What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
My wife likes to take pictures of everything. Got any ideas? view!
bestbuy.com - With a Kodak(r) EasyShareTM 3X Zoom, she'll have impressive 10.2-megapixel performance, right at her fingertips
17 Comments
- Electric_Sheep, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7"All modern OSes come with a browser and a media player of their own. No OS restricts the ability to install another browser or media player."
That's correct. Apple has iTunes and Quicktime preinstalled. But unlike Itunes, Safari and QT, but with Windows Media Player and I.E, you cannot uninstall or remove them without making the system unstable. - drakethegreat, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5I consider that Microsoft for once isn't full of crap when it comes to these rulings about competition. Now before all you anti-MS zealots stomp this comment down, here me out.
The question at hand is what defines a market. Simply because something can be made indepedently of a larger product makes that a competetive market worth defending? Examples seem to tell the story better. For example should Boeing be sued because they bundle doors on their plane? Should we sue chair manufacturers because they bundle them with frabric already installed? They are stiffling the fabric producer's ability to sell their products to go along with people's chairs.
So if you think its different tell me why this concept is only relevant to software? Then tell me why Apple hasn't been sued for iTunes or why Linux hasn't been sued for all the software bundled with it that take care of your every needs?
Don't get me wrong I'm not a Microsoft fanboy here. I question a lot of what they do including this recent idea to invade our privacy by running a nag system for WGA or how they copy most everyone else's ideas. Yet that doesn't mean they are guilty of anything in this case unless we want to say that everyone in my examples are guilty. - drlog, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The difference is that MS has a monopoly on the market. They can destroy competition easily (and they have in the past with IE).
I am fully for competition and a market economy! MS isn't for fair competition.
How about this as an alternative: MS doesn't bundle IE, MSN and Media Player with windows but still puts them on the CD (as it does with IIS at the moment). They also allow the latest version to be downloaded. If I ran windows, I wouldn't install IE or media player. Instead I would use FF and VLC.
This way MS gets to make their software but users get a choice. That's all I want: users get choice! - xflood, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Good luck with that...
- jrbrewin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"How about this as an alternative: MS doesn't bundle IE, MSN and Media Player with windows but still puts them on the CD (as it does with IIS at the moment). They also allow the latest version to be downloaded. If I ran windows, I wouldn't install IE or media player. Instead I would use FF and VLC."
how about this... any rule that applies to microsoft, which determine which components (which i determine to be core components of a modern OS) such as internet browsing, media play back, or anything fundamental like that, also applies to any other producer of commerical operating systems.
Sure, rule that IE or Media Player have to be on the cd, and installed manually, but please be fair, and make the likes of apple abide by the same rules. otherwise the rule enforces the same practices for one company that they are trying to prevent for another. - jrbrewin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1typical diggisms here. digg the anti-ms guy, -digg the guy speaking out against apple. jeez, and it's not even an apple thread. If anything, apple are no better, no worse, than microsoft when it comes to bundling tie-in services and products with the os. give it a rest guys, no one cares if you think one is better than the other.
seriously, whilst ie on windows, and qt on osx may well not be uninstallable, there's nothing at all stopping you using another browser, media player, or any other thirdparty replacement for an os component. yes, they may well still be 'there', but is that an issue if those components aren't in use? does that make your system worse? less secure? *rolleyes* - esac, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Microsoft was not ruled a monopoly when they first started shipping IE. You are not a monopoly until you are declared (via a court) that you are one. And you shouldn't be punished for transgressions that occured before you were considered a monopoly. That would be like me creating a new law that says everybody who uses the word 'the' needs to pay a fine, and then charge every (english) speaker in the world since they have used the word 'the' in the past.
Plus if I recall correctly, when IE first shipped, there was still a huge damn chance for another OS to compete with Microsoft and win. - bsccara8196, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1An anti-trust case is warranted when a company uses its dominant position in a market to crush competitors. The fact that Microsoft is in a dominant position regarding PC operating systems is undisputed; the only disputed fact is whether Microsoft is using it to crush competitors.
In this case this is not as obvious as in the browser war but Microsoft's reasoning is the same; they considered streaming content an important potential market (not the player itself but, as in the browser war, the server-side and the protocols) and so they bundled Media Player with the OS, using their distribution capability (most computers are pre-installed with Windows, all of them got Media Player) to flood the market with their stuff.
By flooding the market they nullify the value of the player, forcing their competitors to also give away their stuff. Few companies can do that, most simply leave the market, reducing competition. Even fewer companies can sustain a situation where they lose money consistently on a product, so typically Microsoft wins by attrition, as the last-man-standing. And from a dominant position in one market they dominate another by aggregating them. This is a common practice for Microsoft and is the reason behind the anti-trust case. - jrbrewin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1is as much about the history of media players, as you pointed out, real networks + real player, as it is about futures, and the lock ins some of this technology has. Real fought microsoft because it didn't want to see it's technology lose out to a competitor, and thusly lose on revenue. Additionally it's about the codecs, players, and drm technologies that microsoft is supposedly ramming down our throats, and how that will apparently lead to world wide media controlled by one person, which is bad. It's bad whom ever that company is.
- jrbrewin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"the only disputed fact is whether Microsoft is using it to crush competitors."
i'd be interested to know how "play for sure" (which provides support for many many non-microsoft music subscription and download services, and portable media players) is crushing the competition. The competition is iTunes, which supports one download service, and one brand of portable media player - both run by the same company.
call me silly, but to me that sounds like the EU called the wrong person to court. - snoopdugiedog, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Or worse, BMW won't be able to sell it's cars with interior seating because it prevents people from buying competitor seating.
- IQ70, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3All modern OSes come with a browser and a media player of their own. No OS restricts the ability to install another browser or media player. MS is right, their focus on multimedia on the computer has led to the adoption of the computer as a multimedia system for playing CDs and DVDs.
What's next, no desktop search in Vista? - IQ70, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1You cannot remove QT from OSX. You can remove the QT player but not QT. It is a core API for the OS.
Most XP computers from vendors come with many different players pre-installed (like real and quicktime). Computers from Apple come with only one iTunes which will not work without QT. OSX uses QT API to find multimedia in the Finder. - esac, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Also, how the hell are you not getting a choice. This is akin to me putting candy in front of you and you eating it and blaming me because I put it in front of you. You can still download and install VLC and FF .. and use them just fine (hell even a lot better than the MS offerings). Nothing is prevent you from doing so. Stop spreading your false propoganda (sp?).
- bsccara8196, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The question isn't whether Media Player plays a single format or all the formats in the world. The main point is that it is bundled with the OS, therefore degrading the value of a multimedia player as a viable product (if someone gives away a product that you sell, guess what happens to you...).
The iTunes service has no relevance here because Media Player was bundled long before it. At the time the competitor was Real Networks, which provided the Real Player. - NakedSnake, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Seems rather silly to me... MS has windows media pre-installed; and that's a problem because having devices and programs on your computer that you are sure won't conflict with other programs and comes from the same company and are warrantied is a bad thing?
Europeans can't go download/buy another non-proprietary player if they don't like windows media player? Granted, I'm not European, but I don't see how this falls under an anti-trust case. - andocom, on 10/12/2007, -4/+0I bet MS is loving iTunes right about now.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is