Gates history

[fc@all.net (Dr. Frederick B. Cohen)]

Not that this subject matter is relevent to cypherounks, but...

> 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 respectfully disagree with the analogy.  In a competitive market
economy, you can indeed grow larger by killing off the competition.  In
fact, that's the whole idea of unfettered capitolism.  This was tried
100 years ago and the result was monopolies which in the end eliminated
competition and ended up reducing innovation and productivity while
increasing prices.  Then the US government decided to end this by
introducing laws to limit monopolies.  The broke up AT+T and essentially
forced IBM to become weak in the name of fairness, but when Bill Gates
brought Microsoft into the same position, the government failed to act
(and is continuing to do so).  This is (in my opinion) because Ron
Raegan was so influential as president and heavily favored unfettered
free trade. 

> 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.

Inuendo or not, there are clear facts that have been widely documented
regarding Microsoft (Bill Gates doesn't run it alone you know!).  Among
them are:

	- Microsoft forces dealers to buy only Microsoft software bundles
	if they want to use ANY microsoft products in their PCs at discount
	prices.

		I have been personally caught in this one.  I had a calendar
		product a few years back that was marketed to about 1,000 of
		the largest microcomputer dealers and bundlers in the US.  Not
		one would buy the product, and the reason they gave was that
		they were not allowed to bundle any non-Microsoft-approved
		software without losing their ability to sell the Microsoft
		bundles.

		This is not a case of sour grapes - it's just plan fact. That
		is what the dealers said - not just one of them.

	- Microsoft has historically used undocumented operating system calls
	which they provided details on to select software companies and which
	they used for their own products, but which they did not release
	to the greater market place.  Without the use of these undocumented calls,
	many operating system features were not usable.

		The net effect was that companies not on the Microsoft chosen list
		were delayed in delivering new versions of products to meet new
		versions of operating systems, giving Microsoft and companies they
		worked with a market advantage.

	- Microsoft holds a dominant market position.

		This is a necessary component of the situation because if the
		same facts held for a non-dominant company, it would be within
		bounds of the law and would not stifle free trade.	

> 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".

Nobody is disagreeing with this.  That is the desirable part of what
Gates and Microsoft did - 20 years ago.  But the standards we hold and
the requirements we place on companies increase with their size and
market dominance.  This is done in the name of keeping a thriving
competitive environment.  In today's environment, Microsoft is
dominating the market and thus reducing innovation (or so the theory
goes) by using anticompetitive methods, and that is the issue.

	In my personal opinion, they are doing something far worse.  By
	dominating the market with inferior products, they are essentially
	forcing the world to build an artificially weakenned global network
	environment.  The net effect will be years of new versions of the
	Microsoft product line without a single bug fix (they call them
	feature enhancements).

> 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.

This is factually inaccurate.

	Microsoft created inferior versions of existing products that
	have only come to market dominance because of anticompetitive
	methods.  For example, Excel has numerour bugs and produces
	wrong answers at a rate far in excess of 123.  It is truly an
	inferior product, and yet it now dominates the market - solely
	because it is bundled with other microsoft products and because
	interoperation between 123 and Microsoft products is delayed due
	to undocumented features and changes in the underlying Microsoft
	operating system. 

	Microsoft did not bet its fortune, nor did Bill Gates, on Excel,
	WordPerfect, or any other of their applications.  With a few
	exceptions, they took existing products, built their own versions,
	used inside information and their dominant market position to force
	the products on PC dealers, and continue to do so.

...
> 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.

It's just not accurate.  IBM, until recently, was barred from selling more than
a certain dollar value worth of units.  Bill Gates didn't build Microsoft alone
either.  He has thousands of employees.  Admitidly he was a driving force, but
his team members are largely responsible for his success, and I think he would
readily agree to this if you asked him.

> 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."

That's not what people are saying.  They are saying that Microsoft is
breaking the law of the land and has been for a long time and that is
why they have market dominance.  Whether the law has been broken or not,
you are mischaracterizing what has been said about Microsoft.

Enough of this - sorry for the noise, and let's get back to what
cypherpunks are about - cyphers.

-> See: Info-Sec Heaven at URL http://all.net/
Management Analytics - 216-686-0090 - PO Box 1480, Hudson, OH 44236