Digging up the dirt on Nintendo...
ANGRY
This was originaly posted (but not written by) RayMel over at the IGN Xbox
board. Of course, it was promptly deleted. This is a two-parter, since there
is a character limit on Team Xbox posts.
What Comes around Goes around.
The Intimidation Tactics of Nintendo
Sam Hart
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Nintendo has been criticized as being the most "notorious video game company
in history."9 Through their considerable influence in the market during the
late 1980s, they were able to control much of the industry using
intimidation, scare tactics, and price-fixing. It is interesting to note the
events leading up to this domination, and the players involved.
Nintendo, who had been suffering financially since the gaming market crash
during the Third Generation, entered the Fourth Generation market with a
system that many consider to be inferior to the competing systems of that
time.8 Hiroshi Yamauchi, Nintendo's president, instructed his engineers to
leave out the frills of the other gaming systems, and include only the
essentials to save money. The system would only have 2,000 bytes of RAM as
opposed to the Sega Master System, a competing system, which had 64
kilobytes of RAM.10 Industry standard graphic processors were dropped in
favor of cheaper, less functional, non-standard ones. The push to produce
this system was intensified by the fact that the Master System, and other
competing systems, had all been in the stores for months, and were achieving
great success. When the system was ultimately finished, the defect rate
would be as high as 30% per shipment 8 which angered many retailers and
turned them against Nintendo (eventually damaging many of these retailers
when Nintendo attained the popularity that they did.)
After the Nintendo Entertainment System (NES) was released, Nintendo pressed
for huge media infiltration of their advertisements, which was something not
being done by competing systems. The market had been extremely slow in the
previous years, and many companies were very cautious. Nintendo, fueled by a
marketing drive rarely seen, was able to capture nearly 90% of the U.S.
gaming market by 1986.1 This popularity had dozens of gaming companies at
Nintendo's door to produce titles for their system. However, because of
Yamauchi's foresight, Nintendo had changed the previous "free-market" set up
of the industry with the inclusion of something called a "key-chip" in his
NES units.
During the preceding generations, a video game programmer would simply
purchase the equipment to construct games for a system from the system's
parent company. The programmer was then was free to design any game without
permission from the company. (A prime example of this was the video game
based on the "Porky's" movies released by CBS for the Atari VCS/2600.)
Yamauchi did not like this freedom given to the designers. So he had his
engineers create a chip that would lock out the instruction code from any
cartridge, unless that cartridge contained another chip, called a
"key-chip." This "key-chip" had a certain disabling code. The disabling code
was then patented by Nintendo and copyrighted.4 The result was that it
became illegal to reproduce the code, without Nintendo's consent. Nintendo
then made specific contracts that companies must agree to abide by in order
to receive permission to reproduce the "key-chip." This gave Nintendo
complete control over its third party licensees, and they used that control
to propel the Nintendo Entertainment System farther. Specific deals were
made which prevented these companies from producing games for any competing
home system.8, 9 Because of Nintendo's considerable market share, few
companies argued with this policy. The result was that many competing
systems were driven to extinction because of a severe lack of games.
Companies like Atari and Sega could not hope to compete with a system with
over 100 new games each year, when they could only produce a dozen or so
annually without the help of third party licensees. This propelled
Nintendo's domination of the market further.
Aiding in the promotion of the NES, were two sizable companies. Toys'R Us
attributed 17 percent of its sales and 22 percent of its profits to the NES
and its games. They in turn, helped firm up a deal between Pepsi and
Nintendo in 1988 that involved the sale of nearly $10 million worth of
Nintendo products to Pepsi, and NES advertisements on the outside of 2
billion Pepsi cans. "In return," Sheff wrote, "Pepsi got the cachet of being
associated with Nintendo."5
Nintendo began orchestrating game shortages sometime in 1988. This was
called "inventory management" by Peter Main, an executive in charge of
public relations at Nintendo, but was really to keep the customers on a
short leash. By limiting the amount of product available, Nintendo could
keep the demand for the product high. The editor of one toy-industry journal
noted that "Nintendo has become a name like Disney or McDonald's. They've
done it by doling out games like Godiva chocolates." By design, Nintendo
would not fill all of the retailers' orders and kept half or more of its
library of games inactive and unavailable. In 1988, for instance, 33 million
NES cartridges were sold, but market surveys indicated that upwards of 45
million could have been sold. That year retailers requested 110 million
cartridges, almost 2.5 times the indicated demand. These practices would
greatly benefit Nintendo, but drive many smaller software firms out of
business. Certain titles would be produced, then sold very slowly over the
span of a year, and the profits would not come in fast enough to keep these
small companies afloat. The toy and electronics as well as department stores
became dependent on Nintendo, in addition to most game producers. This gave
Nintendo a great deal of clout in dealing with companies who were used to
throwing their muscle around. 9, 6
One such company was Child World, at the time, the second largest toy-store
chain in the United States. They refused to play by Nintendo's rules, and
ended relations with them. By 1989, they were experiencing severe financial
difficulties due to the loss of 20% of their sales through video games. They
came back to Nintendo, trying to appease them, and were met with open
hostility. Nintendo agreed to sell them product again, but they would have
to pay for the product a year in advance.7
Another Nintendo policy that made retailers furious was their return policy,
or lack thereof. Because Nintendo's quality control was boasting a defect
rate of 0.9% for hardware and 0.25% for software by 1988, Nintendo
executives did not see a need for their previous 90 day guarantee. A new
policy was announced to the retailers: no returns. Once a game cartridge box
or system box was opened, a refund was out of the question. Concerning this,
Sheff wrote:
"Pandemonium followed. One of the largest retailers in the country
threatened to stop carrying Nintendo Systems and products. Nintendo refused
to change the policy and the retailer refused the products. The retailer
held out for three months; after that it crawled back and agreed to
Nintendo's terms."7
Nintendo's next atrocity would be to use the considerable monopoly they had
to control the consumer. Because of the game shortages, consumers would be
more concerned about getting a particular title than the price. And because
of Nintendo's domineering stance with the retailers, they were able to
dictate the expected prices for their games. 9
In the electronics and computer industry, you can expect equipment to reduce
in price over time. When new devices are created that make older ones
obsolete, the older devices are reduced in price to compete with the newer
ones. This is clearly evident if one simply peruses the want-ads in their
local paper and notes the prices of computer systems that were considered
state of the art a year previous. This logic applies to all aspects of the
computer and electronics industry, including video games. Why then between
1985 and 1989 did the Nintendo Entertainment System only lower $10 in its
price? 9
This was exactly what Attorney Generals from all fifty states were wondering
when they began investigating the activities of Nintendo of America in 1989.
They found that Nintendo had been fixing the price of systems and games in
the stores, using intimidation to influence retailers to abide by their
wishes, and were making astronomical profits. Nintendo had been doing this
since they first brought out the NES in 1985. They had strived to construct
the system inexpensively, however, it was being sold at the same price as
the competing systems. An antitrust action was brought up against Nintendo
by these same Attorney Generals, and on October 17, 1991, District Court
Judge Sweet granted approval of settlement agreements. [775 F.Supp. 676
(S.D.N.Y. 1991)]
Nintendo was ordered to reimburse $25 million to consumers who had purchased
systems and games between June 1, 1988 and December 31, 1990. This was to be
done through coupons that entitled the bearer to an immediate $5.00
reduction in the purchase price of any NES game cartridge. This was to be
for every game purchased by the customer. If someone had five games they
would be entitled to $25 in coupons. While they were ordered to pay $25
million, they wound up only paying around $1.5 million. The reason for this
was because Nintendo convinced the Judge that they needed to be certain of a
consumer's truthfulness regarding ownership of the system before they could
reimburse them. The Judge agreed, and allowed Nintendo to make their own
terms. Nintendo required that the consumer had three things: the dated store
receipt, the UPC code from the original box, and the serial number from the
back of the unit. 9 Considering that this occurred in 1991, how many
customers do you think still had the original UPC code from the box let
alone the dated store receipt from 1988? This is why the refund failed,
because only around 300,000 people qualified based on Nintendo's guidelines.
[775 F.Supp. 676 (S.D.N.Y. 1991)]
The final problem Nintendo would cause before they were humbled by Sega in
the early 1990s, would be to hinder the production of 16-bit systems against
the consumers' requests.
In 1988, when it was becoming apparent that 16-bit technology was becoming
inexpensive enough to warrant inclusion in the next breed of video game
consoles, Nintendo issued a press release that sounded very similar to that
fateful statement by Atari made in 1982. Nintendo said, "We feel that the
average game player is not mature enough for a 16-bit system, and that the
demand is insufficient for it to be a high priority."8 They were wrong. In
the summer of 1989, the first 16-bit system, called Genesis and produced by
Sega, would arrive in the stores. By the next Christmas, they were
outselling Nintendo's NES 3 to 1 9 and Nintendo was losing many of their
licensees to Sega. This forced Nintendo to reconsider its decision about
16-bit technology, and begin designing one of their own.
When these events are considered with those that occurred during the Third
Generation and caused the gaming market crash, the flaws of a single system
market become painfully obvious. The fact that more software innovations and
higher employment rates in the industry transpired during the Fifth
Generation where we find a multple system market and increased competition
adds to this argument as well.3 I personally think that the inherent risks
of a signle system market are sufficient to warrant concern if the industry
becomes dominated by one company again.
Author Delsin
--
--
onigiri is delicious
Batty
much or more as Nintendo. And why does everyone slate nintendo? If it wasn't
for them, platformers might not have the successful "main hub to other
levels" system.
Batty
" ANGRY" <000.00.00#.#99> wrote in message
news:10185256...@globe.atl2.mindspring.net...
OscarMyers
gaming may not have returned. Honestly how many companies were flogging to
the new industry after Atari lost a truckload of money. Nintendo took a
major risk, once everyone saw nintendo succeed, they wanted in on the money.
Jimmery
Innovation
Despite its reputation among some consumers as an
innovative company, Microsoft's number one goal is
actually the opposite of innovation. Microsoft, like any
other
monopolist, can only succeed by preventing innovation.
Here is a short summary of how they do it.
How can a company prevent innovation? You cannot
actually prevent people from thinking, can you? Ah, but
that's the point, isn't it? All the thinking in the world
means
nothing if a product cannot make it to market.
Really, then, the prevention of innovation actually
involves
controlling either the demand for innovations, or the
supply
of innovations, or both. Thus, Microsoft seeks to control
what software consumers demand, and what software
programmers produce.
The control of the demand for a product involves
controlling
perceptions, which usually involves controlling
advertising. If
you build the world's best mousetrap, people will come to
your door -- if they can find it! So the monopolist's
duty in a
high-tech industry will generally involve disinformation
campaigns disguised as brilliant marketing.
This is where Microsoft's favorite marketing practices
come
in, such as preannouncing products long in advance,
overstating their capabilities, and occasionally even
announcing products they have no intention of shipping.
However, these lies are only the beginning; Microsoft
also
uses an even dirtier trick of raising the entry cost for
small
companies into the marketing arena.
Let me give you an example. Around 1993, a software
developer who produced a product for the OS/2 Warp
platform wanted to advertise in a computer magazine. The
developer was told that if he advertised a product for
Microsoft's Windows NT, the cost would be $10,000 per
page. If he chose to advertise his OS/2 product, the cost
would be $60,000 per page.
Why the difference? Because Microsoft would subsidize all
Windows NT advertisements in that magazine, making them
far cheaper in comparison. The net effect was to give the
computer magazine a huge financial incentive to
discriminate
against non-Microsoft platforms, effectively censoring
the
information about superior products.
Another example is Microsoft's recent plan to buy the
Internet company LinkExchange. LE makes available a free
cross-marketing plan using embedded banners on members'
webpages, which is a wonderful and free way to advertise
for entry-level software companies.
The Unix-like Linux operating system has many supporters
who advertise using this feature. However, now that Linux
has shown itself a threat to Microsoft's monopoly
position,
Microsoft will now censor the content of LE banners to
suit
its own tastes -- a point it openly admitted in their
announcement. This once again effectively raises the
financial entry barriers to exclude hot, new innovators
from
the advertising stream.
As far as controlling the supply of software is
concerned,
Microsoft had to once again avoid the perception of being
a
non-innovator. How can you prevent other companies from
supplying software, and yet take on the appearance of an
innovator? Controlling the supply of software is not
literally
possible, since it can be duplicated for a near-zero
cost.
The answer involves using preloads and licensing
agreements to exclude other companies' products from the
delivery channel, combined with the practice of frequent
releases of new versions of the monopolist's own
products.
If you build the world's best mousetrap, people will rush
to
your door -- unless they are too busy keeping their
current
mousetraps oiled and working.
Yes, Microsoft releases new version numbers early and
often, but these are not innovations. Their products do
not
make significant leaps in performance (often the
reverse),
and they do not make significant improvements in
capabilities. However, the constant flood of new
incremental versions keeps people so busy maintaining
compatibility and keeping updated, they have no time or
money left for investigating the alternatives.
In addition, the preloading of Microsoft products gives
people the distinct impression that they are free. Why
would
people rush to your door to buy the world's best
mousetrap, when the Microsoft mousetrap is already free
and delivered to their doorstep?
This push-pull arrangement of controlling the supply of
software and also controlling the demand for software is
highly effective. It is as if Microsoft keeps people on a
constant treadmill, chasing updates to try to fix what
they
got for free. This keeps them out of the market for what
really works, while denying capital to innovative
competitors.
In the long run, this practice actually prevents
innovation by
keeping money out of the hands of deep thinkers. Yes,
Microsoft has found the way to stop innovation: they make
it unprofitable.
Jimmery
place the credit for Microsoft's success squarely
on the shoulders of Bill Gates, by leaps and
bounds the most brilliant, innovative competitor in
an industry packed with talented operators. But
on what basis has Gates and his company earned
the right to be placed on such a lofty pedestal?
As the old saying goes, "age and treachery beats
youth and skill every time." Likewise, nothing
makes a better substitute for good planning than
plain, old-fashioned luck, something of which
Microsoft has had more than its share. In fact, an
examination of the company's product line from
MS-DOS through the present versions of
Windows leads to the discovery that the
Microsoft franchise is built principally on a
foundation of lucky breaks. Save the occurrence
of six, distinct propitious events in the company's
history, Microsoft would probably exist only in
Bill Gates' imagination. We can call these the Six
Serendipities of Microsoft.
Serendipity No. 1: The DOS Fluke
In 1980 IBM's top management finally recognized
an inescapable reality: they needed to introduce a
personal computer, and they needed to do it
quickly -- too quickly in fact for the glacial design
and production process at IBM to cope with the
development schedule. In a major break with
IBM tradition, the company was prepared to
outsource virtually the entire project, including the
operating system, in order to meet the time-frame
dictated by the anticipated release of the first
IBM-PC in 1981. By the very act of
subcontracting out its operating system software,
IBM was, among other things, candidly admitting
its inability to author an operating system of its
own.
The IBM design team knew immediately which
operating system it wanted for the new computer,
then code-named "Acorn." They wanted CP/M, a
product of Gary Kildall's Digital Research, of
Pacific Grove, California. But when IBM first
approached Digital Research, the company's
founder Gary Kildall was out of the office for the
day. In his absence, Kildall's wife and business
associates were reluctant to sign the stringent IBM
nondisclosure agreement. The IBM
representatives left the Digital Research offices
without even divulging the purpose of their visit.
The IBM team then looked up Microsoft, which
they presumed owned a broad license from Digital
Research to sell CP/M. Microsoft didn't have
such a license, but this was something they didn't
tell IBM. In fact, neither Microsoft nor Digital
Research had an operating system ready to run on
the new 16-bit Intel microprocessors IBM was to
use in the PC, though Digital was working on one
-- nobody except for Tim Paterson at the tiny
Seattle Computer Company.
Paterson had written an operating system called
"QDOS," an acronym for "quick an dirty
operating system." QDOS was in every important
respect a clone of CP/M rewritten for 16-bit
processors. This was the software that Microsoft
purchased from Paterson for $50,000, and
renamed MS-DOS. Without stumbling over
Paterson and his work on QDOS, it would have
been virtually impossible for Microsoft to meet
IBM's demanding schedule for delivery of the PC
operating system.
So it happened that Microsoft was the clear
second choice to supply an operating system for
IBM's PC project. If Gary Kildall had been in his
office that fateful day when the IBM
representatives came calling, or if Microsoft had
not purchased the work of Tim Paterson, Bill
Gates would probably be running Microsoft out of
a shoe box today.
Serendipity No. 2: The Clone Accident
Whatever its paternity, Microsoft's wide
dissemination of the retrograde DOS
command-line interface technology throughout the
1980s was powered by a flood of inexpensive PC
clones, whose manufacturers were compelled to
pay Microsoft a royalty for each box they sold.
This second fortuitous event in the history of
Microsoft was based on the ability of the PC
clone-makers to legally reverse-engineer the
IBM's ROM BIOS, the chip that controls the
lowest-level functions of the PC. This was the
only portion of the IBM-PC on which IBM
actually held a copyright -- the balance of the PC
architecture was constructed of generic,
off-the-shelf hardware. Once the BIOS was
cracked, anyone could manufacture an IBM-PC
work-alike. Suffice to say, this course of events
was entirely unanticipated by IBM or anyone else.
Without this bit of good fortune, the PC clone
industry can't exist. Or at the very least, IBM
controls the licensing of the PC, not Microsoft.
What happens then is anybody's guess, but the
results would certainly have been very different --
and much less favorable to Microsoft.
Serendipity No. 3: Nobody Ever Gets Fired
for Buying IBM
Anyone who was on the computing scene at the
time will recall that during the critical period of the
mid-1980s, trying to sneak a non-IBM-PC past
the Information Services Department at any given
corporation or governmental office was like trying
to thread a needle with a chain. As far as most
corporations were concerned, only a desk-top
computer bearing the IBM name (the only "real"
computer company -- or so went the prevailing
wisdom of the day), was a safe choice.
So great was the pin-striper's confidence in IBM
that they were prepared to buy into MS-DOS,
even though this awkward and archaic method of
running a computer was clearly inspired more by
the past than by any vision for the future. Many
people actually resorted to bringing their own
computers into the office, rather than be forced to
use the DOS monstrosity. These employees were
rarely rewarded for their dedication and ingenuity.
But it was because the IBM name was associated
with the PC that it became the default choice of
computer buyers, and it was the huge sales of that
found object, MS-DOS, that catapulted
Microsoft into the financial stratosphere.
Serendipity No. 4: A Total Commitment to a
Standard
Corporate users proved reluctant to deviate from
a hardware path once it was established, carving a
deep trench through which flowed Microsoft's
seemingly endless supply of revenue. Despite the
fact that DOS, and its follow-ups, Windows 1.0
and 2.0, were genuinely inept and insulting
products, even by the standards of the day,
Microsoft was always granted another chance to
get it right.
By this time, the Microsoft OS running on a PC
clone was ordained to be "standard" and
sacrosanct, so much so that it hardly mattered
what sort of grief people were forced to put up
with to use it, how long a product was delivered
after it was promised, or whether it even worked
as advertised when it arrived on the market.
Microsoft may wish to take credit for instituting an
OS standard, but history suggests that this
occurred despite their best efforts, not because of
them.
Serendipity No. 5: Our Lawyers are Better
than Your Lawyers
Microsoft's fifth lucky break was the court's ruling
in favor of the defendant in the protracted Apple
v. Microsoft lawsuit. The courts determined that
Microsoft's appropriation of several Macintosh
operating system interface elements for Windows
3.0 did not constitute a violation of Apple's
copyrights.
This landmark "look and feel" case was
complicated by Apple's 1985 license of some
user interface elements to Microsoft for
incorporation into Windows 1.0 -- a license
reputedly granted only after Bill Gates threatened
to discontinue development of Macintosh
applications. Even so, many industry-watchers
believed that Apple's complaint was justified, and
predicted a big victory for the plaintiffs. Microsoft
dodged this bullet, but just barely.
Serendipity No. 6: No Justice
The sixth major stroke of luck for Microsoft was
the hands-off attitude espoused by the U.S.
Justice Department during the 1980s, allowing
Microsoft to exercise transparent contempt for
honest and open competition, and by so doing,
deliberately lock competitors out of the
marketplace.
The company's most classically anti-competitive
gambit required all PC clone manufacturers to pay
Microsoft a royalty on every computer they
shipped, even when no Microsoft product was
loaded on the machine -- the so-called "CPU
tax." In effect, this scheme required the clone
makers to charge customers twice for a
pre-loading a competitor's product, and so they
rarely did. This technique has been traced to the
demise of DR-DOS, an alternative to MS-DOS.
The United States Justice Department barred
Microsoft from engaging in this sort of extortion in
1994, but without assessing a penalty against the
company, and far too late in the game to reverse
the damage already done. In the end, this
settlement did little to protect the consuming
public.
Smart Doesn't Count for Much
If Microsoft can be thought of as a "smart
competitor" in the present climate, it is on account
of its determination to use its massive financial
clout, size and supremacy (which, as we've seen,
was won mainly by a string of lucky breaks) to
forestall any and all serious competition. Microsoft
today is much less the paragon of the brilliant,
innovative competitor then it is the model of an
inordinately lucky company that is furiously
attempting to protect its providential acquisitions.
As Paul Saffo of the Institute of the Future
suggests, this explains why Microsoft is "a
company that is desperately resisting change."
According to Saffo, Microsoft is attempting to
"hang onto what it's got: making the operating
system important even though we're moving into a
world where the OS becomes steadily less
important.... [e]verything it's doing is going into
that. It is a classic case of a change-hating
company; it is desperately trying to retard
change."
Microsoft's defensive posture looks for all the
world like an expression of a company lacking
self-confidence in its future. This attitude is
apparently a function of its past, which was built
more on the blind good fortune of picking six
winning lottery numbers then on any innate
cleverness. Microsoft is apprehensive about
change, and is doing everything in its considerable
power to resist it, because they fear that their
remarkable run of luck may have finally ended.
Jimmery
Amendment Rights?
In three separate legal actions, Microsoft has been using
the
courts in an attempt to smoke out sources, challenge the
first-amendment rights of writers and reporters, and
chill
press coverage and public disclosure of important
information that it prefers remain secret.
Two of these cases have been conducted publicly, and one
in secret. In early October, Microsoft subpoenaed the
source materials of Dan Goodin, a reporter for the online
news organization C/NET, and a hearing on the matter will
take place next week. Appealing a lower court decision
that
denied its demand for source materials, Microsoft is
still
pursuing access to these materials from the authors of
Competing on Internet Time, Harvard professor David
Yoffie and MIT professor Michael Cusomano.
Less known are Microsoft's activities to determine the
confidential sources of my articles and my best-selling
book
The Microsoft File, published in August by Random
House, through a bizarre motion filed under seal against
Caldera Inc., which has sued the software giant for
antitrust
violations.
Through these legal pursuits, Microsoft apparently is not
seeking to protect trade secrets or sensitive competitive
information, as none was betrayed in any of these
instances.
Instead, the company seems to be engaged in a campaign
of intimidation against confidential sources and whistle
blowers, who make such reports possible.
With these important issues pending in court in three
separate cases, it is in the public interest that the
first
amendment rights of the press be upheld, and that
Microsoft be reprimanded for misusing the courts for its
own hunt for whistle blowers in an attempt to prevent the
press from doing its job.
It is fascinating to see that Microsoft's statements in
court
papers in these cases have not jibed with the company's
intentions disclosed privately behind the scenes, to
lawyers
and others privy to each case.
In the case of C/NET, reporter Dan Goodin was
subpoenaed by Microsoft after quoting from confidential
company documents in two articles about the company's
legal wrangles with Sun Microsystems, which sued the
software giant for breach of contract and antitrust
violations.
In court filings, Microsoft claimed that it knew without
question that Sun was Goodin's source, despite the fact
that
the documents in question were in the possession of
numerous people at a number of organizations -- including
the Justice department.
"Microsoft has the legal burden to eliminate all possible
sources of information before trampling on someone's
First
Amendment rights," said Kent Raygor, a C/Net attorney
representing the Goodin case. He believes Microsoft is
clearly on a hunt for Goodin's confidential sources, a
violation of Goodin's privilege as a reporter under
California
law and protected by the First Amendment.
To prove that Microsoft's intentions were to shake down
sources, versus to regain intellectual property, C/Net's
Raygor disclosed a private interaction between himself,
two
others in his office, and a Microsoft lawyer. According
to
Raygor, he and his colleagues were told in an informal
meeting with a Microsoft attorney, "We're not claiming we
own the documents as many people have them, including
the DOJ. We're just trying to find the source."
Perhaps the oddest of Microsoft's recent court activities
is
the motion it filed against Caldera Corp. -- a motion for
contempt filed under seal, although little of any of the
information contained in it could be classified as
confidential
or betraying company secrets.
The history of this parallels the facts collected by
C/NET
showing that Microsoft appears to be misusing the courts
in
an effort to put a chill on the press and public debate.
Shortly after my book The Microsoft File was published
by Random House in late August, I got a call from a
Microsoft insider who said, "Microsoft is vowing to find
out
your sources." What followed next seemed to be the
denouement of Microsoft's campaign to smoke out
informants, even through process of elimination. Soon
after
that phone call, in late September, its contempt motion
against Caldera was filed, accusing the company of being
the source of most of my information in recent articles
and
in the book.
As part of the motion, Microsoft put my entire book The
Microsoft File into evidence, and stated that the book
was
filled "throughout" with confidential Microsoft
information.
Microsoft, however, seemed to be contradicting its own
public statements, and because of that, clearly had
reason
to file the motion so it would not be seen by the public.
Since its publication, Microsoft has aggressively been on
a
campaign informing the media worldwide that The
Microsoft File is a work of "fiction." But how could a
work
of fiction be filled with confidential Microsoft
information?
The software giant seemed to be talking out of both sides
of
its mouth.
Going further with its gunshot approach and hunches about
sourcing, Microsoft, referring to an article of mine that
was
broadly picked up by other news organizations, states in
its
secret motion, "There can be no doubt that Caldera was
the
direct or indirect source of Ms. Rohm's information, and
Caldera's decision to provide information from [a
deposition] to Ms. Rohm was in direct violation of the
protective order."
That statement is false. Caldera was not the source of
deposition information for that article.
I would normally have no comment whatsoever on who
may or may not have been a source of mine. But in this
case
I am aware that Microsoft is making allegations that are
false, and will result in great injustice if not stopped.
Similar to the Goodin case, Microsoft had made a sweeping
judgment without having done the investigation required
by
the court before filing such motions to show that there
were
not other possible sources. The accuracy of their
accusations did not seem to matter to Microsoft -- as the
company is accomplishing its goal of forcing reporters to
comment on confidential sources, and by process of
elimination, target its suspects.
It is important to note that, while using subpoenas and
unfounded contempt motions in an attempt to censor leaks
it decides are unfavorable to the company, Microsoft has
been selectively leaking its own internal documents to
reporters, in an effort to fuel positive stories about
the
company.
On November 30, Microsoft's PR department leaked to a
number of reporters an internal memo written by Bill
Gates
in which he pontificates on the significance of the
merger
between America Online and Netscape, a document that
attempts to show that the Justice Department's ongoing
case against Microsoft is meaningless. It succeeded in
having the national and international news media quote
from
this document.
More embarrassing for Microsoft have been leaks that
show that Microsoft -- in the words of Microsoft's own
senior executives -- has apparently engaged in predatory
acts that it has publicly denied. These include its
predatory
campaigns against Sun Microsystems, illuminated by
Goodin's articles, as well as the many instances of
predation
against a range of companies over the past decade -- as
detailed in my book and articles.
Microsoft is attempting to chill public debate regarding
its
controversial marketing strategies by waging a campaign
of
intimidation against journalists and academics who write
stories or studies it perceives as unfavorable and the
confidential sources who make such writing possible,
Raygor states in court papers.
Jane Kirtley, executive director of the Reporter's
Committee for Freedom of the Press, Arlington, VA, said
Microsoft has misused the legal system and is stepping on
the first-amendment rights of reporters.
Finally, Microsoft's efforts at squelching negative
information about the company may result in some far more
serious charges. Inquiries are now underway into
allegations
that Microsoft has tampered with the testimony of
witnesses. Both the Justice Department and private
litigants
have been concerned about evidence suggesting such
tampering since last summer, and the issue may come up
during the DOJ trial as well as in the private cases of
Caldera and Sun Microsystems.
Jimmery
TACTICS
Privacy is Where You Find it
Microsoft managed to grab headlines with their announced
intentions to pull company advertising from any web site
that doesn't publish a privacy statement. So they're on
our
side of the privacy issue, right? Well, that appears to
depend entirely on who's doing the transgressing. Only
months before, it was discovered that Microsoft Office
secrets an identifier code in every document -- a unique
code that can trace the file right back to the computer
that
created it. Microsoft issued all the standard denials in
this
instance, of course, and promptly issued a "fix" for
Office.
But now they apparently expect us to accept the utterly
unbelievable -- that the company is actually driving the
privacy issue in our behalf.
For stories on the Office privacy invasion, see Pharlap
Software
and CNET. For other blatant Microsoft privacy
hypocrisies, see
Registration Under Duress and Peeping Bill, on this page.
[26 June
1999]
Am I Blue?
On November 18, 1998 the digital greeting card company
Blue Mountain Arts discovered that beta versions of
Microsoft's Outlook Express (which comes free with
Internet Explorer) were automatically filing Blue
Mountain's
e-mail greeting cards into the "junk" folder rather than
the
"inbox." Shortly afterwards, Blue Mountain Arts
discovered
that Microsoft's WebTV service was blocking their e-mail
greeting cards as well.
Why would Microsoft want to prevent electronic greeting
cards from being delivered? It turns out that after an
unsuccessful attempt to purchase Blue Mountain Arts,
Microsoft started its own electronic greeting card
service.
The "bug" in Outlook Express appeared at about the same
time that Microsoft's greeting card service began.
Coincidence? The Honorable Robert A. Baines didn't think
so, and granted a preliminary injunction against
Microsoft to
protect the delivery of Blue Mountain Arts greeting
cards.
Microsoft reacted to this injunction by removing the
e-mail
filter from Outlook Express.
Microsoft claims to have attempted to assist Blue
Mountain
with this problem, but according to Blue Mountain Arts,
that assistance consisted mostly of telling them to wait
for
the next release of Internet Explorer at "an unspecified
date
in the future."
References from Blue Mountain, IDG, and Microsoft. [27
March
1999]
A Tangled Web
When the courts ordered Microsoft to ship Windows
without an integrated Internet Explorer, the company
"complied" by offering a non-functional version of the
OS,
claiming that the browser was now so completely
integrated
into Windows to remove it was tantamount to "breaking"
the operating system. But in Federal court in December,
Princeton University Professor Edward Felten handily
debunked this claim, demonstrating a program written by
two graduate students that removes MSIE functionality
from Windows 98 -- a feat worthy of Houdini, if Microsoft
is to be believed.
Ah, but that's not the real dirty trick. In cross
examination,
Microsoft's attorney attempted to show that Felten's IE
exorciser had indeed broken Windows, charging that the
program was incompatible with the Microsoft Windows 98
update web site. The attorney explained that Microsoft
had
problems with Felton's program since it was turned over
to
them in the discovery process in September.
No, answered Professor Felten, the program had worked
properly since it was completed in the spring, except for
a
period in December when Microsoft altered the update
web site, temporarily disabling the program and requiring
him to change it. This exchange led presiding Judge
Penfield
Jackson to inquire of the witness, "Are you telling me
that as
part of discovery you provided this code in September,
whereupon there appears to have been product changes by
Microsoft?" Professor Felten concurred with the Judge's
assessment.
As reported on ZDNet. [15 Dec 98]
Registration Under Duress
With the release of Office 2000, Microsoft will introduce
another innovation in consumer abuse: mandatory product
registration. According to this scheme, if a copy of
Office
2000 remains unregistered after 50 launches, it will
cease
functioning on the 51st attempt -- and will remain
disabled
until the owner calls Microsoft and tells them whatever
they
want to know. Not only is the company planning on
invading the privacy of its customers, they are
unilaterally
restricting their ability to use a product they've paid
for by
placing arbitrary and insulting preconditions on its use.
As reported in CNN, and elsewhere. [12 Nov 98]
Peeping Bill
Microsoft is now using its WebTV boxes as an in-house
consumer data-gathering tool -- with "in house" defined
as
"in customer's houses." Microsoft polls WebTV boxes
nightly to collect customer web surfing and viewing
habits --
statistics which in turn are sold to advertisers. But
there's
more: When the first Window CE television cable boxes hit
the market in 1999, they will invite Microsoft's prying
eyes
into at least 5 million additional homes, and will be
armed
with an even more comprehensive ability to track customer
viewing habits and report them to advertisers. ¿Mi casa
es
su casa?
As reported in USA Today (Link no longer functioning, but
also
reported by ZDNet).
Smothering Freeware
Containing commercial competitors is one matter, but
undercutting the free software movement is another -- one
Microsoft has apparently designated a high priority. As a
measure of the perceived threat of freeware, witness
Microsoft's maneuvers to marginalize Samba, the freeware
application that permits the Linux OS (a free Unix
derivative) to communicate with Windows NT, 95 and 98,
among others. The combination of Linux and Samba can
obviate the need for Windows NT servers, one of
Microsoft's most coveted markets. And that can't be
allowed to happen.
Microsoft's stealth war against Linux and Samba opened
with the release of Service Pack 3 for Windows NT 4.
With this release, Microsoft implemented a subtle change
to
NT's communications protocols, making it incompatible
with Samba. An adjustment to the Windows NT registry
can reverse the incompatibility, but at the same time
Microsoft eliminated the instructions for this fix from
their
website. In fact, they went several steps further -- by
erasing from the website every reference to Samba and a
previously posted technical article.
Microsoft's company philosophy was never more clear;
competing technology, no matter the source, cannot be
allowed to survive. Freeware like Samba may be
invulnerable to the usual marketing ploys, but that won't
stop Microsoft from attempting to will it out of
existence.
As reported by Robert X. Cringely
Use Internet Explorer or..?
Microsoft customers upgrading their copies of Microsoft
Office at the Microsoft website, but using the
competition's
web browser, are greeted with a message insisting on the
use of MSIE for the "full edition" of the update. Or does
it?
It's all just a simple and unintentional
misunderstanding, says
a Microsoft spokesperson: The "limited edition" Office
update offered to non-MSIE users "contains links to all
Office updates [but] the full edition of Office Update
has
many more features... to experience the benefits of the
full
edition of Office Update, you'll need to use Microsoft
Internet Explorer 4.01 or above." Got that?
None of this is meant to be be confusing, or to lure
unsuspecting customers into switching to MSIE, says
Microsoft, but the murky language of the message greeting
non-Explorer users will be changed anyway (though the
browser discrimination will not). It's becoming familiar
pattern -- Microsoft willfully obfuscates until they're
caught
in the act, and then slips shamelessly into stonewalling
mode.
As reported by CNET.
Paying the Ultimate Price
When the tiny startup company TV Host, developer of the
first television program guide for PCs, was invited to
partner with Microsoft, they were understandably
enthusiastic. But when licensing talks broke down,
Microsoft abruptly announced their intentions to
integrate
Microsoft's own TV program guide into Windows 98,
undercutting TV Host's budding market. It was a move
made all the easier by Microsoft having gained access to
TV Host's product and business plan during negotiations.
And Microsoft's rationale for integrating a television
program guide into Windows? No tale of this kind would
be complete without the patented tortured reasoning of a
Microsoft spokesperson: "[The program guide] is a logical
extension of the system for a certain class of users."
Microsoft Critics Assigned PR "Spooks"
San Jose Mercury technology reporter Dan Gilmore
recently discovered he's been assigned a special "owner"
at
one of Microsoft's public relations firms,
Waggener-Edstrom. These spin-masters are attached to
troublesome journalists like Gilmore who have the
temerity
to write uncomplimentary articles about the company or
its
products.
The really irksome reporters, according to documents
spirited from the Waggener-Edstrom offices, are also
assigned "buddies" at Microsoft itself. John Dodge, the
editor of PC Week, has a special buddy at Microsoft, and
Mary Jo Foley at Smart Reseller, is the subject of a
"Mary
Jo six month plan.''
These "owners" and "buddies" are just there to "help" the
journalists, of course. How dare we think otherwise?
[see also...]
Cookie Crumbs
Attempting to access so-called "premium" services on
Microsoft's web site requires users to accept "cookies,"
a
condition some people don't entirely appreciate, because
cookies amount to personal data recorded and accessed on
their hard drives by a remote web server, and without
their
knowledge. So it's quite common for web surfers to switch
off automatic cookie acceptance in their browsers.
Microsoft really doesn't care for our excising this
prerogative, probably because it prevents them from
collecting valuable marketing information about us. But
that's not all -- the company uses the condition as yet
another pretext to flog Internet Explorer, and in a most
deceptive fashion. Refuse a cookie, and microsoft.com
delivers a special message, of which this is a key
portion:
Sorry about the temporary detour.
You arrived at this page for one of two reasons:
1. Your browser doesn't support cookies.
2. You were asked to accept a cookie and refused.
IF YOUR BROWSER DOESN'T SUPPORT COOKIES
...
We think you should change browsers. Here's why.
The Microsoft.com Web site consists of more than
200,000 pages of valuable information. Virtually all
is
free, but you'll need a special entry password to
access what we call premium sites.... But if your
browser doesn't accept cookies, then you can't
access premium information.
How to switch browsers? It's very easy. Just click
here and we'll deliver you directly to the Internet
Explorer page, where you can download Internet
Explorer very quickly.
Internet Explorer is the fastest-growing browser in
the world. It's the most technologically advanced
browser, and yet the easiest to use. Once you've
downloaded Internet Explorer and have filled out the
premium-site information, you can travel to
virtually
any corner of microsoft.com. You may be asked for a
password, but that's it.
Apart from the question of whether Microsoft's web site
visitors should be forced to accept unwelcomed cookies,
this notice seems targeted at the unsophisticated user,
who
might not know if their browser supports cookies (nearly
all
do), but that the option to automatically accept them is
turned off. This notice appears to be carefully crafted
for
the purpose of tricking the unsuspecting user into
switching
immediately to MSIE, an apparent precondition for viewing
the Microsoft site.
This offense was reported by several readers.
You Can't be Too Careful These Days
Linking from the Microsoft support website to an external
site results in the imposition of a very curious window
between you and the referred to site. The window warns:
Notice: You are leaving Microsoft's site
You should know that sites listed here are not under
the control of Microsoft. Accordingly, Microsoft
can make no representation concerning the content
of these sites to you, nor can the fact that
Microsoft
has given you this listing serve as an endorsement
by Microsoft of any of these sites. Microsoft is
providing this list only as a convenience to you;
this is to inform you that Microsoft has not tested
any software found on these sites and therefore
cannot make any representations regarding the
quality, safety or suitability of any software found
there. There are inherent dangers in the use of any
software found on the Internet, and Microsoft
cautions you to make sure that you completely
understand the risk before retrieving any software
on the Internet.
You will automatically be redirected to <the outside
site> in 20 seconds. Click here if your browser does
not support redirects.
Implication: all software "not under the control of
Microsoft"
is "inherently dangerous." Of course, Microsoft is in the
process of eliminating this hazard, so we should be
thankful
that this danger is strictly temporary.
Thanks to Bill Gilroy for this discovery.
ISPs Must Serve Microsoft
Whether they like it or not, Internet Service Providers
must
immediately install Microsoft's Front Page Extensions on
their web severs for all of their Windows 98 customers,
or
place their businesses at serious risk. Why? Because if
they
fail to install Front Page Extensions, Microsoft Front
Page
Express users will be greeted by a Web Publishing Wizard
"error message" strongly suggesting that they take their
business to another provider.
Only days after this situation was revealed, Microsoft
promised a correction. According to a spokesperson, the
deceptive error message "was in no way a deliberate
action
by Microsoft."
Thanks to Shiloh Costa at MDI Internet Inc. for
unearthing this
outrage.
Academic Kickbacks
According to a special report on Microsoft's presence in
the academy, the Chronicle of Higher Education reports
that computer science professors mentioning Microsoft
products in scholarly presentations are eligible to apply
for a
$200.00 reward from the company. To hear both the
company and some professors defend this practice, you'd
have to believe that the sum is too small to be regarded
as
corporate payola. Which only makes one wonder why
Microsoft bothers to offer the program, and why the
professors bother to collect on it.
[see also...]
The Best Enthusiasm Money Can Buy
We might think that spending several hundreds of millions
of
dollars every year on commercial speech would be just
about enough to allow any company to "tell its story" to
the
public. But we would not be Microsoft, who the Los
Angeles Times revealed was gearing up a multi-million
dollar public relations campaign which included planting
ersatz letters to the editor in major national
newspapers.
The goal: to create the appearance, if not the reality,
of
"grassroots" support for the company.
"Spontaneous" testimonials penned by hired guns may not
be an entirely novel idea in the surreal world of public
relations, but Microsoft's response to having been caught
in
the act of committing such a crass act was certainly
uncommon. At first, the company denied their intentions
to
actually implement such a plan. Then, a few days later,
company spokespersons announced a new spin: Microsoft
has a perfect right to engage in public opinion
manipulation
campaigns, if that's what it takes to "tell its story."
Now, what exactly was that story, again?
[see also...]
Palm Reading
After experiencing disappointing sales of their
keyboard-driven portable computers running the
WindowsCE operating system, Microsoft decided in late
1997 to market tiny, hand-held computers operated with a
stylus, placing them in direct competition with the
popular,
and functionally similar, Palm Pilot personal information
manager. After conducting what was termed "original
marketing research," Microsoft dubbed its new product the
Palm PC. Palm Computing Inc., a division of the 3Com
Corporation, quickly filed a trademark infringement suit
in
Europe, complaining that Microsoft was deliberately
attempting to confuse consumers by borrowing the first
five
letters of their product's name.
Bill Gates scoffed at Palm Computing's claims, labeling
them "beyond bizarre."
But even as he defended the company against these
assertions in a conference with reporters, Gates managed
to
tip his hand -- or perhaps more accurately, his palm.
Moments after he left the meeting, an assistant returned
to
the room saying she had come back to pick up "Bill's Palm
Pilot," which he had accidentally left on the table.
In April, Microsoft agreed to cease using the infringing
"Palm PC" name. Microsoft backing down -- now, that's
"beyond bizarre."
The Protection Racket
The Business Software Alliance is ostensibly a trade
association that tracks down pirated software on behalf
of
its members in the software industry. But the BSA mainly
does Microsoft's bidding, according to an investigation
conducted by Mother Jones Magazine. According to the
magazine, the BSA files suits against offending
organizations, but quickly drops them when they agree to
sign deals to purchase Microsoft software exclusively.
The
article "Overseas Invasion" documents cases of BSA
blackmail in Europe, South America and Australia.
Annexing the Public Domain
In 1995 a virtually unknown company called Corbis
purchased the Bettman Archives, the world's largest
private
collection of historical and newspaper photographs.
Corbis,
a company founded in 1989 and owned by Bill Gates, is
also actively negotiating with museums worldwide for
exclusive licenses to electronically reproduce works of
art
held in their collections. Since that time, the Corbis
"collection" has swelled to over 20 million images.
The apparent purpose is to provide Microsoft with access
to a huge supply of exclusive cultural "content" for its
web
sites and multimedia CDs, and to prevent others from
obtaining similar access. The rub is that Corbis now
holds
exclusive reproduction rights to images which are not
copyrighted, but are in held in the public domain. Gates
has
seduced these museums, presumably with promises of
future residuals, into veering from their missions as
trustees
of our cultural legacies, and into exploring the murkiest
areas of "fair use" practices and curatorial ethics.
Jimmery
The argument about whether Microsoft is crooked or not
often centers on whether or not the consumer is suffering
from the classic symptom of monopolies: higher prices.
But
this is a weak argument that fails to take into account
that
prices for almost all commodities and almost all
technologies are in a period of dramatic decline. This
means
that Microsoft pricing does not have to rise in order to
be
unfair to consumers; it merely needs to fall slower than
it
would under a free market condition. Furthermore, arguing
solely on the basis of price ignores other issues such as
poor product quality, lack of alternatives, and wimpy
customer support that typically plague monopoly products
like Microsoft Windows.
But Microsoft's pricing strategy has seldom been
considered a criminal act, an act of monopoly
price-fixing
intended to squeeze more money out of computer buyers
by raising prices. Microsoft has been able to "spin" the
arguments to avoid the non-price issues while keeping its
long-term pricing strategies a secret.
Until now.
Read carefully the following excerpts from an internal
Microsoft memo released during the ongoing federal
antitrust case:
TABLE II-1 MICROSOFT STRATEGIES TO KEEP
THE MARKET FROM CENTERING ON THE LOW
COST PC
..... PREVENT LOW-END SYSTEMS FROM
EXPANDING MARKET SHARE
Resist <1k PC royalty price decreases firmly"
....
"We expect the following to happen:
1. Moderately more volume by finding new buyers
who can now afford to buy PCs (This should be true
for consumers as well as small biz). 2. Acceleration
of replacement cycles (knowing that 80M cannot run
NTW or WIN98) 3. Shortening of PC "life time" in
general.
SOURCE: DT OS Pricing Strategy: Memorandum
from Joachim Kempin to Bill Gates, December 16,
1997.
Well, what have we here? In order to understand just what
Microsoft is doing to the PC marketplace, let us
translate
this memo into more mundane terms. Instead of an
operating system being licensed to PC makers, we will
consider the case of automobile tires being licensed to
car
manufacturers. Now imagine the following memorandum
from the tire company's chief licensing officer to his
CEO:
"Our plan is to prevent the growth of the sub-$20,000 car
market. We must resist price decreases in our tire deals
with these low-cost car makers, forcing them to sell
expensive cars instead. That way we can charge even more
for our tires! As a result of this plan, we can influence
the
auto makers to sell only to the upper-middle-class car
buyer. In fact, growth in the market for cars will be
mostly
due to rich people buying second or third cars. Forget
the
poor saps who cannot afford a $20,000 car! Also, we will
change our tire design every few months, forcing the
wealthy suckers to buy new cars more often just to be
able
to find tires that fit. Eighty million drivers cannot use
our
latest tire designs, so they will have to buy a new car
as
soon as their tires wear out! Hahahahaha! The life cycle
of a
car will become shorter and shorter, so we will be able
to
sell more and more tires to these car makers."
Could things be any clearer than that? Microsoft is
apparently engaged in a conspiracy to commit price-fixing
in
the market for personal computers. Read that again: price
fixing not merely in the OS marketplace, but in the PC
marketplace itself. Note also that Microsoft is not
practicing
collusion with any OS competitors because it does not
have
to. Microsoft has a literal monopoly on the price of PC
operating systems; otherwise, this scheme would require
collusion with their competitors.
Furthermore, Microsoft is conducting a willful, planned
course of intentionally discontinuing current versions of
its
products in order to sell and resell to the same
customers
over and over, using the PC hardware OEMs as
surrogates. By purposely shortening the effective
life-cycle
of computers by requiring PC makers to change versions
unnecessarily, Microsoft raises both long-term and
short-term costs of personal computers. Only a monopolist
can do this without fear of reprisals.
Microsoft should no longer have the silent blessing of a
misled public cheering for a perceived computer-industry
success story, or a high-tech underdog battling an
"oppressive" government. The ruffians from Redmond now
firmly occupy the position of an illegal monopoly
practicing
wholesale price-fixing. Any phony show of public interest
by Microsoft should be ignored both by consumers and
prosecutors. The mask is off.
Jimmery
its untrue...
Scummy
It's funny, after hearing about how crooked Nintendo was/is, I still enjoy a
game of Super Mario Bros at the end of the day.
Oh wait, that's right...gaming is about THE GAMES.
>This was originaly posted (but not written by) RayMel over at the IGN Xbox
Looks like someone got RayMel a copy of "Game Over."
Scummy
-------------------------
Well...when a man and woman love each other,
the stork comes and has sex with the woman.
And that's how babies are made.
ANGRY
--
--
onigiri is delicious
"Jimmery" <sp...@spammers.com> wrote in message
news:3CB592D8...@spammers.com...
Ursus Horribilis
> > > This was originaly posted (but not written by) RayMel over at the IGN
> Xbox
> > > board. Of course, it was promptly deleted. This is a two-parter, since
> there
> > > is a character limit on Team Xbox posts.
> > >
> > > What Comes around Goes around.
> > >
> > > The Intimidation Tactics of Nintendo
> > > Sam Hart
Even if only half of this is true, it would be enough to underline the
importance of competition in the business. I wouldn't want any console
to crush the competition, specially Microsoft. If there is one company
that does not tolerate any competition, that's Microsoft.
Just imagine that, not only would they force every developer out there
to play by their rules, but I'm sure they would create the exact same
games and try to steal sales (as they do in the software market). I
can see the headlines,
"Capcom announces Devil May Cry 3, where you take the role of Dante's
grandson, a half demon / half human in fighting the forces of evil
with a combination of martial arts, a broadsword, two semi-automatic
guns, due Christmas 2007".
Two days later another headline,
"Microsoft announces Devil Has Cried, where you take the role of a
half human / half demon and fight the forces of evil with a
combination of martial arts, a bastard sword and two uzis, due
Halloween 2007".
------
Ursus
------
<++--Captain Universe--++>
WOW you are stupid. Don't you see. This is Ign's way to influence dumb
readers to trust Microsoft and Sony when BOTH have a LOOONG list of evil
doings. I don't even know why you read their crap.
--
<<<<<<<<<-------------------
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<----------------
You don't have a chance against my unlimited power,
so give up and go read a book.
<<<<<<<<<<<--------------------
<<<<<<<--------------------------------------------
Skye
"<++--Captain Universe--++>" <cap_un...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:BD1F67EDB622C0A8.2C31E7AE...@lp.airnews.net...
ProjectBlackcomb
Thats great, I love how douche bags like yourself Jimmery get so bent out of
shape. What a pathetic waste of sperm and egg you are. To think a unbathed
unmarried 30's something year old minimum age earning troll with no Internet
access at home gets so obsessed over a toy geared towards those 15 and
under, like the Gamecube, is comical. Keep digging up the dirt so we all
could have a good laugh at you and Microsoft will keep digging up the
profits.
Jeff
doing what the other companies have.... I wish there could be a parity in
consoles. It's so nice to have choice.
Jeff
" ANGRY" <000.00.00#.#99> wrote in message
news:10185256...@globe.atl2.mindspring.net...
-*harmonix*-
"ProjectBlackcomb" <ProjectBlackcomb@___hotmail___.com> spake:
keep following trends, one day you might get lucky, and get shitted out of someone's arse.
--
-*harmonix*-
-Brigadier General agvngc-
-agvngc FAQ: <http://www.pequennino.clara.net> licq: 145057444-
12:10am up 3:54, 5 users, load average: 0.53, 0.38, 0.66
Jeff
know, it's who you know. It's luck. It's being shrewd. Like I said before
all three of the current console makers have their dirt. Are you all trying
to make me not want ANY of them? 8-) The sad part is that most of this
article and the Nintendo article are true. What about Sony? What are they
doing now? We should have dirt on 'em all...
Jeff
"Jimmery" <sp...@spammers.com> wrote in message
news:3CB5925C...@spammers.com...
D2ł
" ANGRY" <000.00.00#.#99> wrote in message
news:10185256...@globe.atl2.mindspring.net...
> Digging up the dirt on Nintendo...
<snip>
Yeah, welcome to American business methods. Do you actaully expect anything
less from a country that was based on a bunch of europeans sailing over,
pushing hundreds of thousands of native americans off their land telling
them that it doesnt belong to them anymore?
This is a dog-eat-dog world and to be succesful you have to claw your way to
the top, taking out some eyes in the process. No other has proved more
viscious than Microsoft. Yet now, the big Gates-run comapny is being served
humble pie as they begin their long journey back down the ladder, with the
xbox taking 3rd place in the gaming industry.
--
"The one way in which Nintendo is different
from the others is that we're not a company
that tries to change image based on hype."
- Iwata
Todd
" ANGRY" <000.00.00#.#99> wrote in message
news:10185256...@globe.atl2.mindspring.net...
ProjectBlackcomb
"-*harmonix*-" <yo...@nt.spam.me.beyotch> wrote in message
news:20020412002102...@nt.spam.me.beyotch...
> On Thu, 11 Apr 2002 18:13:41 -0400
> "ProjectBlackcomb" <ProjectBlackcomb@___hotmail___.com> spake:
>
> <
> <"Jimmery" <sp...@spammers.com> wrote in message
> <news:3CB59236...@spammers.com...
> <
> <
> <Thats great, I love how douche bags like yourself Jimmery get so bent out
of
> <shape. What a pathetic waste of sperm and egg you are. To think a
unbathed
> <unmarried 30's something year old minimum age earning troll with no
Internet
> <access at home gets so obsessed over a toy geared towards those 15 and
> <under, like the Gamecube, is comical. Keep digging up the dirt so we all
> <could have a good laugh at you and Microsoft will keep digging up the
> <profits.
> <
> <
>
> keep following trends, one day you might get lucky, and get shitted out of
someone's arse.
>
You have some sort of scat fetish?
Jeff
Why does this sound like a little slap to 'we' Americans? Just so you know,
we people
with Native American running through our veins are 'Americans' now as
well.....
This isn't about American business models. Geesh, let's blame the Americans.
Why not blame the Portuguese! Blame the Vikings! Hey, let's blame the Asians
that
crossed the Bering Straights to get here! Let's blame any country with a TV
tax, or
per minute local charges on their telephones....
Come on.... This isn't about being objective. This is about not liking a
company and
bad mouthing them. They're not going to go "back down the ladder" any time
soon.
They may fail in the video game industry, but they'll still be around for a
LONG time.
Jeff
T.E. van Middelkoop
"masterpiece". I'd say that justifies ramming each and every Xbox sold up
billy's ass. Lucky for him there aren't that many sold.
He's just about done f*cking up the pc side of things, he's currently bussy
drilling pda's into the ground, so I suppose he thought it was time for
consoles to eat his crap. Just one more reasons for me not to buy a Xbox
(besides the controller and price).
T.E. van Middelkoop
> profits.
I can assure you, Ms didn't profit from the Xbox so far, and Nintendo will
probably profit from the GC a whole lot more.
Gene Poole
xbox is what is known as a long term investment.
in other words it loses money now, for the next 8 years or so...but when
the xbox has completely dominated the console world and you can't buy
any other console, that's when they'll make their money back.
wonderful, neh?
--
Gene Poole
Signature sold separately.
T.E. van Middelkoop
will
> > probably profit from the GC a whole lot more.
>
> xbox is what is known as a long term investment.
All consoles are a long term investment, which is why I also said "Nintendo
will probably profit from the GC a whole lot more". I don't know if Nintendo
is losing money for every console sold (probably are) but I do know Ms is
losing money for every console sold. I wonder what the difference between
the losses are.
> in other words it loses money now, for the next 8 years or so...
I expect for a normal, succesful console that to be a year, maybe more.
Considering that a console is replaced after about 5 to 6 years....
> but when
> the xbox has completely dominated the console world and you can't buy
> any other console, that's when they'll make their money back.
A joke, right? Only the Nes came close to dominating the console market. I
can assure you that none of the current players (Ps2, Xbox & GC) will
dominate the console market.
H-O-E
Sony or Nintendo will drop out of the console market???
Of course they wont. MS will keep them around just to keep every gamer
informed that Sony, the "Jap Crap" king, and Nintendo, the "Jap Crap Queen,"
got whooped by a newcomer.
Glory be to God!!!!!
Gene Poole" <gene....@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:3CB8617F...@shaw.ca...
Gene Poole
>
> typical response from someone that is afraid of MS. Do you really think
> Sony or Nintendo will drop out of the console market???
>
> Of course they wont. MS will keep them around just to keep every gamer
> informed that Sony, the "Jap Crap" king, and Nintendo, the "Jap Crap Queen,"
> got whooped by a newcomer.
>
> Glory be to God!!!!!
Your mom is fucking your little brother.
...and your dad videotapes it.