Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 24th Dec 2008 20:49 UTC, submitted by judgen
Permalink for comment 341502
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Anonymous on 06/18/13 22:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:25 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:32 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:58 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 21:03 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 20:46 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 17:32 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2007-02-17
There is nothing wrong with product tying, if I'm not mistaken. The only reason it was an issue with MS was because they were and still are a monopoly with full control over the PC market. The other issue was that IE was tied directly to the OS without any hopes of removing to install something else (at the time Netscape) and very little chance that a third party would be able to do the same with their browser (though we now know how bad an idea that was). Your argument holds very little water, you should be able to sue Canonical for including Firefox as default, or Apple for including Safari, but that is not the case because they are not a monopoly and thus can't sway masses of users by including one app. Product tying is not illegal and its done all the time, xbox, PS3, Wii, you name it, all of these products are tied to software or hardware or both. As it has already been legally established Apple is in competition with other PC manufacturers, what differentiates them from other OEM's is OSX, they have the eright as a company of selling their product with whatever they think will gain them an advantage. To to top it off they support running other OS's on their systems.