An HTA file is not a "webpage". Trying to put an hta file on your site would work about as effectively as having "http://mydomain.com/foo.exe" as your url. If you type in "http://mydomain.com/foo.hta", you don't get a page in your browser window, you get a prompt asking you where to save the file.
Don't believe me?
Create an empty text file and call it foo.hta. Double click on it. You get a blank window. Now open up IE and drag foo.hta onto the IE window. You'll get a save as dialog. Feel free to use an alternative method than drag & drop -- it'll do the same thing.
This is just another way of writing a desktop application. It'd be like MS patenting some VB technology. Who gives a flying fuck?
Nintendo of America is actually less than a mile from the Microsoft-Redmond campus if I remember correctly. At least, the building I saw with the Nintendo logo on it was...:)
Company A chooses one fork of the project. Company B chooses another. At the time of the fork, both systems work well together. At some point down the line, they won't. This isn't necessarily what WILL happen, but it is likely that it will happen.
When a system forks, maintaining compatibility with the other forks is generally not a priority. Meaning that people which use a project which ends up forking end up losing in the long run (a company that chooses a project that forks will have to spend lots of time and/or money maintaining tools to make the two systems continue to work together -- hence the higher TCO).
Somehow I doubt a driver port would only be 1-2 weeks worth of development time... numbers of 1-2 million lines of code have been thrown out.
Even assuming that it would only cost $4000, who in their right mind would pay 4-8x the cost of a normal computer to get a driver to work with it? You'd be better off just getting a different piece of hardware.
There are painters that produce images and impressions, and then there are painters that slap paint on an interior wall of someone's house. One is considered skilled, the other is not.
You've obviously never seen the difference between a house painted by a skilled house painter and one that is not.:p The result may not be a work of art, but it is the difference between something worth paying for and crap.
OpenGL exposes new 3D functionality much faster than DirectX, through the OpenGL extension mechanism.
Unfortunately, each hardware vendor has it's own set of extensions they implement and support.... which isn't incredibly useful when you're writing software which needs to work with hardware from multiple vendors.
Actually, COM is a very good way to go about solving the problem it attempts to solve: How do you communicate with processes/objects outside of your address space? And how do you do so in a way that allows you to share libraries/code between applications in a standardized way? And do so with code compiled with different compilers/compiler versions?
Implementing DirectX using COM is actually a very good way to do it. I won't really go into the details on why, but I think with the questions listed above you might start to get a picture of why.
COM+ was a horrible idea based around building/managing an application by dragging & grouping COM+ components some funky control panel/application dohicky. COM+ was built on top of COM. Most people like to forget that it ever existed.
The rest of what you say is essentially correct, though not technically. All COM interfaces are required to have a unique identifier associated with them (called a GUID), not just interfaces you want to have different versions of. Normally in COM, when you want to get/create an object you call CoCreateInstance (or a variation of it) and pass in GUID of the object you wish to retrieve. You don't do this with DirectX -- the SDK has a method for each version of DirectX you can call to retrieve the correct Interface.
So in DirectX 9, you'll want a pointer to an IDirect3D9 interface, which you'll get by calling Direct3DCreate9(D3D_SDK_VERSION). D3D_SDK_VERSION is a constant defined in one of the DirectX SDK headers representing the version of the SDK used to build the binary in question; it is NOT the version of the interface you want (this ensures that you have the right headers associated with the libraries you're linking with). All of the IDirect3D9 method return "9" interfaces (ex: IDirect3DDevice9).
Technically, COM doesn't require that you use different names for different interfaces (as long as they have unique guids), but in practice it makes things MUCH less confusing to do so. In the case of DirectX, it also means you don't have to do anythink funky with namespaces (because the sdk would include items from previous versions, which would have the name name but be different objects...).
In such an example you are generally looking at a bunch of computers all owned by the company. As I said, directing your own computer not to accept alteration commands from others has absolutely nothing to do with DRM.
So when the computers are owned by different entities the technology suddenly becomes "drm"? I doubt that... Digital Rights Management involves "managing" who has what "rights" to work with "digital" content. Just because the people working with it already own the copyright doesn't magically make it a non-drm problem.
It sounds like you are reffering to some act of copyright infringment? If so then whoever commited that infringment is going to owe you money in court.
And I'm sure someday they'll catch the guy who broke into my car last week, and return the crap he stole. Ain't gonna happen, you and I know it.
You and I both know that it is pointless to distribute content without any protection on it; it'd be just as stupid to park your car unlocked with a bunch of expensive stuff sitting in the front seat -- just look at the popularity of p2p software; you can argue it's popular because cd's are too expensive, but point is, it's popular and it's easy. The reason it is popular is another issue entirely, but the fact is it is still "easy".
The goal of DRM is to make it not so easy. It's a form of copy protection. Copy protection was created because people like to avoid paying for things... software didn't use to have it, but now almost all of it does. It wouldn't be done if piracy wasn't a problem. Product registration in windows raised the "not so easy" bar enough to drastically decrease the number of pirated copies of their software (I think it was something like 40%).
You want to get rid of DRM? Get rid of piracy.
Just because you authored the content does not give you any ownership of particular copies. As a copyright holder you have absolutely no rights at all reguarding fair use activities. Copyright protections simply not exist in cases of fair use.
Wrong.
Copyright gives me 1) ability to make copies 2) ability to distribute copies 3) create derrivative works 4) control display of a work in public
If I own the copyright, you are not permitted to make copies, give your friends copies, or create an alteration of the original work (ie: edit it). You are however allowed to fold, spindle, and mutilate your copy.
Fair use gives me 1) ability to take a small piece of a copyrighted work for commentary/critique 2) ability to parody a copyrighted work 3) courts have ruled it allows you to make backup copies of copyrighted works, timeshifting, and things of that nature
DRM does not eliminate fair use. DRM in conjunction with the DMCA makes it rather hard, however the DMCA still has an exemption for circumventing technological protection for the purpose fair use. I am not arguing that DRM makes fair use "convenient" or "easy", because it doesn't, nor am I arguing that it isn't being misapplied. That's a completely different debate.
'unsolicited' is a synonym for 'unwanted'. The hypothetical scenario I describe still applies, as the bill allows joe schmoe to decide what is and isn't wanted instead of clearly defining it in the law.
Though in all fairness, the revision of the bill you linked to has gone through several revisions since I last read it, and now it isn't nearly as bad. Read it without all of the 'advertisement' words and you'll read something much closer to what was posted on slashdot earlier this year.
So this is one of those, "possession is 9/10ths" of the law attitudes is it? So if a copy of a document is on your harddrive, you own it? So if I didn't give that you MY document, and you somehow got ahold of it, it is now YOURS? I'm not going to even come up with a business application analogy (where this sort of stuff will be used most of the time) because it'd pointless.
You own the space on your harddrive where the document resides. You don't own content I may have created. You have no rights to that content whatsoever. Just because you can use that content doesn't mean you have rights to it.
You are making the assumption that you have fair use rights for whatever content is DRM'd. You have no fair use rights to use a document I created and did not sell or distribute.
"Protecting" music and movies is probably the lamest thing DRM can be used for -- when used in that sense it is nothing more than copy protection technology with a different name. DRM encompasses the whole rights management enchilada, including (for example) specifying who has rights to edit a specific section of a document I'm working on.
"Remote" merely means "not in my process/addressable space." When one process needs to talk to another, something like COM is generally used. COM performs out of proc communications via RPC.
The language of the law essentially defined spam as "unwanted email from a commercial source". This means that if you didn't want it, it was spam. That means if you didn't want the confirmation email which said "the book you ordered is on it's way, and here's the tracking number", it was spam.
The problem with the law was that it was too broad, and would prevent any commercial entity from sending email (ie: it didn't just deal w/spam).
I knew the impending darkness would be upon us soon, and I was damn well sure I would be prepared... err... wait a minute, this is kind of boring. Forget it.
For a minute there, I thought you were going to be starting on the next jurrasic park sequel...
Unfortunately, the source code of Windows is kept largely secret, and as a result, it is extremely difficult for new competition to develop streamlined and compatible code without paying Microsoft a hefty licensing fee
As is Microsoft's right. They paid to create it, why should they have to give it away?
according to this article it was $100,000 just to look at the Windows code, with only $50,000 refundable
That's actually pretty cheap in the corporate world. A guy working out of his garage wouldn't be able to swing that, but anyone with decent financial backing can swing that with no problem.
But aren't there barriers to entry for new competition?
There are always barriers for new competition in any field. Want to produce and sell a car? You've got to spend a lot of money on a manufacturing plant, on employees, on people to design the car, on safety testing, on epa testing, etc. Want to enter the Cell Phone business? Lots of startup costs there as well. In any business you start, there is a barrier to entry. In some businesses it's more than others. It just so happens software is on the low end of the spectrum.
Games are a perfect example. How many first-rate games are coming out with code not optimized for DirectX?
Is there anything else out there better than DirectX? From what I've gathered from online discussions, the OpenGL standard is lagging way behind due to the slowness of approving new stuff...
If you want to play games, like many computer users do, what competitive alternatives exist to Windows-based systems?
What alternative exists to Windows period? Pretty much Linux, and that's about it -- and for games, it isn't really there (lack of a good standard api & drivers). I'm not saying Microsoft isn't a monopoly, but expecting 3rd party to write an exact clone of Windows you can buy for $5/pop isn't realistic.
You analogy also doesn't make sense. If a car was a computer, and the engine is a processor, and the fuel is software, then microsoft would be in control of the fuel. In your analogy, Microsoft has control of the software and the processor -- which is certainly not true. I won't bother digging any further into that one, as it's based on a false premise and delves into a series of paranoid "what-if" scenarios.
This came from EU advocate general Antonio Tizzano of the European Court of Justice, the highest court in the EU. Don't you think this could apply to Microsoft as well?
It very well could, however it dealt with a company refusing to license technology that was a "defacto standard". Microsoft is willing to license components that make up their technology per the US anti-trust settlement, and they also license the end result of that technology (which would be the OS). It does, however, cost money -- which is not unexpected.
Microsoft does offer "packages." There are 4 different versions of Windows XP available. There are at least 5 different versions of Win2k3 out there (filtering out variations w/different numbers of client licenses and the 64bit versions). You can buy all of the Office applications together or separately in addition to 3 different bundled packages (16 bundles if you count the variations in the volume, oem, and academic bundles).
When I bought my car, I wanted the better sound system and leather, but I didn't want a sunroof. The manufacturer wouldn't sell those items without the sunroof. Guess what? I ended up getting a sunroof.
Your beef is mostly with the particular product Sony was selling (couldn't get a notebook w/o Works, couldn't get a notebook without xp), and partly with Microsoft (couldn't get XP without Media Player). But let's get one thing straight, nobody forced you to buy anything. You wanted Sony notebook xyz, and you bought it.
Sony figured a laptop sold with that particular combination would make them the most money. Microsoft figures with the particular combination they're selling they'd make the most money. That's the whole point of a bundle -- group things together in a manner so that you sell more stuff overall.
You're missing the point. What's the difference between a product produced by Microsoft and a product produced by an OEM? They're both products sold to customers.
Computer OEMs are resellers of MS products. A computer will work just fine without any MS software on it. Nobody is forcing them to install Windows on the computers they make. OEMs ship computers with that software because that is what their customers expect and demand.
Make everything WMA (or something like it), then use licensing to make WMA. Do you use the SysRq button on your keyboard? Probably not. Why is it there? Because IBM put it there. Given, it doesn't give IBM money, but if every whateverplayer must have the de facto standard, and pay licensing, Microsoft has everything to gain.
Windows Media can play any file with a codec available for it. So again, I ask you, how is this going to make them money? Why would a company use WMA above and beyond anything else? I would suggest it isn't Microsoft locking you into the WMA format -- it's the people using it. And why would people use it over another media format? Maybe because it offers some features other media formats lack -- like DRM crap? Gee, that couldn't be it at all could it...
Try syncing Windows and UNIX passwords.
Why would you want to? And on that note, how does the inability to sync passwords make Microsoft money? Keeps unix boxes out of MS networks? Please... that would have to be the weakest excuse I've ever heard...
Make sure it becomes THE standard and force banks, on-line serives, you name it, to pay for using their Intellectual Property.
Chicken and the egg. In order for it to become "the" standard, it has to do what the banks, online service, you name it, want it to do before they'll use it. It also has to do what *I* want it to do before I'll use it.
Hmm, should I pay $500 for Office 2003 or use something free that can read the format 100%... but wait, it's closed, you can't read it at 100% accuracy... so there is no real competition!
There has never been an office suite on the face of the planet that could perfectly read another suite's file format. At least, not since the time you could choose different fonts. Hell, back in the WorderPerfect days, WordPerfect couldn't read it's own files correctly half the time...
I find it amusing the number of people who EXPECT Microsoft to do their work for them. "Waah! I don't know how to read the file format! Gimme! My program will never be worth anything until it can parse a word document! Waah!". Since when did the file format become the end all be all of a word processor? Why do I see so many pdf documents out there? Or for that matter, html documents? There are plenty of standarized ways to save documents -- many of which office and save and export to. "But they lose formatting information and stuff when you save in those formats!" Duh. Those formats don't have a way to represent all of the features in Office, so they get "translated" into something the format CAN represent.
The file format crap is nothing but an excuse for why the open source word processing solutions aren't very popular. Fact is they SUCK for anything other than writing a simple letter (that *IS* my opinion; you don't have to like it).
As a side note, Office2k3 is capable of saving documents in WordML, a publicly documented XML schema for saving Office documents with all of the office 'features'. So "file format" isn't even close to a legit excuse anymore...
What does microsoft stand to benefit from including media player in windows?
Putting real player out of business? How does that make Microsoft more money?
Proprietry file formats? How does that make Microsoft more money (they don't produce the content)? "Lock-in?" Please, save your files in a different format -- when that option is no longer available you might have a point, but until then you don't.
How does their network configuration scheme make Microsoft more money? Hell, what kind of standard is out there for doing that sort of configuration, other than "give everything an ip address?"
How does MS Passport make Microsoft more money?
How does using a proprietary file system make Microsoft more money? Are you unable to copy the files to a different media? Are you unable to perform backups? Are you unable to burn CDs?
"Embrace and extend." I love that. "We want you to make a product that lets us use xyz standard. But please don't do anything to differentiate your product from anything anyone else makes, or provide a reason to buy your product over what someone else makes."
Ooh, and a licensing scheme. Don't like it, use something else. Wait, you do. *sigh* So what were you whining about again?
Slashdot Mirror
This "patent" doesn't cover web anything.
An HTA file is not a "webpage". Trying to put an hta file on your site would work about as effectively as having "http://mydomain.com/foo.exe" as your url. If you type in "http://mydomain.com/foo.hta", you don't get a page in your browser window, you get a prompt asking you where to save the file.
Don't believe me?
Create an empty text file and call it foo.hta. Double click on it. You get a blank window. Now open up IE and drag foo.hta onto the IE window. You'll get a save as dialog. Feel free to use an alternative method than drag & drop -- it'll do the same thing.
This is just another way of writing a desktop application. It'd be like MS patenting some VB technology. Who gives a flying fuck?
Nintendo of America is actually less than a mile from the Microsoft-Redmond campus if I remember correctly. At least, the building I saw with the Nintendo logo on it was ... :)
Small problem:
Company A chooses one fork of the project. Company B chooses another. At the time of the fork, both systems work well together. At some point down the line, they won't. This isn't necessarily what WILL happen, but it is likely that it will happen.
When a system forks, maintaining compatibility with the other forks is generally not a priority. Meaning that people which use a project which ends up forking end up losing in the long run (a company that chooses a project that forks will have to spend lots of time and/or money maintaining tools to make the two systems continue to work together -- hence the higher TCO).
Somehow I doubt a driver port would only be 1-2 weeks worth of development time ... numbers of 1-2 million lines of code have been thrown out.
Even assuming that it would only cost $4000, who in their right mind would pay 4-8x the cost of a normal computer to get a driver to work with it? You'd be better off just getting a different piece of hardware.
There are painters that produce images and impressions, and then there are painters that slap paint on an interior wall of someone's house. One is considered skilled, the other is not.
:p The result may not be a work of art, but it is the difference between something worth paying for and crap.
You've obviously never seen the difference between a house painted by a skilled house painter and one that is not.
OpenGL exposes new 3D functionality much faster than DirectX, through the OpenGL extension mechanism.
Unfortunately, each hardware vendor has it's own set of extensions they implement and support.... which isn't incredibly useful when you're writing software which needs to work with hardware from multiple vendors.
Actually, COM is a very good way to go about solving the problem it attempts to solve: How do you communicate with processes/objects outside of your address space? And how do you do so in a way that allows you to share libraries/code between applications in a standardized way? And do so with code compiled with different compilers/compiler versions?
Implementing DirectX using COM is actually a very good way to do it. I won't really go into the details on why, but I think with the questions listed above you might start to get a picture of why.
You use DirectX through COM.
COM+ was a horrible idea based around building/managing an application by dragging & grouping COM+ components some funky control panel/application dohicky. COM+ was built on top of COM. Most people like to forget that it ever existed.
The rest of what you say is essentially correct, though not technically. All COM interfaces are required to have a unique identifier associated with them (called a GUID), not just interfaces you want to have different versions of. Normally in COM, when you want to get/create an object you call CoCreateInstance (or a variation of it) and pass in GUID of the object you wish to retrieve. You don't do this with DirectX -- the SDK has a method for each version of DirectX you can call to retrieve the correct Interface.
So in DirectX 9, you'll want a pointer to an IDirect3D9 interface, which you'll get by calling Direct3DCreate9(D3D_SDK_VERSION). D3D_SDK_VERSION is a constant defined in one of the DirectX SDK headers representing the version of the SDK used to build the binary in question; it is NOT the version of the interface you want (this ensures that you have the right headers associated with the libraries you're linking with). All of the IDirect3D9 method return "9" interfaces (ex: IDirect3DDevice9).
Technically, COM doesn't require that you use different names for different interfaces (as long as they have unique guids), but in practice it makes things MUCH less confusing to do so. In the case of DirectX, it also means you don't have to do anythink funky with namespaces (because the sdk would include items from previous versions, which would have the name name but be different objects...).
It doesn't even cover FAT32. It only covers the method used to store/retrieve long filenames on a FAT filesystem.
In such an example you are generally looking at a bunch of computers all owned by the company. As I said, directing your own computer not to accept alteration commands from others has absolutely nothing to do with DRM.
... software didn't use to have it, but now almost all of it does. It wouldn't be done if piracy wasn't a problem. Product registration in windows raised the "not so easy" bar enough to drastically decrease the number of pirated copies of their software (I think it was something like 40%).
So when the computers are owned by different entities the technology suddenly becomes "drm"? I doubt that... Digital Rights Management involves "managing" who has what "rights" to work with "digital" content. Just because the people working with it already own the copyright doesn't magically make it a non-drm problem.
It sounds like you are reffering to some act of copyright infringment? If so then whoever commited that infringment is going to owe you money in court.
And I'm sure someday they'll catch the guy who broke into my car last week, and return the crap he stole. Ain't gonna happen, you and I know it.
You and I both know that it is pointless to distribute content without any protection on it; it'd be just as stupid to park your car unlocked with a bunch of expensive stuff sitting in the front seat -- just look at the popularity of p2p software; you can argue it's popular because cd's are too expensive, but point is, it's popular and it's easy. The reason it is popular is another issue entirely, but the fact is it is still "easy".
The goal of DRM is to make it not so easy. It's a form of copy protection. Copy protection was created because people like to avoid paying for things
You want to get rid of DRM? Get rid of piracy.
Just because you authored the content does not give you any ownership of particular copies. As a copyright holder you have absolutely no rights at all reguarding fair use activities. Copyright protections simply not exist in cases of fair use.
Wrong.
Copyright gives me
1) ability to make copies
2) ability to distribute copies
3) create derrivative works
4) control display of a work in public
If I own the copyright, you are not permitted to make copies, give your friends copies, or create an alteration of the original work (ie: edit it). You are however allowed to fold, spindle, and mutilate your copy.
Fair use gives me
1) ability to take a small piece of a copyrighted work for commentary/critique
2) ability to parody a copyrighted work
3) courts have ruled it allows you to make backup copies of copyrighted works, timeshifting, and things of that nature
DRM does not eliminate fair use. DRM in conjunction with the DMCA makes it rather hard, however the DMCA still has an exemption for circumventing technological protection for the purpose fair use. I am not arguing that DRM makes fair use "convenient" or "easy", because it doesn't, nor am I arguing that it isn't being misapplied. That's a completely different debate.
'unsolicited' is a synonym for 'unwanted'. The hypothetical scenario I describe still applies, as the bill allows joe schmoe to decide what is and isn't wanted instead of clearly defining it in the law.
Though in all fairness, the revision of the bill you linked to has gone through several revisions since I last read it, and now it isn't nearly as bad. Read it without all of the 'advertisement' words and you'll read something much closer to what was posted on slashdot earlier this year.
So this is one of those, "possession is 9/10ths" of the law attitudes is it? So if a copy of a document is on your harddrive, you own it? So if I didn't give that you MY document, and you somehow got ahold of it, it is now YOURS? I'm not going to even come up with a business application analogy (where this sort of stuff will be used most of the time) because it'd pointless.
You own the space on your harddrive where the document resides. You don't own content I may have created. You have no rights to that content whatsoever. Just because you can use that content doesn't mean you have rights to it.
You are making the assumption that you have fair use rights for whatever content is DRM'd. You have no fair use rights to use a document I created and did not sell or distribute.
"Protecting" music and movies is probably the lamest thing DRM can be used for -- when used in that sense it is nothing more than copy protection technology with a different name. DRM encompasses the whole rights management enchilada, including (for example) specifying who has rights to edit a specific section of a document I'm working on.
"Remote" merely means "not in my process/addressable space." When one process needs to talk to another, something like COM is generally used. COM performs out of proc communications via RPC.
The language of the law essentially defined spam as "unwanted email from a commercial source". This means that if you didn't want it, it was spam. That means if you didn't want the confirmation email which said "the book you ordered is on it's way, and here's the tracking number", it was spam.
The problem with the law was that it was too broad, and would prevent any commercial entity from sending email (ie: it didn't just deal w/spam).
Read section 11. The IETFS (Internet Engineering Task Force Standards) will define how the subject line of the message should be labelled.
I knew the impending darkness would be upon us soon, and I was damn well sure I would be prepared... err... wait a minute, this is kind of boring. Forget it.
For a minute there, I thought you were going to be starting on the next jurrasic park sequel...
The bit is more Microsoft vs Big Blue (IBM) and "their army of consultants" than Microsoft vs Linux.
Unfortunately, the source code of Windows is kept largely secret, and as a result, it is extremely difficult for new competition to develop streamlined and compatible code without paying Microsoft a hefty licensing fee
As is Microsoft's right. They paid to create it, why should they have to give it away?
according to this article it was $100,000 just to look at the Windows code, with only $50,000 refundable
That's actually pretty cheap in the corporate world. A guy working out of his garage wouldn't be able to swing that, but anyone with decent financial backing can swing that with no problem.
But aren't there barriers to entry for new competition?
There are always barriers for new competition in any field. Want to produce and sell a car? You've got to spend a lot of money on a manufacturing plant, on employees, on people to design the car, on safety testing, on epa testing, etc. Want to enter the Cell Phone business? Lots of startup costs there as well. In any business you start, there is a barrier to entry. In some businesses it's more than others. It just so happens software is on the low end of the spectrum.
Games are a perfect example. How many first-rate games are coming out with code not optimized for DirectX?
Is there anything else out there better than DirectX? From what I've gathered from online discussions, the OpenGL standard is lagging way behind due to the slowness of approving new stuff...
If you want to play games, like many computer users do, what competitive alternatives exist to Windows-based systems?
What alternative exists to Windows period? Pretty much Linux, and that's about it -- and for games, it isn't really there (lack of a good standard api & drivers). I'm not saying Microsoft isn't a monopoly, but expecting 3rd party to write an exact clone of Windows you can buy for $5/pop isn't realistic.
You analogy also doesn't make sense. If a car was a computer, and the engine is a processor, and the fuel is software, then microsoft would be in control of the fuel. In your analogy, Microsoft has control of the software and the processor -- which is certainly not true. I won't bother digging any further into that one, as it's based on a false premise and delves into a series of paranoid "what-if" scenarios.
This came from EU advocate general Antonio Tizzano of the European Court of Justice, the highest court in the EU. Don't you think this could apply to Microsoft as well?
It very well could, however it dealt with a company refusing to license technology that was a "defacto standard". Microsoft is willing to license components that make up their technology per the US anti-trust settlement, and they also license the end result of that technology (which would be the OS). It does, however, cost money -- which is not unexpected.
Microsoft does offer "packages." There are 4 different versions of Windows XP available. There are at least 5 different versions of Win2k3 out there (filtering out variations w/different numbers of client licenses and the 64bit versions). You can buy all of the Office applications together or separately in addition to 3 different bundled packages (16 bundles if you count the variations in the volume, oem, and academic bundles).
When I bought my car, I wanted the better sound system and leather, but I didn't want a sunroof. The manufacturer wouldn't sell those items without the sunroof. Guess what? I ended up getting a sunroof.
Your beef is mostly with the particular product Sony was selling (couldn't get a notebook w/o Works, couldn't get a notebook without xp), and partly with Microsoft (couldn't get XP without Media Player). But let's get one thing straight, nobody forced you to buy anything. You wanted Sony notebook xyz, and you bought it.
Sony figured a laptop sold with that particular combination would make them the most money. Microsoft figures with the particular combination they're selling they'd make the most money. That's the whole point of a bundle -- group things together in a manner so that you sell more stuff overall.
You're missing the point. What's the difference between a product produced by Microsoft and a product produced by an OEM? They're both products sold to customers.
Computer OEMs are resellers of MS products. A computer will work just fine without any MS software on it. Nobody is forcing them to install Windows on the computers they make. OEMs ship computers with that software because that is what their customers expect and demand.
Make everything WMA (or something like it), then use licensing to make WMA. Do you use the SysRq button on your keyboard? Probably not. Why is it there? Because IBM put it there. Given, it doesn't give IBM money, but if every whateverplayer must have the de facto standard, and pay licensing, Microsoft has everything to gain.
...
... that would have to be the weakest excuse I've ever heard...
...
Windows Media can play any file with a codec available for it. So again, I ask you, how is this going to make them money? Why would a company use WMA above and beyond anything else? I would suggest it isn't Microsoft locking you into the WMA format -- it's the people using it. And why would people use it over another media format? Maybe because it offers some features other media formats lack -- like DRM crap? Gee, that couldn't be it at all could it
Try syncing Windows and UNIX passwords.
Why would you want to? And on that note, how does the inability to sync passwords make Microsoft money? Keeps unix boxes out of MS networks? Please
Make sure it becomes THE standard and force banks, on-line serives, you name it, to pay for using their Intellectual Property.
Chicken and the egg. In order for it to become "the" standard, it has to do what the banks, online service, you name it, want it to do before they'll use it. It also has to do what *I* want it to do before I'll use it.
Hmm, should I pay $500 for Office 2003 or use something free that can read the format 100%... but wait, it's closed, you can't read it at 100% accuracy... so there is no real competition!
There has never been an office suite on the face of the planet that could perfectly read another suite's file format. At least, not since the time you could choose different fonts. Hell, back in the WorderPerfect days, WordPerfect couldn't read it's own files correctly half the time
I find it amusing the number of people who EXPECT Microsoft to do their work for them. "Waah! I don't know how to read the file format! Gimme! My program will never be worth anything until it can parse a word document! Waah!". Since when did the file format become the end all be all of a word processor? Why do I see so many pdf documents out there? Or for that matter, html documents? There are plenty of standarized ways to save documents -- many of which office and save and export to. "But they lose formatting information and stuff when you save in those formats!" Duh. Those formats don't have a way to represent all of the features in Office, so they get "translated" into something the format CAN represent.
The file format crap is nothing but an excuse for why the open source word processing solutions aren't very popular. Fact is they SUCK for anything other than writing a simple letter (that *IS* my opinion; you don't have to like it).
As a side note, Office2k3 is capable of saving documents in WordML, a publicly documented XML schema for saving Office documents with all of the office 'features'. So "file format" isn't even close to a legit excuse anymore...
So, you don't think a company which produces a product should be able to decide what features go into which product tier?
Some car companies let you custom configure your car. Other companies only offer a couple of different backages, plus some option packages.
Why is this any different?
What does microsoft stand to benefit from including media player in windows?
Putting real player out of business? How does that make Microsoft more money?
Proprietry file formats? How does that make Microsoft more money (they don't produce the content)? "Lock-in?" Please, save your files in a different format -- when that option is no longer available you might have a point, but until then you don't.
How does their network configuration scheme make Microsoft more money? Hell, what kind of standard is out there for doing that sort of configuration, other than "give everything an ip address?"
How does MS Passport make Microsoft more money?
How does using a proprietary file system make Microsoft more money? Are you unable to copy the files to a different media? Are you unable to perform backups? Are you unable to burn CDs?
"Embrace and extend." I love that. "We want you to make a product that lets us use xyz standard. But please don't do anything to differentiate your product from anything anyone else makes, or provide a reason to buy your product over what someone else makes."
Ooh, and a licensing scheme. Don't like it, use something else. Wait, you do. *sigh* So what were you whining about again?
In other words, you want computers to be harder to use so you aren't inconvenienced.