Microsoft: We Are Not an American Mega-Corp, Really!

this has more to do with their loses overseas on a few fronts and their belief that it has something to do with their 'big brother company' from America vibe...

Examples being:

1) Microsoft loses in Munich to linux

2) Microsoft loses anti trust in S. Korea

and

3) Microsoft losing market share in 3rd world countries to cheaper or pirated copies, thus necessitating lower pricing and packages.

The recent folding to the US Gov might just be a thank you for the warm fuzzies they receive from the current political environment.

thing is...they've already been declared as a monopoly. That happened a few years back and they haven't changed their tactics one bit.

Install it early and often, better than building Gates a new mansion.

Every time MS is declared a monopoly is just a slap across the face to Apple and Linux as being of little consequence. The people decided what they wanted and it's only a monopoly if there are no other choices whatsoever which has never been the case.

No comparison to the phone company in the 80s or cable TV where you have one provider or nothing at all, there are options to MS and just because you don't like them doesn't make MS a monopoly.

It's been a silly situation and still remains so that governments are trying to dictate choices in an open market and fining a company for being the most successful.

All the governments have to do is use Linux or Mac and send a message instead of getting the lawyers involved as the government buys a shitload of computers.

That's a budget only a mega corp could afford to spend on it's image. How ironic :-p

Mac and Linux are both entirely viable and robust options to MS these days. The dominance of MS is no longer due entirely to MS's current practices, it's now the 'fault' of user lethargy. The saying that no one ever got fired for recommending MS is just too true.

The fact is, retailers absolutely have the ability to provide alternatives now, and users have the ability to demand those alternatives. They just don't.

I dare you to use IE on Microsoft's own bcentral website. Go ahead. TRY.

Even with two or three of their sites listed as trusted sites, and even after being passed around back-and-forth like a pin pong ball between passport and bcentral for sign-in, the forms and menu choices are all hosed or variously unavalable as you try and use the (fee-based) services.

But in Firefox it works like a charm. Go figure.

I agree with the open office comment for the most part...until you use their spreadsheet program. After fighting it for months, I broke down and bought excel.

Let me tell you I tried *everything* NOT to buy Microsoft.

I read it as fighting the 'american' part of the the 'huge american company'.
Did you guys all see it as fighting the 'huge' part of the term?
Odd. :)

it's only a monopoly if there are no other choices whatsoever which has never been the case.

Well not really, that would be what's called a 'pure monopoly'. It's not black v white, pure monopoly v a perfectly level playing field where an unfettered market works well for both consumer and provider - the point of the anti-trust moves was surely that the dominance of MS could cause an unhealthy situation in the market, de facto denying consumers' choice (and thus making the best buying decisions on price, quality of product etc). Ah, but everyone has the choice to buy elsewhere and other products, you cry. Technically yes, and the informed will go out and get Firefox, Linux, Open Office etc, but Joe Punter often isn't aware of these choices 'Hey, computers run Windows, that's what they do.' You can sigh and say he

know, but that doesn't alter the fact he's making limited decisions in a monopolistic situation.

just because you don't like them doesn't make MS a monopoly ... it's been a silly situation and still remains so that governments are trying to dictate choices in an open market and fining a company for being the most successful.

Slightly lazy shot that isn't it? I may reasonably disapprove of what a company does to gain its success ... doesn't mean I disapprove of success. By all means treat with contempt anyone who wants to bash a company just because it's big/successful/American etc but the arguments against MS's monopolistic position are based on much more than that. Does Washington really think 'successful = bad = let's bash them'? Companies are ALWAYS regulated and controlled in civilised countries - I'd argue that the whole idea of a truly 'open market' is flawed anyway, but that's another argument.