I know this is old news

[stangdaman]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070917/ap_o..._microsoft

I had posted on another forum about this a while back and for some reason I just thought of it recently. I never really got much of a response but I figured there seems to be much larger community from all over on this forum. What exactly was the beef here? Not that I will be shedding too many tears for Microsoft but what's wrong with them bundling media player with their OS. It's free to anyone who has it and it's not as if they restrict people from using some other software if they should so choose. That's not a smart ass remark I really am interested in understanding the reasoning behind it.

Oops sorry yahoo seems to have removed that story. Here it is from another source.
http://www.canada.com/topics/technology/...mp;k=42465

[kayak4ever]

Reading the article, I only understood that Microsoft lost a court case; not what the issue was or why. It's hard to comment without knowing what the issue was.

[Deusxmachina]

Microsoft did its job too well is what it boils down to. By including so much built-in software into the operating system, there was either no need or hoops to jump through for the typical person to use other software instead.

It's arguable how much, or even if, a monopoly on something should be stopped in order to possibly benefit the consumer and allow other companies to have a greater chance of succeeding, yet it's also not right that a company should be slapped just because it's done well for itself.

I think there was a legitimate case earlier about Internet Explorer or Windows itself making it difficult for people to use other browsers (or something like that), but this one looks more like they simply want Microsoft to have less market share so it can't completely dominate the market (for better or for worse).

Somewhat similar to Walmart in Chicago, after making a plan with the city and nearing completion on a new store, the city council then said they want Walmart and other "big box stores", and only those stores, mind you, to make minimum wage $10 an hour. That would have been "fair" (not really) if said before Walmart started building the store, but to spring it on them when the store is almost done is terrible. I don't care if someone hates Walmart or not, that's just a bad way for a city to do business. Even the mayor was against it.

[bgowland]

Basically, the free market isn't really a free market. If you make a product and sell it to people, you're not free to include just anything.

An example would be if I was the only manufacturer of bicycles in the world. If there were other companies that manufactured wheels and tyres suitable for the front of my bicycles, but nobody else made the back wheels with the chain gear etc., then it would be OK for me to sell bicycles with a back wheel but unfair on the other companies if I also provided a front wheel.

After all, nobody wants to be able to just buy a bicycle and ride it home. They'd rather have it delivered (without a front wheel) and then search around to find the best front wheel for their new purchase.

Ironically, 99% of people are sheep and would much rather purchase a front wheel from me as they feel more comfortable that it would be compatible with the bicycle than the third-party wheels. This, however, should not be an indication that it's OK for me to supply the front wheel automatically. Customers should be given a choice of wheels and third-party companies should be given a fair 'crack of the whip' when it comes to selling them.

As it may happen, I might be pretty good at bicycles but my front wheels are triangular. This will lead to one of two outcomes. Either the customers will simply give up on trying to ride my bicycles (sore legs etc.), or they'll wise up and buy a better front wheel. Ironically (again), this could be much better for the other companies but those companies will still complain that I make front wheels.

If I eventually work out that the other companies are making round wheels and I change my design and start including round front wheels, then I'll end up being penalised for stealing an idea that's been around forever.

Ultimately, all of this stuff really comes down to the lawyers and politicians justifying their own existence. Hmmm.

Cheers,
Brian

[stangdaman]

Reading the article, I only understood that Microsoft lost a court case; not what the issue was or why. It's hard to comment without knowing what the issue was.

Sorry about that. The original yahoo article was a bit more detailed. Thanks for the responses. I wonder if this is born a little out of lawyers who should have gotten microsoft for other things and weren't able to so now they're trying to get them with something else.

bgowland thanks for the bike analogy however from my understanding of what a monopoly is I wouldn't think that building the front tire would be a problem if other people were also building it and you didn't restrict their ability to build front tires or to use them on your bike.

Deusxmachina I don't think it's as simple as microsoft simply doing their job too well. They do seem to have an unfair advantage in many areas and I think that they do sometimes try to artificially restrict the market for their products. I don't know if I agree with this one though. I do agree with you that people go way overboard in their whole "corporations are evil" mindset though. It seems like a lot of people use that as justification to do whatever they want to companies. Your Walmart analogy is a good one.

[Deusxmachina]

Deusxmachina I don't think it's as simple as microsoft simply doing their job too well. They do seem to have an unfair advantage in many areas and I think that they do sometimes try to artificially restrict the market for their products. I don't know if I agree with this one though.

Certainly it's not as simple as Microsoft doing its job too well, but that's what this kind of thing can often boil down to if it could be explained in one sentence.

"Unfair advantages" of Microsoft... certain advantages may seem unfair, but didn't MS create those advantages itself by becoming the market leader? I guess we'd have to define what "unfair advantages" means. If I started a company in my garage then grew it to be one of the biggest on the planet, I'd probably try to restrict the market, too. If I could do so legally, of course. I'd be dumb to have a business and then let other businesses in cheaply. I have shareholders and employees that depend on me.

MS breaking the law to stifle competition is one thing, but if they haven't and are only being punished for being too big, that's different. It, like Walmart, would be getting punished for being the epitome of the basics of what a good business is all about -- getting punished for being too good at it.

We'd have to do more homework on this case to figure out all the details. Probably better to wait for the TV-movie and then set GBPVR to record it.

[kayak4ever]

I have a tendency not to use MS products where another product is available, simply because the other product is likely to work harder and offer more options. Even if the products are the same, using and paying for the other product minimizes monopolies. Not everyone can afford that luxury. To the extent that people avoid MS products simply because of the big corporate image, they are also encouraging free enterprise at the same time. My comments probably sound overblown given what I pay for firefox, but having used firefox and explorer, I like the options on firefox better. To a large extent, it is up to me the consumer to make the choice to keep free enterprise alive, even though I am effectively paying for explorer when I purchase my MS operating system.

[bgowland]

bgowland thanks for the bike analogy however from my understanding of what a monopoly is I wouldn't think that building the front tire would be a problem if other people were also building it and you didn't restrict their ability to build front tires or to use them on your bike.

From your original post...

but what's wrong with them bundling media player with their OS

I'm currently sitting here with my headphones on listening to a ShoutCast stream with WinAmp. At what point was the development of WinAmp restricted by WMP being bundled with Windows? Using WMP as an example, part of my point was that early versions of WMP (and arguably) the current version are inferior to other third-party products which have been developed with the open documentation of Windows APIs. MS have continued to provide documentation of APIs for as long as I can remember.

To continue with my lack of understanding as to how MS supposedly have a 'monopoly', all of us here have a common interest - GB-PVR (which relies very much on various MS technologies, DirectShow, .NET etc.) and which far surpasses the feeble attempt of Windows XP MCE to provide a 'home theatre experience'.

Don't even get me started when it comes to the anti-trust suit when MS embedded the capability for Windows to open files beginning 'http://' (Internet Explorer in its early days). You start with a DOS (generic acronym for disk operating system) then you provide a NOS (network operating system). So where's the difference to being allowed to provide the user the ability to open a file with a URI of 'C:\blah' but you're monopolising if they can open a file with a URI of 'http://blah'. As far as I remember, Netscape charged money for a Windows application that exploited the ability to access HTTP/HTML technologies - both of which are (and always were) open standards. They got upset when MS gave that away for free.

I'm neither pro nor anti MS but I've been in this game for a long time and often I just see that there's a whole load of money men making a buck wherever they can.

I recently had a conversation with a guy that runs a business promoting open source software to companies (he hates MS with a passion). He's aiming to make 5 million before he retires and he prossibly will. Does he care about open source - yeah, sure - because it's going to make him big money.

Cheers,
Brian

[stangdaman]

"Unfair advantages" of Microsoft... certain advantages may seem unfair, but didn't MS create those advantages itself by becoming the market leader? I guess we'd have to define what "unfair advantages" means. If I started a company in my garage then grew it to be one of the biggest on the planet, I'd probably try to restrict the market, too. If I could do so legally, of course. I'd be dumb to have a business and then let other businesses in cheaply. I have shareholders and employees that depend on me.

I agree that every business has the right or even the obligation to do as well as it can. I think the discussion is different in dealing with OS then what this particular situation seems to be dealing with which is media software. The reason I didn't understand what the problem was with media software is that it seems to me there is a lot of competition on that front. If you're talking about operating systems even though I'd agree with you that MS is just doing what any good company should that fact that the average consumer has virtually no options as to what they can have loaded on their PC (they can go the linux route but most consumers have no idea how to go about that) even if it's through no fault of microsofts I would think that those who are supposed to protect the consumer (i.e.their government officials) have some obligation to create an environment that is atleast open to other peoples innovations. Of course if people choose not to purchase the other then that's their own fault for the narrow market. I guess I can understand the market share argument that way.

I can't believe I'm saying that because I usually hate any government interference in these kind of things I would rather see the market work it out for itself. But maybe if the market has become too unbalanced, I don't know that it has or not, it's the obligation of someone to balance it again. I guess I think the EU countries tend to be too anti big business and we in the States tend to go too far in the other direction and I was interested to hear someones opinion who lives in one of the EU countries to see what the thinking was behind all of this.

[HtV]

About the market being unbalanced: I think the profit of microsoft is ~25-30 % of the sales. If a company can make that kind of profit it shows that there is too little competition.