Slashdot Mirror
EU Think Tank Urges Full Windows Unbundling
leffeman writes "An influential Brussels think tank is urging the European Commission to ban the bundling of operating systems with desktop and laptop computers. The Globalisation Institute's submission to the Commission says that bundling 'is not in the public interest' and that the dominance of Windows has 'slowed technical improvements and prevented new alternatives entering from the marketplace.' It says the Microsoft tax is a burden on EU businesses: the price of operating systems would be lower in a competitive market. This is the first time a major free-market think tank has published in favour of taking action against Microsoft's monopoly power."
I can see it now... waves of people returning their "broken" computers....
Sounds like this would be more of Apple's problem if this actually went through.
Why should Windows be the only OS singled out to be unbundled? Let's stop these double standards.
My Little Opinion??
To create true competition in this sector, the way to handle it is to allow their base Win32 API's to be implemented or copied... (Meaning, complete legal protection) In short, legalize Wine and similar projects... Plain and simple.. If they were to officially protect the Wine project, and similar API projects, this would allow for huge amounts of investment into this sector. Within two years nearly ever version of linux would be able to run "cleanly" virtually any Win32 application. This would also force M$ to once again compete by trying to get people to buy windows because it is better rather than because they are simply doing it..
The real issue with banning the bundling of operating systems is that it will incur extra cost and frustration for non-geeks (i.e. mums and dads everywhere) who don't know how to install an OS. Picture this: a random person decides to buy a computer and take it home. They get home, plug in and boot up. They hit a black screen with or something similar on it. They complain, try to take it back only to find out that they need to spend another $x on labour costs. The consumer is unhappy, the vendor is unhappy because they have an unhappy customer. But at least M$ gets shafted!
Really, vendors should be forced to ask the consumer which operating system their client wants and give prices for them to their customer for every new PC sale. That would promote fair market better than "banning bundling".
All that needs to be done is to allow any customer to refuse the bundling of Windows with a computer and be able to get a refund. It should be the purchaser's choice if he wishes to purchase Windows. I am sick of literally no OEM offering a No Operating System option, when it is so easy to purchase a company with an AMD processor or a Nvidia video card. And since the software itself is protected by an EULA which (as a contract) can be refused, this doesn't really need to be a law change. The customer should not have to jump through hoops to get a Windows refund or a no-OS option.
Back in the 70's, 80's when I was getting into coding (not really; hated it at that time), IBM was THE player. But they were holding back innovation. I became part of the group who was very anti-IBM and pushed both Unix and DOS (later windows). It was then that innovation really came about. MS is in the same boat now. They kill as much innovation as is needed to remain dominant. The best thing that can happen is for Windows to lose their dominance or at the very least, not be able to dictate to the market what will happen.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
No, you're wrong.
Microsoft's monopoly depends on a legally protected special privilege, which is already anti free-market. Removing the privilege would be a difficult option, so attacking one of the symptoms (bundling is also a consequence of monopoly, not just a cause) is being recommended instead.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
Just curious. What is the special privilege you speak of?
We need to privatize the government so these kind of ideas don't happen. I for one think Microsoft is an awesome company that sells really good operating systems at an affordable price. Hell, Microsoft lets me post on Slashdot with a pirated copy of Vista. Uh oh, 24 hours? What is this? NO CARRIER
Anonymous Coward Sig 2.0:
--
Write George W. Bush in for president in 2008!
Linux is communist!
No, you can have a monopoly unless the government interferes. How would you say microsoft assists microsoft? .. other than buying their products I guess
Why stop with a computer. When you buy a car, why allow tires, lights, sound system, seats, brakes, and the stearing wheel to be bundled with the car? Belts must be sold without belt buckles, shoes without shoe laces or velcro straps, lawnmowers without engines, .
The list is endless in the way we are inconvenienced by having to buy a product that works(ish) right out of the box.
It doesn't make sense for modern operating systems to come without a web browser, media player, desktop search, etc. The problem with Windows is not bundled software.
Bingo! This is what I have been saying for many years. Consumers should have the choice to buy ANY computer with their choice of OS or none at all. And if they choose to buy MS-Windows, they will see the price associated with it, not hidden away and pretend it is "free".
For those who want MS-Windows and want a customized install, OEM's can create appropriate "kickstart" CD's to wrap the loading of MS-Windows with all the appropriate drivers and addons. Pop in disk and wait. Plus, no more missing "recovery" discs.
Copyright, and maybe patents.
What?
That alone should remove their monopoly.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
Respectfully, I don't think this is their argument is towards or against free market. It appears to me that it's more oriented towards reducing MS domination without looking at the alternatives realistically. My brand new Ubuntu install (yes, I'm very happy now) was not without a few hiccups that required experience well beyond the average user's ability and/or patience. My intermediate Xenix exposure from almost 20 years ago and overall IT experience were the only things that got me up and running on a laptop with built-in wireless without having to seek assistance. My mom just bought a new Mac last week and I've already had multiple calls for help because most of her prior experience has been MS centric. I am all for the world moving towards MS alternatives but the fact of the matter is that most folks use MS and know it exclusively. It's not about free market as much as trying to reduce the stranglehold that MS possesses due to its already ubiquitous use.
I reserve the right to think for myself. Others' opinions are optional. Puppy on lap = typos...not illiteracy.
If anything, government is what makes a monopoly like Microsoft possible.
Aside from that, in all modern "free markets", abuse of monopolistic power (as MS has done countless times) is *illegal* and subject to regulation. Or do you think it would be OK if you had to pay $2,000 a month to the monopoly power company for a 1,500ft^2 home?
Monopolies are bad for business, bad for innovation, bad for consumers. Some are unavoidable... but if you can stop a monopoly from ruining consumer choice simply by stating it isn't allowed to "bundle" under other products, then why the hell not?
What would you think if just about every retail TV sold had a Kodak DVD player bundled with it? What if you didn't WANT a Kodak DVD player? What if you wanted a blueray player, or a different brand, or already owned a DVD player and didn't want to pay for one yet again? What if you found out the only way you could avoid that bundle was to buy a few obscure TV models, on-line, but they cost almost the same anyway, since they are obscure? This is the type of market abuse that MS has enjoyed for waaaay too long.
As far as I am concerned, Windows is already "Broken" the moment it's installed on the PC. A $400 'new' windows install, gets you a system that can not:
1. Playing DVD's requires EXTRA software (Broken Media Player)
2. Writing and Spell-Checking documents requires EXTRA software (broken wordpad)
3. Email Security requires EXTRA software (broken outlook)
4. viewing certain file types requires EXTRA software (indeo codec, broken due to licenses).
5. Recording sounds longer than 30 seconds requires EXTRA software (broken/useless sound recorder)
6. Internet Security requires EXTRA software (broken Internet Explorer)
7. Unable to set per-user file restrictions, VERY coarse control (broken multi-user capabilities)
So exactly WHAT am I getting for a 400 'Operating System'? what makes it worth 1/3 to 1/2 the price of a new computer?
-Is it the screen savers?
-Is it wordpad / soliarire / reversi?
-Is it Internet Explorer?
-Is it the new backgrounds / widgets?
Someone PLEASE tell me why I should shell out 400.00 to upgrade my operating system? Last time I checked, the core functions of the OS were to:
1. Manage and Allocate memory
2. Manage and Allocate IO resources / CPU resources
3. Manage files
4. Provide a consistant/document API for the programmer
So, windows does 3/4, and most of them poorly. Is this worth 400.00?
Yes, IBM was the big bad monoply way back when. But we need to remember that the BIG anti trust finding with IBM that relates to the OS wars of today is that it was found to be illegal for IBM to bundle OS-360 with its IBM-360 hardware. The release of the OS from the 360's hardware was what allowed Gene Amdahl and others to split off and form IBM-360-clone companys. It was an anti-trust decision that required the unbundling of the OS.
The big difference here is that rather than one company (Microsoft) bundling its OS with its own hardware, Microsoft has contracts with all the PC vendors that require them to bundle. So it is one step removed from the IBM situation.
The question (that has been asked before by the likes of Judge Jackson) is: what can be done about these very private contracts?
A market dominated by a single entity, whether it's the government or a corporation, is not a free market.
Apple isn't...
It is not necessarily illegal to have a monopoly. However, it is illegal to exploit the monopolistic position in certain ways, to the detriment of the free market. MS has been found guilty of various transgressions and has paid out billions of dollars in fines and settlements. MS became a monopoly by illegal coercive means and maintains its position through the same illegal coercive means. That is the problem.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
Monopolies are bad for business, bad for innovation, bad for consumers.
Well, they're good for somebody. Otherwise there wouldn't be so many of them.
What?
Finally some intelligent opinions in favor of the obvious. The key is that we have stifled innovation due to no competition. Force the unbundling and we'll all have a choice because we can show that other OSes are there and capable of doing what 90% of the people want. With bundling we don't have that at all as most that get a computer with a bundled OS have no idea that they have a choice. This is a FACT, and you can't deny it.
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
must... stay... awake...
Not at all the same. Apple is not having third pary manufacturers/distributors to pre-load OSX. Apple makes and distributes the Apple computers with their OS installed.
"If the King's English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me!" -- "Ma" Ferguson, Governor of Texas (circa
They assist primarily with copyright law, but also with trademark law and trade secret law. They also assist with the laws that define corporations and give them rights as if they were people. There is a whole host of ways in which government assists just about any corporation. IMHO, a corporation can not be thought of separate from the government and laws that allow it to exist as a legal entity.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
What would you think if just about every retail TV sold had a Kodak DVD player bundled with it? What if you didn't WANT a Kodak DVD player?
If it took 1-2 hours to plug in and configure a DVD player, and the TV couldn't work without one, I'd expect the TV to be bundled with one.
A computer needs an OS to run and it takes me about an hour (a 'regular' person 2 - 3hrs) to install, update, and configure an OS.
Is it unreasonable for a computer to be bundled with an OS? Of course not. Windows is, by far, the most popular OS out there, it should come with that.
Latewire
I want a computer without Windows!! Where can I buy one...?
Answer: I can't.
Yes, there's some places to get one but they cost the same, or more, as a computer with Windows.
How can this be when a retail copy of Windows costs {$hundreds}?
"Unbundling" doesn't mean you won't be able to buy computers with Windows preinstalled, it removes the "bundle" aspect of the deal. Windows should be an extra and it should cost more than the basic model.
the "non-bundle" PC could even be the exact same machine but missing the plastic card with the license key printed on it. When you switch it on it says "(a) Enter Windows license key", "(b) Format disk".
It doesn't need to inconvenience anybody. It just needs to remove Microsoft's automatic inclusion in the sales loop.
No sig today...
The idea that there is a market for operating systems is a complete myth. It supports the myth that consumers choose Windows. They do not. There is a market for computing systems only, balls to browser.
The $299 iPod touch music player has a better Web browser than a $1299 Windows Vista PC. If there were a market for PC operating systems somebody would have eaten Microsoft's lunch before that could happen. The iPod touch is also more reliable than a Windows Vista PC.
The market is for applications, ways to customize the basic computer. For a Windows PC that means office tools. For an iPod touch it is music, movies, Web sites, Podcasts. Much higher-level stuff than the operating system.
If Apple published a CD with the iPod's operating system on it they would instantly have 100% of the "market" for iPod operating systems. That would just be Enron accounting, it's made-up. People aren't actually buying anything, there is no competition there, no supply and demand. The demand is for iPods. This is even more obvious now that CD/DVD/hard disk is giving way to more chips. The iPod is a chip. A CD with the iPod OS on it would soon enough be a chip. All you're doing is splitting the iPod into two non-functional halves so you can extort money out of the person who bought one half and needs the other. It's a waste of time because there is honest money to be made selling enhancements to a functioning iPod, or a functioning PC.
Unbundling would probably mean that the seller would have to list the price of the operating system separately and that there would have to be an option to pick only the computer or only the operating system (for the listed separate price). It would not mean that you could not get the computer preinstalled with the operating system. However, pricing would probably change because the computer store could not list artificially low or high prices for the operating system component (otherwise the consumers would pick only one or the other). The real price of the operating system would become more visible and hopefully also more reasonable. So it would be good also for the Windows using population.
This is how anti-bundling regulations have been used in case of GSM phones and GSM subscriptions here in Finland. Of course you can buy them from the same place at the same time, SIM card preinstalled, but you also have the option to search for the best price for them separately (they must have a separate price plan and you must be able to buy them separately). Bundling was only recently allowed for 3G phones to offset their higher cost.
Am I the only one who was clueless about what the subject of the story was when he read the title?
Anyways, I think this is a terrible idea.
Instead it should go like this:
But forcing them not to ever include the OS will just piss a lot of users off, even though they are lame windows users they do deserve some empathy I guess...
Would be fun since they are not really MS-specific so if this idea gets executed it will be a no for Dell's ubuntu PCs and more enjoyable it will also screw Apple pretty badly...
Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
Microsoft certainly gets the the protection of both copyright and patent law. For you people claiming that natural monopolies exist, they also get to leverage any 'natural monopoly' that trade secrets alone would give them, because they can get some of those patents issued without fully disclosing their methods as the law theoretically requires. The current government not only protects Microsoft's monopoly status by the laws it has, but by selectively enforcing some of them, or are some of you actually claiming that Microsoft can fully disclose necessary information to get the protection of patent law, and simultaniously keep that same information as a trade secret? Neat trick, that.
Microsoft also gets the protection of Trademarks, including having a trademark on the term Windows in a computer related context, even though there's prior art there (prior art restricts patents, not trademarks).
At this point, Microsoft gets the protection of IP doctrine, which mean its lawyers can contend that what they really have isn't patents, trademarks, trade secrets, contracts, and copyrights, but some generic thing called IP, and that IP is some sort of nebulous thing, that has the infinite duration of an enforced trademark, but doesn't require enforcement. It has all the rights associated with copyright, but doesn't expire. It has the rights associated with traditional written contracts, but can be handled by a EULA which takes effect without a chance for the other party to read it before purchase. And, as I noted, it gives the same protection as patents when Microsoft wants it to, but doesn't require disclosure. Note that Microsoft's stock disclosure says that IP assets make up well over 1/2 of the capital assets of their corporation and this determines their stock valuation based essentially on their own claim for that IP's value. Note that this value is not subject to property taxes or short term capital gains tax, and some of it is not taxable at all, and so Microsoft's corporate taxes are proportionately lower than a more hardware oriented competitor (i.e. Apple), or a hardware oriented partner (Dell, Intel, etc.).
Who is John Cabal?
So a lawless country ruled by gangs does not have monopolies/oligopolies? This points out how hilariously misguided all "government is what's needed to maintain monopolies lol!11!!" theories. Hell, that's not a free market theory at all.
Do not downmod posts "overrated" simply because you disagree with them.
Just prohibit them from charging more for the retail version than the OEM version. BAM problem solved. No more incentive for vendors to grin and bear it with the crazy per-machine deals. No more ways for Microsoft to threaten them with increased OEM prices if they sell Linux. No more pressure on consumers to buy a new motherboard just to get a new OEM license. It solves it all. Just require that Microsoft set one single price for their OS across the entire EU and prohibit them from charging as much as a Euro-cent extra for the stand-alone version. Once you stop them from playing games with the prices you have basically stripped their monopoly from half its power. The next step is to require that official institutions use open standards, and suddenly Microsoft's monopoly doesn't look half as scary any more.
Many of the comments on this story have been written by lying astroturfers. Lots of misdirection, irrelevant issues and noise to drown out substantial argument; deliberately confusing standards with monopolies, pretending installation time has something to do with it and many other deceptive arguments.
Fact is, If the free market was operating correctly then forcing M$ to unbundle wouldn't affect anything; pricing and consumer choices would already be optimal and no harm would be done.
However, M$ fights unbundling tooth and nail (just look at the astroturfers here!) because the know damn well they have an unfair advantage because of it and they want to maintain their advantage and monopoly.
One of the prerequisites of a functioning free market is informed consumer choices. In part that requires price visibility plus the technical knowledge and ability to choose. M$ wants none of that.
---
I love the free market zealots who think monopoly is a good thing.
On the other hand, our present power grid is unnecessary. Edison had two options for delivering power to the masses, centralized or individualized, and chose to support the centralized structure because he felt it would work better. In practice, however, it has been clearly shown that the power grid is more vulnerable than individualized power would ever be. With centralized power, all terrorists or any enemy has to do to cripple a society is take out the power grid, the generators, or knock out a few dams, and everything goes down. With individualized power, each person has his or her own generator, and is therefore responsible for its upkeep. Individualized power, which is more feasible than you might realize, is more secure, and allows true competition in a way centralized power can never provide.
The people who want to choose from a list with "MacOS XVIII", "Plan 10" "FreeBeOS", "ReactOS Hurd", "AmigaOS Phoenix", etc, already know how to get them. They already have choice. You even said yourself that the field allows for the selection of no OS, so what's the problem?
My grandmother, on the other hand, couldn't give a rats ass about having the choice for AmigaOS Phoenix, and, in fact, it will confuse the hell out of people who have no interest or need to learn about all of those things. It's not popular to say on slashdot, or course, but, like it or not, the ubiquity of Windows is the single greatest thing that ever happened in terms of mainstreaming PCs and making them accessible to "normal" people.
This is a lot of special interests bitching and trying to get favors from their regulatory pals. It has absolutely ZERO to do with what's good for the typical customer of a PC vendor.
Yes, we all can run our own generators. I just do not see where I am going to put my generator in my apartment, and what about all the greenhouse gases.
Nobody is suggesting you should not be able to buy a computer with a preinstalled OS and ready to go. The suggestion is that you should be made aware at the point of sale of how much of the purchase price is the OS, and that it should be illegal for an OS supplier to make agreements based on exclusivity. If Dell wanted to sell nothing but Vista they would be allowed to, but they would also have to sell the same computer with no OS at all, and Microsoft would be barred from any agreement which penalised them in any way at all for doing so.
There are so many posts on this thread that are simply incorrect that I suspect that MS' lobby firms are astroturfing like crazy - they've had a bad week, even that bastion of respectability Scientific American called them "Micro$oft" on their website this week, in a rather hostile article. Obviously people are starting tog et the drift at last.
As an aside, in a world of "free markets", the internal management of many company sales departments is actually profoundly anti free competition. I suspect that one reason so many North Americans (and more traditional Europeans) have difficulty with the concepts of competition law, despite its great age, is that "business as usual" is profoundly opposed to it.
Pining for the fjords
No, it isn't. We have such a system where I live, and it works well. We have one company that owns the grid, but multiple producers. Customers have to use the one grid company, but can choose which producer they want to produce their electricity.
How can you know that the electricity you use came from your producer? You can't, but that is also pretty irrelevant. You don't worry that the money that comes out of the ATM is the actual bills you used to make the deposit, do you? The same applies here.
Your electricity bill is divided into distribution cost and energy production cost. The distribution cost goes to the grid owner and the energy cost goes to your chosen energy producer. This makes it possible for energy producers to compete on price, as well as allows the consumers to choose an energy producer that appeals to conscience by e.g. not using imported electricity from dirty coal power plants, or even only using renewable sources for electricity generation.
I actually use the latter alternative, which guarantees that the same amount I use is produced at one of my supplier's "green" power plants, which in reality means 95% hydro power and the remaining 5% a combination of wind, solar and biomass based generation. And the green option was cheap too, only 0.2 cents per kWh on top of the normal energy cost, a small price for a clean conscience.
is not shipping a system. Whole point is I can point my mum to something on the Dell (or Apple) website, tell her to order that and know she'll be able to browse the net within half an hour of the tap at the door.
I usually build my own, but there's something to be said for knowing that the OS is installed and has configured drivers for all the chips in the box.
The answer, which is surely what MS is tryng to move the market to anyway, is to include a 'trial' version of windows. It arrives free on the Dell box with say a $30 trial and if you like it you have the option of paying say $50 outright or $5 a month to activate it - oh and did we mention for a mere $5 a month extra we'll chuck in Office? Extra $2 a virus scanner etc etc. In the same way you'll find a trial version of Norton on the machine today, you'll get a trial OS.
To avoid people ripping Dell a new one, they just include a dual-boot to linux option.
So - EU is happy as hardware is no longer being used to bundle software.
Dell's happy as MS is now paying them to pre-install their software on their machines.
Linux fans are happy as more people are buying machines with Linux installed and ready to go.
MS's happy - they've got their claws into you, your visa details on record and can upsell you anything in their product library (why settle for $20 or whatever the OEM icense nets them) Windows fans... well they're not so happy. If you wanted a Dell box with Vista on it, you're now paying more to MS and subsidizing everybody who ran Linux instead... well can't keep everybody happy all the time..
Three people are stranded on a small island. One is a physicist, one is a circus strongman, and one is an economist. After a few days of surviving on fruit, they discover a cache of canned food, and they have to decide how to open it. The physicist says to the strongman "Why don't you climb that tree, and smash the cans down on the rocks, and burst them open?"
The strongman says, "No, that would spatter the stuff all over. I can open the cans with my teeth!"
The economist says "First, we must assume that we have a can opener."
Then neither does MS. You have it one of two ways:
1) Windows and MacOS directly compete. They are two different OSes for the same basic market (average home users). The fact that Apple is a one vendor solution isn't relevant, it is still competition in the same market. Well, if that's the case, MS doesn't have a monopoly. Apple has a small but stable (and even growing lately) marketshare. They've been around for decades, so clearly MS is not a monopoly and hasn't forced them out.
2) Windows and MacOS do not directly compete. While they do the same thing, they are different markets. Windows is targeted at arbitrary commodity hardware whereas Apple is available only on a special platform. There is no direct competition. However, that means that Apple is a monopoly. Nobody else competes on the Mac platform (and they work hard to keep it that way) and there isn't another company providing a consumer OS on a premium platform.
You can't have it both ways. You can't have "MS is a monopoly because they have no competition," and "Apple isn't a monopoly because MS competes with them." Either they both are or neither is.
Just because there hasn't been a court case about it doesn't mean that Apple isn't a monopoly. Also if you want to look at anti-competitive practises, they are the kings. They are all about "You will run our shit only on our platform."
To avoid that, simply make sure the customers know they need to have an OS too. Once at home, they can install the OS themselves. Probably the most difficult part of installing an OS is looking for and installing the drivers. Other computer hardware comes with driver disks, so I say maybe computer vendors should produce special disks that install all the necessary drivers quickly and painlessly. So you chose BSD? No problem, just insert the BSD Driver Disk for your brand new Acer 5050 Laptop. These will also come in handy if you need to format... much like a restore disk without the Windows.
If you're using an obscure os though - then chances are you know what you're doing. Don't expect a Driver Disk for everything, some of you will have to go driver hunting. But also don't expect computer vendors to sit idly by either.
In conclusion, I believe this idea isn't as bad as some of you think.
Yes. Let me quote Wikipedia, the always 100% correct and unbiased online encyclopedia:
A government is a body that has the power to make and the authority to enforce rules and laws within a civil, corporate, religious, academic, or other organization or group.One could argue that someone with a nucular device is a body that is in power to enforce rules and laws within any group of people sufficiently close. This is what the government is, and has always been. Difference is that now we often chose the guy with the nuke, or at least are lead to believe to have a choice... :)
c++;
> correct me if im wrong but the EU is not a sovereign nation (1) , most of its member nations hate the origanization (2) and only are considered part of it because their leaders lied them into it in the first place (3). now they are going to tell the world how to do business? (4)
Correcting you on (2), (3) -- those are too generalized. There are people in each country of EU who hate EU and those who like it. On (4) - EU is not telling the world how to do business. At least not as much as the USA is trying to. The only thing that EU is doing in this case, is telling MS (and indeed not only MS) what they have to do if they want to do business in EU. It is not trying to apply its judgement of MS to Middle East or the US, for example.
- No hydroelectric power. Large hydroelectric plants are not anywhere close to large consumers, and are too large for any individual consumer, making them unfeasible.
- No nuclear plants. Ditto.
- Much lower efficiency termic power. Coal/fuel plants improve in efficiency when very large scale. A large fuel plant gets about 50% efficiency, due to heat recovery methods. Individual generators -- the portable kind -- are closer to 10% efficiency.
- No load balancing for wind power. Wind power, while efficient, requires load balancing in the grid, like dams pumping water upstream, in order to cope with the fluctuations of power production vs consumption.
- No load balancing for solar power. Ditto.
Maybe individual power is really even less feasible than you might realize.If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you
Um, dude, you're just wrong. Microsoft has been legally found to be a monopoly, Apple has not. End of story.
Even aside from that, "monopoly" doesn't mean strictly "There is absolutely no one else in the world you can buy the product from." If they have a dominant market position, and are able to abuse that dominant market position to gain dominant positions in other markets, push other companies around, etc, that is what's illegal.
According to my non-lawyery understanding, anyway.
So no, Apple is not a monopoly, however much you might want it to be, shill.
Dan Aris
Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
No need to ask God. We've already had this situation, and we developed multi-plataform tools that took most problems of interoperability away.
But I can understand how, nowadays, somebody couldn't even know that multiplataform programming exists.
Rethinking email
As for you comment about too many choices, give Joe SixPack default options and recommendations. Or hell, let him go into the store and ask what he should get for his computer. If he's not smart enough to know what his computer should do, then why is he customizing a computer?
MICROSOFT UNVEILS NEW JOE-BOB(tm) SOFTWARE
by Andrew Burke (ABurke@eworld.com)
REDMOND, Wash. -- April 10, 1995 -- Microsoft today announced the
release of Joe-Bob(tm), a new software package that the company hopes
will open up a huge untapped computer market. With the motto "The
software for the rest of y'all(tm)," Joe-Bob reaches out to the same
demographic group that buys 4x4s, supports the gun lobby, and drinks
Miller Lite.
"Computers have been commonly seen as for leftists and
intellectuals," explains Microsoft spokesperson Willy Maclean, "but
we've recently seen people like Newt Gingrinch embracing new technology
-- the time is right for the rest of America to get wired!"
Instead of a desktop or office metaphor, Joe-Bob(tm) puts the user
in a garage. "Click on the Lynyrd Skynyrd tapes, and get a complete
music library in digital stereo. Click on the pinups, and get hooked up
to the Internet's hottest gifs," the promotional materials explain.
The package does not include a word processor or spreadsheet, but
does have software that keeps track of the football season, lists the
best roadhouses between Florida and Nevada, and can even order
spareribs and beer at the click of a mouse.
"This is righteous software, man," says beta-tester Billy Grugg.
"It thinks like I think." Brad Cunningham agrees: "I take it
everywhere," he says, pointing to a Pentium laptop racked under his
12-gauge in his pickup truck. Microsoft is offering desktop users a
special clip-on beer holder for their monitors.
"Look at what's popular out there," says Microsoft Chairman Bill
Gates.
"Four of the top-10 Usenet newsgroups are about sex, and splatter
video games like Doom and Mortal Kombat are bestsellers. We're just
catering to a demand, that's all."
Microsoft is reportedly distributing badges and bumper stickers
saying things like "Joe-Bob: Make Your Disk Hard," "Go Microsoft -- Go
Intel -- Go America," and "QuickTime is for Pinko Hippie Wimps."
Apple declined to comment.
The Truth is a Virus!!!
How will Apple handle this if it applies to all hdwe sales?
Their intel offerings run Linux and Windows, but if they can't bundle a preinstalled copy of OSX, it will impact them somewhat.
Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of congress. But then I repeat myself. -- Mark Twain
All belief systems break down at some point, be they economic, religious, or philosophical. "Capitalism" breaks down at the edges, i.e. when you have too little capital to compete or too much capital that no one else can.
Microsoft has reached a functional monopoly on commodity computers. This is a fact and not subject to argument at this point in time. The problem is what to do to limit it's affect on the free market?
I was uncomfortable with the EU forcing Windows to be broken up, they is determining what MS could do internally and that seemed wrong. However, the unbundling seems like a perfect solution.
Personally, I HATE having to buy windows or jump through hoops to get my money back, and that is the wrong the consumers need corrected.
Just like RAM size or hard disk size or CPU, consumers need to see a line item and associated costs. This helps the OEMs because now they can focus on their business and compete on a level playing field -- not on the whim of Microsoft's vendor agreements for Windows costs.
Any OEM daring to offer Linux or other alternative gets threatened by Microsoft's license discount process. This will take that advantage away. The OEMs won't be held hostage by Microsoft's pricing blackmail.
Consumers' will see the real price of the bug-ridden filth that is Windows and be able to make a real choice.
Microsoft will be able to built Windows they way the want without EU interference and will be free to compete on a level playing ground.
The only loss is the bundled "default" windows win. Microsoft will have to, again, work to get and keep its customers.
No one loses.
Actually that's not quite correct. You can't have a monopoly without government assistance, so any market in which a monopoly exists is not a truly free one.
Fucking libertarians.
Tell you what you need to do: go to Somalia. Now, set up competition in the gun running business. Or drug running. Or hell, making eye openers for the Wal Mart crowd Let's see how long you last.
Oh but WAIT, I can hear you so valiantly protest, the warlords are a DE FACTO government, thus my original point stands! Taxation is theft, just like those guys! Taaa-daa!
And that IS the reason you are wrong, but you're too much of a fucking evangelical nutbag to see it: social organisms -- of which an ECONOMY is one -- cannot successfully exist without governments, and the best governments are democratically controlled. Where there is a power vacuum warlords will rise to fill it. The pseudo-anarchy advocated by libertarians is not successful. Never has been, unless you want to go back to the neolithic period for examples.
Fuck I hate libertarians. I also hate the free market, mainly because I'm so sick and goddamn tired about hearing how perfect and holy it is, when it's nothing more than an ethereal Platonic ideal that a bunch of zealots hold up as their own personal Jesus.
Good point, That's another thing, it has to apply to ALL Manufacturers, not just MS. otherwise it strictly a punitive measure against Microsoft. If apple were allowed to continue bundling MAC OSX with their iMacs, and windows couldn't be bundled with a new Dell...
Here's how it would play out..
Bob goes to best buy to buy a computer, he see's one cheap for $399, brings it home, hooks it up, turns it on, "non-system disk or disk error", he calls tech support, Tech support asks him which OS he purchased with the system, He says "What's this Oh-ess? " and ultimately gets mad at the phone lackey, who then gets his manager and Bob ultimately returns the computer to best buy. he then notices the mac, and asks does that come with an Oh-ess, why yes it does. Apple then gains a new customer because most people expect a computer to come with an OS, and now magically Apple's the only manufacturer selling computers with an OS. I could see this boosting Apple's market share over the period of a few years to a majority, and in about 5-10 years, near monopoly status. MS would be falling, but Apple would now be the new market leader.
Now unbundling all OSes will annoy customers quite a bit. I used to work tech support for a Hatable Pc manufacturer, and the majority of our customers thought that the OS that came with the computer should work right out of the box, in fact quite a few of them were upset with the inital setup of having to type their name and wait a few minutes for the final installation.
So I don't know how well forcing them to install an OS when the first bring their new computer home is going to go over.
Fucking libertarians.
Tell you what you need to do: go to Somalia. Now, set up competition in the gun running business. Or drug running. Or hell, making eye openers for the Wal Mart crowd Let's see how long you last.
While we're doing that, you might want to look up the difference between "libertarian" and "anarchist".
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?