After Microsoft was ordered to release a version of Windows without Media Player, they decided to call it “Windows XP Reduced Media Edition.” The EC didn’t like this name, since they figured it would prejudice consumers against it, and Microsoft has agreed to change the name. The new name is unknown, but I’m voting for “Windows XP Craptacular Edition.”
I’m trying to figure out how the removal of an optional software component would make Windows XP “craptacular”?
How about “XP Media Free Edition?”
IMHO this is how this whole IE, WMP, MSN Messenger issue should be handled.
1) OS setup installs OS only and none of the above mentioned applications.
2) IE, WMP, MSN Messenger can come on the same CD as the OS, but they must have separate setup files which user must explicitly execute.
3) Once (and if) those applications are installed they should act and be treated just like all other applications, i.e. they should be uninstallable, they should appear under Add/Remove Programs etc.
4) MS Applications should not use APIs that are not documented and available to other application developers.
5) Windows Update should be redone as a Control Panel applet and not as a website.
I’m trying to figure out how the removal of an optional software component would make Windows XP “craptacular”?
Because it would break a lot of existing programs. Do consumers even have the option of installing WMP from the CD?
OK, I am not defending Microsoft, but I have a few issues with this. First, I dont think the problem is that WMP comes with windows. I like wmp. I think the problem is that is so deeply connected to the OS. I dont see a preoblem with they having it in windows, as long as they give me the option to get rid off it if I feel like it. There are too many wma files out there now. I would prefer to force them to provide the codec or make the format more open.
it took me a long time to figure out how to rip all that BS ware out of windows and now the realease this. o well better late then never i spose.
Just so I’m not misunderstood, I’m merely poking fun at Microsoft’s attempts to subtly imply in the name that the Media-free edition isn’t as good as their regular one. And the thing that makes this whole drama all the funnier is that the media-free edition really isn’t as good, and I can’t think of any reason why anyone would buy it anyway. Why would any consumer choose a version of Windows without Media Player, unless it’s substantially less expensive (which it won’t be). While I personally agree that government should have a (measured) role in regulating abuse of monopoly power, this particular instance is, in my opinion, a waste of time and mental effort, because it’s unlikely to have any affect other than antagonize and annoy Microsoft executives. Of course, that may be its primary goal….
The Windows platform is not designed to be modular like most linux OS’s. Therefore, if one piece of the puzzle is taken out there isn’t a full picture. For example, if WMP is axed a winodws user will have to find an alternative media player and go through the arduous task of reassociating the MIME info with the new program. This task has become easier with XP although windows doesn’t like third party software at all so everything won’t work all the time. But what does?
I totally agree with your post. I’d even think that it was fine if, when you finished installing Windows, it popped up with a welcome screen that said something along the lines of, “Would you like to install these additional applications?”
As long as they aren’t installed by default, they can be removed once installed, and any hooks they have into the OS are well documented and available to other developers (as you’ve said).
Additionally, if Microsoft were going to include their apps on the install CD, I think it’d be nice if they included at least 1 alternative for each of their apps– maybe just pick whatever competitor has the next-highest market share. When it pops up and says “would you like to install these additional apps?” the users can choose, IE or Firefox, WMP or Quicktime/iTunes, and MSN Messenger or AOL Instant Messenger (better yet, GAIM).
The reason I suggest this is, if I install windows and have no web browser, I can’t even browse the web to find/download a web browser. Therefore, I’d HAVE to install IE in order to get Firefox, then uninstall IE. It’d be unfair to expect MS to include EVERY web browser available for Windows, but one or two alternatives (especially if they’re free/OSS) seems reasonable to me.
Exactly, David, I couldn’t have said it better myself
. People see this as a victory, even though it’s not clear a victory for whom.
I really don’t see the point in all this. Normal users don’t want to be bothered with what media player they have installed, or whatever. They want to have a computer that works. Let the more educated (in computers, I mean) users decide what they want for them selves– you don’t let your average car-buyer decide what kind of spark-plugs he gets in his car.
The reason I suggest this is, if I install windows and have no web browser, I can’t even browse the web to find/download a web browser. Therefore, I’d HAVE to install IE in order to get Firefox, then uninstall IE. It’d be unfair to expect MS to include EVERY web browser available for Windows, but one or two alternatives (especially if they’re free/OSS) seems reasonable to me.
I don’t know about you but every ISP I ever signed up with gave me a cd with at least 2 browser on it : IE and Netscape. Besides bundling software is the responsability of your computer supplier. Let’s just hope MS stops pressuring them to install MS products (as they have done in the past)
Aye aye, Admiral. That’s the best post I’ve read in a LONG time.
Too bad IE COULD never meet that description (it’s way too embedded into XP and even associated apps).
“you don’t let your average car-buyer decide what kind of spark-plugs he gets in his car.”
no, but you do allow them to not get other options, like a radio. If you’re just going to rip out the radio and put in your new fancy XM radio with a touch screen lcd, you shouldn’t be strongarmed into purchasing a radio with your car.
Just the same, if you buy a piece of software, and it comes with lots of other software you didn’t want all in a bundled package, you usually have the option to not install parts and pieces of it.
WMP is not really the issue here. The issue is Microsoft FORCES you to install their version of the internet. There are other alternatives out there, but since 95% of all end user pcs are Windows, the scraps are left for any other competetion. Microsoft isn’t the internet.
Pardon my French, but that’s asinine. Imaging your mother getting a new pc, and wanting to get online with it. “No mom, you have insert the cd that came with your pc and install a program to get online!” Most people would be furious at that notion, and rightfully so.
Should this be the same for linux distros? No linux distro can be sold or distributed with a browser, mail client, or IM app already installed!
Sounds like a giant leap backwards if you ask me.
So you might say, “well, make them include alternatives”…to which I say, if Pepsi had the greater market share of soft drinks, would you make them package a can of Coke in each of their 12 packs? This idea is also absurd.
I can tell you that these aren’t the answers, but I can’t tell you what the answer is.
I don’t know when the last time you bought a car was, but very few car manufacturers will let you buy a car without a radio these days. Maybe some ultra-low end cars have the option or some cars if you order them from the factory, but most cars have options packages that all but force you to pay for an overpriced, integrated stereo system. It’s really annoying for audiophiles, because usually these systems don’t have aux-in so good luck using your ipod or satellite radio with most of them easily. So, in this case, Microsoft and the car mfrs are doing the exact same thing. It’s standard practice for companies to try to coerce you to pay for options that you don’t really want.
just a thought i noticed after we get to this same discussion again. no one is ever gunna make exactly what ‘YOU’ want. be it car, os, house, whatever. u always end up for whatever is closest to what u want AND in yur price range. from there if u hav the time and ability slowly u will turn it into whatever u originally wanted. most peeple just settle for ‘close enuf’ especially ma an pa computer user who jus wana check there dadgum email!
… Microsoft is not just another Linux distributor. Microsoft is the richest coorporation the world and they are this on the basis of a monopoly.
The EU and most European states (and I’m guessing most states in the world) have counter-active measures against monopolies. Monopolies aren’t healthy for the economy – they basically depict the end of capitalistic market economy, since the effect would be the same as if the state was socialistic: no contest in operating systems, media players, web browsers, office suites and so on.
“Microsoft is the richest coorporation the world”
Not the richest, but that’s besides the point.
Just because they’re a monopoly doesn’t mean that their competitors should get special treatment. Allowing local Linux distros to include Media Players without requiring them to sell a player-free version is not fair. When Standard Oil was ruled a monopoly, they weren’t required to stop refining crude oil or any other vertical integration practices. If the problem is that MS is exploiting Windows’ market share to get more users of Windows Media, the EC should outlaw this practice everywhere or no where.
First of all, please, no irrelevant comparisons between software and cars, food, ballet or spaceships. There are no compatibility issues between Pepsi and a glass, (hopefully) your stomach or the chicken you ate before drinking your Pepsi. So, let’s just stay on the subject of software.
I do not agree that it would be fair to force Microsoft into distributing non-Microsoft software with their OS. First, it really isn’t Microsoft’s problem. Second, if, hypothetically, they start doing that, it raises a whole bunch of issues like who gets to be on MS CDs and who doesn’t. Let’s say they pick one competing product with the highest market share. What happens if six months later the market share changes. What should MS do than? Print new CDs? Also, who will be determining this market share? If the marker share figures make a difference between being on the CD with the most popular OS or not, it makes it very tempting to tamper with those numbers.
I think it’s best to live application distribution to their developers. If FireFox developers want their browser to gain ground they should worry about how people will install their product. A small EXE (small enough to fit on a floppy) that goes online and downloads the full latest version of the browser is one of the solutions that comes to mind. I am sure there could be others.
Regarding linux distros:
1) They down write their software. They just package and distribute it. OS and apps are developed by different teams.
2) Linux distros do not force you to install any applications. If you don’t want a browser, email client, instant messenger, etc. – don’t install them.
3) Many linux distros package a few browsers, few media players, few email clients.
4) There are dozens of linux distros. If you don’t like one, pick another.
Regarding MAC OS X, if the proposed measures were taken against MS, then, in all fairness, the same rules must apply to Apple.
Regarding MAC OS X, if the proposed measures were taken against MS, then, in all fairness, the same rules must apply to Apple.
Well, though I agree with most of the post, I just have to comment on this line…
The main difference is that you can remove these from OS X without crippling it. Don’t like Safari? Just drag the app into the trash and call it a day. Don’t like iTunes? Just drag the app into the trash and call it a day. Don’t like Quicktime? Just drag the app into the trash and call it a day. That is the point. So, Apple could easily do this, without having to maintain another version of an OS.
Other than the Windows alternative: Don’t like IE? Just drag your PC into the trash and call it a day.
Let’s remember, Microsoft is not just another monopoly. Just being a monopoly is not a crime, abusing that monopoly to stiffle competition is a crime. Microsoft are felons who were convicted in the US of abusing their monopoly market share to drive competitors and potential competitors out of business. They ran what amounted to a protection racket with computer manufacturers and resellers. After a change in administration the US Justice Dept decided to slap them on the wrist for this and call them naughty. The EU Commission found Microsoft guilty of doing the same thing in Europe. But then came up with what amounts to an asinine response of their own.
The fundamental problem is that Microsoft produces both apps and the OS that runs them. The real remedy for the abuse that Microsoft has committed and continues to commit is to break up the monopoly, just like the government broke up the Bell monopoly. There is no other way to stop them from doing business just like they have always done business: abusing their monopoly. They are not going to stop just because Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer want you to think they are nice guys.
Microsoft sells Windows, which is an Operating System. There is no need for them (the OS company) to bundle Applications (Browser, Media Player, Instant Messenger, etc) with Windows.
They only bundled because it helps their other non-OS businesses (MSN, Windows Media Licensing, etc.) AND hurts their non-OS competitors (people use the default application included).
The bundling should be from the Computer System sellers (Dell, HP, Gateway) who can include applications that help their customers based on the machine they bought and any company, including Microsoft, can compete to get their applications bundled.
The bundling and integration into the OS that Microsoft does is solely to take advantage of their monopoly in OS to extend into other areas.
I’m still trying to figure out why the EC makes it their business to approve or disapprove product names.
Note that they are going to charge the same price for the stripped version of Windows. To most users this would mean that the stripped version is inferior, kind of like partial installation of full version. To be fair to users, they should reduce the price of stripped version and start charging for WMP accordingly. Of course, that would never happen.
Tell that to all the third-party developers who embed the IE or WMP components into their apps when you say having these come with the OS provides no additional value to users.
or realplayer or quicktime? A good codeck pack like k-litemegacodecpack and BSplayer in conjunction with Media Player Classic will play anything, from avi to real to mov to wmv to mpeg2, you name it!
The Windows platform is not designed to be modular like most linux OS’s.
Yes, it is. The difference is that unlike Linux there aren’t a thousand different modules available.
IMHO this is how this whole IE, WMP, MSN Messenger issue should be handled.
1) OS setup installs OS only and none of the above mentioned applications.
Congratulations, you’ve just broken significant parts of the OS itself, its advertised capabilities and OS features developers depend upon.
2) IE, WMP, MSN Messenger can come on the same CD as the OS, but they must have separate setup files which user must explicitly execute.
Why ? Why is IE any different to notepad or calculator ? Why is Paint being included in the default install ok, but WMP (a vastly more useful tool to today’s end user) not ?
3) Once (and if) those applications are installed they should act and be treated just like all other applications, i.e. they should be uninstallable, they should appear under Add/Remove Programs etc.
Why ? Don’t like the included applications ? Don’t use them.
4) MS Applications should not use APIs that are not documented and available to other application developers.
Proof that they do ?
5) Windows Update should be redone as a Control Panel applet and not as a website.
Why ? What *practical* and *functional* different does it make ?
The main difference is that you can remove these from OS X without crippling it. Don’t like Safari? Just drag the app into the trash and call it a day.
Equivalent Windows operation: delete iexplore.exe.
Don’t like iTunes? Just drag the app into the trash and call it a day. Don’t like Quicktime? Just drag the app into the trash and call it a day.
Equivalent Windows operation: delete mplayer2.exe and wmplayer.exe.
Microsoft sells Windows, which is an Operating System. There is no need for them (the OS company) to bundle Applications (Browser, Media Player, Instant Messenger, etc) with Windows.
Please define the following:
“Application”
“Operating System”
The bundling should be from the Computer System sellers (Dell, HP, Gateway) who can include applications that help their customers based on the machine they bought and any company, including Microsoft, can compete to get their applications bundled.
Newsflash: not everyone buys Windows with a PC.
The bundling and integration into the OS that Microsoft does is solely to take advantage of their monopoly in OS to extend into other areas.
Which, obviously, explains why the vast bulk of customers appreciate it and every other OS vendor in remotely the same market does exactly the same thing…
if i was able to select a custom windows then i would chose a version wich was free of ie and wmp. becus i dont use those products and if some people did that the the web would be a bit diffrent for the developers wouldnt be able to asume that evryone runs ie and wmp.
no deleting iexplorer.exe dosent remove ie from windows.
you can still start any explorer windows type an url and bam ie.
microsoft isnt every other company, microsoft is a monopoly. for those of you who dont know, monopolies are bad for everyone, except those at the top of the monopoly itself. captialism works based on competition, and a monopoly stifles competition. thus, monopolies have additional restrictions on their business practices.
where the real question comes in, is what defines an operating system, and what defines applications. the lines have become very blurred…
“Congratulations, you’ve just broken significant parts of the OS itself, its advertised capabilities and OS features developers depend upon”
Thank you very much, and congratulations to you too. You just won yourself the vast admiration of masses by demonstrating such impeccable sense of sarcasm.
The capabilities of OS should come in the form of services that applications can use, not in the form of complete apps integrated into OS.
Why? Why is IE any different to notepad or calculator? Why is Paint being included in the default install ok, but WMP (a vastly more useful tool to today’s end user) not? “
Because neither notepad, paint or calculator are fully featured applications that can seriously compete with 3-rd party alternatives. If tomorrow MS decides to compete head-to-head with Adobe and starts developing Paint into something Photoshop-like then we’d have the same issue as we are currently having with IE, WMP and MSN Messenger.
“Why ? Don’t like the included applications ? Don’t use them.”
We are not discussing here what I like and what I don’t like. We are discussing how to even out the playing field for MS and 3-rd party application developers.
“Proof that they do?”
I am not here to prove anything. I am merely stating how I think an MS application should be designed to compete fairly against 3-rd party alternatives. If they currently don’t use any undocumented APIs then good for them.
“Why? What *practical* and *functional* different does it make?”
Do I really need to explain this one? Because OS feature (automatic updates) should not rely on having an application installed.
no deleting iexplorer.exe dosent remove ie from windows.
Correct. It does, however, delete the front-end program that uses the system-wide components.
This is the same as removing Safari from OS X – deleting the front end program, but leaving the system-wide components (WebKit, et al) installed.
“We are not discussing here what I like and what I don’t like. We are discussing how to even out the playing field for MS and 3-rd party application developers.”
Maybe developing a viable alternative is how 3rd party application developers could level the playing field. Winamp is very successful and I know tons of people who use it. Same with Firefox. Any coincidence that these are two well developed programs that are doing well? I’m tired of people putting out sub par applications and then crying to the government that Microsoft makes something better than them and that somehow its unfair when someone makes a better product…
The capabilities of OS should come in the form of services that applications can use, not in the form of complete apps integrated into OS.
IE *is* “a service that applications can use”. That’s the whole freakin’ *POINT* of it.
Because neither notepad, paint or calculator are fully featured applications that can seriously compete with 3-rd party alternatives.
Neither is IE according to the legions of Firefox, Opera, Mozilla and Netscape fans.
Personally, I agree. I think IE’s lack of tabbed browsing, in particular, marks it out as not being a “fully featured” application in today’s WWW environment.
Of course, one has to wonder at which point an application transitions from “basic” to “fully featured”, and who decides what that point is.
Is Outlook Express “fully featured” ? How about OS X’s Mail.app ? How about the commandline mail app that just about every version of unix you’ll ever see includes ? How much more “fully featured” does a calculator, basic paint program or RDP client get ?
In today’s world, a web browser *IS* a basic system tool. So is a media player. So is an email app. It’s not 1985 anymore. People aren’t interested in shelling out $$$$ for a computer (and/or OS) then have to go hunting and installing applications to make the thing useful.
Not to mention, since you’re railing against the fundamental *principle* of including “fully featured applications” with the OS, why is it ok for everyone else to do it ?
We are not discussing here what I like and what I don’t like. We are discussing how to even out the playing field for MS and 3-rd party application developers.
It’s already even. As Firefox is handily demonstrating, a superior product (even if it still has a couple of very annoying bugs) is preferable to (and used in favour of) the bundled equivalent. Then there’s iTunes, which I believe is a pretty popular download for Windows systems.
Also, as products like RealPlayer and Quicktime Player for Windows show, markedly *inferior* programs fail dismally. As they deserve.
You want to compete with a bundled application ? Make a better one.
I am merely stating how I think an MS application should be designed to compete fairly against 3-rd party alternatives.
Your clear implication is that they are not already designed in this fashion.
Do I really need to explain this one? Because OS feature (automatic updates) should not rely on having an application installed.
Like, say, apt ? Or up2date ? Or yum ? Or YAST2 ? Or Software Update ?
Control Panel *is* an application. Using an (already included) web browser for OS updates is simply using the well established, good practice of code re-use.
Windows XP Unproffesional – seems appropriate for me
Drsmith
——-
no deleting iexplorer.exe dosent remove ie from windows.
Correct. It does, however, delete the front-end program that uses the system-wide components.
This is the same as removing Safari from OS X – deleting the front end program, but leaving the system-wide components (WebKit, et al) installed
————
eerrr, Safari is just an installed ap, not a part of the system like IE, OSX comes with 4 webbrowsers, two IE, one netscape and Safari
“Should this be the same for linux distros? No linux distro can be sold or distributed with a browser, mail client, or IM app already installed!”
No. I must have posted this response fifty times already, but monopoly remedies apply to monopolies. Windows is a monopoly. Linux is not. Simple enough for you?
“Why ? Why is IE any different to notepad or calculator ? Why is Paint being included in the default install ok, but WMP (a vastly more useful tool to today’s end user) not ?”
Because MS Paint isn’t likely to establish a situation prejudicial to fair competition in a significant market sector. I don’t see many graphics professionals deciding not to buy Photoshop on the basis that they got Paint with the OS. Sticking a media player which promotes a certain set of vendors, formats and media into the monopoly desktop operating system certainly *does* create a situation prejudicial to fair competition in the, massively significant, digital media market.
eerrr, Safari is just an installed ap, not a part of the system like IE, OSX comes with 4 webbrowsers, two IE, one netscape and Safari
WebKit (the system-wide set of components roughly equivalent to IE) *is* part of the system.
You can delete Safari, just like you can delete iexplore.exe.
Delete WebKit, or delete IE itself, however, and you’ll probably cause problems (less so on OS X because webKit isn’t as widely used yet – it’s only been a standard part of OS X since 10.2.7). The point is that deleting Safari is *not* analagous to deleting “Internet Explorer”. Safari is just an application, IE is a bunch of shared libraries.
I’ll say it again because this simple fact seems to have a great deal of difficulty penetrating some thick skulls:
IE isn’t just a web browser application and hasn’t been since IE2 (ca. 1996). It’s a bunch of reusable, system-wide shared components in the same vein as KDE’s khtml, or OS X’s WebKit. You can’t just rip IE out of Windows without breaking things.
Step 1. Eurocrat tells American corporation what to and what not to include into its product. For the hard work of promoting freedom of business Eurocrat writes himself cheque for $600,000,000 taken directly from the pockets of American corporation.
American stock owners of the American public company and their money are soon departed.
Step 2. Eurocrat tells American corporation he does not like what name it gave to its product. In the spirit of business freedom Eurocrat does not force American corporation to actually choose different name for its product, but he is ready to write himself a cheque for $5,000,000 every day American corporation does not comply. That money is taken directly from the pockets of American corporation.
American stock owners of the American public company and their money will soon be departed.
Step 3 (not so distant future). Eurocrat tells American corporation the fair market price of its product. In the name of capitalism American corporation is allowed to charge any price for its product in Europe, but it will be financially punished by the Eurocrat if it charges higher price (a.k.a. unfair price), and it will be financially punished if it charges lower price (a.k.a. dumping).
I’m voting for “Windows XP Eurocrat Edition.”
Plain and simple. Of course, that’s assuming you actually think their business is remotely legitimate in the first place, which it isn’t. People should pay developers to maintain software, just like they pay mechanics to maintain their car. The fact that you have to go back to the developer who wrote the software to get it serviced is just as stupid as buying a car where you have to go back to the manufacturer to get it serviced.
You’ve just gone round in a complete circle
well almost any linux distro can be installed without a browser im and such and allow you to chose during the install.
if windows did allow this then you wouldnt here so many complaints
The fact that Linux distros don’t include a standard browser, media player and im is one of the many reasons it does not suit the needs of most consumers.
Stop the boo hoo hoo about MS and Windows and get working on making Linux (or some other alternative) superior to Windows in every way. Until that happens (and I don’t expect it to any time soon) Microsoft won’t lose a single point of their “monopoly” market share.
well for me it alredy is superior im simply stating wath i would want in windows to make it better for my usage.
“Windows XP Craptacular Edition”?
Isn’t that redundant?
This decision is idiotic. A better decision would be to force Microsoft to open up the information on their windows media crap so other dev’s could implement their own players. Same goes for IE. That makes way more sense than forcing MS to exclude the media player out of windows. Now all ms has to do is display a message on their windows update saying you need wmp and it will automatically download it if you say ok. back to square one.
Please which programs will be broken by removing Media Player from Windows XP?
OK, so I have dev’d for WMP & IE before – there is information freely available here:
WMP:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/wm…
IE:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/ie/
thanks
David
>Microsoft is the richest coorporation the world
There are *larger* companies relative to Microsoft btw e.g. refer to http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/2004-03-22-fortune-500-list….
How about “MS Windows XP Stone Age Edition” (i.e. MS Windows 3.1 has a media player)?
In addition to WMP10, I don’t mind a couple of bundled *good* media players. The reason is to play the widest possible video formats. I rather see a forced bundling of RealOne Player, Quicktime 6, WinAMP 5 and DiVX 5 as part of the standard distribution and call it “MS Windows XP Media Enhance Edition”. That should give the user the choice “out of the box”.
PS; These are media players that I have installed in my PC. Each one them has their strength and weaknesses.
Please which programs will be broken by removing Media Player from Windows XP?
Sorry, previous message was sent by mistake.
>Please which programs will be broken by removing Media Player from Windows XP?
This is not the right question.
The right question is the following: “Please which Media Player companies went broke because Microsoft refused to remove Windows Media Player from Windows XP?”
Apparently, EU knows such companies.
Also, for those who is itching to bring back sad memories of Netscape, I would tell this: remember how you spread your FUD about Microsoft killing Netscape by bundling IE with the OS? Now, explain this: http://spreadfirefox.com
Surprise, surpise- over 20,000,000 prove you are wrong, and that number going up daily!
People can download browser (or, for that matter, Media Player) if they do not like or do not want one that comes with the OS. Users are not dumb, remember this, you- you who told us how poor morons will be glued to IE, Outlook, MS Office and WMP if government does not intervene.
It is time for the US government to send a letter of apologies to Microsoft, and I wish EU has enough dignity left to do the same. Which they sure don’t: EU is government on top of governments.
Where MS pees all over the EU.
I knew someone who’s occupation was cigarette vending machines. One day another guy got the idea to make cigarette lighter vending machines, and he went around bolting them to *other peoples’* cigarette machines. Why should someone do all the work of obtaining the account and installing the machine, and then “third party” guy gets to go attach his stuff to the other man’s hard work for free? Where is his “entitlement” to an “equal opportunity” to profit off of another man’s work? This is what you want Microsoft to allow “third parties” applications to do for free. It’s nobody’s damn business what functions Microsoft integrates into their OS. To the guys making reference to Paint and Photoshop, I got news for you, MS can make a competitor to Photoshop whenever they feel able; they don’t need some euro-socialist loser’s permission, not even though their integrated product has an instant competitive advantage over Photoshop. The owner of the cigarette machine IS NOT required to accomodate the owner of the lighter machine. You have your communal Linux, go bother them, or go develop your own OS. The real reason Microsoft is monopolizing and influencing the direction of the whole internet isn’t because they integrate IE, it’s because webmasters keep putting up pages that don’t work right under anything but IE, and put up pages that complain that you don’t have Microsoft components in your OS and browser. THIS is the real enemy to freedom, not the snivelly whining of the cigarette lighter vendors that think Nature or God or The Constitution entitles them to the resources that were put in place by the cigarette vendor.
really? last time i checked, firefox marketshare is around 4%. hmmm…. not exactly something that would prove your point, especially since firefox isnt netscape. if i were to be real anal, i would say netscape isnt netscape anymore, its a rebranded mozilla, so any increase in marketshare is unrelated to the previous product. but i wont go there. ill just stop on the fact that firefox is two steps removed from netscape, not affiliated with netscape, and looks, acts, and behaves differently then netscape.
marketshare for something like a media player is real hard to judge, but an educated guess is its the exact same as those other apps you mentioned, in the high 90s. on the flipside, any techie i know who runs windows also does NOT run media player, internet explorer, or outlook express, for the reason that they are technically inferiorior products to other stuff thats out there. hmm… the plot thickens. could it be that the reason those apps have such high market share is because they are bundled and tightly coupled the operating system? that microsoft is using their operating system monopoly to gain dominance in other markets? could it be that most users ARE dumb, and have no desire whatsoever of getting any smarter when it comes to computers?
but hey, 20mil firefox downloads (and 95% ie marketshare) prove (somehow) that you are right and i am wrong, so i guess ill get back to work.