Microsoft hits new ethical low point?

[john_whitfield at email.com (John Whitfield)]

> John Chambers wrote:
>> It doesn't help matters to have a new assistant attorney
>> general in the Justice Department's antitrust division
>> (Charles James) who's understanding of the electronic age can
>> be seen in statements like this:
>> "If Microsoft were to be broken up, you would see divergence >> of the
common platform and it's unclear that you would have
>> as vigorous a competitive market...,"

> Hmmm ... Does he imagine that it could be worse than the
> diversity of Microsoft's  past and current platforms?  It
> seems like every year or two there's a new one that  requires
> a  major  rewrite  of  all  the software. DOS, Windows 3.1,
> Windows 95, Windows NT, Windows 2000, ...

It goes further than that.  Windows is an inconsistent platform largely
BECAUSE it's a commercial product.  While Microsoft makes a good deal of
it's money on new systems, the market for new systems is slowing down.  As a
result, Microsoft needs to tempt users to upgrade so every year a "new"
product makes the scene with a few minor updates and a huge media blitz to
convince users that this latest change is a must-have.  Linux doesn't have a
similar commercial need to have users constantly updating their systems to
the latest model.

Of course, Microsoft has a plan for that too.  They want to move to a
"software as service" model where you basically rent your software from year
to year.  It's a good deal for them since it means that the money rolls in
every year, whether they make any improvements or not.  It's less clear why
this would be good for the consumers.

John Whitfield


-----------------------------------------------
FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com
Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com


-
Subcription/unsubscription/info requests: send e-mail with
"subscribe", "unsubscribe", or "info" on the first line of the
message body to discuss-request at blu.org (Subject line is ignored).