Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 7th May 2006 19:17 UTC
Legal Sometimes, the smallest of things can amaze me. I'm a sucker for details, which probably lies at the base of my slightly obsessive-compulsive traits of keeping things organized, tidy, aligned, and neat. It's great to see some companies are suckers for details too. Unless the details just become too insignificant. Note: Sunday Eve Column. Short, this week, though.
Thread beginning with comment 122012
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Thom, I agree with you
by kamil_chatrnuch on Sun 7th May 2006 20:54 UTC
kamil_chatrnuch
Member since:
2005-07-07

and if I'm buying a retail os, I EXPECT it to have a media player, an internet browser, etc.. whatever I will use it or not - is another topic.

also now that ms became a "monopoly" on the pc os market: they don't have the right to bundle stuff with the operating system? I for one EXPECT them to do that. bundle as much as possible.

as for the search box in IE. it's their product. if only from the PR perspective - it would be insanely stupid to default to google.

if google.com will one day [hypothetically] become a monopoly in the search market: will they have to include a yahoo, msn search box on their page? no. for the same reason, I don't see why IE should default to an other companies search engine.

Edited 2006-05-07 20:57

Reply Score: 3

RE: Thom, I agree with you
by growchie on Sun 7th May 2006 21:24 in reply to "Thom, I agree with you"
growchie Member since:
2005-07-07

Let see what happened recently.
Microsoft won the desktop battle, ok. Then they used windows to win the browser war. Now they use IE the same way they used windows against netscape in their battle against google. And remember ordinary users dont bother to change settings and use defaults.

Lets imagine for a while what could MS do if they get let say 70% of the search market. Would they be tempted to boost the ratings of IIS/WinServer sites? Could they use a search monopoly to "promote" their server products? I'll leave these questions open.

Just as a side note about windows media player. Have you noticed a sharp decline of the number of sites streaming in RealMedia format and switching to WMV? And if yes could you answer it to yourself why?

I am not saying if this is right or wrong. It's up to you.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Varg Vikernes Member since:
2005-07-06

And remember ordinary users dont bother to change settings and use defaults.

That would explain why MSN is the most popular search engine.

Just as a side note about windows media player. Have you noticed a sharp decline of the number of sites streaming in RealMedia format and switching to WMV? And if yes could you answer it to yourself why?

Could it be that Real Player sucked balls? Come on. Real Player was/is one of the worst media players available. Real died because they sucked and stuffed their player with ads and spyware. Not to mention WMV is light years ahead of RM in terms of compression/quality.

I feel sorry for those two that modded you up.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Thom, I agree with you
by essdeekay on Mon 8th May 2006 11:32 in reply to "RE: Thom, I agree with you"
essdeekay Member since:
2006-01-31

"Lets imagine for a while what could MS do if they get let say 70% of the search market. Would they be tempted to boost the ratings of IIS/WinServer sites? Could they use a search monopoly to "promote" their server products? I'll leave these questions open."

Google could as easily be tempted to boost ratings of sites which do *not* run IIS if they so choose. They could use a search monopoly to promote their own products - but they do that without having a monopoly anyway. It's easy enough to conjure up hypothetical situations, and despite MS's history, your points were very much hypothetical - they could be applied to anyone.

Assuming most versions of IE7 will be ones that have included in Vista as part of an OEM sale from the likes of Dell, HP etc, then Google's point is moot. The major computer manufacturers will sell the default search option to the highest bidder - which puts MSN, Google, Yahoo etc on more of an equal footing.

It's definitely not completely equal as MS has more marketing dollars than Google which in turn has more marketing dollars than Yahoo. So if MS chose to, they could easily buy their way into being the default search for every new Dell computer for example. MS however has a lot of shareholders who are already annoyed about their spending habits when trying to corner non-key markets (such as video game consoles). Search as a service is more key to Google though, so they'd probably be prepared to outbid MS or Yahoo for the main contracts.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: Thom, I agree with you
by seguso on Sun 7th May 2006 21:34 in reply to "Thom, I agree with you"
seguso Member since:
2005-06-29

> and if I'm buying a retail os, I EXPECT it to have a
> media player, an internet browser, etc.

With all due respect, I think what you believe is good for you is actually harmful While a software bundle makes you spare a few minutes to install applications, you are paying much more than you would if bundles were illegal, and for a worse product. It is a big problem you don't realize that.

If there were true competition, and it were illegal for Microsoft to expolit its OS to push other products by bundling them together, then prices would be lower and innovation would be quicker. The reason why the government does not promote informative campaings to make you realize that is that Microsoft's lobby is very powerful, and it prevents the government from informing the citizen of what would actually be best for him.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

If there were true competition, and it were illegal for Microsoft to expolit its OS to push other products by bundling them together, then prices would be lower and innovation would be quicker.

The problem with your argument, which I stated in a previous post as well, is this: right now, innovation in the computing world is NOT slow. See Linux and OSX. Enough innovation in there. And in case you forgot: the NT kernel in itself is one big innovation as well.

Let me quote my previous post:

"He says the current situation stiffles innovation-- and yes, less choice indeed should lead to less innovation.

However, I see more than enough innovation in the Apple and Linux worlds. How does that rhyme with the assessment of the current situation the parent poster [you, Seguso] sketched? Might it just be that this monopoly is far less strangling than many people seem to (or want to) admit? That it is... A perceived monopoly?"


Edited 2006-05-07 21:40

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE: Thom, I agree with you
by Shane on Mon 8th May 2006 04:22 in reply to "Thom, I agree with you"
Shane Member since:
2005-07-06

"if google.com will one day [hypothetically] become a monopoly in the search market: will they have to include a yahoo, msn search box on their page? no. for the same reason, I don't see why IE should default to an other companies search engine."

No, you got it wrong here. The equivalent to your example would be Microsoft having to include Linux in their Windows install disks.

Google would be breaking the law if they used their (hypothetical) monopoly in search to push *another* product/service of theirs. Keyword being *another*.

Reply Parent Score: 2