|
Microsoft to stop bundling Media Player (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| rabbitjoker |
| quote: | Originally posted by 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. |
No. MSN and WMP are free.
If you can DL it without cost it is free. As in such it is bundled for free. See? |
|
|
| Durafei |
| quote: | Originally posted by rabbitjoker
No. MSN and WMP is free.
If you DL it for free - so it's bundled for free. See? |
Hm.. When was the last time you downloaded Explorer ?? Or MSN for that matter(unless it was an upgrade).
It's very "convenient" - putting it up for free download, when everybody already paid for it with their Windows purchase :D |
|
|
| Slag |
| quote: | Originally posted by Durafei
How many of you are still using Winamp for listening to music/watching movies?? Probably not too many. Even though it's arguably a better program.
|
Pfffft, I use Winamp v2.91 for music. It kicks ass. WMP for vids and such. It also kicks ass. :D |
|
|
| rabbitjoker |
| quote: | Originally posted by Slag
Pfffft, I use Winamp v2.91 for music. It kicks ass. WMP for vids and such. It also kicks ass. :D |
Winamp 5.03 Pro (and I paid for a registered version, even though I don't use any of the "registered only" features). |
|
|
| Slag |
| quote: | Originally posted by rabbitjoker
Winamp 5.03 Pro (and I paid for a registered version, even though I don't use any of the "registered only" features). |
How's the cpu usage on it? |
|
|
| Your Mother |
| 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 (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. |
You've got to be joking here! M$ was found guilty of being a monopoly in a court of law (but obviously you know more about law than the supreme court). They used their market dominance in the OS area to crush any and all competiton in another area (browsing). The laws put in place are not anti-capitalist... they are designed to promote a market economy. |
|
|
| Your Mother |
| 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.
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! |
Your talking out of your ass here... RDS is widely used because it is one of the few products from MS that is actually good and it has its niche... just like Exceed. The apps you mentioned are used primarily for IT support. Nobody in their right mind would use VNC unless its their only choice or your communicating with a legacy OS. And besides, how many un-knowledgeable end-users do you ever see using those probucts? They don't even know they exists. 95% of computer users are clueless to what actually exists on the computer. In the end, only the multi-media apps and internet apps really matter. And these are the areas that M$ used their monopoly to leverage their own goods.
Innovation has nothing to do with it... small companies with very cool products have been squashed because they didn't have the money to stand up to M$ in the court room. You people talk about marketing, but do you have any idea how big of a computer company you need to be or the type of funding you need to have to actively market a product? The dot-bombs could sometimes pull marketing off because they tricked investors into giving them exorbitant amounts of money to fund their 'shadow' projects.
-Your Mother |
|
|
| Your Mother |
| quote: | Originally posted by 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. |
The users can only get the choice if M$ gives it to them. By bundling everything with their OS, they no longer give the AVERAGE user a choice. Instead, they dictate what products they are to use... and this is a prime example of their monopolistic power.
-Your Mother |
|
|
| Your Mother |
| quote: | Originally posted by Durafei
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. |
I don't think this is quite the same as the browser wars but its close. At least the user will always be able to use google if they choose to (through IE of course).
The fact of the matter is that I don't think they can put a better product on the table than google. M$ has always been about making things pretty for the end-user and never been about innovation.
-Your Mother |
|
|
| Your Mother |
| quote: | Originally posted by Durafei
Hm.. When was the last time you downloaded Explorer ?? Or MSN for that matter(unless it was an upgrade).
It's very "convenient" - putting it up for free download, when everybody already paid for it with their Windows purchase :D |
Next time you buy a computer with windows, send the cd back to M$ for a refund. I wish more people would do that.
-Your Mother |
|
|
| loconet |
I  this thread. |
|
|
| Durafei |
| quote: | | The fact of the matter is that I don't think they can put a better product on the table than google. M$ has always been about making things pretty for the end-user and never been about innovation. |
"Pretty" could be enough to win this war. Most users are satisfied with pretty, or simply don't know any better.
However, I do believe that MS has the people and the resources to come up with a great product. As much as I'd love to believe that Google hired all the smartest people in the world, that simply isn't true. MS has some top notch people working for them as well, and considering their search engine budget is about 6 billion dollars, I think they have a chance of creating a product that will be enough for most users.
Google cannot afford to believe that MS won't come with anything as good their own search engine. That is why they constantly need to continue to innovate, to come up with new amazing products. That's why they came up with gmail, and hopefully will come up with more amazing products in the future.
That's the beauty of competition ! We, end users, end up much better off ! |
|
|
|
|
