[Jerrek]

Originally Posted by Mimizuku no Lew

No-one's trying to stop them from improving their products.

Right, which is why the EU wants to force Microsoft to strip functionality, the improvements they made, out of Windows? Come on.

Neither is restricting an OEM's ability to pre-install competitors' products (as MS' licensing scheme did with OEMs who wanted to preinstall RealPlayer, Netscape etc).

Yes it is. Microsoft is the owner of its own products and can make ANY restrictions for the sale and use of its product. If you don't like it, TOUGH. Don't use it.

Originally Posted by Mimizuku no Lew

It's not about forcing MS to put stuff in the OS. I was referring to OEMs pre-installing stuff on their computers (like the way Compaq machines pre-install "Compaq Disgnostics for Windows"). No-one's talking about making MS put anything extra in the retail boxes of Windows.

Actually, we were. The original topic was Real, Windows Media, and other media players. The EU decided to force Microsoft to remove the improvements it made to the operating system by offering Windows without Media Player. That is NOT free enterprise.

You moved towards the IE/Netscape issue, where Microsoft said that in order to pre-install our product, you have to do [this]. That is completely acceptable, because MICROSOFT OWNS THE SOFTWARE. If you don't agree, YOU CANNOT USE IT, because IT IS NOT YOURS. Don't install it then.

Originally Posted by towny

But it is a very narrow-minded view of what is good for the consumer. It is also short-sighted.

So? It is FREE ENTERPRISE. Microsoft should have the right to FREELY improve its products in ANY WAY THEY WANT without interference from the government. If the rest of the world can't come up with something better, tough ****. If they can, then great! Because most people would want the best product for the lowest price.

Allowing Microsoft to abuse its effective monopoly in this way harms the ability of competing products to get into the market.

They are not abusing anything. They are not a monopoly either. The only thing that harms competing products from entering the market is their good products that people love. If others can't come up with something better, then TOUGH ****. This is the fundamentals of free enterprise.

It won't wash to say that the best will win; history is littered with examples of how that is not the case. So for short-term gain, the consumer risks being forced to put up with products that are less good than they could be in the longer term.

The consumer isn't forced to do anything! Did you know that you can go out and buy Linux? Or an Apple? DID YOU KNOW THAT? Did you know that there is NOTHING that FORCES you to put up with products that are less good? NOTHING. SHOW me the law if you disagree with me. PLEASE.

I'm glad you added 'for a price', because nothing that is bundled with Windows is free. The developers who made the media player have to have their wages paid from somewhere. That cost is passed on to the consumer in the price of windows itself - so you pay for Windows media player whether you want it or not.

So?

Since when was forcing someone to pay for something they don't want and have no intention of using, considered good for them?

No one is FORCING anyone to pay for ANYTHING they don't want. You either accept the product Microsoft has to offer, or you don't. I can't go to the store and buy water, but not the plastic bottle, because I don't want it. I can't go to the store to buy a can of corn, but I want only the corn, not the can. YOU PAY FOR THE PRODUCT. If Microsoft, or any company, chooses to break the product down into individual parts, THAT IS THEIR PREROGGATIVE. If they don't, THOUGH ****. NO ONE is forcing ANYONE to buy anything.

Frankly, I think the regulated competition of Europe is a far more equitable way to do business than the American style.

There is no such thing as regulated competition. It isn't competition then. You're advocating socialism. Thats fine, you have that right, but I completely disagee with it because I'm a capitalist and believe in the free enterprise system.

Originally Posted by towny

I already have Mac OSX, thanks.

I am saying that as a manufacturer of the operating system used by more than 90% of the world's desktop computers, Microsoft has an obligation to separate the sale of the operating system, and the sale of any programs designed to work on that operating system.

Microsoft has NO OBLIGATION WHATSOEVER. They are a corporation, and they offer products to the general public. If you are interested in acquiring it, you make a deal with them with stipulations that both parties agree to. If you can't reach an agreement, you take your business elsewhere. THERE IS NO OBLIGATION. Microsoft doesn't owe anyone anything.

Anything else gives them an unfair commercial advantage that is in nobody's interest but their own.

Unfair advantage? Absolutely not. ANYONE can write their own operating system and market it. They do have an advantage, yes, and that is their RIGHT since it is THEIR product.