|
Microsoft to stop bundling Media Player (pg. 8)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| loconet |
| quote: | Originally posted by rabbitjoker
Did you even read what St_Andrew said?
NO! You do not have to buy Windows to get WMP, MSN or IE. WMP, MSN and IE are available free of charge. |
Oh Yah, since I can download the latest versions of WMP, MSN and IE for one of my MACOSX (they will stop *real* development for the mac just like they did with IE) machines at work or my Linux box at home.. oh wait, those programs's only run on Windows. I guess I _have_ to buy MS Windows to interoperate with these program's closed non-standardized formats, which everyone seems to use _because_ of the desktop monopoly that MS has. You don't seem to get that WMP, MSN and IE are NOT free. There is a price that us consumers are paying for sooner or later.
To answer a previous question, having a monopoly is neither wrong, bad, nor illegal. It is illegal however to leverage a monopoly in one area into a monopoly in another by abusing their monopoly position. That is what the whole antitrust issue with MS was about after all. They broke antitrust laws. I'll take the example someone else showed me a while ago,
“Imagine you have a monopoly on potatoes. If you used your cash reserves (or simply jacked up the price of potatoes) to give away a free carrot with every potato, and continued until all the carrot companies in the world went bust, bought them all up and then put the price of carrots up 1000% or better yet, come out with “carrot cutting knives” that only cut the carrots you sell..... see the problem? Nice for you, but terrible for the consumers and for the carrot growers
Replace the potatoes with Desktop OS software, and the carrots with media player software, and you'll see what Microsoft is doing that is wrong.”
In addition to this, another result of this monopoly, which as a developer really pisses _me_ off, is what happening with MSN and happened with IE. MS once again, used the Desktop OS monopoly to kill off Netscape (No Netscape was not dead! Netscape 4.x was crap but the potential for a solid browser was there - look at mozilla/firefox ;)) and whatever other little browser that was starting to rise. This resulted in 95% of the web users using IE. By version 4.0, IE's development stopped. 5.0, 5.5, 6.0 didn't bring SQUAT to the table, mind you they used major release numbers to make it look as if it did. Internet Explorer breaks and distorts standards to the point that web designers do not care if websites don’t look right for that other 5% of users, forcing people and designers to stay with IE. Microsoft then got arrogant and decided to stop development of IE until Longhorn, after all why should they spend $ and time when they already dominate the market. MS then realized that the competition started to catch up and now have surpassed that 1998 piece of technology they call Internet Explorer. They are now FORCED to innovate (wow sp2 - popup blocker!) and IE’s development is going to restart. |
|
|
| loconet |
| quote: | Originally posted by dEsidEL
ooooh me download now .. thanks for enlightening me .. :D
does it support all the other DivX , Xvid codecs too ?
|
Yup! It can do both :D |
|
|
| Durafei |
| quote: | | They are now FORCED to innovate (wow sp2 - popup blocker!) and IE’s development is going to restart. |
Don't count on that very much. It's not in Microsoft's interests to vastly improve explorer. See - Microsoft is not interested in Web Applications. They are interested in rich clients. Why ? Because rich clients require Windows, and web applications don't. IMHO that's the main reason IE was never improved. If it was, we'd see web apps(that don't require Windows) long time ago.... And what happens when there are too many web apps that don't require Windows?? Well, Windows might suddently stop being the OS of choice. And that is certainly not something Microsoft is interested in. |
|
|
| loconet |
| quote: | Originally posted by Durafei
Don't count on that very much. It's not in Microsoft's interests to vastly improve explorer. See - Microsoft is not interested in Web Applications. They are interested in reach clients. Why ? Because reach clients require Windows, and web applications don't. IMHO that's the main reason IE was never improved. If it was, we'd see web apps(that don't require Windows) long time ago.... And what happens when there are too many web apps that don't require Windows?? Well, Windows might suddently stop being the OS of choice. And that is certainly not something Microsoft is interested in. |
True, specially with the Avalon and XAML developments coming up, it does seem like MS would like to continue playing that game using a bigger field. |
|
|
| rabbitjoker |
You f'ers win...
Check out this email from our support group today:
"It is strongly recommended that all staff discontinue the everyday use of Internet Explorer (IE). IE should only be used for development, testing purposes, Windows Updates or in certain special cases."
Grrr.. Ok, - so what should I be using: Firefox or registered Opera? |
|
|
| loconet |
| quote: | Originally posted by rabbitjoker
You f'ers win...
Check out this email from our support group today:
"It is strongly recommended that all staff discontinue the everyday use of Internet Explorer (IE). IE should only be used for development, testing purposes, Windows Updates or in certain special cases."
Grrr.. Ok, - so what should I be using: Firefox or registered Opera? |
| quote: | Originally posted by rabbitjoker
I use IE 6.0.2800.1106.xpsp2.030422-1633
I will not use other browsers. |
Ah yess...welcome to the light, free drinks are at the bar, the bathroom is to your right .. hope you feel at home :toothless .. :stongue:
jk ..Good move
I hear good things from both Opera and Firefox, I personally like Firefox better. Ofcourse it's free as in beer and as in speech, the interface is cleaner, I like the open community behind it, like to see bugs getting fixed infront my eyes and as a developer I like to customize the out of it ..:) |
|
|
| Durafei |
| I'm running firefox on linux at work.. works perfect for 95% of websites. |
|
|
| St_Andrew |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
But that still doesn't mean they're acting (a) illegally or (b) somehow against the "greater good". |
A) You obviously doesnt know anything about EU laws. It is illegal according to EU laws! Or do you think the court acted on emotions too and ignored all the laws? Cause they probably dont know anything about laws... Or actually, they do know something about antitrust laws! And they judged MS for breaking the laws, does that mean anything? Or you still know better? Or are anti trust laws anti capitalist too? If your answer is yes, oh well, then im anti capitalist.
B) Greater good must mean that it is better for society in whole? So what is the best for society, competition or no competition? |
|
|
| St_Andrew |
| quote: | Originally posted by Durafei
I'm running firefox on linux at work.. works perfect for 95% of websites. |
I would say that it is more than 95% of the times actually! only major problem i have is that Shockwave player doesnt work. |
|
|
| LoCa |
| quote: | Originally posted by rabbitjoker
Did you even read what St_Andrew said?
They are not good points - they are falsehoods.
NO! You do not have to buy Windows to get WMP, MSN or IE. WMP, MSN and IE are available free of charge. |
Actually i did read what St Andrews said. If i hadn't i wouldn't have agreed. I'm going to go over the point loconet made earlier, and the one i agreed with St Andrew upon:
YES, you DO have to pay to get WMP, MSN & IE because NONE of those are compatible with any platform OTHER than MS Windows and possibly Mac (which apparently is being discontinued anyways). In other words if you BUY MS Windows OS you will get those.
BUY is the operative word here, unless of course, you're one of those people who get your M$ OS free? At that point yes, i would agree, they are free.
Please go ahead and try and install MSN/IE/WMP on my Linux box, or on a BSD one for that matter or any of those operating systems DigiNut posted (you see i do read posts). Can you tell me why you can't get it for those? Could it be because i'm not using Windows? Hmmm.
**edit**
I didn't notice you gave up :D Good man! Welcome to FireFox :D |
|
|
| loconet |
Interesting read just released today....sad:
| quote: |
A case of insecure browsing
Exploring missed opportunities in the Microsoft antitrust suit
By ANDREW CHIN
CHAPEL HILL -- United States v. Microsoft, the most celebrated antitrust case in a generation, quietly ended its six-year run Wednesday, as the Supreme Court's deadline to file a final appeal passed without a whimper from any of the parties. Little comfort can be taken from the legal system's silence.
Now, there will be no final ruling on whether Microsoft illegally tied Internet Explorer to Windows. Internet Explorer will continue its chokehold on the World Wide Web. Even worse, the law of competition in the software industry will remain unclear and unstable.
The government wasted its best opportunity to avoid this result three years ago, when the incoming Bush Justice Department, in a stunning reversal, decided to drop its "tying" claim. Still, the road not taken -- pressing Microsoft to offer a neutral choice of Web browsers for use with Windows -- started to look a lot more appealing this summer, when Internet Explorer's security flaws made national headlines.
Many commentators, including the Department of Homeland Security's computer emergency readiness team and even Microsoft's own online magazine, Slate, recommended that Windows users switch to a more secure Web browser.
But switching can be difficult. Windows users who want to access a document on the Web are sometimes required to use Internet Explorer, flaws and all, even if they have chosen a different product for that purpose. Given the inconvenience of using two different products for the same purpose, many Windows users do not bother to try other browsers. By tilting Windows users toward Internet Explorer in this and other ways over the past nine years, Microsoft has ensured that many consumers are using a less secure browser than they would if offered a neutral choice, and prevented other software companies from competing for these customers on the merits.
The Clinton Justice Department proved all of these facts at trial. Yet the lower courts did not move to restore freedom of competition in the market for Web browsers, because they found Microsoft's appeal for freedom more compelling.
• • •
According to Microsoft, antitrust law should never require changes to the design of software products, because this will chill the freedom of programmers to innovate. One such innovation was in writing the shared blocks of code that support both operating system and Web browsing functions in Windows. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, describing Windows and Internet Explorer as "physically and technologically integrated" through this sharing of code.
Microsoft's argument might make sense if its freedom to design software products ended when the last line of code was written. But a software product does not consist of code. If it did, you would own the Windows code on your computer and could sell copies of that code with impunity.
Actually, what you own is a license consisting of certain legal rights derived from Microsoft's copyright in the Windows code, together with the technological ability to use the code with your computer in the exercise of those rights. (Similarly, when you buy a movie on a Region 1 DVD, you acquire a license to view it at your home in the United States or Canada, and the technological ability to play the DVD in those countries but not others.)
As the sole author of the license contract, Microsoft enjoys considerable freedom in defining the extent to which consumers are able to use the Windows code.
But freedom of contract is expressly limited by the antitrust laws. The courts therefore had authority to order Microsoft to license and distribute its software so as to offer a neutral choice of Web browser. Microsoft could easily have done so without undoing its programming innovations.
Instead, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals created a special antitrust immunity to license Windows and other "platform software" under contractual terms that destroy freedom of competition.
The security hazards that have resulted from Microsoft's unredressed actions are serious, and already being felt. Equally serious, but perhaps less tangible, is the D.C. Circuit's waste of judicial resources in issuing precedential opinions that fallaciously treat Microsoft's flagship software product as consisting of lines of code rather than intellectual property rights. The courts have missed a golden opportunity to affirm the freedom to compete in the information age.
(Andrew Chin is an associate professor at the UNC School of Law and a former legal extern to Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson, the trial judge in U.S. v. Microsoft. An article by Professor Chin on that case is in the current issue of the Harvard Journal of Law and Technology.)
|
source:
http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion...p-7930186c.html |
|
|
| dEsidEL |
hey i've always used Firefox too .. me want free beers
|
|
|
|
|
