WinXP SP2 delayed; anti-trust issues to arise?

[Asher]

Originally posted by dv8ed
No, that's quite different logic. Similar logic would be if there was only on auto manufacturer on the planet

But there are plenty of other OS developers on the planet.

Who is to blame if MS Windows is what most consumers want to buy?

hey required that all of their dealerships install a muffler made by them or no muffler at all

So now MS stops you from installing Netscape, Opera, etc?

The correct analogy here would be the largest car manufacturer in the world started bundling free mufflers on all of their cars, which you could easily replace by yourself anyway if you didn't want one. I mean, it's such a basic component of a modern car that it should come with one by default, rather than forcing you to get your own all the time...

[Koyaanisqatsi]

To continue your absurd little metaphor, that's at the dealership level. OEMs were not allowed to install other browsers.

And when it has been concluded that Microsoft is a monopoly, you can say that they're the only significant OS manufacturer on the planet for these purposes.

[Asher]

Originally posted by dv8ed
To continue your absurd little metaphor, that's at the dealership level. OEMs were not allowed to install other browsers.

Huh?? The dealership doesn't install mufflers, dv8ed.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Which is why it's an absurd little metaphor...don't blame me when your metaphor breaks. But, if the manufacturer prohibited dealerships from replacing their original mufflers with aftermarket mufflers (maybe the dealership gets kickbacks from the aftermarket, I don't know, like I said, it's your metaphor) then it would be illegal. Much as IE/Win tying was. It's got little to do with the actual customer who buys the car.

I'd suggest you abandon the bad metaphor and try thinking about the problem as it actually exists.

[yavoon]

Asher u kill every MS thread ever posted. u ever feel like just giving it a rest? I don't think anyone on the forum is as radical about anything as u r about MS.

[Asher]

Originally posted by dv8ed
Which is why it's an absurd little metaphor...don't blame me when your metaphor breaks.

I think you're just having a pretty huge brainfart here.

Car manufacturer = MS.
Dealership = OEM.

MS would bundle a basic internet browser, the manufacturer would bundle a muffler. You would agree that a computer without an internet browser and a car without a muffler is pretty absurd these days, right?

Now, would it be fair to consumers for the car manufacturer to ship no muffler with their cars (after all, doing so would hurt the aftermarket muffler makers), and an OS to come without a basic web browser?

You're right, it is absurd -- that's the point of the analogy. To illustrate just how absurd it is to stop including fundamental parts of products to protect "aftermarket industries" rather than what the consumers ought to be getting.

But, if the manufacturer prohibited dealerships from replacing their original mufflers with aftermarket mufflers (maybe the dealership gets kickbacks from the aftermarket, I don't know, like I said, it's your metaphor) then it would be illegal. Much as IE/Win tying was.

I agree that the OEM licensing **** was wrong, as I've said before, but that has nothing to do with MS bundling IE. OEMs could ship Netscape with their products as well if they want.

I'd suggest you abandon the bad metaphor and try thinking about the problem as it actually exists.

I'd suggest you understand the metaphor before further making an ass out of yourself.

[Asher]

Originally posted by yavoon
Asher u kill every MS thread ever posted. u ever feel like just giving it a rest? I don't think anyone on the forum is as radical about anything as u r about MS.

I don't think it's very radical -- the US government agrees with me, and 90%+ of users seem to use it anyway.

The radical people here are UR and dv8ed, which insist you get no browser and acquire a "free download" through telekensis.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Asher

I don't think it's very radical -- the US government agrees with me, and 90%+ of users seem to use it anyway.

The radical people here are UR and dv8ed, which insist you get no browser and acquire a "free download" through telekensis.

the judge doesn't agree w/ u. but its completely beyond the point. I actually like discussion about MS and its monopoly and how we should handle it or other monopolies in the future.

BUT EVERY THREAD u just blow up into this huge flame war where its all asher posts and asher replies. I wouldn't mind some other form of discussion. maybe u can sit em out for a while? ur relentless.

I hope MS is paying u to murder all these threads.

[Asher]

Originally posted by yavoon
the judge doesn't agree w/ u.

Where do she and I disagree, then?

I hope MS is paying u to murder all these threads.

The threads get murdered because no one can reply with any relevant posts -- all ridiculous vague posts (see: UR), or generally silly and ill-throught-out posts (see: dv8ed).

If people actually thought about stuff before posting, they'd be a lot more interesting.

The threads get murdered because they're hopelessly lopsided. It's not my fault that Apolyton lacks competent anti-MS trolls (which are hard enough to find as it is).

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Originally posted by Asher
Now, would it be fair to consumers for the car manufacturer to ship no muffler with their cars (after all, doing so would hurt the aftermarket muffler makers), and an OS to come without a basic web browser?

MS had a couple of options for doing this legally. They could have either allowed IE to be removed by OEMs, which they didn't, or allowed OEMs to install another browser alongside IE...which they also didn't do. The reason the metaphor is absurd is because it assumes that the OEM is not capable of installing a web browser of their own without MS bundling it with Windows. If the OEM installed a web browser, then the consumer gets the same thing in the end. Only then the OEM has a choice, and competition to become the OEM's default browser remains.

I agree that the OEM licensing **** was wrong, as I've said before, but that has nothing to do with MS bundling IE. OEMs could ship Netscape with their products as well if they want.

No, they couldn't. That was the OEM licensing ****. See previous quotes from Jackson.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Asher

Where do she and I disagree, then?


The threads get murdered because no one can reply with any relevant posts -- all ridiculous vague posts (see: UR), or generally silly and ill-throught-out posts (see: dv8ed).

If people actually thought about stuff before posting, they'd be a lot more interesting.

The threads get murdered because they're hopelessly lopsided.

u've never read the findings of the judge in the MS anti trust case?

just sit some out asher eh? I'm not going to fall into arguing w/ u, thats the insane mistake all these other hapless ppl make. I'm just pointing out that u turn every MS thread ever started into a huge asher thread. and its all but useless to read ur posts or the replies to ur posts.

so I'm just asking nice.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Originally posted by Asher
The threads get murdered because they're hopelessly lopsided. It's not my fault that Apolyton lacks competent anti-MS trolls (which are hard enough to find as it is).

The problem is that we're not trolls. If that's what you're looking for, head to /.

[Asher]

Originally posted by dv8ed
MS had a couple of options for doing this legally. They could have either allowed IE to be removed by OEMs, which they didn't

Which would've been stupid -- IE is a component of Windows, any application can just call the IE .dll and have an embedded web browser in their program. This is a very useful feature, at least to developers, and provides a standardized and guaranteed basic browser on every system.

or allowed OEMs to install another browser alongside IE...which they also didn't do.

Stop living in the past -- this has been remedied now, and the Judge has even expressed satisfaction with MS' compliance.

The reason the metaphor is absurd is because it assumes that the OEM is not capable of installing a web browser of their own without MS bundling it with Windows.

Again, you're living in the past -- it's true this wasn't possible years ago, I agree, but now it is.

No, they couldn't. That was the OEM licensing ****. See previous quotes from Jackson.

I know they couldn't, and I know that was the OEM licensing ****, but that has been remedied now.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Originally posted by yavoon

u've never read the findings of the judge in the MS anti trust case?

just sit some out asher eh? I'm not going to fall into arguing w/ u, thats the insane mistake all these other hapless ppl make. I'm just pointing out that u turn every MS thread ever started into a huge asher thread. and its all but useless to read ur posts or the replies to ur posts.

so I'm just asking nice.

Hell, I'll second that.

[Asher]

Originally posted by yavoon
u've never read the findings of the judge in the MS anti trust case?

Again, you're not getting out that easy.

If you say the Judge doesn't agree with me, tell us where we disagree. Okay? Simple stuff ,man.

I'm just pointing out that u turn every MS thread ever started into a huge asher thread. and its all but useless to read ur posts or the replies to ur posts.

So don't read them -- add me to your ignore list and post away.

Ignorance is bliss.

so I'm just asking nice.

You're being an ******* -- not contributing to the thread whatsoever but attacking the character of one of the posters.

I'm not going to sit it out while dv8ed and UR spread bull**** out of either ignorance or as part of some agenda.