5 ms·

Does anyone actually believe that the US government's interventions against Microsoft made the slightest bit of difference, as opposed to huge shifts in the int

Does anyone actually believe that the US government's interventions against Microsoft made the slightest bit of difference, as opposed to huge shifts in the internet and mobile landscape? You could argue that the emergence of Firefox and Chrome was only made possible by the ability to assign a "default" non-IE browser in Windows, but that ability pre-dated any of the anti-trust stuff anyway; all you got out of that was a mandatory pop-up when you installed Windows asking you if you wanted to use a different browser. The emergence of Firefox was by itself a huge shift, and Chrome another one, against Microsoft's browser monopoly. Its OS monopoly got broken (insofar as it is broken) by a combination of the rise of mobile and Apples re-emergence as a viable platform. Its office application monopoly got broken (insofar as it is broken) by a combination of online email systems (especially gmail) and the increased availability of online alternatives. All the justice department did was waste their time; they could have just sat by the river and waited for the body of their enemy to float by instead.

e1ven 8y ago
I apolgoize that I don't have any references available at the moment, but I've read in several books that Microsoft insiders said it made an enormous difference. Having the government essentially watching their every move caused them to moderate their actions, and make sure they were on the right side of the law. They were much more conservative than they otherwise would have been. It was described as a large cultural shift in the company and their way of thinking.
- bhl 8y ago
  Here’s an alternative source: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/20/magazine/the-case-against-google.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/20/magazine/the-case-against... “Anyone who said that the 1990s prosecution of Microsoft didn’t accomplish anything — that it was companies like Google, rather than government lawyers, that humbled Microsoft — didn’t know what they were talking about, Reback said. In fact, he argued, the opposite was true: The antitrust attacks on Microsoft made all the difference. Condemning Microsoft as a monopoly is why Google exists today, he said.”
jonahb 8y ago
I was but a lowly intern when the verdict came down, but I can tell you I heard the term "consent decree" more times than I could count.
pedrocr 8y ago
In the middle of the process there was an election and the new executive didn't want to actually go after Microsoft. They then got off much easier than their misdeeds required. At one point an OS/Office breakup was in the cards and that would actually have been a major shift in the industry. It's not surprising that what was actually done didn't have that much impact.
- andrewla 8y ago
  My point is not whether government interference was impactful. My point is exactly that it made no difference. Microsoft lost its position of dominance through purely market ends (in my opinion -- certainly between the US actions and the EU actions you could argue that they made a difference). In retrospect breaking up MS between Windows and Office was not a necessary condition to breaking MS's monopoly, and so we have an excellent test case for government intervention at that scale. Not definitive, of course; MS could very well be the exception, but certainly the Justice Department's actions against Microsoft should not be used as evidence that such actions are effective.
  - pedrocr 8y ago
    The tech market would be much different today if they had been broken up. That they're not still the largest tech company in the world is not the same as saying they lost their monopoly somehow. They still have the same monopoly on the desktop OS and more importantly in Office and they still very aggressively maintain those monopolies. There are just other even larger markets today. > In retrospect breaking up MS between Windows and Office was not a necessary condition to breaking MS's monopoly. Quite the contrary. Since their monopoly is still in full force neither the meager settlement nor the market transformation were sufficient to break the monopoly. Breaking up OS/Office might have been enough but we'll never know.
    - andrewla 8y ago
      That it would be different in inarguable. I feel like I can get on board with the statement that the fact they are no longer the biggest is pretty much equivalent to saying they lost their monopoloy. In a sense they have a monopoly -- they are the only ones selling Windows. But ... even in the desktop/laptop area they are no longer the beast that they once were. And the prevalence of mobile as a platform means that even their dominance in the desktop/laptop market doesn't mean what it once did. In office products they have a much stronger position, but the barriers to switching are no longer what they once were. I feel like I can confidently say that Microsoft can no longer coast on their monopoly power, but must actively move forward (with things like Office365) in order to stay competitive. Are you arguing that even now breaking up OS/Office would be a reasonable thing for the Justice department to pursue? That seems like a barely tenable position.
rpedela 8y ago
Microsoft's behavior changed and they stopped trying to own every single niche market within the software field by any means necessary. I think that allowed for an opening by other players in addition to the tech trends you mentioned.

e1ven 8y ago

I apolgoize that I don't have any references available at the moment, but I've read in several books that Microsoft insiders said it made an enormous difference. Having the government essentially watching their every move caused them to moderate their actions, and make sure they were on the right side of the law. They were much more conservative than they otherwise would have been. It was described as a large cultural shift in the company and their way of thinking.

bhl 8y ago
Here’s an alternative source: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/20/magazine/the-case-against-google.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/20/magazine/the-case-against... “Anyone who said that the 1990s prosecution of Microsoft didn’t accomplish anything — that it was companies like Google, rather than government lawyers, that humbled Microsoft — didn’t know what they were talking about, Reback said. In fact, he argued, the opposite was true: The antitrust attacks on Microsoft made all the difference. Condemning Microsoft as a monopoly is why Google exists today, he said.”

jonahb 8y ago

I was but a lowly intern when the verdict came down, but I can tell you I heard the term "consent decree" more times than I could count.

pedrocr 8y ago

In the middle of the process there was an election and the new executive didn't want to actually go after Microsoft. They then got off much easier than their misdeeds required. At one point an OS/Office breakup was in the cards and that would actually have been a major shift in the industry. It's not surprising that what was actually done didn't have that much impact.

andrewla 8y ago
My point is not whether government interference was impactful. My point is exactly that it made no difference. Microsoft lost its position of dominance through purely market ends (in my opinion -- certainly between the US actions and the EU actions you could argue that they made a difference). In retrospect breaking up MS between Windows and Office was not a necessary condition to breaking MS's monopoly, and so we have an excellent test case for government intervention at that scale. Not definitive, of course; MS could very well be the exception, but certainly the Justice Department's actions against Microsoft should not be used as evidence that such actions are effective.
- pedrocr 8y ago
  The tech market would be much different today if they had been broken up. That they're not still the largest tech company in the world is not the same as saying they lost their monopoly somehow. They still have the same monopoly on the desktop OS and more importantly in Office and they still very aggressively maintain those monopolies. There are just other even larger markets today. > In retrospect breaking up MS between Windows and Office was not a necessary condition to breaking MS's monopoly. Quite the contrary. Since their monopoly is still in full force neither the meager settlement nor the market transformation were sufficient to break the monopoly. Breaking up OS/Office might have been enough but we'll never know.
  - andrewla 8y ago
    That it would be different in inarguable. I feel like I can get on board with the statement that the fact they are no longer the biggest is pretty much equivalent to saying they lost their monopoloy. In a sense they have a monopoly -- they are the only ones selling Windows. But ... even in the desktop/laptop area they are no longer the beast that they once were. And the prevalence of mobile as a platform means that even their dominance in the desktop/laptop market doesn't mean what it once did. In office products they have a much stronger position, but the barriers to switching are no longer what they once were. I feel like I can confidently say that Microsoft can no longer coast on their monopoly power, but must actively move forward (with things like Office365) in order to stay competitive. Are you arguing that even now breaking up OS/Office would be a reasonable thing for the Justice department to pursue? That seems like a barely tenable position.

rpedela 8y ago

Microsoft's behavior changed and they stopped trying to own every single niche market within the software field by any means necessary. I think that allowed for an opening by other players in addition to the tech trends you mentioned.