A good way to solve the software monopoly problem

[Padma]

... they have done nothing which is illegal ...

Several posters have said this, and I wonder what their source is. After all, MS is constantly being taken to court, and they almost invariably lose. They have been found guilty of criminal monopolistic practices several times over the last 15 years or so. In the latest US case, the only question was what the pubishment should be. (The original judge was thinking about forcing a break-up, but the judge that finally rules on it didn't go that far.)

Personally, I think they should be broken up, much like "Ma Bell" was years ago. *Maybe* it would force them to be competitive, again.

Edit: Birdjaguar: No it won't. Apple has said that while their systems *may* be able to run Windows, you won't be able to run Apple/Mac on a WIndows PC.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Edit: Birdjaguar: No it won't. Apple has said that while their systems *may* be able to run Windows, you won't be able to run Apple/Mac on a WIndows PC.

Ah.. That's too bad. I was hoping for a PC that would run both equally well.

 

[mdwh]

The first reason is that they have done nothing which is illegal .

Surely they were found guilty of being an illegal monopoly (whether or not you agree with that)?

If someone were to design a more secure operation system than Windows but with the same user accessbility, Microsoft would go belly up.

Like BeOS?

Microsoft got rid of them quite easily, as their licence agreements prevented computer manufacturers selling dual boot machines with both Windows and another OS. From what I have heard, Be couldn't even give their OS away to PC companies, because of this.

Personally I think this was their greatest crime, though the court cases seemed to focus on them bundling software such as IE.

 

[MarineCorps]

The reason microsoft have a monopoly is that they have no other major competitor in the OS category. Their business is run very well, and that allows them to dominate the market. It would be unfair to break up microsoft (potentially costing them billions) justbecasue evryone else cant do any better.

If Google wrote an OS it would be better then Windows I bet. Plus it would piss M$ off at Google more.

 

[wit>trope]

If Google wrote an OS it would be better then Windows I bet. Plus it would piss M$ off at Google more.

I like google too. But you know what would be real funny? If google took all of those terabytes of data they have from our searches and emails (their software reads your emails if you didn't know) ... or waited until it got to a critical mass and SOLD it for BIG BUCKS to some marketing firm and the founders of google cash out! ... that might just happen! ... would we be everyone's reaction if and when it happens? I don't think I'd be mad, I would laugh and think it was funny.

 

[farting bob]

Gogole said it wont make an OS, but it is one of the few companies that i rekon could challeneg microsoft's dominance in the long run. But alas they are sticking to search and internet tools.

 

[Aphex_Twin]

Gogole said it wont make an OS, but it is one of the few companies that i rekon could challeneg microsoft's dominance in the long run. But alas they are sticking to search and internet tools.

Though they deny it, it wouldn't really be that difficult to make an OS (provided they go by tried and tested paths (like Linux). But they realize it takes a lot to succeed in the OS business today (M$ has too strong grip on it). They also realize that OS-making will be a less lucrative business as open-source slowly takes over. So there's no reason to step on private turf that is also shrinking.
They can challenge dominance in the long run because the center of mass is and will continue to shift towards the web - and Google simply has to await and prepare for the tide...

Though there are dangers lurking. Google's rise in the past years strangely resembles the growth curb of web companies before the 2000 crash. They survived it because they were small enough in 2000, but now they are expanding a bit worryingly fast...

 

[newfangle]

Their IPO was like $118/share. Never have a seen a stock more overvalued. There will be severe repercussions in the market for Google, and it's just a matter of time.

 

[farting bob]

Their stock is way to high to be sustainable, but they have continued to show big increases in profit from just their core business (search ads), and unlike the companies that suffered in the 2000 crash, google's business is run much better and they have now got the profits and knowledge to outlast most of the competitors. It will take something revolutionary in the search industry to topple them.

 

[CurtSibling]

I see no problem with Microsoft. It succeeded, hooray for them.

If they could make a water-tight product that is not a hackable shambles, then they would get my 100% vote.

If they could make the internet lightning-fast, I would have no complaints...

 

[Aphex_Twin]

It will take something revolutionary in the search industry to topple them.

Or a not-so-revolutionary bubble burst. If that happends they won't lose just money, but hard earned reputation too.

 

[farting bob]

The bubble wont burst. People will always need to search for stuff online, more and more so as it continues to expand. And google is at the top of the list. Its share prices will probanly fall in the future, but i cant see google going under. Its got a core money making part of the business that is practically guareenteed to make money.
bubble-bursting may effect other online businesses, but google will survive im sure.

 

[MarineCorps]

Or a not-so-revolutionary bubble burst. If that happends they won't lose just money, but hard earned reputation too.

The internet is far to ingrained in the American Way for the another buuble burst.

 

[Aphex_Twin]

The bubble wont burst. People will always need to search for stuff online, more and more so as it continues to expand. And google is at the top of the list. Its share prices will probanly fall in the future, but i cant see google going under. Its got a core money making part of the business that is practically guareenteed to make money.
bubble-bursting may effect other online businesses, but google will survive im sure.

I have no doubts theirs is a profitable venture, but if they expand too fast a sudden market shift can catch them with the "pants down". Enough to give M$ & Yahoo the big slice of the web advertising business.

 

[stormbind]

Outlaw software patents. There are plenty of alternatives for PC, for those who want them. Examples include:

Haiku/Zeta (BeOS compatible)
ReactOS (Microsoft NT compatible)
Linux
BSD (FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, Darwin, Dragon Fly, &c.)
Sky OS
Hurd
Warp (previously IBM OS2, now sold under another name)
Lindows
Solaris
Unixware
and many, many more..

With add-ons, most can run common Microsoft and Macintosh applications with varying degrees of compatibility.

 

[stormbind]

The internet is far to ingrained in the American Way for the another buuble burst.

Within a few years, everyone will be downloading their own search engine index (using 0.5% of their massive HDD capacity) and performing searches locally (with 0.5% of their lightning CPU capacity) without need for adverts or corporate branding. What then will Google offer?

You could do this already, but it's a bit too much hassle for now.

 

[stormbind]

Edit: Birdjaguar: No it won't. Apple has said that while their systems *may* be able to run Windows, you won't be able to run Apple/Mac on a WIndows PC.

Apple can say what they like, and will not support MacOS on PC but it will work (with software/firmware hack).

What exactly constitutes an IBM-compatible PC anyway? Is it just the BIOS?

 

[blackheart]

Within a few years, everyone will be downloading their own search engine index (using 0.5% of their massive HDD capacity) and performing searches locally (with 0.5% of their lightning CPU capacity) without need for adverts or corporate branding. What then will Google offer?

You could do this already, but it's a bit too much hassle for now.

How can you do this?

 

[stormbind]

How can you do this?

You would start by downloading the contents of DMOZ.org which is publicly available (whole, or in part) as an XML file. This is what Google and most other search engines do.

What is done after that varies from one search engine to another. There are some XML-based RDBMS available but you would probably parse it into some propietory format.

You could write a program to crawl the sites referenced, supplementing the content but if your net connection is fast enough that could be done in real-time during searches to get actually current results (none of that two-weeks out of date nonsense that Google returns ).

Current computers do not have the spare capacity to make light work of this, or mine certainly does not, but with the rate of HDD and CPU improvements I doubt it would be long until they do..

 

[Aphex_Twin]

@Stormbird
Not just storrage is the problem. If everyone crawled the net to build their own Google the Internet would crawl to a stand-still. A yet better idea would be hashed, distribuited indexes spread over diferent servers (how Kazaa/e-mule works). This eliminates the problem of having one central place to hold data and is actually more solid (potentially). Also, since there's no central space and no centralized authority running the show there could be no legally binding way to force information on and off. I think the know-how and the capabilities are already avalible for GNU - all it takes is some initiative...