Having default options and default applications built into a product that you sell is not preventing competition. It's not even slowing it down. You can easily change the application that you are using for browsing or video/audio playback. Most users won't want to do this because they don't know how or don't want to bother with it, but that doesn't mean that the default option is monopolistic. User laziness and/or ignorance does not make including default applications a monopolistic practice. Millions of products are sold everyday with non-essential default applications that people replace or just don't use by their own free will.
Why should Microsoft be fined billions of dollars because there are no entreprenuers taking up the task of building another OS? It's a choice and you can run whatever OS you'd like. It's a free market system. If you don't want bundled applications with the software you buy, then don't buy the software. It seems like a relatively simple concept. If there isn't any other software, then don't use a computer. No one is forcing anyone to use a PC at home. If any other software sector lacks choices but I need to do something I just buy the best option, even if I am paying for optional things I won't use. In the free market you look at the alternatives that the market is offering and you choose the alternative that is the best for your needs and that you can afford. If no options exists, then you just do without or decide to buy something that might not meet all of your needs but that will suffice for most of them until something else comes along or you become an entreprenuer and create that something else yourself becauase you see a need in the market. The answer is not to sue the market until it provides the product that you think it should provide.
Slashdot Mirror
Having default options and default applications built into a product that you sell is not preventing competition. It's not even slowing it down. You can easily change the application that you are using for browsing or video/audio playback. Most users won't want to do this because they don't know how or don't want to bother with it, but that doesn't mean that the default option is monopolistic. User laziness and/or ignorance does not make including default applications a monopolistic practice. Millions of products are sold everyday with non-essential default applications that people replace or just don't use by their own free will.
Why should Microsoft be fined billions of dollars because there are no entreprenuers taking up the task of building another OS? It's a choice and you can run whatever OS you'd like. It's a free market system. If you don't want bundled applications with the software you buy, then don't buy the software. It seems like a relatively simple concept. If there isn't any other software, then don't use a computer. No one is forcing anyone to use a PC at home. If any other software sector lacks choices but I need to do something I just buy the best option, even if I am paying for optional things I won't use. In the free market you look at the alternatives that the market is offering and you choose the alternative that is the best for your needs and that you can afford. If no options exists, then you just do without or decide to buy something that might not meet all of your needs but that will suffice for most of them until something else comes along or you become an entreprenuer and create that something else yourself becauase you see a need in the market. The answer is not to sue the market until it provides the product that you think it should provide.