If the competitors implement solutions which are DRM free, then their solutions will be 100% iPod compatible, as long as they don't involve WMA as a format. If they then become successful, then the Apple will need to rethink its approach.
Apple could play nice to the competitors or the competitors could play nice to consumers. I would like both, but given a choice, I would rather the latter.
If the competitors implement solutions which are DRM free, then their solutions will be 100% iPod compatible, as long as they don't involve WMA as a format. If they then become successful, then the Apple will need to rethink its approach.
Apple could play nice to the competitors or the competitors could play nice to consumers. I would like both, but given a choice, I would rather the latter.
Actually, iPods can play WMA, just not protected WMA.
Actually, iPods can play WMA, just not protected WMA.
Actually, iPods cannot play WMA (the hardware is capable, but Apple don't provide a WMA codec). iTunes on Windows (and maybe OS X, haven't checked) can convert WMA to AAC, which entails quality loss.
This is not entirely true. What you wrote would be true if music was sold in a free market. Indeed, in a free market, a dissatisfied buyer can go elsewhere to buy the product he wants. Unfortunately, you cannot do that with music.
Actually, monoplies are quite prevalent in a free market. Extracting monopoly profits is an incentive for innovation, which is what Apple has done. If you destroy a company's ability to maintain the market share they've won with their innovation and smart dealings, you destroy the incentive to innovate. Monopolies will crumble under their own weight if they don't continue to innovate. You just have to be willing to let things work themselves out. Some countries are less tolerant of the free market system (frequently in Europe this is the case). Sometimes countries are successful in destroying these incentives, but are still able to enjoy the benefits because they are a small enough portion of the market that they can freeload off the profit incentives paid by consumers in other countries which guarantees continued innovation. For example: Canadians get their drugs for cheap because the government is the only demander (this case is called monopsony, the parallel of monopoly--one supplier). However, if the large U.S. market profits these drug companies earn weren't around to sustain the Canadians, there would be significantly less innovation by U.S. drug companies. (unless you want the government to pay them to innovate too).
So, as I said, in a real capitalistic free market one would have many record company selling the same singer, and then the end user could choose the product they want, at the price point they want. And as I said, if you think Madonna chose the price her latest record was sold, you don't know a thing about this industry ! I never said I wanted to steal anything, by the way, that's your conclusion !
My god! Do you know nothing about capitalism? In capitalism, people with goods to sell frequently make deals with other entities to be exclusive distributors of their goods. While Madonna probably had little to do with deciding the price point of her latest Album, she did contract the right to make that decision in a very capitalistic free market way.
I beg you to take an Econ 101 class before ever speaking about economics in a public forum again. You are offending those of us who are economists.
Record labels insist on licensing songs on a per-country basis. This is sometimes necessary because different countries have different negotiators and distributors, but most of the time, it's really just a (semi-illegal) attempt at controlling the markets.
In any case, the necessity of per-country stores is not Apple's doing nor in Apple's interest; they don't have a choice.
Yes. It would seem to me that if these countries were not happy about Apple's, or anyone's DRM, they could have made that known when the licensing negotiations were happening, rather than waiting until everything was settled, and the business model functioning.
For them to do this now seems to be hypocritical. If these consumer protection agencies were anywhere as good as some here seem to think they are, they could have easily seen what Apple's terms were elsewhere, and stepped in at the beginning. This could have been solved, one way ot the other, two years ago.
And completely unfair, IMO. Businesses make long term plans which governments should not disrupt by suddenly changing the law, unless there is really a compelling public interest to do so. IMO, this will not serve the public interest, since it may well result in the dissappearance of a nordic iTMS.
HELSINKI, Aug 16 (Reuters) - Sweden's consumer rights agency on Wednesday said it and other rights groups in Scandinavia will meet Apple Computer to discuss their complaint that the U.S. company's popular iTunes service breaches consumer laws.
In June, the consumer agencies of Sweden, Denmark and Norway jointly wrote to Apple alleging that customers had to waive fundamental rights, such as the free use of legally bought products, to download music from iTunes.
The U.S. computer maker has responded in writing, but wants a face-to-face discussion as well, Marianne Abyhammar, Sweden's acting consumer ombudsman, told Reuters.
"They (Apple) have asked to meet the authorities and explain their position," she said. "We will call such a meeting, to be held in Oslo, as soon as possible." "The ambition is to arrange for a meeting at the beginning of September, but no date has been set yet."
Norway's consumer rights agency has said one of its main concerns was that iTunes limited customers' right to freely use legally acquired products by implementing software to protect downloaded files from illegal copying and distribution.
The technology, known as Digital Rights Management (DRM), means no portable players other than Apple's own iPods can play files downloaded from iTunes.
In June, the French parliament pulled back from legislation that would have forced stores like iTunes to share their DRM code, effectively removing barriers that keep songs from being played on other companies' devices.
After complaints from Apple and other opponents that the French legislation would open the door to piracy and threatened the future of online music sales, the French parliament passed a watered-down version of the law that left online distributors with significant control over this code.
In its written response to the Scandinavian agencies' complaint, Apple said it might consider changing some of its practices, Abyhammar said.
"But not in those parts that deal with geographical specifications and limitations on other MP3 players than iPods," she said.
The Swedish and Norwegian consumer ombudsmen both said the agencies were not planning any immediate legal action.
"The issue in the first round is how we'll deal with the answer we got from iTunes and what to do about it," Norwegian Ombudsman Lars Helgesen said.
"We will not take legal action immediately ... On the points were we disagree we will negotiate further and an eventual (legal) case will come further ahead in time."
Next, could someone's government please sue all of the vacuum cleaner manufacturers because not all of the vacuum cleaner bags are compatible with all of the vacuum cleaners? I swear if I come home with one more 3-pack of vacuum cleaner bags that doesn't fit in my vacuum cleaner, I'm going to have to hurt somebody.
This really needs to be fixed now. It's ridiculous that it has gone on this long.
Record labels insist on licensing songs on a per-country basis. This is sometimes necessary because different countries have different negotiators and distributors, but most of the time, it's really just a (semi-illegal) attempt at controlling the markets.
In any case, the necessity of per-country stores is not Apple's doing nor in Apple's interest; they don't have a choice.
I do realize it's not Apples interest, and it's enforced by others. Also questions about national regulations about music sales can be problematic, but still what if I made the purchase from abroad, just let me buy from what ever iTunes site I want, don't make artificial restrictions with credit cards. Also it's hard to see what is the business logic for record labels not to let people to buy music they want?!?! With tv shows it's a bit different story, because companies don't only just do direct business with people, but they also need to sell programs to channels. I have also wondered when does iTunes become direct market channel itself, why do indie bands need record label for? Let them directly sell their songs in the price point they want, 99cent still being the maximum per track.
Quick, someone say, "If you don't like iPods and iTunes Music Store Music, don't buy them!" or "you can burn to CD and rip your songs back, so you can do anything you want!"... completely demonstrating your misunderstanding of the problems with proprietary DRM systems.
Well, someone could also say if you don't like the windows operating system, don't buy it, yet the justice department brought a suit against Microsoft for its business practices (forcing it to allow competitors products in it's operating system, etc). I remember many in this forum agreeing with that decision. The politiicians doing this are not anti apple or pro microsoft.. However, you have to be carefull when you do something specific to one company.. it might apply to Apple too!!!. I bet when charges were brought against microsoft for being an unfair monopoly, we could never imagine apple in a similiar situation (yeah, there are other players but please, don't tell me apple is not a monopoly in the mp3 market. Please don't make me laugh uncontrollably.. my stomach already hurts). Actually, this is a good thing, at least it demonstrates that apple is a monopoly in something. I think apple should hire the same lawyers microsoft did. Microsoft basically got out under those charges mostly unscathed.
Well, someone could also say if you don't like the windows operating system, don't buy it, yet the justice department brought a suit against Microsoft for its business practices (forcing it to allow competitors products in it's operating system, etc). I remember many in this forum agreeing with that decision. The politiicians doing this are not anti apple or pro microsoft.. However, you have to be carefull when you do something specific to one company.. it might apply to Apple too!!!. I bet when charges were brought against microsoft for being an unfair monopoly, we could never imagine apple in a similiar situation (yeah, there are other players but please, don't tell me apple is not a monopoly in the mp3 market. Please don't make me laugh uncontrollably.. my stomach already hurts). Actually, this is a good thing, at least it demonstrates that apple is a monopoly in something. I think apple should hire the same lawyers microsoft did. Microsoft basically got out under those charges mostly unscathed.
Those charges were completely idiotic. Microsoft was completely justified in bundling a browser into their OS. What's really the difference between a program that accesses a local file system or a program that accesses a remote file system, longer wires? Do we really want the government deciding issues like how long the wires can be which our built-in OS's can use to access data?
Moreover, as history has borne out, the web has become a type of OS on it's own, with it's own separate API's which are frequently used instead of MS's own API's--they were clearly right to integrate them into their own OS as a part of good innovation/competition.
At least in the US, there is NOTHING illegal about being a monopoly. In many cases, the state even makes laws explicitly to maintain a monopoly status for a company (e.g. some utility providers). The thing that is illegal in the US is to use "bad behavior" to maintain or obtain market power (e.g. price fixing (collusion), or mergers to create a monopoly).
Apple has not done anything that should be considered "bad behavior". They have even fought hard to maintain a low price on music for the consumer. Morover, there are plenty of alternative players selling for cheaper than the iPod that do the same things and even more. Apple has obtained and maintained its high market share by what can only be called "good behavior" (e.g. good marketing, good product design, making the easiest PC-to-device synchronization, the best designed music store, etc.).
I'd love to go into the discussion of why vertical monopolies are actually usually a good thing for consumers as opposed to horizontal monopolies, but I think we've had enough economics for one day.
Those charges were completely idiotic. Microsoft was completely justified in bundling a browser into their OS.
Yep, but that was not what the case was about. Microsoft made it hard to delete it, make another browser the default, and denied computer manufacturers to bundle other browsers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bdj21ya
Moreover, as history has borne out, the web has become a type of OS on it's own
Yep, but that was not what the case was about. Microsoft made it hard to delete it, make another browser the default, and denied computer manufacturers to bundle other browsers.
You're right, I had ignored that part of the charges. However, there is no reason why MS should have to make their OS so that you can remove a certain part of it, and a browser is still just a peice of software to allow users to access filesystems not stored locally--something that really should be part of an OS.
However, the part about denying manufacturers the right to bundle other browsers was more clearly bad behavior.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JLL
Which is exactly what Microsoft tried to prevent.
I don't agree with that at all. MS was just incorporating the ability to access web API's into their OS, not trying to prevent their evolution (just control it).
You're right, I had ignored that part of the charges. However, there is no reason why MS should have to make their OS so that you can remove a certain part of it, and a browser is still just a peice of software to allow users to access filesystems not stored locally--something that really should be part of an OS.
When you are a monopoly, you have a distinct set of rules to follow. those rules make a great deal of sense. When Rockefeller owned Standard oil, he controlled what was then 90% of the world market. he was required to break up the company. If he didn't, the company would still control 90% of the worlds oil. Some things just have to be done.
MS could force every other software company out of existence if they weren't prevented from doing so, just as they basically put Netscape out of business, and others as well.
Quote:
However, the part about denying manufacturers the right to bundle other browsers was more clearly bad behavior.
this is the other side of having a monopoly, the ability to force other companies to follow your line through coercion. That is how they prevented other companies from testifying against them.
Quote:
I don't agree with that at all. MS was just incorporating the ability to access web API's into their OS, not trying to prevent their evolution (just control it).
Totally wrong!
MS always attempts to subvert standards. They tried that with Java as well, you might remember, but the courts prevented it.
That's the other problem with monopolies. MS has such a large marketshare that whatever they do will become a standard on Windows. As Windows controls much of the software world, it effectively wipes out other competing standards. MS takes those standards, and changes them so that they only work with windows, forcing programmers to write to those now Windows-centric standards, cutting out other OSes. Unless they are prevented from doing so by outside forces, which are usually only governments, as other companies either don't have the clout, or are afraid to try.
Apple's iPod/Fairplay is not really in the same boat at this time, but, it could be.
MS always attempts to subvert standards. They tried that with Java as well, you might remember, but the courts prevented it.
That's the other problem with monopolies. MS has such a large marketshare that whatever they do will become a standard on Windows. As Windows controls much of the software world, it effectively wipes out other competing standards. MS takes those standards, and changes them so that they only work with windows, forcing programmers to write to those now Windows-centric standards, cutting out other OSes. Unless they are prevented from doing so by outside forces, which are usually only governments, as other companies either don't have the clout, or are afraid to try.
Your comment seems to support my claim that MS wanted to control the developing web API's. MS wanted to control Java as well.
Your comment seems to support my claim that MS wanted to control the developing web API's. MS wanted to control Java as well.
What I'm totally disagreeing with was the notion that MS should be allowed to make a browser, and give it away for free, in a market where the main income for other browser companies was the sale of the browser itself.
That destroyed the market for serious competition in browsers. Firefox is cheered because it has over 10% of the market right now. It might go to 15%, or even 20%, but it's unlikely to go much higher.
If MS was forced to have the browser as a freestanding product, as they did in the beginning, then it would have had to stand on its quality, which it couldn't.
Only after MS destroyed Netscape's business model, and they could no longer afford the constant R&D, did IE begin to surpass it.
MS did the same to Persuasion, the best presentation program out there. Persuasion outsold Powerpoint at better than 3 to 1 retail. But when MS put the inferior product into Office, Persuasion disappeared. You can't compete with a free product, as long as it's supported by MS, and is just "good enough".
Because of its position, MS should not be allowed to compete if it isn't doing so on a level playing field. That means charging proper amounts for its products, and seeing if they can succeed.
The only reason why the X Box is still around is because of the monopoly profits from the OS and Office. No other company would have continued to produce if after losing so much money.
Next, could someone's government please sue all of the vacuum cleaner manufacturers because not all of the vacuum cleaner bags are compatible with all of the vacuum cleaners? I swear if I come home with one more 3-pack of vacuum cleaner bags that doesn't fit in my vacuum cleaner, I'm going to have to hurt somebody.
This really needs to be fixed now. It's ridiculous that it has gone on this long.
Stinking dirt bags!
And Shoes!!! My foot only seems to fit well with the way Nike measures a shoe. I wear a size 10.5 in Nike. But European shoes have no half sizes. And in other brands I have to wear a 10, or a 10 wide, ore a 10 double wide. Seems they have the lock on the right fit.
I think it's time to send them all walking! And not to mention metric vs US measurements.....
Comments
Apple could play nice to the competitors or the competitors could play nice to consumers. I would like both, but given a choice, I would rather the latter.
If the competitors implement solutions which are DRM free, then their solutions will be 100% iPod compatible, as long as they don't involve WMA as a format. If they then become successful, then the Apple will need to rethink its approach.
Apple could play nice to the competitors or the competitors could play nice to consumers. I would like both, but given a choice, I would rather the latter.
Actually, iPods can play WMA, just not protected WMA.
Actually, iPods can play WMA, just not protected WMA.
Actually, iPods cannot play WMA (the hardware is capable, but Apple don't provide a WMA codec). iTunes on Windows (and maybe OS X, haven't checked) can convert WMA to AAC, which entails quality loss.
This is not entirely true. What you wrote would be true if music was sold in a free market. Indeed, in a free market, a dissatisfied buyer can go elsewhere to buy the product he wants. Unfortunately, you cannot do that with music.
Actually, monoplies are quite prevalent in a free market. Extracting monopoly profits is an incentive for innovation, which is what Apple has done. If you destroy a company's ability to maintain the market share they've won with their innovation and smart dealings, you destroy the incentive to innovate. Monopolies will crumble under their own weight if they don't continue to innovate. You just have to be willing to let things work themselves out. Some countries are less tolerant of the free market system (frequently in Europe this is the case). Sometimes countries are successful in destroying these incentives, but are still able to enjoy the benefits because they are a small enough portion of the market that they can freeload off the profit incentives paid by consumers in other countries which guarantees continued innovation. For example: Canadians get their drugs for cheap because the government is the only demander (this case is called monopsony, the parallel of monopoly--one supplier). However, if the large U.S. market profits these drug companies earn weren't around to sustain the Canadians, there would be significantly less innovation by U.S. drug companies. (unless you want the government to pay them to innovate too).
So, as I said, in a real capitalistic free market one would have many record company selling the same singer, and then the end user could choose the product they want, at the price point they want. And as I said, if you think Madonna chose the price her latest record was sold, you don't know a thing about this industry ! I never said I wanted to steal anything, by the way, that's your conclusion !
My god! Do you know nothing about capitalism? In capitalism, people with goods to sell frequently make deals with other entities to be exclusive distributors of their goods. While Madonna probably had little to do with deciding the price point of her latest Album, she did contract the right to make that decision in a very capitalistic free market way.
I beg you to take an Econ 101 class before ever speaking about economics in a public forum again. You are offending those of us who are economists.
Record labels insist on licensing songs on a per-country basis. This is sometimes necessary because different countries have different negotiators and distributors, but most of the time, it's really just a (semi-illegal) attempt at controlling the markets.
In any case, the necessity of per-country stores is not Apple's doing nor in Apple's interest; they don't have a choice.
Yes. It would seem to me that if these countries were not happy about Apple's, or anyone's DRM, they could have made that known when the licensing negotiations were happening, rather than waiting until everything was settled, and the business model functioning.
For them to do this now seems to be hypocritical. If these consumer protection agencies were anywhere as good as some here seem to think they are, they could have easily seen what Apple's terms were elsewhere, and stepped in at the beginning. This could have been solved, one way ot the other, two years ago.
For them to step in now is insane.
For them to step in now is insane.
And completely unfair, IMO. Businesses make long term plans which governments should not disrupt by suddenly changing the law, unless there is really a compelling public interest to do so. IMO, this will not serve the public interest, since it may well result in the dissappearance of a nordic iTMS.
12:52 PM ET 08/16/06
Scandinavian agencies to meet Apple over iTunes
HELSINKI, Aug 16 (Reuters) - Sweden's consumer rights agency on Wednesday said it and other rights groups in Scandinavia will meet Apple Computer to discuss their complaint that the U.S. company's popular iTunes service breaches consumer laws.
In June, the consumer agencies of Sweden, Denmark and Norway jointly wrote to Apple alleging that customers had to waive fundamental rights, such as the free use of legally bought products, to download music from iTunes.
The U.S. computer maker has responded in writing, but wants a face-to-face discussion as well, Marianne Abyhammar, Sweden's acting consumer ombudsman, told Reuters.
"They (Apple) have asked to meet the authorities and explain their position," she said. "We will call such a meeting, to be held in Oslo, as soon as possible." "The ambition is to arrange for a meeting at the beginning of September, but no date has been set yet."
Norway's consumer rights agency has said one of its main concerns was that iTunes limited customers' right to freely use legally acquired products by implementing software to protect downloaded files from illegal copying and distribution.
The technology, known as Digital Rights Management (DRM), means no portable players other than Apple's own iPods can play files downloaded from iTunes.
In June, the French parliament pulled back from legislation that would have forced stores like iTunes to share their DRM code, effectively removing barriers that keep songs from being played on other companies' devices.
After complaints from Apple and other opponents that the French legislation would open the door to piracy and threatened the future of online music sales, the French parliament passed a watered-down version of the law that left online distributors with significant control over this code.
In its written response to the Scandinavian agencies' complaint, Apple said it might consider changing some of its practices, Abyhammar said.
"But not in those parts that deal with geographical specifications and limitations on other MP3 players than iPods," she said.
The Swedish and Norwegian consumer ombudsmen both said the agencies were not planning any immediate legal action.
"The issue in the first round is how we'll deal with the answer we got from iTunes and what to do about it," Norwegian Ombudsman Lars Helgesen said.
"We will not take legal action immediately ... On the points were we disagree we will negotiate further and an eventual (legal) case will come further ahead in time."
(Additional reporting by Marianne Fronsdal)
REUTERS
This really needs to be fixed now. It's ridiculous that it has gone on this long.
Stinking dirt bags!
Stinking dirt bags!
You got that right!
Record labels insist on licensing songs on a per-country basis. This is sometimes necessary because different countries have different negotiators and distributors, but most of the time, it's really just a (semi-illegal) attempt at controlling the markets.
In any case, the necessity of per-country stores is not Apple's doing nor in Apple's interest; they don't have a choice.
I do realize it's not Apples interest, and it's enforced by others. Also questions about national regulations about music sales can be problematic, but still what if I made the purchase from abroad, just let me buy from what ever iTunes site I want, don't make artificial restrictions with credit cards. Also it's hard to see what is the business logic for record labels not to let people to buy music they want?!?! With tv shows it's a bit different story, because companies don't only just do direct business with people, but they also need to sell programs to channels. I have also wondered when does iTunes become direct market channel itself, why do indie bands need record label for? Let them directly sell their songs in the price point they want, 99cent still being the maximum per track.
Quick, someone say, "If you don't like iPods and iTunes Music Store Music, don't buy them!" or "you can burn to CD and rip your songs back, so you can do anything you want!"... completely demonstrating your misunderstanding of the problems with proprietary DRM systems.
Well, someone could also say if you don't like the windows operating system, don't buy it, yet the justice department brought a suit against Microsoft for its business practices (forcing it to allow competitors products in it's operating system, etc). I remember many in this forum agreeing with that decision. The politiicians doing this are not anti apple or pro microsoft.. However, you have to be carefull when you do something specific to one company.. it might apply to Apple too!!!. I bet when charges were brought against microsoft for being an unfair monopoly, we could never imagine apple in a similiar situation (yeah, there are other players but please, don't tell me apple is not a monopoly in the mp3 market. Please don't make me laugh uncontrollably.. my stomach already hurts). Actually, this is a good thing, at least it demonstrates that apple is a monopoly in something. I think apple should hire the same lawyers microsoft did. Microsoft basically got out under those charges mostly unscathed.
Well, someone could also say if you don't like the windows operating system, don't buy it, yet the justice department brought a suit against Microsoft for its business practices (forcing it to allow competitors products in it's operating system, etc). I remember many in this forum agreeing with that decision. The politiicians doing this are not anti apple or pro microsoft.. However, you have to be carefull when you do something specific to one company.. it might apply to Apple too!!!. I bet when charges were brought against microsoft for being an unfair monopoly, we could never imagine apple in a similiar situation (yeah, there are other players but please, don't tell me apple is not a monopoly in the mp3 market. Please don't make me laugh uncontrollably.. my stomach already hurts). Actually, this is a good thing, at least it demonstrates that apple is a monopoly in something. I think apple should hire the same lawyers microsoft did. Microsoft basically got out under those charges mostly unscathed.
Those charges were completely idiotic. Microsoft was completely justified in bundling a browser into their OS. What's really the difference between a program that accesses a local file system or a program that accesses a remote file system, longer wires? Do we really want the government deciding issues like how long the wires can be which our built-in OS's can use to access data?
Moreover, as history has borne out, the web has become a type of OS on it's own, with it's own separate API's which are frequently used instead of MS's own API's--they were clearly right to integrate them into their own OS as a part of good innovation/competition.
At least in the US, there is NOTHING illegal about being a monopoly. In many cases, the state even makes laws explicitly to maintain a monopoly status for a company (e.g. some utility providers). The thing that is illegal in the US is to use "bad behavior" to maintain or obtain market power (e.g. price fixing (collusion), or mergers to create a monopoly).
Apple has not done anything that should be considered "bad behavior". They have even fought hard to maintain a low price on music for the consumer. Morover, there are plenty of alternative players selling for cheaper than the iPod that do the same things and even more. Apple has obtained and maintained its high market share by what can only be called "good behavior" (e.g. good marketing, good product design, making the easiest PC-to-device synchronization, the best designed music store, etc.).
I'd love to go into the discussion of why vertical monopolies are actually usually a good thing for consumers as opposed to horizontal monopolies, but I think we've had enough economics for one day.
Those charges were completely idiotic. Microsoft was completely justified in bundling a browser into their OS.
Yep, but that was not what the case was about. Microsoft made it hard to delete it, make another browser the default, and denied computer manufacturers to bundle other browsers.
Moreover, as history has borne out, the web has become a type of OS on it's own
Which is exactly what Microsoft tried to prevent.
Yep, but that was not what the case was about. Microsoft made it hard to delete it, make another browser the default, and denied computer manufacturers to bundle other browsers.
You're right, I had ignored that part of the charges. However, there is no reason why MS should have to make their OS so that you can remove a certain part of it, and a browser is still just a peice of software to allow users to access filesystems not stored locally--something that really should be part of an OS.
However, the part about denying manufacturers the right to bundle other browsers was more clearly bad behavior.
Which is exactly what Microsoft tried to prevent.
I don't agree with that at all. MS was just incorporating the ability to access web API's into their OS, not trying to prevent their evolution (just control it).
I don't agree with that at all.
That's fine, but you'd be wrong.
You're right, I had ignored that part of the charges. However, there is no reason why MS should have to make their OS so that you can remove a certain part of it, and a browser is still just a peice of software to allow users to access filesystems not stored locally--something that really should be part of an OS.
When you are a monopoly, you have a distinct set of rules to follow. those rules make a great deal of sense. When Rockefeller owned Standard oil, he controlled what was then 90% of the world market. he was required to break up the company. If he didn't, the company would still control 90% of the worlds oil. Some things just have to be done.
MS could force every other software company out of existence if they weren't prevented from doing so, just as they basically put Netscape out of business, and others as well.
However, the part about denying manufacturers the right to bundle other browsers was more clearly bad behavior.
this is the other side of having a monopoly, the ability to force other companies to follow your line through coercion. That is how they prevented other companies from testifying against them.
I don't agree with that at all. MS was just incorporating the ability to access web API's into their OS, not trying to prevent their evolution (just control it).
Totally wrong!
MS always attempts to subvert standards. They tried that with Java as well, you might remember, but the courts prevented it.
That's the other problem with monopolies. MS has such a large marketshare that whatever they do will become a standard on Windows. As Windows controls much of the software world, it effectively wipes out other competing standards. MS takes those standards, and changes them so that they only work with windows, forcing programmers to write to those now Windows-centric standards, cutting out other OSes. Unless they are prevented from doing so by outside forces, which are usually only governments, as other companies either don't have the clout, or are afraid to try.
Apple's iPod/Fairplay is not really in the same boat at this time, but, it could be.
Totally wrong!
MS always attempts to subvert standards. They tried that with Java as well, you might remember, but the courts prevented it.
That's the other problem with monopolies. MS has such a large marketshare that whatever they do will become a standard on Windows. As Windows controls much of the software world, it effectively wipes out other competing standards. MS takes those standards, and changes them so that they only work with windows, forcing programmers to write to those now Windows-centric standards, cutting out other OSes. Unless they are prevented from doing so by outside forces, which are usually only governments, as other companies either don't have the clout, or are afraid to try.
Your comment seems to support my claim that MS wanted to control the developing web API's. MS wanted to control Java as well.
Your comment seems to support my claim that MS wanted to control the developing web API's. MS wanted to control Java as well.
What I'm totally disagreeing with was the notion that MS should be allowed to make a browser, and give it away for free, in a market where the main income for other browser companies was the sale of the browser itself.
That destroyed the market for serious competition in browsers. Firefox is cheered because it has over 10% of the market right now. It might go to 15%, or even 20%, but it's unlikely to go much higher.
If MS was forced to have the browser as a freestanding product, as they did in the beginning, then it would have had to stand on its quality, which it couldn't.
Only after MS destroyed Netscape's business model, and they could no longer afford the constant R&D, did IE begin to surpass it.
MS did the same to Persuasion, the best presentation program out there. Persuasion outsold Powerpoint at better than 3 to 1 retail. But when MS put the inferior product into Office, Persuasion disappeared. You can't compete with a free product, as long as it's supported by MS, and is just "good enough".
Because of its position, MS should not be allowed to compete if it isn't doing so on a level playing field. That means charging proper amounts for its products, and seeing if they can succeed.
The only reason why the X Box is still around is because of the monopoly profits from the OS and Office. No other company would have continued to produce if after losing so much money.
Next, could someone's government please sue all of the vacuum cleaner manufacturers because not all of the vacuum cleaner bags are compatible with all of the vacuum cleaners? I swear if I come home with one more 3-pack of vacuum cleaner bags that doesn't fit in my vacuum cleaner, I'm going to have to hurt somebody.
This really needs to be fixed now. It's ridiculous that it has gone on this long.
Stinking dirt bags!
And Shoes!!! My foot only seems to fit well with the way Nike measures a shoe. I wear a size 10.5 in Nike. But European shoes have no half sizes. And in other brands I have to wear a 10, or a 10 wide, ore a 10 double wide. Seems they have the lock on the right fit.
I think it's time to send them all walking! And not to mention metric vs US measurements.....