From: discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar)
Subject: Re: ftc and ms
Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 06:01:28 GMT

In article <1992Dec21.233102.14676@sjsumcs.sjsu.edu> rick@sjsumcs.sjsu.edu (Richard Warner) writes:
>
>>First of all Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly on OS's.  If you want to
>>run DOS programs and you don't want to go to Microsoft you can buy
>>DR DOS from digital research.  And windows is facing very stiff competition
>>from OS/2 now, and when Solaris from Sun, NeXTSTEP from NeXT, Taligent from
>>Apple and IBM come out next year, nobody can say that the end user 
>>faces a lack of options in the marketplace.
>
>The problem is that you pay for MS-DOS, whether you want it or not!  
>One of the major complaints being investigated is that MS has virtually
>forced every PC-compatible vendor to pay a license fee for every system
>they ship.  This is done by refusing to license on any lessor terms.
>So if Joe's Clone shop ships 1000 boxes a month, they have the choice
>between shipping them all with MS-DOS, or shipping none with MS-DOS.
>MS has refused any middle ground. 

WRONG!  I can't believe that people actually post such inane ideas.  
The agreement is like: if Joe's Clone shop ships 1000 boxes a month, Joe could
ship 'em with 1000 copies of MS-DOS for $8, or he could choose NOT to
abide by the agreement and purchase MS-DOS for $24 apiece. 

Joe, though he isn't a mathematician, finds that the 75% (or more) of his
clients desire MS-DOS anyway, so he opts to sign the agreement.

Heck, ANYONE (Joe Clone shop or whatever) can buy MS-DOS without signing
the Agreement.  Even if Microsoft didn't sell it to 'em directly
(and I want to stress that they do), you could always go through a
distributor.  Merisel, for example, sells DOS in both full package (item number
250344 or 250345) and Multiple License Pack.  Although I cannot say
how much these items cost (reseller confidentiality), I can honestly say
that the price of these packages are significantly more from Merisel than
if you abide by Microsoft's agreement... but the cost at Merisel 
is significantly less than the SRP.

So, if you think Microsoft is making people sign an "all or nothing" deal,
you are sadly mistaken.  The bundle policy exists because the vendor chooses
to bundle them.


>So, since maybe 50% of Joe's 
>customers want MS-DOS, he pays MS for all of them and stiffs the other
>50% for the license fee for a program they may never want (and indeed,
>may never see).

Actually, it is probably more like 75% (or more).  And most of the rest
probably want MS-DOS, but can pirate it from elsewhere (you'd be surprised
to find out how many pirated copies of DOS are out there!)--and don't
require the manual.

At a local dealership, I asked a the owner how many copies of OS/2 he
sold--and the answer was THREE in five months.  But he's constantly
turning over shipments of 100 DOS packages.

>
>>|> to leverage other companies' apps out of the
>>|> marketplace by giving its own application programmers the inside
>>|> track to upcoming changes and undocumented features in the OS.
>
>>Would somebody please tell me exactly what is wrong with that?  Besides
>>whining "its not _fair_!!!"  Microsoft owns Windows and DOS.  What Microsoft
>>wants to reveal or not reveal isn't anybody's business but Microsofts.
>
>BS!  MS can sell MS-Windows because they can go to Corporation XYZ and
>say "look, Lotus, Borland, WP, Claris, and IBM all make Windows apps, so
>as you can see Windows is a standard that even Apple (Claris) and 
>IBM endorse".  Without all these apps, Windows would not sell.  So
>our laws make it so that a company that depends on other companies,
>but is also a competitor to these companies, make it so that the 
>competitive advantage enjoyed by the competing unit(s) is not that
>much above the other competitors.  To make an analogy, let's say that
>Chevron was the only manufacturer of automobiles.  Exxon, BP, etc.
>manufacture gasoline, and they need cars in order to sell their gasoline.
>Chevron also manufactures gasoline.  So can Chevron make a change in
>their engine specs and not tell any of the gasoline manufacturers 
>except their own?  Of course not!  

I agree with your disdain for MS's business practice of using
nondocumented calls.  Whether or not it is legal, is up to the courts.
However, I want to point out that Microsoft has always tried to tell
developers about changes to the documented API (I know, my mail was full
of 'em prior to the release of 3.1).  The developers who program "to spec"
are readily made aware of changes that affect them.  My gripe is that
Microsoft uses UNDOCUMENTED calls--and in the same breath, tells 
developers not to program out of spec.  Several hack shops in my area
get around this by using the undocumented calls that are
"blessed" by their use by Microsoft products such as Excel and Winword.
But it is irritating nonetheless.


>
>>If Lotus, Borland, WP, Novel, et al don't like how Microsoft plays, they 
>>don't have to play with Microsoft.  Let them develop for UNIX or the Mac or
>>OS/2 or VMS or OSF/1 or NeXTSTEP or TOS or AmigaDos DR DOS or the Acorn
>>instead.
>
>Many of them do.  But they should not be excluded from any market due
>to anti-competitive strategies.
>
>I am hoping that Sun's new WABI pans out.  That will kill NT, severely
>cut into Windows, and force MS to try to stop Sun in court.  (for
>the uninitiated, WABI is an interface that allows any Windows program
>to run on any machine [CPU/OS combination] to which WABI has been
>ported).  You could run Ami Pro 3.0 in an X-term session on your
>HP workstation running HP/UX.  Take that Billy :-)


Don't let your bias show.  Regardless of MS's business practices, their
software is pretty good... good enough to run a business with.

-> Joe <-
My opinions.