Submitted by The antitrust regulator in South Korea will begin a crucial hearing on Tuesday (Monday evening US time) to determine whether Microsoft violated the country’s fair trade rules by bundling its instant messenger and Media Player programs into its Windows XP platform. Officials have been reticent about whether the regulator, the Fair Trade Commission, will rule on the case after a closed hearing of two days. The commission held a closed hearing in July to listen to arguments from Microsoft and its local competitors, but it has not clarified how many more hearings it will need before ruling.
… this is just plain ol’ retarded (or whicked retarded as we say here in Boston). They are going after them for bundling media player and messenger ?!
Why don’t we investigate Apple for bundling such technologies as Quicktime, cyberdog and…oh….safari!
Does Quicktime come by default in OS Whatever? Then yes, take it out, since there’s other programs that can render QT files(Quicktime, not cute). Cyberdog is in Linux so it’s ok, and I hear Jobs in dropping Safari, and making Firefox the default browser on future releases.
hahahahaha – TROLL
Cyberdog is defunct – it died with MacOS 8
GOTCHA!
>”Does Quicktime come by default in OS Whatever? Then yes, take it out”
Why would they need to take it out? Apple isn’t illegally extending a monopoly in one marketing and bringing it to another.
As a matter of fact, Apple would be allowed to bundle as many applications with its product as it wants because they are offering a complete product. In the same way that Sony (for example) couldn’t be prosecuted for being the sole exclusive provider of button knobs for its radios (assuming it had a monopoly on radios) so to can Apple not be held responsible for illegal activity because they are creating the complete product. It differentiates from Microsoft’s approach which is a single component supplier of a much larger product. If you could use Microsoft software without a computer, THEN Microsoft would be allowed to bundle whatever products it wants because they would be offering the complete solution rather than a piecemeal approach.
>”I hear Jobs in dropping Safari, and making Firefox the default browser on future releases.”
you heard wrong.
There are two reasons why Apple is not gone after for bundline… the first of which you should already be aware of, but the second nobody seems to have grasped yet.
1) Microsoft is a monopoly. Monopolies are not allowed to take one monopoly and use it to branch out and gain dominance in another market. Apple on the other hand, is not a monopoly and so therefor, they are not guided by the same rules.
2) Apple would be allowed to bundle as many applications with its product as it wants because they are offering a complete product. In the same way that Sony (for example) couldn’t be prosecuted for being the sole exclusive provider of button knobs for its radios (assuming it had a monopoly on radios) so to can Apple not be held responsible for illegal activity because they are creating the complete product. It differentiates from Microsoft’s approach which is a single component supplier of a much larger product. If you could use Microsoft software without a computer, THEN Microsoft would be allowed to bundle whatever products it wants because they would be offering the complete solution rather than a piecemeal approach.
So they have to cripple their own product because they are considered a “monopoly” (they’re not really a monopoly though)? That’s a joke.
Microsoft DOES allow OEMs to bundle third-party software. But they offer a discount to OEMs that do not. It’s called incentive, not force.
“So they have to cripple their own product because they are considered a “monopoly” (they’re not really a monopoly though)? That’s a joke.”
Nope, not a joke, but the law in about every country out there. And they are not asked to cripple their product, just to allow, gasp, fair competition (now if that ain’t a terrible thought in a free market economy).
>”they’re not really a monopoly though”
Actually, you’re wrong. They are indeed a monopoly. To be considered a monopoly, you must own a certain percentage of the market… not necesserally totally own it.
>”Microsoft DOES allow OEMs to bundle third-party software.”
Only recently was that allowed.
>”But they offer a discount to OEMs that do not.”
Actually… not anymore. They were precluded from adopting these strategies if memory serves.
MS has done nothing wrong including Media Player and Messenger in Windows, what they have failed at in a fair competition market, is those programs are not included in the Add/Remove Programs list to be uninstalled 100%, and not be used again until you go and manually download and install them again. Although I would prefer to see just a Windows installation, no browser, no media, no messenger, etc, anything that’s not need to running Windows kernel, desktop, and GUI, I don’t want it in there, let me pick everything from there. Same with GNU/Linux and BSD, I only want the kernel and X Windows, like Xorg or Xfree86 and let me pick the packages from there. Can I promote PC-BSD at this time for doing just that, installing a bare system and you go get all the packages? So I don’t think MS did anything wrong including Media Player and Messenger, I don’t know, maybe they did, what I would like to see is a 100% uninstall of those 2, AND IE, like I can uninstall the Fox, Office(Open of course), Real, etc, then that would really make it more fair game, fair competition if people can take MS products out of Windows and just keep the OS. On second that thought, no, don’t include anything, just give everyone a barebones Windows installation, kernel, desktop, and GUI only, and dump everything that comes along with it, what do you people say?
>”MS has done nothing wrong including Media Player and Messenger in Windows”
Actually, it is wrong to extend one’s monopoly in one market to another so that they may dominate it as well.
>”what they have failed at in a fair competition market, is those programs are not included in the Add/Remove Programs list to be uninstalled 100%”
While I too would like that feature, not including an uninstall feature is not illegal…. however integrating that functionality into the OS certinly is as it makes it impossible to remove… rather than just dificult.
Yet Another Lawsuit for Microsoft. The Inquirer did some research a while back ( http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=24621 ) and found that the total amount paid out by MS is more than $9 billion, the mind boggles. The lawsuits range from discrimination suits to anti-competetive behaviour.
“The Inquirer did some research a while back ( http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=24621 ) and found that the total amount paid out by MS is more than $9 billion, the mind boggles.”
It only sounds like a lot. It’s really just part of the cost of doing business on the scale which they do.
9 billion is more or less what MS reports as revenue from their Office Suite for a single year.
Contrary to the belief of many: Nobody is ever going to sue or fine Microsoft out of business.
how dumb is the world. This is getting ridiculous. It’s a desktop OS. of COURSE it’s going to have a mediaplayer, IM, email apps installed. hell, every linux distro does and, if i’m not mistaken, so does OSX. But noooo.. the “EEEEEVIL” MS can’t do it. Give me a break. I’m no MS fan but this is just getting out of hand.
Besides, MS isn’t stopping users from installing 3rd party apps.
what a load of BS.
– It’s MS policy not to allow OEMs to install other IM programs, media players effectively forcing them to bundle only their software.
– If you deinstall these programs they will “mysteriously” reappear after an update or if you install another MS program.
– When you have a monopoly position your actions damage the market more than if you’re a fringe player.
Reasons enough IMHO.
1. So thats why I get Dells that have otehr media players and what not loaded? like jukebox and the like.
2. I’ve never had them “mysteriously reappear” after an update. MSN Messenger and WMP (all three versions that are loaded by default..) havent been on any of my windows machines in ages.
3. Bundling your own software with your OS doesn’t hurt much. If someone wants something better, they will go get it.
>”I’ve never had them “mysteriously reappear” after an update. ”
You’re right… there’s nothing mysterious about it… though it does happen.
>”Bundling your own software with your OS doesn’t hurt much.”
It hurts a fair and competative marketplace
>”If someone wants something better, they will go get it.”
Unfortunately, thats not the case in with the majority of computer users.
>”If someone wants something better, they will go get it.”
Unfortunately, thats not the case in with the majority of computer users.
Ah, so because no one is offering an alternative to MS tempting enough for ordinary people to buy/use it, the law must come into action to criple MS’ products?
>”Ah, so because no one is offering an alternative to MS tempting enough for ordinary people to buy/use it, the law must come into action to criple MS’ products?”
No, there are several products that I believe are so tempting that they would dominate Microsoft’s products if all of the above were given the same level playing field to compete upon. The problem is that consumers aren’t inclined to seek out better alternatives when Microsoft gives you some by default.
Thom, judging by your picture, you appear to be a fairly young guy. (Correct me if I’m wrong) Maybe you were still in school when the Antitrust trial was going on, and weren’t privvy to all the intricate details, but this has been something that has been hashed out many times in discusson boards like this one as well as in the court. It was determined that consumers are less inclined to seek out better options when Microsoft uses its illegal monopoly to leverage itself to enter and then dominate other markets.
>”how dumb is the world. This is getting ridiculous. It’s a desktop OS. of COURSE it’s going to have a mediaplayer, IM, email apps installed.”
No, they ought not be pre-installed… the reason is because such actions disallow fair competition in the marketplace. Microsoft should be required to play fair, and make consumners choose these applications based on what consumers want.
>”hell, every linux distro does”
And none of the Linux distros have monopolies… and they are free, distributed by the community. You cant restrict that if you wanted to.
>”if i’m not mistaken, so does OSX.”
OS X doesn’t have a monopoly either… but even if they did… Apple would be allowed to bundle as many applications with its product as it wants because they are offering a complete product. In the same way that Sony (for example) couldn’t be prosecuted for being the sole exclusive provider of button knobs for its radios (assuming it had a monopoly on radios) so to can Apple not be held responsible for illegal activity because they are creating the complete product. It differentiates from Microsoft’s approach which is a single component supplier of a much larger product. If you could use Microsoft software without a computer, THEN Microsoft would be allowed to bundle whatever products it wants because they would be offering the complete solution rather than a piecemeal approach.
>”But noooo.. the “EEEEEVIL” MS can’t do it.”
Its not about evilness. Its about whats far and legal.
>”Besides, MS isn’t stopping users from installing 3rd party apps.”
Actually, in some cases there have been instances showing Microsoft has tried to make it dificult for people to install alternatives to Microsoft software. Regardless, the problem is about pre-installation of software which encourages Windows users to not seek out options which may be better because Microsoft already installed their own solution.
Right, lets say I don’t want to use IE, WMP, MSN and all that crap? How do I get rid of it? Once MS provides the option to remove these applications and allows OEMs to sell stuff with alternative application then you will ahve a point.
How about you simply DON’T USE IT? And OEMs CAN sell stuff with alternative applications.
Many of us don’t use these applications… but were among the few that are aware of the alternatives.
The problem stems from the greater, less tech savvy computing populace who will use whatever is included on their computer. What that does is give an unfair (illegal) advantage to Microsoft because they already dominate the market in operating systems.
This endless litigation is not good for the industry, the consumer, or anyone else involved. Microsoft should be broken up, the playing field evened, and this endless litigation ended. When the DOJ announced their MS settlement that fell far short of any meaningful retribution, they set up this endless litigation. This current suit, the EU oversite, state judgements, all could be done away with if the DOJ stepped in and did its job.
The playing field IS even. If you don’t like the choices MS made with their OS, install some other! Linux is a good choice, and as long as it’s available, there is no reason MS need retain it’s desktop dominance. At this point, MS is doing a better job of keeping everyone drinking their KoolAid.
>”The playing field IS even.”
Right… except for the part that it is clearly not.
>”If you don’t like the choices MS made with their OS, install some other!”
I do and yet the playing field is still not even.
>”Linux is a good choice, and as long as it’s available, there is no reason MS need retain it’s desktop dominance.”
Understand, there is nothing wrong with acieving monopoly status. I’m all for a company that achieves monopoly status by producing the best product around. (Microsoft didn’t achieve dominance with this standard buut thats besides the point.) The issue of contention now isn’t to do away with Microsoft dominance to achieve a level playing field, it that Microsoft not be allowed to extend its monopoly into new markets and thus dominate them as a result of their first monopoly as that is illegal, anticompetative behavior, yet Microsoft does this all the time.
Hopefully Microsoft finally gets what they deserve. This company has been monopolizing the markets not just in the US but worldwide by shady and mob-like business practices such as strongarming computer vendors and forcing them into restrictive contracts to bundle Microsoft software with any systems they sell and to deny users the purchase of systems without any pre-installed Microsoft software.
Microsoft has been bribing(“lobbying”) lawmakers and gotten away for violating the court decision against forced illegal bundeling of sofware.
This has to stop and justice needs to prevail. Hopefully South Korea recognizes the situation correctly and makes the right decision.
“By Anonymous (IP: 24.128.48.—) on 2005-08-23 17:25:00 UTC
Hopefully Microsoft finally gets what they deserve. This company has been monopolizing the markets not just in the US but worldwide by shady and mob-like business practices such as strongarming computer vendors and forcing them into restrictive contracts to bundle Microsoft software with any systems they sell and to deny users the purchase of systems without any pre-installed Microsoft software.
Microsoft has been bribing(“lobbying”) lawmakers and gotten away for violating the court decision against forced illegal bundeling of sofware.
This has to stop and justice needs to prevail. Hopefully South Korea recognizes the situation correctly and makes the right decision.”
SOUTH KOREA CAN QUIT USING MS WINDOWS AND USE LINUX INSTEAD. What better way to show their disfavor with MS? This is getting old…
I’m getting really tired of these lawsuites. Okay, so MS is including apps that are difficult (if not impossible) to uninstall, and with which they are trying to force you into using those apps.
So, a lawsuit comes, and MS is forced to remove those apps and sell a version without those apps. Which nobody buys, and nobody cares about. OEMs still include the complete MS product.
Who won here? Customers? MS? MS’ competition? Exactly: no one.
These lawsuites are useless, a waste of everyone’s time and money. And of the electrons used to send news like this around the web.
>”So, a lawsuit comes, and MS is forced to remove those apps and sell a version without those apps. Which nobody buys, and nobody cares about. OEMs still include the complete MS product.”
I think that the issue here is that Microsoft ought not be allowed to provide that option because it still allows them to illegally extend their monopoly in one market to another… which is what the monopoly laws were meant to prevent in the first place. Consumers are best served by a fair and competative marketplace… despite the buying practices of that same public when given the options of monopoly with added monopoly software or monopoly without added monopoly software.
>”Who won here? Customers? MS? MS’ competition? Exactly: no one.”
Exactly. Microsoft lost because it had to pay money… yet it was allowed to continue extending its illegal monopoly. The competition didn’t win because Microsoft’s monopoly is still being abused. And consumers didn’t win because they’re still not benefiting from a fair and competative marketplace.
>”These lawsuites are useless, a waste of everyone’s time and money.”
Well, they’re only uselless as long as they don’t actually create a fair and competaitve marketplace.
“I’m getting really tired of these lawsuites.”
That’s to bad. I hope the relevant authorities will stop to enforce the laws if they learn you are tired by it.
“Okay, so MS is including apps that are difficult (if not impossible) to uninstall, and with which they are trying to force you into using those apps.”
To be a little more precise, they are abusing their monoply or quasi monoply in one area to get market share and if possible an other monoploy in an other area, which will of course help them later on to keep their initial monopoly. Do you really think that this is not problematic (apart from it being obviously illegal)?
“So, a lawsuit comes, and MS is forced to remove those apps and sell a version without those apps.”
Ehm, that was one outcome of one case, not a particularly splendid one, but only one. In this particular case MS also had to pay a heavy fine and had to open up their protocols for the competition, but I’m sure you were just to tired to remember that.
Can anyone actually believe that in year *2005* OS vendor is getting sued for bundling a “media player”?
Then I advise them to sue MS for:
1) bundling proprietary graphics display engine (sic!) such as DirectX & USER/GDI, which as an anti-competitive act against X/OpenGl
2) bundling html rendering engine and making their own apps (IE, Help engine..) dependent on it.. It is so “anti-competitive” against crappy Gecko, KHTML…
3) Hell, sue them for bundling NTOSKRNL! What if user would want to run a third-party kernel like ReactOS or linux?
In year 2005…when multimedia is something *implicit* in a home dekstop OS.
Why they don’t sue linux vendors which bundle thousands apps? Becouse they are hypocrits!
>”Can anyone actually believe that in year *2005* OS vendor is getting sued for bundling a “media player”? ”
Why wouldn’t be. It shouldn’t be allowed.
>”In year 2005…when multimedia is something *implicit* in a home dekstop OS.”
Why can’t Microsoft compete for this marketplace like all its competitors? Why are you so insistant that they be allowed to have an illegal advantage?
>”Why they don’t sue linux vendors which bundle thousands apps”
Its legal for Linux and other OS vendors to bundle and integrate.
Just think about what you’re arguing. Because Microsoft’s product is doing so well, they are forced to cripple their platform. Yes, CRIPPLE. Please don’t tell me you think computer users are smart enough to figure out they need to download a third party app to play videos. Why should the consumer suffer because Microsoft is doing so well?
Barely anyone uses Windows Messenger either, so I don’t even consider that an issue. People get MSN messenger instead.
And if IE was never included with Windows, do you think the web would have took off like it did? Absolutely not. Microsoft is offering their users CONVENIENCE while still allowing them to use something else if they CHOOSE. That’s the main point here. THERE IS STILL CHOICE and that choice is not hurt by use of force, and that’s what matters.
>”And if IE was never included with Windows, do you think the web would have took off like it did?”
Absolutely. Back in the earlier days of the web, before Microsoft illegally bundled/integrated IE into Windows… web browsers simply came with the CDs used to distribute the ISP’s setup software.
>”Microsoft is offering their users CONVENIENCE while still allowing them to use something else if they CHOOSE.”
And in the process illegally leveraging their monopoly by extending it into another market. They dominate that market not by having the best product… but by extending their monopoly. Thats bad for the marketplace AND bad for consumers
Just think about what you’re arguing. Because Microsoft’s product is doing so well, they are forced to cripple their platform.
The point argued is that it’s not doing well because of quality, but because it is pre-installed. And since inertia is a great force among computer users, the argument goes that most people will not even look at the competition, because they will use what they already have.
Personally, as a Linux user, I’m glad there’s an active competition between projects. Users can give feedback to the distro makers as to what programs they’d like to see in the next release. That’s a much healthier situation than what you have with Windows. Not only that, but I can watch Windows Media files, Quicktime files and Realmedia streams with the same app…
And if IE was never included with Windows, do you think the web would have took off like it did?
Don’t be ridiculous, of course it would have. Not only was Netscape Navigator a much better browser than IE when IE was first bundled with Windows, but by that time the web had already begun to take off. Don’t you remember when Bill Gates admitted that Microsoft had originally “missed the boat” on the Internet?
Microsoft is offering their users CONVENIENCE while still allowing them to use something else if they CHOOSE.
The real, convenient choice would be for Windows to offer you a choice of media players/browsers when you install the OS, like a Linux distro does.
> Why wouldn’t be. It shouldn’t be allowed.
“Should’t be” and “illegal” are two different things.
The first one is a result of your zealotism, and the second one is a matter of Law.
Koreans basically say that any non-essential OS technology should be a matter of user’s choice. That makes a bare-boned Operating System with NO APPS WHATOSEVER the only “competetive” technology. And that’s plain stupid.
I know that on planet Linux time is frozen in year 1995. regarding usability and integration, but on planet Windows, things actually evolve.
>Why can’t Microsoft compete for this marketplace like all its competitors?
How many companies do you know that actually MAKE MONEY out of selling a media player?
>Why are you so insistant that they be allowed to have an illegal advantage?
Because it’s FREE.
>Its legal for Linux and other OS vendors to bundle and integrate.
Same thing as MS. Legally, it’s not one company, but the principle is the same. Commercial Linux vendors should be sued as well.
Oh wait, it doesn’t happen. Hypocrits.
>””Should’t be” and “illegal” are two different things.”
And in this case… it shouldn’t be AND its illegal.
>”The first one is a result of your zealotism
Whatever…
>”Koreans basically say that any non-essential OS technology should be a matter of user’s choice.”
And so does the United States and Europe.
>”That makes a bare-boned Operating System with NO APPS WHATOSEVER the only “competetive” technology. And that’s plain stupid.”
Why would you say that. Microsoft can continue selling apps to fulfill a need… just like all the other software developers. Or are you assuming that Microsoft couldn’t compete well if it had to compete fairly?
>”I know that on planet Linux time is frozen in year 1995. regarding usability and integration, but on planet Windows, things actually evolve.”
Nobody is saying that Windows shouldn’t evolve. We (those of us that want a fair marketplace as well as those of us that follow the law) simply want Microsoft to achieve this goal without illegally abusing their monopoly. That’s all. With that out of the way… by all means Microsoft… make *Windows* the best it can be. Then make your downloadable apps the best they can be.
>”How many companies do you know that actually MAKE MONEY out of selling a media player?”
There were several before Microsoft adopted illegal business practices which forced them to give away their product and make money on it in other ways.
>>”Why are you so insistant that they be allowed to have an illegal advantage?”
>”Because it’s FREE.”
Their giving you one option for free in exchange for choice of having multiple options in a competative marketplace… many of which may also be free if that was their business model.
>”Its legal for Linux and other OS vendors to bundle and integrate.”
>”Same thing as MS”
Yes, Microsoft was given license to continue breaking the law.
>”Commercial Linux vendors should be sued as well. ”
Yes, if they do something wrong. As long as they continue doing business as they have been… then no.
Why they don’t sue linux vendors which bundle thousands apps? Becouse they are hypocrits!
Your example does not apply, because the bundled apps are not the property of the distro makers…and most often there’s more than one app of the same type available on the install CDs.
And they are not asked to cripple their product, just to allow, gasp, fair competition (now if that ain’t a terrible thought in a free market economy).
and what is fair competition? They don’t block third party software from being installed and used as the default in the OS.
Only recently was that allowed.
Proof?
is the US justice department to force microsoft and OEM PC manufacturers have full disclosure of all contracts concerning the manufacture of PCs, there should be no bias as to what OSs OEMs sell on thir PCs (either by coercion or financial incentive)…
and microsoft should be forced to sell OEM windows at the same price to a OEM PC mfg that also includes Linux BSD or any other OS, remember BeOS, i wonder why it died, could it be Microsoft strongarmed OEMs out of cutting deals with BeOS??? i remember reading evidence and opinions that pointed @ MS as the guilty party…
I’d like to point out that in 2001 the appeals court reversed the finding that said Microsoft violated anti-trust laws by bundling IE. I’m trying to find any ruling on the messenger and media player, but can’t find any sort of ruling on those, if they were even brought up.
So if the court said it’s not illegal, what’s wrong with it?
No, you are dead wrong, and either misinformed or trolling.
The appeals court reversed the decision to split up Microsoft along the lines drawn up by Judge Jackson, but the finding of facts still stood solid and the ruling about illegal monopoly along with it.
Media players and instant messaging wasn’t part of the trial at the time because Microsoft at the time it began hadn’t taken any interest in these technologies (always late on the uptake…), and thus hadn’t begun abusing their market share with regard to them yet. But the tactic is the same, and still just as illegal as it was with regard to IE.
Thank you for playing.
Why don’t you read the link I provided? It clearly states that the appeals court reversed the finding about IEs bundling. Can you read?
> Its legal for Linux and other OS vendors to bundle and integrate.
Way to contradict yourself.
>> “Its legal for Linux and other OS vendors to bundle and integrate.”
>”Way to contradict yourself.”
It not contradictory at all. These other OS vendors don’t have a monopoly.
Even if they did however, they would be legally allowed to because the competition is comprised of open source software which is organized by the people and can’t be altered even if the government said otherwise… and the other competition sells the complete product (hardware/OS/software. Apple would be allowed to bundle as many applications with its product as it wants because they are offering a complete product. In the same way that Sony (for example) couldn’t be prosecuted for being the sole exclusive provider of button knobs for its radios (assuming it had a monopoly on radios) so to can Apple not be held responsible for illegal activity because they are creating the complete product. It differentiates from Microsoft’s approach which is a single component supplier of a much larger product. If you could use Microsoft software without a computer, THEN Microsoft would be allowed to bundle whatever products it wants because they would be offering the complete solution rather than a piecemeal approach.
Again, the ruling that MS bundling IE with widdows broke anti-trust law was OVERTURNED.
>”Again, the ruling that MS bundling IE with widdows broke anti-trust law was OVERTURNED.”
No. Thats not true. As a metter of fact, it went to a higher court and it was reaffirmed.
The only aspect of the case that was overturned was the ruling stating that Microsoft will be broken up.
WRONG. Please go read up. The only thing the appeals court agreed with is about the monopoly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_antitrust_case
Also, look at the bottom. Even the CEO of Be Inc. disagreed with the initial ruling of bundling IE as breaking anti-trust law.
If you could use Microsoft software without a computer, THEN Microsoft would be allowed to bundle whatever products it wants because they would be offering the complete solution rather than a piecemeal approach.
Or if you bought a MS computer they could also bundle whatever they wanted. Which is ofcource where the Xbox comes in, complete control.
It differentiates from Microsoft’s approach which is a single component supplier of a much larger product.
But where do you draw the line? IM? Browser? Graphics engine? Filesystem? Kernel…? What’s part of the “OS”, and what’s not? Are there some set of universal rules about which apps MS should not include? Who sets those rules?
Thom, judging by your picture, you appear to be a fairly young guy. (Correct me if I’m wrong)
What does my age have to do with this?
>”But where do you draw the line? IM? Browser? Graphics engine? Filesystem? Kernel…? What’s part of the “OS”, and what’s not?”
Well, you have to have a file system and you have to have a kernel. A graphics engine is necessary to as long as they’re not typing it to the media player.
>”What does my age have to do with this?”
As I mentioned in my comment, I was eluding to the fact that you’re bring up topics that have already been addressed and settled over 5 years ago on both discusson boards, a lower court of law as well as a higher court. If you are a young person, you may not have been following the industry at that time.
Sorry, but this just absurd. Implicit in all these antitrust lawsuits is the implicit assumption that end users are too sheepish and stupid to choose a superior product when a mediocre one is pushed in their face. The fact of the matter is, there isn’t a lot of evidence to support that theory. Firefox has been downloaded 75+ million times. iTunes dominates the online music business; WinAmp still has a strong following. AOL instant messenger is the standard amongst most college students.
All of these products are competing with applications bundled in Windows, and they’re kicking ass despite it. Moreover, some of them come preinstalled from OEMs. iTunes, for instance, comes with HP systems. Likewise, my Toshiba tablet had not one, but two (wtf?!), AOL trials bundled with it.
Should Microsoft take the extra effort to remove the icons and all the application files for bundled apps? Maybe. In practice though, it doesn’t seem to have made a bit of difference. Microsoft won the browser market when IE became a better product; now that they’ve fallen behind, Firefox has given them a run for their money–just as one would expect in a competitive market. A lot of the people eager to see Microsoft get taken down through antitrust litigation are either (a) competitors who have a strong desire to have governments to the heavy lifting of competing for them or (b) various miscontents with a self-righteous sense of justice that would be better spent elsewhere.
>”Implicit in all these antitrust lawsuits is the implicit assumption that end users are too sheepish and stupid to choose a superior product when a mediocre one is pushed in their face.”
Ints not an assumption though,. The numbes speak for themselves.
>”The fact of the matter is, there isn’t a lot of evidence to support that theory.”
I’m surprised to hear someone say that as the lack of evidence sways more against your argument.
>”Firefox has been downloaded 75+ million times.”
And despite being a better product, never managed to gain any more than 10% of the market.
>”iTunes dominates the online music business”
Because its tied to the best MP3 player hardware.
>”WinAmp still has a strong following.”
Actually its very small now that iTunes dominates the market.
>”AOL instant messenger is the standard amongst most college students.”
Because its associated the market behind it was grown by a company as large if not larger than Microsoft.
>”Moreover, some of them come preinstalled from OEMs. iTunes, for instance, comes with HP systems.”
No longer.
>”Should Microsoft take the extra effort to remove the icons and all the application files for bundled apps?”
Yes. They are extending their monopoly when doing so… and that is both illegal and anticompetative as well as unfair.
>”Microsoft won the browser market when IE became a better product”
They wont the market after limiting the potential for sales for their competitors by illegall bundling their product into their monopoly operating system. As a result, the competition had reduced funds to develop their software. The trend continued until Microsoft’s key oppontent had to be sold off.
>”now that they’ve fallen behind, Firefox has given them a run for their money”
And still ocupies an extremely small portion of the market despite being free and being significantly better. THAT is the illegalmonopoly in action.
>”A lot of the people eager to see Microsoft get taken down through antitrust litigation are either (a) competitors who have a strong desire to have governments to the heavy lifting of competing for them or (b) various miscontents with a self-righteous sense of justice that would be better spent elsewhere.”
Or people who feel that they are best served by a fair and competative marketplace. Funny that you felt inclined to omit that one.
How does including Internet Explorer *stop* customers from downloading and installing Firefox? How does including Windows Media Player *stop* people from downloading and installing Real Media Player? How does including software Y *stop* people from downloading and installing software Z?
To go back to Apple. You say Apple does not have a monopoly and therefor should be allowed to include whatever the hell it wants with their computers/OS. This statement is false in almost every sense.
Firstly, Apple *does* have a monopoly. It has the monopoly in the PowerPC desktop/laptop market. Companies like Genesi, Terra Soft, Canonical and every other company providing PPC-based solutions suffer from Apple having the monopoly on PPC systems. So, someone should sue Apple for not selling OS-less PowerPC systems.
Secondly, I can buy OS X as a full version seperatly from a Mac (like I’ve done with Tiger during a release party in Berlin). However, Tiger came loaded with Safari, iChat, etc. Now, Apple should remove those applications, just like MS.
>”How does including Internet Explorer *stop* customers from downloading and installing Firefox?”
It doesn’t. Noboday is saying otherwise. The issue is whether or not people are inclined to find an alternative if there is already a competant piece of software already included?
>”How does including Windows Media Player *stop* people from downloading and installing Real Media Player?”
It doesn’t. Noboday is saying otherwise. The issue is whether or not people are inclined to find an alternative if there is already a competant piece of software already included?
>”How does including software Y *stop* people from downloading and installing software Z? ”
It doesn’t. Noboday is saying otherwise. The issue is whether or not people are inclined to find an alternative if there is already a competant piece of software already included?
>”To go back to Apple. You say Apple does not have a monopoly and therefor should be allowed to include whatever the hell it wants with their computers/OS. This statement is false in almost every sense.”
No, they don’t have a monopoly, and yet they would be allowed to even if they did because they create the whole product.
>”Firstly, Apple *does* have a monopoly. It has the monopoly in the PowerPC desktop/laptop market.”
If you’re going to adopt that philosophy, they could just as likely say that Ford has a monopoly on Ford cars.
>”Companies like Genesi, Terra Soft, Canonical and every other company providing PPC-based solutions suffer from Apple having the monopoly on PPC systems. So, someone should sue Apple for not selling OS-less PowerPC systems.”
Then make sure to Sue Sony for not selling buttonless radios, or canon for not selling lensless camera or nokie for selling buttonless cell phones. Wait a second… what am I saying. That’d be stupid. These companies create the complete product… they can include whatever they want.
“Secondly, I can buy OS X as a full version seperatly from a Mac (like I’ve done with Tiger during a release party in Berlin).”
Ya, its a version upgrade for your complete solution Macintosh.
[i]”However, Tiger came loaded with Safari, iChat, etc. Now, Apple should remove those applications, just like MS.”
If Apple were to make OS X for any other system other than the Macintosh… and then they managed to get a monopoly… then you’d have a point.
“Firstly, Apple *does* have a monopoly. It has the monopoly in the PowerPC desktop/laptop market.”
If you’re going to adopt that philosophy, they could just as likely say that Ford has a monopoly on Ford cars.
Then Apple is unfairly bundling Their OS with their Hardware and using their monopoly on that hardware to stiffle competition.
>”Then Apple is unfairly bundling Their OS with their Hardware”
No. Apple doesn’t have a monopoly. Yet even if they did, they would be allowed to do it because they create the entire product.
They’re not trying to stifle competition. Apple’s not precluding other companies from creating the entire product.
Windows + IE is an “entire product” then. Your logic is very odd.
But it doesn’t matter. There is no standing legal ruling that IE was illegally bundled.
>”Windows + IE is an “entire product” then. Your logic is very odd.”
And it would be perfectly allowable if you didn’t have to buy hardware to make it work… hence, its not a complete product now is it.
>”There is no standing legal ruling that IE was illegally bundled.”
Microsoft is a monopoly. Microsoft added said product to Windows. Microsoft achieved monopoly status in web browser too. Under the tunny act, this practice is illegal.
>> And it would be perfectly allowable if you didn’t have to buy hardware to make it work… hence, its not a complete product now is it.
What about the MacMini? You have to buy a keyboard, mouse and monitor to even use it.
>> Microsoft is a monopoly. Microsoft added said product to Windows. Microsoft achieved monopoly status in web browser too. Under the tunny act, this practice is illegal.
Not according to the courts. Who should I listen to, you, or the courts? Yeah.
>> Microsoft is to blame because developers primarly code their web sites for IE because IE is the dominant browser… because Microsoft illegally bundled it with WIndows.
Illegaly how? The ruling that it was illegal was voided. I’m not understanding how you don’t get this.
>”What about the MacMini? You have to buy a keyboard, mouse and monitor to even use it”
I was thinking in terms of an entire platform (OS and hardware) but that argument can theoretically muddy the waters.
>”Not according to the courts. Who should I listen to, you, or the courts? Yeah”
Actually the law says that extending one monopoly into new markets to dominate them is indeed illegal. Microsoft however hired enough lobbiests to grant them a license to continue to break the law without reproduction.
Actually the law says that extending one monopoly into new markets to dominate them is indeed illegal. Microsoft however hired enough lobbiests to grant them a license to continue to break the law without reproduction.
Ok, you’re not getting it. The appeals court ruled that the district court was wrong. They ruled that there was no precedent that applied and that it not had been convincingly been argued that IE bundling with Windows falls under anti-trust laws. You DID read the excerpt I pasted, right?
What the court says GOES. The court has the final word. The end.
>”Ok, you’re not getting it. The appeals court ruled that the district court was wrong.”
The surpreme court ruling upheald the district court ruling. The appeals court did a complete reversal 180 degree turn after Microsoft’s lobbiests emerged on the scene reversed the punishment. They didn’t reverse the law. The tunny act is still in effect and the supreme court did uphold the lower courts rulling. The appeals court simply said they disagreed and then did away with any real punishment that would have otherwise corrected the illegal activity.
And the appeals court is the final word, yes?
Again, READ THE RULING.
I’m done now. I don’t know how much more clear it can get.
Simply put, the ruling was, “we don’t have enough evidence to prove one way or another… so Microsoft is off the hook.”
(this despite the fact that there was enough evidence)
You were saying that Microsoft was found not guilty of anticompetative behavior. I was simply showing you that this was not true. You can’t say that that Microsoft was found not guilty of anticompetative behavior.
You can only say that Microsoft was granted allowance to continue practicing illegal and anticompetative behavior.
Absolutely not. The ruling states that they agree with the ruling on them as a monopoly.
It’s funny how you say “Well the court says there isn’t enough evidence, but there is!!”. Like your word means more than the courts.
No, I’m not saying there is and that they should believe me.
I’m saying that there is evidence but it got thrown out with Judge TPJ.
Even if we based our entire opinion on their notion that there isn’t enough evidence to say one way or another… THATs only because we haven’t had a fair and competative marketplace to compare it to.
We can however look at the fact that consumers have traditionally been best served in other industries when a fair and competative maretplace was in place over that of a monopoly extending its monopoly to new markets.
What’s important to look at here is that they are not abiding by their own law (tunny act) but instead are going against it based on a *lack of evidence* showing that the industry would be best served if that law were enforced. Thats like saying that they are not going to put a bank robber in jail because there is not enough evidence to support the notion that society would be best served if he were in Jail.
The law states that monopolies are not allowed to leverage their monopoly into new markets and the appeals court is doing away with that law… not because its inappropriate or because the accusations were found to be baseless (as you earlier implied) but because there is not evidence showing the positive affects of a competative marketplace because Microsofts anticompetative marketplace has restricted it from happening.
Admit it. The lobbiests simply allowed Microsoft to have a license to continue conducting business outside the confines of the law.
I don’t think you’ve actually read the ruling. The stuff you’re saying here is certainly not from that ruling.
“But plaintiffs were required—and had every incentive—to provide both a definition of the browser market and barriers to entry to that market as part of their § 2 attempted monopolization claim; yet they failed to do so.”
Failed to prove barriers to entry to that market.
The plantiff(s) (the GOVERNMENT) failed to prove that Microsoft bundling IE was unfairly anti-competitive. The Government isn’t some small business smothered by Microsoft. They have the resources to gather the evidence neccesary and prove their case. So why couldn’t they? Because Microsoft had enough money? Bullshit, the government has tons of money too. They failed because there isn’t a convincing argument for it. You can’t seem to live with that.
Did the price of Windows go up once they started including IE? I’m fairly certain the answer is no.
They have the resources to gather the evidence neccesary and prove their case. So why couldn’t they? Because Microsoft had enough money? Bullshit, the government has tons of money too. They failed because there isn’t a convincing argument for it.
As I recall, the DOJ became a lot less aggressive with Microsoft once Ashcroft succeeded to the previous AG (Janet Reno, if memory serves right). So I think it’s fair to say that there is a definite probability that the prosecution “choked” at the end of the trial and deliberately let Microsoft off the hook.
But please, continue defending the multi-billion monopoly. I’m sure it needs your help.
Did the price of Windows go up once they started including IE? I’m fairly certain the answer is no.
That isn’t relevant. Consumer interests can be harmed by other things than rising prices. In fact, dumping can be quite detrimental to consumers in the long run.
“The appeals court ruled that the district court was wrong.”
That’s not exactly true. They said they don’t have enough evidence to prove that bundling has a negative affect on consumers.
Here’s the quote:
—
[/i]”We do not have enough empirical evidence regarding the effect of Microsoft’s practice on the amount of consumer surplus created or consumer choice foreclosed by the integration of added functionality into platform software to exercise sensible judgment regarding that entire class of behavior. (For some issues we have no data.) ‘‘We need to know more than we do about the actual impact of these arrangements on competition to decide whether they TTT should be classified as per se violations of the Sherman Act.’’[/i]
—
The higher court’s ruling was maintained. The epaulette court didn’t reverse that decision.
From Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_antitrust_case
—
“The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously overturned Judge Jackson’s rulings against Microsoft on browser tying and attempted monopolization, but also affirmed in part (and reversed in part) his ruling on monopolization.”
—
So to summarize, the courts DID rule that Microsoft is a monopoly, but the appeals court managed to inject a semblance of doubt into the accusation by saying that there was no data which *proved* consumers were hurt by Microsoft’s bundling… which is true because we don’t yet have a fair and competitive marketplace that we can compare it to.
This element of questionability, doesn’t necessarily show that they found Microsoft didn’t abuse their monopoly as you’re saying, but rather, that *they* can’t prove it.
It doesn’t matter that Judge Jackson’s “findings of fact” DID prove it, because he was thrown out of court for talking to the press, those findings of fact ended up not weighing against Microsoft.
Microsoft knew that they could overturn the higher courts ruling… so they got the appeals court to simply say that there wasn’t enough data to prove it in their opinion which allowed them to remove any punishment for Microsoft’s anticompetitive activity…. which is all Microsoft’s lobbyists needed to do in the end as it proved Microsoft with a license to continue to act outside the law.
It doesn’t. Noboday is saying otherwise. The issue is whether or not people are inclined to find an alternative if there is already a competant piece of software already included?
Exactly! You hit the nail on the head, finally, Kelly! People are *happy* with the apps MS includes! Why should the law be involved to force people into thinking about alternatives? Care to elaborate? Why would you take away a baby’s favourite pacifier, and then line it up with 9 other pacifiers, letting the baby cry until he in the end finds his favourite pacifier again?
>”You hit the nail on the head, finally, Kelly! People are *happy* with the apps MS includes!”
I think most consumers are *content* with Microsoft’s products. There isn’t incentive to seek out alternatives because there is little reason to… this despite the fact that many may be better. When presented with a fair a balanced marketplace, its interesting that people don’t typically choose Microsoft products. Even if many do, its certainly not to the degree that Microsoft achieves by abusing their monopoly.
>”Why should the law be involved to force people into thinking about alternatives?”
The law isn’t set into place to force people to consider alternatives. When you say it like that, you make it sound like one company sets the standard and everything else is an also-ran. Perhaps its that attitude which causes you to defend the notion that the marketplace ought not be balanced in the first place. The law is not in place to force consumers to consider alternatives as you so eloquently put it, but so that every company has the opportunity to achieve dominance. Had Microsoft achieved the dominance they currently enjoy with IE without the benefit of Windows to push it, I would be Microsoft’s biggest supporter because they would have achieved that goal fairly.
>”Why would you take away a baby’s favorite pacifier, and then line it up with 9 other pacifiers, letting the baby cry until he in the end finds his favorite pacifier again?”
In this scenario, the “favorite” pacifier receives this title because that one happened to already be tethered to his overalls. In his mind, its that pacifier or none. If however, the baby were presented with all 9 pacifiers from the start, then he would be making his decisions based on actual preference, rather than that making his preference based on the only one he knows.
If however, the baby were presented with all 9 pacifiers from the start, then he would be making his decisions based on actual preference, rather than that making his preference based on the only one he knows.
Might be, but that’s irrelevant, as most people *are* accustomed to Windows. The way you describe it, is completely irrelevant and only goes for people who have never ever used a computer before (financially less-privilidged people come to mind).
But for the western world, the situation is like I described in my analogy of the baby and his pacifier. My parents both have computers, and I made them look at alternatives (Macs, Linux), but after using both, they simply wanted Windows back due to minor irritations with the alternatives, and simply because they wanted “something familiar”. Forcing MS to remove parts of Windows will not change one fcuking thing about that, so that’s why I find these lawsuites useless, and are only functional as income-providers for lawyers.
>”Might be, but that’s irrelevant, as most people *are* accustomed to Windows.”
And yet people are best served by a fair and competitive marketplace. familiarity to a product doesn’t mean that its still the best option.
>”The way you describe it, is completely irrelevant and only goes for people who have never ever used a computer before (financially less-privilidged people come to mind).”
You assume that people would be disadvantage for trying something new. While there may be a learning curve the added benefits the switch can create can be just as likely to outweigh that learning curve.
>”But for the western world, the situation is like I described in my analogy of the baby and his pacifier. My parents both have computers, and I made them look at alternatives (Macs, Linux), but after using both, they simply wanted Windows back due to minor irritations with the alternatives, and simply because they wanted “something familiar”.”
The irritations you describe elude to the familiarity argument more than than any notion that there are more irritations with the “alternatives” than there are with Windows.
With that in mind, familiarity to what you know is at the core of this problem because people will continue to use what they’re familiar with… not what’s best. Should Microsoft be forced to compete fairly, and not bundle/integrate products into Windows, then the familiarity boundary becomes obfuscated and people choose a product based on merit first and then remain longtime customers as a result of the resulting familiarity that ensues.
>”Forcing MS to remove parts of Windows will not change one fcuking thing about that”
That’s not true. It forces people to go seek out options. Some (like your parents will opt for Microsoft’s product because of their familiarity with it, while others may look at all their options.
If it were up to me, I wouldn’t punish Microsoft for the familiarity advantage they would inevitably be able to garner, which (as you demonstrated) would inevitably result in a disproportionate number of people opting to download Microsoft’s software despite there being other options that could theoretically serve some people better. As long as the marketplace were at least leveled from that point forward, I would be content and I think many others would too.
“so that’s why I find these lawsuites useless”
I don’t think they’re useless because hopefully, one day one of them will result in there finally establishing a competitive marketplace rather then they caving in to government pressure after Microsoft gets their lobbyists involved to sway the legal system in their favor.
Thom,
It’s a utilitarian point of view:
Why do I need to purchase software when MS provides it for me? Doesn’t matter if the software is bad or good; just the fact of having it is what seems to matter to most.
WMP: It doesn’t physically bar you from going to Real’s website to download it… but here’s the thing.
Windows on Desktops Systems: 95%
WMP also installed on 95% of Windows systems. Market share would then preclude that if you were a content provider, which format would you use so that any and all who need access to it would be able to see it?
WMP
This is why competitors have an issue.
First, control the content (Explanation above)
Next, integrate the product so that no matter if a 3rd party software is loaded, content defaults to WMP. This did happen; it can’t be validly denied; I have the support questions asked to prove it.
Do not provide the API’s necessary for 3rd party products to operate correctly in Windows.
No code, no integration, no competition.
Lean on PC manufacturers so that if they provide “unapproved” (MS considered competition) software on your PC’s, that the “special” pricing MS is offering for Windows and Office will no longer be available.
Only after the DOJ trial did you start seeing makers like Dell carrying competitors software on their PC’s.
This is a large reason why Netscape couldn’t sustain itself. (Yes, I know there were a couple of Communicator versions that weren’t so great, but the basic functions were still there)
How does including Internet Explorer *stop* customers from downloading and installing Firefox? How does including Windows Media Player *stop* people from downloading and installing Real Media Player? How does including software Y *stop* people from downloading and installing software Z?
1) include browser with propriatary stuff in it (ie-only tags, activex, vbscript) in your OS
2) Include browser updates in your patches, you don’t want insecure software on your pc now do you.
3) watch rivals marketshare melt away as you agressively update your os with now integrated browser.
4) IE only sites increase as everyone has the latest (supposedly most secure) version of it, with most new (and ie-only) functions
5) profit!
Come on we all saw this happen, the web went in 1 year from netscape dominated to “my pc-banking will only work with IE.” (How’s that for choice?)
The fact MS could focus on “developers, developers, developers” through their existing channels probably didn’t hurt either.
4) IE only sites increase as everyone has the latest (supposedly most secure) version of it, with most new (and ie-only) functions
So, Microsoft is to blame for web developers ignoring non-IE webbrowsers? I fail to see the logic.
Oh and Kelly, you do not seem to respond to my last comment directed at you. Does that mean you agree?
>”So, Microsoft is to blame for web developers ignoring non-IE webbrowsers? I fail to see the logic.”
Microsoft is to blame because developers primarly code their web sites for IE because IE is the dominant browser… because Microsoft illegally bundled it with WIndows.
>”Oh and Kelly, you do not seem to respond to my last comment directed at you. Does that mean you agree?”
I might have missed it. I’ll look again.
I’m sorry Thom, but Apple does not have a monopoly. The market to consider is PCs, not “intel-based” or “PowerPC-based” PCs. Microsoft has a monopoly in the desktop PC market, period, because even including the PowerPC architecture (on which its OS doesn’t run) it still has a 90%+ marketshare.
This statement is supported by the fact that Microsoft was submitted to restrictions set forth in the Lanham act, while Apple wasn’t. So unless the courts declare that Apple does indeed have a monopoly, they aren’t one (note: perhaps this’ll happen with the iPod, the way things are going!!)
South Korea trying to be like the idiots in Europe that did the same type of thing. Just scumbags trying to get money out of the most sucessful company in the world.
>”South Korea trying to be like the idiots in Europe that did the same type of thing.”
They’re scumbags for wanting companies to abide by the law and for wanting a fair and competative marketplace? Wow, that’s a leap.
I repeat, for the third time, that the appeals court ruled that there was no legal basis for considering the bundling of IE with windows as breaking anti-trust laws. Please go read the ruling:
http://money.cnn.com/2001/06/28/microsoft_file/decision.pdf
Begins at the end of page 68 and goes through page 90 or so.
Particularly what you should look for is for this tidbit on page 85:
“Until then, we will heed the wisdom that ‘‘easy labels do not always supply ready answers,’’ Broad. Music, 441 U.S. at 8, and vacate the District Court’s finding of per se tying liability under Sherman Act § 1.”
No, it says that Microsoft contests it.
Of course they contest it. They want to continue acting outside the confines of the law.
No. Please read the freakin’ ruling and the part I quoted DIRECTLY FROM IT.
va·cate (vā’kāt’, vā-kāt’)
2. Law. To make void or annul; countermand: vacate a death sentence.
“Until then, we will heed the wisdom that ‘‘easy labels do not always supply ready answers,’’ Broad. Music, 441 U.S. at 8, and vacate the District Court’s finding of per se tying liability under Sherman Act § 1.”
You see that? They VOIDED the ruling about IE.
SOUTH KOREA CAN QUIT USING MS WINDOWS AND USE LINUX INSTEAD. What better way to show their disfavor with MS? This is getting old…
Like situations in any other countries, most people in South Korea, too, don’t even know what Linux is, and they are too much familiarised with Windows yet. Simply I can say, without doubt, that most think ‘Computer is Windows. Windows is Computer’. In this situation, do you think it is quite possible to drop Windows fully and go for Linux right up from now? I know that you feel bored or something. But grow up. your talking is really childish.
For your information, there are so many VOD sites and more than 95% of them use Microsoft technology (Windows Server, MSSQL, WMS etc etc..) Yet to see any site based on RealNetwork’s technology or others.
Simply I can say, without doubt, that most think ‘Computer is Windows. Windows is Computer’. In this situation, do you think it is quite possible to drop Windows fully and go for Linux right up from now?
Also, over the last load of years, Microsoft can be accused of dumbing down computer users.
This is a good thing and a bad thing.
There is no denying Windows is easy to use, all those wizards etc etc etc
However, I was recruiting 2 new members of staff recently and there was a lot of people who had a 3rd level of education in cs.
When I quizzed them on what they knew about computers and computer systems, it all came down to them knowing which button to click to run a program on windows, and which menu the word count was in Word.
I put them in front of a MAC and they had not got a clue.
I put them on a Linux/KDE machine, and none knew what to do.
So, it is not just on the desktop where Microsoft is spoiling peoples good times, in a few years, they will have ruined the world economy.
Re: “1) Microsoft is a monopoly. Monopolies are not allowed to take one monopoly and use it to branch out and gain dominance in another market. Apple on the other hand, is not a monopoly and so therefor, they are not guided by the same rules.”
Most distributions offer some sort of chat messenger during default installation as well media player. As long as the consumer has the option to uninstall such applications to install their preferred application there shouldn’t be an issue.
As for Apple they can also in a sense be classed as a monopoly due to they lock out other system distributors from selling OSX and other related Apple software on their systems. Vendor Lock-in with Apple is actually worse than MS packaging their software applications with their OS.
>”Most distributions offer some sort of chat messenger during default installation as well media player. As long as the consumer has the option to uninstall such applications to install their preferred application there shouldn’t be an issue.”
When you say distributions, I’m assuming you’re referring to Linux. Linux (as with all open source applications play by a totally different set of rules because tehy are distributed as open source software. They’re distributed by the community in whatever way they see fit. While its important to govern companies so that they don’t do things that aren’t in the best interests of the public, open source software is self-governing because the community thats governing whats going into it.
With that out of the way, you said something that should be addressed, you said, “As long as the consumer has the option to uninstall such applications to install their preferred application there shouldn’t be an issue.” For any non-monopoly OS, you’re right. That’s the most ideal situation. However, if we’re talking about any other OS based on a componentized business model (not owned by a single company and also not open source) then merely leaving the option to uininstall the software istt enough to establish a fair marketplace as it still leverages the strength of the monopoly of the OS and takes advantage of the fact that people are inclined to use what they’re given rather than seek out whats best.
>”As for Apple they can also in a sense be classed as a monopoly due to they lock out other system distributors from selling OSX and other related Apple software on their systems.”
That argument doesn’t hold water because one could just as likely say for example that Bic has a monopoly on the little roller balls in their brand of ball point pens. The reason why they’re allowed to have that monopoly is because they create the entire product. The same is true with Apple. They sell the whole product, OS, software and hardware which allows them the opportunity to include what they want in it…. monopoly or not. If Apple were to offer their OS for comodity PCs, they should be required to unbundle all their apps from the OS… (the only exception to this rule would be if the competition were given a license to continue to break break the law.)
>”Vendor Lock-in with Apple is actually worse than MS packaging their software applications with their OS.”
I disagree. People know they’re buying a complete product. Other companies aren’t being locked out because they were never meant to be allowed in in the first place. There are genuine advantages to having a single company produce the complete solution as opposed to adopting the component business model. A very specific one is the ability for that company to differentiate their product from the competition.
South korea are scumbags ?
Why ?
Is it for expecting a foreign company to abide by the laws of the governing nation ?
Europe is a continent, a conglomeration of independant nations. However ALL of them agreed that Microsoft is a monopoly and uses illegal practises to further its monopoly. So does that make ALL those countries scumbags in your eyes ?
FYI – Microsoft is not the most successful company in the world, they are a corporation using dodgy tactics, which has been proved time and time again in courts of law all around the planet.
Now,
You sir, are getting worse with your views. At first you were just a Windows fanboy, then you advanced onto a Windows troll. Now however, you have sunk to low depths. Your post sounded like “trailer trash bigotry” spat from your mothers basement. It is people like you who get US citizens hated the world over.
You have all hit the nail on the head.
The are bundling their own software with the OS. Now they do not make it easy to remove their software.
This is a problem in itself.
Now, say I install Windows, and I want to chat online… Oh look, I got an instant messenger here, I will use that….
I need to write a letter, Oh look, I got an Office suite here, I will use that.
I want to watch a film, OK I will use this Media Player that is installed.
Now.
I could download ICQ, but why bother ?
I could download Zoomplayer, but why bother ?
I could download OpenOffice, but why bother ?
User apathy is one reason that Microsoft is so dominant.
Another is vendor lock-in…. Not just actual lock-in, but perceived lock-in.
Let me give an example of what I mean.
You create a vbs program, you need vbs to run that program.
you create an access database, you need access to work with it.
Those are two actual vendor lock-ins. They are fair enough
However, perceived vendor lock-in is something completely different.
I need to buy Microsoft Office so I can write documents that my work collegues need to see. It has to be Microsoft Office because thats what we use at work.
If I download OpenOffice, no-one will be able to read my documents, they all use Microsoft Office.
I can’t use Firefox because my Bank/Building Society/ Wargame club do not let any browser accept IE connect, “for security reason”…
All my friends chat on Windows Messenger… “What do you mean there is more IM programs” ?
I could go on, but I think you get my point.
It’s funny how you say “Well the court says there isn’t enough evidence, but there is!!”. Like your word means more than the courts.
His/Her words do mean more than the courts, at least, in his/her eyes.
Now, he/she has a choice, he/she can use Microsoft products, or not, they can use their own judgement to decide.
I do not know the guy/girl, but I can safely assume they are not sheep. If the court says Microsoft has been totally fair and kept within legal practises, does that mean we have to ditch Linux and MAC OS to go back to Microsoft ?
Sort it out.
No, that has nothing to do with it. I couldn’t care less what OS someone uses. But I do care if they go around claiming Microsoft broke the law when a court disagrees.
Soooooooooooooo what everyone should get is an empty shell of an OS no browser, no medi asoftware, no paint, no messenger software, no email client, no document editor, no nothing? Instead they should have to go out and waste time finding other software?
Personally I think this is stupid. Apple does it and Linux does it. If you want to sue then sue them too. Stop feeding this BS about a compelte product or open source is special. its still the same damn thing. Should people start sueing linux distros that are sold commercially that only use one type of WM because a normal user would be unable to figure out how the hell to install a different one? or any Linux software for that matter? Should people sue KDE because it uses Konquer to browse the files on your PC despite the fact you only want to use firefox as your browserand want to uninstall konquer?
Oh noes is different cause its open source? BS. Its the same concept. Open Source or not is totally irrelevant Open Source is a licenseing scheme and thats not coming into play here.
Apple integrates loads of crap into their system. Just like MS but its ok for them because they are offering “a complete package” and what is that exactly? A total computing system? Im sure MS would love to do that but everyone would shit themselves then and whine how anti competitive that was. So instead they just make the OS but they bundle just as much crap as Apple does. Linux, Apple, MS they are all trying their best to create an OS that does everything you need without help from anythign else. They want to make it easy for people thats why.
No one joe shmoe wants to spend time going online researchign 100 different media players and pick one. He just wants to pop his cd in and listen to it. And HP still bundles iTunes with their machines I just bought a laptop and it came with all this crap installed that I didn’t want, Adobe, iTunes, Real Player, WinDVD, MS Works, MS Money, Quicken, AOL bleh so don’t tell me they don’t give people alternatives. THe OEMs do and its not MS job to make peopel aware of that. Just like its not the job of Publisher to tell people about compeitiors books, or stores to tell people about their competitors prices.
And I have btw never has Windows Messenger Reinstall itself after patching.Same for Outlook Express.
Soooooooooooooo what everyone should get is an empty shell of an OS no browser, no medi asoftware, no paint, no messenger software, no email client, no document editor, no nothing? Instead they should have to go out and waste time finding other software?
No, people should be given the option to REMOVE the stuff they do not want..
Personally I think this is stupid. Apple does it and Linux does it. If you want to sue then sue them too. Stop feeding this BS about a compelte product or open source is special. its still the same damn thing. Should people start sueing linux distros that are sold commercially that only use one type of WM because a normal user would be unable to figure out how the hell to install a different one? or any Linux software for that matter? Should people sue KDE because it uses Konquer to browse the files on your PC despite the fact you only want to use firefox as your browserand want to uninstall konquer?
Sorry, that whole paragraph proves you have no idea what you are talking about. No need to comment.
Apple integrates loads of crap into their system. Just like MS but its ok for them because they are offering “a complete package” and what is that exactly? A total computing system? Im sure MS would love to do that but everyone would shit themselves then and whine how anti competitive that was. So instead they just make the OS but they bundle just as much crap as Apple does. Linux, Apple, MS they are all trying their best to create an OS that does everything you need without help from anythign else. They want to make it easy for people thats why
You still do not get it… it is not that you get it included, it is just that you cannot get rid of it.
No one joe shmoe wants to spend time going online researchign 100 different media players and pick one. He just wants to pop his cd in and listen to it. And HP still bundles iTunes with their machines I just bought a laptop and it came with all this crap installed that I didn’t want, Adobe, iTunes, Real Player, WinDVD, MS Works, MS Money, Quicken, AOL bleh so don’t tell me they don’t give people alternatives. THe OEMs do and its not MS job to make peopel aware of that. Just like its not the job of Publisher to tell people about compeitiors books, or stores to tell people about their competitors prices.
That is just your thoughts, plain and simple, you are lazy.
And I have btw never has Windows Messenger Reinstall itself after patching.Same for Outlook Express.
Either that is an out and out lie, or you have never patched.
You sound like a Microsoft employee, but we all know that you give your cash to them, not the other way around.
And register at the site, so we can look out for your dim statements to all posts. Retard
I meant Sherman. Damn you, sleepy brain cells!
Forcing MS to remove parts of Windows will not change one fcuking thing about that
Thom, you do a fine job at coming up with cool stories and links, but I really think you ought to not use such words (even with two-letter inversions) in your posts. They make you look unprofessional and are not necessary to convey your point.
FYI, ‘NATE On’ which was mentioned in the article has already surpassed MSN Messenger on usage in South Korea. It has been known for quite some time already. It probably is its integration into a thing called ‘cyworld mini-hompy’, an infamous free homepage service almost everyone has joined and enjoying in South Korea. Also there’s a messenger called ‘Buddy Buddy’ which was heavily used among teenagers before NATE On got attention. I have heard some more messengers developed and serviced in South Korea only.
At least for messenger service market, I can assume that the developers want the fair competition.
By the way, I’ve never heard any South Korean uses Yahoo! messenger.(there may be, but… However, I knew people who didn’t even know there’s yahoo instant messenger :p)
Well, you have to have a file system and you have to have a kernel. A graphics engine is necessary to as long as they’re not typing it to the media player.
There are multiple file systems out there, why do you consider a filesystem to be any more important than a browser ?
You can argue that you can’t operate the computer without a file system but in this day and age I’d say the same about a web browser and media player.
As I mentioned in my comment, I was eluding to the fact that you’re bring up topics that have already been addressed and settled over 5 years ago on both discusson boards, a lower court of law as well as a higher court.
If all of this was settled then why do you keep bringing it up ?
Seems to me that the young guy can argue just fine and brings up valid points. Instead of addressing them directly you copy and paste with the same answer over and over, and when that fails to drive your drivel home you resort to the lame statement “well you are just a kid! You don’t know what was going on back then!”
You my friend are lame indeed.
If you are a young person, you may not have been following the industry at that time.
Even if you are old enough to remember what was happening that is no guarrantee that you were paying attention.
There are multiple file systems out there, why do you consider a filesystem to be any more important than a browser ?
Because a computer cannot function without a file system, while it can without a browser.
You can argue that you can’t operate the computer without a file system but in this day and age I’d say the same about a web browser and media player.
You’d be wrong. It’s trivial to install an OS without browser or media player. It will still boot and will be able to perform a variety of tasks. An OS without a file system won’t boot.
Just because to you an OS without browser or media player is next to useless doesn’t mean that the OS cannot operate…
Simply put, the ruling was, “we don’t have enough evidence to prove one way or another… so Microsoft is off the hook.”
(this despite the fact that there was enough evidence)
You sure do like to flip flop around. On one hand you are saying that because MS was found in a COURT OF LAW to have an illegal monopoly that we must accept that. Fine I can handle that easy enough.
On the other hand however the same COURT OF LAW stated there was not enough evidence to prove that MS’s actions did damage to consumers, which you claim is false by saying “this despite the fact that there was enough evidence”
So which is it ? Is the law the final word for all or do you only use it when it fits how you think things should work ?
It would be like me claiming “MS was found guilty by a court of law to be a monopoly even though there was not enough evidence to prove they were a monopoly”
You’d have a fit over a statement like that and use the fact that the court RULED MS as a monopoly as proof. So in turn I’ll say that according to the ruling of the court bundling IE with Windows did not harm consumers and that is a fact found in a court of law.
You are losing credibility here and losing it fast.
So after every country is done filing lawsuits, can humanity as a whole file suit?