X-no-Archive:yes
Ted, consider the following facts.
The judge defined Internet Explorer as the shrink-wrap edition of IE 3.0
which contains 228 files. (Many of these files are OS files which have been
updated to incorporate support for IE 3.0). The order does not cover IE
4.0 and later versions. Windows 98 is not covered by this order and
Windows 98 will begin to ship 2Q98 (3-4 months from now).
The order the judge gave was to remove the IE components of said edition.
Doing so prevents Windows 95 B (AKA OSR2), which is shipped with IE 3.02
installed, from booting. Surprise, surprise.
Micke$oft, following the judge's orders, is forced to offer one of the
following for OEM installation: a) Windows 95 (the original version w/o
IE), b) Windows 95B (OSR2, the currently shipping version MINUS the 228
files the judge specified) ((this version will not boot)), or c) Windows
95B (OSR2 w/ IE 3.02 as currently shipping).
OEM's do not want to ship Windows 95 w/o IE installed, their customers want
all the software on the systems they buy.
DOJ is furious and says that MS is playing games, MS says DOJ doesn't know
what it wants, but they are following the letter of the judge's orders.
Judge says he removed IE 3.0 in 90 seconds from Windows 95. I do not know
why it took the judge so long to remove IEXPLORE.EXE and the icon on the
desktop, but that is all it takes to render IE inoperable and leave Windows
95B operational. It, however, does not fit the judge's own orders, because
it leaves behind 226 files which he specified were part of IE and had to be
removed.
Netscape has setup applets at its website and others, that will remove
IEXPLORE.EXE and the icon and install Netscape's own products. It's very
easy to do this.
Netscape has revealed recently that revenue from browser sales is no longer
an important segment of revenue for them. They do lots of consulting, and
server software sales and support. They are now considering giving their
browser away!
Now, for my thoughts in view of this new information.
It is clear the judge and the DOJ are not competent enough to specify what
they want. Netscape has realized sometime back that browsers are not where
the money is. The server side and consulting services are where the real
money is for them. They have moved to that strategy following the time
honored tradition of responding to market forces. The government is
interfering in an area without understanding of what it is doing and what
it wants to accomplish, apart from extorting money from successful
companies.
Even if the DOJ manages to bamboozle everybody, it is doing us and Netscape
a disservice. We, as end-users, lose because it will complicate things for
newbies and unsophisticated users. Netscape might go back to relying on
their browser as an important source of revenue thereby foregoing their
current strategy which was validated by market forces. Later on, when
things change again, they will really be hurt. Microsoft, on the other
hand, will not be slowed down a bit by the DOJ's endeavors.
I say that it is much better to let the market find its own way. Recently,
IE 4.0 was found to be superior to Netscape's current offering, by various
magazine reviews. I do not know as I did not install IE 4.0. I have the
latest version of IE 3.02 installed and it meets my needs. In time, I will
install 4.0 on my main system. I already have it on another system,
because I run Windows 98 on that system. I did not select the Active
desktop, because I personally do not like the browser paradigm as a
computer interface.
I did not select Netscape Navigator or Communicator, because whilst I pay
for ALL my software, I did not think is was financially wise for me to keep
buying a stupid web browser just because some comes up with a new, annoying
version every few months. Now it can pipe in advertising on your system,
just what I always wanted!
In this age of the Internet, I think of a web browser as just another
service for an OS, on par with dial-up networking, Telnet, FTP and other
such things. Obviously the DOJ and many of you disagree with my last
statement. That's OK, I also think of an e-mail program as just another
service an OS should provide. I did not see the DOJ go to bat for Eudora
or Lotus, to get MS to take out the Inbox or Outlook. I really believe
there is something rotten in the DOJ. Besides Janet Reno, I mean.
Kind regards,
Denys. . .
Denys Beauchemin
HICOMP America, Inc.
(800) 323-8863 (281) 288-7438 Fax: (281) 355-6879
denys at hicomp.com www.hicomp.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Ted Ashton [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 1997 12:09 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: DOJ vs. MS: PC-savvy judge
Sorry, Denys, but I come down on the same side of this one. This isn't a
matter of being successful. It's a matter of using one's monopoly to pound
the other guy into the dirt. Microsoft does, and unfortunately will have
for
some time to come, pretty close to monopoly in the PC OS market. When they
start bundling stuff with the OS, it has the following effects:
1) In the short term, everyone is now paying for more software than they
need. Sure, call IE explorer free--you're still paying a price and
getting software you didn't necessarily want.
2) In the short term, it will cut Netscape's profits. "Why do I need
another
browser, this one came with my OS?"
3) In the long term, it threatens to put Netscape out of business. All
these
folk who cut their teeth on IE will now be used to it and will buy it
(once Microsoft does start charging for it) instead and will recommend
it
to their friends and relatives and so forth.
It seems to me (on short reflection) that Netscape's only recourse is to
jump
in a write an OS which is 100% compatible with Win '98 and works better and
market it like crazy. Maybe they can ship an OS free with their browser. .
. .
Ted
--
Ted Ashton ([log in to unmask]), Info Serv, Southern Adventist University
==========================================================
No one really understood music unless he was a scientist, her father had
declared, and not just a scientist, either, oh, no, only the real ones, the
theoreticians, whose language mathematics. She had not understood
mathematics until he had explained to her that it was the symbolic language
of relationships. "And relationships," he had told her, "contained the
essential meaning of life."
-- Buck, Pearl S. (1892 - 1973)
|
