WinXP SP2 delayed; anti-trust issues to arise?

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Asher
Opera is not free, moron.

Is there anyone who knows what they're talking about who wants to argue against bundling basic antivirus?

Because these jokers are getting boring...

did I say u could respond to me?

[Asher]

No sir.

Let me drop my pants so you can spank me.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Asher
No sir.

Let me drop my pants so you can spank me.

thats alright this time, just dont let it happen again.

[Asher]

[Ned]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Jesus... so MS is getting slammed by people because of this worm virus which attacks MS products and people go on about how unsecure Windows is. So MS says, ok, to make it harder to hack in, we'll include a free virus scan and firewall, so that everyone will have full security, and not just those that have money to buy fancy programs. Sure you can still buy the programs for more advanced functions, but everyone should be protected.

And MS gets slammed for THIS?! What the Hell is wrong with you people?!

This is a great move. I applaud MS for doing so.

Imran! Are you really in favor of anti-competitive monopolization?

[Ned]

Asher, the present issue asside, do you agree or disagree with this proposition:

Competition is leads to better products and faster development of technology.

[Asher]

Of course.
I also think that when numproducts = numproducts + 1, competition is increased.

And I'd think that people like Symantec are scrambling to innovate right now. After all, they basically had a monopoly and are now looking to be challenged.

Have you seen any real improvements with Norton products over the past four years? I didn't think so.

[Skanky Burns]

And its not like there aren't free anti-virus programs already on the market. Sure, they have the option for paying to upgrade for more features, but the fact remains you can already get antivirus protection for free.

[Ned]

Asher, actually, I think their "speed disk" application has become a disaster.

One of the problems with the tying theory in the US case was that the US was trying to defend Netscape original 90% (or thereabouts) market share. This didn't make sense on its face.

However, Microsoft appears to have successfully killed Netscape with its bundling strategy. Only a tragically blinded fool could believe that Microsoft won the browser wars through technical superiority.

I personally believe that if Microsoft introduces a free AV program that is competitive with existing products, the US government will again sue it. This time the DC Circuit will not be so lenient.

[Verto]

Microsoft adding a free Anti-Virus program, is like Ford deciding to put fairly nice rims on all their cars, straight from the factory. Those who want to seriously bling-bling would still probably want to buy their own, but it would be ok for most people.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Verto
Microsoft adding a free Anti-Virus program, is like Ford deciding to put fairly nice rims on all their cars, straight from the factory. Those who want to seriously bling-bling would still probably want to buy their own, but it would be ok for most people.

that is a nearly unbearably poor analogy. there are so many pertinent differences that u'd need a net just to catch them all.

[Ned]

Verto, et al., the "car" analogies all fail for another reason as well. There is no monopoly car manufacturer. Now, let us suppose we are dealing with a true monopoly - let us say the former AT&T. Let's also suppose that people independent of AT&T developed the answering machine and had a well developed market. Now, what would happen to this market if AT&T were to install their own answering machines in every home free of charge?

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Ned
Verto, et al., the "car" analogies all fail for another reason as well. There is no monopoly car manufacturer. Now, let us suppose we are dealing with a true monopoly - let us say the former AT&T. Let's also suppose that people independent of AT&T developed the answering machine and had a well developed market. Now, what would happen to this market if AT&T were to install their own answering machines in every home free of charge?

another thing that urks me is this "free of charge" thing. reorganizing what u consider "charging" the customer for makes zero difference to a microsoft accountant. its all marketing tactics. even in this hypothetical if atnt forced all service providers to put answering machines in. atnt would not simply take the profit losses ad infinitum like they were falling on the perverbial sword for their dear customer.

[Ned]

Yavoon, we all know the monopolist will raise prices on his basic monopoly product to cover the cost of the ansering machines. The idea is that the monopoly continues to be the sole provider of telephonic goods and services.

Does anyone here know that radio began as a "service" from the Marconi company? They owned all the equipment and prevented you from getting into business in competition through their patents. This did not change, IIRC, until RCA was created by combining Marconi, Westinghouse and AT&T patents into one pool. At that point in time, the consumer could purchase and own their own radio.

[Verto]

Originally posted by Ned
Verto, et al., the "car" analogies all fail for another reason as well. There is no monopoly car manufacturer. Now, let us suppose we are dealing with a true monopoly - let us say the former AT&T. Let's also suppose that people independent of AT&T developed the answering machine and had a well developed market. Now, what would happen to this market if AT&T were to install their own answering machines in every home free of charge?

You are right. No one has to buy a Ford, just as no one has to buy a computer with Windows, or use IE, or whatever we were originally arguing about.