It is even easier than that. Manufacturers should be even allowed to PRELOAD MS-Windows and not include any other OS, if they want. As long as it is UNLICENSED. If the customer wants to ACTIVATE the preloaded MS-Windows, let them pay for it separately (for the activation code), and not through the hardware vendor.
In this way, people who want MS-Windows have it. They have it quickly. They have it easily. They have it customized by the OEM. But people who do not want (or need) it, do not have to pay for it and are not pressured into it by the OEM. They don't have to order "special" models.
1) Microsoft is a convicted monopoly. Apple is not. 2) Microsoft has a hugely bigger install base than Apple does. 3) Microsoft does not make computers or bundles of hardware/OS. Apple does.
Forcing Apple to play by the rules that should apply to Microsoft doesn't make sense; not now, anyway.
We have been using Quasar for several years (from Linux Canada). The POS part is not GPL, but the accounting part WAS. They are now shifting away from the GPL for their updated versions (unless that, too, has changed).
There are many countries, including several ones in EU that doesn't require you to have any license to use computer software
Well, that is a further argument against current bundling- since when it is bundled, you are going to pay for it, regardless. And are you sure about your statement? I can't imagine any EU member not honoring copyright and licensing. If nobody did, there would be no commercial software remaining!
A car also has an engine. It would be like all cars may no longer have engines
No, it wouldn't be like that at all. You can't easily just use alternate engines in a car. And there are no competition "engine" products for cars. And there isn't a single engine company making 90% of all engines for different manufacturers of cars.
Do you purchase your car stereo as a seperate line item?
Well, so far, I haven't seen a single car stereo company capture 90% of the market, manage to twist the market so that 90% of all new cars are sold with their stereo, and then get convicted as an abusive monopoly.
As a libertarian I can't stand all of this rediculous government involvement in
And for your information, I am also a Libertarian (and vote that way). That doesn't mean there are no rules in the game.
Consumers need choice and freedom, just like businesses do, or the "free market" isn't free.
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.
Um, let's see. Pop in a live CD or plug in a live USB key and the computer is instantly usable. So "install time" is not necessarily a great example. A car has to run on gas, but that doesn't mean that almost every car should come with a forced purchase (bundle) of 1,500 gallons of Amaco gas (perhaps because they are the most popular).
Is it unreasonable for a computer to be bundled with an OS?
Not necessarily. For example, I would accept if MS-Windows were preloaded but not usable until the consumer purchased a separate license for it, at a separate, visible, line-item cost, even if purchased at the same time.
Windows is, by far, the most popular OS out there, it should come with that.
That is a bit sweeping. And that is what helped make MS-Windows the most used (not most "popular") OS out there.
Why stop with the OS, why not outlaw bundling of the computer components? Force everyone to install all components-motherboard, HD,
That is a stupid analogy and you know it. Perhaps if 95% of computers were sold with a single brand of motherboard from a convicted and power-abusing monopoly, fine. But that hasn't happened. There are dozens of different motherboard and memory manufacturers, more than several hard drive or video card manufacturers, and even three major X86 CPU manufacturers (Intel, AMD, and VIA).
And please keep in mind, will you, that NOBODY is proposing that people wouldn't be able to buy Microsoft products, only that they can't be forced onto consumers and hidden in the price of the hardware.
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.
Personally, I think the consumer SHOULD SEE the MS-Windows cost in the sale, as a separate line-item. And they shouldn't have to pay for it if they don't want to, and hope for a refund of some unknown amount. Although I so agree that what you propose is better than nothing.
I wouldn't even mind MS-Windows pre-loaded but unusuable and unlicensed without a "key" that is purchased separately (or at the same time, optionally, with a line-item charge clearly visible).
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.
Oh please. Turn on computer, it says "insert disc", you insert disc and wait a while. That is all there would be to install the OS if a kickstart wrapper were used. Think of it as an OS-loader program, already able to provide any missing drivers, custom for that hardware, supplied by the manufacturer. It is no less effort than what the OEM's already do. AND IT IS NO MORE EFFORT FOR THE CUSTOMER to use when you compare it to having to create your own restore disc, since most factory-loaded MS-Windows machines don't come with one.
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.
And you think that is more realistic of a solution? Stores are supposed to carry two, three, perhaps four of the same computer already loaded with all available choices? Or do you think the Walmart associate is supposed to load the OS on-the-fly for the customer while they are waiting?
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.
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.
"With multiple implementations of one open standard for documents, users, businesses and governments around the world can have both choice and freedom to access their own documents, share with others and pass onto future generations.'"
EXACTLY what Microsoft does NOT want. I said it before, I will say it again... even if Microsoft does concede and add ODF support in MS-Office, one can almost bet it will be "broken" and Microsoft's formats will mysteriously work "better". The saga continues...
It would be nice if Intel nudged them into supporting other OS's than just MS-Windows. Intel does seem to be multiplatform friendly in other realms. With AMD responding to Intel by opening up ATI, it is a good trend.
Ahh just in time then is Seagates announcement of FDE series of drives, they use a small linux based boot sector to allow or disallow access to the drives decoding hardware, of course without that hardware enabled and with the right key it will all be useless:)
And you don't think there is a built-in backdoor already there from the factory?
The whole point of monopoly regulation/oversight is to prevent them from doing things that stifle the free, competitive market... tactics that WOULD be LEGAL for non-monopolies are not necessary legal for monopolies. It depends on what the regulators dictate. Once a monopoly is declared, it is the job of the oversight body to examine the practices of the monopoly. What remedies they formulate *are* the law, for that monopoly.
Personally, I think the whole anti-trust thing has been a joke. It has had no teeth and no real effect. Every week we read about yet something else MS has done to reinforce its monopoly status... just this week, the whole "let's pay off companies to corrupt the ISO standards process on the interestingly named, Office Open XML". The entire "let's use tons of meaningless patents to scare off competition". The political shenanigans to kill ODT in several states and even countries. The "deal" with Novell to chill other distros. The bankrolling of SCO vs. Linux. The ever-popular "let's spew continous FUD about Linux rather than tout or own good points". The list goes on and on.
Microsoft has been doing and continues to do exactly what monopolies are not supposed to be allowed to do: use its market position and control to actively suppress competition and innovation. The Justice Department is 1) inept, 2) blind, and/or 3) 0wned.
>BTW, mose projects on SourceForge run on Linux ONLY. I guess the reason is to lock people into Linux, according to your dufus logic.
No, most of the projects are *POSIX*, which doesn't "lock" you into anything. All the tools are open and free, as are the libraries and compilers. And, last time I checked, POSIX Linux, although Linux is one of many POSIX compliant Operating systems. There is nothing "dufus" about my logic.
I guess it is no surprise that I didn't see a single one of those "open" projects in the top 25 list run on anything other than MS-Windows. Reading through the list, I see ".NET", and "C#", "Vista", "Excel", "IIS", or "Sharepoint", etc, on just about every single one.
So, it is hard for me to get excited about a collection of projects that only serve to continue to lock people to a single platform.
Well, it is a 720P, but still nice (Samsung 50DLP). Has DVI, HDMI doesn't add anything useful for me. Have the very first HD Tivo (DirecTV), so no need for HDTV tuner. Waiting for an affordable 52" LCD 1080P. Have a Wii for occasional gaming, so no need (or desire) for a PS3.
I have no direct experience with upconverting DVD's, but it is supposedly good- as you say. I bet that actually further keeps people away from HD discs. Maybe I will research that further- but only after I get a new TV:)
Slashdot Mirror
It is even easier than that. Manufacturers should be even allowed to PRELOAD MS-Windows and not include any other OS, if they want. As long as it is UNLICENSED. If the customer wants to ACTIVATE the preloaded MS-Windows, let them pay for it separately (for the activation code), and not through the hardware vendor.
In this way, people who want MS-Windows have it. They have it quickly. They have it easily. They have it customized by the OEM. But people who do not want (or need) it, do not have to pay for it and are not pressured into it by the OEM. They don't have to order "special" models.
1) Microsoft is a convicted monopoly. Apple is not.
2) Microsoft has a hugely bigger install base than Apple does.
3) Microsoft does not make computers or bundles of hardware/OS. Apple does.
Forcing Apple to play by the rules that should apply to Microsoft doesn't make sense; not now, anyway.
We have been using Quasar for several years (from Linux Canada). The POS part is not GPL, but the accounting part WAS. They are now shifting away from the GPL for their updated versions (unless that, too, has changed).
In any case, they are nice products.
And please keep in mind, will you, that NOBODY is proposing that people wouldn't be able to buy Microsoft products, only that they can't be forced onto consumers and hidden in the price of the hardware.
I wouldn't even mind MS-Windows pre-loaded but unusuable and unlicensed without a "key" that is purchased separately (or at the same time, optionally, with a line-item charge clearly visible).
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.
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.
Of course, I just realized that Havok doesn't release any end-user products. Duh.
It would be nice if Intel nudged them into supporting other OS's than just MS-Windows. Intel does seem to be multiplatform friendly in other realms. With AMD responding to Intel by opening up ATI, it is a good trend.
>None of which are illegal.
It is not a matter of legality.
The whole point of monopoly regulation/oversight is to prevent them from doing things that stifle the free, competitive market... tactics that WOULD be LEGAL for non-monopolies are not necessary legal for monopolies. It depends on what the regulators dictate. Once a monopoly is declared, it is the job of the oversight body to examine the practices of the monopoly. What remedies they formulate *are* the law, for that monopoly.
Personally, I think the whole anti-trust thing has been a joke. It has had no teeth and no real effect. Every week we read about yet something else MS has done to reinforce its monopoly status... just this week, the whole "let's pay off companies to corrupt the ISO standards process on the interestingly named, Office Open XML". The entire "let's use tons of meaningless patents to scare off competition". The political shenanigans to kill ODT in several states and even countries. The "deal" with Novell to chill other distros. The bankrolling of SCO vs. Linux. The ever-popular "let's spew continous FUD about Linux rather than tout or own good points". The list goes on and on.
Microsoft has been doing and continues to do exactly what monopolies are not supposed to be allowed to do: use its market position and control to actively suppress competition and innovation. The Justice Department is 1) inept, 2) blind, and/or 3) 0wned.
Sure I do, but there aren't so many holes as to need a designated, regular patch festival day :)
At least, I hope not.
He is a *nix sysadmin... there are no regular patch THURSDAYS *OR* TUESDAYS!
I wish I could mod you up, Mr. Anonymous.
>BTW, mose projects on SourceForge run on Linux ONLY. I guess the reason is to lock people into Linux, according to your dufus logic.
No, most of the projects are *POSIX*, which doesn't "lock" you into anything. All the tools are open and free, as are the libraries and compilers. And, last time I checked, POSIX Linux, although Linux is one of many POSIX compliant Operating systems. There is nothing "dufus" about my logic.
.net
isatrap
I guess it is no surprise that I didn't see a single one of those "open" projects in the top 25 list run on anything other than MS-Windows. Reading through the list, I see ".NET", and "C#", "Vista", "Excel", "IIS", or "Sharepoint", etc, on just about every single one.
So, it is hard for me to get excited about a collection of projects that only serve to continue to lock people to a single platform.
Well, it is a 720P, but still nice (Samsung 50DLP). Has DVI, HDMI doesn't add anything useful for me. Have the very first HD Tivo (DirecTV), so no need for HDTV tuner. Waiting for an affordable 52" LCD 1080P. Have a Wii for occasional gaming, so no need (or desire) for a PS3.
:)
I have no direct experience with upconverting DVD's, but it is supposedly good- as you say. I bet that actually further keeps people away from HD discs. Maybe I will research that further- but only after I get a new TV