View Full Version : Windows 7 and the ethics of feature bundling
Since there are some intense discussions about Windows 7 and Microsoft's practice of feature bundling, the nature of Microsoft's monopoly, and it's anti-competitive behaviors, I think it's best to move those discussions here.
The original thread is here (http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=51305). Please copy the parts of the discussion you find relevant here and continue the discussions here, thanks.
Does MS have a monopoly in the OS market for notebooks/desktops? Check
Is there a clear definition of what consumers can expect to be included into an OS by MS? very difficult to answer, probably: no
Can MS be sanctioned to not include certain components into Windows based on above? hmm
Let's focus on IE as example (but WMP would be in a similar position).
Functionality provided by both definitely are expected to be included into the OS by users. Nobody wants to go back to the days where each ISP had its own customized browser on CDROM which made the internet experience cumbersome and ISPs often included (for the consumer) undesired stuff too. Therefore, leaving IE or WMP out of the OS without a replacement seems illogical to me.
So.. the next option is to include firefox/chrome/opera as an install-time or to install all of them. Leaving out IE is undesirable, as there are many situations where IE is needed/preferred by users even when it's not their primary browser. And it's not like going to save that much diskspace or memory on the complete OS footprint.
Now that FireFox/Chrome/Opera is included, who is responsible for support of these browsers? Would the average joe in the street know whom to contact if he has a problem with the browser if it is not IE (but it came with MS Windows, didn't it?). Is MS responsible for securing the 3rd party browser through windows update if security holes are discovered and Windows OS installation CD/DVDROMs containing old versions are still sold through retail?
Suppose all each these browsers can be selected to be installed alongside IE during installation of the OS. The average joe picks one and gets accustomed to using it. Now he walks into the same OS with a different browser installed than the one he's accustomed to. Now he needs to learn to use yet another browser! The only alternative is to install all browsers alongside eachother, to provide the same featureset on each Windows installation for consistency.
Now imagine MS being sanctioned to do the same for WMP, defragmentation program, anti-spyware, file manager, ftp program, telnet client, basic texteditor, paint, etc. What do you end up with? The average linux distro! Too many choices that only confuse people during installation and a complete inconsistent desktop experience when you move between installs by different people.
Now I'm not saying that what MS is doing (the bundling) is ethically sound; I just think that the alternatives are not better as you end up with a mess. And imo the companies that pursue sanctioning MS (RealNetworks, Opera) are failing with their current business plan and try to blame it on MS. However, Firefox usage statistics show that there's a market for alternatives.
The only alternative I see is MS being forced to include only 'basic' functionality into the OS and charge extra for fully featured products which have to compete without being subsidized by income from other business divisions.
Imo, if you want to beat MS you should develop software which works so much better that people prefer it over MS stuff. Apple OSX is an example; so is Firefox.
However, MS should rightfully be forced to use open standards where available for as much as possible, and fully document the APIs it uses (with documentation that can easily be interpreted, verified by a non-competing 3rd party). Thinks like MS HTML, javascript, OOXML, etc. need to be avoided at all costs from ever occuring again.
Maybe there's also public debate needed about MS being forced to open up Microsoft/Windows Update to create a universal update mechanism for all programs as the current situation is far from good.
- Frank (a happy Opera user since ~2000)
Basically I agree with what you said.
I think Microsoft is doing relatively good on the API side. Of course, there are probably still some undocumented API, but most of these are not intentional, but rather just because these API are too immature and may be changed in the future so Microsoft decided it's better not to document them now. Also, MSDN is a pretty good effort on documenting the Windows API and components.
However, on the standard compliance side Microsoft is not doing well. Of course, Microsoft is capable of making good specifications, but they don't like to make it open. This definitely needs to be changed.
About the update thing, of course it's possible. But it depends on whether people will trust Microsoft or not. Microsoft is already doing a driver database. If you are a hardware manufacturer, you can upload your WHQL certified driver to Microsoft's central database, and anyone who installed your hardware will be able to download the driver automatically. I think that's pretty good. In theory, it's possible to do so for software updates, but there are many technicalities need to be overcome.
I don't think it's so much technical as it is financial hurdles to overcome. Doesn't MS charge money, albeit indirectly, for the driver database feature through it's WHQL logo/branding certification process? I don't see the same working for software. Unfortunately, the individual software components should have to do their own update mechanisms. Firefox's works great.
If they ever do bundle outside software, do they need to include any newer versions in service packs? What if the outside software titles change their license agreements?
To me you should have the option to not install various of the bundled software.
This should be in a Custom Installation section with the actual function either being:
Not installing with everything else
Or going through & uninstalling the stuff you don't want after install
Another Custom Installation feature possibility would be for the installer to have an interface which pops up somewhere along the way after an internet connection has been established.
This interface would connect to an MS server and download a list of optional software packages to choose from, including a 'none' option & probably defaulting to installing the MS option.
In the absence of an internet connection, presumably only MS provided software that is bundled on CD would be installed.
The selected option(s) would be associated with a script that connects to a server (presumably could be MS hosted for a fee & the fee could be adjusted to prevent option overload), download the latest installation file & run it.
I can presume MS would provide for entry of CD keys/credit card payments for non-free software too.
Software providers would obviously need to get certification from MS (& probably pay a fee) before appearing on the list.
Being a list generated from an internet connection it would be dynamic with market changes & even add new software types as they are invented.
Preferably you'd also be able to choose to download a list of software options managed by someone other than MS too.
:idea:...Heh, this is not exactly a new idea though.
Just realised this is pretty much just describing the Package Managers used by all the mainstream Linux distributions :lol:
nutball
08-Feb-2009, 08:00
Out of interest what's the share of the market between retail Windows and pre-installed-by-the-OEM Windows?
A couple of posts above are saying "it should be an option to install/not install <blah>". My gut feeling is that most Windows users don't even install Windows themselves, so wouldn't see such an option. It might be a nice option to have for those who do install, but it's maybe not a great way to change the world if that's what one is trying to do.
Well when you get an OEM computer like a laptop the first time you turn it on it asks some questions and finishes installing windows. Thus you could still do it. You could pop up a screen asking if the user wants an advanced install, or basic. Basic they put name & PW in and are good to go.
Advanced they get to pick all sorts of options as mentioned above. This would be like the MS offive install where you can pick all the addins you want as you install, or you can just ignore it. But whatever they better have IE in the original install, or another browser if the OEM wants a different one.
So.. the next option is to include firefox/chrome/opera as an install-time or to install all of them. Leaving out IE is undesirable, as there are many situations where IE is needed/preferred by users even when it's not their primary browser.
True, but developers moving from open webbased standards to supporting only IE is really just another unfortunate sideeffect that could've been avoided if regulators had taken timely measures against the monopoly abuse.
Just like you wrote, there are many situations where IE is needed. That shows the success of a deliberate effort to establish IE as the leading platform for application, document and other content delivery on the Internet. And it succeeded by leveraging the Windows install base, itself an almost irreplaceable platform for businesses.
We're running the same risk with Media Player, which has the best cards by far for becoming the standard media delivery platform. With wholly proprietary file formats, pervasive DRM support designed right in, and the guaranteed availability on the Windows platform, Media Player is the TV/Radio station, music shop and videostore of the near future. And so again we're seeing one monopoly leading into another.
And it's not like going to save that much diskspace or memory on the complete OS footprint.
Now that FireFox/Chrome/Opera is included, who is responsible for support of these browsers? Would the average joe in the street know whom to contact if he has a problem with the browser if it is not IE (but it came with MS Windows, didn't it?). Is MS responsible for securing the 3rd party browser through windows update if security holes are discovered and Windows OS installation CD/DVDROMs containing old versions are still sold through retail?
They clearly shouldn't be responsible for that, but end users are already quite accustomed to being shown many different EULAs when they first start their OS/programs, so it's not a complete novelty.
Not a huge problem for Microsoft anyway, as they are not even responsible for end user support on OEM installations of Windows, which represents the bulk of installations out there.
Suppose all each these browsers can be selected to be installed alongside IE during installation of the OS. The average joe picks one and gets accustomed to using it. Now he walks into the same OS with a different browser installed than the one he's accustomed to. Now he needs to learn to use yet another browser! The only alternative is to install all browsers alongside eachother, to provide the same featureset on each Windows installation for consistency.
Well there are already many different versions out there - you're going to encounter Windows installations with IE6-8, various versions of Media Player and the same goes for most programs. User interface consistency isn't always that great, to be honest.
More importantly though, this monoculture that you're advocating also brings disadvantages for end users. For instance, it is largely to blame for the widespread prevalence of viruses, worms, phishing and other vulnerabilities. Which means that users have had to familiarise themselves with an environment that requires virus scanners, spyware detection, firewalls and the like.
Now imagine MS being sanctioned to do the same for WMP, defragmentation program, anti-spyware, file manager, ftp program, telnet client, basic texteditor, paint, etc. What do you end up with? The average linux distro! Too many choices that only confuse people during installation and a complete inconsistent desktop experience when you move between installs by different people.
Have you installed any recent Linux distributions? They typically require fewer clicks than a Windows installation, unless one happens to explicitly require customisation. In which case they provide partioning, boot management, component selection and other options that are in most cases superior to the Windows installer feature set.
The inconsistency of the desktop experience is a valid point, but it shouldn't be exaggerated. Between various Gnome and KDE-based distributions, most desktops adhere to a fairly standard interface paradigm that shouldn't really present a big problem for most users.
Now I'm not saying that what MS is doing (the bundling) is ethically sound; I just think that the alternatives are not better as you end up with a mess. And imo the companies that pursue sanctioning MS (RealNetworks, Opera) are failing with their current business plan and try to blame it on MS.
But their business plan failing may not be entirely their own fault. When Microsoft includes certain functionality in the OS itself, which doesn't necessarily have to be very full featured, just good enough, then the market for third party software is going to suffer sooner or later. Third party software suppliers are suddenly faced with their kind of program being perceived as 'free' functionality (just look at the topic that spawned this discussion), and when they don't have another business to subsidise further development of their program, it becomes hard to compete.
Typically they're forced into the unenviable position of either having to make their software profitable through advertising (immediately killing all end user credibility and sympathy) or ending up in a spiral of never ending featuritis (case in point, Nero).
The downside to all of that is that we see the creation of an environment where only large corporations can play, alongside a handful of well meaning volunteer efforts. Not terribly good for innovation, which often comes from small business.
However, Firefox usage statistics show that there's a market for alternatives.
Well Firefox is a free program largely made by enthusiasts along with a few corporations that have a strategic interest in not having a browser monoculture. I wouldn't really call that a 'market'. But I'll grant that Firefox is a bit of an exception in that it is moderately succesful right now.
The only alternative I see is MS being forced to include only 'basic' functionality into the OS and charge extra for fully featured products which have to compete without being subsidized by income from other business divisions.
That is what I would advocate. I think that Windows just contains a lot of completely unnecessary functionality, particularly for most enterprise environments.
Isn't it somehow quite ironic that the 'Business' version of Vista is one of the most expensive editions, when most business users only need to work with 1 or 2 programs? Whichever version they decide to buy though, companies can be sure they are sponsoring Microsoft's DVD burning app and Movie Maker and Media Player programming teams.
Imo, if you want to beat MS you should develop software which works so much better that people prefer it over MS stuff. Apple OSX is an example; so is Firefox.
However, MS should rightfully be forced to use open standards where available for as much as possible, and fully document the APIs it uses (with documentation that can easily be interpreted, verified by a non-competing 3rd party). Thinks like MS HTML, javascript, OOXML, etc. need to be avoided at all costs from ever occuring again.
Maybe there's also public debate needed about MS being forced to open up Microsoft/Windows Update to create a universal update mechanism for all programs as the current situation is far from good.
- Frank (a happy Opera user since ~2000)
Good points, thanks.
First of all, thanks for the very constructive reply!
True, but developers moving from open webbased standards to supporting only IE is really just another unfortunate sideeffect that could've been avoided if regulators had taken timely measures against the monopoly abuse.
Just like you wrote, there are many situations where IE is needed. That shows the success of a deliberate effort to establish IE as the leading platform for application, document and other content delivery on the Internet. And it succeeded by leveraging the Windows install base, itself an almost irreplaceable platform for businesses.
Agreed. Regulators have failed significantly in the past decade(s?) regarding MS. I think Kroes is really doing an admirable job at the moment; while some of her sanctions (Windows N version) are not giving the desired result, other measures have had great effect (but as far as non-MS regulation not part of this thread of course).
We're running the same risk with Media Player, which has the best cards by far for becoming the standard media delivery platform. With wholly proprietary file formats, pervasive DRM support designed right in, and the guaranteed availability on the Windows platform, Media Player is the TV/Radio station, music shop and videostore of the near future. And so again we're seeing one monopoly leading into another.
I'm not sure if WMP itself is responsible for those effects. I think superior licensing costs compared to competing video codec standards as well as technological superiority (Silverlight) will be the main cause of the effects you describe. I doubt anyone is prevented from building an application that can play back any format that WMP can using the Directshow framework or Windows Media Foundation or whatever they've switched to these days.
DRM is needed for playback of BluRay/HDDVD, I think any application that implements playback of said formats need to run in an environment that is approved by the lincence holders of the patents; Vista and upcoming 7 offer that environment. I don't think WMP is an essential part of this chain.
While I agree that DRM is something completely undesirable, I don't think MS is responsible for it as much as the music and film industry. They'd demand similar measures from any OS that wants to incorporate playback of future media formats.
But, indeed, choice is needed for consumers before MS builds up another monopoly with WMP and abuses it to push their own propriety standards.
They clearly shouldn't be responsible for that, but end users are already quite accustomed to being shown many different EULAs when they first start their OS/programs, so it's not a complete novelty.
Not a huge problem for Microsoft anyway, as they are not even responsible for end user support on OEM installations of Windows, which represents the bulk of installations out there.
good point, and agreed. This brings up an interesting point which might be another disadvantage of the 'bundling of third party programs' sanction: if 3rd party programs are bundled with Windows, who decides how much money the software houses get for each installation of their program? Or do they get a fixed cost per sold copy of Windows? I can see everybody lobbying to include their customized copy of some program under BSD-licence in Windows at the EU to get part of the pie.
Well there are already many different versions out there - you're going to encounter Windows installations with IE6-8, various versions of Media Player and the same goes for most programs. User interface consistency isn't always that great, to be honest.
More importantly though, this monoculture that you're advocating also brings disadvantages for end users. For instance, it is largely to blame for the widespread prevalence of viruses, worms, phishing and other vulnerabilities. Which means that users have had to familiarise themselves with an environment that requires virus scanners, spyware detection, firewalls and the like.
I disagree on this point. Imo, user interface consistency is the main reason why Windows and OSX are the success they are atm. Although there are older systems around with IE6, and people running betas of IE8, MS really tries to limit this; forcing a final version of a windows component through Windows Update, as well as trying to nag users into turning automatic updates on.
Monocultures are indeed a significant safety risk not to be ignored. However, Sun Java and Adobe Flash, covering a large amount of security holes are relatively the biggest contributors regarding safety risks and there are _no replacements_ available afaik on the Windows platform!
Suppose we end up going the route that MS is enforced to supply only basic programs with their OS, the user interface consistency can be maintained where needed and the more managable amount of code might decrease the safety risks. Further more, I think I've read that most exploits can be stopped with forcing users not to run with administrator rights (which they have successfully enforced in Vista and 7). Virtualisation technology hsa been?/will probably be implemented the next decade to further solidify the safety of applications with web access (browsers in sandboxes, etc).
Have you installed any recent Linux distributions? They typically require fewer clicks than a Windows installation, unless one happens to explicitly require customisation. In which case they provide partioning, boot management, component selection and other options that are in most cases superior to the Windows installer feature set.
The inconsistency of the desktop experience is a valid point, but it shouldn't be exaggerated. Between various Gnome and KDE-based distributions, most desktops adhere to a fairly standard interface paradigm that shouldn't really present a big problem for most users.
until one to three distribution gain near-total dominance on the linux market, each installation will have quite different programs for the same tasks, settings in different places, etc. It's no use if you master linux only to find out it's 'your version of linux' that you've mastered which is different from other people's versions of linux.
But their business plan failing may not be entirely their own fault. When Microsoft includes certain functionality in the OS itself, which doesn't necessarily have to be very full featured, just good enough, then the market for third party software is going to suffer sooner or later. Third party software suppliers are suddenly faced with their kind of program being perceived as 'free' functionality (just look at the topic that spawned this discussion), and when they don't have another business to subsidise further development of their program, it becomes hard to compete.
Typically they're forced into the unenviable position of either having to make their software profitable through advertising (immediately killing all end user credibility and sympathy) or ending up in a spiral of never ending featuritis (case in point, Nero).
True. However, MS should also be allowed to include functionality that people can expect to come in an OS. Again, what this functionality is, is very hard to define. Software houses should ackknowledge this to a certain degree, and stop developing software that has reached a certain quality and features treshold. If they try to develop new products applying the same paradigim that brought their success in the first place, they're much more likely to succeed again (I'm looking at your Ahead software, ACDSee systems, etc).
The downside to all of that is that we see the creation of an environment where only large corporations can play, alongside a handful of well meaning volunteer efforts. Not terribly good for innovation, which often comes from small business.
Well Firefox is a free program largely made by enthusiasts along with a few corporations that have a strategic interest in not having a browser monoculture. I wouldn't really call that a 'market'. But I'll grant that Firefox is a bit of an exception in that it is moderately succesful right now.
indeed; Maybe I should not bring open source into the equation because few companies are really making money off it. The problem with Opera is that they're competing with the open source movement. As they cannot do anything about it, they go for the easier target (MS). With Google starting to get serious about browsers with Chrome, I think Opera will be doomed on the desktop. I'm afraid that trying to regulate MS through the EU will not change much about this situation. They better try to focus on the mobile market and other custom devices even more.
conclusive remark:
I'm looking forward to Windows X - Basic where I can select the additional MS and 3rd party components priced not higher than 10 USD each to build on top of it. App store for Windows, part of the installation process?
tongue_of_colicab
09-Feb-2009, 16:56
I dont think MS is doing something wrong or making made use of their monopoly because its not like MS is making it that hard for you to install other software. At best they are making things hard for the people making the software.
For me most of the stuff MS includes in their OS is something you can excpect from a OS. Also the software MS gives you isnt the best you can get in most cases. Take WMP for example. Its fine if you want to play your mp3's or any other very common file format but as soon as you want to play something you downloaded from the internet chances are very big you'd want something like VLC, media player classic or atleast some kind of codec pack. The same goes for most software MS gives you.
I dont think it should be a case of MS being allowed to include something like WMP in their OS. What I think should be done is give the option not to install that software during the OS setup.
That way everybody will be happy. MS wont have to bother making a seperate version withouth something like WMP, which nobody will buy anyway because MS will sell it at the same price and it wont be sold at most stores so you might as well take the normal version. People who dont care about their media player or dont need anything more like WMP can just install that and people who know they will be using something else or know that they dont have a need for media playback software will have the option not to install.
eastmen
12-Feb-2009, 04:34
Since there are some intense discussions about Windows 7 and Microsoft's practice of feature bundling, the nature of Microsoft's monopoly, and it's anti-competitive behaviors, I think it's best to move those discussions here.
The original thread is here (http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=51305). Please copy the parts of the discussion you find relevant here and continue the discussions here, thanks.
Meh , I set up a few of those new all in one macs and the amount of applications that come with it is insane. Apple browser , apple chat feature , apple video editing tools , apple ass wiper .
If apple can do it , I don't see why MS can't do it. If you want to use something else you can buy it and install it or download it.
I personaly love that with windows i am able to do 90% of the things i want to do right out of the box. I may pay $200 for the os but i'm getting a full featured os that works with almost everything I want to do. If I want to do more I can buy diffrent products but the basics are all there.
I don't really want a world where you simply get an os and then you have to go find your own browser to use on it or go find your own mp3 playback software. Also at that point wouldn't you be handicaping MS's ability to compete when other OS's aren't hindered by this like as I mentioned OSX ?
How about:
"Microsoft and the ethics of treating even developers as 'probably a moron'." Microsoft ALWAYS decides what is best for everyone, themselves up front.
I really hate that.
I'm somewhat surprised that this (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology/news/article.cfm?c_id=5&objectid=10560692) bit of news didn't make it to this thread :neutral:
(I recall seeing it in a bunch of other places at the time but can't find any 'more techy' links at the moment)
It's a great development Hoom, but of course it's only part of the solution.
What remains to be seen is whether there will be any large OEMs that actually ship Windows7 with IE and Media Player disabled, and alternatives in place, and with a discount.
If not then I'm afraid that there will still be a need for more effective measures against the monopoly abuse.
As an update, Microsoft has agreed with the EU that they will add a selection screen to Windows 7 that at first start-up/installation allows you to choose your browser from IE8, FireFox, Opera, Chrome and Safari, with no default selected (just as I predicted).
They have even indicated they will add this to XP and Vista in an update (unexpected to me).
As an update, Microsoft has agreed with the EU that they will add a selection screen to Windows 7 that at first start-up/installation allows you to choose your browser from IE8, FireFox, Opera, Chrome and Safari, with no default selected (just as I predicted).
They have even indicated they will add this to XP and Vista in an update (unexpected to me).
so... will MS claim that IE development is paid for by advertisements with a deal with BING like Opera and Firefox do with Google, etc? They'd better be able to prove that to be the case, as otherwise they'll have to refund if you chose a different browser in the ballot screen.
The monetary aspect of this whole thing seems like a big unanswered questionmark to me.
And now that MS has given in on browser choice, what is the next logical step? I can think of at least Media Player, Anti-spyware (e.g. Windows defender, malicious software removal tool), defrag... why not go all the way if you use the same reasoning as used for browsers?
We might end up with a horribly fragmentated market where no windows installation is the same. Which is good in some ways, but bad in others.
Is the EU also going after Apple for its monopolistic practices?
Is the EU also going after Apple for its monopolistic practices?
So far their investigation has not led to a conviction (http://www.cgsh.com/sony_bmg_successful_in_eu_investigation_of_apple%2 7s_itunes_platform/).
But anyone can file another complaint. Knock yourself out ;)
It is weird they closed the investigation b/c Apple quit doing whatever it was they were peeved about, but why does that mean they don't fine them? I mean if you quit murdering people you would still get in trouble :razz:
Monopolies can be bad if abused, but I do not see that the Apple should be allowed the privilege of doing things with their OS that MS is precluded from doing. It doesn't make any sense to me. Obviously some will disagree and say that there are reasons that tearing down whatever the most dominant company is, is desirable for some reason.
Is the EU also going after Apple for its monopolistic practices?
I'm sure the AppStore is getting its fair amount of attention from the EU.
It is weird they closed the investigation b/c Apple quit doing whatever it was they were peeved about, but why does that mean they don't fine them? I mean if you quit murdering people you would still get in trouble :razz:
Monopolies can be bad if abused, but I do not see that the Apple should be allowed the privilege of doing things with their OS that MS is precluded from doing. It doesn't make any sense to me. Obviously some will disagree and say that there are reasons that tearing down whatever the most dominant company is, is desirable for some reason.
Yeah this is what I don't get. Just because MS is in the #1 position it gets the focus of all these anti-trust allegations and gets fined out the wazoo. To me it's a double standard that the same attention doesn't happen with Apple even though in some ways they are more monopolistic.
Sure Apple might not have the market share, but they refuse to let anybody else compete with its products and the Mac line is about as closed as one can get. It's a contradiction is it not?
I'm no expert here, but to my understanding, an important element in anti-trust cases is whether it's easy for consumers to find good alternatives (because if there's no alternatives, bad behavior or abuses can be easily punished by consumers by buying from a different vendor). Therefore, Windows is a monopoly and can be subject to anti-trust case because it's difficult to find good alternatives for most consumers. On the other hand, Mac is still not a monopoly because obviously Windows is a good alternative (especially now since many previously Mac-only softwares now have Windows version). iPhone and iPod are also in this category.
Of course, if iPhone gets more popular, it's possible that AppStore could become a monopoly on iPhone because there's no alternatives.
If windows is a good alternative to mac, is mac not a good alternative to windows?
There are still too many softwares not available on Mac OS X. Of course, it's getting better now. However, especially for smaller software developers, developing for Mac is still not very worthwhile, so this limits the software availability on Mac.
eastmen
31-Oct-2009, 11:23
There are still too many softwares not available on Mac OS X. Of course, it's getting better now. However, especially for smaller software developers, developing for Mac is still not very worthwhile, so this limits the software availability on Mac.
I think its more the fact that if you buy windows it comes with IE. If you buy a mac it comes with Safari installed. Its just as easy to find firefox on windows as it is on mac.
But then mac comes with a bunch of other products from apple like smaller verisons of final cut and tons of other apple things like I this and I that.
If ms did this forget about it . They would be sued to kingdom come. I know a ton of mac people who never have problems but all they do is use the apps apple put on their install.
I'd love for MS to be able to instal a dedicated $100 video editing product , podcast recording software and tons of other stuff and not see them fined out of existance.
rpg.314
31-Oct-2009, 12:20
I'd love for MS to be able to instal a dedicated $100 video editing product , podcast recording software and tons of other stuff and not see them fined out of existance. If it indeed costs $100, then they can install it without any worry. They get into trouble only when they install something for free.
I'd love for MS to be able to instal a dedicated $100 video editing product , podcast recording software and tons of other stuff and not see them fined out of existance.
Microsoft actually already installs a shitload of additional software on their OSs, and the little paper cut fines they've had to pay so far haven't exactly put their existence into jeopardy.
And of course Apple is not yet a convicted monopoly abuser, so it isn't like the situation is comparable to begin with.
eastmen
31-Oct-2009, 17:41
Microsoft actually already installs a shitload of additional software on their OSs, and the little paper cut fines they've had to pay so far haven't exactly put their existence into jeopardy.
And of course Apple is not yet a convicted monopoly abuser, so it isn't like the situation is comparable to begin with.
I'm not sure whats additional ?
I'm not sure whats additional ?
Depending on which version you buy it usually includes at least a browser, webserver, media player, media center, instant messenger, antivirus, firewall, defragger, virtualisation, a movie maker, image editor, flash clone, live integration stuff, some games, lots really.
eastmen
02-Nov-2009, 22:38
Depending on which version you buy it usually includes at least a browser, webserver, media player, media center, instant messenger, antivirus, firewall, defragger, virtualisation, a movie maker, image editor, flash clone, live integration stuff, some games, lots really.
and all these things except maby the movie maker have been included in OS's for decades.
In fact an os without any of these things would basicly be useless as there would be no way to access anything outside the computer.You'd also have problems keeping your system up and running In fact I don't know of any os that doesn't offer 90% of these things
Also last I check windows doesn't come with an antivirus.
Silent_Buddha
02-Nov-2009, 22:49
I think its more the fact that if you buy windows it comes with IE. If you buy a mac it comes with Safari installed. Its just as easy to find firefox on windows as it is on mac.
But then mac comes with a bunch of other products from apple like smaller verisons of final cut and tons of other apple things like I this and I that.
If ms did this forget about it . They would be sued to kingdom come. I know a ton of mac people who never have problems but all they do is use the apps apple put on their install.
I'd love for MS to be able to instal a dedicated $100 video editing product , podcast recording software and tons of other stuff and not see them fined out of existance.
I agree, I wish that MS had the freedom to do what Apple does, by bundling full featured products.
But unlike Apple. MS would get sued by the EU, Adobe, and any other video/picture editor in existence.
It's basically a double standard. What's good for other companies is bad for MS.
Regards,
SB
Silent_Buddha
02-Nov-2009, 22:51
and all these things except maby the movie maker have been included in OS's for decades.
In fact an os without any of these things would basicly be useless as there would be no way to access anything outside the computer.You'd also have problems keeping your system up and running In fact I don't know of any os that doesn't offer 90% of these things
Also last I check windows doesn't come with an antivirus.
Nope, just like Win7 no longer comes with a video editor by default. Or a mail program by default.
For fear that they will be persecuted by the EU unlike all other OS makers.
They have wisely moved them to optional download packages.
Otherwise, it'd only be a matter of time before the EU went after MS for including a mail reader. And then going after MS for having an included Video Editor.
It's probably only a matter of time before the EU starts investigating MS for including a Firewall. And including a paint program. And eventually probably even investigated for including a slightly more feature rich wordpad.
Regards,
SB
eastmen
04-Nov-2009, 03:00
well the EU just wants money. The USA goverment should just start sueing Europeon companys for stupid senseless things and get free money. After all we are in debt here and have a president who wont mind making it worse
and all these things except maby the movie maker have been included in OS's for decades.
They were all once separate pieces of software, sold for profit. Microsoft can afford to give them away for free because they have the income from Windows.
It's basically a double standard. What's good for other companies is bad for MS.
Regards,
SB
Yeah, of course it is a double standard, and rightfully so. What other companies sell doesn't automatically end up on 95% of all computers. That kind of market share goes hand in hand with greater responsibility.
well the EU just wants money.
Yeah, those puny fines really matter to the EU budget.
Or wait.. no they don't.
eastmen
04-Nov-2009, 05:06
They were all once separate pieces of software, sold for profit. Microsoft can afford to give them away for free because they have the income from Windows.
I'm not sure what software your talking about
I believe a defragger has come with every windows release . I believe IE has been part of every os since 95 and I don't recall ever paying for a browser. The movie maker that was part of windows is so barebones that its not usefull for anything.
The problem is if its okay for apple to bundle these features and not okay for ms then your basicly handicaping ms's ability to compete.
Why would someone buy an os that comes with nothing but the os whe nyou can buy an os that comes with all these other apps built in .
Basicly if one company can do it then all should be able to regardless of market share.
i would think windows would work much better if ms was able to provide everything one might need while using the computer from the OS all the way to podcastin software and high end video editing software all included in the OS.
But if MS does that they would be fined. Apple can do this and not worry about it.
Fucked up no ?
I'm not sure what software your talking about
I believe a defragger has come with every windows release .
defrag showed up in DOS 6.0. Before that, companies like PC-Tools and Norton made a living off of them.
I believe IE has been part of every os since 95 and I don't recall ever paying for a browser.
It was in the Plus pack for 95 I think, but that's neither here nor there. Fact is that Internet Explorer was developed because Microsoft considered Netscape a threat, and they dealt with it with ruthless effectiveness.
The movie maker that was part of windows is so barebones that its not usefull for anything.
The problem is if its okay for apple to bundle these features and not okay for ms then your basicly handicaping ms's ability to compete.
Microsoft's overwhelming dominance in the software ecosystem is severely handicapping everyone else's ability to compete. So yeah, it's perfectly okay for Apple to bundle, and it's also okay for various Linux distributions to provide even more free software.
Why would someone buy an os that comes with nothing but the os whe nyou can buy an os that comes with all these other apps built in .
Basicly if one company can do it then all should be able to regardless of market share.
i would think windows would work much better if ms was able to provide everything one might need while using the computer from the OS all the way to podcastin software and high end video editing software all included in the OS.
But if MS does that they would be fined. Apple can do this and not worry about it.
Fucked up no ?
Only in the most superficial of perspectives. Microsoft has plenty of advantages going for them, they're still quite able to leverage their monopolies to get a step up in other markets. So it's only proper that someone makes at least some effort to level the playing field.
eastmen
04-Nov-2009, 05:52
defrag showed up in DOS 6.0. Before that, companies like PC-Tools and Norton made a living off of them.
Because a defrag program is important to keep your system running as fast as it could. To force people to pay for that is about as insane as forcing someone in this day and age to pay extra for a GUI
It was in the Plus pack for 95 I think, but that's neither here nor there. Fact is that Internet Explorer was developed because Microsoft considered Netscape a threat, and they dealt with it with ruthless effectiveness.
As far as I know within the first year of of netflix releasing a browser it was already started to be bundled and netscape and MS were giving it away free. In fact on most OS's netscape was your only choice for awhile.
Microsoft's overwhelming dominance in the software ecosystem is severely handicapping everyone else's ability to compete. So yeah, it's perfectly okay for Apple to bundle, and it's also okay for various Linux distributions to provide even more free software.
I don't believe thats correct at all. If you take away a companys ability to compete then your going to destroy that company. The products should be able to stand on their own without goverments getting involved. If your allowing other companys to include free stuff that you prohibt another from providing then your just going to completely flip the anticompetive aspect. Now its in apples court.
Only in the most superficial of perspectives. Microsoft has plenty of advantages going for them, they're still quite able to leverage their monopolies to get a step up in other markets. So it's only proper that someone makes at least some effort to level the playing field.
You don't really believe this do you ? how is the zune doing ? how is win mo doing ?
If you really believe this mabye apple should start being sued for the monopoly they have in the pmp market. Perhaps they should't be able to ship an app store with their ipods so that other companys can compete ?
Browsers became part of other software pretty easily. MS wasn't the only company giving away free browsers to gain market share. Earth link , AOL and others were all giving away browsers with their products.
Because a defrag program is important to keep your system running as fast as it could. To force people to pay for that is about as insane as forcing someone in this day and age to pay extra for a GUI
Heh, well OSX and most Linux distros don't actually come with one. But the real sad thing of course is that the basic almost good enough defragger in Windows is hurting sales of real defraggers like Perfectdisk and Diskeeper 2009.
As far as I know within the first year of of netflix releasing a browser it was already started to be bundled and netscape and MS were giving it away free. In fact on most OS's netscape was your only choice for awhile.
Not sure what you're saying here.
I don't believe thats correct at all. If you take away a companys ability to compete then your going to destroy that company. The products should be able to stand on their own without goverments getting involved. If your allowing other companys to include free stuff that you prohibt another from providing then your just going to completely flip the anticompetive aspect. Now its in apples court.
Sadly, markets are not self regulating. We need the SEC and the Justice Dept and comparable organisations worldwide to ensure competition is unhindered.
You don't really believe this do you ? how is the zune doing ? how is win mo doing ?
Surprisingly well, considering just how mediocre products these really are. Microsoft is not entitled to be a big player in every market you know? There are plenty of markets that they do control already.
If you really believe this mabye apple should start being sued for the monopoly they have in the pmp market. Perhaps they should't be able to ship an app store with their ipods so that other companys can compete ?
Sued is the wrong word, and having a monopoly is not illegal by itself. Using it to extend it to other markets is. The iPod situation is pretty unhealthy, and the fact that iTunes only works with iPods is wrong. I would agree that an antitrust investigation is appropriate.
Browsers became part of other software pretty easily. MS wasn't the only company giving away free browsers to gain market share. Earth link , AOL and others were all giving away browsers with their products.
None of them automatically became the first thing you saw when you logged on to pretty much any PC in the world.
Silent_Buddha
04-Nov-2009, 23:16
Basically some people prefer government mandated advantages for companies who would otherwise not be able to compete on the merits of their software implementation.
And asking the government to cover their rears because they made bad business decisions and can't make a product that is attractive to consumers.
So rather than improving their software/business practices, they ask the government to force other companies down to their level of incompetence.
Because as we all know. A competitive marketplace requires all players to play at the level of the worst player on the market, otherwise it's just not fair. /sarcasm
Regards,
SB
Milton Friedman, is that you? Iceland called, they want their free market back.
So what you're really saying here is that Internet Explorer owes its current position on the market purely thanks to it being by far the best browser on the market?
Just checking.
Basically some people prefer government mandated advantages for companies who would otherwise not be able to compete on the merits of their software implementation.
And asking the government to cover their rears because they made bad business decisions and can't make a product that is attractive to consumers.
So rather than improving their software/business practices, they ask the government to force other companies down to their level of incompetence.
Because as we all know. A competitive marketplace requires all players to play at the level of the worst player on the market, otherwise it's just not fair. /sarcasm
Regards,
SB
Silent_Buddha
04-Nov-2009, 23:54
So what you're really saying here is that Internet Explorer owes its current position on the market purely thanks to it being by far the best browser on the market?
Just checking.
Right now, obviously not as Firefox has shown that if you design a browser that people think is better they will switch to it.
That said, IE did have a reputation as the best browser on the market for quite a while. And did gain dominant marketshare due to that. Especially when businesses standardized on it while it was arguably the best browser on the market.
Did it stay the best? Obviously not, as it's share has constantly been eroded. Did it need to stay the best to maintain marketshare? That's arguable, as being good enough compared to the competition can easily help maintain marketshare if the reputation of the browser is still good among your customers.
You can look all around various markets where the dominant product isn't the best anymore. But they still maintain dominant share due to reputation and being good enough. And similar to IE, are seeing their marketshare slowly eroding due to more nimble competition.
There's nothing new here. Firefox versus IE. Mac OSX vs. Windows. All good examples of making product people want. And amazing enough competing with no help from the government.
Make a good product and people will start to use it. End of story.
Er wait not. Or go crying for Mommy to the government because you can't make a product that people want to use.
Regards,
SB
eastmen
05-Nov-2009, 02:38
So what you're really saying here is that Internet Explorer owes its current position on the market purely thanks to it being by far the best browser on the market?
Just checking.
For a long time IE was if not the best then one of the best browsers. Hopefully MS gets its act back into gear.
There's nothing new here. Firefox versus IE. Mac OSX vs. Windows. All good examples of making product people want. And amazing enough competing with no help from the government.
In this case its negative advertising and goverment intervention that allows MAC OSX to compete.
I'm sure if MS started putting out adverts stating when oyu log in on the new OSX as a guest your hardrive is deleted and it would get tons of people dropping apple and going back to MS. Of course I'm sure they would get sued right away by apple.
Heh, well OSX and most Linux distros don't actually come with one. But the real sad thing of course is that the basic almost good enough defragger in Windows is hurting sales of real defraggers like Perfectdisk and Diskeeper 2009.
Fyi the defragger bult into windows 2000 is diskeeper, a stripped down version.
obonicus
06-Nov-2009, 11:51
So what you're really saying here is that Internet Explorer owes its current position on the market purely thanks to it being by far the best browser on the market?
Actually, when it gained dominance, it was the better choice. Of course, once it did you stopped seeing updates (we were on IE6 for what, 5 years?), despite a multitude of problems.
vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.