OSNews

> This appears to be a solution to circumvent the potential backlash of actually bundling the Live apps.

This appears to me as another reason to sue MS for monopolistic practices. They once again promote other products/services urelated to OS functionality which is only meant to wipe out the competition (e.g. Google) in areas that they normally woudn't be able take a lead without the help of monopolistic market share of their OS.

This appears to me as another reason to sue MS for monopolistic practices. They once again promote other products/services urelated to OS functionality which is only meant to wipe out the competition (e.g. Google) in areas that they normally woudn't be able take a lead without the help of monopolistic market share of their OS.

Do you really believe this wasn't approved by the board assigned to monitor MS on antitrust issues? Also third-parties have never had a problem competing with MS in the past despite lack of inclusion in the OS as long as their product was good, and this isn't unprecedented.

In any case, the Welcome Center is not an area where MS has exclusive access. The Welcome Center is an OEM integration point, so system builders like Dell (who've known about the Welcome Center for years now) may include their own services or services of affiliates like Google.

Edited 2006-08-18 18:13

> Do you really believe this wasn't approved by the board assigned to monitor MS on antitrust issues? Also third-parties have never had a problem competing with MS in the past despite lack of inclusion in the OS as long as their product was good, and this isn't unprecented.

They have already approved too much (IE, WMP etc), and I wouldn't trust the board on this. A company that has a monopoly status shouldn't be allowed to promote its other products or formats. A good example of monopoly overuse is WMV, DOC, IE_HTML which are default choice to redistribute matrials among 3rd party vendors, not because of thier quality, but because they come pre-installed on over 90% of customer's machines.

Edited 2006-08-18 18:22

They have already approved too much (IE, WMP etc), and I wouldn't trust the board on this. A company that has a monopoly status shouldn't be allowed to promote its other products or formats. A good example of monopoly overuse is WMV, DOC, IE_HTML which are default choice to redistribute matrials among 3rd party vendors, not because of thier quality, but because they come pre-installed on over 90% of customer's machines.

Customers have had no problems finding products such as Google, Firefox, Quicktime, etc., despite those products not shipping with the OS. Also, neither IE nor WMP (sans EU case) were subject to exclusion as their benefits outweighed any damage to competition in their respective markets (and WMP still lacks a majority of its market). DOC is part of Office, which is not included in Windows and was not part of the antitrust case at all. The case was about the x86-compatible client OS market (oh so narrow).

Antitrust is about consumer, not competitor benefit. You can't foster competition by crippling the OS, taking MS' IP, or excluding them from producing their own technologies. This hurts consumers by limiting their choices just to prop up competitors that consumers have already rejected.

Antitrust is about consumer, not competitor benefit. You can't foster competition by crippling the OS, taking MS' IP, or excluding them from producing their own technologies. This hurts consumers by limiting their choices just to prop up competitors that consumers have already rejected.

Agreed. I think to really have a case here, you'd have to prove that MS was intentionally setting things up so that the competitor's apps didn't run correctly. Maybe they have done that in the past, but is that the case here as well?

If it's true that OEM's can add other things to the Welcome Center then I don't have a problem with what MS is doing.

As for bundling actual services (not just offering links to them), according to the article, MS is having to negotiate with OEMs to bundle Live services just like Google negotiated with Dell to bundle Google's Desktop (and other Googleware). So OEMs can bundle the services of the highest bidder, and MS isn't getting or expecting favorable treatment based on the fact that it supplies the OS. So it's all fair.

This appears to me as another reason to sue MS for monopolistic practices. They once again promote other products/services urelated to OS functionality which is only meant to wipe out the competition (e.g. Google) in areas that they normally woudn't be able take a lead without the help of monopolistic market share of their OS.

Based on what evidence? don't like the services, then don't purchase them! just as with the bundle applications, don't like the applications then don't use them! download Firefox, iTunes/RealPlayer and use those instead if you find that Microsofts applications are inferior.

I swear, it as though we have people here who claimed that they had some storm troopers from Microsoft bust through their window, point a gun to their head, and were forced to run Microsoft applications and use Microsoft online services.

This is getting almost as pathetic as the attempt by that security company who complained that due to Microsofts new focus on security, their applications would find it hard to hook into the operating system - I'm sorry, but is its Microsofts job to provide unstable and insecure crap so that then likes of Symantec and generate a large stock pile of cash?

Not exactly what I'd hope (or want) to see, but useful if a person wants to get the latest messenger etc. This appears to be a solution to circumvent the potential backlash of actually bundling the Live apps.

True, but then again, one must also look at the competition; MacOS X, for example, already provides these sorts of links during the registration process when installing MacOS X - offering the .Mac services for example.

The good side to Live support is this; Microsoft now has a constant money generating stream, of which they they desperately require; right now they overwhelmingly dependent on sales of Windows and Office - any slipped or delays in their shipment, or lack of 'major improvement' as to entice customers, can result in massive share value losses and the doom and gloom merchants coming out of the wood works to declare the worse case scenario.

If they have that constant revenue coming in via consultancy (which they're expanding, to the dismay of their smaller consutancy partners), offering online value added services for Windows users, place expanding into providing other products which will add value and enhance the idea of running a 'legal copy of Windows', hopefully we'll eventually see a slow down in Windows releases in favour of more gradual updates on a regular basis with big upgrades being released every 4 years, which will build on the gradual updates that were released for those years prior.

True, but then again, one must also look at the competition; MacOS X, for example, already provides these sorts of links during the registration process when installing MacOS X - offering the .Mac services for example.

Not just during installation. Even after installation, OSX (Panther, which is what I'm running; I don't know about Tiger) has iDisc commands under the Finder's "Go" menu, even if you didn't sign up for .Mac.

"Click here to go to our crappy knockoff of Google products!"

I believe Microsoft had webmail, messenger, and onecare security stuff way before Google. If you try to troll or be funny, at least put a little effort into it .

Yes, but were they any good? I stopped using Hotmail years ago because 99% of the messages I was getting were spam. It may have improved since then, but if it has, it wouldn't have if it hadn't been for the existence of competition.

I agree hotmail was crappy before google and so was search But as google improved these, Microsoft is improving in other areas.

One Care Live kicks ass.
Live home page kicks google's personalized home page.

So you can't make a generalized statement like crappy product. Every company has/had their share of crap.

The best mail client now to me is Yahoo. It even has tabs and i can keep multiple message open, copy paste between them easily. Gmail frankly sucks. It's interface is pretty bad.

Gmail frankly sucks

On the contrary it rocks.But for a reason you might not have thought of.I hope though they search through my e-mail though because i have a subscription on multiple mailing lists.The odds are becoming better, i will get a hit on my search querries more easily.Convenient to hunt down those little buggers:-)

It's interface is pretty bad

Depends on your needs.Once setup is does pretty well satisfy my needs.

Edited 2006-08-18 15:57

Glorified ads? If this is customizable, then ads are hardly a problem unless you want them to be.

I don't really care of MS copies Google idea's or not. In fact I'd like to see them copy those idea's and with any luck they will do one better. Maybe Google will see MS improving their product and Google will then have to move to improve their product.

Let's forget about who's copying who. Let's see some competition to make a better product. MS bugs the hell out of me sometimes but iff some coyping can foster inovation or at minimum, some improviement, then I'm all for it.

I am European.
I am French.
I disklike Microsoft a lot, and refuse to use their software at home (I don't have the need anyways, my Mac fully satisfies all my needs).

.. but ... but I disagree with you.
I see no problem including their free live softs into Vista. Actually I am rather glad they do. As long as it is easy to uninstall/remove, I don't care what they bundle with Windows.

Apple bundles a lot of their softs with OS X and they don't mind advertising again and again their .Mac service. That abundance of softs wells integrated with the system and one-with-another is what makes OS X so good.

I hate installing Linux and spending 2 weeks setting up the configuration of my favorite softwares.

Windows coming with links to their Live products: that's not necessarily good but it is certainly not bad at all.

"I hate installing Linux and spending 2 weeks setting up the configuration of my favorite softwares."

There we go again... when will people stop using this cliché? 2 weeks of configuring? Yeah right. I think two hours at most. Anyway, I spent just as much time on a post-install configuration for MacOSX than for Fedora Core 5.
I just keep wondering, "who's so afraid of Linux?"

Yeah right. I think two hours at most.

Exactly.Two hrs tops.It's with XP an install takes longer if i don't use a ghost image:-)

First of all,

ALL OS's need and get patches. both updates and security patches.

second,

Vista under the hood has alot of major changes designed not only for better security better more stable. microsft is targeted becuase of two things:

one: is market share, (you get the most bang for your buck so to speak)

two: good dev tools, and compatibility accorss all plateforms and releases.


-Nex6

Network Stack, Audio Stack, Desktop Composition, and UAC to name a few. Have you even used Vista? Also the fact that some XP exploits dont affect Vista should be hinting that there are some changes..

Have you even used Vista?

You bet i have !
Sound is greatly improved for example:-)

If one is used to the outlook, which has a clean interface, Gmail is a bit of a shock.

True enough, but it's hardly fair to compare a web-based email service like GMail with a software client like Outlook though, is it?

You obviously haven't seen Outlook Web Access running off of Exchange...it's virtually identical to Outlook, and it's only going to get better with Exchange 2007. GMail is too light for power users.

yeah but: Gmail has a different way of handling mail then outlook does. I dont think one is better then the other it more of what is good for what you need.

Gmail is great if you get alot of mail, or need to archive alot of mail, or need to access it from anywhere.

ps: i hate the OWA interface and Refuse to use it. I always use outlook for work email via exchange, or evolution via imap/ldap




-Nex6