EU Rules Against Microsoft

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Asher
That they can play common files without jumping through hoops?

They can play whatever music formats they want without a "default" player, because they can pick and choose their own. Or do you think end users are too stupid to do that.

Originally posted by Asher
Explain how the market is not competitive if the presence of competition does not constitute competition.

A monopoly is an economic phenomenon. Basically put, a monopoly exists when a company is able to dictate the terms to its customers, like when Microsoft strong-armed the big OEMs.

Originally posted by Asher
Why are they in different classes? Both are considered essential services on modern computers that consumers need.

There's no reason why browsing the Web is considered an essential service. Or, for that matter, why does one have to use a fully fledged computer to browse the Web.

Originally posted by Asher
This logic fails because Netscape 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0 also sucked ass.

That doesn't work because there's nothing you could compare them to. Of course, they couldn't compare to modern browsers, so what?

Originally posted by Asher
Netscape got venture capital from outside sources, MS got it from their resouces.

MS got (still has) continuous income from other sources. Netscape didn't. MS realised that, that's why they released a free browser. What do you think they referred to when MS said "cutting off Netscape's air supply?"

[Asher]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
They can play whatever music formats they want without a "default" player, because they can pick and choose their own. Or do you think end users are too stupid to do that.

I do think most users wouldn't know which media player to get.

I think it's utterly stupid for an OS to ship without multimedia support, but that's just me living in reality.

A monopoly is an economic phenomenon. Basically put, a monopoly exists when a company is able to dictate the terms to its customers, like when Microsoft strong-armed the big OEMs.

Precisely -- which is exactly why this is not a monopoly...and antitrust laws governing media player inclusion are stupid, and harm consumers.

There's no reason why browsing the Web is considered an essential service.

Give me a break -- 99% of people who buy a computer today use it on the internet...

MS got (still has) continuous income from other sources. Netscape didn't.

Yes they did -- they had tons of venture capital floating around.

MS realised that, that's why they released a free browser. What do you think they referred to when MS said "cutting off Netscape's air supply?"

Now is your chance to equate this back to the consumer. Explain to the consumer why they were fundamentally harmed by Microsoft making internet browsers free. Explain to them why they were harmed in being able to get on the internet "out of the box" without paying for additional boxed software. Explain to them why this was anticompetitive when there are many viable browser alternatives to Internet Explorer readily available, and indeed they are taking IE's market share now that they are actually superior products.

Good luck, because that's ridiculous.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
Are you still the only person willing to defend anticompetitive practices as a consumer benefit?

Anticompetitive practices are what MS did to strongarm OEMs to force them to bundle Windows.

Making IE free and bundled, making WMP free and bundled, etc. are NOT anticompetitive. Indeed, there are MANY competing media player programs and internet browsers out there. The US courts decided this, as well.

Users benefit from MS including the basic programs, and people who argue otherwise are out to lunch or have an agenda...

[Agathon]

I think it's utterly stupid for an OS to ship without multimedia support, but that's just me living in reality.

The vendors can decide which to install. No customer need be without MM support.

It's just that Microsoft can't dictate to the sellers what programs they put on the machine.

[Agathon]

Making IE free and bundled, making WMP free and bundled, etc. are NOT anticompetitive.

Of course it is. In the former case a court found that it was so.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
The vendors can decide which to install. No customer need be without MM support.

Why would a vendor choose NOT to install WMP on their systems? Vendors can already install other media players, and even make them defaults.

No vendor would realistically sell a computer without WMP, seeing as it costs the same either way...

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Agathon

Making IE free and bundled, making WMP free and bundled, etc. are NOT anticompetitive.

Of course it is. In the former case a court found that it was so.

that court's decision is what Asher is arguing against!

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon


Of course it is. In the former case a court found that it was so.

This is COMPLETELY false -- the US court ruled it was NOT anticompetitive. What Microsoft got in trouble for was strongarming OEMs, not for bundling IE.

That's why MS can bundle IE and WMP legally in the US.

In Europe, they DID say it is anticompetitive. But I strongly disagree with that, because it's a crock. You can't call something anticompetitive when there is plenty of active, viable competition.

[Agathon]

In Europe, they said it is anticompetitive. But I strongly disagree with that, because it's a crock.

Of course they must be wrong, because you've so amply demonstrated your knowledge of what an anticompetitive monopoly is.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
Of course they must be wrong, because you've so amply demonstrated your knowledge of what an anticompetitive monopoly is.

An anticompetitive monopoly does not exist when:
1) The media player is hardly a monopoly
2) There is TONS of competition for it
3) Users and vendors are free to choose their default players

I know what an anticompetitive monopoly is, and Windows Media Player is certainly not a monopoly, nor is its inclusion in Windows an anticompetitive move, given all of the alternatives readily available. In fact, Microsoft lets you install these programs before they're even shipped to the users (Dell offers their own media software, for example), and you can make any program you want the default (even iTunes)...

That ain't anticompetitive, my friend. It's something users want. And users buy MS' product.

What you want is for Microsoft to be castrated. You want Microsoft to be forbidden to bundle any kind of useful software so you can point at Apple and proudly proclaim how much free software it comes with.

[Kuciwalker]

What's wrong with a monopoly on a free product, anyway?

[Asher]

Another fundamental problem is this: Mr. Nice Guy talks about all the people switching from Windows to the Mac, and Urban Ranger talks about all the people switching from Windows to Linux.

Just how is Windows such an evil monopoly if people are supposedly switching en masse to other platforms?

You need to reconcile your logic here before you go any farther.

Are people really switching away from Windows? Given the ability to do this, how can you still ***** about the Windows "monopoly", given that you've both cited two "viable" alternatives.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Actually, I don't really care wether people switch to Mac OS X or Linux from Windows, though personally I prefer the Mac. Either way it goes right into the face of that BIG BULLY known as Micro$uck$!!!

[Kuciwalker]

Way to miss Asher's point completely.

[Asher]

Of course, Apple's not a bully. They treat their competition nicely, right? Just look at all of the other Apple clone makers. Or RealNetworks. Or anyone else who asked to use FairPlay on their players.