Griping about Microsoft IE4 -Reply

Mon Jul 21 13:44:16 EDT 1997

     Since some one obviously want to continue this thread, I'll include 
     some responses below. If megacorps like Microsoft bother you, read 
     ahead. If you prefer all of your choices in life to be determined in 
     some corporate boardroom, please delet now.

     Chuck

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Griping about Microsoft IE4 -Reply
Author:  Dan Lester <DLESTER at bsu.idbsu.edu> at Internet
Date:    7/21/97 9:55 AM

>NO FLAMES follow, though some common sense 
>does.....and perhaps a touch of sarcasm.  
>o-)

>cyclops

     Appeals to common sense are not a very good debate tactic, cyclops! We 
     obviously look at the world differently.

>>> CMUNSON <CMUNSON at aaas.org> 07/16/97 10:55am 
>>>
     Anyone who follows the computer industry can see that
Microsoft is a  monopoly in that industry and that it wants to 
monopolize the  entertainment and information industries that 
are online.
---------------
>I should know better than to respond to such nonsense, but 
>I'm gonna give it a brief shot since it is Monday morning 
>and I'm tired and testy.  o-)

     Isn't Microsoft the biggest computer company around? Maybe I was just 
     dreaming, but didn't they announce record profits for yet another 
     quarter? Don't they have a broad range of products in a variety of 
     computer markets, if not most of them? Isn't it true that the war over 
     the word processing, spreadsheet, and database markets is over, with 
     Microsoft being the clear winner? Which company makes the operating 
     system that resides on an overwhelming majority of PCs in the world? 
     Which company is designing a web broswer/internet app that will come 
     pre-installed with said operating system with built-in ways of 
     discouraging the use of competing products?

>Big deal.  Netscape, Apple, IBM, and a zillion other 
>companies want the same thing.  IBM and Apple each were 
>leaders for a while.  They aren't.  There are surely no
>guarantees that MS will be there forever.  This is the way that 
>business WORKS, whether MS or Sears or Prudential
>Insurance.  All want to be the biggest, best, richest, etc. 
>Nothing new here.  And, yes, it isn't uniquely American.  
>o-)

     DUH. That's how capitalism works Cyclops, but some of us want a 
     different way. Give me enough time and I'll dish dirt on those other 
     comapanies. My main POINT, is that when one company DOMINATES an 
     industry, it takes away your choices. If all your town has are 
     Strabucks, Barnes and Noble, and WalMart, and all the other stores are 
     gone, what are you going to do if you are dissatisfied? Whine about 
     how this is the American way and we'd better get used to it? Or try 
     and stop it?

================
 It has a  project called Sidewalk that is an attempt to
eliminate Yahoo. It gives its IE browser away FOR FREE. 
--------------
>So does Netscape.  I'll bet 90 percent of those reading this 
>list did NOT pay for their Netscape.  And lots of publishers 
>do deals like this, too.   I call it the "Cocaine Theory of 
>Marketing", which despite the title doesn't mean it is bad. 
>Ask WestLaw or others about their almost-free pricing to 
>law schools so that the young lawyers will be hooked when 
>they go out into the real world.  As to trying to eliminate 
>Yahoo with Sidewalk, you're making an apples and oranges 
>comparison.  

     I've never paid for Netscape, since I've worked in 
     academia and for non-profits. Maybe Netscape should 
     re-think their pricing strategy. Ugh, wait, Microsoft 
     is giving away their browser to EVERYBODY and it comes 
     pre-installed. Microsoft is trying to corner the market 
     on "online city guides," which if you ask me doesn't 
     seem to be a very profitable market.

============
It is attempting to privatize image collections (Corbis and 
Bettmann) and trying to buy librarians' silence with puny 
donations (Bill's worth 36 BILLION).
---------------
>Almost ALL significant image collections are NOT free, 
>especially to replicate images.  Bettman wasn't free before. 
>So, who cares who is getting the bucks from it.? 

I do. My artist friends are concerned. Bettman is the tip of 
the iceberg. Microsoft wants to create a vast archive of 
digitized images and some of them will be public domain. 
Guess what, Microsoft is going to charge for everything, even 
the public domain stuff.

 ================
 Microsoft is trying to dominate the online travel industry with
Expedia. It's even trying to colonize, no, assimilate Star Trek 
fan sites with Continuum.
-------------------
>Might we getting a little over the edge here??   What about 
>their fried chicken restaurants trying to take over the Colonel, 
>and their new MicroTaco shops trying to run TacoBell out of 
>business?  And are you wearing your new Microsoft
>underwear today?   I am.    o-)

     Sounds to me like Microsoft is going over the edge. The facts speak for 
     themselves cyclops, Microsoft is pretty serious about this Expedia thing, 
     and the Continuum thing is part of the Microsoft Network. If you ask me, 
     it's pretty clear that Microsoft want to be involved in every aspect of 
     someone's online experience, from their web browser to their word 
     processor, from how they get travel information via Sidewalk and tickets 
     via Expedia to the web content they access.

=================
 It's managed to get webmasters to stupidly put Microsoft IE
button  ADVERTISEMENTS on their websites, WITHOUT 
EVEN PAYING THEM. 
-----------------------
>Well, so what?  No one is making anyone put IE buttons on 
>their web pages.  Nor is anyone making webmasters put NS
>buttons on their web pages.  I'll leave the counting to you, but 
>I'll bet there are more NS buttons on pages than IE buttons. 
>And what about all the other buttons for all sorts of other 
>software, from backoffice stuff to HTML Editors?  Are all
>those folks inherently evil too?   (either the webmasters or the 
>companies who provide the software and buttons?)

It's probably small potatoes compared to how they dominate other 
markets, but these practices are obviously an attempt to emulate 
Nike's marketing success. Get that logo everywhere and get the poor 
saps to pay the company for the honor of advertising their product.

Why do people put those damn IE and Netscape buttons on their pages? 
It's like a company putting an ad in the yellow pages and including 
a graphic that says: "Best reached with an AT&T phone"

===============
Its site builder program for webmasters is another attempt to 
get the techies hooked on Microsoft products. This idea that 
Microsoft has about including "channels" to corporate 
websites in its new browser is  pretty scary too. This is an 
attempt to take back the web by the advertisers and the big 
corporations. 
-------------------
>Well, I'm glad no OTHER companies try to get you hooked on 
>their products, whether beer, soda, food, clothes, cars, etc. 
>Have you ever read ANY literature in the field of brand loyalty?
 >Car companies are always particularly interested in such,
>and so are computer companies.  Look at the figures in some 
>reviews where these are provided.

Duh, i understand marketing. I'm trying to point out what 
Microsoft is doing (which is similar to other companies) so 
that people will THINK about these things. The point isn't 
that Microsoft is an exception to the rule, the point is too 
look at them critically.

==============
They are frightened about how  the web lets the small gal put 
up a website that looks as good as the megacorp. 
------------------------
>Not the world's best shot at political correctness, there.  But 
>you tried.  And I don't see that as Microsoft being frightened. 
>The more the "small/large man/woman" can do, the more it
>HELPS Microsoft, as that gives them a bigger market. 
>They're after more and more of the consumer market for 
>electronic services, as shown by their purchase of a 
>cable company.  And, THAT is where the serious money is 
>to them.....not in the big companies.  Remember, IBM made 
>that mistake and it cost them dearly.

Political correctness? Whatever. Aha. In this paragraph 
you are showing some critical thinking about Microsoft! 
WebTV. We haven't even mentioned that one. Microsoft is a 
very astute company. They were burned by the Internet 
explosion, so now they want to control the onramp (which 
the masses will use).

=================
     Is there no end to Microsoft's reach and ambitions?
-------------------
>Who knows?  Who cares?  What about yours, mine, or those
>of others on the list?  Are reach and ambitions bad all of a 
>sudden?  

Yes, reach and ambitions are important when we are talking 
about a megacorp, and not some silly comparison to us as 
individuals. There is no method to hold these companies 
accountable, especially by the communities that are affected by 
them. And if you want to wave off this concern, I suggest that 
you go to some small town and talk to some unemployed folks 
devastated by the globalization of the economy. They can 
explain to you why it pays to care about these things.

================
That is just some of the evidence and it should concern us. It 
doesn't have to be THIS WAY. IF MICROSOFT HAS
DESTROYED THE ALTERNATIVES HOW ARE WE 
SUPPOSED TO BE ABLE TO GO CHOOSE THEM? 
------------------
>I sure don't see what they've destroyed as alternatives.  If you 
>mean Apple, it isn't Microsoft...it is their own slow suicide 
>ever since they decided to keep everything proprietary.  IBM 
>played that one right, even though they've kept trying to invent 
>their own weird things that they couldn't sell, ever since. 

No, I don't mean Apple, which failed because of its own stupid 
decision-making. Think big picture cyclops.

==================    
Yeah, like Netscape has the same R&D budget as Microsoft. 
-----------
So what?  I don't think Edison or Bell or Goddard or Hollerith 
or myriad others had big R&D budgets, either.  In fact, the 
best developments often come from everywhere EXCEPT the
big companies.  
=================
If you want to collude with the Microsoft Empire, so be it. 
-------------
>This is getting almost as good as some of the conspiracy
>freaks in places like the Flight-800 list or the alt.conspiracy 
>groups.  o-)

Oh, so now you want to diss me by lumping me in with the 
conspiracy nuts. What an intellectual achievement! That's a fairly 
common ploy by those who support the status quo and are afraid to 
question the system--label the critics as "wackos." This is a 
personal attack and not something that has to do with my 
arguments. If this post had simply disagreed with my arguments, i 
wouldn't have responded.

================
Have you attempted to convey to Netscape what libraries 
need? Has anyone? I would think they would be more 
receptive than Microsoft.
-------------------
>Of course libraries have done so.  I've done so.  And there is 
>one thing you're forgetting.....that NEITHER of them has 
>libraries as any significant part of their market....never have, 
>never will.  I learned that one from IBM in the late sixties, 
>and it still is true.  Libraries aren't much of a market to 
>ANYONE except relatively small specialty companies, like library 
>equipment sellers, bookstack builders, specialty book
>wholesalers or dealers, etc, etc.  

     You are taking this paragraph out of context. In the original context 
     i suggested that another writer try and contact these companies. I've 
     been in library systems long enough to know that libraries don't mean 
     squat to computer companies, but you can at least TRY to interact with 
     them. It's better than throwing our hands up and saying "that's the 
     way the world is, I can't change it."

>This is the real world.   We do NOT live in an ivory tower 
>any more, if we ever did.  We need to grow up and learn to 
>deal with it.

>cheers

>dan

     Yes, Dan, this is the real world, although you and I interpret it 
     differently. I certainly do not live in an ivory tower, since I've 
     outlined to you how things work. An yes, let's all grow up and move 
     beyong arguments about how the other person needs to grow up.

     I find that offensive and intellectually dishonest.

     Chuck