What is Digg?46 Comments
- vedichymn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Microsoft has spent hundreds of millions of dollars (could very well be billions at this point) on legal costs and settlements for their anti-trust lawsuits. Hell, their RealNetworks settlement alone was $761 million dollars.
I would imagine they're a bit wary about doing anything that's going to end up costing them another billion dollars. - rileyjt, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12I find it curious as to why they have to make these concessions in their Office products. Is MSOffice actually considered a monopoly? Why are they not allowed to at least match the exact same features that their competitors are offering? This just baffles me.
Ditto for integrating the PDF/XPS functionality into the OS. Why not put them BOTH in there and let the customers decide which ones to use?
Anti-trust worries should never be about limiting the options for the consumer as seems to be happening here. It should be about offering additional options. - dkm201, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8it means one of your friend dugg it.
- qualar, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10I think it's about time people gave Microsoft a break. It seems whatever they do they are damned. In a lot of cases MS is criticised for doing things that lots of other companies are doing.
- rileyjt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7@deadbaby
Just FYI, having a monopoly is not against the law. There is nothing wrong with having a wildly successful product ;)
Leveraging that monopoly to drive your competitors out of business is against the law though. However I fail to see how using an open format is an anti-trust issue. I mean this is one of the changes we want from Microsoft right? We want them to use more open formats instead of making their own and locking people into formats that they own. Now they are being threated because they want to use an open format? What kind of sense does this make? - seanspace6, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7if the digg has a green banner and a yellow star, what does that mean?
- craigosbourne, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7i can bet you alot of people dont actully know what anti-trust is or what it means for them, ( what does it mean) ,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitrust - qualar, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Thank Skunny, it just get angered when MS release anything new it has a barrage of complaints. Two recent Diggs said it all to me. One was MS was releasing IE7 and it had tabbed browsing. All people could do was insult it, saying Mozilla etc had had tabbed browsing for years (which i agree, but at least they are adding it now). But the next Digg was about Mozilla new browser with Antiphishing, but not a single person mentioned that IE7 had that before them.
I think what it comes down too is that Linux users are more vocal. - jrbrewin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5last time i checked, people were allowed a second chance. I think microsoft learnt a lot of hard lessons in the past 10 years, and rightly so they have a bad reputation because of it, but people need to look at some of the great stuff they're doing. Yes, a large proportion of it doesn't appeal to joe bloggs public, sitting at home, but some of it does.
ultimately, if microsoft feel they can't innovate, at the very minimum, to keep up with competition, that in itself produces an unfair playing field. Not that it bothers most corporate players anyway, if they can download and distribute the pdf export functionality with their office AIPs they will be happy... and if it forces adobe to either
a) reduce the price of acrobat, or
b) make acrobat a half decent and intuitive application,
then that has to be good for the rest of us too. - rileyjt, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Right - MS has been too successful, therefore they need to sit around for a few years and let the other technology companies catch up. Once they have handed some marketshare over to Apple, Adobe, etc, then they can be allowed to improve their products.
- node3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@qualar
Yes, they are doing exactly what other companies are doing. That's not what they are in trouble for. They are in trouble for abusing their monopoly position. Now they cannot be trusted to do many things that other companies are free to do. MS is sort of like the the corporate version of "griefers" in MMORPGs.
@jbrewin
"last time i checked, people were allowed a second chance"
Three problems.
#1 is that Microsoft isn't a person (legally, they are treated as people, although you are talking morality, I'm sure).
#2 Many people are punished severely by our courts, never being given a second chance.
#3 Microsoft *was* given a second chance. They signed a consent decree in 1994, which they later violated, and were successfully prosecuted for. Microsoft has been successfully prosecuted for their monopolistic practices in other nations as well. In every case, Microsoft has flaunted the courts and their rulings, and have shown no remorse, nor given any reason to deserve any further "second chances". - gwjc, on 10/12/2007, -12/+15No offense intended dude, but why do you have kevinrose on your friends list if you don't care what he diggs?
- neurokaotix, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6Steve Ballmer said that, not Bill Gates.
- EgoDemens, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4They own a damn good majority of the desktops out there so when they decide implement something of theirs it literally sweeps the world. If Microsoft had added Adobe Acrobat to Office and payed Adobe for every copy sold I'm sure you would've heard nothing from Adobe on the matter. Your analogy is broken on two levels 1) No automaker can claim a 90%+ world wide market share and 2) Automakers put in car stereos made by stereo companies.
- geekee, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4"There are different rules for companies that have been convicted of abusing their monopoly position."
and those rules are not stated anywhere, for the most part (only some specifics based on past activity that wasn't liked). Before you are convicted of anything, the rules are very vague. Microsoft now has to guess what a judge may think of any product they offer now. Apple, who has not been convicted of anything yet, certainly has lawyers thinking about how far they can push vendor lock-in with iPod before they get into trouble, but they can't look it up anywhere, because the laws are so vague. - OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It is obvious already that Vista will have to be cleared by the DoJ before it can be officially released to the public. I think Symantec, Adobe, Google and countless others will want to make sure the DoJ doesn't accidentally "forget."
Let us hope for a very long, and detailed investigation... - OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1[quote]for years microsoft have used their weight to bully people into submission, and now it's coming back at them as other companies realise they don't need to be microsoft's bitch to be successful. microsoft's had this coming to them for years[/quote]
I wholeheartedly agree. - phlogiston99, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Or it can be construed as industry collusion to milk more money out of business (or even plain consumers) Not only you need the latest office version (to read your partners' files that can't be bothered to save in the earlier version) but if you want to make a PDF, chuck another $300 (or whatever the price of Acrobat full version is) to be able to do that.
Even though alternatives exist, I can't imagine any corporate consumers would risk a cheaper product. Free alternatives to Office have existed for a while and I don't see them widely adopted. - samdu, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3They should have thought about that before they started throwing their monopoly-driven weight around years ago.
- qualar, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5Why is it people attack MS all the time, but not the likes of Apple as much.
MS Antitrust for inc Media player in OS - Apple include Itunes plus lots of other stuff in their OS, plus with the Ipod your forced to use itunes (some 3rd party apps are avail)
And can someone tell me why is it wrong for Windows to ic Media Player and IE, and Office to inc Save to PDF etc.
You dont see Alpine sueing Ford for preinstalling a car radio because it takes the right of the purchaser to choose a radio type. You dont see Michellin sueing BMW for putting tyres on its cars. Etc etc.
Based on the MS antitrust principle when you buy a car it would not have a Radio, Tyres, Wheels, Sat Nav, Engine etc. - saifatlast, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3It would be funnier if you got it right.
- fantasticFlan, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4There are different rules for companies that have been convicted of abusing their monopoly position.
Have you not heard this before or do you think we've forgotten and your argument will suddenly make sense? - finowns, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Apple hasn't been convicted of anything?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v._Apple_Computer
There's more than that.. - cookedchicken, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0As I posted yesterday... you have to be careful with so-called "open" standards put out by Adobe and Microsoft. Both Microsoft and Adobe often have a strange definition of what an "open" standard is. "Open" to me means standards produced within a democratic, accessible, and meaningfully "open" standards process; standards that can be implemented without asking Microsoft's permission or signing a license agreement which demands royalty payments or places the licensee under onerous obligations. Unfortunately, both Microsoft and Adobe promise us "open" standards, but rarely do these standards mean we get them "open" in the sense of implementable within an open source framework, free of legal encumbrance. Instead, the standards we get from MS and Adobe, like XPS are quasi-open, and are used to help these large companies become private tollbooths on the Internet highways.
- deadbaby, on 10/12/2007, -6/+6It's simple. Microsoft was tried and convicted for being a monopoly. Apple and others were not. The only person to blame is Bill Gates and the rest of Microsoft's management for abusing their monopoly power. Read up on DOJ vs. Microsoft for the details. Microsoft was guilty of abusing their monopoly status in a variety of ways.
- node3, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4Yes, Office is considered a monopoly. Monopolies are not necessarily bad, but they can be. When a company abuses their monopoly position, they are (supposed to be) punished.
It's a *good thing* that Microsoft is afraid of running afoul of anti-trust laws. It's a *good thing* that they are taking the safe route and removing features. Of course, in normal circumstances, it would be a very bad thing to remove such useful features, but Microsoft has shown they are not responsible enough to be trusted to respect the consumer and compete fairly and legally.
In other words, having a Microsoft that is afraid of anti-trust lawsuits and removes features from its software is better than having a Microsoft that acts as Microsoft has always acted.
I would absolutely *love* to have a Microsoft that I could respect, that I could trust to make quality products, even if they maintain 90% market share. I don't begrudge them their success, I do hate them for their arrogant, anti-competitive, anti-consumer behavior. If the fear of running afoul of anti-trust lawsuits is what it takes to make Microsoft good, then by all means, yes, that's exactly what should happen to them. - OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1MS is a corrupt organization. MS is a monopoly. MS has done many evil(tm) things of which they have been convicted in a court of law.
You can mod me down, but you can't mod down the truth!
MS, your day of reckoning is coming. Renounce the Dark Side, or you will pay the ultimate price. - geekee, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2What amusing is that Standard Oil, the classic anti-trust case leading to a company break-up by govt., wasn't guilty of any of the anti-competitve behavior listed in the article you reference:
" * Bid rigging
* Predatory pricing
* Price fixing
* Tying
* Vendor lock-in
* Group boycotts
" - cookedchicken, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0I'm not going to feel bad for a company that has 50 billion in cash in the bank as the result of their past anti-competitive activities. I'm sick of all the Microsoft-apologists on digg.
- redxii, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Microsoft: "We're gonna move this color 5 pixels to the left."
US DoJ/EU a day later after having a lunch and sleeping in the same bed with a representative from Company X: "ANTI-TRUST!! Company X owns that pixel color in that location and you are voilating their patent and stealing their profits!" - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2There are? Where are they put down into law?
"Whereupon the party in the first part (Microsoft) has been previously convicted of monopolistic abuse, they shall be compelled to limit marginal additional features to their products to no more than 5% per annum or that approved by the party in the second part (Digg Users)." - xemumanic, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1We all seem to forget that because of this unfair *****, users arent going to get a major feature they've been asking for for some time.
Suddenly because its MS unfair crap that wouldnt fly with anyone else should be OK? - stoops, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1hey look at this, I just wasted your time by you reading this hahah man I am probably the best at doing something like becuase I have never seen anyone with this skill. I am thankful for everyone who read this.
- deadbaby, on 10/12/2007, -9/+6They are a convicted monopoly so no, they won't get a second chance. They lost and they have to pay the price for it.
- pabster, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2Well, let's be brutally honest.
IE 7 sucks, and Vista blows. There, I said it. - SKunny, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1@qualar
I so agree with you!!! - acurism, on 10/12/2007, -9/+4Good, its about time people bring the heat on MS. MS should have had this coming to them a long time ago!
MS has been bringing the heat on everybody else for years, why can't others turn the flames on them?
If things like this didn't happen and with MS sticking their nose in every market imaginable, MS would be in every market imaginable, using their money and brute force to bully everybody like they always have.
Microsoft, how does it feel to get a dose of your own medicine? - Subcranium, on 10/12/2007, -5/+0Not yet resolved! Microsoft face pressure!
- zenlunatic, on 10/12/2007, -16/+10maybe because hes an idiot like 99% of other digg users
- bradleyland, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2I'm sorry, could you repeat that, tlogank? All I heard was, "Waaa waa waaaaaa, I've got no legs!"
- projektmayhem, on 10/12/2007, -12/+5for years microsoft have used their weight to bully people into submission, and now it's coming back at them as other companies realise they don't need to be microsoft's bitch to be successful. microsoft's had this coming to them for years
- zenlunatic, on 10/12/2007, -13/+3"***** analysts. I will ***** bury those guys like I did alan turning and steve jobs and all those other *****." -Steve Ballmer
- tlogank, on 10/12/2007, -16/+4I am just goofing off-I only did it to like 4 articles because I knew they would all make frontpage. I just thought it was funny because I went to his profile and 99% of the articles he dugg have made it to the frontpage...I mean, come on...that is not because everyone thought all those articles were cool, and while a majority were probably great articles, they all probably got 100 diggs based on the fact that some people treat Kevin like a god. Not to take away credit, he is a tech-genuius judging by this site...but it's funny how every article he diggs immediately gets dugg by atleast 100 or more people.
- zenlunatic, on 10/12/2007, -25/+12***** kevin rose i will ***** bury that guy
-bill gates - tlogank, on 10/12/2007, -27/+7Ok, I admit, it is annoying now, I really just did it on 4 articles he dugg...go back and review my comments if you don't believe me...I was just being goofy...so go ahead, digg me down, block me from your comment list, etc...but sheesh-some people need to lighten up. Atleast I am not going around posting links or anything.
- tlogank, on 10/12/2007, -33/+9This article will make it to the frontpage...not because everyone here thinks it is so interesting or cool...but because Kevin Rose dugg it.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is