Microsoft must pay $1.4bn to EU
- Thread starter Frapple
- Start date
What planet are you on?
You don't have to buy windows, there are alternatives (Linux, MacOS etc).
It's exactly the same situation, apart from the idea would be more like MS making it so competitors simply couldn't use their software on windows to be the equivilent of the Ipod/Itunes tie in.
Can't you now get DRM free music from itunes, which can be loaded onto anything you want?
It's only a problem when your OS has a monopoly.
Yes it has other software companies are constanty complaining that lack of access to the OS means they cannot create software as good as they would be able to if they had access to it's inner workings?
Tell me how does that benefit consumers?
Yes they are, a media file is a basic file just like a text file or similar. It's exactly the same, any common file can be and should be regarded as a basic file type, especially if it's an open standard such as MP3.
Web browsing is basic consumer functionality these days, to claim otherwise is simply daft.
What benefits for the consumer does taking windows back to 3.1 present?
Yes, providing the player can play .m4a's, or you have something to convert them.
What? It costs the same now.. And while it was a few pence higher at one point, the quality was higher so the extra cost was justified. Now, however, you get the same higher quality
Last edited:
The planet that says MS has a 97% market share of Operating Systems?
And you you'd rather market your product to the other 3 percent?
Good luck with that business plan!
And letting every tom, dick and harry have access to the inner workings of the OS is fundamentally a bad idea, so would your alternative be that no-one should use these features even if it benefits the customer?
Bundling Media Player classic is a lot more defendable than the current version of Media Player, with it's DRM controls and Premium Content links.
No-one is talking about taking Windows back to 3.1.
Taking what Dolph has already said, you can (and indeed I have) embed IE into your own applications. Can you do that with Firefox? No. Thought not. Shall we fine Mozilla too then? No, also thought not.
PS - I've been writing Windows software for the best part of 15 years now. I can't say I've ever been wanting of a Windows API. The only time you really need to get into the innards is with device drivers and shell integration - both of which don't seem to cause third parties much trouble.
PS - I've been writing Windows software for the best part of 15 years now. I can't say I've ever been wanting of a Windows API. The only time you really need to get into the innards is with device drivers and shell integration - both of which don't seem to cause third parties much trouble.
That isn't the case though is it.
Firefox has roughly 10% market share of the browser market and that is increasing.
Even though IE and WMP are bundled with Windows you do not have to use them there are free alternatives, Firefox being the prime example.
Opera are also jumping on the anti Microsoft bandwagon when it comes to web browsers what they seem to conveniently forget is that Mozilla / Firefox seems to be flourishing under the same market.
If it's that dangerous then Microsoft applications shouldn't use it either. Every application developer should have the same access to the Windows API as every other developer. Fairness=Competition.
What planet is that? It's not this one.
iTunes? Oh sorry Apple is cool, not a monopoly exploiting customers.
Which is something that has been done more and more in Vista.
But then we get into the discussion about what constitutes an application and what constitutes an OS function...
Applications to duplicate OS functions should not have the same access as the OS functions, and likewise OS functions should not be tied to high level access only just in case someone wants to replace it, that would be a nightmare.