java to create their own unique, version yet still call it Java. Sun said no way, took them to court and won. Sun wants no competition from other vendors for the Java franchise. I hope you're charging by the hour for that. That's absoutely ludicrous - and why I don't believe you on the above. You might note that HP is supposedly (I don't know the status) "clean-rooming" Java. IBM puts out their own JRE and JDKs. Microsoft wanted to subvert Java so that if you used tools for Windows, it would only work on Windows. Sun wants no competition from other vendors for the Java franchise. And how much competition does Microsoft brook for the Windows franchise? Addison
Post #7,640 by Decco Dave 9/4/01 12:28:29 PM Reply	Interoperation? If you define interoperation as something like the capability to service non-Windows OS calls on a Windows platform, then you are correct, MS has no interoperation strategy. But, what is the business justification for creating this capability when SOAP & XML allow cross platform provision and consumption of services? As has been pointed out elsewhere, SOAP is a generic interface that allows processes to be invoked irrespective of the providers implementation technology. In much the same way, XML allows data to be transferred between systems with dispirit technologies. "IBM puts out their own JRE and JDKs." IBM's Java is licensed from whom? "Sun wants no competition from other vendors for the Java franchise. And how much competition does Microsoft brook for the Windows franchise?" None, which is exactly my point. IT vendors don't congregate so they can sing the Barney theme song. They all want you to use their technology exclusively.
Post #7,453 by dmarker2 9/1/01 12:06:52 PM Reply	Re: SOAP - MS 'invented' SOAP ? Actually SOAP is a very very simple envelope protocol that the other companies agreed to go with just to please MS and encourage them to stay with the standards. MS will tell us that SOAP is a great invention - which is of course piffle, SOAP is so simple that they even called it the Simple Object Access Protocol. But as you relatedly imply MS are attempting to hijack Web Services - firstly by hijacking XML from Sun (I have read press articles that blatantly implied that MS invented XML). MS saw XML and XML objects as the only next generation technology that they could use to try & deflate Java. MS have published papers that argue that XML objects passed with SOAP, actually negate Java EJBs. The argument is that Web Services is going to become the new middleware and that the concept of run timbinding & SOAP calls can eventually displace Corba, EJBs, etc: (some MS wags even include JAVA). Why MS is so into Web Services is that it doesn't exist & is just a promise at the moment - sure there are parts of the technology in IBM's WebSphere 4.0 & several other servers incl MS BizTalk, but it is all futures & not many people (if any) run mission critical apps based on Web Services as defined by UDDI, WSDL & SOAP. Because it is future, MS can rave about it and position them selves as champions of it but don't have to deliver on it. And this of course is MS at their best :-) Cheers Doug
Post #7,609 by Decco Dave 9/3/01 11:29:09 PM Reply	Pleasing MS "Actually SOAP is a very very simple envelope protocol that the other companies agreed to go with just to please MS and encourage them to stay with the standards. " No argument that SOAP lives up to its name by being simple. Simplicity is essential for something of this nature. Otherwise you get locked into one vendor or another's platform. I got a chuckle out of your assertion that other companies didn't want to hurt MS's feelings. IBM and the other MS competitors see an opportunity for their customers to use services running on MS platforms at no additional cost to themselves. They are hoping that this increased accessability will provide them with a competitive edge.
Post #7,456 by Andrew Grygus 9/1/01 1:00:45 PM Reply	Microsoft did not invent SOAP. I have been informed that SOAP was actually invented by David Winder of UserLand Software, who is reportedly a bit pissed at Microsoft for approprating his creation without acknowledging his contribution. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #7,538 by static 9/3/01 12:27:38 AM Reply	Dave Winer. He's been busy trying to zag when other companies - like Microsoft - zig. I'm not surprised he got burnt on this one. In his current DaveNet piece, [link\|http://davenet.userland.com/2001/08/31/microsoftsScriptingStrategy\|Microsoft's Scripting Strategy], he's warning about another way how Microsoft are going to try to displace everyone else. Wade. "All around me are nothing but fakes Come with me on the biggest fake of all!"

Welcome to IWETHEY!