Bundling is good but Microsoft bundles too much. Everything they also want to bundle into the OS.

Everyone jumps on Microsoft for unfairly competing by bundling their media player, browser, etc. with the OS, but in fact Apple does the same thing. In fact, Apple even pre-loads iTunes (to direct people to their music store), Appleworks, iMovie, iPhoto, and others, which being free shurely discourages competition from independent developers.

Please don't flame me for saying this (I own and love my Mac) but let's be fair here.

But Microsoft also dominates the market with over 95% share. With that kind of dominance, they have a responsibility that Apple doesn't.

There are two differences:

- Microsoft is a monopoly, Apple is not
- IE and WMP is tightly integrated into the OS but Safari and iTunes are not e.g. You can choose to instal iTunes and later uninstal iTunes but you cannot uninstal IE.

But you can unsinstall every software you don't like from your mac. You don't want iTunes? In the trash ans boom, no there anymore. iMovie is not useful? Delete!

Try to do the same thing with Windows Media Player on a Windows system. You just get a message saying: This is a critical part of the system, item cannot be removed. Tell me, what is critical with a media player?

My 2 cents.

CS

The terminology all seems wrong.
1) Microsoft "ties" everything into the OS
2) Apple "includes" free software.
Neither are bundling are they?

"But Microsoft also dominates the market with over 95% share. With that kind of dominance, they have a responsibility that Apple doesn't."

Bingo.

This is probably the single least-understood concept of antitrust law:

There is nothing illegal about HAVING a monopoly in one field (unless you violated laws to do so, which is a separate issue when it comes to MSFT).

However, once you *do* have a monopoly, it *is* illegal to use that monopoly to gain monopolies in other fields.

In other words, as Pourhadi put so succinctly, in a very real sense, the rules are literally different for Microsoft than they are for Apple or any other OS maker.

It's not so much that Microsoft bundles stuff into the operating system, it's the fact that they tie it in so deeply that they can exclude others from competing.

For example, when Internet Explorer was originally released, it was NOT "part of the operating system" as Microsoft has always insisted. I have copies of 95 and even 98 that don't have Internet Explorer installed. Heck they even pulled existing products off the shelf so they could get new versions out there with the browser on CD. I have a couple of copies of NT4 that come from before and after that can prove that.

What they did to fix the Internet Explorer not installed problem was release updates, and those updates replaced more and more system files with Internet Explorer versions, until they arrived at the point that you *couldn't* un-install Internet Explorer without crippling your system.

The only way to get back to one of those pre-Internet Explorer systems was to format and re-install. They MADE the operating system dependent on Internet Explorer on purpose. becuase they were afraid that the browser would eventually usurp Windows as the desktop interface.

Microsoft's motto is "embrace and extend", which really translates as "conquer and assimilate". Internet Explorer was a really good browser until Microsoft started adding in non-standard features, such as ActiveX. The web was meant to be platform agnostic, i.e. you could view the same web page on any platform, Unix, Dos, Windows, MacOS, NeXt etc. and the content would look exactly the same.

Unfortunately, Microsoft has to try to control things they 'embrace" (this is where the extend part comes in), by adding features which are not sanctioned by governing bodies (w3.org) and causing confusion and incompatibility.

Need to get to your bank or broker's site? Sorry have to use Internet Explorer for Windows. No other Windows browser has access to ActiveX so you can't use Netscape or Firefox or Opera or iCab..

Why else do you think they change application file formats so frequently? It's not for security purposes. It's so only their apps will be compatible with the formats and they can maintain their position.

Here's something to think about. How much did software office suites cost before Microsoft released their first version of office? How much do they cost now in comparison, and how many companies still produce office software???

How many times has Microsoft said, "well we have no interest in such and such an area of software and will not be getting into it" and then 6 months later they release a product in that area? Databases, office suites, web and proxy servers, etc.

Netscape wasn't a big success because of their browser. Their real money was in *web servers*, because there weren't any companies selling them when the web suddenly went white hot. They used to sell for something like 15K a pop.

Then mysteriously, Microsoft introduces IIS and they sell it (NT Option pack) for 99$, then they pull existing versions of NT4 off the shelf and put new versions back on the shelf with IE and IIS included for free. And free upgrades online. And, you could even dig around a little and download the NT Option pack for free (I know, because I did it). Who uses a Netscape web server now?

Think about it.

- re: Microsoft is a monopoly, Apple is not ..........

Since when ?

Who else makes macs ?
Who else makes MacOS ?

Is Microsoft a monopoly because the are the only ones who make Windblows, or because Windblows is used on 95% of peecees, or both ?

Is Apple a monopoly because they are the only ones who make MacOS (and the Macs too), or because MacOS is used on 100% of their machines, or both ?

Yes 100% of apple's market share is only ~5% of the total computer market, but does that mean that they can legally be a monopoly, and M$ can't ?

YOU do the math

Quote

technoguy100 wrote:
Everyone jumps on Microsoft for unfairly competing by bundling their media player, browser, etc. with the OS, but in fact Apple does the same thing. In fact, Apple even pre-loads iTunes (to direct people to their music store), Appleworks, iMovie, iPhoto, and others, which being free shurely discourages competition from independent developers.

Please don't flame me for saying this (I own and love my Mac) but let's be fair here.

The difference here is that you can UN-install all of apple's bundled freebies, install alternate apps (or not), and STILL use your OS & machine effectively. But in the case of IE, this is not possible for the average person, at least not without extensive knowledge of the windblows code base as well as many in-depth hours of registry editing. And this is quickly becoming the case with the WMP, Office, and mail apps too

Quote

Guest wrote:
- re: Microsoft is a monopoly, Apple is not ..........

Since when ?

Who else makes macs ?
Who else makes MacOS ?

Is Microsoft a monopoly because the are the only ones who make Windblows, or because Windblows is used on 95% of peecees, or both ?

Is Apple a monopoly because they are the only ones who make MacOS (and the Macs too), or because MacOS is used on 100% of their machines, or both ?

Yes 100% of apple's market share is only ~5% of the total computer market, but does that mean that they can legally be a monopoly, and M$ can't ?

YOU do the math

You are missing the whole concept of what a monopoly is. To say that Ford is a monopoly because they make all of the Fords sold is silly. To say that TI is a monopoly because they make both the software and hardware for the TI graphing calculators that have become popular in the last decade is silly. Ford is not the only manufacturer in the market for cars (or responsible for 90%+ of the market). TI is not the only manufacturer of graphing calculators. You can even get free versions for your computer. So neither of these companies are a monopoly.

And yet this is your argument when it comes to computers. Why is that? The legal definition of a monopoly is quite clear. It has nothing to do with whether or not a company has vertical control over its product. It has to do with whether or not a company has an exceedingly large percentage of a given market (not product!). When a company is classified as a monopoly, then they are given different rules to live by. Such is life, and it is this way to protect you, the consumer, from companies that are willing to use their monopoly status to unfairly damage a market or the consumer.

Quote

Guest wrote:

The difference here is that you can UN-install all of apple's bundled freebies, install alternate apps (or not), and STILL use your OS & machine effectively.

Ok, I think I agree with you, but my wife just asked me this:

"So what? I have IE on our Mac and I never use it. It doesn't bother me that's it's there. I just don't use it. So why does it matter if you can't delete it from Windows? You can still download any other browser and use it."

I'm not quite sure what to say to that. I've read all the comments in this thread but none of them really respond to that directly.

Any ideas?

Quote

Small White Car wrote:

Quote

Guest wrote:

The difference here is that you can UN-install all of apple's bundled freebies, install alternate apps (or not), and STILL use your OS & machine effectively.

Ok, I think I agree with you, but my wife just asked me this:

"So what? I have IE on our Mac and I never use it. It doesn't bother me that's it's there. I just don't use it. So why does it matter if you can't delete it from Windows? You can still download any other browser and use it."

I'm not quite sure what to say to that. I've read all the comments in this thread but none of them really respond to that directly.

Any ideas?

Well, there are a couple of problems with it. First, it has caused many a web designer to become lazy and code only for IE "because it is what everybody uses", which is bad practice. More importantly, however, is that even though you aren't running IE, many times you are still running major portions of it (I believe Windows Explorer is actually IE in a bad disguise), and you still have all of the flaws and holes in it. Separating IE from the core OS (thus from Windows Explorer) may actually allow for a safer system. MS also has a bad habit of crippling other competing software in updates.

At least that is my understanding of it.

Quote

Small White Car wrote:

Quote

Guest wrote:

The difference here is that you can UN-install all of apple's bundled freebies, install alternate apps (or not), and STILL use your OS & machine effectively.

Ok, I think I agree with you, but my wife just asked me this:

"So what? I have IE on our Mac and I never use it. It doesn't bother me that's it's there. I just don't use it. So why does it matter if you can't delete it from Windows? You can still download any other browser and use it."

I'm not quite sure what to say to that. I've read all the comments in this thread but none of them really respond to that directly.

Any ideas?

Perhaps the response to your wife is that she can choose to leave IE on her computer if it doesn't bother her or, if she desires to throw it away, she can do so. It is this freedom of choice that is the central issue. Microsoft has removed her freedom to choose whether or not she can throw away IE on a PC. It doesn't matter that IE on the Mac goes unused and not deleted on your computer, what matters is it is there by your choice (or apathy), not by corporate decree.

As explained by Guest, it doesn't matter in Mac if you are not running IE but matters a lot in Windows. In addition to what Guest said, you have to run IE to update Microsoft products. That is there is no way not to use IE.

Ok, once again, I WANT to agree with you, and I DO think MS is doing bad things, but I don't think the courts are focusing on the right things. Here's what my wife says to these:

Quote

Intruder wrote:

Well, there are a couple of problems with it. First, it has caused many a web designer to become lazy and code only for IE "because it is what everybody uses", which is bad practice.

She agrees and says that this does suck, but if MS is putting stuff in IE that means ONLY their browser works with major banks...shouldn't THAT be illegal? Why make bundling illegal when you could just outlaw the ACTUAL problem? Doesn't this mean it's the COURTS who are being lazy? Instead of making the real problem illegal they just block the whole thing so they don't have to worry about details.

Quote

Intruder wrote:

More importantly, however, is that even though you aren't running IE, many times you are still running major portions of it (I believe Windows Explorer is actually IE in a bad disguise), and you still have all of the flaws and holes in it. Separating IE from the core OS (thus from Windows Explorer) may actually allow for a safer system.

So there are security holes in the program that is part of the OS. If we force MS to take the IE out of the OS, how do we know that the new code won't have ALL NEW security problems? What you're saying here is that there are major security holes in the OS...so they should change it. If we make them change how the OS works, what makes you think it will be any safer the second time around? They've been working on this thing for 20 years now, you know.

Quote

Intruder wrote:

MS also has a bad habit of crippling other competing software in updates.

Again, why not make THAT illegal?


I DO agree that MS is a big, bad company (really, I do) but it DOES seem like the courts don't want to actually stop the REAL problems and so they just say "You must be able to take IE out of the OS" because it's a blanket solution that covers all the angles. I say that you should be making them fix the actual PROBLEMS, which are...

* Security problems spread to the OS because of the integrated design

* Standards are imposed on other's web pages using MS's monopoly powers that puts other browsers at a disadvantage

* MS makes it difficult for other browsers to work well with the OS in order to make them less appealing to consumers

...and probably a few others. The point is, why don't the courts make THOSE things illegal? The fact that IE comes with windows and the fact that you can get to web pages using Windows Explorer are NOT actually problems...it's just the "lazy" way for the courts to focus on two things that will have some effect on all those other ACTUAL problems. I say they should make the actual problems illegal and then who cares if IE come "bundled" with Windows? In and of itself, that's not a problem.

Quote

Guest wrote:


Perhaps the response to your wife is that she can choose to leave IE on her computer if it doesn't bother her or, if she desires to throw it away, she can do so. It is this freedom of choice that is the central issue.Microsoft has removed her freedom to choose whether or not she can throw away IE on a PC.

But she cannot throw away the "Finder" on the Mac.

Is that the same problem, in your opinion?

Ignore all the issues about how MS is a monopoly and Apple is not. I know that makes a difference legally...I'm just talking about comparing the two systems.

You can't delete "Finder." Is that a problem?

Quote

Mace wrote:
As explained by Guest, it doesn't matter in Mac if you are not running IE but matters a lot in Windows. In addition to what Guest said, you have to run IE to update Microsoft products. That is there is no way not to use IE.

Yeah, so why do all these court cases focus on the fact that Windows is shipped with IE. Isn't THIS the real problem?

Or IS THIS really what the cases are about and EVERY piece of journalism I've read about these cases just been very, very bad. Because they never talk about stuff like this in the articles...it's all about the fact that you "can't take it off your system." Who cares? It's the fact that you have to use it that's the problem! So IS this what the cases are about and you're just saying that it's the newspapers that are being stupid? Wouldn't be the first time...

I did not follow the case closely. So, I am not sure what the court say exactly.

As for the journalists, they simplify matters for easy understanding for the general public. So, in many occasions, the matters are not entirely correct when looking from a technical perspective.

Quote

Mace wrote:
I did not follow the case closely. So, I am not sure what the court say exactly.

As for the journalists, they simplify matters for easy understanding for the general public. So, in many occasions, the matters are not entirely correct when looking from a technical perspective.

I hope this is the case, because everything you guys are saying makes sense, but in my mind it doesn't exactly line up with what I read about court cases like this.

I'd like to think that the courts are doing what makes sense here, even if I don't understand it.

Quote

Small White Car wrote:

Quote

Guest wrote:


Perhaps the response to your wife is that she can choose to leave IE on her computer if it doesn't bother her or, if she desires to throw it away, she can do so. It is this freedom of choice that is the central issue.Microsoft has removed her freedom to choose whether or not she can throw away IE on a PC.

But she cannot throw away the "Finder" on the Mac.

Is that the same problem, in your opinion?

Ignore all the issues about how MS is a monopoly and Apple is not. I know that makes a difference legally...I'm just talking about comparing the two systems.

You can't delete "Finder." Is that a problem?

Very interesting question Small White Car. I'm not sure if I have a satisfactory answer for you... but we will see. I think it is not a problem that you cannot delete the Finder because of two reasons. First, you can always use other apps that will serve the same purpose as the Finder (Better Finder, etc.). Apple's Finder does not (to my knowledge) do anything to cripple competing finders, they just do their darnedest to make sure theirs is the best. And second, the Finder is a rather small app (at least it was a few years ago) that provided basic services to the user from the OS, as opposed to a fully integrated app that ties both internet and hard drive browsing together into one big mess. It is this tie that causes all of the actual problems you highlighted in a previous post. I am frowning as I am writing this second point... I do not think it is as strong as it could be since the obvious comment is that IE is simply the newer Windows method (ala Frankenstein-type coding) to "provide basic services to the user from the OS." So go easy on that point

Maybe you need to learn more about Windows. IE can be uninstalled. I know many people who have done this and installed Mozilla

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
Maybe you need to learn more about Windows. IE can be uninstalled. I know many people who have done this and installed Mozilla

No, not really. Maybe they got rid of the web portion of it, but the file browser in Windows IS a part of IE. It's all the same thing. Your friend may be using Mozilla, but if he ever typed a web address into the address bar on one of his computer's folders...well he'd be instantly using IE again! You can't really get rid of it and still use your computer normally.

Quote

... Officials at Dell Inc., the world's largest PC maker, would not discuss which Windows version they would put on their computers if offered a choice.

"We're not going to speculate on what effect, if any, this will have on Dell at this point in time," Venancio Figueroa, a Dell spokesman, said of the EU ruling.

Hewlett-Packard Co., the world's No. 2 PC maker, declined to comment...

Both number 1 and 2 PC makers do not want to positively say they will put WMP on their computers if given a choice. What are they thinking?

Quote

... Frost & Sullivan's research indicated that QuickTime is running nearly neck and neck with Windows Media Player. QuickTime currently has 36.8% of the market, while Windows has 38.2% of the market. Real Player is in third place with 24.9% of the market ...

Source: Keynote by Frank Casanova, senior director of Apple Computer QuickTime product marketing during Oct 04 CTIA Wireless IT & Entertainment Conference.

Hopefully, the survey show that QuickTime is number one during MacWorld SF Jan 05.

As I write this (Christmas Day) I'm sure there will be close to a million installs/updates to QuickTime over a 48-hour period that includes today.

The less the user has to do to make the media play, the quicker streaming media will move from early adoptors (like you guys and gals) to the mainstream.

If Microsoft is willing to include an excellent media player, then that is a huge benefit (saves time) to the 95% of us that happen to think MS makes pretty darn good software.

The technical folks, mostly reading these posts, have the knowledge to add plug-in at will, and undertand the risks of ActiveX controls, and how to tweak all those little script deals to prevent virri... but the other 98% of the online population just wants to see things work, and not be at great risk, and not spend hours downloading, installing more programs.