Einhorn Calls on Microsoft to Fire Ballmer

[Guest VAL9000]

I am over-exaggerating when I call MSFT evil.  You have to understand that I grew up in the generation that would diss Microsoft all the time for being evil, and the antitrust cases didn't help MSFT from a PR perspective.

 

It's not that Microsoft isn't evil, it's more like all corporations are, by their nature, evil.  Google gets away from it for now because they are in a unique position - too young, too dominant, and in a market that is growing too quickly.  Eventually Google's employees / managers will make incremental choices that revert the evilness to the mean.  This is an ancillary function of the free market system and incentives.  Nobody gets a bonus for good behaviour or playing fair at recess.  Everything is tied to profits.

 

Apple is evil for their dictatorial approach to the app store and approved iOS applications in order to offer a higher quality catalogue to its customers.

 

Wal-mart is evil for negotiating with suppliers and labour to provide lower cost products to its customers.

 

Oil companies are evil for destroying natural resources in order to extract and deliver a necessary fuel.

 

The do-gooders, on the other hand, usually get wiped out by those who are willing to be more aggressive.  Even as shareholders, we tend to reward those companies who are more willing to tempt fate by flouting the law by buying their stock and demanding returns.  The payoff in these situations, based on my record keeping, appears to be worth it.

 

[Myth465]

If you ask me, what Microsoft really need is a Steve Jobs-type figure. Unless you want to compete with China in a race to the bottom, Microsoft needs an influential figure to generate good feeling towards the company, not a fat, middle-aged man running around the stage screaming with sweat patches under his arms.

 

Damn. But funny.

 

Interesting debate between you two. Learning quite a bit. I know who to piggyback in Tech you guys have so much history with it.

[JSArbitrage]

I think the Apple/Google versus Microsoft evil debate has to do more with switching costs.  If I want to use Yahoo Search or a Samsung phone, I can easily do that.  But Microsoft has the consumer PC market in a choke hold.  The closest you can come to not using MSFT without being a tech whiz is buying a Mac (which wasn't a viable option in the MSFT anti-trust days.)  Even now I use Microsoft Office on my MacBook Air so they still got me.  I think there is a difference between someone being a dominant player because their products are great and someone who is a dominant player because there is really no viable alternative.

 

P.S. - No MSFT hater here.  I think Win 7 is terrific.  I use it on my desktop.

[txlaw]

But just because MSFT did things well and added value to the world doesn't mean that they did not violate the law.  

 

This is where it gets risky to invest in very large companies.  The shareholders have no control over whether or not some junior level exec is using language like "Knife the baby!".

 

The execs should go to prison or be fined meaningfully for breaking the law.  The owners of the company usually are the ones punished in these cases -- these execs are merely employees, they can be the ones punished.

 

Who would advocate that Berkshire should be broken up because senior executives are trading on insider (to Berkshire) information?  Just punish the exec, set the example, and move on.  Execs will (may) behave better if there is personal liability.

 

In the MSFT case, the claims were for corporate antitrust violations, not individual violations by execs.  So not exactly the same situation as with Lubrizol.

 

The case wasn't mere abusing at the behest of competitors, which is exactly the type of campaign that MSFT loves to incite now days.  There were legitimate reasons for bringing the case, IMO.

 

The break-up remedy was pretty drastic and got reversed.  So there you go.

[ERICOPOLY]

Now we just need Microsoft to drive Saleforce onto the ropes using better ties between Office and Dynamics.

[Ballinvarosig Investors]

Apple is not in the same dominant position that MSFT was in back in the day.  

 

Like I said before, if Apple were to obtain a dominant position in the market, you can bet that they would be facing both PR issues and legal issues.  I doubt that will ever happen because Apple has strong competitors in Microsoft and Google.

 

Derivative products?  Really?  

Yep. I had an mp3 player long before Apple unveiled the Ipod, infact, I had things like video and album art long before an ipod user ever did (incidently, the company who made it ended up going bankrupt, so much for the best technology winning!). The Ipad is basically an inferior version of older HP technology with a crippled OS, see here - http://www.blameitonthevoices.com/2010/01/ipad-vs-hp-tc1100.html. It's also widely accepted that older Apple "innovations" like GUI interfaces were stolen from Xerox. The real innovation with Apple is clearly the marketing, joined-up thinking, and culture that Jobs has developed around Apple. Technically, Apple is probably even more evil than Microsoft. Not only do they want to control the OS, they want to control the hardware, how you shop for media, the underlying platforms, practically everything! Each barrier that is thrown up, it effectively widens the moat creates a toll booth. I don't know what it's like in the States, but we have folks over here in Europe signing up to 24 month contracts, paying €200-€300 for the handset, then paying €50-€70 a month to use the damn thing. These guys then use the device to logon to itunes or the appstore, funneling even more revenue into the Apple machine. The culture and brand is so stong, that you have the very same people actively evangelizing and marketing Apple to their friends for free.

[txlaw]

I am over-exaggerating when I call MSFT evil.  You have to understand that I grew up in the generation that would diss Microsoft all the time for being evil, and the antitrust cases didn't help MSFT from a PR perspective.

 

It's not that Microsoft isn't evil, it's more like all corporations are, by their nature, evil.  Google gets away from it for now because they are in a unique position - too young, too dominant, and in a market that is growing too quickly.  Eventually Google's employees / managers will make incremental choices that revert the evilness to the mean.  This is an ancillary function of the free market system and incentives.  Nobody gets a bonus for good behaviour or playing fair at recess.  Everything is tied to profits.

 

What about Costco?  What about Level 3?

 

You will give up some profits if you play fair, but it's not like it's impossible if you have good people at the top who try their best to do well by doing good.

[txlaw]

Apple is not in the same dominant position that MSFT was in back in the day.  

 

Like I said before, if Apple were to obtain a dominant position in the market, you can bet that they would be facing both PR issues and legal issues.  I doubt that will ever happen because Apple has strong competitors in Microsoft and Google.

 

Derivative products?  Really?  

Yep. I had an mp3 player long before Apple unveiled the Ipod, infact, I had things like video and album art long before an ipod user ever did (incidently, the company who made it ended up going bankrupt, so much for the best technology winning!). The Ipad is basically an inferior version of older HP technology with a crippled OS, see here - http://www.blameitonthevoices.com/2010/01/ipad-vs-hp-tc1100.html. It's also widely accepted that older Apple "innovations" like GUI interfaces were stolen from Xerox. The real innovation with Apple is clearly the marketing, joined-up thinking, and culture that Jobs has developed around Apple. Technically, Apple is probably even more evil than Microsoft. Not only do they want to control the OS, they want to control the hardware, how you shop for media, the underlying platforms, practically everything! Each barrier that is thrown up, it effectively widens the moat creates a toll booth. I don't know what it's like in the States, but we have folks over here in Europe signing up to 24 month contracts, paying €200-€300 for the handset, then paying €50-€70 a month to use the damn thing. These guys then use the device to logon to itunes or the appstore, funneling even more revenue into the Apple machine. The culture and brand is so stong, that you have the very same people actively evangelizing and marketing Apple to their friends for free.

 

You're not giving Apple enough credit for their innovations in UI design.  

 

GUI was originally Xerox, but Apple understood its value and helped really push the bounds.

 

Expose and other useful interface design built into OSX?

 

iPod interface?  Much better than existing MP3 players.

 

Multi-touch?  Apple.  

 

Smart phone, app interface?  Apple was first and they're trying to sue Samsung to claim rights.  I don't think they should win, but they were first.

 

I"m sure I'm leaving plenty of examples out.

 

[ERICOPOLY]

Not only do they want to control the OS, they want to control the hardware, how you shop for media, the underlying platforms, practically everything! Each barrier that is thrown up, it effectively widens the moat creates a toll booth.

 

Precisely.  And yet the government thought it terrible that Microsoft wouldn't let the OEMs do this or that.

 

Those OEMs only exist in the first place because Bill Gates is no Steve Jobs.

 

Imagine a world with no choice of PC hardware -- personally, I think that's where the OEMs belong, hardware differentiation only.  Microsoft should be allowed to control the look and feel of the Windows experience as it's their IP.  And that includes reducing desktop icon clutter as they see fit. 

[txlaw]

Not only do they want to control the OS, they want to control the hardware, how you shop for media, the underlying platforms, practically everything! Each barrier that is thrown up, it effectively widens the moat creates a toll booth.

 

Precisely.  And yet the government thought it terrible that Microsoft wouldn't let the OEMs do this or that.

 

Those OEMs only exist in the first place because Bill Gates is no Steve Jobs.

 

Imagine a world with no choice of PC hardware -- personally, I think that's where the OEMs belong, hardware differentiation only.  Microsoft should be allowed to control the look and feel of the Windows experience as it's their IP.  And that includes reducing desktop icon clutter as they see fit. 

 

Well, luckily, we have both MSFT and GOOG gunning for AAPL, and both those companies will be able to prevent AAPL from dominating.  And I wouldn't be surprised if AMZN really does something that rocks the boat.

 

MSFT shouldn't be able to control the look and feel of the Windows experience as they see fit because it's their IP.  That same thinking would've tanked Windows because Apple would've shut MSFT down via the legal system.

[ERICOPOLY]

MSFT shouldn't be able to control the look and feel of the Windows experience as they see fit because it's their IP.  That same thinking would've tanked Windows because Apple would've shut MSFT down via the legal system.

 

You are working from the premise that altering Windows experience is a right.  It was allowed to happen for a long time, and then everybody just sort of assumed the OEMs had this right because they'd been doing it all along.

 

Microsoft from day one should have told them not to change anything on the desktop, but they're free to use whatever hardware they choose.

 

Truthfully, the reason why I hate all that OEM install is that I had to go through the process of wiping every machine clean when I'd get it at Microsoft, and then painstakingly installing the OS again (which usually involved searching the web for drivers).  Pain in the butt.  And the reason?  Because those OEM images were so full of bugs, that we'd need to get them out of the way so that we could accurately know a bug was ours when we found one during automated testing (and it's not meaningful to have your apps crash left and right on OEM bugs when you're really hunting for IE bugs).

 

Apple after all never allowed 3rd party OEMs to even install their OS!  They still don't.

 

[Ballinvarosig Investors]

Not only do they want to control the OS, they want to control the hardware, how you shop for media, the underlying platforms, practically everything! Each barrier that is thrown up, it effectively widens the moat creates a toll booth.

 

Precisely.  And yet the government thought it terrible that Microsoft wouldn't let the OEMs do this or that.

 

Those OEMs only exist in the first place because Bill Gates is no Steve Jobs.

 

Imagine a world with no choice of PC hardware -- personally, I think that's where the OEMs belong, hardware differentiation only.  Microsoft should be allowed to control the look and feel of the Windows experience as it's their IP.  And that includes reducing desktop icon clutter as they see fit. 

Yep!

 

Initially, when Apple announced they were going to expand their physical prescence I was apalled. What the heck does an IT company know about running a retail operation? The more I thought about it, the more I realised that this sub-optimal allocation of capital had nothing to do with generating a return, it was more about building the moat. Each time you have a product launch, you have a focal point for the media and public to gather and generate publicity. You also have the ubiquitous Apple logo hanging off the side of any large scale mall or shopping street in the world.

[txlaw]

MSFT shouldn't be able to control the look and feel of the Windows experience as they see fit because it's their IP.  That same thinking would've tanked Windows because Apple would've shut MSFT down via the legal system.

 

You are working from the premise that altering Windows experience is a right.  It was allowed to happen for a long time, and then everybody just sort of assumed the OEMs had this right because they'd been doing it all along.

 

Microsoft from day one should have told them not to change anything on the desktop, but they're free to use whatever hardware they choose.

 

Truthfully, the reason why I hate all that OEM install is that I had to go through the process of wiping every machine clean when I'd get it at Microsoft, and then painstakingly installing the OS again (which usually involved searching the web for drivers).  Pain in the butt.  And the reason?  Because those OEM images were so full of bugs, that we'd need to get them out of the way so that we could actually know a bug was ours when we found one (and it's not meaningful to have your apps crash left and right on OEM bugs when you're really hunting for IE bugs).

 

Apple after all never allowed 3rd party OEMs to even install their OS!  They still don't.

 

 

I'm arguing that MSFT should not have an IP right to prevent alteration of the "Windows experience."  You know, AAPL sued MSFT for stealing its "look and feel."  And I believe XRX sued AAPL.  Luckily, both Apple and Xerox lost.

 

I believe Samsung and HTC are being sued by Apple right now re: the iPhone interface, and I think Apple should lose.

 

Additionally, a contract preventing an OEM from changing the desktop would normally be fine except that the validity of the contract should be superseded if the antitrust laws were implicated.

[ERICOPOLY]

Additionally, a contract preventing an OEM from changing the desktop would normally be fine except that the validity of the contract should be superseded if the antitrust laws were implicated.

 

In the beginning, they were not a monopoly.  I mean, way back in the beginning Microsoft made software for Apple because Wozniac was lazy!  (floating point Basic)

 

Later on, you are saying that once they become a monopoly Compaq or Dell can modify it.

 

Okay, so let's say Apple wins and in 10 years time Apple has the OS share that Microsoft has today.

 

Can DELL then just take Apple to court for not being allowed to ship MacOS on DELL branded hardware, with all of DELL's software preloaded?  Big ugly 8 pound laptops with battery-draining, power-consuming DELL services running wild?  Slowing down the boot experience?   And then hanging on shutdown, forcing people to cold power off the PC?

[Guest VAL9000]

What about Costco?  What about Level 3?

 

You will give up some profits if you play fair, but it's not like it's impossible if you have good people at the top who try their best to do well by doing good.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/16/business/16costco.html

 

http://m.rockymountainnews.com/news/2009/feb/04/securities-fraud-lawsuit-claims-level-3-failed/

 

These are very superficial examples that may have been thrown out.  My point isn't that Costco or Level-3 are evil, especially not based on these two examples.  My point is that over the long run you get mean-reversion of evilness.  It's not usually a planned thing, either - even though it looked that way at Microsoft.  They were just trying to hold on to their business.  Trying to dig their moat wider.

 

When you look at the subprime mortgage situation, all of the parties were part of a system with an evil result..  however each party was doing something that wouldn't be considered evil.

 

Consider Madoff..  the guy didn't start out as evil.  He was just doing his thing.  But eventually he got a bit behind, and then a lot behind, and then he was straight up seeking to defraud people.  I doubt that he set out to defraud the world.  He just ended up doing it.  And this is a guy who could easily have afforded to walk away.

 

We'll watch Google to see how they fare.  They're already catching some heat on privacy, on China, and on the drug ad thing.  The real test of their resolve to not do evil will occur when someone really threatens their business.

 

I think a big part of "Don't Be Evil" was taking advantage of the backlash against Microsoft..  but maintaining that image is going to be a drag, and then maybe a joke (even Gates joked re: China that Google's motto should now be "Do Less Evil").  It's not a bad thing that corporations have evil tendencies by default...  it's just a thing.

 

[ERICOPOLY]

My point is that over the long run you get mean-reversion of evilness.

 

Every now and then an executive does something foolish and throws his company under the bus.

 

I remember after the Windows 2000 launch seeing Scott McNeally on camera evangelizing Linux, begging everyone to buy Linux instead of Windows 2000.

 

Trouble is, he was trying to sell Sun products, desktops and servers.  But he told them to buy LINUX, not his own products.  I think LINUX hurt Sun more than it ever hurt Microsoft.

[txlaw]

Additionally, a contract preventing an OEM from changing the desktop would normally be fine except that the validity of the contract should be superseded if the antitrust laws were implicated.

 

In the beginning, they were not a monopoly.  I mean, way back in the beginning Microsoft made software for Apple because Wozniac was lazy!  (floating point Basic)

 

Later on, you are saying that once they become a monopoly Compaq or Dell can modify it.

 

I'm saying that once a company possesses monopoly power, and even if that monopoly position was acquired by legitimate means, actions that a non-dominant company could lawfully take may not fly for a dominant company under our antitrust laws.

 

That is a fundamental philosophy underpinning our antitrust laws in the US.  Monopolies are bad.  Competition is good.

 

Okay, so let's say Apple wins and in 10 years time Apple has the OS share that Microsoft has today.

 

Can DELL then just take Apple to court for not being allowed to ship MacOS on DELL branded hardware, with all of DELL's software preloaded?  Big ugly 8 pound laptops with battery-draining, power-consuming DELL services running wild?  Slowing down the boot experience?   And then hanging on shutdown, forcing people to cold power off the PC?

 

I don't know.  I'm not an antitrust lawyer.  But I suspect that Apple would have to do something more than refuse to sell to Dell based on actual degradation of the experience.  On the other hand, if Apple refused to sell to Dell because Dell wanted to pre-load Firefox and Chrome as well as Safari, then . . .

[txlaw]

What about Costco?  What about Level 3?

 

You will give up some profits if you play fair, but it's not like it's impossible if you have good people at the top who try their best to do well by doing good.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/16/business/16costco.html

 

http://m.rockymountainnews.com/news/2009/feb/04/securities-fraud-lawsuit-claims-level-3-failed/

 

These are very superficial examples that may have been thrown out.  My point isn't that Costco or Level-3 are evil, especially not based on these two examples.  My point is that over the long run you get mean-reversion of evilness.  It's not usually a planned thing, either - even though it looked that way at Microsoft.  They were just trying to hold on to their business.  Trying to dig their moat wider.

 

When you look at the subprime mortgage situation, all of the parties were part of a system with an evil result..  however each party was doing something that wouldn't be considered evil.

 

Consider Madoff..  the guy didn't start out as evil.  He was just doing his thing.  But eventually he got a bit behind, and then a lot behind, and then he was straight up seeking to defraud people.  I doubt that he set out to defraud the world.  He just ended up doing it.  And this is a guy who could easily have afforded to walk away.

 

We'll watch Google to see how they fare.  They're already catching some heat on privacy, on China, and on the drug ad thing.  The real test of their resolve to not do evil will occur when someone really threatens their business.

 

I think a big part of "Don't Be Evil" was taking advantage of the backlash against Microsoft..  but maintaining that image is going to be a drag, and then maybe a joke (even Gates joked re: China that Google's motto should now be "Do Less Evil").  It's not a bad thing that corporations have evil tendencies by default...  it's just a thing.

 

 

Corporations tend to be amoral -- not good or evil -- because of the fragmentation of ownership.  Sometimes their interests are aligned with society.  Sometimes their interests are not. 

 

However, they are still made up of people, and I think you can have business entities that generally try to do the right thing as a result of business culture. 

 

At least, I hope that's possible. 

[ERICOPOLY]

That is a fundamental philosophy underpinning our antitrust laws in the US.  Monopolies are bad.  Competition is good.

 

I get your argument that monopolies are bad.  I'm wondering though why it means a company is no longer able to design their own consumer experience.

 

This is why I'm asking if it's open season for DELL to reconfigure the crap out of Apple's OS user experience once Apple is dominant.

 

I'm betting not.  I think psychologically it was easy for people to swallow this "Compaq has right to alter Windows experience" line because people couldn't imagine a Microsoft product without an OEM like Compaq or Dell building the box for them.  Letting in the third party OEMs was like letting in the mafia.

 

My viewpoint is that you've come to swallow the narrative because of the history behind these OEMs and Windows.  I think most people who supported it would have found it absurd if these OEMs had never previously built Windows machines.

 

In Apple's case, they don't yet have third party OEMs building the machines for them... so mentally people would never swallow that leap to saying all of a sudden that Compaq or Dell can just come along and start installing their buggy apps all over it.

 

I have Comcast service.  It's a Motorola set top box.  Should the courts order Comcast to allow Motorola to stick their tawdry links to apps all over the user interface, just so Motorola can make a few bucks off of the product placement?

 

That's all the OEMs wanted -- they want to stick these ugly icons all over the desktop because they get paid to do so.  It's a big revenue opportunity for them.

[Guest VAL9000]

However, they are still made up of people, and I think you can have business entities that generally try to do the right thing as a result of business culture. 

 

At least, I hope that's possible.

 

I think companies like Google and Berkshire have a better chance at making a longer term run at this.  In this case, the guys who run the show are the same guys who own a majority of the business, and are the same guys who set the culture.  Companies like WalMart or Exxon or Citi, where there are significant agency costs and conflicts of interest, are more susceptible to moral rot.

[txlaw]

That is a fundamental philosophy underpinning our antitrust laws in the US.  Monopolies are bad.  Competition is good.

 

I get your argument that monopolies are bad.  I'm wondering though why it means a company is no longer able to design their own consumer experience.

 

You're assuming that the company with a dominant market position is taking action to "design their own experience" rather than to protect their monopoly position.

 

If you could show that protecting the user experience from degradation was the primary motivation behind the company's actions, that might fly.  Some company actions would be legitimate; others would not be legitimate.  The illegitimate actions could warrant sanctions under the antitrust laws as being anticompetitive.

 

Apple uses this BS argument all the time -- we just want to protect the Apple experience.  When in reality, they want to create/protect their moat.  Just because Apple does it doesn't mean that Microsoft is excused for having done it.

 

This is why I'm asking if it's open season for DELL to reconfigure the crap out of Apple's OS user experience once Apple is dominant.

 

I'm betting not.  I think psychologically it was easy for people to swallow this "Compaq has right to alter Windows experience" line because people couldn't imagine a Microsoft product without an OEM like Compaq or Dell building the box for them.  Letting in the third party OEMs was like letting in the mafia.

 

My viewpoint is that you've come to swallow the narrative because of the history behind these OEMs and Windows.  I think most people who supported it would have found it absurd if these OEMs had never previously built Windows machines.

 

In Apple's case, they don't yet have third party OEMs building the machines for them... so mentally people would never swallow that leap to saying all of a sudden that Compaq or Dell can just come along and start installing their buggy apps all over it.

 

Have you ever heard of the Carterfone decision?  

 

Basically, AT&T used to prohibit equipment not furnished by AT&T from being connected to AT&T's facilities.  The BS rationale that AT&T used was that the devices would interfere/break the network, essentially degrading the user experience.

 

The Carterfone decision by the FCC held that this requirement was unduly discriminatory and that AT&T, then the dominant power in the telecom industry, had to allow non-AT&T devices on the network.

 

Microsoft was the dominant power in the OS market back in the day, and it would have been difficult to dislodge it from that position, largely due to the network effect.  I personally think that to allow MSFT to prevent OEMs from installing apps, which weren't necessarily buggy, would be like allowing AT&T to continue doing what it was doing prior to Carterfone.

 

I have Comcast service.  It's a Motorola set top box.  Should the courts order Comcast to allow Motorola to stick their tawdry links to apps all over the user interface, just so Motorola can make a few bucks off of the product placement.

 

That's all the OEMs wanted -- they want to stick these ugly icons all over the desktop because they get paid to do so.  It's a big revenue opportunity for them.

 

Again, see Carterfone and more recent decisions.

 

Comcast is/was a monopoly, and they can't prevent you from picking which set top box you want to attach to their facilities, as per regulatory decision.  If the box you pick has "tawdry links to apps all over the user interface," so be it.  

 

If Motorola's box actually broke the network, then maybe Comcast could prohibit it, but that would likely be a BS argument.

[ERICOPOLY]

Apple uses this BS argument all the time -- we just want to protect the Apple experience.  When in reality, they want to create/protect their moat.  Just because Apple does it doesn't mean that Microsoft is excused for having done it.

 

Actually, one of the big reasons I enjoy the MacBook is that it didn't have all that OEM garbage installed on it.  It's so lame that my HP laptop has their own update software -- Microsoft already has a Windows Update where HP can refresh their drivers if they'd just take advantage of it.  Instead, there's all their monitoring software on there, and it's constantly wanting to check for updates, etc...  What a mess.

 

And none of this matters anyhow.  People understand now that web browsers belong with the OS preinstalled -- Microsoft was just early (Apple appears to have copied their lead here).  And all the companies preinstall their own browser.

 

Nobody cares, browsers are free on all platforms, Microsoft or not.  IE only ships on Windows, there are tons of browsers on other platforms now and people actually use those platforms.  People can make browsers and charge for them on Chromebook laptops, but nobody will because there is no market for it. 

 

Netscape simply had a model that was a flash in the pan -- they took a free product and then copied it and tried to sell it.  It failed initially because of Microsoft, but again Google doesn't look like they try to sell their browser on non-Microsoft platforms either.  Just as evil I suppose if making a free browser is evil.  Personally, as a consumer I'm happy when somebody gives something away.

 

 

[txlaw]

Apple uses this BS argument all the time -- we just want to protect the Apple experience.  When in reality, they want to create/protect their moat.  Just because Apple does it doesn't mean that Microsoft is excused for having done it.

 

Actually, one of the big reasons I enjoy the MacBook is that it didn't have all that OEM garbage installed on it.  It's so lame that my HP laptop has their own update software -- Microsoft already has a Windows Update where HP can refresh their drivers if they'd just take advantage of it.  Instead, there's all their monitoring software on there, and it's constantly wanting to check for updates, etc...  What a mess.

 

And none of this matters anyhow.  People understand now that web browsers belong with the OS preinstalled -- Microsoft was just early (Apple appears to have copied their lead here).  And all the companies preinstall their own browser.

 

Nobody cares, browsers are free on all platforms, Microsoft or not.  IE only ships on Windows, there are tons of browsers on other platforms now and people actually use those platforms.  People can make browsers and charge for them on Chromebook laptops, but nobody will because there is no market for it. 

 

Netscape simply had a model that was a flash in the pan -- they took a free product and then copied it and tried to sell it.  It failed initially because of Microsoft, but again Google doesn't look like they try to sell their browser on non-Microsoft platforms either.  Just as evil I suppose if making a free browser is evil.  Personally, as a consumer I'm happy when somebody gives something away.

 

Look, I have no quarrels with MSFT for having put IE on Windows.  That made sense to me, and I disagree with the EU's forbidding Microsoft to put IE into Windows. 

 

But I do think that the sum total of Microsoft's actions were anti-competitive back then. 

 

They extracted monopoly profits for a long time, which would have been fine had they not engaged in anti-competitive actions.  That is the danger in having a monopoly position.

[ERICOPOLY]

Look, I have no quarrels with MSFT for having put IE on Windows.  That made sense to me, and I disagree with the EU's forbidding Microsoft to put IE into Windows.  

 

It was Google pushing them to do it:

 

http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2009/02/reuters_us_google_microsoft

 

This is why I just see Google as a culture of hypocrites.  Just compete.  Make a better product and shut up (I wish I could just be dictator).

 

Firefox had huge share in 2009, and growing:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/0/04/20091208190055!Web_browser_usage_share.svg

 

Google's frustration is that they wanted instant share.  So they have this disingenuous argument that the browser market isn't competitive, despite IE's share clearly declining rapidly even though it's preinstalled!

 

And yet you argue that Google is just making the internet easier to use?  Hah!  Right.  An OS without a web browser REALLY makes it easier to use, right?  Yah sure, because IE is so hard to use.

[txlaw]

Look, I have no quarrels with MSFT for having put IE on Windows.  That made sense to me, and I disagree with the EU's forbidding Microsoft to put IE into Windows.  

 

It was Google pushing them to do it:

 

http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2009/02/reuters_us_google_microsoft

 

This is why I just see Google as a culture of hypocrites.  Just compete.  Make a better product and shut up (I wish I could just be dictator).

 

Firefox had huge share in 2009, and growing:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/0/04/20091208190055!Web_browser_usage_share.svg

 

Google's frustration is that they wanted instant share.  So they have this disingenuous argument that the browser market isn't competitive, despite IE's share clearly declining rapidly even though it's preinstalled!

 

And yet you argue that Google is just making the internet easier to use?  Hah!  Right.  An OS without a web browser REALLY makes it easier to use, right?  Yah sure, because IE is so hard to use.

 

Google is not a culture of hypocrites.  Many if not most of the people who work there believe in doing the right thing, and there are a lot policies and positions that Google takes at a higher level that the people there really disagree with, based on discussions I've had with Googlers.  Internal debates are encouraged.

 

I disagree with Google piling on against MSFT in the EU.  But Google has started to do stuff like that in order to fight against the dirty tactics used by evil Microsofties who will justify anything as long as it lines their pocketbooks (tit for tat hybperbole, okay?).

 

IE may not be hard to use, but it is stuck in the past and keeps the Web from being what it could be.  MSFT has no incentive to innovate to the fullest extent with regards to IE because of the competitive threat that the Web poses as an alternative  platform. 

 

So, yeah, I absolutely think that Google is making the Internet easier to use.  It's disingenuous to argue otherwise, and only a Microsoftie would attempt to make that argument because of their blind rage towards Google.