-
Subscribe -
Community
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
-
Recent Comments
- Since that $750 per family is money we don't have, that would be $750 per family plus interest on the debt in perpetuity. Or it could be monetized, in which case it regressively taxes everyone...
- For the record, the supporters of "Google violates its 'Don't be Evil' motto swept the floor with the Google apologists, even with Googleboy Larry Lessig in the audience. See the...
- Slippery slopes are everywhere, so I wouldn't worry about them. These issues about probable cause only apply to the government, as I understand them, but IANAL. Assuming there were something to...
- Apparently I can reply to your comment via e-mail. We'll see if this works. (later) Indeed it does, with a few formatting weirdnesses is all.
- Same here. My response to you hasn't shown up.I guess Disqus doesn't want to get anyone upset.
The Technology Liberation Front
The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.The Technology Liberation Front » Archive » The Rise & Inevitable Fall of Tech Giants
Started by TLF · 3 months ago
6 months ago
Actually, I think the regulators fear markets and technological innovation more than Microsoft. That's why you're seeing the FTC taking steps to usurp control of standard-setting organizations (via the Rambus case and others) and why there's been a panicked rush to expand antitrust powers via wiretapping and eliminating due process for targets of antitrust investigations.
6 months ago
6 months ago
Now, with AMD in its death throws, it's hard to foresee how Intel will be dethroned given the competition. Wouldn't surprise me if Intel is still the market leader in another 10 years. And with Intel's foray into mobile devices via Atom, they could take over that market in a few years as well.
6 months ago
Google is looking to use regulation to extend the period of their dominance; "net neutrality," which they support in a big way, is a recipe for lock-in that raises the stakes for would-be competitors very high.
6 months ago
@ Adam: IBM is proabably a bad example to use for an example of a "one trick pony":
But an interesting point that Paul Ormerod makes in his quite interesting book Why Most Things Fail is that, to double the likelihood that a given company won't fail in the next year, it has to be twenty times the size. This rather weak correlation between size and survival holds true in many other industries, not just the tech sector so there really isn't anything surprising in Mr. Stross's observation. Ormerod also sends up these so-called pundits (like Mr Stross) who announce that some company has found some secret formula of success only to have it shown to be false over time.
In anycase, the reason why Microsoft is finding its battle so hard to win is very simple. They have, at every turn, shown that they believe they can write the rules, decide when their customers will up grade. Then Mr. Balmer calls the GPL a 'cancer; they are shown to be behind the funding of the SCO lawsuit vs. IBM. In short they have behaved like a monopolist. Customers don't like monopolists, neither do economists; there's a lot of sub-optimal market conditions that come to exist in markets dominated by just one player.
In the game of being a tech giant the game can't be won; smart players realize that the objective is to stay in the game as long as possible. If you succeed in become the 'top dog' (for a day) everyone will have you in their sights, and your connectivity will be zero. Many criticize IBM for creating the PC standard and then failing to monetize it adequately; BUT we will see who is around 20 years from now.
6 months ago
Google is looking to use regulation to extend the period of their dominance; “net neutrality,” which they support in a big way, is a recipe for lock-in that raises the stakes for would-be competitors very high.
Google's attitude towards net neutrality is largely defensive; they understand that given a non-neutral network, they could bee locked out of there main revenue stream extremely quickly. Many don't appreciate how fragile Google really is.
6 months ago
6 months ago
Adam writes "What’s sad about this, of course, is that Microsoft still labors under ridiculous antitrust restrictions and government oversight efforts across the globe even though markets and technological innovation are doing a much better job of eroding the market dominance that those regulators fear."(emphasis added)
While I disagree about the antitrust restrictions comment, Adam is quite correct that markets and innovation forces cause companies that have become "established" to fail. An example of this process at work was recently reported by TechDirt. It seems that a hobbyist was able to get Creative audio drivers to work with Windows VISTA. Instead of being grateful and offering this guy a job Creative attempted to shut this person down.
Regarding this incident, The Register had this quote from Creative: "The huge task of developing driver updates to accommodate the many changes in the Vista operating system and the extensive testing required, including the lengthy Vista certification requirements for audio, makes it very difficult for Creative to develop updates for all past products."
Whenever a company makes a statement, such as the one above, it is an indication that the company is now being run as a "cash-cow" business by managers who have lost the entrepreneurial spirit. To put it another way, the company is no longer interested in innovation or serving its customers.
In terms of Microsoft, TechDirt Reported on April 23, 2008 "Microsoft's Final 'Up Yours' To Those Who Bought Into Its DRM Story".
When companies refuse opportunities for innovation or undertake actions that screw their customers, they are starting the long slow ride into oblivion. I look forward to further analysis of how tech companies die because they fail to pursue Technological Freedom.