From: "Vladimir Z. Nuri" <vznuri@netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 95 18:08:21 PST
To: attila <attila@primenet.com>
Subject: Re: on web standards: sent to Markoff
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSD.3.91.951220193251.5597F-100000@usr5.primenet.com>
Message-ID: <199512210204.SAA26757@netcom20.netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


there's been MS flamewars on this list before, but Attila repeats
various snippets that I find highly objectionable.

cpunk relevance: operation of the free market

Gates' conquests can either be made out to be a failure of the free enterprise 
system or a success from it. the more I read whining complaints about MS's
dominance, the more I prefer the latter interpretation. perhaps power 
corrupts, but on the other hand failure clearly promotes whining. "you cannot
grow taller by chopping off the heads of others". 

I've seen so many people try to smear MS with innuendo, as if "enough people
being unhappy" at a company is ample evidence that there is "unfairness".
the marketplace is *not* fair. it rewards people who are in tune with it
disproportionately!! sometimes, *dramatically*so* as in the case with Gates.

consider this anecdote. 

a market for [x] gizmos does not even exist. a brilliant
person says, " I think people really need [x] gizmos. I'm going to make and
sell them. I'm going to find people who will help me, but if I can't find any
I'm going to do it all myself".

Gates is such a person and did it with PC OS'es and various windows 
applications (Excel, Word Perfect, etc.). he bet his entire future on
the idea that he knew what people wanted even when other companies disagreed.
 all companies had a chance to get on the windows bandwagon
and write decent software when he created this OS-- he was going around
and virtually begging companies. what did they say? "no, we aren't going
to take our chance with you. we don't think people really want your
@#$$%^&* gizmos". they snickered and sneered at him.

Gates succeeds, and sells a bazillion gizmos. he *creates* a market that
was not even in existence. or rather, he anticipates what people really
want, and the related markets begins to respond to him in a "positive 
feedback loop".

suddenly all these companies cry foul in the greatest of hypocrisy. "Gates
has cornered the gizmo market!! he has 95% of it!!! why weren't we notified!!
no one should have such power!!"

the truth is that the playing field has always been level, but because Gates
is  such a brilliant genius, market anticipator, and gizmo producer, he
succeeds far beyond his or anyone else's wildest dreams.

"well, all things should be equal in the competition, unless someone is
succeeding more than somebody else, in which case we should penalize them
to make things more even" say his competitors.

the market has *given* bill gates his dominance. all the arguments about
him being "unfair" are absolutely bogus that I have seen. they amount to,
"Bill Gates is using tactics to sell more of his software than his competitors.
therefore, he's not being fair to everyone else who wants to sell their
software as well."

 hee, hee. I really love the free market. it's a delight
that Gates has put his money where his brain is, and in only 20 years built
one of the most successful companies in the entire history of business.
it's a tribute to the intelligence of the market and people who have the
sense to listen to it. MS has gained its dominance through the utmost of
hard work, and consuers vote with their $$$. whoever denies that consumers
know what they *really* want is an awfully pretentious and deluded person,
IMHO.

>The conundrum is trying to decide "when" a particular company is a 
>monopoly by either the classic definition of the Sherman and Clayton Acts 
>or an effective monopoly, or "bad" player as defined in the 
>Robinson-Patman act. 

pioneers are the ones with the arrows in their back. when they fail,
everyone sneers at them. when they succeed, everyone sneers at them and
says they succeeded through skullduggery. and then competitors refer to 
this *market* they had no hand in *creating* (the *hard* work is creating
a market, *anyone* can capitalize on one once created) as if they have
some "right" to it. 

Gates is the biggest teddybear
on the planet. those who are afraid of him only show they are afraid to
think as focused and seriously as he does all day. "gosh, we shouldn't have
to compete against someone who understands the market so well. what about
us? we are competition challenged!! we need a level playing field."

>    Bill Gates more than satisfies the requirements of defining a monopoly
>in Sherman and Clayton with 85% of the desktop locked in and an assualt
>with "almost" standards on the open-system server market. NT is already
>garnering more than 25% of server installations in business --big
>business, since it will be "guaranteed" compatible with their desktop 95s. 
>The rest of us, stay with the real thing.

"no fair!!! Bill Gates has a monopoly on the gizmo market!!! he should be
stopped!!! restrained!! otherwise, no other gizmo companies will succeed!!"
you have a very short memory. only several years ago most of the population
of the planet was in total skepticism about the success of windows. now
that it has succeeded, everyone believes that this market should be carved
up to everyone that wants a piece of the pie. well, Gates helped "create" the
pie in the first place. 

>   Add to MS' virtually absolute domination of the desktop and its 
>impending domination of the commercial servers the fact that MS has 95% 
>of the front line office products --WP, Spreadsheet, Database, and mail 
>with the last be non-standard to long established rules and you do have a 
>problem to be considered. 

is anyone twisting people's arms to buy his software? are there a lack of
choices because other companies are simply choosing not to compete with
MS? if MS is giving customers what they want better than anyone else, (which
is proven viscerally by *cash*, people invariably put their money where
their mouths are) why is this "a problem to be considered"?

>  Will the market correct itself?

why is MS dominance require "correction"? the fact that you consider it
an anomaly shows how naive and ridiculous your position is. MS dominance
is absolutely no accident, and anyone who claims it was achieved through
anything less than honest competition is in my opinion a whining nonthinker
who is afraid of a true, free market realized.

>  Very questionable since MS rode to 
>its position on IBM's back and capitalized on IBM's failure to recognize 
>what they had stumbled into.

beautiful, isn't it? one man can "capitalize" on the idiocy of others. oh,
poor IBM. they didn't *get*it* even after half a decade, perhaps an entire
decade. the big bad Gates Wolf  sunk his fangs into IBM. yes, Gates is a
dracula. hee, hee. perhaps you would like to start a government program
to help poor companies that don't have the brains to understand a market
when it is screaming at them in their faces? lets call it the "dog eat dog"
welfare fund.

> IBM did not fall by the market rejecting IBM 
>--the market exploded with the PC for price and diversity reasons: you 
>can not compare direct entry, full screen aplications and 
>transportability of a PC against a looped, expensive main-frame 
>connection, if the boss even approves the cost.

IBM failed because they had no brain to recognize what was happening around
them. Gates did, and his success proves the correctness of his vision. 
the market is the force that will use or throw away companies as it sees
fit. it doesn't care about loyalty to a company that has lost the edge.

> Bill Gates
>has used his operating system dominance to force hardware vendors to ship
>MS products on _every_ machine, or pay substantial penalties in rates 2
>and 3 times larger for all MS products --cheap only if it is universal. 

Gates is free to demand as much payment for his products and services that
the market will bear. if the market decides it's highway robbery, Gates
will go the way of the dodo bird.  perhaps you think that the government
should now subsidize purchase of windows 95 so that everyone can get their
copy?

>   The real issue in DOJ v. MS was that although Bill complied with a 
>consent decree, he _immediatley_ found other ways to apply the screw, and 
>many of these newer terms are even worse, but more subtle. And, there is 
>no question the verbal threats have been significantly worse.

all far less than the slimy tactics used by his detractors to limit his
ability to compete freely in the market, such as all the "antitrust" laws
supposedly relevant to his situation.

> To software 
>vendors it is the threat of denial of technical information on GUIs and 
>APIs, to hardware manufacturers it is threats of ecomnomic sanctions, 
>including publishing decertification of the platform for various WIN95 
>and NT compliant stickers, etc.

why should Bill be forced to do business with people who would love to
slit his throat? answer: he doesn't have to. he can flick his finger at
them. and if they misunderstand his right  to do this, they misunderstand
the essence of America.

>    Bill Gates is NOT an ethical businessman. If the fact was that Bill
>was able to garner his position from hard work, a better product, and a
>well-greased advertising and marketing organization would not justify the
>application of the classic Sherman and Clayton anti-trust rules; the
>market will either continue to accept them or not. 

that's absolutely what he has done, and none of your hocus-pocus flimflamery
can rebut this truth.

>    However, Bill has used his position of 85% in OSs not only to dictate 
>OS considerations, as bad as they are with DOS nothing more than a boot 
>sector virus and Windows a pretty program loader, but he has used this 
>position to dominate the applications market by bundling and forcing 
>machine integrators to include the MicroSoft applications in return for 
>the OEM discount on the operating systems.  

horrors!! you mean that if someone is successful, they have more influence
on the market?? *gasp*

> Preloading the market by those means is _not_ ethical or good
>business.

Gates is free to do whatever he likes. the market decides what is appropriate
by where it spends its money. so far, it support him. are you going to argue
with everyone who spent money on MS products and say, "no, that's not really
what you wanted!!"  whose business of it is yours to limit the freedom of
consumer choice?

> Bill Gates _clearly_ violates the FTC provisons on ethical
>conduct and restraint of trade by a monopoly or quasi-monopoly position. 

"Gates is selling all the widgets and gizmos!!! no fair!!!"

>Why were nearly 30 OEMs represented anonymously in "friend of the court"
>briefs? --and the first thing Billy's (hired virtually every high end firm
>in SF) attorneys' did was subpoena the _names_ of the consortium under the
>rules of evidence --welcome to the "Kiss of Death." 

*gasp* -- finding out who is out to slit your throat. yes, it should be
mandatory that people can anonymously attack him (as you are doing) without
any possibility of consequence. let's just put a bag over his head and
let everyone take free punches. that would be appropriate, don't you think?

>    Personally, I think it is time to dismember Bill Gates --give him a
>choice of his OS group or his applications group and literally force him
>to sell all direct or indirect interest in the one he does not choose,
>plus forego any involvement. 

unfortunately, your puffhead arguments, falsehoods, innuendoes
 and hallucinations are beginning to grip people who matter. in fact
it is becoming quite trendy to besmirch MS.

>Anyone who thinks Bill Gates or Microsoft is a benevolent 800 pound 
>gorilla has not paid attention in history classes:

anyone who thinks that business involves charity for the intellectually
challenged has not paid attention to reality of the free market.

>	power corrupts
>	    absolute power corrupts absolutely.

funny how this statement is always assumed to apply to microsoft, not to
the companies that are trying to anonymously slash his throat in courts as a 
desperate resort when they have failed the egalitarian test of the marketplace.