The Microsoft Method
Concerned Observer
The following document has been circulating
confidentially across the country this week.
There are several case studies of companies
that have partnered with Microsoft and
what has happened to them afterwards.
Thought you may be interested in reading it and
creating your own opinion.
The Microsoft Method
"We are challenging old and established businesses like
newspapers, travel agencies, automobile dealers,
entertainment guides, travel guides, Yellow Page directories,
magazines and over time many other areas.
We must devise ways of working with them
or winning away their customers
and revenue streams."
** Three-year Microsoft strategy memo, quoted by
The Wall Street Journal, June 5, 1997
October, 1997
****************************************************************-
The Microsoft Method
Microsoft Corp. is a triumph of American entrepreneurism,
technical knowledge and business savvy. In just 20 years
it has grown from modest roots to the undisputed international
powerhouse of software development. Financially the company
is wildly successful; Forbes magazine lists three Microsoft
executives among the six wealthiest Americans. The net worth
of Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates increased during 1996 at a
rate of $400 million per week.
Given this phenomenal record, a logical question would be
how Microsoft can continue to produce results that will
satisfy its shareholders, who have developed extremely high
expectations. Can the software business sustain the company's
growth, or will Microsoft need to expand its business horizons?
Bill Gates has insisted that Microsoft has no intention of
venturing far from its core software business. At the same time,
the company has entered other industries including travel services,
automobile sales and media. In June of 1997 it announced MSFDC,
a joint venture with First Data Corp. for the processing of
electronic bill presentment and payment. The joint venture
is run by Microsoft's Desktop Finance division, which is also
in charge of the company's electronic banking, investment
and insurance initiatives.
Microsoft has honed the forming of business alliances as a
tactic for gaining entry into other industries. This paper
will document cases in which Microsoft has built such alliances,
learned the trade from the "partner" company or companies,
and later either became their competitor or pressured them
into deals favorable to Microsoft by suggesting that
it might do so. For example:
** Microsoft collaborated with Auto-By-Tel, an online
automotive buying service, for a year-and-a-half. Then,
after learning the business from Auto-By-Tel, Microsoft
started a competing business.
** Citrix Systems partnered with Microsoft to develop
a computer networking product. After the product proved
successful, Microsoft notified Citrix that it might develop
a competing product. Citrix stock plummeted on the news.
The two companies struck a deal favorable to Microsoft after
weeks of negotiations, and Citrix survived. Its stock
recovered, though not to its previous high.
** Stac Electronics charged in court that Microsoft tried
to negotiate Stac into an unfavorable position, and then
copied Stac's product when Stac refused to cooperate.
A jury agreed with Stac, and awarded it $120 million in damages.
** In separate cases, two fledging software companies,
Micrographx and Go Corporation, decided in principle to
partner with Microsoft to launch new products. In both
instances, Microsoft announced it would develop its own
version of the products after having been shown their
source code by the partners.
** Bill Gates assured bankers in 1995 that Microsoft
wasn't interested in collecting transaction fees because
the business does not offer a significant revenue stream.
However, Nathan Myrhvold, Microsoft's chief technology officer,
confirmed in 1997 that Microsoft hopes to get a 'vig,'
or vigorish, on every transaction over the Internet that
uses Microsoft's technology. (Vigorish is a slang term
used by bookmakers that means, roughly, the profit made
for bringing bettors together.)
In June of 1997, Microsoft launched MSFDC, which
will collect transaction fees.
** Gates announced to the media industry in April of
1997 that Microsoft was a software company, not a
media company. He pointed out that Microsoft was
not hiring reporters and editors. However, Pete
Higgins, group vice president in charge of Microsoft's
Interactive Media Group, confirmed in a subsequent
interview that Microsoft had hired local reporters
and editors to launch Sidewalk, a series of local
city guides on the World Wide Web.
The intent of this document is to lay these and other
case histories side by side, and allow Microsoft's
competitive strategies and tactics to come into focus.
That way, the reader will gain insight and perspective
by viewing the Microsoft methodology on a case study basis.
While the technology issues in each case may be complex,
the "method" seems very simple. As these studies will
indicate, it is a method Microsoft has used repeatedly.
****************************************************************-
"In the last year, hardly a week has gone by without an
announcement that [Bill] Gates has entered into a
'strategic partnership' with a television network,
a cable company, a Hollywood studio, a bank or two;
the list seems endless. In each case the blushing
corporate suitor cannot wait to tell the world about
the mega-deal it has struck with [Microsoft]. What
none of them appears to realise is that their deals
are death-warrants. Gates does not plan to share the
online banking business or any other business with
anyone. These 'strategic partnerships' are means to
a single end: to enable Microsoft to learn enough
about particular businesses eventually to dominate them."
** John Naughton, The Observer, June 22, 1997
****************************************************************-
Microsoft and Auto-By-Tel
"When they call you up, you think it's great, but
in reality, the dance will soon turn into a nightmare."
Auto-By-Tel President Peter Ellis ** Business Week,
September 8, 1997
In 1995 Peter Ellis launched Auto-By-Tel, an online
buying service that links car shoppers with dealers
who are willing to make a deal at a set price. He
put Auto-By-Tel on all the major online services
** CompuServe, Prodigy, America Online and the Microsoft
Network ** and on the World Wide Web.
In 1996, the Microsoft Network went online with its
CarPoint service, providing detailed descriptions of
more than 900 automotive models. CarPoint's database
included all major car model lines sold in the U.S.,
and even offered a 360-degree interior view of many
cars to subscribers with the adequate browser plug-in.
That same year, Microsoft and Auto-By-Tel signed a
three-year contract whereby Auto-By-Tel's services became
available through CarPoint. Ellis said he expected the
number of requests over his system to double as a result
of the partnership.
However, in June of 1997 Microsoft launched a new version
of CarPoint, which included Microsoft's own dealer
network, similar to Auto-By-Tel's. Each participating
dealer under the new CarPoint service pays Microsoft $1,000
monthly ** a practice Microsoft learned from Auto-By-Tel.
There were other similarities as well.
Ellis complained that Microsoft was "picking our brains"
during the time that the two companies collaborated. He
moved to end the partnership. "What seemed to be mutually
beneficial 14 months ago now appears to be less so," he
wrote in a letter to Microsoft.
Currently through CarPoint, subscribers can apply for
online financing and actually purchase vehicles. Microsoft
also plans to launch an addition to CarPoint: a used-car
listing ** similar to one Auto-By-Tel launched late last year.
****************************************************************-
Christos Cotsakos, president and chief executive officer of
E*Trade Group Inc., predicts Microsoft, now a partner, will
eventually become a competitor.
"They learn, they assimilate, they copy," says Mr. Cotsakos.
"Once they get done with all the other blips on the radar screen,
you become the blip."
** Wall Street Journal, June 5, 1997
****************************************************************-
Microsoft and Online Travel
"The Internet will reduce cost to suppliers [the airlines].
It's a much better channel for airlines to sell direct, and
they will. We want to work with suppliers and help them go
direct, but when on-line customers want to shop around they'll
come to [Microsoft] Expedia." John Neilson, Microsoft's
vice president for interactive services, media division
** Travel Weekly, May 8, 1997
Microsoft announced its intentions to enter the airline ticket
business as far back as 1994. At the end of 1996 it launched
a Web site called Expedia, which included hotel reservations
and car rental services on top of the airline reservations
and ticketing service. To launch Expedia, Microsoft partnered
with Worldspan, a computerized reservations system (CRS)
company partly owned by Northwest and Delta Air Lines.
Expedia sells over $1 million in travel services a day.
It already is one of the three largest online travel agencies.
The others are Travelocity, part of the Sabre Group, which
is 80 percent owned by American's parent AMR Corporation;
and Preview Travel, whose major stockholders include America
Online and US West.
Originally, all online travel agencies received a 10 percent
commission for each transaction generated through their sites.
However, five major airlines decided earlier in 1997 to cut
commissions for online travel bookings in half. Analysts
say the move could result in the collapse of smaller online
travel agents, leaving this potentially lucrative market in
the hands of the three major companies.
Northwest was the first carrier to cut the commission paid
for online bookings. Some observers believe Microsoft egged
on Northwest ** whose Worldspan CRS is Expedia's booking engine
** to lead the airline industry in making online commission cuts.
They claim that because Microsoft has deeper pockets than its
competitors, it can survive longer with lower commission rates
than others, and will benefit from new online agencies being
discouraged from entering the business.
Richard Barton, general manager of Microsoft's travel business
unit, declines to comment on these charges, stating only that
Microsoft "said out of the gate that we'd take an aggressive
leadership position in cost reduction. We've had conversations
for a couple of years with major suppliers about the business
model for compensation, and part [of them have] been about
reduced commissions."
John Neilson, Microsoft's vice president for interactive services,
admitted that Microsoft might have gotten the ball rolling but
said that "the commission cuts would've happened anyway." Neilson
said the drastic commission cuts might ultimately hurt the
airlines, who have a stake in seeing online sales grow.
****************************************************************-
"The question of what to do about Microsoft is going to be
a central public policy issue for the next 20 years," says
Mitchell Kapor, the founder and former CEO of Lotus Development
Corporation. "Policy makers don't understand the real character
of Microsoft yet ** the sheer will-to-power that Microsoft has."
Mr. Kapor believes that Microsoft lives according to a
"thin ethics," as he sees it. "Anything not a direct lie
or clearly illegal is okay to do and should be done if it
advances Microsoft's tribal cause. This licenses the worst
sorts or manipulations, lies, tortured self-justification
and so on."
** James Gleick, The New York Times magazine,
November 5, 1995
****************************************************************-
Citrix and Microsoft
"In retrospect, what happened next doesn't surprise anyone
who knows Microsoft well. But it certainly shocked the socks
off Citrix." ** USA Today, June 11, 1997
Ft. Lauderdale-based Citrix Systems partnered with Microsoft in
1992 to develop a computer networking product eventually called
"WinFrame," that allowed the Windows NT operating system to work
on networks with old and/or disparate computers. Microsoft saw
potential in the product, and acquired 6 percent of Citrix.
WinFrame started shipping in 1995. Aided by strong sales and
momentum investors, Citrix stock soared to a high of $56.75.
When Microsoft saw that WinFrame was booming, it notified Citrix
that it might build similar networking capabilities into Windows NT
on its own.
In February 1997, Microsoft gave Citrix official notice, as its
contract required, that it might develop a competing product.
Microsoft says the notification was not an attempt to force Citrix
into selling out or otherwise capitulating. Because competition
from Microsoft could materially affect Citrix, Citrix had to
disclose publicly that Microsoft might enter its market, that
the partnership would end and that Citrix's performance would be
affected. Citrix stock plummeted, to around $11, even though
Microsoft had not developed any technology in the area of network
computing.
"It finally happened: they've been Microsofted," said Kevin Compton,
partner in venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers,
upon learning that Citrix received competitive threats from partner
Microsoft.
Citrix chairman Ed Iacobucci believed he could convince Microsoft
not to attempt to develop a competing product. He went on the
offensive, taking a negotiating team to Redmond that included
technical people who could both impress and appeal to the highly
technical people at Microsoft. He worked his team around the
clock, testing every possible option from selling the company
to Microsoft to creating its own version of Windows NT.
After weeks of negotiations, a deal was struck. It allows Microsoft
to license the multi-user extensions from WinFrame and put them
into future versions of Windows NT under the Microsoft name.
Citrix will continue making WinFrame as a separate program.
The two companies will jointly develop networking products
for Windows NT.
Everybody seems to benefit from the deal, and Citrix's stock
price has rebounded considerably, though not to its previous
level. Of course, as analyst Michael Cristinziano points out,
Citrix "is still dependent on Microsoft."
****************************************************************-
"A lot of people make the analogy that competing with Bill Gates
is like playing hardball.
I'd say it's more like a knife fight."
Stac Electronics CEO Gary Clow
** USA Today, June 11, 1997
****************************************************************-
The Case of Stac Electronics
In January of 1993, Stac Electronics, a Carlsbad, California,
maker of software that compressed files to save space on a
computer's hard disk, filed suit against Microsoft for patent
infringement.
It was a classic David vs. Goliath case; Stac in all of 1993
would earn the same amount of money that Microsoft was earning
in four hours.
The tiny company had tried to negotiate a deal with Microsoft
so that its award-winning data-compression software could be
included in the upcoming version of Microsoft's DOS 6.0. Stac
claimed that Microsoft tried to leverage the smaller company into
an unfavorable deal; and when it refused, Microsoft copied
Stac's technology and built it into its own data-compression
product. At the launch of DOS 6.0, Bill Gates himself promoted
the data compression feature by wearing a t-shirt that said,
"We came, we saw, we doubled."
Gates would testify at the Stac trial himself. It was his
second appearance at a civil trial to defend his company.
In 1986 he had testified in a $60 million suit brought by
bankrupt Seattle Computer Products, which had sold the DOS
operating system to Microsoft in 1981 for $50,000. In that
case, after a three-week trial, Microsoft settled the suit
for $1 million while the jury was still deliberating.
The jury would return a verdict in the Stac Electronics case.
Despite Gates' claims from the witness stand that Microsoft's
programmers had not copied Stac's product, the jury awarded
Stac $120 million in damages for patent infringement.
Microsoft said it would appeal, but later changed its mind and
negotiated an $83 million settlement. Microsoft agreed to pay
Stac royalties of $1 million a month for 43 months, and also
purchase $39.9 million of convertible preferred stock in Stac.
The new partnership gave Microsoft the right to license, for
a royalty, any of Stac's existing or future technology unrelated
to data compression. In addition, Stac received a license to
some of Microsoft's technology in DOS 6.0.
****************************************************************-
Microsoft and Go Corporation
Gates: I contend technology breakthroughs can happen by extending
what we already have. Let's take handwriting computers. . . .
The software will come either from Microsoft or from a U.S.
competitor named Go Corporation. That's going to be a major
breakthrough, and who do you give credit to?
Jobs: I think everybody gives credit to Go, but Go will be crushed.
Gates: That's one of the nastiest comments I've ever heard.
I've been working on handwriting since long before there was
a Go Corp.
Jobs: Really? I didn't know that. Most people would say
that Go is the company that first tried to commercialize the
technology.
Gates: Well, Go hasn't shipped anything yet, and I'll ship
my stuff before they ship theirs.
**Fortune magazine interview with Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, 8/26/91
Go Corporation was a tiny startup company in Foster City,
California, developing software to control small computers
that recognize handwritten words. Hoping to convince software
companies to develop applications for its product, Go showed
its secret software to several companies in confidential
demonstrations. A team from Microsoft was included.
In January 1991, just a week before Go was set to announced
its innovative product to the press, Microsoft made a preemptive
strike with its own announcement. Gates said his company was
developing handwriting-recognition software called Pen Windows.
Microsoft's design team included an engineer who had been briefed
by Go.
A few weeks later, Microsoft said 21 computer makers were
"considering" building hardware around the Pen Windows software.
"Anybody who shows Microsoft confidential information is taking
a risk," said J. Jerrold Kaplan, Go's founder and chairman.
****************************************************************-
"I characterized it at the time as
date rape," said an industry official familiar with the deal.
"Micrographx went out with Microsoft in good faith, and they took
advantage of them, and then they wouldn't return their phone calls
in the morning."
** James Wallace and Jim Erickson, "Hard Drive: Bill Gates and
the Making of the Microsoft Empire." John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1992
****************************************************************-
Microsoft and Micrographx
Micrographx, a Texas company that develops graphics software for
PCs, was one of the few companies that hung with Bill Gates and
Microsoft during the lengthy delays in bringing the first version
of Windows to market. Micrographx later became the first independent
software company to put a product on the market for Windows.
When Microsoft and IBM shifted development efforts from Windows to
OS/2 and Presentation Manager, Micrographx developed time-saving
special software, called Mirrors, that essentially translated
Windows into programs for OS/2. Microsoft liked Mirrors, and
signed a letter of intent under which Microsoft could use it to
modify its own Windows applications for OS/2.
Then, Microsoft demanded to see the source code for Mirrors
** the very guts of the program. Micrographx co-founders Paul
and George Grayson balked at first, but finally sent it.
The Graysons became even more uneasy when Microsoft assigned an
operating systems engineer to evaluate the product. Only the
applications side of Microsoft was supposed to see the code; an
operating systems engineer could copy the program and promote it
in competition with Micrographx.
A few weeks later, Micrographx was informed that Microsoft had
decided to write its own Mirrors-like software.
Micrographx was planning to go public, and felt it couldn't
afford a blow-up with Microsoft. The Graysons swallowed their
pride and let the matter drop. Eventually, Microsoft placated
the Graysons with a cross-licensing deal that Bill Gates
characterized as "unusually generous." Nonetheless, the Graysons
felt used and manipulated by Microsoft.
"I half-jokingly say there is only one person with fewer friends
than Saddam Hussein. And that's Bill Gates," Paul Grayson said.
****************************************************************-
"Microsoft and/or its affiliates may gather, process, and use
(and allow others to use) the information which you provide
directly (e.g., name, physical address, email address), as well
as information regarding the manner in which you use this Web site.
"From time to time, Microsoft may allow others to offer products
and services to you."
** Microsoft Corp.'s Seattle Sidewalk Web Site, "Terms of Use"
April 1997
****************************************************************-
Sidewalk and Data Mining
Once MSFDC gets its hands on bill payment data, "The key question
is what they will do with it," said Alexandria, Va., banking
consultant James G. Hamrick. ** American Banker, September 29, 1997
The Microsoft stance on transactions has clearly changed, as its
ventures into electronic commerce show. Analysts believe that
the company's patience and deep pockets will enable it to sustain
these projects during the time it takes for them to become profitable.
Microsoft acknowledges that it will lose money on its Web
endeavors in 1997, but it will invest $300 million to $400
million per year for five years to prop up all of its content
sites, including Expedia, CarPoint, Investor, Sidewalk, and
other upcoming projects.
There are well-defined, market-share hopes for these sites. Lewis
Levin, vice president of the company's desktop finance division,
declared recently that the desired percentage of online investors
moving through the Microsoft Investor site is "greater than 50
percent."
Microsoft's change of heart about electronic commerce can be
traced to a revenue source other than just processing fees,
according to the September 1997 issue of Institutional Investor.
"In addition to fees from billers for processing the checks, there's
a gold mine in the information about consumer spending contained
in those bills," the magazine says. "That makes MSFDC potentially
a lucrative business for Microsoft."
On April 3, 1997, Microsoft launched a Web site called Sidewalk,
a local arts and entertainment guide. Sidewalk first appeared in
Seattle, and has been followed by four more sites, New York, Boston,
Minneapolis/St. Paul and San Francisco. Microsoft announced that
five more cities would be added to the list by the end of the year.
The Sidewalk service contains a powerful database on restaurants,
movies and events in the cities it serves. It offers a free-of-charge,
custom service tailored to users' preferences in ntertainment,
arts and other fields. This custom service only works if the user
provides his/her name, address and other personal data.
Whether they know it or not, Sidewalk users give Microsoft
implicit authorization to sell their name, address and uses of
Sidewalk to third parties. Nothing in the customizing setup
discloses this fact; users discover the policy only by clicking
on a "Terms of Use" button and scrolling through the legalese.
Here is what appears under the "Use of Information" section,
found halfway through the "Terms of Use" page:
"Microsoft and/or its affiliates may gather, process, and use
(and allow others to use) the information which you provide
directly (e.g., name, physical address, email address), as well
as information regarding the manner in which you use this
Web site. From time to time, Microsoft may allow others to
offer products and services to you.
"If you wish to discontinue receiving such offers, you may
notify Microsoft by sending email to side...@microsoft.com.
In order to permit us to make this change, you must include
your email name and first and last name in the text of your message."
When consulted by the media about this portion of the Sidewalk
site, Microsoft Sidewalk General Manager Frank Schott says
the company has "no plans" to sell names of individual customers.
"Bill [Gates] is not just in the business of publishing on-line
City Guides. He is also in the data-mining business. And when
he's determined from your virtual visits which cities most
interest you, no doubt his virtual travel agent will
give you a call.
"It was said of the Chicago meat-packing companies that they
used every part of the hog except the grunt. By Microsoft standards,
they were rank amateurs."
** John Naughton, The Observer,
June 22, 1997
****************************************************************-
Sources Used in this Document
David Bank, "Microsoft Moves to Rule On-Line Sales."
The Wall Street Journal, 6/5/97.
Kevin Maney, "Tiny Tech Firm Does the Unthinkable."
USA Today, 6/11/1997.
Donna Lawrence Harris, "Microsoft Auto Plan Has National Scope."
Automotive News, 6/30/97.
James Gleick, "Making Microsoft Safe for Capitalism."
New York Times magazine, 11/5/95.
Steve Hamm, Amy Cortese and Cathy Yang, "Microsoft Refines
Its Net Game." Business Week, 9/8/97.
James Kim, "Microsoft Muscles into Media Market."
USA Today, 8/25/97.
Amy Cortese, "Where the Action Is: Your Hometown; City Guides
Are a Hot Market Enticing Myriad Big Players." Business Week, 4/14/97.
Barton Crockett, "Microsoft Bidding for Online Payments; Company
Forms Joint Venture with First Data to Pay Bills Electronically."
MSNBC, 6/27/97.
Amy Cortese and Kelley Holland, "Bill Gates is Rattling the
Teller's Window." Business Week, 10/31/94.
Philip Elmer-DeWitt, "Bill Gates Wants A Piece of Everybody's
Action." Time, 6/5/95.
Joseph Kornik, "Jupiter Sheds Light on Commission Cuts, Agents'
Future Role." Travel Weekly, 5/8/97.
Michele Matassa Flores, "Microsoft's Media Bid Questioned;
Analysts Doubt Profits will Satisfy Company,"
Seattle Business Times, 9/9/97.
Unidentified, "Is MSFDC Good for the Industry?"
Retail Delivery Systems News, 7/4/97.
Drew Clark, "Banks Worried About Microsoft/First Data."
American Banker, 9/29/97.
John Naughton, "The Internet, Bill and Coups."
The Observer Review Page, 6/22/97.
O. Casey Corr, "Cybersnoops on the Loose; Web-site Surfers
Beware: Software 'Cookies' Gathering Personal Data."
The Seattle Times, 8/10/97.
Hal Lux, "The On-Line Elite." Institutional Investor, 9/97.
Brenton R. Schlender, "Jobs and Gates Together." Fortune, 8/26/91.
James Wallace, "Overdrive: Bill Gates and the Race to
Control Cyberspace." Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1997.
James Wallace and Jim Erickson, "Hard Drive: Bill Gates
and the Making of the Microsoft Empire."
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1992.
Terry Sturtevant
In <62o9a4$i5c$1...@sparky.wolfe.net>, Concerned Observer <defe...@anon.nymserver.com> writes:
>
>
>The following document has been circulating
>confidentially across the country this week.
The big one that's missing in there is Windows and OS/2;
(and I suppose DOS as well)
Microsoft has pretty much profitted at IBM's expense in
that case as well, after starting out as a "partner".
Benjamin Smith
Damning testimony. With this document will companies be so willing to jump
into bed with the Devil?
Ben S.
Joe Ragosta
In article <B076AB2...@205.186.166.41>, "Benjamin Smith"
<be...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Damning testimony. With this document will companies be so willing to jump
> into bed with the Devil?
Of course.
That's the really sad thing. Everyone's so _happy_ to get a call from Gates
asking to be best buddies that they forget that it won't last.
--
Regards,
Joe Ragosta
joe.r...@dol.net
Visit the Complete Macintosh Web Site
http://www.dol.net/~Ragosta/complmac.htm
Rob Eamon
Terry Sturtevant wrote in message ...
>>confidentially across the country this week.
>
>The big one that's missing in there is Windows and OS/2;
>(and I suppose DOS as well)
>
>Microsoft has pretty much profitted at IBM's expense in
>that case as well, after starting out as a "partner".
>
partner...
Sanand Patel
Concerned Observer <defe...@anon.nymserver.com> writes:
>The following document has been circulating
>confidentially across the country this week.
>There are several case studies of companies
>that have partnered with Microsoft and
>what has happened to them afterwards.
>Thought you may be interested in reading it and
>creating your own opinion.
>The Microsoft Method
Excellent posting.
Cathryn Mataga
Just be sure to get enough cash up front.
Leapin Larry
Joe Ragosta wrote:
> > Damning testimony. With this document will companies be so willing to jump
> > into bed with the Devil?
>
> Of course.
>
> That's the really sad thing. Everyone's so _happy_ to get a call from Gates
> asking to be best buddies that they forget that it won't last.
I think the problem is that American companies are too focused on
the short term. Partnering with Gates can bring short term benefits
but in the long term he will take your business away like candy
from a kid. This has been proven time and time again. Two companies
not mentioned in the article that got screwed after sharing their
technology with Gates are Sybase and SGI.
The latest to play golf with Gates is the head of German software
company SAP. Gates' latest targets are SAP, PeopleSoft and Baan.
Gates has recently stated that his company has no plans to get in
the database application market because they have no expertise in
that field. That statement probable made SAP, PeopleSoft and Baan
comfortable about partnering with Microsoft and hitching their
products more closely with Windows technologies such as DCOM.
Will these companies become the latest victims? It will be fun to
watch.
Leapin Larry
Leapin Larry
Sanand Patel wrote:
> Concerned Observer <defe...@anon.nymserver.com> writes:
> >The following document has been circulating
> >confidentially across the country this week.
> >There are several case studies of companies
> >that have partnered with Microsoft and
> >what has happened to them afterwards.
> >Thought you may be interested in reading it and
> >creating your own opinion.
> >The Microsoft Method
>
> Excellent posting.
Note however that the article only talks about one aspect of
Microsoft: How they steal competitor's technology. In my opinion
no discussion of "The Microsoft Method" is complete without
discussing two other aspects of Microsoft that are just as
scandalous: How they manipulate the press and keep them under
tight control (eg: PC Week) using advertising dollars, and also
how they lie to and deceive their customers and other gullible
people such as Chris Glackin ("NT is open" and "ActiveX is
open and portable" and "IntelliMirror beats NC" etc)
Leapin Larry
Chris Glackin
Leapin Larry wrote in message <3452049E...@earthlink.net>...
>Note however that the article only talks about one aspect of
>Microsoft: How they steal competitor's technology. In my opinion
>no discussion of "The Microsoft Method" is complete without
>discussing two other aspects of Microsoft that are just as
>scandalous: How they manipulate the press and keep them under
>tight control (eg: PC Week) using advertising dollars, and also
>how they lie to and deceive their customers and other gullible
>people such as Chris Glackin ("NT is open" and "ActiveX is
>open and portable" and "IntelliMirror beats NC" etc)
Thanks, Larry. BTW, I never stated any of those things as fact.
In fact, I never even said anything like the first two - perhaps you've
mistaken me for some other Chris?
Anyway, if you believe Microsoft is evil, and you want to fight
them while remaining 'pure' yourself, don't use Java as a weapon.
I mean, why fight one 'capitalist pig' by supporting another?
Use Linux, and write and support free software.
That is the only way to do it without being a hypocrite.
Chris Glackin
Jonathan Harker
Benjamin Smith wrote:
>
> Damning testimony. With this document will companies be so willing to jump
> into bed with the Devil?
Steve Jobs didn't need the document (as would be true for many of us) to
figure out Microsoft, but it didn't stop him, did it?
Pillow talk:
BG: "Well, m-m-m-m-m-m....it's a fine morning, Steve. After last night,
what do you say about licensing Rhapsody, ummmm "Unity," when it's
finished? (Yawn!) I've got a cute little cubbyhole picked out for it in
NT5.0!"
(Rustling of pillows and satin sheets)
SJ: "Well,m-m-m-m-m-m....morning, Bill! Say (yawn)...did I see you with
Larry last week at the Copa?"
(Jab in the ribs)
BJ: "Hey, cut it out! --laugh--giggle---No way, man! At the *Copa*? No
way!"
SJ: "Well, all right then, munchkin. Just checking. What's that you
say? You want to use Unity in NT5.0? Well, let me check with the
boss--giggle--snort"
(pulls out large color portrait of Gandhi, and starts chanting.....)
BG: "Cool!"
......And so the story goes....:):)
Matt Kennel (Remove 'NOSPAM' to reply)
:Benjamin Smith wrote:
:>
:> Damning testimony. With this document will companies be so willing to jump
:> into bed with the Devil?
:
:
:Steve Jobs didn't need the document (as would be true for many of us) to
:figure out Microsoft, but it didn't stop him, did it?
Actually, Mr Jobs' ''partnership'' is the most evensided deal with Microsoft
I've ever seen. It doesn't really constrain Apple in any significant way,
and doesn't teach Microsoft a competitor's business.
Probably because of those rumored 'highly incriminating' documents over
various copyright and patent infringements.
--
* Matthew B. Kennel/Institute for Nonlinear Science, UCSD
*
* According to California Assembly Bill 3320, it is now a criminal offense
* to solicit any goods or services by email to a CA resident without
* providing the business's legal name and complete street address.
*
Bob Osborn
Terry Sturtevant wrote:
>
> In <62o9a4$i5c$1...@sparky.wolfe.net>, Concerned Observer <defe...@anon.nymserver.com> writes:
> >
> >
> >confidentially across the country this week.
>
> The big one that's missing in there is Windows and OS/2;
> (and I suppose DOS as well)
>
> Microsoft has pretty much profitted at IBM's expense in
> that case as well, after starting out as a "partner".
Well lets also not forget DR DOS, and "DOS 2 won't be done until 123
won't run".
I am sure this is just the tip of the iceberg. Reading the Sun
agreements and Microsoft's presuit activities is enough hard evidence
for me that the only contract I would get myself involved in with
Microsoft would require cash up front in sufficient quantities to ensure
I can keep it.<g>
Bob Osborn
>
> > Damning testimony. With this document will companies be so willing to jump
> > into bed with the Devil?
>
>
> That's the really sad thing. Everyone's so _happy_ to get a call from Gates
> asking to be best buddies that they forget that it won't last.
Yeah, I wonder what Steve Ballmer is going to feel when Bill takes away
his billion and gives it to his own kids.
Steve was so happy "riding the bear" that he doesn't even realize that
Bill is "riding the steve".
You just know that ol Bill is smiling away at Steve, joking with him,
all the while thinking in the back of his mind, how can I really
humiliate this guy.<g>
Chris Glackin
Leapin Larry wrote in message <34520201...@earthlink.net>...
>The latest to play golf with Gates is the head of German software
>company SAP. Gates' latest targets are SAP, PeopleSoft and Baan.
>Gates has recently stated that his company has no plans to get in
>the database application market because they have no expertise in
>that field. That statement probable made SAP, PeopleSoft and Baan
>comfortable about partnering with Microsoft and hitching their
>products more closely with Windows technologies such as DCOM.
>
>Will these companies become the latest victims? It will be fun to
>watch.
>
>Leapin Larry
When I recieved the MS press release concerning their partnership
with SAP, I immediately pictured a box with 'Microsoft SAP' written
on it. :)
I recently recieved a registration form from Microsoft for a 3 hour
session on "Preserving And Leveraging Your Legacy Data Investments".
The following is listed under "What you'll Learn":
OLE-DB
A new generation of Universal Data Access
OLE/DB Provider for AS/400 & VSAM (codenamed THOR)
Accessing mainframe and AS/400 files from an open systems
environment (VSAM & PDS)
COM Transaction Integrator for CICS & IMS (codenamed CEDAR)
Integrating mainframe transactions (CICS & IMS-DC) with new
development
SNA Server
Host integration between NT and the IBM family
Microsoft Message Queue
Messaging made easy
Host Data Replicator for DB2
Unleashing your DB2 data
Yes, Larry, it *will* be fun to watch. :)
Chris Glackin
Chris Glackin
Leapin Larry wrote in message <34536C4B...@earthlink.net>...
>Chris Glackin wrote:
>> Anyway, if you believe Microsoft is evil, and you want to fight
>
>> them while remaining 'pure' yourself, don't use Java as a weapon.
>> I mean, why fight one 'capitalist pig' by supporting another?
>
>We are all capitalist pigs in this country. I think it is agood idea to
>support one capitalist pig until it becomes a
>big enough pig to bring some real competition to the other
>monopolistic capitalist pig. We need at least two pigs to
>ensure innovation and low prices.
>
>> Use Linux, and write and support free software.
>>
>> That is the only way to do it without being a hypocrite.
>
>Are you saying that if you don't like Microsoft's practices
>then you don't deserve to eat?
>
>Leapin Larry
Yes, Larry, that's what I'm saying. Resistance is futile.
Besides, when you become Larricutus of Microsoft, you
won't need to eat anyway. (Perhaps you'll meet
Seven of Nine, there? Worse things could happen. :))
Seriously though, if the Java jihad is successful, it's only
going to replace one company with another. Only this
time, that company not only defines the Virtual Machines,
but makes software, and an OS *AND* the hardware it
runs on. Sun could make MS look like amateurs.
And what might we get in the long run? A whole bunch
of different platforms, each with their own little extensions
to Java to differentiate them from the rest of the crowd, and
create a whole new nightmare for tech support and programmers
everywhere.
And what features will those future new platforms bring us?
Fire up a Win32 machine today, and check them out for
yourself.
So what the hell am I doing here in CLJA?
I guess I don't know anymore. I got a pretty good case of Java
fever last year, and now it's gone. I can't keep following both Java
and Win32 developments at the same time without
falling behind in one of them. Since Java isn't 'there yet',
I'd rather not fall behind on Win32 - and with the intro
of IE4 and some other upcoming changes with COM (COM+),
that's an easy thing to do.
I've heard a lot of people say, "Java is fun. I actually
enjoy programming now." I can understand that a little,
but in a way Java programmers would hate - it's 'fun'
because it's kind of like pulling out that old Commodore 64
you spent many a night with, and programming it after
having experienced all the 'complexity' of today's most
advanced systems. You know the limits of the C64, you
know how far you can go with it, and that if you get that
far, no one else can go farther than you. The pressure
is off. You have excuses available to you like, "Well, we'll
just have to wait for JDK 1.2, because Java doesn't even
have that feature yet." (You're off the hook.)
I was too quick to judge Java, just like a lot of people
in the world. Sun has done quite a lot in a relatively
short amount of time, but it doesn't mean much to you
if you need important things like a fast GUI.
Sun is really to blame for all the quick judgements
anyway - they're the ones who went out and convinced
everyone the next great thing was here *today*, right now.
They still tell us about that expert programmer Pat - but
they don't like to talk about that expert user Jane, who
laughs at Pat's programs.
So, I guess I'll leave now, and quit being a nuisance
to the jihad. It's been an enlightening experience.
Ah, there's Bill with the ol' Cube now.
Chris Glackin
Leapin Larry
Chris Glackin wrote:
> Thanks, Larry. BTW, I never stated any of those things as fact.
> In fact, I never even said anything like the first two - perhaps you've
> mistaken me for some other Chris?
I didn't mean you said those things. MS said those things.If the
juxtaposing your name implied otherwise that was not
intentional.
Eric Bennett
>You just know that ol Bill is smiling away at Steve, joking with him,
>all the while thinking in the back of his mind, how can I really
>humiliate this guy.<g>
I think Steve humiliates himself pretty well with some of the public
comments he has made...
--
Eric Bennett ( er...@pobox.com ; http://www.pobox.com/~ericb )
Cornell University
Viewers/Converters for common internet file formats at http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/xplat/xplat.html
Bob Osborn
Eric Bennett wrote:
>
> In article <3451FD...@ibm.net>, osb...@ibm.net wrote:
>
> >You just know that ol Bill is smiling away at Steve, joking with him,
> >all the while thinking in the back of his mind, how can I really
> >humiliate this guy.<g>
>
> I think Steve humiliates himself pretty well with some of the public
> comments he has made...
>
doesn't belong to Bill. . . . .yet.
Bob Osborn
Chris Glackin wrote:
>
> Leapin Larry wrote in message <3452049E...@earthlink.net>...
>
> >Note however that the article only talks about one aspect of
> >Microsoft: How they steal competitor's technology. In my opinion
> >no discussion of "The Microsoft Method" is complete without
> >discussing two other aspects of Microsoft that are just as
> >scandalous: How they manipulate the press and keep them under
> >tight control (eg: PC Week) using advertising dollars, and also
> >how they lie to and deceive their customers and other gullible
> >people such as Chris Glackin ("NT is open" and "ActiveX is
> >open and portable" and "IntelliMirror beats NC" etc)
>
> In fact, I never even said anything like the first two - perhaps you've
> mistaken me for some other Chris?
>
> them while remaining 'pure' yourself, don't use Java as a weapon.
> I mean, why fight one 'capitalist pig' by supporting another?
>
>
> That is the only way to do it without being a hypocrite.
That is merely asking someone to go from being a fascist to a communist
(strictly in the economic sense folks, not the political). If one
choses capitalism he can be tolerant of 3 different levels of the
capitalist model: pure competition, oligopoly, and monopoly. Pure
competition does not leave room for profits above normal. An oligopoly
usually has a limited number of competitors and unusually high profits
can result even in an oligopoly, however, the liklihood of highest
profits exist in a monopoly (and if anybody thinks that Microsoft's
profits aren't astronomical, depart here)
Most capitalists support both pure competition and oligopolies but not
monopolies. There are no anti-trust laws on the books that deal with
oligopolies unless the members conspire to restrain trade. The Java
licensees with 115 members is a highly competitive oligopoly (not pure
competition which implies a comodity). It is pretty doubtful that
getting all of them together to conspire to restrain trade is unlikely.
It is like cable, if you don't like the show you switch channels. For
instance, OPEC found out how difficult it was to keep more than a few
members in line at a time.
For Microsoft to even claim they were as open as Sun, they would have to
release their source code to anybody who wants to license it for a
relatively nominal fee, and agree contracturally and publicly that they
will work with all licensees to evolve Windows in unison with the
licensees.
Do you think Microsoft would do that? If they did then maybe you could
accuse the Java bunch of being hypocritical.
The fact that you claim the only right path is pure competition is
certainly your choice, and indeed you can look down on both alternative
economic forms from the moral perch that pure competition affords you.
However, it is pretty unobservant and perhaps selfserving to try to
equate the two choices as equals because they are not.
Bob Osborn
Can anybody out there tell me what cheese on a triplever looks like in
code?
Bob Osborn
Leapin Larry wrote:
>
> Sanand Patel wrote:
>
> > Concerned Observer <defe...@anon.nymserver.com> writes:
> > >confidentially across the country this week.
> > >There are several case studies of companies
> > >that have partnered with Microsoft and
> > >what has happened to them afterwards.
> > >Thought you may be interested in reading it and
> > >creating your own opinion.
> > >The Microsoft Method
> >
>
> Note however that the article only talks about one aspect of
> Microsoft: How they steal competitor's technology. In my opinion
> no discussion of "The Microsoft Method" is complete without
> discussing two other aspects of Microsoft that are just as
> scandalous: How they manipulate the press and keep them under
> tight control (eg: PC Week) using advertising dollars, and also
> how they lie to and deceive their customers and other gullible
> people such as Chris Glackin ("NT is open" and "ActiveX is
> open and portable" and "IntelliMirror beats NC" etc)
>
Well Java supporters should take a page from the Microsoft Method. Like
the first page that Microsoft was using when all the press was panning
Windows 1 and 2 and 3.0.
Blind supporters of Microsoft APIs are making one fundamental mistake in
their arguments. Namely Java *does not have to be* a superior platform
to Windows. I mean was Windows 1 or 2, or 3.0 a superior platform to
DOS? Not overall. Inch by inch the benefits of Windows slowly dawned
on developers. Some became so blind to the benefits offered by the GUI
that they missed the boat. Some looked at Windows early on and said the
very things that people are saying about Java, its too slow, it doesn't
have enough functions, it isn't stable enough (on certain VMs), etc.
Yet they each in their own way chose these shortcomings as evidence the
platform was no good either overlooking existing possibilities and/or
failing to follow the platform's development learning how, in time and
experience, to milk it for its constantly evolving benefits and
capabilities.
I personally think that what Java offers something that is even more
revolutionary than the GUI. It promises true chip independence and true
platform independence. Anybody that thinks Microsoft/Intel will be able
to write code that will accomodate all innovation in chips and compete
on an equal basis in all areas of potential platform scope (we are not
talking about just your PC here anymore) is simply ignorant of
realities.
The real revolution will occur close to the heart of the value
proposition. Just like Windows first gained a foothold among folks
interested in graphics and presentation, Java's foothold will begin with
folks interested in access to "the other" 70% of the worlds data and
line of business software currently pretty much locked away from Windows
users on non-windows computers. Eventually, because people will want
platforms that perform seamlessly, the Java umbrella with the support of
100's of platform developers and 100's of thousands of developers will
slowly open and eventually encompass all.
Why can Sun do this and Microsoft not? Well for two basic reasons.
1) Microsoft does not have a technology, at least yet, that provides for
a robust and scalable environment to encompass the multitude of
potential platforms and cards. Microsoft solutions are needlessly tied
to essentially a single chip architecture.
2) and above all, Microsoft is not acting in ways that enables it to
form the necessary large number of partnerships at a low enough systems
level it needs to enable it to gain the necessary access and support to
become a standard across all computing platforms.
Joe Ragosta
>
> Can anybody out there tell me what cheese on a triplever looks like in
> code?
"Install Win95" typed from the DOS menu.
--
Regards,
Joe Ragosta
See the Complete Macintosh Advocacy Page
http://www.dol.net/~Ragosta/complmac.htm