Microsoft has segragation within their product lines? That is a joke, right?

That doesn’t make any sense.

Bill Gates would even disagree. “Internet E is a part of Windows.”

When AlexH says these kinds of things, I can’t help but to feel he is purposefully working to deceive in Microsoft’s/Novell’s favor.

The technical Chinese Wall AlexH claims exists can be enforced much better when Microsoft components are separated. If the segregation is already there as he says, then it should not hurt to make the divisions formal.

Please.

I put the video here.

Why would an antitrust remedy that involved splitting a monopolist into disparate concerns seek to incentivize each to “make life harder for the other side”? A legal sanction seeking to reduce barriers to competition carries no imperative that split companies should engage in further anti-competitive actions.

As for Office on the Mac, these are some of Microsoft’s finest applications and with good reason. Neglecting OSX would create an opportunity for competing document formats to establish a foothold.

It doesn’t matter that a netbook or laptop isn’t such a huge drop under the PC – people are not paying the premium for the power, they’re paying the premium for the mobility. Most people do not have a need for the extra power of a PC for the kind of applications they have and use. You do not need a full PC for i.m., e-mail, browsing, or even document editing and such. Laptops and netbooks are at a stage where they’re good enough for most needs, and yes, ubuiquitous access isn’t quite there yet, but it is certainly moving quickly. 3G based USB dongles are coming through with monthly data packages, and even mroe recently the white spaces campaign:

[quote]Potential users are likely to be first time buyers in emerging markets and experienced users in more mature markets looking for a lightweight surfing or email device as the second or third PC in the home.

The largest growth opportunity for the technology comes from consumers said Gartner, eventually accounting for 70 per cent of sales, but it does not foresee netbook shipments cannibalising mobile PCs for several years yet.

“There is a significant functionality and performance gap between notebooks and mini-notebooks,” said Gartner, but the gap could close from 2010 and if performance improves substantially by 2011, mini-notebooks could become a business tool.

Gartner recently said netbooks could drop in price to $100 (£50) in the next two years as component costs fall 10-15 per cent, although packaging, assembly costs and software prices would remain stable.

Analysts at iSuppli are far more bullish about the sales prospects for netbooks, forecasting 18.3 million unit shipments by 2012 with revenues standing at $291.2m. [/quote]

http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2008/09/25/abi_netbook_sales_2013/

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080103-2008-could-be-the-year-laptop-sales-eclipse-desktops-in-us.html

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080902-google-white-space-petition-13000-signatures-and-counting.html

http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/white-spaces-battle.ars/4

I ask you the reverse:

Why pay the premium for a stationary desktop, when you can get a cheaper, more portable alternative that will better fit into your life?

It barely even needs to be netbooks – proliferation of smartphones also fits into the bill of mobile devices, and iPhone can also do many of the basic needs – e-mail, web browsing, messaging.

These are very much emerging markets, but over the next 5 – 10 years just about every barrier will come down. We already have devices with nearly ubiquitous wireless access that can do most of the basic access (like the iPhone) that have gained genuine consumer traction and as wireless hotspots and take up increases, and hopefully the white spaces campaign can be successful, there’s little genuine reason to think they won’t take off. Sun were right – they were just too early.

http://blogs.sun.com/jonathan/entry/the_network_is_the_computer

You should also take a look into data that shows how certain companies deliberately ended up increasing the requirements of hardware on the desktop, so as to stop the impending disruption that was going to happen with laptops (guess who). It’s contained in the book “The Innovator’s Dilemma”, shall have to look around for it on the interwebs.

The basic issue is that a low-cost terminal isn’t much cheaper than a fuller spec. PC. If network access was cheap and ubiquitous then maybe, but we’re a long way from that – especially for mobile users.

@standardize this: the problem with splitting down dept. lines is that for the most part, there is no incentive for them to make life harder for the other side. The lock-in already exists, and I don’t think that executive oversight makes much difference. Windows Inc. and Office Inc. would continue to be dominant in their respective spaces, and I very much doubt that Office Inc. would spend more time on making Office work well on Mac OSX (for example) – in fact, they would probably focus on that even less, because the legal pressure would have totally gone away and at the moment I suspect Microsoft invests more in that platform that it deserves based on market size.

Having separate Windows Inc. and Office Inc. would probably kill off the Mac in extremely short order. Free software would survive, but we would make very little progress against them (it would probably not harm us that much though).

To understand why splitting Microsoft would work, consider that we need only counter the lock-in mechanisms. When the mechanisms by which the monopoly is able to exert control are impeded, it must strategically align to compete in the extant market.

Desktop PC’s are going to become more and more marginalised as time goes on. within 5 – 10 years most portable devices (if not sooner than that) will be able to handle most of the tasks that the majority use PC’s for, and will far outnumber desktop PC’s, with a far greater range of devices. Just as the PC market disrupted microcomputers, mobile devices will disrupt the PC market (Microsoft’s core market).

Ubuntu already has a pretty good position with netbooks and (hopefully) it’s MID edition, available pretty widely from most of the biggest vendors, if they’re not using some customised version. Other Linux vendors are doing the same too.

http://www.microscope.co.uk/welcome/netbook-market-predicted-to-reach-50-million-units-by-2012/http://www.microscope.co.uk/welcome/netbook-market-predicted-to-reach-50-million-units-by-2012/

http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2008/09/netbooks-evolvi.html

http://ostatic.com/173214-blog/netbooks-fuel-good-pc-market-news-says-idc

http://blogs.pcmag.com/miller/2008/03/intel_talks_netbooks_mobile_in.php

http://www.crunchgear.com/2008/07/21/netbook-margins-so-low-some-pc-makers-not-even-going-to-bother/

Microsoft has 2 major threats waiting to obliterate it – Internet services, from Google (GDocs and its ilk will eventually take over Word and potentially Office), and the diversification of devices, which its core money maker and operating systems, XP and Vista, cannot even dream of capturing.

1) Linux and similar, open source platforms are far more customisable – in mobile devices, you need all the power you can get. Using these allows you customisation on the software side that you wouldn’t normally be able to get, without having to ask the gatekeeper.

2) As per the last link, margins are incredibly tight. Using free, open source software allows you to cut costs and rake in more profit.

3) Open source companies will be able to rake it in because of these 2 factors. Their money isn’t in selling you the software, it’s in selling services. Providing customisation services might be a good way of “outsourcing” to whichever company, and be a far better spend of money in comparison to a locked out, interdependent and not very configurable OS, where you depend entirely on the vendor to make changes you can’t really see, or further adapt and change.

In competition to Office (referring to the likes of GDocs):

1) Once again, lower cost of software (being $0).

2) Other advantages being true collaborative word processing, which could give it value in certain markets (perhaps journalism in the long run, not sure about what else, don’t have enough information).

3) It goes very well with the likes of netbooks – they’re intended for mobile web use, and where disk space and processing power is limited, being able to write something up within one program (your browser), right beside your email and whatever else your looking at, and the advent of webapps where said things become more integrated into the desktop (look for the firefox plugin prism, and I know Ubuntu has prism made webapps in its repositories), it becomes a more viable alternative.

In regards to breaking MS up:

It would do a lot of good. Part of the problem with MS is that they have the foothold in 2 markets, which gives them a big 1-2 punch. A key part of their business relies on this. Separating Office and their OS would essentially half the desktop threat. Reducing company size and revenue. While internal departments may be kept seperate, they’re still part of the same company, meaning any revenue and profit can go to either. Separating them forces each product line to survive on its own. The Xbox division would most likely collapse on its own, especially as the core product relies on Microsoft technology, which would have to licensed and paid for after they were separated (unless the breakup would involve keeping them all under a Microsoft umbrella, and each one just being spun out independently, which in that case probably would be to their advantage).

Part of what keeps Microsoft even remotely competitive is the amount of money it generates from its core business, that it then can pump into other areas, regardless of whether they truly make money or not.

Splitting Microsoft up along product lines wouldn’t do much good, in my opinion, because for the most part everything is already separated like that already internally in Microsoft. There are very few instances of them making use of “secret” interfaces any more, and the main problems (having a single dominant product in a given market) wouldn’t be fixed.

The idea of making them fork their products and compete is entirely because that would make it impossible for them to collude; it would be illegal. Each would have to develop their version of Microsoft Office (or whatever) and customers wouldn’t have a single upgrade route: they would have two.

Even if that idea fails – e.g., Microsoft 1 do very well at Windows but suck at Office, but Microsoft 2 do very well at Office but suck at Windows, all that happens is that customers buy Microsoft 1 Windows and Microsoft 2 Office. So it degenerates to the case where they are split down product lines in any event.

Whether his idea would work or not, I have no idea.

Why do you not think this would do any good?

I also don’t understand the part about the mini-Microsoft’s.

I prefer solutions other than to break up Microsoft, but I don’t think you can keep them from violating antitrust laws without either having them open source or else make sure no single company or partnership will both have a monopoly on one side of a software dialog and be involved in the other side as well. Otherwise, you’ll get right back to the monopoly being used to help grow the market share of the software that is on the other side of the conversation and has inside access.

I haven’t taken inventory of all the issues and possible solutions, but this above just came to mind since I hit on it frequently.

>> For example, I would think strongly about splitting it simply in half, and having both halves maintain the same products.

No. They can collude, but even without doing so, one of these would likely eventually come to dominate and once again establish itself in monopoly position.

As mentioned a moment ago, you can’t have the two sides of the software dialog (a) being closed source, (b) having insider access to each other, and (c) having at least one of the two having monopoly position or supported by monopoly position.

..and there are probably other things to worry about as well.

http://www.groklaw.net/newsitems.php
http://arstechnica.com/journals/apple.ars/2008/10/02/ballmer-recommends-separating-iphone-hardware-and-software

* Ballmer recommends separating iPhone hardware and software
* 08:10PM October 10/04/08, 2008
* In a recent interview, Microsoft’s Steve Ballmer offered Apple some friendly advice: be more like Microsoft. He said that Apple needs to stop tying its hardware and software together so closely and just distribute the iPhone’s OS to a wide variety of manufacturers.

[PJ: What a coincidence... I believe that is Psystar's request as well in the litigation.] – ars technica

Sort of like the articles on this site