Microsoft's Monopoly, Rights & Responsibilities

+1

The OS as we currently know it is a dieing breed. In my institution we are currently servicing a significant proportion of our users virtually and the device or OS they use to access their applications or virtual desktops is irrelevant.

 

The only place microsoft has a monopoly is on the desktop (and laptops). If we include tablets and smartphones then Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly and the whole thread is rendered moot.

 

That's a very good point. Where the market is shifting, Microsoft is not king anymore. Everything is up for grabs. So the question is indeed moot.

 

Yes that was my point a few posts up. The only way to get rid of Microsoft monopoly is to move away from desktops and laptops which is whats slowly happening.

Interestingly MarkShuttle worth has apparently closed bug number 1, which was that Microsoft had the largest share of operating systems. He justifies closing it out because of all the phones tablets and the like means, as a whole, MS are no longer the holders of the largest market share of operating systems.

 

I read. Sounds a bit like sour grapes to me. I'm all for OS-diversity but I also believe that the best way to prevent one OS from gaining dominance is to create a better OS to compete.

 

But from the current position even if a superb OS which is also half the price of windows is produced would business and education make the switch. They'd be the huge IT job, loss of productivity as people adept to the software, incompatibility with old programs or other groups. You'd also need to get Dell and the like on-board probably with a hefty payment.
Those huge barriers prevent there from being more than one dominant OS. Windows would have to be absolutely dire before a competitor would have a sufficient quality advantage to gain a foothold and overcome windows brand and infrastructure advantage.

 

Nah, I don't think its sour grapes. Perhaps a motivator, a lofty goal to achieve. You have to strive for something or else what's the point. Its also half tongue in cheek, coming in the form of a bug report.

You are right of course, but I don't think even a better O/S would be enough once a company has a Microsoft like foothold. It does work for competing products that are level pegging. Think nvidia/amd. Or products that are entering the industry within a close time proximity (which I suppose is the same as the previous point).

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Linux_adopters

 

Linux will never take off as its still not casual friendly, you don't need a degree in computing anymore to operate most of them but some functions are still a pain.

On the desktop front I don't see microsoft not been number 1 for the foreseeable future even if they just service gamers. Mac OSX would probably see an increase in uptake if apple actually let people buy and install it on any system. Linux is a none player and will continue to be seen as a geeks only OS.

Mobile and tablets is different story. In the 1st world countries apple is still very much the go to for tech, in the poorer countries andriod dominates the rest. Activations are slowing off andriod though so you do wonder just how much more they can sell. Actual smartphones that can do something would be a fun figure to see but we will never see it.

Windows phone and blackberry are fighting to be last. We will likely see microsoft buy out Nokia this year if they are really serious about windows phone before Samsung buys it themselves.

They need to get the surface pro launched more quickly in more country's not 5 months later and expect people to buy it that's just crazy. Surface rt should be left to die as the sales are very poor. ( surface pro has sold nearly double what the rt has sold despite been twice as much)

 

Greetings!

Microsoft may be betting that once Metro apps ecosystem evolves RT might be more viable.

 

I think that the Surface RT is an excellent product, crippled only by the stupid decision to lock the desktop.

The ARM platform is not a problem. It is quite easy to recompile most x86 legacy programs for ARM. If the desktop remained open, publishers would do it. But closing it seriously limits its versatility. Microsoft is indeed hoping that this will encourage people to write apps for WinRT. But history tells us that what creates apps is the popularity of the platform, and what creates popularity of the platform is availability of apps. Microsoft needs to leverage the availability of legacy applications (recompiled for ARM) to make Windows RT popular, and then the WinRT apps will come, because it is simply more touch-friendly. tl;dr: people will come for the legacy applications, and stay for the apps.

However now Atom processors are actually starting to be decent, Microsoft should just release a Surface RT based on Atom, with full-fat Windows 8. It would rock. It would sell like hotcakes. But this is the old Microsoft: slow to respond flexibly.

 

Whats your point

 

Now that Linux is being developed further, and the GUI is becoming more user friendly, more businesses and governments are adopting it in the workplace. It is slowly competing with Microsoft in a previously Microsoft-dominated arena.

 

Big business banks for example use there own custom UI on top of either windows xp or windows 7. School systems are still windows xp in most places.

Microsoft office would have to be not the most universally used office software for Microsoft to lose out in big business.

Small business is another matter the local pc shop has his pcs on Linux for example as it suits his needs fine.

 

It's ironic that my company essentially runs on Microsoft software, I've just got Windows 7 Enterprise, Outlook/Office 2010 and Lync, but it's enterprise products are predominantly built on Linux and FOSS.

I think a future with OS-diversity has a place as long as open standards are adopted as they are now doing with Cloud OSes.

 

Just found this thread and a lot of very interesting points raised but it seems to me that it is still being dominated by the traditional economists and related assumptions.
Free markets and self correction cannot be applied to the reception of windows 8 without recognising that the concepts of supply/demand and market self correction are fallacies which do not adequately (or at all) take account of human behaviour. Both assume a rational response to the logic and facts which are not typical human responses. Search Google for behavioural economics.
Consider the irrationality with which people always respond to loss (the start button), the irrationality of how people always respond to things 'not invented here'. Our sense of loss aversion plays a role in our opinions here as well as the costs of not just replacing but of learning new software and the opportunity cost of that time and the productivity curve of learning new skills.

The cost of switching in the smartphone market (from winmo) was largely eradicated by apple and then Google by removing the learning curve and notably there was not the same inertia to be overcome that surrounds the volume of windows compatible software. The smartphone market for these reasons is not a valid comparator for the wider question of MS responsibilities to the desktop OS market.

Going back to the original questions, I think there is a psychological contract in place that MS have complied with historically; to maintain support for substantive periods and to align that period to population, to offer a shallow learning curve, and to (in the main) offer backward compatibility.
The radical redesign of win 8 UI violated that contract and people reacted accordingly, but that does not mean that people will go to the competitive products and incur the greater loss associated with doing so. Had MS offered the start button option from the outset this would merely have been a psy contract breach instead of violation and would not have elicited such a strong emotional response in people feeling held to ransom to the whims of MS. Let's face it, Apple are far more dictatorial in telling us how we should use our things than MS but it is expected and therefore accepted from them to a much greater extent. Ultimately the degree to which people and organisations will or can vote with their feet is restricted. A viable competitor product cannot be as good, it must be substantially better to become viable and overcome not the barriers to entry but the emotional and loss aversion characteristics which come into effect when considering a move in this marketplace.

Regulation would simply move the social/psy contract to a body with less control and likely result in a worse adherence performance over time. Instead I would say that ms need to learn from this. Similarly the wider MS user population has in many ways breached the contract on this side by maintaining use of XP AND IE6 long after the legitimacy of rationale for maintenance expired -suggesting that maybe MS ought to take a slightly more dictatorial line if 'we' are unable or unwilling to change when it is in out best overall interest.

I think that the issue is too irrationally complex to fully resolve with rational dissection and discussion...

Sent from my MZ604 using Tapatalk

 

MS dont have a monopoly first and foremost

If you include IOS and Andriod they are not even the most used OS.

 

When I created this thread I had specific demographics and sectors in mind, and wasn't thinking in terms of the computer industry generally. No company would be able to meaningfully monopolize all of computing now, because it covers such a vast range of uses, professions, ages and lifestyles. I was thinking of the professional sectors: at the root of it all, it just troubles me that Microsft spent two decades fostering a good relationship with the white collar business, medical and education sectors, tailored their most noted products (Office and Windows) to those sectors and then burnt the entire bridge by making a frontend for Windows that's heavily entertainment- and touchscreen-focused and presents a very poor option for those professionals.

Office is still there, of course, and can be bought for Macs, but if that's the proposed alternative it doesn't make a whole lot of business sense from Microsoft's POV. I think this entire decision to exclude professional sectors from Windows made very little business sense.

I guess I just feel sorry for businesses and schools. For 20 years, Microsoft had their back and was the only sensible choice, and then overnight Microsoft decided that businesses and schools didn't need Windows any more. I was left with an unquantifiable sense of injustice - one which Nexxo successfully rationalized away with economist speak (no disrespect, Nexxo, you made very compelling points), until I was left with no concrete complaint, just a sense of lack. The lack of a business OS.

 

And that's an assumption, right there. I can think of many admin staff in the NHS who would love a simple Start Screen with their Office suite and essentials on it in big, friendly tile icons. No more diffing through cascading Start Menus, trying to remember the path under which Microsoft Word is located:



These tiles, being live, can also draw their attention to important messages and tasks that need doing on log-on (urgent letters, tasks with deadlines, company memo's etc), and act as dynamic post-its (click on it and it takes you to whatever task or information it relates to). The Start Screen is still a bit rough, but it could have all the information they need, right there on the screen.

When you look at Samsung's Galaxy Tab Pro 12.2, you already see that things are moving beyond the desktop with grid of icons, to dynamic tiles/windows that can be resized and rearranged to suit, and flash up all the main info you need right on the start screen:



If Microsoft can be accused of anything, it's not developing the Start Screen enough to create a compelling vision of just how good it could be.

 

Brilliant idea, I wish I had thought of this.