From: chriswa@microsoft.com (Chris Waldron)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by C
Date: 26 Jan 93 15:59:13 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <l=l33n_@rpi.edu> johnsd2@jec315.its.rpi.edu.its1 writes:
>In article 21932@microsoft.com, chriswa@microsoft.com (Chris Waldron) writes:
>>
>>Clearly the point being made here is in reference to the FTC investigation of
>>Microsoft due to its relation to PC OEMs.
>
>Yeah, strangely enough.
>
>>  Clones of Macintosh system does not
>>abound in the marketplace due to the closed nature of their system.
>
>Also the fact that the roms and system are hard to clone- they
>are big and nasty. It would be like a Windows clone
>but worse, as System 7 has a lot of outdated compatability
>stuff in it that must be supported. Windows doesn't have this
>(yet, anyway)
>
>>  System 7
>>clones to my knowledge do not abound.  In fact Apple sued two companies that
>>offered GUI interfaces for different hardware platforms. 
>
>They lost, too.
>
>> Yet the FTC has not
>>looked into Apple's business practices.
>
>You mean suing at the drop of a hat?
>
>Is that illegal?
>
>>  My point which I've made in previous
>>postings is to contrast Apples practices with that of Microsoft's and ask if
>>the FTC is so concern with Microsoft why haven't they look at Apple's?
>
>I seem to have missed your previous postings. :( Bummer.

The Apple v. Microsoft suit is still tied up in the courts awaiting a final
ruling.  However Apple's suit against a much weaker Digital Research crippled
their GEM product and practically forced it out of the market.

Although not illegal Apple's habit of suing companies that attempted to put 
a GUI on a  PC -- not even on a MAC -- is highly questionable.  Here Apple
was causing mischief in a market that company themselves was not even involved
with.

>
>Apple does not have anything even remotely resembling a majority of the
>market at this time. Never mind a monopoly. They sell one computer line,
>and good old fashioned proprietary system software. Should Commodore be
>sued for doing this same thing? NeXT? (well, I know, NeXTstep is being
>ported.. but before that?)
>
>They don't even sell applications software into the Mac market. They
>have a spin-off company that does, but if it had an unfair
>advantage, it would be doing better than it is
>

Apples forced closed architecture prevents third party development of System 7
clones much less its sale on MACs.  The primary argument being made by the FTC
is that PC OEM must pay Microsoft a royalty on system that are sold with NO OS
installed thus discourageing the OEM from reselling other OS.  This argument is
sheer baloney.  I worked for a major OEM (DELL) and for years they offered 
various OSes with they systems (OS/2 and UNIX) the biggest noise is comming
from NOVELL that is having major difficulties selling DR DOS because nobody
wants it.  VERY few systems are sold with no OS (>2%).

>>  I 
>>believe that Apple has done more to restrain the market than anything that
>>Microsoft has done.
>
>"the market"?
>
>If you mean the whole PC market, I rather doubt it. Certainly I see no
>evidence.
>
>If you mean "the Macintosh Market", I find it rather odd that you say so.
>Do you mean that it is odd that other OSes do not proliferate on the
>Mac? They do exist, ya know.
>
>Perhaps you refer to the fact that Apple distributes the System Software
>with the system. This is rather unavoidable; a large hunk of that stuff
>is physically part of the Machine, because it is in the roms. Do you
>thing Apple should sell ROM-less machines?
>
>Apple tries to sell Macs as a unit. They tend to be rather take-it-or-leave-it
>deals because of this, even though Apple won't STOP you from mixing-and-matching
>components. (it can void your waranty, but then so does everything else :( )
>
>However, it is quite evident that nobody is forced to "take it"; lots and
>lots of folks go with other things. Like Windows.
>
>---
>			- Dan Johnson

Microsoft working with the hundreds of OEM also attempts to sell bundled soft-
ware as a unit.  With Microsoft, both OEMs and Microsoft make money.  Apple
monopolizes this relationship by keeping both the hardware and system software
closed.  As I alluded to before, the issues is not whether "other" OS can be
sold but whether OEM are willing to commit to selling DOS clones.  DR DOS is
a DOS clone, as well as PC MOS.  Once an OEM is committed to delivering an
OS it is the OEM that must commit $$$ and resources to support the OS.  When
DR.DOS first came out their were/are numerous incompatibilities.  It wasn't
worth it to the OEM to support DR. DOS or any DOS clones for that matter as
a bundle.

ChrisWa.   my_opinions != Microsoft.
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy