What actions would MS have to take to appear less monopolistic in your eyes?

[triptoe]

What would microsoft have to do to be friendly with Open source?

and what consequence would it cause them? would it be beneficial or inimical?

For instance the open document format. Would it be best if they supported it? Implemented their own as they are doing?

[Chilli Bob]

They could actively promote open document format as the ISO standard. I could forgive a lot for that.

[blueturtl]

Appearances and reality are always two different things. After all Microsoft to the common observer probably does not appear a monopoly.

The one thing I desire from them the most is that they would start using standard open file formats in their applications so that programs could compete based on merit rather than interoperability. Right now Microsoft seems to trust that if everyone were able to open Word-documents their Office suite would be crushed by competitors. If they don't have the balls to put their product to the test in a real competing environment that to me says there's something very wrong with the product to begin with...

[Epilonsama]

Staying away from the server market and focusing more on developing new tecnologies and stop pursuing linux or FLOSS in general.

[tgalati4]

Release Windows 98 as open source.

Hey, at least its a start.

[goumples]

Maybe stop going out of their way to enter into and dominate every market, and just do the things that they ARE good at. Just think, if they took half the time just working on computer software and stopped constantly entering new markets how much better and more refined their core software would become.

Their **** disturbing isn't a good quality either.. Come on MS, lets fire some of public relations folks who's job is only to spread fud, and start writing better code with the left over resources.

[FuturePilot]

Accept the fact that there are other OSes out there.

[Iandefor]

What would microsoft have to do to be friendly with Open source?

and what consequence would it cause them? would it be beneficial or inimical?

For instance the open document format. Would it be best if they supported it? Implemented their own as they are doing?
If they stopped actively spreading disinformation about competing products ("Get the facts" and "235 secret infringed patents" jump to mind), it would bolster their credibility as a reputable company. There's nothing wrong with advertising, but smearing is another thing altogether.
If they put an end to Embrace, Extend, Extinguish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace%2C_extend%2C_extinguish), I would be less inclined to think of them as monopolists.

[tehkain]

Use open standards like HTML, Jabber, ODF, and many others instead of creating their own standards to just continue vendor lock. Then they must campaign for patents to be abolished when dealing with software. Since software is a mathematical formula and they cannot be patent restricted. Stop calling us communist. Stop killing freedom with FUD.

Then they need to drop 30% of their market share. Why? Because that was the question posed in the title. They only keep that share for the above reasons.

Also get your hands and cash out of my politics.

[Spr0k3t]

Oh man... I could post a HUGE response to this. But I think the best way to sum it up: Stop being Microsoft.

Some things that would help...


Ditch IE and promote the use of other browsers available in the market.
Follow industry standards.
Leave VB to file 13 and give back C# to the Java community
Kill Office XML
Give back every stolen functionality claimed as their own
REAL open source
Fight DRM
Let WGA fall to the wayside
Remove Ballmer and his clan from power


There are tons more, but that's a decent chip at the iceberg.

[hessiess]

if thay were to give 60% of there mony to ledc's

[mostwanted]

They should start using open standards. The minute open standards are the norm, the good old free market will choose the apps and os they like best, rather than the one their file format dictates they use. Who knows, people might keep using MS apps because they're the best rather than the only choice...?

[snyling]

I dunno, maybe giving away a very basic version of vista away for free.
Not that I would use it.

[qazwsx]

If they move from
1. DirectX to OpenGL (just imagine possibility of Linux Gaming if they did this)
2. OOXML to ODF
3. wmv, wma stuff to openly documented formats

And of course they should stop supporting DRM.

I don't mind their genuine advantage and also they can keep huge license costs. :lolflag::popcorn:

[forrestcupp]

Then they need to drop 30% of their market share. Why? Because that was the question posed in the title. They only keep that share for the above reasons.


That doesn't even make sense. You can't drop market share. Market share is based on what people buy; it's not something the seller controls. If people want to buy something that's available, they will.

[tehkain]

That doesn't even make sense. You can't drop market share. Market share is based on what people buy; it's not something the seller controls. If people want to buy something that's available, they will.

How is it not something the seller controls? That is the heart of a monopoly. They use anticompetitive practices, FUD, and money(politics) to retain their monopoly. Look at the automotive industry compared to the operating system industry. That is how a somewhat fair system works. They use open standards like the metric system, the electrical wiring standards that are well documented, and comply with many laws regarding restrictions. We all share the same road with different cars. Monopolies do not and cannot exist when companies play by the rules and there are alternatives. We have alternatives - both closed and open.

If microsoft did the things I mentioned in my first post they would surely lose a big chunk of market share. Them just allowing alternative to be viable will cause that. Many companies cannot and will not compete just out of fear of being hit by MS's FUD/legal team.

People do not buy MS because they want it, most of them do not know what an OS is, they only buy it because they have to. You cannot share the roads in this industry with MS at the helm.

[forrestcupp]

How is it not something the seller controls? That is the heart of a monopoly. They use anticompetitive practices, FUD, and money(politics) to retain their monopoly. Look at the automotive industry compared to the operating system industry. That is how a somewhat fair system works. They use open standards like the metric system, the electrical wiring standards that are well documented, and comply with many laws regarding restrictions. We all share the same road with different cars. Monopolies do not and cannot exist when companies play by the rules and there are alternatives. We have alternatives - both closed and open.

If microsoft did the things I mentioned in my first post they would surely lose a big chunk of market share. Them just allowing alternative to be viable will cause that. Many companies cannot and will not compete just out of fear of being hit by MS's FUD/legal team.

People do not buy MS because they want it, most of them do not know what an OS is, they only buy it because they have to. You cannot share the roads in this industry with MS at the helm.

Heh. I worked in an automotive factory for 11 years. They were pretty uptight about people bringing cameras in. We worked in a fenced in property that took a badge scan to even enter the property. Any time an outsider came in, they had to be escorted and they were not allowed to look at anything they weren't shown. The automotive industry didn't appear to be too open to me.

Even if people don't consider Linux to be a viable alternative, Mac is widely considered to be viable. Apple doesn't have a big OS market share simply because people don't care to buy something other than Windows PCs. It's all in the hands of the buyers. I've seen more Mac commercials than I have Windows, yet Mac still has about 3% share.

[Bungo Pony]

- Provide an OEM install CD with every new PC.
- Revise their EULA to state that the user does indeed own the software
- Eliminate WGA
- Continue to support their old software
- Admit it when they screw up
- Make a public apology to Mike Rowe (who owned the mikerowesoft.com domain)

[tehkain]

Heh. I worked in an automotive factory for 11 years. They were pretty uptight about people bringing cameras in. We worked in a fenced in property that took a badge scan to even enter the property. Any time an outsider came in, they had to be escorted and they were not allowed to look at anything they weren't shown. The automotive industry didn't appear to be too open to me.
There is a big difference between open source and using open standards. Why would they give away trade secrets and risk their security? Does Sun, they adopt open standards, let everyone into their building? Does Google let you see inside Gtalk since it uses open standards? No equating letting people into a secure area to see trade secrets and development systems to being closed is unfair and unfounded. Ask any engineer how standardized the automotive industry at the low level where it really matters.

[ticopelp]

Burn to the ground.

[popch]

Of what use could it possibly be if MS appeared to be less monopolistic?

On the other hand, if they wanted to exert less influence on the market, they knew perfectly well how to do that. Just stop what they are doing in order to corner the entire market.

But then, they wouldn't be MS any more. Fat chance.

[goumples]

But then, they wouldn't be MS any more. Fat chance.

Yep. It's gonna take MS taking huge losses and losing market dominance for them to change. Even then the changes they make will be a grasp at survival, not any good will towards their costumers.

[PhatStreet]

Accept the fact that there are other OSes out there.
This is all I would need. If they would stop pushing everything they have against all standards, I wouldn't mind at all that they had 95% marketshare.

[phenest]

Accept the fact that there are other OSes out there.

+1

This is all they need do.

[popch]

This is all I would need. If they would stop pushing everything they have against all standards, I wouldn't mind at all that they had 95% marketshare.

But that is exactly how they acquired their market share. It is not in the interest of the manufacturer to ensure that there is a second source. It is in the interest of the customer.

[Anthem]

Support ODF.

[Acglaphotis]

Making me their CEO. : D

[treis]

Spin off the non-OS portions of the company into new independent companies.

[triptoe]

I would be content if they would just stop bribing public officials. Lobbying should really be criminalized

[brentoboy]

So many things to choose from... I'll only push the "reasonable" ones.

1) When they drop support for an old piece of software, open source it. This is only fair, when people purchased win 95, or 98, nt 4.0 there wasn't a big sticker that said "we will leave you out in the cold if you are still using this in 8 years. 8 years is a long time, but people are still using it, and sometimes upgrading is more about complicated business software relationships and less about coming up with a couple hundred bucks. They don't even have to GNU open source it, they could release the source under a clause that only allows active win98 licenses to make use of it. I dont care.

2) Stop licensing their OS and Office software in such a way that when an old PC dies, you cant move the license to a new PC without breaking the law. When I pay $150+ for a license to use some software, and I throw away an old PC, I should be able to transfer my license (or sell it on ebay if I want). Its ridiculous, you cant legally install vista on a VMware machine inside of vista and use the same license on both "machines." even though it is the same machine. That is a bit restrictive for my taste.

3) Make Word and Excel Free (as in beer) and make Linux binaries available (even if would be users would have to register and supply an email address in order to have a legal copy).

4) Stop trying to bundle their MSN garbage as a "free promotional package" through all the high speed internet companies. No one wants the MSN crap that gets installed when you get cable / dsl. As a professional on site computer fix-it guy, I spend a huge chunk of my time releasing my client's computers from the MSN trap.

5) They can even keep playing all their rude, unsportsmanlike, proprietary games. Bullying competitors is one thing, but they shouldn't bully paying customers who just want to use the crap they paid for.


-That's what I think

[happysmileman]

* Fall below 75% market share
* Allow projects like wine to work good (provide good documentation for all their API functions, possibly donate at least Win98 code)
* Shut up about patents

[jgrabham]

A fall in the number of chairs throwing incidents?

[Iandefor]

I would be content if they would just stop bribing public officials. Lobbying should really be criminalizedThat would just make it harder to keep track of corruption.

[Extreme Coder]

- As said before, adopt open standards, and/or open theirs.

- Make some of their important software available for Mac and Linux, like WMP, IE, Office, Messenger and others.

There are lots of other things, but since even they can't achieve the first one or two, Microsoft's off my list.

[skattyadz]

I've always thought that as soon as an OS begins releasing its own real software it's on the path to a monopoly.

[Dimitriid]

The problem isn't microsoft, the problem is Capitalism since this is just a natural consequence, given the opportunity all sectors of life and goods would move towards monopoly sooner or later.

[Hendrixski]

I know... how about not bribing Swedens ISO working groups. I guess if you can buy an ISO standard then you're not really worried about people thinking you're a monopoly or not.

[stuh84]

- Make some of their important software available for Mac and Linux, like WMP, IE, Office, Messenger and others.


Office and Messenger are already available for Macs, and IE used to be the default browser before Safari came along.

Albeit, Messenger is not as feature rich as the Windows Live client (then again I use Adium anyway), and they have yet to release an Office client which has OOXML support (thats coming early 2008 apparently), but Office is still one of the largest selling pieces of software on the Mac.

Linux is an entirely different story, but given that Linux steals everyones patents.......:lolflag:

[Nekiruhs]

Burn to the ground.
+ 1
Quoted for truth. MS can never be non monopolistic its just not their nature.

[Hendrixski]

What would microsoft have to do to be friendly with Open source?

For instance the open document format. Would it be best if they supported it? Implemented their own as they are doing?

There's a reason why they don't implement the ODF, because if they force everybody to use OOXML then they can lock everybody else out of their software stack which uses OOXML as the only way of communicating.
read this and find out more: http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=540016