The third person can bypass the second person and get all the perks the second person enjoys given to him from the first person. Freedom given to the second person is non-exclusive. Your point is one of the myths surrounding BSD license.
GPL is a fairly restrictive license, compared to Apache or BSD or MPL. Considering that the most successful open source software in the planet (Mozilla Firefox) uses dual-licensing, it does not seem that GPL is that successful.
Explain to me why GP AC says that licensing his/her code in GPL will encourage people to do the same. At best, the only reason GPL will be used if his/her code is truly godly and there are no alternative. Thus, the best way to encourage people to use GPL is to license the best quality codes under GPL. This is because, if all parameters are the same, between 2 codes that is licensed between GPL and BSD/Apache/MPL, programmers will most likely pick the latter.
I would license my code under public domain, but there are additional efforts to do to truly makes it public domain, like paperworks to truly declare it public domain ACROSS THE PLANET. Plus, if I declare my code under public domain in one country, in another country my code will be automatically copyrighted (to me) and there is nothing I can do about it.
Please do think the world consists of America only (or the Western world).
With BSD, I can just publish my code with it and be done with it. It will be BSD across the world. Uniformity is good. With PD license, that will apply only in selected countries. With BSD, it applies across the world.
BTW, what freedom BSD license takes from you if you use my BSD code?
If you don't like my licensing terms, don't use my code. Then please explain how GPL will encourage people to license in similar manner. Encouragement should be done in voluntary manner, not by using copyright law to do so. In the end, you misuse the word ENCOURAGE, you should have use DEMAND, as per your post above.
BSD licensing gives more freedom to developers. If I have thousands of lines of BSD code, some company like Microsoft can come in and take all my code away and make it closed source. But what most people does not realize that the copyright of the code is still mine, and not Microsoft. In fact, Microsoft has to name me somewhere in their product to satisfy the copyright requirement. I lose nothing, I still have my code (many GPL people thinks I will lose my code when it is clearly isn't the case) and other developers (2nd generation, 3rd generation, whatever) still have access to my code and can do whatever they want with it, with attribution of course. Even you can take my code, even after Microsoft has done so.
You are correct, but your post further invalidate the point of the GP poster, that says GPL will encourage people to license code in similar manner. By nature of the GPL, ENCOURAGE is not a option, FORCE is more appropriate.
And that's why the word 'ENCOURAGED' used by the parent poster I replied to is simply wrong. FORCE is the correct word. GPL will FORCE you to use GPL for derivative works. Are you the same AC that misleadingly used the word 'ENCOURAGED'?
Man, you should have known that with GPL, derivatives will always be GPL. Care to show me how this isn't the case? If I use your thousands of lines of GPL'ed codes, it will always be GPL.
You can take my BSD code and make it proprietary, but you can never take my ownership of the code. Plus, my name is on your About page/screen anyway (or else I will sue for copyright infringement).
The only "freedom" the BSD license gives developers that the GPL does not is the freedom to take freedom away from other potential developers. This is so untrue I do not know what to say. Those potential developers can take my BSD code and do what they want with them (as long as my name is on About page). No freedom is lost unlike what you may think.
Yeah, orphaned is a better word indeed. But contrary to what you say, those users served by those orphaned thread will not get a unresponsive site to the point they need to refresh the page and/or renew cookies (renew cookies is highly unlikely). IIS6 use a little-known feature new in Windows Server 2003 (but common in UNIX environment) that allows 2 same process/threads to run side-by-side, copying the state of the old process to the new one. You should be able to see them in action when patching the OS. When the 107x event ID happened, IIS will create an identical thread and kill the old one. IIS does not let the orphaned threads/processes crashes, instead the resources they takes will be reclaimed. If IIS let them crashed as you said, the WIndows Server will need to be restarted every other day (depending on load) just to reclaim resources, which is not exactly correct.
Hahaha, event 1077? For god sake, do you know what event 1077 indicates? When event 1077 happened (you should know what it is if you administer IIS6), a duplicate thread is made and then replaced the old one. This does not mean that availability is compromised, it will always still be 100%. Restart is not the right word, replaced is the right one.
No, it is not necessarily have to be free, it is just have to be not too expensive and also must not be exclusive. Those who wants to license those patents should be able to get it.
Nope, the IIS6 here has not been restarted for nearly 2 months already (the last time I patched the server and restarted it). Maybe, just maybe, you do not know how to keep an IIS6 installation stable?
And by looking at the high IE market share, aided by Google of course, webmasters all around the world will still have to code for IE instead of using the W3C recommendations specs instead. High IE market share will always benefits Microsoft, directly or indirectly.
Warrants are different from subpoenas. Google will not resist any warrants if one comes to them. If Google resists, their Gmail datacenters will be raided by the authorities and servers will likely be confiscated and personnel arrested.
Most windows users are not interested in such applications. You have detailed knowledge of media players and systems. That is a minority use for Windows. Most Windows use is for dull office applications. And, I am afraid that insults don't help an argument.
This is anecdotal evidence. How did you know most Windows users doesn't know about Winamp or others? Is it because you works as technical support, just like I am? I don't think so. I believe that Winamp is just as famous as WMP, if not better.
I think that where your understanding of this is flawed (or so I politely suggest). Windows users are not typically Slashdot users. Saying that 'any people who have used Windows will at least have heard about Winamp' is incorrect.
Yeah, anecdotal evidence at best. But how did you know that most Windows users haven't heard about Winamp?
You keep misunderstanding me. I don't care or not about what software is bundled with Windows. The problem is always having WMP bundled in all copies of Windows. This means that it has an unfair advantage, even if other products are also bundled on some proportions of Windows installations.
I have been asking you all along, WHAT IS THE ADVANTAGE MICROSOFT WILL GET IF THEY BUNDLE WMP ONTO ALL WINDOWS INSTALLATIONS? Please answer this question, and I will be glad to refute any answer you will give me (time permitting). Are you saying that users of Windows will be locked onto WMP and doesn't want to download anything else? Nope, that's not correct. It is not that Microsoft will prevent you from downloading any other alternatives.
No, that doesn't shock me. Apple is a very small market for them and they can deal with the loss (after all, they make a loss on every Xbox sold). I'd be interested to know how you have detailed knowledge of Microsoft accounts and now that they aren't passing on the cost.
Hey, Microsoft is a publicly traded company. Their accounts is out there in the open. There are no signs in their publicly available account sheet that they passed WMP development costs to WIndows price whatsoever. If Microsoft lies, it's all Enron all over again. EU doesn't agree with you about Microsoft putting WMP costs in Windows's price, and you can't prove Microsoft is putting WMP costs on Windows' price.
This is why I ask you if Microsoft dumps WMP cost on Windows price, EU wants to hear from you. But you failed to prove that Microsoft has done so, so please stop spouting bullshit about Microsft dumping WMP cost on Windows price. IT IS SIMPLY NOT TRUE!!!!
I am not saying that they are doing anything illegal. I am saying that WMP is not free because the cost is covered by sales of other MS products. Where do you think the profit comes from to fund 'operating expenditure'?
There are other ways to fund 'operating expenditure', like taking a loan (like a lot of companies do). That's why if EU accuse Microsoft that they use their Windows profits to fund their 'operating expenditures', Microsoft will simply show them the account sheets that show that loan borrowed from whatever bank and the case will be kicked out from the Court of First Instances in record time. See why EU doesn't take that approach?
Of course I am for alternatives. The problem is not bundling in general, it is Microsoft bundling their product on their monopoly-position OS. It is called 'tying'.
And has that been deemed illegal? I don't think so. 'Tying' is not illegal, if you don't know it. Only if users are not allowed to use any other alternatives that 'tying' will become illegal.
And yet again, this not about bundling software as such, it is about the manufacturer of Windows bundling their own software, so taking advantage of the established monopoly of their OS.
The question is, is bundling programs on a monopoly OS is illegal? Don't think so. Even EU doesn't say that Microsoft bundling WMP onto Windows is illegal. So what is your poin
I haven't heard of the first two, which proves that they aren't competing well. Adobe is competing because there is no equivalent Microsoft product.
The moment you say that you never heard of Ulead (who makes Video Studio, Photoimpact etc) and Winamp, is the moment your credibilty goes out of the window. Any people who has used Windows computers at least have heard about Winamp, or used it. I will bet 90%> of/. readers must have been using (or heard about) Winamp. Ulead and Adobe make intermediate movie editing software, competing with the likes of Windows Movie Maker. And it seems that they are doing it successfully. Last time I checked, neither Adobe or Ulead has any plans to sue Microsoft for bundling WIndows Movie Maker into Windows XP.
Yes they do.
Exactly. Novice users don't want to have to install extra software or fiddle with their computers.
And I wonder the millions of downloas of Firefox must have been done by expert computer users only. C'mon! Most of the Firefox new users are novices, not a Computer Science graduate. Firefox case shows that novice users will switch to a better program if available. IE managed to dominate the browser scene mostly because there are no competitors. If a competent competitor appeared much earlier than Firefox does, the damage IE has done would have been limited.
No, they don't, as long as their programs is better.
I'm sorry, but this is incorrect. The effects of bundling products is well-established in legal and economic theory. How much better you can get away with depends on a number of factors.
(1) The intertia of consumers. (can we be bothered to change?)
(2) The cost of change (how much will we have to pay for alternative products?)
(3) The effort of change (how much of my time will an change take?)
Even if you assume that WMP is free (so competing fairly on (2)), there is still inertia and effort to be overcome. Considering that a large number of users still don't even have broadband connectivity, the idea that they will take the time (and cost) to download substantially sized alternatives to Microsoft products is naive.
So far, all you have presented is a few examples about how the computer-literate minority (probably mostly working with high-speed connections) can easily install alternative software or help others to do so.
Winamp is small (even the PRO version). Firefox is also not that hard on 33.6k dial-up modems. Plus, I didn't always talked about free (in cost) software either. Don't wanna download that hefty 300MB installer? Order it by CD for shipping costs.
About no.1, people will change if something better is offetred to them for free. About no.3, it was mostly tied with no.1, because usually good software are easier to use than cheap-ass software, thus no.3 should not be a problem.
Can you show me it isn't? Of course the development costs of WMP are funded by other profitable MS products. So, Microsoft users are paying for WMP in indirect ways. They also have no choice but to pay for WMP in these ways, as WMP is not available on other platforms.
The fact that WMP9 for Apple (shocked, don't you?) is free and that Windows price doesn't increase means that Microsoft are not passing the cost to the prtice of other software like Office or Windows. Instead, the cost of developing that software is absorbed into operating expenditure instead. There are no proof that Windows/Office users are paying indirectly for WMP for Macs. Nada. Zilch. If there is evidence that Microsoft has done so, then EU would have pounced on them a long time ago. But they can't and so do you.
No, as I don't believe in censorship.
Then what are you waiting for? Prove to me that Microsoft is hiding the cost of developing WMP onto Windows (or any other Microsoft's products) instead of absorbing them as operating expenditure. You can't, so please stop spouting BS, saying that Mi
Of course I am not, and there was nothing I said that implied that. What Microsoft should be prevented from doing is bundling software with a monopoly platform, because doing so gives their software an artificial and unfair advantage. This is nothing to do with the quality or otherwise of their software, it is to do with equality.
If you are a competitor, there is an additional factor preventing take-up of your product in addition to quality.
Then care to explain why companies (like Ulead, AOL Winamp, Adobe etc) that competes against Microsoft can do so successfully agaisnt Micrsoft bundled offerings (even that they are not free)? They doesn't seem to have problems with that so-called 'artificial and unfair advantage' you have been talking about. Once and for all, tell me what Microsoft has done to prevent people from switching? Natural reluctance of people to switch? I already disputed that with Firefox case. Microsoft preventing people from installing competitors product? There are no such thing happening.
You may think that is fair. I don't, and neither to major international legal organisations.
And unfortunately for the lawsuit maker (which will be Real), it will not help them in any way whatsoever. This is what they got if they don't just pucker up and competes with Microsoft the way AOL Winamp or Ulead successfully does.
WMP obviously had development costs. If it is being bundled with Windows, then that cost is either hidden in the cost of Windows, or paid for by other profit-making products, and hidden there.
All products have development costs. Are you seriously suggesting that Microsoft did not fund WMP development? That volunteers at Microsoft produced it as a gift to Windows users?
Of course WMP have development costs. But no one can prove that Microsoft DID NOT GIVE WMP TO USERS FOR FREE and that they are passed to the consumers. BTW, it is legal to produce something and gives it to the public freely. EU tried to prove that WMP is not given for free so that they can ask Microsoft to reduce the price of WIndows XP N, but failed. Can you actually show me how WMP is not free and have costs passed onto the unsuspecting public? If you can do what EU can not do, I will salute you. But if you can't, then just shut up?
You are yet again missing the obvious point. Because of bundling your product does not just have to be better than the competition - it has to be better than it would need to be otherwise.
If have a better understanding of the nature of business monopolies and the reasons why laws have been passed to protect competitors and consumers from such monopolies. the EU and the US governments would, I am sure, be interested in hearing from you.
No, this is incorrect. All you have to do is to be better (no need to be THAT BETTER). You don't have to have products that are LIGHT YEARS better or FREE in cost to succeed against Microsoft. You can get away with it with being just a little bit better. Examples of it are Ulead Movie Maker, Executive Software Diskeeper, Nero Burning ROM, foobar2000 and many more. These software I mentioned are not that ligh-years better than the bundled Microsoft programs, but they are still making money on it. In fact, their most pressing problems is not Microsoft offerings, but software piracy.
I am waiting patiently for some certain software companies to realize that they can actually compete with Microsoft and wins, as long as they can do what they should have done.
IE for those is not the same as the bundled IE for Windows - even Microsoft says so: the IE for Windows is a thin layer over a core Windows API.
Yes, they are not the same, but IE for those version still costs money to make, but is available for free and the loss created from giving away IE for those platforms are not passed to Windows license buyers.
Apple is not a monopoly.
They have a monopoly is digital music services with DRM. Th
The natural reluctance of a typical user to want to mess with their system. If you have a product pre-installed on your system, why would you bother to switch unless the competing product was MUCH better?
And how Microsoft is guilty in this? Are they not allowed to ship QUALITY software? Are you saying that shipping quality has suddenly become a crime?
And please also explain why other programs like Winamp/foobar which are better but NOT THAT BETTER can still command significant userbase, and not afraid at all at the bundled WMP (and need to resort to lawsuits). It seems that those users still bothers to download those programs even though WMP is good enough for them. BTW, WInamp/foobar users are not that actually advanced either.
That does not indicate fair competition. Because of bundling you have to have a MUCH better product to win, and that product has to be effectively free. Because Microsoft hides IE costs in the price of Windows, bundled products appear to be free. This means that it is extremely hard for a commercial product to compete with bundled products unless it has a great advantage.
I think what you say is already common sense. If you want to succeed, you simply has to be better than your competition. IE is free, last time I downloaded it for Mac and Solaris that's it. If you can prove the Mac/Solaris downloads will increase Windows's price, the DoJ will be interested to hear from you, because such price hiding is illegal. Read on for more.
I did not say they would not switch. I said that there would be a barrier to switching. To overcome that barrier products have to be a lot better than the bundled products. Products of equal quality can't compete.
And is there anything bad with that? If you are not good enough (and free), you will die. You simply has to be better than your competition.
If 2 products are the same in quality, people will use other yardsticks to find out which one is better at the end. Remember, there are no 2 products from different companies that are virtually the same. So, if one is free and one is aren't, you will know which product will be chosen if the quality of both are the same.
You might want to use the 'hidden costs' arguement here (like saying that WMP is not free but the cost is passed on Windows retail price), but such arguement is bollocks. Even EU are not able to prove that WMP is not free (with hidden cost passed on the Windows license price) or else they will ask the price of XP N to be discounted. If you want to use this arguement, then you can simply dish out the proof that WMP has hidden costs. If you can't, then don't. If you can, the EU and DoJ (and numerous US states) will want to hear from you.
No, it is because with bundling warping the market, 'just as good' isn't good enough. With a fair market products which are equally as good should have an equal advantage. This is obviously not the case with bundling. Firefox had to be significantly better than IE. That requirement proves that the market is warped.
Today in our era, 'Just as Good' is indeed not good enough. BTW, there are no such thing such as 2 equally good products. There will be external differences that will set out 2 competing products in the end. Usually, with Microsoft, it was the price factor. That's why any company competing with Microsoft has to take advantages in other sectors to be successful. Lots of companies has done so successfully, such as Ahead Nero, Winzip, WinRaR, Winamp, foobar, Adobe, Ulead etc. These companies still succeed against Microsoft (without making their products free or free) by exploiting other sectors that Microsoft doesn't excel at (usually at quality factor).
Microsoft plans for the long term. I already come across many sites which only provide media through WMP.
And last time I checked, you doesn't need WMP to play WMA protected files with Janus technology. Winamp plays DRM'ed WMA files them with no problems whatso
No-one was saying that Microsoft is forcing users to use WMP. However, no-one can deny that bundling software gives that software an advantage, hence it is a crutch for that software.
And what advantage is that? Care to explain?
At most this bundling will provide people with a media player they can play audio/video with.
No, just not sufficiently awful for users to switch.
This again? How hard Microsoft makes it harder for people to switch? It is not that Microsoft will prevent installation of Winamp/foobar whatever if WMP is present on the OS.
Please explain why WMP makes people unable to switch. It is just because WMP is that good enough to compete with Winamp/foobar?
That is, of course, not the point. It is not about absolute freedom, it is about bias. If software is bundled then users will tend to use it and not bother to switch. There is, therefore, an artificial barrier for competing products to overcome. Even if this is a very small barrier, we are dealing with millions of users, and can be a real problem for a company trying to compete with Microsoft.
If your theory is right, then those Firefox advocates will like to have a word with you. For example, the bundled IE sucks, and people has been using that software for a very long time. Then Firefox comes along with their Get Firefox campaign, and their market share exploded. This is achieved without any need for government help, and Microsoft responded with IE7 (I wonder if Microsoft will ever do if FF did not exist). This case alone shows that if you have a better product (and not a big company), you can still win against Microsoft. If what you say in the paragraph above is correct, there will be no explosion in Firefox usage, because after all, users are biased and doesn't bother to switch.
The case of Firefox shows that you are wrong. People are willing to switch from IE (or any other Microsoft-bundled software) to another competing product.
And meanwhile, IE unfairly devastated competing products for years and corrupted web standards to the extent that there are now a significant number of websites that won't work with competing browsers. The only way that competition could start was when the quality of IE had dropped sufficiently below that of the competition that the bundling barrier was overcome.
Thanks for providing an example which clearly backs my point!
If what you have said is true, then the problem lies with third-party companies for producing shity programs. During the pre-Firefox era, there are no competing products for Internet Explorer that is just as good or better than IE. That's why IE market share is so big.
Opera is discounted out because it is not free. People are put off by that annoying banner ads.
I think if Firefox exists in 2000 or something, IE marketshare will never reach 90%. IE reach 90% marketshare by not demolishing competitors, but there are no competitors in the first place.
IRC is a very minor market, and tends to be used by a 'geekish' minority that are happy to download and install software. With media players we are talking about a mass market, which could give enormous financial rewards to a company that can dominate the media format.
Despite WMP bundling, I doesn't see Microsoft dominates media format (WMA is still not widely acceptable like MP3). It's all still MP3s, which doesn't seem to make Thomson/Fraunhofer rich whatsoever.
Actually, use of them is relatively small. If anything, Eudora has declined over the years.
And I bet you want to say that OE bundling has everything to do with Eudra decline then, am I right?
Slashdot Mirror
The third person can bypass the second person and get all the perks the second person enjoys given to him from the first person. Freedom given to the second person is non-exclusive. Your point is one of the myths surrounding BSD license.
GPL is a fairly restrictive license, compared to Apache or BSD or MPL. Considering that the most successful open source software in the planet (Mozilla Firefox) uses dual-licensing, it does not seem that GPL is that successful.
Explain to me why GP AC says that licensing his/her code in GPL will encourage people to do the same. At best, the only reason GPL will be used if his/her code is truly godly and there are no alternative. Thus, the best way to encourage people to use GPL is to license the best quality codes under GPL. This is because, if all parameters are the same, between 2 codes that is licensed between GPL and BSD/Apache/MPL, programmers will most likely pick the latter.
I would license my code under public domain, but there are additional efforts to do to truly makes it public domain, like paperworks to truly declare it public domain ACROSS THE PLANET. Plus, if I declare my code under public domain in one country, in another country my code will be automatically copyrighted (to me) and there is nothing I can do about it.
Please do think the world consists of America only (or the Western world).
With BSD, I can just publish my code with it and be done with it. It will be BSD across the world. Uniformity is good. With PD license, that will apply only in selected countries. With BSD, it applies across the world.
BTW, what freedom BSD license takes from you if you use my BSD code?
In the end, you misuse the word ENCOURAGE, you should have use DEMAND, as per your post above.
BSD licensing gives more freedom to developers. If I have thousands of lines of BSD code, some company like Microsoft can come in and take all my code away and make it closed source. But what most people does not realize that the copyright of the code is still mine, and not Microsoft. In fact, Microsoft has to name me somewhere in their product to satisfy the copyright requirement. I lose nothing, I still have my code (many GPL people thinks I will lose my code when it is clearly isn't the case) and other developers (2nd generation, 3rd generation, whatever) still have access to my code and can do whatever they want with it, with attribution of course. Even you can take my code, even after Microsoft has done so.
This is why GPL is less free than BSD.
You are correct, but your post further invalidate the point of the GP poster, that says GPL will encourage people to license code in similar manner. By nature of the GPL, ENCOURAGE is not a option, FORCE is more appropriate.
And that's why the word 'ENCOURAGED' used by the parent poster I replied to is simply wrong. FORCE is the correct word. GPL will FORCE you to use GPL for derivative works. Are you the same AC that misleadingly used the word 'ENCOURAGED'?
Man, you should have known that with GPL, derivatives will always be GPL. Care to show me how this isn't the case? If I use your thousands of lines of GPL'ed codes, it will always be GPL.
Prove me wrong, or can you?
Yeah, orphaned is a better word indeed. But contrary to what you say, those users served by those orphaned thread will not get a unresponsive site to the point they need to refresh the page and/or renew cookies (renew cookies is highly unlikely). IIS6 use a little-known feature new in Windows Server 2003 (but common in UNIX environment) that allows 2 same process/threads to run side-by-side, copying the state of the old process to the new one. You should be able to see them in action when patching the OS. When the 107x event ID happened, IIS will create an identical thread and kill the old one. IIS does not let the orphaned threads/processes crashes, instead the resources they takes will be reclaimed. If IIS let them crashed as you said, the WIndows Server will need to be restarted every other day (depending on load) just to reclaim resources, which is not exactly correct.
Hahaha, event 1077? For god sake, do you know what event 1077 indicates? When event 1077 happened (you should know what it is if you administer IIS6), a duplicate thread is made and then replaced the old one. This does not mean that availability is compromised, it will always still be 100%. Restart is not the right word, replaced is the right one.
No, it is not necessarily have to be free, it is just have to be not too expensive and also must not be exclusive. Those who wants to license those patents should be able to get it.
*Went ahead and check the event log.....
Nope, the IIS6 here has not been restarted for nearly 2 months already (the last time I patched the server and restarted it). Maybe, just maybe, you do not know how to keep an IIS6 installation stable?
IIS5 is shit though.
To stay in the game, Firefox needs all the help it can get. And by releasing a customized version of IE7, that is not helping.
And by looking at the high IE market share, aided by Google of course, webmasters all around the world will still have to code for IE instead of using the W3C recommendations specs instead. High IE market share will always benefits Microsoft, directly or indirectly.
It helps Microsoft by keeping the IE usage rate high.
I also have a Walkman, and it dies after about 3 years of continuous use because of mechanical failure.
Warrants are different from subpoenas. Google will not resist any warrants if one comes to them. If Google resists, their Gmail datacenters will be raided by the authorities and servers will likely be confiscated and personnel arrested.
Google search history is not opt-in. It is compulsory and you doesn't even have any method to delete search history associated to your GMail account.
....I have CustomizeGoogle extension.
And also Adblock extension.
They are used to weed out evil ads, including the ones from Google.
This article has nothing to do with me, and perhaps, the majority of people who has Firefox and the 2 extensions above.
Most windows users are not interested in such applications. You have detailed knowledge of media players and systems. That is a minority use for Windows. Most Windows use is for dull office applications. And, I am afraid that insults don't help an argument.
This is anecdotal evidence. How did you know most Windows users doesn't know about Winamp or others? Is it because you works as technical support, just like I am? I don't think so. I believe that Winamp is just as famous as WMP, if not better.
I think that where your understanding of this is flawed (or so I politely suggest). Windows users are not typically Slashdot users. Saying that 'any people who have used Windows will at least have heard about Winamp' is incorrect.
Yeah, anecdotal evidence at best. But how did you know that most Windows users haven't heard about Winamp?
You keep misunderstanding me. I don't care or not about what software is bundled with Windows. The problem is always having WMP bundled in all copies of Windows. This means that it has an unfair advantage, even if other products are also bundled on some proportions of Windows installations.
I have been asking you all along, WHAT IS THE ADVANTAGE MICROSOFT WILL GET IF THEY BUNDLE WMP ONTO ALL WINDOWS INSTALLATIONS? Please answer this question, and I will be glad to refute any answer you will give me (time permitting). Are you saying that users of Windows will be locked onto WMP and doesn't want to download anything else? Nope, that's not correct. It is not that Microsoft will prevent you from downloading any other alternatives.
No, that doesn't shock me. Apple is a very small market for them and they can deal with the loss (after all, they make a loss on every Xbox sold). I'd be interested to know how you have detailed knowledge of Microsoft accounts and now that they aren't passing on the cost.
Hey, Microsoft is a publicly traded company. Their accounts is out there in the open. There are no signs in their publicly available account sheet that they passed WMP development costs to WIndows price whatsoever. If Microsoft lies, it's all Enron all over again. EU doesn't agree with you about Microsoft putting WMP costs in Windows's price, and you can't prove Microsoft is putting WMP costs on Windows' price.
This is why I ask you if Microsoft dumps WMP cost on Windows price, EU wants to hear from you. But you failed to prove that Microsoft has done so, so please stop spouting bullshit about Microsft dumping WMP cost on Windows price. IT IS SIMPLY NOT TRUE!!!!
I am not saying that they are doing anything illegal. I am saying that WMP is not free because the cost is covered by sales of other MS products. Where do you think the profit comes from to fund 'operating expenditure'?
There are other ways to fund 'operating expenditure', like taking a loan (like a lot of companies do). That's why if EU accuse Microsoft that they use their Windows profits to fund their 'operating expenditures', Microsoft will simply show them the account sheets that show that loan borrowed from whatever bank and the case will be kicked out from the Court of First Instances in record time. See why EU doesn't take that approach?
Of course I am for alternatives. The problem is not bundling in general, it is Microsoft bundling their product on their monopoly-position OS. It is called 'tying'.
And has that been deemed illegal? I don't think so. 'Tying' is not illegal, if you don't know it. Only if users are not allowed to use any other alternatives that 'tying' will become illegal.
And yet again, this not about bundling software as such, it is about the manufacturer of Windows bundling their own software, so taking advantage of the established monopoly of their OS.
The question is, is bundling programs on a monopoly OS is illegal? Don't think so. Even EU doesn't say that Microsoft bundling WMP onto Windows is illegal. So what is your poin
I haven't heard of the first two, which proves that they aren't competing well. Adobe is competing because there is no equivalent Microsoft product.
The moment you say that you never heard of Ulead (who makes Video Studio, Photoimpact etc) and Winamp, is the moment your credibilty goes out of the window. Any people who has used Windows computers at least have heard about Winamp, or used it. I will bet 90%> of /. readers must have been using (or heard about) Winamp. Ulead and Adobe make intermediate movie editing software, competing with the likes of Windows Movie Maker. And it seems that they are doing it successfully. Last time I checked, neither Adobe or Ulead has any plans to sue Microsoft for bundling WIndows Movie Maker into Windows XP.
Yes they do.
Exactly. Novice users don't want to have to install extra software or fiddle with their computers.
And I wonder the millions of downloas of Firefox must have been done by expert computer users only. C'mon! Most of the Firefox new users are novices, not a Computer Science graduate. Firefox case shows that novice users will switch to a better program if available. IE managed to dominate the browser scene mostly because there are no competitors. If a competent competitor appeared much earlier than Firefox does, the damage IE has done would have been limited.
No, they don't, as long as their programs is better.
I'm sorry, but this is incorrect. The effects of bundling products is well-established in legal and economic theory. How much better you can get away with depends on a number of factors.
(1) The intertia of consumers. (can we be bothered to change?)
(2) The cost of change (how much will we have to pay for alternative products?)
(3) The effort of change (how much of my time will an change take?)
Even if you assume that WMP is free (so competing fairly on (2)), there is still inertia and effort to be overcome. Considering that a large number of users still don't even have broadband connectivity, the idea that they will take the time (and cost) to download substantially sized alternatives to Microsoft products is naive.
So far, all you have presented is a few examples about how the computer-literate minority (probably mostly working with high-speed connections) can easily install alternative software or help others to do so.
Winamp is small (even the PRO version). Firefox is also not that hard on 33.6k dial-up modems. Plus, I didn't always talked about free (in cost) software either. Don't wanna download that hefty 300MB installer? Order it by CD for shipping costs.
About no.1, people will change if something better is offetred to them for free. About no.3, it was mostly tied with no.1, because usually good software are easier to use than cheap-ass software, thus no.3 should not be a problem.
Can you show me it isn't? Of course the development costs of WMP are funded by other profitable MS products. So, Microsoft users are paying for WMP in indirect ways. They also have no choice but to pay for WMP in these ways, as WMP is not available on other platforms.
The fact that WMP9 for Apple (shocked, don't you?) is free and that Windows price doesn't increase means that Microsoft are not passing the cost to the prtice of other software like Office or Windows. Instead, the cost of developing that software is absorbed into operating expenditure instead. There are no proof that Windows/Office users are paying indirectly for WMP for Macs. Nada. Zilch. If there is evidence that Microsoft has done so, then EU would have pounced on them a long time ago. But they can't and so do you.
No, as I don't believe in censorship.
Then what are you waiting for? Prove to me that Microsoft is hiding the cost of developing WMP onto Windows (or any other Microsoft's products) instead of absorbing them as operating expenditure. You can't, so please stop spouting BS, saying that Mi
Of course I am not, and there was nothing I said that implied that. What Microsoft should be prevented from doing is bundling software with a monopoly platform, because doing so gives their software an artificial and unfair advantage. This is nothing to do with the quality or otherwise of their software, it is to do with equality.
If you are a competitor, there is an additional factor preventing take-up of your product in addition to quality.
Then care to explain why companies (like Ulead, AOL Winamp, Adobe etc) that competes against Microsoft can do so successfully agaisnt Micrsoft bundled offerings (even that they are not free)? They doesn't seem to have problems with that so-called 'artificial and unfair advantage' you have been talking about. Once and for all, tell me what Microsoft has done to prevent people from switching?
Natural reluctance of people to switch? I already disputed that with Firefox case.
Microsoft preventing people from installing competitors product? There are no such thing happening.
You may think that is fair. I don't, and neither to major international legal organisations.
And unfortunately for the lawsuit maker (which will be Real), it will not help them in any way whatsoever. This is what they got if they don't just pucker up and competes with Microsoft the way AOL Winamp or Ulead successfully does.
WMP obviously had development costs. If it is being bundled with Windows, then that cost is either hidden in the cost of Windows, or paid for by other profit-making products, and hidden there.
All products have development costs. Are you seriously suggesting that Microsoft did not fund WMP development? That volunteers at Microsoft produced it as a gift to Windows users?
Of course WMP have development costs. But no one can prove that Microsoft DID NOT GIVE WMP TO USERS FOR FREE and that they are passed to the consumers. BTW, it is legal to produce something and gives it to the public freely. EU tried to prove that WMP is not given for free so that they can ask Microsoft to reduce the price of WIndows XP N, but failed. Can you actually show me how WMP is not free and have costs passed onto the unsuspecting public? If you can do what EU can not do, I will salute you. But if you can't, then just shut up?
You are yet again missing the obvious point. Because of bundling your product does not just have to be better than the competition - it has to be better than it would need to be otherwise.
If have a better understanding of the nature of business monopolies and the reasons why laws have been passed to protect competitors and consumers from such monopolies. the EU and the US governments would, I am sure, be interested in hearing from you.
No, this is incorrect. All you have to do is to be better (no need to be THAT BETTER). You don't have to have products that are LIGHT YEARS better or FREE in cost to succeed against Microsoft. You can get away with it with being just a little bit better. Examples of it are Ulead Movie Maker, Executive Software Diskeeper, Nero Burning ROM, foobar2000 and many more. These software I mentioned are not that ligh-years better than the bundled Microsoft programs, but they are still making money on it. In fact, their most pressing problems is not Microsoft offerings, but software piracy.
I am waiting patiently for some certain software companies to realize that they can actually compete with Microsoft and wins, as long as they can do what they should have done.
IE for those is not the same as the bundled IE for Windows - even Microsoft says so: the IE for Windows is a thin layer over a core Windows API.
Yes, they are not the same, but IE for those version still costs money to make, but is available for free and the loss created from giving away IE for those platforms are not passed to Windows license buyers.
Apple is not a monopoly.
They have a monopoly is digital music services with DRM. Th
The natural reluctance of a typical user to want to mess with their system. If you have a product pre-installed on your system, why would you bother to switch unless the competing product was MUCH better?
And how Microsoft is guilty in this? Are they not allowed to ship QUALITY software? Are you saying that shipping quality has suddenly become a crime?
And please also explain why other programs like Winamp/foobar which are better but NOT THAT BETTER can still command significant userbase, and not afraid at all at the bundled WMP (and need to resort to lawsuits). It seems that those users still bothers to download those programs even though WMP is good enough for them. BTW, WInamp/foobar users are not that actually advanced either.
That does not indicate fair competition. Because of bundling you have to have a MUCH better product to win, and that product has to be effectively free. Because Microsoft hides IE costs in the price of Windows, bundled products appear to be free. This means that it is extremely hard for a commercial product to compete with bundled products unless it has a great advantage.
I think what you say is already common sense. If you want to succeed, you simply has to be better than your competition. IE is free, last time I downloaded it for Mac and Solaris that's it. If you can prove the Mac/Solaris downloads will increase Windows's price, the DoJ will be interested to hear from you, because such price hiding is illegal. Read on for more.
I did not say they would not switch. I said that there would be a barrier to switching. To overcome that barrier products have to be a lot better than the bundled products. Products of equal quality can't compete.
And is there anything bad with that? If you are not good enough (and free), you will die. You simply has to be better than your competition.
If 2 products are the same in quality, people will use other yardsticks to find out which one is better at the end. Remember, there are no 2 products from different companies that are virtually the same. So, if one is free and one is aren't, you will know which product will be chosen if the quality of both are the same.
You might want to use the 'hidden costs' arguement here (like saying that WMP is not free but the cost is passed on Windows retail price), but such arguement is bollocks. Even EU are not able to prove that WMP is not free (with hidden cost passed on the Windows license price) or else they will ask the price of XP N to be discounted. If you want to use this arguement, then you can simply dish out the proof that WMP has hidden costs. If you can't, then don't. If you can, the EU and DoJ (and numerous US states) will want to hear from you.
No, it is because with bundling warping the market, 'just as good' isn't good enough. With a fair market products which are equally as good should have an equal advantage. This is obviously not the case with bundling. Firefox had to be significantly better than IE. That requirement proves that the market is warped.
Today in our era, 'Just as Good' is indeed not good enough. BTW, there are no such thing such as 2 equally good products. There will be external differences that will set out 2 competing products in the end. Usually, with Microsoft, it was the price factor. That's why any company competing with Microsoft has to take advantages in other sectors to be successful. Lots of companies has done so successfully, such as Ahead Nero, Winzip, WinRaR, Winamp, foobar, Adobe, Ulead etc. These companies still succeed against Microsoft (without making their products free or free) by exploiting other sectors that Microsoft doesn't excel at (usually at quality factor).
Microsoft plans for the long term. I already come across many sites which only provide media through WMP.
And last time I checked, you doesn't need WMP to play WMA protected files with Janus technology. Winamp plays DRM'ed WMA files them with no problems whatso
No-one was saying that Microsoft is forcing users to use WMP. However, no-one can deny that bundling software gives that software an advantage, hence it is a crutch for that software.
And what advantage is that? Care to explain? At most this bundling will provide people with a media player they can play audio/video with.
No, just not sufficiently awful for users to switch.
This again? How hard Microsoft makes it harder for people to switch? It is not that Microsoft will prevent installation of Winamp/foobar whatever if WMP is present on the OS.
Please explain why WMP makes people unable to switch. It is just because WMP is that good enough to compete with Winamp/foobar?
That is, of course, not the point. It is not about absolute freedom, it is about bias. If software is bundled then users will tend to use it and not bother to switch. There is, therefore, an artificial barrier for competing products to overcome. Even if this is a very small barrier, we are dealing with millions of users, and can be a real problem for a company trying to compete with Microsoft.
If your theory is right, then those Firefox advocates will like to have a word with you. For example, the bundled IE sucks, and people has been using that software for a very long time. Then Firefox comes along with their Get Firefox campaign, and their market share exploded. This is achieved without any need for government help, and Microsoft responded with IE7 (I wonder if Microsoft will ever do if FF did not exist). This case alone shows that if you have a better product (and not a big company), you can still win against Microsoft. If what you say in the paragraph above is correct, there will be no explosion in Firefox usage, because after all, users are biased and doesn't bother to switch.
The case of Firefox shows that you are wrong. People are willing to switch from IE (or any other Microsoft-bundled software) to another competing product.
And meanwhile, IE unfairly devastated competing products for years and corrupted web standards to the extent that there are now a significant number of websites that won't work with competing browsers. The only way that competition could start was when the quality of IE had dropped sufficiently below that of the competition that the bundling barrier was overcome. Thanks for providing an example which clearly backs my point!
If what you have said is true, then the problem lies with third-party companies for producing shity programs. During the pre-Firefox era, there are no competing products for Internet Explorer that is just as good or better than IE. That's why IE market share is so big.
Opera is discounted out because it is not free. People are put off by that annoying banner ads.
I think if Firefox exists in 2000 or something, IE marketshare will never reach 90%. IE reach 90% marketshare by not demolishing competitors, but there are no competitors in the first place.
IRC is a very minor market, and tends to be used by a 'geekish' minority that are happy to download and install software. With media players we are talking about a mass market, which could give enormous financial rewards to a company that can dominate the media format.
Despite WMP bundling, I doesn't see Microsoft dominates media format (WMA is still not widely acceptable like MP3). It's all still MP3s, which doesn't seem to make Thomson/Fraunhofer rich whatsoever.
Actually, use of them is relatively small. If anything, Eudora has declined over the years.
And I bet you want to say that OE bundling has everything to do with Eudra decline then, am I right?