Foot, Aim, Shoot, Miss. It's The European Court's Decision

[Vaio]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Different time, different circumstances.

Anyway, what would you prefer if you knew nothing about computers?

Internet Explorer, or Mozilla? (Just from the names)

It's a question I can't answer but in 1995 when Windows 95 appeared I downloaded Netscape Gold as IE 1 (or was it 2 ?) was shite. Nowadays the average member of joe public gets IE 6 with his copy of XP and is totally unaware that he could be using any number of different browsers to download his pr0n with.

Vaio

[roadrunner_0]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Again though, that's an unfair comparison. At the moment Mozilla is mainly pitched towards enthusiasts (because of the current situation with most users having a default available).

If there was no bundled IE, as I mention, you'd probably get a larger player throwing their weight behind a user friend version of Mozilla. Most people have heard of AOL for instance, so there'd be some incentive for them to bother distirbuting browser type products.

one thing though, if mozilla was re branded anything with AOL in the title most enthusiasts would stop using it
also: how hard is it to make one media player that can handle all types of file i currently have 2 different types of wmp and winamp just to play all the files i currently have (one of the wmp's plays realmedia and quicktime though so at least i dont have to have those 2 pieces of shit on my system )

[JonnyBGood]

I think we're all ignoring the larger point here that Bill Gates should be on trial for eating babies.

nobody buys my $300 version of minesweeper

I am gonna sue!

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by Vaio

Nowadays the average member of joe public gets IE 6 with his copy of XP and is totally unaware that he could be using any number of different browsers to download his pr0n with.

And that's bad because? Maybe he doesn't care which browser he gets, as long as it meets his requirements.

Forcing the market to provide more consumer choices presupposes they have a preference. What happens if/when they don't? All you've done then is make their lives more difficult.

[Deepflow]

Originally Posted by roadrunner_0

one thing though, if mozilla was re branded anything with AOL in the title most enthusiasts would stop using it
also: how hard is it to make one media player that can handle all types of file i currently have 2 different types of wmp and winamp just to play all the files i currently have (one of the wmp's plays realmedia and quicktime though so at least i dont have to have those 2 pieces of shit on my system )

not THAT difficult i think

someone i know from another internet community has made a media player called gr8 player and it works fine with everything it seems. Im sure a lot of other random people on the net have done the same thing, more to the point its completely free and easily downloaded.

[Vaio]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

And that's bad because? Maybe he doesn't care which browser he gets, as long as it meets his requirements.

Forcing the market to provide more consumer choices presupposes they have a preference. What happens if/when they don't? All you've done then is make their lives more difficult.

So you think that if the average joe is ignorant of any possible alternatives then that's ok ? Choice is bad right ? Don't want to overtax their feeble little minds

Vaio

[roadrunner_0]

Originally Posted by Deepflow

not THAT difficult i think

someone i know from another internet community has made a media player called gr8 player and it works fine with everything it seems. Im sure a lot of other random people on the net have done the same thing, more to the point its completely free and easily downloaded.

i have yet to find a problem free media player that plays everything

[Deepflow]

actually, im not sure it runs RM... he did say something about that being illegal or summat. im not sure.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Deepflow

actually, im not sure it runs RM... he did say something about that being illegal or summat. im not sure.

Like I said, it's not Microsoft restricting its proprietary file systems. They're possibly the most relaxed about the whole thing, and THEY'RE the ones who have had to pay over £300m.

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by Vaio

So you think that if the average joe is ignorant of any possible alternatives then that's ok?

Surely people have the right to be ignorant?

Choice is bad right?

Choice is bad if there's no preference. A new car has thousands of parts. Is forcing car manufacturers to give me a choice on every single part going to be a Good Thing if there's only a handful I really care about?

Don't want to overtax their feeble little minds

I'd rather people be allowed to make choices on those items which they think are important--not on what someone else thinks is important.

[Leshy]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Like I said, it's not Microsoft restricting its proprietary file systems.

Perhaps the others are doing it to prevent their player from being obsolete as soon as MS includes the file type in WMP?

Imagine WMP suddenly being capable of handling .rm files, and suddenly no one would be using RealPlayer anymore, since their computer can already handle the files, without RealMedia every having a chance to make the user aware of it's existence!

[Leshy]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

Is forcing car manufacturers to give me a choice on every single part going to be a Good Thing if there's only a handful I really care about?

How about the car manufacturer installs everything for you in the car, so that all of the competing products go bankrupt, resulting in the fact that you no longer have any choice at all? That work for you?

Claiming that Microsoft using it's OS dominance in order to achieve the same dominance in other areas isn't a bad thing as it causes the user less hassle only demonstrates incredible short-sightedness.

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by Leshy

How about the car manufacturer installs everything for you in the car, so that all of the competing products go bankrupt, resulting in the fact that you no longer have any choice at all? That work for you?

Sure.

Even if Microsoft were a monopoly and even if it were abusing--however you might want to define that--it's monopoly power (neither of which is particular true, imho, but even if), I'd still trust Microsoft to do a better job than some government bureaucrat at deciding what product I can buy.

In a free market, a monopoly still has to provide some measure of product and service to maintain it's position, but government has no such constraint.

Claiming that Microsoft using it's OS dominance in order to achieve the same dominance in other areas isn't a bad thing as it causes the user less hassle only demonstrates incredible short-sightedness.

And unhappy with the far-sightedness demonstrated by the market you now expect the state to do better?

[lokken]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

Sure.

Even if Microsoft were a monopoly and even if it were abusing--however you might want to define that--it's monopoly power (neither of which is particular true, imho, but even if), I'd still trust Microsoft to do a better job than some government bureaucrat at deciding what product I can buy.

In a free market, a monopoly still has to provide some measure of product and service to maintain it's position, but government has no such constraint.

Don't inefficient, ineffective governments get voted out? We as consumers effectively obtain a government as a franchise over a period of time.

And surely it's preferable for you to have the free choice to buy, not microsoft or the government?
The idea of intervention in situations like Microsoft is to allow that very freedom of choice and prevent those in a dominant position from engaging in activities that kill competition, limit choice and ultimately the less need to develop/produce their product efficiently.

There is of course an argument that windows simply is the best product available and it's no wonder they are dominant - but that doesn't mean they should prevent potentially better products emerging by being so dominant.

[Rids]

An interesting point.

If we dont bundle IE with new computers, how the **** do you get on the web to download anything else? heh

[Leshy]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

I'd still trust Microsoft to do a better job than some government bureaucrat at deciding what product I can buy.

If you tilt your head upwards, you may see something flying across. It's called a clue.

In case you're unable to follow it to a little shed in Betlehem, let me tell you where it leads - the state is not deciding what you can or cannot buy, it is making sure that you have a free choice in what product you wish to buy.

And unhappy with the far-sightedness demonstrated by the market you now expect the state to do better?

The state doesn't need to do anything instead of the market. It needs to make sure the market remains open and free.

[Leshy]

Originally Posted by Flavius

there is a choice already. you have the choice to ignore IE is there, the same way you have the choice to ignore minesweeper and play some other game.

As has been stated many times - users are not aware that there is a choice. If people are not aware that there is a better product, then they are not likely going to use it.

And even if they do know, a vast majority of computer users seems to suffer from "neophobia". It's different from what I'm used to, so I'm lost and don't know what to do, even if the instructions are plain and clear on screen!

How about realplayer? quicktime? How much choice do u have?

The choice of not using them, exactly the same as with Windows Media Player. But oh wait, if you have a recent or future version, you don't have the choice of not having WMP, you'll just have to ignore it instead.

Originally Posted by Rids

An interesting point.

If we dont bundle IE with new computers, how the **** do you get on the web to download anything else? heh

Have the OS installation system offer the choice of web browser(s) to be installed. Put Mozilla, MSIE, Netscape, Opera, K-Meleon onto those free CD's that you get with everything. There are many ways of distributing programs other than through the Internet.

[Leshy]

Originally Posted by Flavius

please explain to me why today I have no choice of what browser to use ?

You have a choice because you are aware of there being multiple browsers. You have the basic knowledge that you are browsing the Internet with an application called Internet Explorer, which is a so-called browser.

That puts you ahead of about 85% of computer users.

[Leshy]

Originally Posted by Flavius

1) Give the user a default, giving him the choice to change at any time
2) Give nothing by default, force user to find for himself what browser is best for him

I prefer #1

So do I.

But such an option would mean first of all, that people would be aware that there was a choice besides Internet Explorer, they wouldn't have to search for any alternatives as they would have a copy right there in front of them, and if they were curious about the other browsers later, they could install it from the Windows CD itself, making for a much lower threshold than the whole "search, download, find the downloaded file, run installation process" thing. Which I read recently, is a surprisingly big problem for a large percentage of users.

Example #1
"Hey, what browser do you have installed?"
- "What? Browser? What is that?"
"The program you surf the internet with."
- "Could that be Microsoft Netscape? I heard something about that."
"What symbol do you click on to start the Internet?"
- "The blue e."
"Okay, so that's Internet Explorer. Hey, try out Opera!"
- "What is that?"
"It's a much better browser than Internet Explorer. You can download it at www.opera.com!"
- "Yes, but I already have the Internet."
"Yes, but this will make your life better. Just like sliced bread. Go to that website, then go to the downloads page, get the version without Java, select the mirror you would like to download from, download the file to your hard disk, then find it and run it to start the installation procedure!"
- "..."

Example #2
"Hey, I heard you recently installed Windows ABC! What browser did you select?"
- "I'm not sure, the normal one I think."
"Boy, did you pick the wrong one. Try out the one called Opera, it's really good. Just put the Windows CD in, and when the installation screen comes on, choose to install a browser, and select Opera."
- "Hm, is it really worth it?"
"You bet it is. It's much better."
- "Ok, I will gave that a try. Thanks!"

[pablissimo]

Given the choice at an install screen between two boxes:

Use Internet Explorer as my default browser
Use Opera as my default browser

I would suspect most users would pick the one at the top of the list simply because it's at the top of the list. Most users, 'I suspect', couldn't give a **** what they're browsing with as long as it works. IE works. Whatsa-matter-you, eh?

[Nodrog]

Is it really necessary to change the ****ing law just so that you can get a hardon by forcing people to use whatever piece of shit browser happens to be your current flavour of the week? Seriously guys, I understand that browser choice and fanboyistic-software-advocacy is a pretty serious and important issue with far-reaching ramifications for the whole planet and many nearby galaxies, but I think youre taking it a bit too far. I mean honestly, is the momentary thrill youre going to get when you see a piece of software which you have contributed absolutely nothing to increase its market share by 1.72% really worth the trade-off involved in supporting authoritarian socialism, and general anti-free market policies?

[JonnyBGood]

Thanks to this thread I have learned that Microsoft are being fined 331 million because.......people who use internet explorer are really, really lazy. Maybe we can fine them for making people fat due to sitting in front of their computers while error messages are frequently displayed as well

[Azof]

Vaio I have a hard time believing that you are arguing this for any reason other than "Oh n0es it's M$" or possibly "M$ is based in the U.S. ... we should have our own EU software monoply ffs."

Let's try and summarize your arguements.

1) Proprietary systems are bad lolz

- Yes I can agree that proprietary media formates (primarily what you have been talking about most recently) can be bad, but let's look at their up points as well. If there was .rm I wouldn't have dled real alternative, if there wasn't .mov I wouldn't have Quicktime on my computer (actually I don't, I have a codec but...). Proprietary media formats have allowed the sh*tplayer and Quicktime to kind of survive. I don't really mind .wma because I believe it CAN be superior to .mp3 though I keep all my music in .mp3. Essentially your belief that proprietary media formats are bad is contradictory to your clarmoring for "regulated competition ffs".

2) IE sux0rs... everyone should use Mozilla/Opera!!!

- Being a mozilla user I full concur that Mozilla is far better than IE, but I think you are missing several fundamental points WHICH HAVE BEEN POINTED OUT. 1) How the hell are people supposed to dl a new browser with NO BROWSER TO USE??? 2) The average internet user doesn't need the best, he/she just needs something to go to www.weather.com etc and get the info... and really IE isn't that bad since they added the pop-up blocker, yes if you get pr0n you will die with IE but that is irrelevant for the average Joe. 3) M$ (lol) isn't going to include the software of anoter damn company in their OS package. The car analogy has all ready been pointed out by Flavius so I will steal his example. Why the hell would M$ PAY another browser (and don't say it would be free... if a_random_browser00 knew it HAD to be included they would charge 30bucks to be included) to go in their OS? Jesus windows is still BY FAR the easiest OS to learn (Yes Linux CAN be easier but that is another arguement for another day... installing it is hard enough for the illiterate) and use for the AVERAGE CONSUMER.

3) Oh n0es M$ BULLIED computer makers into using their OS!!!!

- This is the real point of contention in my book. From the evidence I HAVE SEEN it seems that Microsoft did pressure computer makers not to ttry other OS's, but this sounds like competitive business in my book. The fact is that, like I said before, Windows is the easiest OS to learn for the average person, and is the most compatible with other software etc. You can make a case for MacOS being easier, but I am mostly frustrated when using MacOS because it hides so much of the stuff going on behind the scene. Back to the point about being hte most compatible... that is the source of Microsoft's monopoly, and that will not change any time soon... 95% of the computers in the world use Windows and that won't change even with the EU's negligable "Hey look at our 1337 sovereignity" fine.

I ofc agree with the fact that Microsoft has a near monopoly with its OS, but most of the stuff it does that you say is anti-competitive is simply an attempt for Windows to be easier to use, and you can't honestly expect them to bundle inferior/expensive software with their OS. Yes they are promorting their software, BUT IT IS FREE. Who honestly cares if they promote something that is free and generally a decent piece of software. Until I see a decent COMMERCIAL browser or media player I will now mostly dismiss all arguements around this. The accustations of them bullying computer makers into using their OS seems to not understand the fact that MacOS doesn't work with normal computer hardware, and Linux is not mainstream. Alternatives aren't being produced to windows because there is no reason... the techies have linux, the elitists have MacOS and the rest of use have Windows.

[Leshy]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Is it really necessary to change the ****ing law just so that you can get a hardon by forcing people to use whatever piece of shit browser happens to be your current flavour of the week?

Considering browsers have nothing to do with the actual lawsuit in question, that has little to do with each other. The lawsuit involves the integration of Windows Media Player, not that of Internet Explorer.

the trade-off involved in supporting authoritarian socialism, and general anti-free market policies?

One could argue that Microsoft actively enforces an anti-free market policy. Nothing free about a market if it is under control of a single company, which is just as bad as it being under government control.

Look at the CPU-market, or the graphics market. The fact that there are two heavily competing top players on both (AMD vs Intel, nVidia vs ATi) means that there is a lot of innovation, new products are regularly released, prices come down pretty rapidly, which all ultimately works in favour of the customer.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Leshy

Considering browsers have nothing to do with the actual lawsuit in question, that has little to do with each other. The lawsuit involves the integration of Windows Media Player, not that of Internet Explorer.

I was referring to the arguments put forward in thsi thread, not the lawsuit. For the record, I do think there are several reasons to be anti-.Microsoft beyond the standard generic anti-capitalist pseudo-slashdot "hey guys my friend told me theres this thing called economics can someone confirm/deny????" whinings scattered about most internet message boards. If someone were to reformulate the entire lawsuit so that it actually attacked MS for things they have done wrong, rather than because 'socialism is gud', I'd probably support it.

Originally Posted by Leshy

One could argue that Microsoft actively enforces an anti-free market policy. Nothing free about a market if it is under control of a single company, which is just as bad as it being under government control.

One can argue pretty much anything, but that doesnt make it sensible. You cant really compare a market that is dominated by a company that achieved its dominance because many many people independently chose to buy its products, and one which is dominated by a quango purely because competition is forbidded/restricted by law.

Originally Posted by Leshy

Look at the CPU-market, or the graphics market. The fact that there are two heavily competing top players on both (AMD vs Intel, nVidia vs ATi) means that there is a lot of innovation, new products are regularly released, prices come down pretty rapidly, which all ultimately works in favour of the customer.

I hear that intel were once the effective 'single player' in the home CPU market and that the graphics card market was entirely dominated by 3dfx, is this true? Not that this situation is even remotely relevant to the Microsoft one, since the compeition in the CPU/gfx card industries is 'true' competition (ie different companies competiting on a fairly legally level playing field), whereas the 'competition' youre currently advocating involves the government artifically handicapping the largest player in order to drag it down to the level of its inferior rivals.

[Leshy]

Originally Posted by Azof

Proprietary media formats have allowed the sh*tplayer and Quicktime to kind of survive.

They've also made it impossible for people to create alternative programs that can compete with QuickTime, RealPlayer or Windows Media Player. Fortunately, several standards such as DivX and XviD keep other programs going (DivX Player, BS Player, etc), but unfortunately they rely for a large portion on illegal, copyrighted material being shared. In pretty much the same way that .mp3 is a popular format.

2) IE sux0rs... everyone should use Mozilla/Opera!!!

While true, it's a completely different discussion as it has nothing to do with the current lawsuit and verdict from the EU.

2) The average internet user doesn't need the best, he/she just needs something to go to www.weather.com etc and get the info...

And what if www.weather.com decides to upgrade their system to an XML system that uses XHTML and CSS to display, and subsequently breaks in IE because it lacks needed support? Oh wait, that's the exact reason many developers can't do that, and have to use outdated techniques and standards - and will have to at least until MSIE 7 comes out with Longhorn.

and really IE isn't that bad since they added the pop-up blocker, yes if you get pr0n you will die with IE but that is irrelevant for the average Joe.

Pray tell, why on another forum I frequent, do we get about 5-10 people a day who whine about having been infected with spyware that changes their start page, who want to get rid of popup windows, or who have accidentally installed some random crap dialer, etc?

Back to the point about being hte most compatible... that is the source of Microsoft's monopoly

Yes. People created a lot of programs that didn't work, until Microsoft Windows came along, which was designed to be compatible with all those programs

Originally Posted by Azof

I ofc agree with the fact that Microsoft has a near monopoly with its OS, but most of the stuff it does that you say is anti-competitive is simply an attempt for Windows to be easier to use

How exactly does raising license prices for stores that offer alternative operating systems make Windows any easier to use? How does offering companies that run FreeBSD/Linux free Windows licenses that other companies pay thousands of dollars for, make Windows easier to use?

Yes they are promorting their software, BUT IT IS FREE.

Strange. Last time I went into the store, all the Windows XP, 2000 and 2003 boxes had price tags on them

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Leshy

They've also made it impossible for people to create alternative programs that can compete with QuickTime, RealPlayer or Windows Media Player. :

yeah it sucks how there are no popular opensource movie players whatsoever

[Leshy]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

yeah it sucks how there are no popular opensource movie players whatsoever

None that can play .wm* .mov and .rm.

[queball]

Originally Posted by Leshy

None that can play .wm* .mov and .rm.

They can play anything. But the legality is a bit dodgy.

http://www.mplayerhq.hu/homepage/design6/info.html
http://xinehq.de/index.php/features
(They share code.)

[JonnyBGood]

Freedom is only desirable when the government has to cram it down your throat along with today's sedatives*.










*Manufactured by the good people at microsoft of course.

[Leshy]

Don't we elect a government because we're too stupid to decide what's good for us?

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by Leshy

If you tilt your head upwards, you may see something flying across. It's called a clue.

Feel free to deride me if that's all you've got.

In case you're unable to follow it to a little shed in Betlehem, let me tell you where it leads - the state is not deciding what you can or cannot buy, it is making sure that you have a free choice in what product you wish to buy.

It's not the consumers who are demanding this choice. They've already passed on this decision because, basically, they don't care--the vast majority of consumers can't even be bothered to download alternate software for free. Incredibly, they somehow appear to be fairly content with what they have. It's the competitors and self-anointed zealots who are using the power of the state to force Microsoft to offer choices that Microsoft's customers haven't asked for. Like all statists, they know what's best for the masses.

The state doesn't need to do anything instead of the market. It needs to make sure the market remains open and free.

The market is open and free; you're just having difficulty accepting the fact that most consumers seem reasonably happy with the software they already have.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Leshy

Don't we elect a government because we're too stupid to decide what's good for us?

I'm electing what for why now?

[queball]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

It's not the consumers who are demanding this choice. They've already passed on this decision because, basically, they don't care--the vast majority of consumers can't even be bothered to download alternate software for free. Incredibly, they somehow appear to be fairly content with what they have. It's the competitors and self-anointed zealots who are using the power of the state to force Microsoft to offer choices that Microsoft's customers haven't asked for. Like all statists, they know what's best for the masses.

But this case wasn't started by a statist deciding one day "hey, MS sucks!". MS specifically targeted competitors. This case is about the ruthlessness of their tactics, their abuse of power. Specific violations of EU law. Not angst about the state of the world.

[JonnyBGood]

Statistically speaking it's rather amazing how many nerds you can get on an online space-based roleplaying general discussion forum. For serious.

[Dante Hicks]

Personally, I'd like "negative-liberty" solutions to these types of problems (as always).

Let MS bundle whatever with whatever they want. I don't really care tbh. Let them have stupid contracts with OEM manufacturers for distributing their products. That's all good too.

But if I then choose to make ten thousand copies of your product, and then distribute via a stall outside my house, I better not see any cops.

Also, can you stop putting those stupid headlines in my paper every morning. This morning's offering : "Web warning to Pop Pirates". I mean, just **** off.

thx.

[Vaio]

Originally Posted by Azof

Vaio I have a hard time believing that you are arguing this for any reason other than "Oh n0es it's M$" or possibly "M$ is based in the U.S. ... we should have our own EU software monoply ffs."

Not true, I am quite happily running Windows 2000 on 2 of my computers here.

Originally Posted by Azof

Let's try and summarize your arguements.

1) Proprietary systems are bad lolz

- Yes I can agree that proprietary media formates (primarily what you have been talking about most recently) can be bad, but let's look at their up points as well. If there was .rm I wouldn't have dled real alternative, if there wasn't .mov I wouldn't have Quicktime on my computer (actually I don't, I have a codec but...). Proprietary media formats have allowed the sh*tplayer and Quicktime to kind of survive. I don't really mind .wma because I believe it CAN be superior to .mp3 though I keep all my music in .mp3. Essentially your belief that proprietary media formats are bad is contradictory to your clarmoring for "regulated competition ffs".

Regulated competition is bad but when the main market share holder can quite happily release what can be best discribed as anti-competitor propaganda and at worst, lies then there is something wrong. I am not sure how .rm has survived as most of the websites offering Real Media files have .wmf alternatives as well. Someone has to be throwing money at Real for some reason.

Originally Posted by Azof

2) IE sux0rs... everyone should use Mozilla/Opera!!!

Yes, but unless you are 'computer savvy or Nodrog, you are unaware of any alternatives to IE.

Originally Posted by Azof

- Being a mozilla user I full concur that Mozilla is far better than IE, but I think you are missing several fundamental points WHICH HAVE BEEN POINTED OUT. 1) How the hell are people supposed to dl a new browser with NO BROWSER TO USE??? 2) The average internet user doesn't need the best, he/she just needs something to go to www.weather.com etc and get the info... and really IE isn't that bad since they added the pop-up blocker, yes if you get pr0n you will die with IE but that is irrelevant for the average Joe. 3) M$ (lol) isn't going to include the software of anoter damn company in their OS package. The car analogy has all ready been pointed out by Flavius so I will steal his example. Why the hell would M$ PAY another browser (and don't say it would be free... if a_random_browser00 knew it HAD to be included they would charge 30bucks to be included) to go in their OS? Jesus windows is still BY FAR the easiest OS to learn (Yes Linux CAN be easier but that is another arguement for another day... installing it is hard enough for the illiterate) and use for the AVERAGE CONSUMER.

Don't most (all) ISPs' supply a browser with their installation software ?

Mozilla wouldn't want to pay to have their browser on the desktop. Silly arguement. Opera would more than likely include their ad supported version. The rest of your points I don't feel are relevant and I seem to remember that Microsoft at one point had installation software for AOL on Windows 98.

Originally Posted by Azof

3) Oh n0es M$ BULLIED computer makers into using their OS!!!!

- This is the real point of contention in my book. From the evidence I HAVE SEEN it seems that Microsoft did pressure computer makers not to ttry other OS's

I agree and if you refer back to one of my earlier posts, that was why I thought the EU commision missed the boat. I don't think it's competitive business practice it's intimidation and it's wrong.

Originally Posted by Azof

I ofc agree with the fact that Microsoft has a near monopoly with its OS, but most of the stuff it does that you say is anti-competitive is simply an attempt for Windows to be easier to use, and you can't honestly expect them to bundle inferior/expensive software with their OS. Yes they are promorting their software, BUT IT IS FREE. Who honestly cares if they promote something that is free and generally a decent piece of software. Until I see a decent COMMERCIAL browser or media player I will now mostly dismiss all arguements around this. The accustations of them bullying computer makers into using their OS seems to not understand the fact that MacOS doesn't work with normal computer hardware, and Linux is not mainstream. Alternatives aren't being produced to windows because there is no reason... the techies have linux, the elitists have MacOS and the rest of use have Windows.

Alternatives have been produced for Windows and on the whole Microsoft has used it's 'business practices' to make sure they disappear without a trace.
You don't have to get commercial replacements for IE and WMP. Try Avant and winAmp. You can pay for them if it makes you feel better.

I just realuised. We agree on most of this

Vaio

[Vaio]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Also, can you stop putting those stupid headlines in my paper every morning. This morning's offering : "Web warning to Pop Pirates". I mean, just **** off.

thx.

It would be nice if record companies actually had acts that released stuff worth buying

Vaio

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Flavius

fixed and seconded

8 and 9 are both ok, 9 is better.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

I hear that intel were once the effective 'single player' in the home CPU market and that the graphics card market was entirely dominated by 3dfx, is this true?

Even now, intel has something like 80% of the market (if memory serves).

[RANT] M$ could solve this in one simple step; make installation of WMP optional when installing operating system. just a simple choice upon installation - install Media Player? [ ]Yes [ ]No

The same could be done with IE, I don't see how this would have any big impact as most users would install it as they dont know of any better alternatives or simply dont care. This way the lawsuit could have been avoided and they would still have the same % of the market, as anyone who knows better already use the alternatives.

But what does M$ do? Make up some crap story about windows not functioning without WMP as it is part of the operating system and cannot be removed, even if they had to know that someone was going to prove them wrong.

Why did they do this? Because they want to keep their product as it is - complete without any real need for additions, and to keep customers from searching for alternatives. Smart move? possibly... if they manage to keep the competing companies from making money then the competition will disappear, and they can do whatever they want, increase prices, decrease the frequency of updates, new features/new versions as people will have to accept the product no matter what happens as there is no alternative. Thats the great thing about a monopoly (yes - there is that evil word again) much like a dictatorship - they can do what they want and get away with it.

Will this happen? I doubt it, there will always be someone willing to make free software thats just as good if not better.

But shouldnt any company be allowed to include whatever they want in their own product? Yes! Afterall Windows is made by M$ and as its a product developed and owned by them they can include whatever crap they want on the cd as long as customers are willing to pay for it.

Then why should they make WMP/IE optional? Because it wouldnt make any difference apart from that the 0.1% that already use a different player/browser (most of whom probably never paid for any version of Windows anyways) would have one less thing to complain about. Also the public opinion of the corporation might improve a bit, and that never hurt any company afaik.

btw -
The idea of having alternative browsers/media players on windows installation discs is absurd, why would they include anything made by the competition? makes no sense at all. The only reason i can imagine for doing that would be if they were so confident that their product was so superior to the competitors that nobody would select the alternative (and a cold day in hell it would be).[/RANT]

Now on to the $10.000 question: How bored am i?

[MrL_JaKiri]

That doesn't actually work, because windows comes preinstalled.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Acri

[RANT] M$ could solve this in one simple step; make installation of WMP optional when installing operating system. just a simple choice upon installation - install Media Player? [ ]Yes [ ]No

This wouldnt be 'solving' it, because the underlying issue here is what ability governments should have to dictate to sellers arbitrary conditions under which their products may be sold, and not "what media player people should use".

[at0mic.c0w]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

That doesn't actually work, because windows comes preinstalled.

they have managed to make us enter the product key when starting a preinstalled system for the first time so what's the problem with asking wether the user wants to install their wmp at the same time ?

[queball]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

This wouldnt be 'solving' it, because the underlying issue here is what ability governments should have to dictate to sellers arbitrary conditions under which their products may be sold, and not "what media player people should use".

Nah, the underlying issue here the epistemological status of the state.

[Vaio]

Originally Posted by queball

Nah, the underlying issue here the epistemological status of the state.

Queball in 'out long wording Nodrog' shock

Vaio

[Gayle29uk]

Originally Posted by Leshy

Perhaps the others are doing it to prevent their player from being obsolete as soon as MS includes the file type in WMP?

Imagine WMP suddenly being capable of handling .rm files, and suddenly no one would be using RealPlayer anymore, since their computer can already handle the files, without RealMedia every having a chance to make the user aware of it's existence!

WMP playing Real files by default (i.e. no codec download) would be a win for Real, their battle to get Real formats on every desktop would be over and they could market their server side kit a lot easier as the client would have the same desktop penetration as being the same as MS.

That's what this is all about, having the installed client base to market the server side stuff as a viable option.