Microsoft will release new versions of its Windows operating system in South Korea on Thursday to comply with an antitrust ruling, a company source said Wednesday. South Korea's Fair Trade Commission fined Microsoft USD 34 million in December, saying the world's biggest software company breached antitrust laws by selling a version of Windows that incorporated its media player and instant messaging services. My take: This will join the ranks as another Windows version nobody bought.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-01-16
You forgot to mention the world monopoly, which I clearly wrote about several times, didn't you?
I'm free to choose to go to the cafe I want, whichever prices and additional services it has or not.
But nearly every one is forced into Windows and thus forced to buy every bundle, too. So Microsoft is exploiting its monopoly and in the long term gets new monopolys with it. And every user has to pay for it.
If the user would really be free in the choice of the OS, bundling additional software would be about competing in the market and it would be a real "freeby". But because he can't, it's quite the opposite.
Member since:2005-07-27
As antitrust remedies in the United States and Europe have shown, Microsoft supposedly unchallegable monopolistic power is, well, non-existant. Microsoft is prohibited from punishing OEMs from bundling rival software like Real Player or AIM with their computers. OEMs are also allowed to disable whatever bundled Microsoft applications they want. In Europe, Microsoft is currently *required* to sell a version of Windows without Windows Media Player and a few other bits.
Yet, oddly enough, Windows Media Player keeps increasing in marketshare, mostly at the expense of Real.
My example earlier was to show bundling something extra into the whole deal is a common business practice *anywhere*.
And here's another problem for your argument. There is, or at least, was free versions of Internet Explorer, Media Player and MSN Messenger for the Mac - therefore it can be assumed that the cost of all these products was absorbed by Office:mac - should Office users demand they get a lower price if they don't use those products? What about the old version of IE that once was available for Solaris - where was the cost absorbed?
Nobody is sticking a gun to your head and forcing you to buy Windows - if you don't like paying for something you don't want, just don't pay for it. Don't buy Windows. Don't buy a Windows-preloaded PC.
Member since:
2005-07-27
"In theory, Windows without media player would have to be cheaper, as Windows without IE, too."
In other words, what you are suggesting is that the courts force every company to charge for every product it produces, instead of absorbing its cost into other products.
An extension of such logic is that cafes offering free WiFi should charge for it, and thus, make all their food and beverage offering cheaper, because not everyone uses WiFi. Likewise, clinics and dentists should charge a rent for magazines provided for their clients while waiting, and thus, reduce their rates.
In every market, business bundle freebies to products. Would Starbucks be considered anti-competitive if its free WiFi is considered to be an antitrust relation, an unfair advantage over business offering WiFi services standalone.