3 ms·

"In the case of Windows the solution turned out to be government intervention." I think that's debatable. The solution was innovation. People realized tha

by zaphar 16y ago

"In the case of Windows the solution turned out to be government intervention." I think that's debatable. The solution was innovation. People realized that they couldn't beat MS at their own game so they changed the rules. Open Source, Apple, Mozilla, They all changed the rules of the game and now MS is finding it hard to compete in the space they created. I actually don't think Government intervention had that much of an effect at all.

sudont 16y ago
Well, except for the fact that government intervention forced Microsoft to keep Office for Mac viable, along with providing operation funds that kept Apple alive. You're correct with OSS, that's succeeding despite how broken software patents are.
- randall 16y ago
  I don't remember the Government forcing Microsoft to keep Office for Mac viable... I think that was Jobs' doing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Apple_Inc.#The_Microsoft_deal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Apple_Inc.#The_Micro... I read that Cult of the Mac book, and in it Leander seemed to indicate Jobs' intention was to make sure people believed that Office would still work for Mac, and that the cash investment was a way of doubling down on the notion that Macs weren't going anywhere. This is all based on my knowledge off hand / Wikipedia, so I definitely don't consider it bullet proof. If the government intervened, I'd definitely want to know.
lwhi 16y ago
I don't think that's entirely true. Microsoft profited from conditions that were available at the time Microsoft was conceived. It seems to me that the business model that Microsoft was founded on, involved using it's ubiquity to create of new markets via proprietary software products. Proprietary software requires a closed source model, and (if sold) also involves enforcing artificial scarcity. Operating a software company in this way, is entirely compatible with a business model that involves creating monopolies and killing competition - especially when a company's as ubiquitous as Microsoft was(/is). I think government intervention played a part in showing that there's a line of acceptability (that MS crossed) - and the part it played shouldn't be downplayed. -- Cut to the present day, and the conditions have continued evolving to a point where Microsoft's business model isn't as viable anymore. I don't think anyone specifically chose to change the rules. Logic and necessity have forced a cultural change, which has helped more people to rethink how software is sold - selling software as IP isn't sustainable; economics has evolved and new markets, ecosystems and concepts are creating conditions which leave Microsoft out of its depth.

by zaphar 16y ago

sudont 16y ago

Well, except for the fact that government intervention forced Microsoft to keep Office for Mac viable, along with providing operation funds that kept Apple alive. You're correct with OSS, that's succeeding despite how broken software patents are.

randall 16y ago
I don't remember the Government forcing Microsoft to keep Office for Mac viable... I think that was Jobs' doing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Apple_Inc.#The_Microsoft_deal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Apple_Inc.#The_Micro... I read that Cult of the Mac book, and in it Leander seemed to indicate Jobs' intention was to make sure people believed that Office would still work for Mac, and that the cash investment was a way of doubling down on the notion that Macs weren't going anywhere. This is all based on my knowledge off hand / Wikipedia, so I definitely don't consider it bullet proof. If the government intervened, I'd definitely want to know.

lwhi 16y ago

I don't think that's entirely true. Microsoft profited from conditions that were available at the time Microsoft was conceived. It seems to me that the business model that Microsoft was founded on, involved using it's ubiquity to create of new markets via proprietary software products. Proprietary software requires a closed source model, and (if sold) also involves enforcing artificial scarcity. Operating a software company in this way, is entirely compatible with a business model that involves creating monopolies and killing competition - especially when a company's as ubiquitous as Microsoft was(/is). I think government intervention played a part in showing that there's a line of acceptability (that MS crossed) - and the part it played shouldn't be downplayed. -- Cut to the present day, and the conditions have continued evolving to a point where Microsoft's business model isn't as viable anymore. I don't think anyone specifically chose to change the rules. Logic and necessity have forced a cultural change, which has helped more people to rethink how software is sold - selling software as IP isn't sustainable; economics has evolved and new markets, ecosystems and concepts are creating conditions which leave Microsoft out of its depth.