.Re: Re[2]: Griping about Microsoft IE4 -Reply

[Huerfano County Public Library]

I've decided to take an active participation in this discussion.


Read as follows.

-----Original Message-----
From: CMUNSON <CMUNSON at aaas.org>
To: Multiple recipients of list <web4lib at library.berkeley.edu>
Date: Monday, July 21, 1997 12:11 PM
Subject: Re[2]: Griping about Microsoft IE4 -Reply



>     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?
>

        The only thing wrong with your point here is that Microsoft is not
the ONLY company that produces web browsers.  Netscape is also a very
massive producer.  In fact, depending on what surveys you look at, some of
them declare that Netscape is more widely used than Explorer.  !!!


>================
> 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.

THERE YOU GO.  Netscape only gives their software for free to notprofits,
but Microsoft can afford to give it away to anyone!


>
>============
>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.
>
Hey, guy, that is business.  If you design something, which takes up all
your time, aren't you going to want to make a little money off  of it?


> ================
> 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.
>

Sounds like you're going over the edge.  So what if Microsoft wants to be
involved in every aspect of your online experience.  It is better to use one
company for everything that you do on the web, instead of multiple
companies.  That way, they will all run together better.!

>=================
> 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&gng-T phone"
>

Yes, people are being stupid to put IE and Netscape buttons on their pages.
However, YOU JUST NULLIFIED YOUR ARGUMENT.  By stating that both IE and
Netscape use people to put buttons on their pages, you have stated that
Netscape is being just as "bad" as IE!

>===============
>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.

What, every little thing that Microsoft does has to be analyzed?


>
>==============
>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).
>

Say what?  OF course they do, so does Netscape!


>=================
>     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.
>

What communities are affected by them?  Unemployed folks?  Why don't you
think about what you have been doing?  Is that any better?


>================
>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.
>

What, are you trying to say that if you were Bill Gates, you would close
down Microsoft, and don't do anything else?

>==================
>Yeah, like Netscape has the same R&e===D budget as Microsoft.
>-----------
>So what?  I don't think Edison or Bell or Goddard or Hollerith
>or myriad others had big R&th--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.
>

Forget the personal attacks, please.

>================
>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."
>
    Netscape does at least care somewhat for nonprofits, since they do give
their product away free to them

>>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
>
>

Nobody needs to grow up, but these arguments to help to expand the mind, so
I would appreciate a reply from ANYONE who would like to.

Brendan.