Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Tweaks Desktop Icon Licensing in XP
jeffy124 writes "Microsoft has made a slight adjustment to their recent change in OEM licensing in a direct response to AOL's hijacking of the desktop. The gist is show MSN's icon too, or don't show any." As jeffy124 points out, this comes, more or less, straight as a reaction to the AOL-Compaq deal.
But after they've sold their product to e.g. compaq or AOL. they should be able to do with it whatever they like.
to me, this is kinda like a consumer buying a retail windows install, and then finding out he's only allowed to install Microsoft Certified applications on it.
"Instatallation of Mozilla on this OS is not permitted"
for now it's only OEM desktops, but when will the rest follow ?
---
There are ways to help competitors out, but telling MS that their own desktop is off limits is like telling McDonalds to sell their Big Macs and McNuggets... somewhere other than at a McDonalds.
MS are fond of using the "burger and fries" metaphor to defend their control of the UI, and of deciding what to call "part of the OS". It suits MS marketing well, but is disingenuous IMHO.
A burger is an impulse purchase: a one-shot consumable. Your burger does not serve as anything other than your next meal: it is not the gateway to your bank, your mail, other people's products, etc. It is instantly usable with all its competitors' products, since its "platform" is your mouth, not a PC. And perhaps most importantly, burgers are always sold directly from the manufacturer to the consumer through retail outlets: there is no reseller channel for McDonalds.
A car is a better metaphor for this. Buy a Ford car, and paint it any color you like. Stick badges all over it. Pull the badge off the grille. Put big bull horns on the front, and 'roo bars. Add fluffy seat covers. Just leave the internals alone, or Ford can justifiably refuse to service it for you. Similarly, MS has no business dictating the UI to a reseller, so long as they're not changing anything internally.
So, shifting my head around temporarily to Closed Source Business Mode, I can understand them objecting to something that changes or adds DLLs and EXEs to render Windows UI components differently, but they have no business objecting to altered icons or wallpaper.
Unless they're clicking on links on a web page of course, and then they double click every single time (despite having been told not to by me repeatedly for the past 6 years).
On gold-lined silk pillows, while throngs of bare-naked nymphs...well, what would you do with that much money?
A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
Microsoft has yet to adjust to this.
Also, there is a blurring of the lines of what constitutes an operating system. It seems here that Microsoft has defined the operating system as a Marketing system for Microsoft products, vs a system that allows the computer to run other applications. Microsoft has the idea that the appearance of certain icons is essentail or harmful to the marketing functions of the operating system. When those icons are irrelevent to to the actual core non-marketing functions of the system.
This is the most irritating part of Microsoft.
Microsoft, of course, finds it rude and unsettling when someone else engages in the practices that Microsoft has engaged in for years and years.
Lawsuit prospects continue.n I would love to see microsoft forced to allow everyone do what they want on the desktop, just to tweak there noses. but it would be a bit of a pain for tech support geeks, all those "non standard" menu systems.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
I mean, it's Microsoft's operating system. They can't be expected to pay licencing or advertising costs to promote their own (other) products, and they can't be expected to miss out on the most lucrative advertising medium, the Windows desktop, just because they happen to own it. There are ways to help competitors out, but telling MS that their own desktop is off limits is like telling McDonalds to sell their Big Macs and McNuggets... somewhere other than at a McDonalds.
This case is unique, in that it it the only dispute I've heard of in the computer industry where I actually want *both* parties to loose.
"It appears that Microsoft is backing off their much ballyhooed itty bitty teeny weeny sliver of flexibility and heading back to the rigid stance that has been slapped down by the second-highest court in the land," said AOL Time Warner vice president John Buckley.
Gotta love that quote though. People don't use the word 'ballyhooed' anything like enough.
Michael
"Goodness me, how unlike the FBI to abuse the trust of the American public." -- The Onion
Yes, because they quite clearly are. They are using their operating system, which ships on almost all new desktop machines, as leverage to coax users into their internet service. They are also saying that OEM's cannot do likewise for competing services unless they provide equal coaxing for Microsoft's service. There are two nasty things that come out of monopolies. The first is exhorbitant prices -- which comes about once there are literarly no other choices for consumers. The second is the use of existing monopolies in one area of the market to destroy competition in another area. Both are illegal. Microsoft is not guilty of the first one (yet), but most definitely needs to bear guilt for the second.
Its the fairest way to end-run the AOL (we haven't been put in court, so we can do all the things that are bad until then) deal. Two wrongs don't make a right, hence the AOL deal is just as bad as what people accused MS of.
No, it's not. AOL doesn't sell operating systems. Don't get me wrong, AOL isn't sweet smelling and squeaky clean either. Obviously, they have their own potential monopoly situations with their total control over a large hunk of the media market. But in this segment of the market, AOL (and other potential providers) are being hurt by Microsoft's monopoly in the operating systems market. If major vendors like Compaq were selling desktop machines with a sizable slice of the operating system pie going to other OS flavors, Microsoft's move would merely be considered shrewd business. But with the current situation, it is abuse of a monopoly situation.
As for MS featuring their products over AOL's IM and the AOL service, uh, people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks...
Certainly, AOL is flaming mad over this. But more importantly, vendors like Compaq should be angry. They aren't living in a glass house (at least not *this* glass house). If consumers knew enough about what's really going on, many of them would be angry too.
GreyPoopon
--
GreyPoopon
--
Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?