|
Microsoft to stop bundling Media Player (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| dEsidEL |
| quote: | Originally posted by Durafei
In particular consider this: Internet Explorer at one point killed Netscape. And... for 3 years we have seen absolutely no progress in browsing experience. Only now, 3 years later, Mozilla finally introduced some new features, and Explorer will follow it's footsteps. |
let's not forget stupidass MSN uprooting ICQ ..
|
|
|
| rabbitjoker |
| quote: | Originally posted by Durafei
Monopolism kills competition. And competition is necessary for further progress. |
I think you need to evaluate how you've come to the conclusion MS is a monopoly.
Monopolism is the exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service.
MS did not force people to use WMP. Further, MS even shared information with developers so that they could produce their own players and have it work -flawlessly- with their OS.
MS simply made the choice to bundle WMP into their OS for free (as a value add). MS in NO WAY kept "exclusive control" over a user's media player choice or forced users to use WMP exclusively. If MS was monopolistic they would write the OS so that no other software BUT WMP would work.
Ok - now back to your conclusion:
Monopolism kills competition - yes, but clearly based on the above - bundling WMP into the OS is not monopolistic.
So - back to your point on competition - yes, competition spurs innovation. However - removing one player from the market (or market dominance) is anti-innovation. Yes, it levels the playing field for the sub-par/inferior products, howerver it kills the drive for progress (what's the point of investing and being the best and having the most market share if it's just going to get santions placed on your business - might as well let someone else bare the RD expense).
WMP is NOT the best product for all applications - but it suits the majority of the users pretty damn well (or the users would have looked to other options). It's not MS's fault that Nullsoft has a piss-poor marketing department, it's not MS's fault that Real is a resource hog and it's not MS's fault that Apple charges for QT.
This action is just anti-capitalists trying protect the weaker players without respect how it will hamper progress, innovation and invention. |
|
|
| dEsidEL |
| quote: | Originally posted by rabbitjoker
I think you need to evaluate how you've come to the conclusion MS is a monopoly.
Monopolism is the exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service.
MS did not force people to use WMP. Further, MS even shared information with developers so that they could produce their own players and have it work -flawlessly- with their OS.
MS simply made the choice to bundle WMP into their OS for free. MS in NO WAY kept "exclusive control" over a user's media player choice. If MS was monopolistic they would write the OS so that no other software BUT WPM would work.
Ok - now back to your conclusion:
Monopolism kills competition - yes, but clearly based on the above bundling WMP into the OS is not monopolistic.
So - back to your point on competition - yes, competition spurs innovation. However - removing one player from the market (or market dominance) is anti-innovation. Yes, it levels the playing field for the sub-par/inferior products, howerver it kills the drive for progress.
WMP is NOT the best product for all applications - but it suits the majority of the users pretty damn well (or the users would have looked to other options).
This action is just anti-capitalists trying protect the weaker players without respect how it will hamper progress, innovation and invention. |
my interpretation of what Durafei was trying to convey was that by bundling WMP into XP, it essentially provides less incentive for people to go about downloading 3rd party software capable of performaing the same functions as WMP (perhaps even better). the same is attributable to the reductions in use of such programs as Netscape Navigator and Mirabilis ICQ. no one forced people to use IE or MSN either, but the fact that they were so readily available on the OS creates that 'convenience' factor of not having to go about obtaining other software.
the word 'monopoly' is thrown around so much but the context in which it is used is rarely ever to describe a 'pure monopoly' which is obviously what you're stating it to be..
i see MS as being more of a Walmart than anything else. Windows XP is like shelf space, and the more you control shelf space, the more control you have over which products are given greater exposure on the market (mainly your own).
|
|
|
| rabbitjoker |
| quote: | Originally posted by dEsidEL
the fact that they were so readily available (MSN, IE, WMP) on the OS creates that 'convenience' factor of not having to go about obtaining other software. |
Maybe if the other options were more innovative (in product, marketing and pricing) users would choose other options.
MS is being punished because they decide to bundle and make things conenient for users - and other developers are rewarded because of their inability to effectivly market their product or innovate features. |
|
|
| starsearcher |
| I only use iTunes...the coolest product out there right now as far as I'm concerned...especially the synchronization with the apple movie trailers website and video clips...nothing beats it :D:D:D go MAC! |
|
|
| St_Andrew |
| quote: | Originally posted by rabbitjoker
I think you need to evaluate how you've come to the conclusion MS is a monopoly.
Monopolism is the exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service.
MS did not force people to use WMP. Further, MS even shared information with developers so that they could produce their own players and have it work -flawlessly- with their OS. |
That was however after "anti capitalist people" had forced them to do so.
| quote: | | MS simply made the choice to bundle WMP into their OS for free (as a value add). MS in NO WAY kept "exclusive control" over a user's media player choice or forced users to use WMP exclusively. If MS was monopolistic they would write the OS so that no other software BUT WMP would work. |
That doesnt change the fact that people tend to stick with the preinstalled, in this case WMP. If budnling the operating system that already has a 95% market share with a certain software, doesnt give that software an unfair advantage in the market, why is that always before when Mircosoft has done that, it has gained huge market shares (IE, MSN Messenger, WMP, etc)
| quote: | Ok - now back to your conclusion:
Monopolism kills competition - yes, but clearly based on the above - bundling WMP into the OS is not monopolistic.
So - back to your point on competition - yes, competition spurs innovation. However - removing one player from the market (or market dominance) is anti-innovation. Yes, it levels the playing field for the sub-par/inferior products, howerver it kills the drive for progress (what's the point of investing and being the best and having the most market share if it's just going to get santions placed on your business - might as well let someone else bare the RD expense). |
I dont think anyone here advocates that Microsoft should drop WMP, it will still be a product! and the best thing, it will compete on EXACTLY the same condition as all the other players! why is that not fair for you?
| quote: | | WMP is NOT the best product for all applications - but it suits the majority of the users pretty damn well (or the users would have looked to other options). It's not MS's fault that Nullsoft has a piss-poor marketing department, it's not MS's fault that Real is a resource hog and it's not MS's fault that Apple charges for QT. |
The problem is that yes WMP fit the mjority of the users pretty damn well, but so does most of the other products! So thats the problem, people are lazy so if they have a product there already, they wont download a new one, as long as the one already installed works.
| quote: | | This action is just anti-capitalists trying protect the weaker players without respect how it will hamper progress, innovation and invention. |
I still dont see how fair competion is protecting the weaker players... |
|
|
| dEsidEL |
| quote: | Originally posted by rabbitjoker
Maybe if the other options were more innovative (in product, marketing and pricing) users would choose other options.
MS is being punished because they decide to bundle and make things conenient for users - and other developers are rewarded because of their inability to effectivly market their product or innovate features. |
i would imagine that there are countless other programs out there that perform far better than MS applications but they simply lack the capital and resources to expose their products as effectively as MS. the fact that MS bundles certain programs into their OS will not make their efforts any easier either.
my opinion is that MS objectives in bundling software like MSN and WMP into their OS has more to do with content control through agreements with advertisers that use such programs to offer content on demand than it does with the fact that the programs themselves perform better than that of their competitors.
|
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by dEsidEL
...by bundling WMP into XP, it essentially provides less incentive for people to go about downloading 3rd party software capable of performaing the same functions as WMP (perhaps even better). the same is attributable to the reductions in use of such programs as Netscape Navigator and Mirabilis ICQ. no one forced people to use IE or MSN either, but the fact that they were so readily available on the OS creates that 'convenience' factor of not having to go about obtaining other software. |
We have a word for that: Business.
Microsoft had some pretty shady business practices with regards to their APIs (I'd call it borderline fraud) and the U.S. government took care of that, but there's no legitimate argument for forcing them to stop bundling a piece of software into their OS. How can anyone in good conscience blame Microsoft for the laziness and/or ignorance of Windows users?
With regards to the IE vs. Netscape argument, Nutscrape was just a piss-poor browser and lost its market share because IE was 10 times better. NS didn't even implement the CSS standard properly and they INVENTED the standard for christ's sake! Nonetheless, I use Firefox on my XP box 99% of the time and rarely touch IE, despite its "bundling" into the system. There's absolutely nothing stopping me from doing so or forcing me to use IE, except for a few very poorly-designed webpages coming from very ignorant designers who just assumed that everyone would use IE to access their site.
The fault lies with idiotic consumers and developers, not Microsoft. Microsoft may have taken advantage of that stupidity, but as far as I know, that's legal to do in business. TV commercials do it all the time! If the argument here is that other smaller companies don't have the necessary capital to compete with Microsoft, then perhaps the problem we should be looking at is corporate regulations and taxes, not the success of one large corporation.
"For the greater good" - I dare anyone to look me in the eye and tell me that doesn't spring up images of Communist Soviets. |
|
|
| rabbitjoker |
| You both have valid points, however I still feel it should be users who dictate which product they use (and how, and when, and why) than anti-globalistic anti-capitalists. |
|
|
| dEsidEL |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
The fault lies with idiotic consumers and developers, not Microsoft. Microsoft may have taken advantage of that stupidity, but as far as I know, that's legal to do in business. |
i can agree with that..
however i still don't see how the bundling of any of this software is going to help the process of educating users about alternatives. nor do i see any major changes in the way that users go about choosing what programs they use en masse anytime in the near future given these kind of trends.
|
|
|
| DigiNut |
One other thing: With respect to content control, I can definitely see the conflict of interest and the need for government to step in. Until we can unwrap the red tape around software licensing and give people back the First Sale Rule (i.e. the right to reverse-engineer and resell), it's important to make sure that some of Microsoft's aggressive corporate practices (again, specifically with respect to content control) don't crush the rest of the marketplace by carrying legal weight. In many ways, Microsoft bent and twisted vague copyright laws to achieve their own ends, and such abuse of the legal system should not be permitted and WAS not permitted by the U.S. government.
When it comes to "protecting the weaker players" though, I still see it as one of those half-baked Socialist ideas that don't really make any sense when you think about it. Ultimately that can only hamper innovation and be bad for the marketplace.
If you don't have money, you don't do business. It's as simple as that. I once waited 7 months for one measly paycheque from a summer job because they were waiting on a government handout and kept screwing up the paperwork. I have no respect for organizations that can't scrape together their own friggin' cash. There's bank loans, investors, venture capitalists, profit-sharing, licensing agreements, and a whole LOAD of other ways to break into the marketplace no matter how big your competitors are. The only companies that need to be "protected" are the ones that are already doomed to failure. Just look at Bombardier. |
|
|
| dEsidEL |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
With regards to the IE vs. Netscape argument, Nutscrape was just a piss-poor browser and lost its market share because IE was 10 times better. NS didn't even implement the CSS standard properly and they INVENTED the standard for christ's sake! Nonetheless, I use Firefox on my XP box 99% of the time and rarely touch IE, despite its "bundling" into the system. There's absolutely nothing stopping me from doing so or forcing me to use IE, except for a few very poorly-designed webpages coming from very ignorant designers who just assumed that everyone would use IE to access their site.
|
i don't think that ur average Joe Blow has any clue what a CSS even is. it's rather more than likely that he/she now uses IE because it's 'already there'. some of us who use Firefox/Mozilla do so probably because we're a bit more informed than your average consumer is. take away their incentive to look for alternatives and you'll have a large group of people who will continuously accept whatever's fed to them, unless some revolutionary awakening somehow occurs ..
|
|
|
|
|
