RE: Strategic Orientation - Scope, Scale, or Means of Monopoly

["Norm" <normanmo@clark.net>]

On Wed, 22 Apr 1998 10:38:47 -0400 (EDT), Mitch Stone wrote:

>>So, how did MS one-up these others? He does not say. But, he certainly does
>>illuminate the compound effect of small, early departures from commodity
>>standards.
>>
>>I think the foundation of MS monopoly, the apex of an upside down pyramid,
>>is HIMEM.SYS, EMM386.SYS, IFSHELP.SYS, MODE.COM, PRINT.COM. These are where
>>MS and Compaq started trying to "add value" while preserving "IBM
>>compatibility". Of these, IFSHELP.SYS is now the only important one.
>>
>>IFSHELP.SYS is where MS was able to break OS/2.
>
>Perhaps, but did these DOS tinkers occur before or after MSFT imposed the 
>CPU tax? Wasn't their ability to prevent the competition from obtaining 
>meaningful access to the clone market where the rubber really hit the 
>road? The creation of these "product differentiations" are are only truly 
>significant in terms of creating customer lock-in, when access to 
>competitive products is also artificially restricted.


     I think Mitch has it.  Various 'Dos tinkers' would be moot if the
competition could have had access to the OEM market early on.  Who
would care how easily one could build something on top of Dos if they
could replace it with something else entirely.  The fact is that the
early roadblocks are what left the competition building on top of Dos,
without that I don't think Dos would have ever become known as a
'standard'.  IMNSHO that's when M$ started building their monopoly, and
everything since then has done nothing but reinforce it.

 ...Cheers,

 ...Norm

***********************************************
* Brought to you by OS/2 Warp v4.0 and PMMail *
* For a copy of my PGP key send me a message  *
* with "send pub_key" in the subject          *	
***********************************************