|
Microsoft to stop bundling Media Player (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by dEsidEL
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.
|
You are absolutely, 100% correct.
My question to you, however, is this: Aren't Microsoft's competitors the ones responsible for educating users about alternatives to Microsoft bundled products, and not Microsoft itself?
Here's an example: has anyone heard of VNC? PcAnywhere? RemotelyAnywhere? Citrix? Microsoft offers Remote Desktop on new versions of Windows and Terminal Services on their servers, but almost nobody uses them. RDS is "bundled" with Windows, but for enterprise-level applications, it is so vastly inferior to products like Citrix that nobody even gives it a second thought.
Also compare MS Paint and MS Photo Editor to PaintShop Pro and Adobe Photoshop. Does any serious computer graphics artist actually rely on the former two programs? No, because they're a joke compared to real high-end programs out there.
So perhaps the fault lies with Microsoft's competitors for not being innovative enough with their products in order for end users to see a tangible difference between the "convenient" software and the "good" software. Microsoft *should* try to take end users' incentive away for looking at other products - that is every company's goal! |
|
|
| rabbitjoker |
| quote: | Originally posted by dEsidEL
probably because we're a bit more informed than your average consumer is. |
WTF purpose do you think marketing has?
Marketing's purpose is to sell a product. If the consumer isn't aware of the need - then the job of the marketer is to create the need (or educate the user as to why they should need). This happens every day with a number of products (just go ask P&G how they created the need w/ Swiffer - that's the best example I can think of, vacumes and mops work fine). |
|
|
| Durafei |
While RJ and DigiNut are probably right from the legal perspective, I still believe that this ruling is for the greater good of the people and technology.
While this ruling might create an inconvenience for the user(when he/she will need to download and install that software) it will stimulate other companies to come up with a better product, believing that they have a chance to make money from it. Microsoft in turn will be forced to improve it's product as well..
IMHO, this is far better than repeat of Internet Explorer story.. And I can guarantee you that that's precisely what's going to happen should Microsoft continue to bundle WMP with Windows.
I'm already thinking ahead about future "confrontation" between Microsoft and Google, when Microsoft will integrate it's search engine into Windows. In fact, Microsoft is relying on it's "monopoly" in that battle. If MS didn't have an option of integrating search engine into Windows, it would be a losing battle. |
|
|
| dEsidEL |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
You are absolutely, 100% correct.
My question to you, however, is this: Aren't Microsoft's competitors the ones responsible for educating users about alternatives to Microsoft bundled products, and not Microsoft itself?
Here's an example: has anyone heard of VNC? PcAnywhere? RemotelyAnywhere? Citrix? Microsoft offers Remote Desktop on new versions of Windows and Terminal Services on their servers, but almost nobody uses them. RDS is "bundled" with Windows, but for enterprise-level applications, it is so vastly inferior to products like Citrix that nobody even gives it a second thought.
Also compare MS Paint and MS Photo Editor to PaintShop Pro and Adobe Photoshop. Does any serious computer graphics artist actually rely on the former two programs? No, because they're a joke compared to real high-end programs out there.
So perhaps the fault lies with Microsoft's competitors for not being innovative enough with their products in order for end users to see a tangible difference between the "convenient" software and the "good" software. Microsoft *should* try to take end users' incentive away for looking at other products - that is every company's goal! |
i'm sure that's a lot more difficult to do depending on what sort of functions your software is meant to perform. no, i don't think it's Microsoft's job to educate users as to what products are better for them either. but i think the concern that advocates of anti-trust lawsuits have has more to do with how and whether users will ever be given the incentive to consider such alternatives. if it's the users objective to simply play an mp3 or surf the web, they may not concern themselves with any of the value-added services that either IE/Netscape or Winamp/WMP provide. however your average user is more than likely to use the MS product given the fact that it's been bundled and readily available. the fear (atleast in my opinion) that the advocates have is MS's ability to now control the content used in advertisting through their software as they establish control of the market for certain applications.
but to answer your question .. wells actually i did, it's the 2nd sentence in that above paragraph.
|
|
|
| Durafei |
| quote: | | So perhaps the fault lies with Microsoft's competitors for not being innovative enough with their products in order for end users to see a tangible difference between the "convenient" software and the "good" software. Microsoft *should* try to take end users' incentive away for looking at other products - that is every company's goal! |
At one point Hotmail was pretty innovative. What did Microsoft do ? They bought hotmail. And they bought a bunch of other companies that were being innovative.
It's extremely hard, if not impossible to compete against Microsoft when it comes to free user softwawe. Microsoft has more resources than any other company out there. If you come up with something good, Microsoft will come up with something better within a year(if it makes sense for them).. What are you going to do ? Nothing - you are either going to be bought by Microsoft, or watch yourself going bankrupt.
It's almost impossible to compete against MS. |
|
|
| dEsidEL |
| quote: | Originally posted by rabbitjoker
WTF purpose do you think marketing has?
Marketing's purpose is to sell a product. If the consumer isn't aware of the need - then the job of the marketer is to create the need (or educate the user as to why they should need). This happens every day with a number of products (just go ask P&G how they created the need w/ Swiffer - that's the best example I can think of, vacumes and mops work fine). |
i agree with you RJ, but it's like what Ilya said, the ruling in some sense helps to stimulate the incentive that other companies will have to come up with a better product and consider improved marketing. if you create an environment that people perceive as being so insurmountable as to have any chances of success, i can assure you that we'll all end up with fewer choices in the long run.
i don't consider myself an anti-globalist/capitalist and would surely use an MS product provided that it's the best choice for me.
|
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by dEsidEL
if it's the users objective to simply play an mp3 or surf the web, they may not concern themselves with any of the value-added services that either IE/Netscape or Winamp/WMP provide. |
Well, again, the question that always seems to be ignored is why should they?
You don't see camera companies suing Motorola and Nokia for their camera-phones. They certainly take away incentive to buy a digicam for anybody who "just wants to take a picture" and isn't overly concerned with zoom, focus, redeye, and high resolution. But it would be pretty hard to make the argument that someone should step in and stop these companies from integrating cameras in their cell phones.
Ya see what I'm getting at here... it's up to Microsoft's competitors to MAKE users concern themselves with the value-added services of their own products. If they don't do that, then they fail in their business, just like any other company with poor marketing.
Also, what I see with WMP is an entirely different issue. While many users now may not see the difference between WMP and Winamp, those users are going to see the difference very quickly if Microsoft tries to tighten their content control too much. There are too many people for whom MP3s are practically a way of life for Microsoft's motions in this area to just be ignored.
Remember that at the heart of this issue is not just convenience but also money. Bundled programs are free, so many users won't want to waste money on a commercial equivalent even if it is better (just look at Hotmail/gmail vs. shell/hosted mail). Once WMP starts telling users to cough up cash, those users are going to be on the prowl for alternatives faster than you can say " licensing!"
Durafei: again this comment about the greater good. You simply can't justify this. Good in whose eyes? According to what criteria? What precisely do you define as "good"? |
|
|
| DigiNut |
For those who are outraged at how impossible it is to compete with Microsoft (I'm looking at you Ilyia), you may want to consider just how many other companies are responsible for putting them in that position:
- IBM, for giving away MS-DOS;
- Xerox, for giving away the plans for MS Windows, and treating their employees like so they all fled to Microsoft;
- Apple, for adding hundreds of key innovations to the Windows patent and failing to protect their new design;
- Cap'n Crunch, an incarcerated phone phreaker who sold Excel to Microsoft for pennies;
- The NCSA, for licensing Mosaic (the browser engine used in Internet Explorer) to Microsoft for dirt cheap;
- Netscape, for publishing the CSS standard before implementing it properly in their own browser, thus making Internet Explorer the ONLY viable choice for serious web developers;
- Sybase, for giving Microsoft what was soon to become the first version of SQL Server;
- Various UNIX vendors, for licensing/selling/failing to protect critical parts of the kernel for use in Windows NT/2K.
This is really just a handful; I could go on and on with this list but hopefully you're all getting the picture. Microsoft practically built its entire business on acquiring or licensing products from 3rd parties. The reason they are such a "monopoly" now is...
*drumroll please*
THEIR COMPETITORS MADE THEM ONE! |
|
|
| dEsidEL |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Well, again, the question that always seems to be ignored is why should they?
|
i'm not sure if you want me to answer your question or if you're intentionally answering it on your own in the below paragraph ..
| quote: |
Ya see what I'm getting at here... it's up to Microsoft's competitors to MAKE users concern themselves with the value-added services of their own products. If they don't do that, then they fail in their business, just like any other company with poor marketing.
|
| quote: |
Also, what I see with WMP is an entirely different issue. While many users now may not see the difference between WMP and Winamp, those users are going to see the difference very quickly if Microsoft tries to tighten their content control too much. There are too many people for whom MP3s are practically a way of life for Microsoft's motions in this area to just be ignored.
Remember that at the heart of this issue is not just convenience but also money. Bundled programs are free, so many users won't want to waste money on a commercial equivalent even if it is better (just look at Hotmail/gmail vs. shell/hosted mail). Once WMP starts telling users to cough up cash, those users are going to be on the prowl for alternatives faster than you can say " licensing!"
|
i think MS's whole intention of bundling WMP into XP is to eventually offer similar content on demand services such as iTunes and perhaps other broadcasted media. (they've already included content advertising in version 9). if they can encourage users to use WMP by bundling it into XP it gives them a better position to compete with services like iTunes and prevent competitors from exposing their services through other media software.
|
|
|
| Durafei |
| quote: |
This is really just a handful; I could go on and on with this list but hopefully you're all getting the picture. Microsoft practically built its entire business on acquiring or licensing products from 3rd parties. The reason they are such a "monopoly" now is...
|
Do you know why those 3rd parties licensed their software to MS ? Becaues if they rejected that licensing, MS could easily create their own implementation(they've got the resources), or simply acquire that company(which they did on a number of occasions)
Is that a monopoly ?? You bet it is !
As far as 'greater good' goes. By 'greater good' I mean more satisfying experience for the user when he/she is using some kind of software. |
|
|
| Durafei |
| quote: |
You don't see camera companies suing Motorola and Nokia for their camera-phones. They certainly take away incentive to buy a digicam for anybody who "just wants to take a picture" and isn't overly concerned with zoom, focus, redeye, and high resolution. But it would be pretty hard to make the argument that someone should step in and stop these companies from integrating cameras in their cell phones.
|
Remember, there are quite a few phone companies that sell cell phones. There isn't just one. |
|
|
| Durafei |
Also, do not forget that neither Explorer, nor MSN, nor WMP is really free. It's cost is included in the cost of Windows, which you pay for when you buy your computer.
Thus by bundling those products into OS, customers have no choice but to pay for them with purchase of their computer. Which essentially forces everyone else to offer similar products for free, because users don't want to spend extra money on something that is only marginally better. |
|
|
|
|
