Wal-Mart Online Music Store -- WMA, $0.88 for every song

[Asher]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
And Asher too: Apple just doesn't have a monopoly in the legal downloads market.

Interesting. Why not?

Why does Apple not have a monopoly in the legal download market while Microsoft does in the desktop OS market? What distinguishes the two?

[Fake Boris]

last post tonight

Because the service has been running for a very short time, because competition is popping everywhere, because it's not the only channel to distribute music.

And weren't there already sites a few years ago that offered unlimited downloads for 20$ a month?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
last post tonight

Because the service has been running for a very short time, because competition is popping everywhere, because it's not the only channel to distribute music.

With the exception of how short it's been running, all of your excuses work for Microsoft as well. And I'm unclear why duration has anything to do with it.

Congratulations!

[Fake Boris]

Yeah suuuuure, Microsoft Windows=iTunes.

iTunes has been dominating for 12 years, it generates billions, it allows Apple to force its media player to 92% of the planet, and things will stay the same in the next 32 years or so, because the 5,387 persons who have bought iPods are stuck with it just like the... errr... 3,546,438,324 persons stuck with Windows.

[Asher]

So again your definition of monopoly appears to include the duration and revenue, not marketshare and locking out competitors.

That's very interesting.

[Imran Siddiqui]

So again your definition of monopoly appears to include the duration and revenue, not marketshare and locking out competitors.

That's very interesting.

Indeed. Monopoly ONLY means single seller. It's determined by marketshare. Of course, monopolies, simply by themselves, aren't illegal in most countries. They have to be illegally using their monopoly position to lock out competitors. Revenues and duration really mean jack in anti-trust.

[Q Classic]

Erm. Since when?

Mono is an open-source .NET implementation.

the small fact that .net is still light-years ahead of mono kinda means that mono isn't quite .net.

And Asher too: Apple just doesn't have a monopoly in the legal downloads market.

i never said it did.

Oh, and where did I say that I like Apple? I just don't, so stop presuming.

i never said, nor presumed you liked apple. i merely pointed out that apple does many of the same things that microsoft does, and yet it's always microsoft that's the bad guy.

And that's the problem with America, voting for governments so idiot they can't even trust them. You're the only western country that can't trust its government, and you desserved it. If you can't trust your government to regulate OSes, you've already lost. Better luck in two or three millenia, where you may rise again.

i wouldn't trust any government in the world with os regulation. you can see what a bang up job they did for numerous things.
let's see, what are some regulatory success stories?
ah, yes, telecommunications. but wait, in every single country that had an explosion of telecommunications, it came right after the government stopped running the phone companies.
hm, what about airlines? oh, wait, in countries that have large-scale use of their airways, it happened after the government stopped running them.
what about the telly and radio? oh, wait, in every single democratic government in the world, deregulation from the government helped create a vibrant media.
also, are you saying that other western nations trust their government? japan, skorea, and taiwan seem to have trouble doing that. britain isn't looking so hot. spain just threw out its last one. i didn't know putin was trustworthy.
you're afraid of microsoft limiting your information flow. microsoft is a private company; private companies don't have that great a track record in staunching information flows against them.
the us government is, well, a government. numerous governments have had much success limiting information flow. *cough*China*cough*, or even germany, russia, italy, skorea, taiwan, japan, britain, spain, the entire eastern bloc...
you're willing to trust something that has consistently proven to work against the good of the common man, while i am more willing to trust that the profit motive will scare them away from such behavior.

Now seriously, just make it constitutional and untouchable. "Embed" free flow of information in it.

and we can see how well the amendments work now in the area of marriage and body rights.

BTW, you're an idiot to trust the private sector more. Why don't you give them elections, police and human rights management?

you're a numbskull if you think i trust the private sector to any great degree. more than the government, yes. but i was one of those loudmouthed ****** who protested diebold's *****ing about how their precious secrets about how their voting software sucks was being let out. what have you done lately?
as far as police and human rights management, they're in a completely different league from software. police protection of human rights which are inalienable are things the government can do, and usually does do rather well. ensuring that the libraries are stocked with uncensored copies of incindinary books and allowing people to check them out without noting it on their records, well, that's something governments don't do so well.

[Q Classic]

3,546,438,324 persons stuck with Windows.

nitpicking.
3 billion people in the world with computers? what are you smoking? the number of people in the world rich enough to afford one probably doesn't even cross the 1.75 billion mark.

[Q Classic]

jeebus, i sound sanctimonious in that last post.

[Asher]

By the way, even the DOJ thinks the EU ruling is lame.

http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/03/25/HNcritique_1.html

DOJ criticizes EU's ruling on Microsoft
Commission's order could stifle innovation, antitrust chief says

By Joris Evers, IDG News Service March 25, 2004

The European Commission's order for Microsoft Corp. to ship a version of Windows without the Windows Media Player could stifle innovation and help Microsoft's rivals instead of promoting fair competition, the U.S. Department of Justice's antitrust chief said Wednesday.

Assistant Attorney General Hewitt Pate in a statement also said the record €497.2 million ($613 million) fine levied on Microsoft by the European Commission (EC) is "unfortunate." It surpasses fines the Commission has imposed on price-fixing cartels and that may send the wrong message about antitrust enforcement priorities, Pate said.

The U.S. government fought its own antitrust battle with Microsoft, a case that was filed in 1998 and settled in 2002. Although the government proposed a breakup of Microsoft, it never proposed that Microsoft remove any part of Windows and for a reason, Pate said.

"Imposing antitrust liability on the basis of product enhancements and imposing 'code removal' remedies may produce unintended consequences," Pate said. "Sound antitrust policy must avoid chilling innovation and competition even by 'dominant' companies. A contrary approach risks protecting competitors, not competition, in ways that may ultimately harm innovation and the consumers that benefit from it."

The U.S. settlement with Microsoft provides "clear and effective protection" for competition and consumers by preventing misconduct by Microsoft that would inhibit competition in the area of middleware applications such as the Web browser and the media player, Pate said.

"The U.S. experience tells us that the best antitrust remedies eliminate impediments to the healthy functioning of competitive markets without hindering successful competitors or imposing burdens on third parties, which may result from the EC's remedy," he said.

The U.S. continues to be active in its enforcement of Microsoft's compliance with the settlement and this work has resulted in substantial changes to Microsoft's business practices, according to Pate.

The EC's decision to require Microsoft to share details of the technologies used by its server products to communicate with Windows clients is similar to the U.S. approach to curtail Microsoft's anticompetitive behavior, Pate noted.

"Like the U.S. decree, the EC decision appears to focus on providing competing software developers with the opportunity to build products that communicate and interoperate with Windows-based PCs. The details of the EC's requirements on this point remain to be seen," he said.

Despite the criticism -- or "divergence" as Pate calls it -- the U.S. and the European Union have a good relationship on competition matters, he said.

The European Commission earlier on Wednesday at the close of a five-year investigation into the Microsoft's business practices in Europe ruled that Microsoft is an abusive monopolist. The Commission fined Microsoft and ordered the company to offer a version of Windows without the Windows Media Player software within 90 days and disclose within 120 days the details of the software interfaces used by its products to communicate with Windows.

Microsoft will challenge the ruling, a process that could keep the battle rumbling until 2009, it said.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
i wouldn't trust any government in the world with os regulation. you can see what a bang up job they did for numerous things.

Not hard at all, just pass strict privacy laws *ahem, no DRM*.

let's see, what are some regulatory success stories?
ah, yes, telecommunications. but wait, in every single country that had an explosion of telecommunications, it came right after the government stopped running the phone companies.

Yeah. How popular were cellphones in the 80s already? And how good is outsourcing to India? and what about the workers who lost their union? and did you know that while international rates went down, local rates skyrocketed (well, in Canada and Europe, from what I can attest).

hm, what about airlines? oh, wait, in countries that have large-scale use of their airways, it happened after the government stopped running them.

No one was flying in the 80s. But as we all know, privatizations has created a huge forward pressure on salaries and service, not talking about passenger space.

what about the telly and radio? oh, wait, in every single democratic government in the world, deregulation from the government helped create a vibrant media.

that's the best one. Why don't we ask Putin, Berlusconi, or even Rupert Murdoch?

also, are you saying that other western nations trust their government? japan, skorea, and taiwan seem to have trouble doing that. britain isn't looking so hot. spain just threw out its last one. i didn't know putin was trustworthy.
you're afraid of microsoft limiting your information flow. microsoft is a private company; private companies don't have that great a track record in staunching information flows against them.

Yeah, the government can't run a airline, so it shouldn't enforce privacy rights.

the us government is, well, a government. numerous governments have had much success limiting information flow. *cough*China*cough*, or even germany, russia, italy, skorea, taiwan, japan, britain, spain, the entire eastern bloc...
you're willing to trust something that has consistently proven to work against the good of the common man, while i am more willing to trust that the profit motive will scare them away from such behavior.

How is the government going to monitor you, if it passes a law forbidding corporations to do it? You make it unconstitutional for everyone. That's the point: the companies don't get it, the government won't neither. That is, unless they send their police-coders and force Microsoft to do it.

you're a numbskull if you think i trust the private sector to any great degree. more than the government, yes. but i was one of those loudmouthed ****** who protested diebold's *****ing about how their precious secrets about how their voting software sucks was being let out. what have you done lately?

Last time I protested, I was arrested because someone in the crowd had a molotov cocktail made with an empty plastic bottle. Apparently I'm a dangerous anarchist or something like this.

as far as police and human rights management, they're in a completely different league from software. police protection of human rights which are inalienable are things the government can do, and usually does do rather well. ensuring that the libraries are stocked with uncensored copies of incindinary books and allowing people to check them out without noting it on their records, well, that's something governments don't do so well.

No. The Internet and software is the best way ever to monitor the population. What do you think I fear? Do I care if Microsoft makes an advertising profile for me? not much. What I fear is M$ teaming with the government to share DRM info- what are my books, my writings, my e-mails, etc.

Stop M$ before the governments are tempted. That means pressuringt them right now.

[Asher]

What I fear is M$ teaming with the government to share DRM info- what are my books, my writings, my e-mails, etc.

How the hell would Microsoft know what your books, writing, and emails are?

Question: Do you know what DRM is?

[Fake Boris]

It could be extended to control anything that has a copyright on it, no? as long as the chip is there, they can do whatever they wish.

[Asher]

Now you're just muddling the issue. We're talking about DRM in stuff like iTunes and WMA, not TCPA...which is a whole 'nother issue.

I'm still lost as to what the presense of a TCPA chip does to giving MS all that info. You seem to think that there's some kind of obscure data tunnel that funnels all kind of top-secret information to MS, who then resells it to the government?

Even with TCPA chips, it's a local security measure.

My ThinkPad has a TCPA chip on it, and it doesn't do anything of the sort. It does, however, encrypt all my files in real-time in hardware, and supports secure Windows logons using the chip. It just makes it totally useless to somebody if they steal my laptop. Even if they break into the OS, they can't see any files nor modify anything on the disk.

[Fake Boris]

There was a thread on this not long ago. Ashcroft was publicly favorable to a bill that would outlaw any computer with no TCPA chip in it that would allow real time monitoring of every user.

there will come a day when M$ financial interests will intersect with the government's 1984-ness.