I'm mildly confused as to how a company is being prevented from making a media player, given that any Joe off the street can program a window. And within that window, make it play media.
WinAmp, Quicken, RealPlayer, VLC, and a whole slew of other media players all seem to do just fine. They all have free versions, and pro versions with fancy bells and whistles.
So how, again, is M$ "hiding" their code, and preventing competitors from making a media player?
Will this company go on to sue WinAmp, et all, for offering free media players, as they can't sell theirs with all these free ones around??
What about browsers? Can I start a company in the EU, and sue M$, Mozilla, etc for offering a free browser, and thus costing me profits from my attempt to sell my browser that does the exact same thing with a different colored wrapper?
I'm mildly confused as to how a company is being prevented from making a media player, given that any Joe off the street can program a window. And within that window, make it play media. WinAmp, Quicken, RealPlayer, VLC, and a whole slew of other media players all seem to do just fine. They all have free versions, and pro versions with fancy bells and whistles. So how, again, is M$ "hiding" their code, and preventing competitors from making a media player? Will this company go on to sue WinAmp, et all, for offering free media players, as they can't sell theirs with all these free ones around?? What about browsers? Can I start a company in the EU, and sue M$, Mozilla, etc for offering a free browser, and thus costing me profits from my attempt to sell my browser that does the exact same thing with a different colored wrapper?
I suggest you read a blog or an article about the case. Or the 2004 ruling which I've linked before.
Companes aren't being prevented from developing media players. But they're being prevented of obtaining a fair market position.
For example, if a company sells TV's with free DVD players... And they're the only company selling TV's... Would this give a fair chance to the other DVD player manufacterers? No, of course not. Several facts are being used as proof in the 2004 ruling.
But if they're all distributed seperatly then each DVD player has the same chance to be îcked up by the consumer.
Once again you are both missing my point. I didn't say that Microsoft could still be as successful or as dominant or as profitable if they cut out the EU market. I said that they would be better off in the short term then the EU would be. Yes other companies would fill the void, but no one is in a place right now to take full advantage of it. No one would all of a sudden be able to provide the same level of service that Microsoft does to their consumers. Sure other companies would fill in but then it would take time for all the other software to adapt to multiple different Operating Systems. Plus as you said yourself MadAce it would wreck havoc on the global economy.
My point wasn't about doing the best thing or the right thing. My point was that Billy boy could take his toys home and play the part of the spoiled three year old and not share anymore. And for quite a while it would hurt them more then it would hurt Billy Boy. He has already said that he is giving away his money to Charity. So he obviously has a lot less interest in maintaining the dominating position that Microsoft currently has, compared to say 10 years ago when he was hungry and still building up more power.
That was my point about the pulling out of EU comment.
Sure the ruling in the long term may have some effects on me, or it might get overturned by the Supreme Court of the EU. Or the next President might kick the EU in the figurative balls and say leave Microsoft alone. We don't know. The only thing we do know is that the Current President doesn't have the Political Capital to tell the EU to blow their nose, much less dictate this case. But that could very quickly change with the new President.
5.5 millions servers shutting down (and subsequently the internet, depsite the many millions more running on Linux) would make Microsofts share vaporate overnight. That's I'll I'm going to say about it. You can continue pretending this isn't true.
Billy Boy isn't the ceo of Microsoft anymore.
And the US whining because the of the EU's decision... Pffft. Was to be expected. Yet another small battle in the economical worldwar between the US and the EU and China and India and Brazil and South-Africa...
Once again it doesn't matter what happens to the share price if they close up shop. That was the whole point. On top of the fact that a company with ZERO debt and 29billion in cash reserves could actually afford quite big loses to their stock price without collapsing.
Sure as I said they could never make 1 billion dollars in cash per month if they dropped EU, but they could sure survive. Heck they could survive on around 30% of the marketplace I am sure (picked a number) instead of the 90%+ that they have currently.
I'm mildly confused as to how a company is being prevented from making a media player, given that any Joe off the street can program a window. And within that window, make it play media. WinAmp, Quicken, RealPlayer, VLC, and a whole slew of other media players all seem to do just fine. They all have free versions, and pro versions with fancy bells and whistles. So how, again, is M$ "hiding" their code, and preventing competitors from making a media player? Will this company go on to sue WinAmp, et all, for offering free media players, as they can't sell theirs with all these free ones around?? What about browsers? Can I start a company in the EU, and sue M$, Mozilla, etc for offering a free browser, and thus costing me profits from my attempt to sell my browser that does the exact same thing with a different colored wrapper?
I suggest you read a blog or an article about the case. Or the 2004 ruling which I've linked before.
Companes aren't being prevented from developing media players. But they're being prevented of obtaining a fair market position.
For example, if a company sells TV's with free DVD players... And they're the only company selling TV's... Would this give a fair chance to the other DVD player manufacterers? No, of course not. Several facts are being used as proof in the 2004 ruling.
But if they're all distributed seperatly then each DVD player has the same chance to be îcked up by the consumer.
See?
But what if other companies are perfectly able to sell Tv's with free DVD players as well and don't because they can't sustain it monetarily. Is it fair to stop the first company from offering this deal and thus gain a leg up on the competition?
Once again you are both missing my point. I didn't say that Microsoft could still be as successful or as dominant or as profitable if they cut out the EU market. I said that they would be better off in the short term then the EU would be. Yes other companies would fill the void, but no one is in a place right now to take full advantage of it. No one would all of a sudden be able to provide the same level of service that Microsoft does to their consumers. Sure other companies would fill in but then it would take time for all the other software to adapt to multiple different Operating Systems. Plus as you said yourself MadAce it would wreck havoc on the global economy.
My point wasn't about doing the best thing or the right thing. My point was that Billy boy could take his toys home and play the part of the spoiled three year old and not share anymore. And for quite a while it would hurt them more then it would hurt Billy Boy. He has already said that he is giving away his money to Charity. So he obviously has a lot less interest in maintaining the dominating position that Microsoft currently has, compared to say 10 years ago when he was hungry and still building up more power.
That was my point about the pulling out of EU comment.
Sure the ruling in the long term may have some effects on me, or it might get overturned by the Supreme Court of the EU. Or the next President might kick the EU in the figurative balls and say leave Microsoft alone. We don't know. The only thing we do know is that the Current President doesn't have the Political Capital to tell the EU to blow their nose, much less dictate this case. But that could very quickly change with the new President.
5.5 millions servers shutting down (and subsequently the internet, depsite the many millions more running on Linux) would make Microsofts share vaporate overnight. That's I'll I'm going to say about it. You can continue pretending this isn't true.
Billy Boy isn't the ceo of Microsoft anymore.
And the US whining because the of the EU's decision... Pffft. Was to be expected. Yet another small battle in the economical worldwar between the US and the EU and China and India and Brazil and South-Africa...
Once again it doesn't matter what happens to the share price if they close up shop. That was the whole point. On top of the fact that a company with ZERO debt and 29billion in cash reserves could actually afford quite big loses to their stock price without collapsing.
Sure as I said they could never make 1 billion dollars in cash per month if they dropped EU, but they could sure survive. Heck they could survive on around 30% of the marketplace I am sure (picked a number) instead of the 90%+ that they have currently.
I guess this means I've won the discussion as you previously said some pretty different things...
I too think it would be funny to see Billy boy just pull out. It isn't like the company needs the money. Honestly they could hold the EU hostage more so then the EU can hold them hostage. Because whether we like it or not, Windows is the dominant service currently in the marketplace (and remember we don't own our software we are leasing it due to Digital copyright laws). So honestly Microsoft could do worse then just pull out the software on the shelfs and the support system for the EU. They could turn off every European copy of Windows by disabling their security code in their system. Last time I heard Microsoft is sitting on a pile of money numbering in the 100 billions.
I'm mildly confused as to how a company is being prevented from making a media player, given that any Joe off the street can program a window. And within that window, make it play media. WinAmp, Quicken, RealPlayer, VLC, and a whole slew of other media players all seem to do just fine. They all have free versions, and pro versions with fancy bells and whistles. So how, again, is M$ "hiding" their code, and preventing competitors from making a media player? Will this company go on to sue WinAmp, et all, for offering free media players, as they can't sell theirs with all these free ones around?? What about browsers? Can I start a company in the EU, and sue M$, Mozilla, etc for offering a free browser, and thus costing me profits from my attempt to sell my browser that does the exact same thing with a different colored wrapper?
I suggest you read a blog or an article about the case. Or the 2004 ruling which I've linked before.
Companes aren't being prevented from developing media players. But they're being prevented of obtaining a fair market position.
For example, if a company sells TV's with free DVD players... And they're the only company selling TV's... Would this give a fair chance to the other DVD player manufacterers? No, of course not. Several facts are being used as proof in the 2004 ruling.
But if they're all distributed seperatly then each DVD player has the same chance to be îcked up by the consumer.
See?
But what if other companies are perfectly able to sell Tv's with free DVD players as well and don't because they can't sustain it monetarily. Is it fair to stop the first company from offering this deal and thus gain a leg up on the competition?
Seriously. Read the ruling. It's good stuff.
In this case it's the only company selling TV's. Hell. Houses (computers outside the metaphore) are being sold with those TV's and the DVD player's already inside them. Nothing can compete with that.
If MS truly believes in healthy competition then they should welcome this ruling. Now WMP can be judged without prejudice by the European consumer.
I'm mildly confused as to how a company is being prevented from making a media player, given that any Joe off the street can program a window. And within that window, make it play media. WinAmp, Quicken, RealPlayer, VLC, and a whole slew of other media players all seem to do just fine. They all have free versions, and pro versions with fancy bells and whistles. So how, again, is M$ "hiding" their code, and preventing competitors from making a media player? Will this company go on to sue WinAmp, et all, for offering free media players, as they can't sell theirs with all these free ones around?? What about browsers? Can I start a company in the EU, and sue M$, Mozilla, etc for offering a free browser, and thus costing me profits from my attempt to sell my browser that does the exact same thing with a different colored wrapper?
I suggest you read a blog or an article about the case. Or the 2004 ruling which I've linked before.
Companes aren't being prevented from developing media players. But they're being prevented of obtaining a fair market position.
For example, if a company sells TV's with free DVD players... And they're the only company selling TV's... Would this give a fair chance to the other DVD player manufacterers? No, of course not. Several facts are being used as proof in the 2004 ruling.
But if they're all distributed seperatly then each DVD player has the same chance to be îcked up by the consumer.
See?
But what if other companies are perfectly able to sell Tv's with free DVD players as well and don't because they can't sustain it monetarily. Is it fair to stop the first company from offering this deal and thus gain a leg up on the competition?
Not in the US version of the law. In the US version it was designed specifically to break up Standard Oil. Later it was used to break up the Ma Bell telephone company. It was designed to break up a company that has exclusive rights and then doesn't allow any competition in. For instance a Oil refining company that turns around and purchases gas stations. If they turned around and offered their gas at a lower price then they sold it to other gas stations then it would be an unfair business practice and would be broken up.
Microsoft on the other hand doesn't sell computers and therefore can not force anyone to even use Windows. There fore the example from MadAce is invalid.
A better example would be Company A sells CRT televisions and offers free DVD players with them. They are the only seller of CRT tvs. But you can choose to go and buy a Plasma TV or a LCD TV. But if you want a CRT TV then you have to get it from them and they offer a free DVD player. The EU ruling would say that the CRT TV maker was anticompetitive because they were bundling their DVD players. But i think it is crap. Because I can choose not to buy a CRT TV and go with a Plasma or a LCD. Or I can choose to go with a CRT but get the better DVD player offered by someone else, because it has higher quality and more features.
I personally think that the EU version of the law is overstepping their boundries and infringing upon the free trade. Now they have different governments there so it is a different system and I respect that. But I don't think it was the right ruling in my opinion.
Is all MS will do is up the price of the next operating system they sell in the EU market and the US market for that matter, but one thing is for sure that they will recoup their money out of the EU market thats for sure.So it not a win for the EU.That said MS has changed the way business is done forever,have to give them that.
Trade in material assumptions for spiritual facts and make permanent progress.
Honestly, it's not like those who prefer a specific media player can't just install it and set it to be the default handler for their media. Just because your average consumer finds Windows Media Player to have all of the features they require and prefers not to bother installing another media player doesn't indicate a monopoly. What it indicates is that Microsoft is delivering a competitive item for free, which as Kyleran pointed out, is what really rankles the companies/individuals who brought the suit in the first place; that they can't charge you for something that is being provided gratis. So, since they can't seem to convince anyone to purchase their alternative, they'll get their money another way; by bringing a lawsuit.
The trick is that Windows Media Player has, built in, a lot of features that no other media player could do. It's built into the OS at such a level so that it can share media seamlessly with other computers, the Zune, and even the 360. That it is bundled with Windows gives it a decisive advantage, requiring that a competitor has to go far above and beyond in terms of features and service to attract people to go through the trouble of installing it. If iTunes was the default installed media player on Windows, for example, not as many people would use Windows Media Player due to sheer inertia. And WMP is not "free". It certainly generates revenue by being able to offer suggestions for artists and the ability to buy songs, view trailers, and other areas.
Once again you are both missing my point. I didn't say that Microsoft could still be as successful or as dominant or as profitable if they cut out the EU market. I said that they would be better off in the short term then the EU would be. Yes other companies would fill the void, but no one is in a place right now to take full advantage of it. No one would all of a sudden be able to provide the same level of service that Microsoft does to their consumers. Sure other companies would fill in but then it would take time for all the other software to adapt to multiple different Operating Systems. Plus as you said yourself MadAce it would wreck havoc on the global economy.
My point wasn't about doing the best thing or the right thing. My point was that Billy boy could take his toys home and play the part of the spoiled three year old and not share anymore. And for quite a while it would hurt them more then it would hurt Billy Boy. He has already said that he is giving away his money to Charity. So he obviously has a lot less interest in maintaining the dominating position that Microsoft currently has, compared to say 10 years ago when he was hungry and still building up more power.
That was my point about the pulling out of EU comment.
Sure the ruling in the long term may have some effects on me, or it might get overturned by the Supreme Court of the EU. Or the next President might kick the EU in the figurative balls and say leave Microsoft alone. We don't know. The only thing we do know is that the Current President doesn't have the Political Capital to tell the EU to blow their nose, much less dictate this case. But that could very quickly change with the new President.
5.5 millions servers shutting down (and subsequently the internet, depsite the many millions more running on Linux) would make Microsofts share vaporate overnight. That's I'll I'm going to say about it. You can continue pretending this isn't true.
Billy Boy isn't the ceo of Microsoft anymore.
And the US whining because the of the EU's decision... Pffft. Was to be expected. Yet another small battle in the economical worldwar between the US and the EU and China and India and Brazil and South-Africa...
Once again it doesn't matter what happens to the share price if they close up shop. That was the whole point. On top of the fact that a company with ZERO debt and 29billion in cash reserves could actually afford quite big loses to their stock price without collapsing.
Sure as I said they could never make 1 billion dollars in cash per month if they dropped EU, but they could sure survive. Heck they could survive on around 30% of the marketplace I am sure (picked a number) instead of the 90%+ that they have currently.
I guess this means I've won the discussion as you previously said some pretty different things...
I too think it would be funny to see Billy boy just pull out. It isn't like the company needs the money. Honestly they could hold the EU hostage more so then the EU can hold them hostage. Because whether we like it or not, Windows is the dominant service currently in the marketplace (and remember we don't own our software we are leasing it due to Digital copyright laws). So honestly Microsoft could do worse then just pull out the software on the shelfs and the support system for the EU. They could turn off every European copy of Windows by disabling their security code in their system. Last time I heard Microsoft is sitting on a pile of money numbering in the 100 billions.
No, I can see how the wording when I wrote it before came out different then what I meant it. I never meant that Microsoft could survive well. I meant that the EU would have bigger problems faster then Microsoft would. And that in turn might make the EU buckle under pressure from businesses that aren't able to compete very well in the global marketplace.
But of course in the long run it would be bad business for Microsoft to pull out of the EU. They would lose a ton of business and would lose a lot marketplace from it.
Would Microsoft collapse. Well most likely due to the fallout from investors, but could they survive it? yes. Could the EU survive it? Of course, but how much money would they lose due to it?
I'm mildly confused as to how a company is being prevented from making a media player, given that any Joe off the street can program a window. And within that window, make it play media. WinAmp, Quicken, RealPlayer, VLC, and a whole slew of other media players all seem to do just fine. They all have free versions, and pro versions with fancy bells and whistles. So how, again, is M$ "hiding" their code, and preventing competitors from making a media player? Will this company go on to sue WinAmp, et all, for offering free media players, as they can't sell theirs with all these free ones around?? What about browsers? Can I start a company in the EU, and sue M$, Mozilla, etc for offering a free browser, and thus costing me profits from my attempt to sell my browser that does the exact same thing with a different colored wrapper?
I suggest you read a blog or an article about the case. Or the 2004 ruling which I've linked before.
Companes aren't being prevented from developing media players. But they're being prevented of obtaining a fair market position.
For example, if a company sells TV's with free DVD players... And they're the only company selling TV's... Would this give a fair chance to the other DVD player manufacterers? No, of course not. Several facts are being used as proof in the 2004 ruling.
But if they're all distributed seperatly then each DVD player has the same chance to be îcked up by the consumer.
See?
But what if other companies are perfectly able to sell Tv's with free DVD players as well and don't because they can't sustain it monetarily. Is it fair to stop the first company from offering this deal and thus gain a leg up on the competition?
Not in the US version of the law. In the US version it was designed specifically to break up Standard Oil. Later it was used to break up the Ma Bell telephone company. It was designed to break up a company that has exclusive rights and then doesn't allow any competition in. For instance a Oil refining company that turns around and purchases gas stations. If they turned around and offered their gas at a lower price then they sold it to other gas stations then it would be an unfair business practice and would be broken up.
Microsoft on the other hand doesn't sell computers and therefore can not force anyone to even use Windows. There fore the example from MadAce is invalid.
A better example would be Company A sells CRT televisions and offers free DVD players with them. They are the only seller of CRT tvs. But you can choose to go and buy a Plasma TV or a LCD TV. But if you want a CRT TV then you have to get it from them and they offer a free DVD player. The EU ruling would say that the CRT TV maker was anticompetitive because they were bundling their DVD players. But i think it is crap. Because I can choose not to buy a CRT TV and go with a Plasma or a LCD. Or I can choose to go with a CRT but get the better DVD player offered by someone else, because it has higher quality and more features.
I personally think that the EU version of the law is overstepping their boundries and infringing upon the free trade. Now they have different governments there so it is a different system and I respect that. But I don't think it was the right ruling in my opinion.
Actually when I think about it...
It's like this.
Houses are sold with MS TV's and free DVD players installed. All TV programs and movies are made for the MS TV's. Also, since this situation has been like this for years the MS TV's are much more known to the technologically iliterate house owner.
Sure, their products are better. But due to compatability they're only being used by professional companies.
Now I wonder if other TV companies get a fair shot. Let alone DVD players.
Originally posted by MadAce Seriously. Read the ruling. It's good stuff.
In this case it's the only company selling TV's. Hell. Houses (computers outside the metaphore) are being sold with those TV's and the DVD player's already inside them. Nothing can compete with that.
If MS truly believes in healthy competition then they should welcome this ruling. Now WMP can be judged without prejudice by the European consumer.
I did. I'll be the last person to argue that Microsoft doesn't use business practices that approach extortion. I worry about the precedent this can set. While I don't think some of the other examples posted here by others are fair (an OS is needed to run particular programs, hence control of the OS is indeed control of the medium, the computer hardware is secondary), would this ruling be so tasty if it were not against Microsoft? Let's assume for a moment that Microsoft were totally honest, had a great product, and sat in their position of supremacy through a combination of hard work and brutal but legal competition.
I see the writing on the wall here. Apple is next. Many people are unhappy with Apple's handling of iTunes. iTunes and the iPod are inseperable (well, maybe not, but I and most of the consumer public don't have the l33t haxxor skills to mess with it). This ruling can directly relate to this package, and I believe we will see a similar decision in very short order, forcing Apple to allow use of other MP3 players with iTunes, and other song programs with iPods. I use this example because it's a less easy target. There are many competitors to Apple in this field. There are many MP3 players and many programs like iTunes. Are iTunes and the iPod the best on the market? I'd wager not, but they're available and easy. The consumer doesn't want the best technology, they want the ease of a good interface and the security of a brand name.
Where will it end? At what point does this stop becoming trust-busting and start becoming punishment for success?
Frankly, knowing the free market economy this will only result in a much fiercer battle. Thus requiring better design and ideas for succes in stead of simply a huge wallet.
I'm mildly confused as to how a company is being prevented from making a media player, given that any Joe off the street can program a window. And within that window, make it play media. WinAmp, Quicken, RealPlayer, VLC, and a whole slew of other media players all seem to do just fine. They all have free versions, and pro versions with fancy bells and whistles. So how, again, is M$ "hiding" their code, and preventing competitors from making a media player? Will this company go on to sue WinAmp, et all, for offering free media players, as they can't sell theirs with all these free ones around?? What about browsers? Can I start a company in the EU, and sue M$, Mozilla, etc for offering a free browser, and thus costing me profits from my attempt to sell my browser that does the exact same thing with a different colored wrapper?
I suggest you read a blog or an article about the case. Or the 2004 ruling which I've linked before.
Companes aren't being prevented from developing media players. But they're being prevented of obtaining a fair market position.
For example, if a company sells TV's with free DVD players... And they're the only company selling TV's... Would this give a fair chance to the other DVD player manufacterers? No, of course not. Several facts are being used as proof in the 2004 ruling.
But if they're all distributed seperatly then each DVD player has the same chance to be îcked up by the consumer.
See?
But what if other companies are perfectly able to sell Tv's with free DVD players as well and don't because they can't sustain it monetarily. Is it fair to stop the first company from offering this deal and thus gain a leg up on the competition?
Not in the US version of the law. In the US version it was designed specifically to break up Standard Oil. Later it was used to break up the Ma Bell telephone company. It was designed to break up a company that has exclusive rights and then doesn't allow any competition in. For instance a Oil refining company that turns around and purchases gas stations. If they turned around and offered their gas at a lower price then they sold it to other gas stations then it would be an unfair business practice and would be broken up.
Microsoft on the other hand doesn't sell computers and therefore can not force anyone to even use Windows. There fore the example from MadAce is invalid.
A better example would be Company A sells CRT televisions and offers free DVD players with them. They are the only seller of CRT tvs. But you can choose to go and buy a Plasma TV or a LCD TV. But if you want a CRT TV then you have to get it from them and they offer a free DVD player. The EU ruling would say that the CRT TV maker was anticompetitive because they were bundling their DVD players. But i think it is crap. Because I can choose not to buy a CRT TV and go with a Plasma or a LCD. Or I can choose to go with a CRT but get the better DVD player offered by someone else, because it has higher quality and more features.
I personally think that the EU version of the law is overstepping their boundries and infringing upon the free trade. Now they have different governments there so it is a different system and I respect that. But I don't think it was the right ruling in my opinion.
Actually when I think about it...
It's like this.
Houses are sold with MS TV's and free DVD players installed. All TV programs and movies are made for the MS TV's. Also, since this situation has been like this for years the MS TV's are much more known to the technologically iliterate house owner.
Sure, their products are better. But due to compatability they're only being used by professional companies.
Now I wonder if other TV companies get a fair shot. Let alone DVD players.
So a company should be punished for building up a great brand?
That is kind of silly don't you think? They aren't stopping other companies from entering the market. They aren't pricing them out of the marketplace. They aren't threatening them to make them leave the market.
As seen in other markets that Microsoft is in they have competitors. Consoles. Search Engine. Web Browser.
For the same reason that supposedly Media Player is doing the best and needed to be squashed so should Internet Explorer be crushing the competition and so should MSN.com. All three come bundled with Windows and yet in 2 of those three instances Microsoft isn't doing well.
The problem is that some companies couldn't hack it and they found a place where they could turn around and beat Microsoft by crying foul.
Google didn't need to do that.
Firefox hasn't needed to do that.
So why should other media players get a special pass?
It was a silly example but a valid one. Soon someone is going to sue because Microsoft includes a calculator.
Originally posted by MadAce Originally posted by Coldmeat I'm mildly confused as to how a company is being prevented from making a media player, given that any Joe off the street can program a window. And within that window, make it play media. WinAmp, Quicken, RealPlayer, VLC, and a whole slew of other media players all seem to do just fine. They all have free versions, and pro versions with fancy bells and whistles. So how, again, is M$ "hiding" their code, and preventing competitors from making a media player? Will this company go on to sue WinAmp, et all, for offering free media players, as they can't sell theirs with all these free ones around?? What about browsers? Can I start a company in the EU, and sue M$, Mozilla, etc for offering a free browser, and thus costing me profits from my attempt to sell my browser that does the exact same thing with a different colored wrapper?
I suggest you read a blog or an article about the case. Or the 2004 ruling which I've linked before.
Companes aren't being prevented from developing media players. But they're being prevented of obtaining a fair market position.
For example, if a company sells TV's with free DVD players... And they're the only company selling TV's... Would this give a fair chance to the other DVD player manufacterers? No, of course not. Several facts are being used as proof in the 2004 ruling. But if they're all distributed seperatly then each DVD player has the same chance to be
I'm mildly confused as to how a company is being prevented from making a media player, given that any Joe off the street can program a window. And within that window, make it play media. WinAmp, Quicken, RealPlayer, VLC, and a whole slew of other media players all seem to do just fine. They all have free versions, and pro versions with fancy bells and whistles. So how, again, is M$ "hiding" their code, and preventing competitors from making a media player? Will this company go on to sue WinAmp, et all, for offering free media players, as they can't sell theirs with all these free ones around?? What about browsers? Can I start a company in the EU, and sue M$, Mozilla, etc for offering a free browser, and thus costing me profits from my attempt to sell my browser that does the exact same thing with a different colored wrapper?
I suggest you read a blog or an article about the case. Or the 2004 ruling which I've linked before.
Companes aren't being prevented from developing media players. But they're being prevented of obtaining a fair market position.
For example, if a company sells TV's with free DVD players... And they're the only company selling TV's... Would this give a fair chance to the other DVD player manufacterers? No, of course not. Several facts are being used as proof in the 2004 ruling.
But if they're all distributed seperatly then each DVD player has the same chance to be îcked up by the consumer.
See?
But what if other companies are perfectly able to sell Tv's with free DVD players as well and don't because they can't sustain it monetarily. Is it fair to stop the first company from offering this deal and thus gain a leg up on the competition?
Not in the US version of the law. In the US version it was designed specifically to break up Standard Oil. Later it was used to break up the Ma Bell telephone company. It was designed to break up a company that has exclusive rights and then doesn't allow any competition in. For instance a Oil refining company that turns around and purchases gas stations. If they turned around and offered their gas at a lower price then they sold it to other gas stations then it would be an unfair business practice and would be broken up.
Microsoft on the other hand doesn't sell computers and therefore can not force anyone to even use Windows. There fore the example from MadAce is invalid.
A better example would be Company A sells CRT televisions and offers free DVD players with them. They are the only seller of CRT tvs. But you can choose to go and buy a Plasma TV or a LCD TV. But if you want a CRT TV then you have to get it from them and they offer a free DVD player. The EU ruling would say that the CRT TV maker was anticompetitive because they were bundling their DVD players. But i think it is crap. Because I can choose not to buy a CRT TV and go with a Plasma or a LCD. Or I can choose to go with a CRT but get the better DVD player offered by someone else, because it has higher quality and more features.
I personally think that the EU version of the law is overstepping their boundries and infringing upon the free trade. Now they have different governments there so it is a different system and I respect that. But I don't think it was the right ruling in my opinion.
Actually when I think about it...
It's like this.
Houses are sold with MS TV's and free DVD players installed. All TV programs and movies are made for the MS TV's. Also, since this situation has been like this for years the MS TV's are much more known to the technologically iliterate house owner.
Sure, their products are better. But due to compatability they're only being used by professional companies.
Now I wonder if other TV companies get a fair shot. Let alone DVD players.
So a company should be punished for building up a great brand?
Haha. Now you're playing the "I'm a retard, I can't even read properly" game to confuse me, are you? Funny.
Companies should be punished for abusing their monopoly in one field to create a monopoly in another field.
That is kind of silly don't you think? They aren't stopping other companies from entering the market. They aren't pricing them out of the marketplace. They aren't threatening them to make them leave the market. Yes, they are stopping other companies from entering the market. Read the ruling. Page 210. Go on.
The problem is that some companies couldn't hack it and they found a place where they could turn around and beat Microsoft by crying foul. Then MS could go to court. Simple. It was a silly example but a valid one. Soon someone is going to sue because Microsoft includes a calculator. Their calculator isn't aimed to compete with other calculators. Simple.
Originally posted by Coldmeat I'm mildly confused as to how a company is being prevented from making a media player, given that any Joe off the street can program a window. And within that window, make it play media.
WinAmp, Quicken, RealPlayer, VLC, and a whole slew of other media players all seem to do just fine. They all have free versions, and pro versions with fancy bells and whistles.
So how, again, is M$ "hiding" their code, and preventing competitors from making a media player?
Will this company go on to sue WinAmp, et all, for offering free media players, as they can't sell theirs with all these free ones around??
What about browsers? Can I start a company in the EU, and sue M$, Mozilla, etc for offering a free browser, and thus costing me profits from my attempt to sell my browser that does the exact same thing with a different colored wrapper?
I suggest you read a blog or an article about the case. Or the 2004 ruling which I've linked before.
Companes aren't being prevented from developing media players. But they're being prevented of obtaining a fair market position.
For example, if a company sells TV's with free DVD players... And they're the only company selling TV's... Would this give a fair chance to the other DVD player manufacterers? No, of course not. Several facts are being used as proof in the 2004 ruling.
But if they're all distributed seperatly then each DVD player has the same chance to be îcked up by the consumer.
See?
Need I go back and quote where you've said M$ was "hiding" their code from the developers in previous posts? I'm not talking about blogs, or rulings, I'm talking about what you said.
I don't care about what I say. I are about the ruling. I suggested blogs because people don't like walls of text. Even if those walls actually have a meaning.
I get it, though, Microsoft pushed you down the stairs, and now you think they should be screwed left, right, and center. I'll freely admit, I'm not a fan of M$ either, and like others, would prefer a stipped down version. I wish developers would make software for Linux. I wish I was little bit taller, I wish I was a B-baller. I'm also going to guess you've never worked in a PC Tech Support position before, have you?
My personal motives are totally irrelevant.
I could say the same about you:
"I get it, though, you can't find any definable arguments, and now I'll try to discredit your personal motives in this discussion."
But I won't, because I'm not as pathetic as to think that I'm so high and mighty that I know what goes on in your head.
Anyway, I don't see them as being a monopoly. They were the first to market with a product that worked across all the different PC platforms at the time. They had the first, and ONLY GUI OS. They provided a unified OS(ripped off of Mac's OS though it was) for companies like Adobe, Shockwave, et all to make further unified products that would bring us to where we are today. The only competition they've ever had in the PC OS market has been Unix/Linux. I'm not aware of any serious attempts at providing an alternative OS that would work with all existing software. I don't even remember any serious attempts at alternate OS's back in the day. So, again, not a monopoly, just the first, and basically only, horse to the trough. You want an example of a monopoly? Check Wal*Mart.
Microsoft is a monopoly. Plain and simple.
And they're not that amazingly innovative. I've previously proven that they hardly have any protocols on their name, except to commercialize them and stop other companies from using them.
They also steal.
Microsoft admitted in its 2006 Annual Report that it was a defendant in at least 35 patent infringement lawsuits. [9] The company's litigation expenses for April 2004 through March 2007 exceed $4.3 billion: over $4 billion in payouts, plus $300 million in legal fees[33].
The Halloween documents, internal Microsoft memos which were leaked to the open source community beginning in 1998, indicate that Microsoft perceives open source software — in particular, freely-available Linux kernel-based operating systems — as a growing long-term threat to Microsoft's dominance of the software industry. In marked contrast to the company's public statements, which tend to downplay or ignore open source software, the Halloween documents acknowledged that parts of Linux are superior to the versions of Microsoft Windows available at the time, and outlined a strategy of "de-commoditize[ing] protocols & applications"; in other words, basing networks and documents around proprietary standards so that they can only interoperate with other computers which use Microsoft products.[36][27][28][29][30] Opponents of Microsoft have dubbed this strategy "embrace, extend, and extinguish".
But I don't expect you to have an objective view on MS.
Good dodge on all the other media players, and the browser issue, though. I stand by my statement that M$ removing WMP from Windows won't make that company a dime, as there are waaaaay too many more established media players out there. Power users that know their way around won't give the product the time of day, given the variety of totally free, and very well established & stable media players out there. Non-power users will be totally lost, as they can barely figure out logging in to Windows in the first place. D/ling, and/or installing, a 3rd party app is the equivalent of brain surgery to them. And for a media player, which is seen as more of a luxury item as opposed to Acrobat, they're likely gonna give it a pass. So this company resorts to a lawsuit to turn a profit. Sadf.
WMP not dominant?
Media Player Format Share for 2006 Confirms Windows Media Remains Dominant with A 50.8% Share
And this is weird because...
The realplayer argument was actually used in court. Which you would know if you'd bothered reading the rulings conclusion.
MadAce the lawsuit didn't prove that Microsoft was a monopoly. It was about anticompetitive laws. If they were a monopoly then the company would be broken up.
But still a monopoly is, and each country has the right to deal with it the way they want to.
"If a monopoly is not protected from competition by law, then it is subject to competitive forces. However, with enough market share, a company or group can partially plan and control the market through strategic product updates or lower prices - potential competition can be thwarted, while demand for the dominant company's output can be preferentially developed. Hence, within free economies, planned sub-economies can arise."
And this is the case for MS whether you like it or not, and that's what the EU is trying to fight.
First off Microsoft is not a monopoly. Consumers can choose to purchase an Apple computer with Apple's OS or they can choose to use Linux. That makes it not a monopoly. Just because they have the best product and so are chosen by the most consumers does not make them a monopoly. Microsoft doesn't own the computers and they aren't forcing them to have windows software.
Secondly I never said Microsoft would survive. I said they would still be considered a successful company. Meaning past tense. As I said they could choose to launch a christmas tree company and with 29 billion dollars in cash alone they would be fine. They would no longer be making 1 billion dollars per month though. But I am sure they could subsidize themselves for years. That was my point. Not any point about whether they could still be the dominating force in the marketplace while losing a third of their customers. Potentially they could still be a viable software company and still be profitable. Just not 1 billion per month in cash profitable.
Not many companies make the kind of money that Microsoft does. They put what 2 billion dollars in losses into their console game market to buy their way in. And it seems to have been a pretty decent gamble.
To find a company with similar power in their respective marketplaces would be hard to do. Maybe ExxonMobile? Maybe JPMorgan Case or Citigroup? But really it would be hard.
That was the point I was trying to make. That Microsoft could cease to exist today and would still go down in history as one of (if not THE) most successful companies ever.
Maybe you missed the red marked quote on my text.
MS is a Monopoly, you don't have to have 100% control of the market in order to be considered one.
In Economic terms you are considered a monopoly if one company has so much dominance of the market that can directly or indirectly control the market itself, and that's what MS does.
You can't break up MS as you put it, it is not a bank that you can break up in 3 different companies with 3 different Boards.
MS business evolve around a product, which is their OS code, making 3 kind of Windows with 3 different names won't solve a thing and would be unfair, on the other hand sharing the code with other software houses, this will make a difference (it doesn't have to be for free, so MS will still make money from royalties).
And that's what the EU is trying to do.
It doesn't want to break MS in 3 companies cause it will make no sense, it is trying to force them to share their code with others.
But that's very difficult to do, because MS is almost a unique case, so it will take lots of time.
About your arguments...............
Apple is for Mac, which has nothing to do with PCs, and Linux is a nice OS which almost no software house support, and that's what the whole issue is all about.
MS directly or indirectly through its dominance of the market control the behaviour of other companies, which is a dangerous precedent indeed both for freedom of choice and for the free market, and any country has the right to act as they think is best.
Yes MS was the first company to think about an OS for a PC, so this dominance is well deserved, but that doesn't make it right though.
Because the fact they were the first gave them an unfair advantage, gave them the chance to set the standards.
Of course any software and game developer will make software for MS, it is not economically viable to develope the software also for Linux or similar, therefore making it virtually impossible for a new OS which is not MS compatible to have any kind of success.
MS code should at least be leased to other companies so they can develope an alternative OS for PC (A bit the way Epic lease their Unreal engine to games developers), there is no way any other OS could ever get a slice of the market if things don't change.
So stop going on about MS not being a Monopoly, because it clearly is, no mattter which way you put it.
About your last quote, certainly I agree with you.
But I don't think there is nobody that will deny that MS is a great company, I personally admire Bill Gates, I think is the greatest business man of the century.
But, I find stupid and childish that some people will come up with arguments like "I hope that Bill Gates pull out of the EU to shown the Europeans what they miss" (And I am not necessarly referring to you).
This just make me laugh aloud, and any attempt to defend that line, make me laugh even more.
Jesus, MS is just a company, the world will go on without Microsoft FFS, stop making such a deal out of it.
Comments
I'm mildly confused as to how a company is being prevented from making a media player, given that any Joe off the street can program a window. And within that window, make it play media.
WinAmp, Quicken, RealPlayer, VLC, and a whole slew of other media players all seem to do just fine. They all have free versions, and pro versions with fancy bells and whistles.
So how, again, is M$ "hiding" their code, and preventing competitors from making a media player?
Will this company go on to sue WinAmp, et all, for offering free media players, as they can't sell theirs with all these free ones around??
What about browsers? Can I start a company in the EU, and sue M$, Mozilla, etc for offering a free browser, and thus costing me profits from my attempt to sell my browser that does the exact same thing with a different colored wrapper?
I suggest you read a blog or an article about the case. Or the 2004 ruling which I've linked before.
Companes aren't being prevented from developing media players. But they're being prevented of obtaining a fair market position.
For example, if a company sells TV's with free DVD players... And they're the only company selling TV's... Would this give a fair chance to the other DVD player manufacterers? No, of course not. Several facts are being used as proof in the 2004 ruling.
But if they're all distributed seperatly then each DVD player has the same chance to be îcked up by the consumer.
See?
CLICK HERE TO GET A LIST OF FREE MMO LISTS!!!
5.5 millions servers shutting down (and subsequently the internet, depsite the many millions more running on Linux) would make Microsofts share vaporate overnight. That's I'll I'm going to say about it. You can continue pretending this isn't true.
Billy Boy isn't the ceo of Microsoft anymore.
And the US whining because the of the EU's decision... Pffft. Was to be expected. Yet another small battle in the economical worldwar between the US and the EU and China and India and Brazil and South-Africa...
Once again it doesn't matter what happens to the share price if they close up shop. That was the whole point. On top of the fact that a company with ZERO debt and 29billion in cash reserves could actually afford quite big loses to their stock price without collapsing.Sure as I said they could never make 1 billion dollars in cash per month if they dropped EU, but they could sure survive. Heck they could survive on around 30% of the marketplace I am sure (picked a number) instead of the 90%+ that they have currently.
War Beta Tester
I suggest you read a blog or an article about the case. Or the 2004 ruling which I've linked before.
Companes aren't being prevented from developing media players. But they're being prevented of obtaining a fair market position.
For example, if a company sells TV's with free DVD players... And they're the only company selling TV's... Would this give a fair chance to the other DVD player manufacterers? No, of course not. Several facts are being used as proof in the 2004 ruling.
But if they're all distributed seperatly then each DVD player has the same chance to be îcked up by the consumer.
See?
But what if other companies are perfectly able to sell Tv's with free DVD players as well and don't because they can't sustain it monetarily. Is it fair to stop the first company from offering this deal and thus gain a leg up on the competition?
5.5 millions servers shutting down (and subsequently the internet, depsite the many millions more running on Linux) would make Microsofts share vaporate overnight. That's I'll I'm going to say about it. You can continue pretending this isn't true.
Billy Boy isn't the ceo of Microsoft anymore.
And the US whining because the of the EU's decision... Pffft. Was to be expected. Yet another small battle in the economical worldwar between the US and the EU and China and India and Brazil and South-Africa...
Once again it doesn't matter what happens to the share price if they close up shop. That was the whole point. On top of the fact that a company with ZERO debt and 29billion in cash reserves could actually afford quite big loses to their stock price without collapsing.Sure as I said they could never make 1 billion dollars in cash per month if they dropped EU, but they could sure survive. Heck they could survive on around 30% of the marketplace I am sure (picked a number) instead of the 90%+ that they have currently.
I guess this means I've won the discussion as you previously said some pretty different things...
I too think it would be funny to see Billy boy just pull out. It isn't like the company needs the money. Honestly they could hold the EU hostage more so then the EU can hold them hostage. Because whether we like it or not, Windows is the dominant service currently in the marketplace (and remember we don't own our software we are leasing it due to Digital copyright laws). So honestly Microsoft could do worse then just pull out the software on the shelfs and the support system for the EU. They could turn off every European copy of Windows by disabling their security code in their system. Last time I heard Microsoft is sitting on a pile of money numbering in the 100 billions.
CLICK HERE TO GET A LIST OF FREE MMO LISTS!!!
I suggest you read a blog or an article about the case. Or the 2004 ruling which I've linked before.
Companes aren't being prevented from developing media players. But they're being prevented of obtaining a fair market position.
For example, if a company sells TV's with free DVD players... And they're the only company selling TV's... Would this give a fair chance to the other DVD player manufacterers? No, of course not. Several facts are being used as proof in the 2004 ruling.
But if they're all distributed seperatly then each DVD player has the same chance to be îcked up by the consumer.
See?
But what if other companies are perfectly able to sell Tv's with free DVD players as well and don't because they can't sustain it monetarily. Is it fair to stop the first company from offering this deal and thus gain a leg up on the competition?
Seriously. Read the ruling. It's good stuff.
In this case it's the only company selling TV's. Hell. Houses (computers outside the metaphore) are being sold with those TV's and the DVD player's already inside them. Nothing can compete with that.
If MS truly believes in healthy competition then they should welcome this ruling. Now WMP can be judged without prejudice by the European consumer.
CLICK HERE TO GET A LIST OF FREE MMO LISTS!!!
I suggest you read a blog or an article about the case. Or the 2004 ruling which I've linked before.
Companes aren't being prevented from developing media players. But they're being prevented of obtaining a fair market position.
For example, if a company sells TV's with free DVD players... And they're the only company selling TV's... Would this give a fair chance to the other DVD player manufacterers? No, of course not. Several facts are being used as proof in the 2004 ruling.
But if they're all distributed seperatly then each DVD player has the same chance to be îcked up by the consumer.
See?
Not in the US version of the law. In the US version it was designed specifically to break up Standard Oil. Later it was used to break up the Ma Bell telephone company. It was designed to break up a company that has exclusive rights and then doesn't allow any competition in. For instance a Oil refining company that turns around and purchases gas stations. If they turned around and offered their gas at a lower price then they sold it to other gas stations then it would be an unfair business practice and would be broken up.But what if other companies are perfectly able to sell Tv's with free DVD players as well and don't because they can't sustain it monetarily. Is it fair to stop the first company from offering this deal and thus gain a leg up on the competition?
Microsoft on the other hand doesn't sell computers and therefore can not force anyone to even use Windows. There fore the example from MadAce is invalid.
A better example would be Company A sells CRT televisions and offers free DVD players with them. They are the only seller of CRT tvs. But you can choose to go and buy a Plasma TV or a LCD TV. But if you want a CRT TV then you have to get it from them and they offer a free DVD player. The EU ruling would say that the CRT TV maker was anticompetitive because they were bundling their DVD players. But i think it is crap. Because I can choose not to buy a CRT TV and go with a Plasma or a LCD. Or I can choose to go with a CRT but get the better DVD player offered by someone else, because it has higher quality and more features.
I personally think that the EU version of the law is overstepping their boundries and infringing upon the free trade. Now they have different governments there so it is a different system and I respect that. But I don't think it was the right ruling in my opinion.
War Beta Tester
Is all MS will do is up the price of the next operating system they sell in the EU market and the US market for that matter, but one thing is for sure that they will recoup their money out of the EU market thats for sure.So it not a win for the EU.That said MS has changed the way business is done forever,have to give them that.
Trade in material assumptions for spiritual facts and make permanent progress.
5.5 millions servers shutting down (and subsequently the internet, depsite the many millions more running on Linux) would make Microsofts share vaporate overnight. That's I'll I'm going to say about it. You can continue pretending this isn't true.
Billy Boy isn't the ceo of Microsoft anymore.
And the US whining because the of the EU's decision... Pffft. Was to be expected. Yet another small battle in the economical worldwar between the US and the EU and China and India and Brazil and South-Africa...
Once again it doesn't matter what happens to the share price if they close up shop. That was the whole point. On top of the fact that a company with ZERO debt and 29billion in cash reserves could actually afford quite big loses to their stock price without collapsing.Sure as I said they could never make 1 billion dollars in cash per month if they dropped EU, but they could sure survive. Heck they could survive on around 30% of the marketplace I am sure (picked a number) instead of the 90%+ that they have currently.
I guess this means I've won the discussion as you previously said some pretty different things...
I too think it would be funny to see Billy boy just pull out. It isn't like the company needs the money. Honestly they could hold the EU hostage more so then the EU can hold them hostage. Because whether we like it or not, Windows is the dominant service currently in the marketplace (and remember we don't own our software we are leasing it due to Digital copyright laws). So honestly Microsoft could do worse then just pull out the software on the shelfs and the support system for the EU. They could turn off every European copy of Windows by disabling their security code in their system. Last time I heard Microsoft is sitting on a pile of money numbering in the 100 billions.
No, I can see how the wording when I wrote it before came out different then what I meant it. I never meant that Microsoft could survive well. I meant that the EU would have bigger problems faster then Microsoft would. And that in turn might make the EU buckle under pressure from businesses that aren't able to compete very well in the global marketplace.But of course in the long run it would be bad business for Microsoft to pull out of the EU. They would lose a ton of business and would lose a lot marketplace from it.
Would Microsoft collapse. Well most likely due to the fallout from investors, but could they survive it? yes. Could the EU survive it? Of course, but how much money would they lose due to it?
War Beta Tester
I suggest you read a blog or an article about the case. Or the 2004 ruling which I've linked before.
Companes aren't being prevented from developing media players. But they're being prevented of obtaining a fair market position.
For example, if a company sells TV's with free DVD players... And they're the only company selling TV's... Would this give a fair chance to the other DVD player manufacterers? No, of course not. Several facts are being used as proof in the 2004 ruling.
But if they're all distributed seperatly then each DVD player has the same chance to be îcked up by the consumer.
See?
Not in the US version of the law. In the US version it was designed specifically to break up Standard Oil. Later it was used to break up the Ma Bell telephone company. It was designed to break up a company that has exclusive rights and then doesn't allow any competition in. For instance a Oil refining company that turns around and purchases gas stations. If they turned around and offered their gas at a lower price then they sold it to other gas stations then it would be an unfair business practice and would be broken up.But what if other companies are perfectly able to sell Tv's with free DVD players as well and don't because they can't sustain it monetarily. Is it fair to stop the first company from offering this deal and thus gain a leg up on the competition?
Microsoft on the other hand doesn't sell computers and therefore can not force anyone to even use Windows. There fore the example from MadAce is invalid.
A better example would be Company A sells CRT televisions and offers free DVD players with them. They are the only seller of CRT tvs. But you can choose to go and buy a Plasma TV or a LCD TV. But if you want a CRT TV then you have to get it from them and they offer a free DVD player. The EU ruling would say that the CRT TV maker was anticompetitive because they were bundling their DVD players. But i think it is crap. Because I can choose not to buy a CRT TV and go with a Plasma or a LCD. Or I can choose to go with a CRT but get the better DVD player offered by someone else, because it has higher quality and more features.
I personally think that the EU version of the law is overstepping their boundries and infringing upon the free trade. Now they have different governments there so it is a different system and I respect that. But I don't think it was the right ruling in my opinion.
Actually when I think about it...It's like this.
Houses are sold with MS TV's and free DVD players installed. All TV programs and movies are made for the MS TV's. Also, since this situation has been like this for years the MS TV's are much more known to the technologically iliterate house owner.
Sure, their products are better. But due to compatability they're only being used by professional companies.
Now I wonder if other TV companies get a fair shot. Let alone DVD players.
CLICK HERE TO GET A LIST OF FREE MMO LISTS!!!
I did. I'll be the last person to argue that Microsoft doesn't use business practices that approach extortion. I worry about the precedent this can set. While I don't think some of the other examples posted here by others are fair (an OS is needed to run particular programs, hence control of the OS is indeed control of the medium, the computer hardware is secondary), would this ruling be so tasty if it were not against Microsoft? Let's assume for a moment that Microsoft were totally honest, had a great product, and sat in their position of supremacy through a combination of hard work and brutal but legal competition.
I see the writing on the wall here. Apple is next. Many people are unhappy with Apple's handling of iTunes. iTunes and the iPod are inseperable (well, maybe not, but I and most of the consumer public don't have the l33t haxxor skills to mess with it). This ruling can directly relate to this package, and I believe we will see a similar decision in very short order, forcing Apple to allow use of other MP3 players with iTunes, and other song programs with iPods. I use this example because it's a less easy target. There are many competitors to Apple in this field. There are many MP3 players and many programs like iTunes. Are iTunes and the iPod the best on the market? I'd wager not, but they're available and easy. The consumer doesn't want the best technology, they want the ease of a good interface and the security of a brand name.
Where will it end? At what point does this stop becoming trust-busting and start becoming punishment for success?
Frankly, knowing the free market economy this will only result in a much fiercer battle. Thus requiring better design and ideas for succes in stead of simply a huge wallet.
CLICK HERE TO GET A LIST OF FREE MMO LISTS!!!
I suggest you read a blog or an article about the case. Or the 2004 ruling which I've linked before.
Companes aren't being prevented from developing media players. But they're being prevented of obtaining a fair market position.
For example, if a company sells TV's with free DVD players... And they're the only company selling TV's... Would this give a fair chance to the other DVD player manufacterers? No, of course not. Several facts are being used as proof in the 2004 ruling.
But if they're all distributed seperatly then each DVD player has the same chance to be îcked up by the consumer.
See?
Not in the US version of the law. In the US version it was designed specifically to break up Standard Oil. Later it was used to break up the Ma Bell telephone company. It was designed to break up a company that has exclusive rights and then doesn't allow any competition in. For instance a Oil refining company that turns around and purchases gas stations. If they turned around and offered their gas at a lower price then they sold it to other gas stations then it would be an unfair business practice and would be broken up.But what if other companies are perfectly able to sell Tv's with free DVD players as well and don't because they can't sustain it monetarily. Is it fair to stop the first company from offering this deal and thus gain a leg up on the competition?
Microsoft on the other hand doesn't sell computers and therefore can not force anyone to even use Windows. There fore the example from MadAce is invalid.
A better example would be Company A sells CRT televisions and offers free DVD players with them. They are the only seller of CRT tvs. But you can choose to go and buy a Plasma TV or a LCD TV. But if you want a CRT TV then you have to get it from them and they offer a free DVD player. The EU ruling would say that the CRT TV maker was anticompetitive because they were bundling their DVD players. But i think it is crap. Because I can choose not to buy a CRT TV and go with a Plasma or a LCD. Or I can choose to go with a CRT but get the better DVD player offered by someone else, because it has higher quality and more features.
I personally think that the EU version of the law is overstepping their boundries and infringing upon the free trade. Now they have different governments there so it is a different system and I respect that. But I don't think it was the right ruling in my opinion.
Actually when I think about it...It's like this.
Houses are sold with MS TV's and free DVD players installed. All TV programs and movies are made for the MS TV's. Also, since this situation has been like this for years the MS TV's are much more known to the technologically iliterate house owner.
Sure, their products are better. But due to compatability they're only being used by professional companies.
Now I wonder if other TV companies get a fair shot. Let alone DVD players.
So a company should be punished for building up a great brand?That is kind of silly don't you think? They aren't stopping other companies from entering the market. They aren't pricing them out of the marketplace. They aren't threatening them to make them leave the market.
As seen in other markets that Microsoft is in they have competitors. Consoles. Search Engine. Web Browser.
For the same reason that supposedly Media Player is doing the best and needed to be squashed so should Internet Explorer be crushing the competition and so should MSN.com. All three come bundled with Windows and yet in 2 of those three instances Microsoft isn't doing well.
The problem is that some companies couldn't hack it and they found a place where they could turn around and beat Microsoft by crying foul.
Google didn't need to do that.
Firefox hasn't needed to do that.
So why should other media players get a special pass?
It was a silly example but a valid one. Soon someone is going to sue because Microsoft includes a calculator.
War Beta Tester
Companes aren't being prevented from developing media players. But they're being prevented of obtaining a fair market position.
For example, if a company sells TV's with free DVD players... And they're the only company selling TV's... Would this give a fair chance to the other DVD player manufacterers? No, of course not. Several facts are being used as proof in the 2004 ruling.
But if they're all distributed seperatly then each DVD player has the same chance to be
I suggest you read a blog or an article about the case. Or the 2004 ruling which I've linked before.
Companes aren't being prevented from developing media players. But they're being prevented of obtaining a fair market position.
For example, if a company sells TV's with free DVD players... And they're the only company selling TV's... Would this give a fair chance to the other DVD player manufacterers? No, of course not. Several facts are being used as proof in the 2004 ruling.
But if they're all distributed seperatly then each DVD player has the same chance to be îcked up by the consumer.
See?
Not in the US version of the law. In the US version it was designed specifically to break up Standard Oil. Later it was used to break up the Ma Bell telephone company. It was designed to break up a company that has exclusive rights and then doesn't allow any competition in. For instance a Oil refining company that turns around and purchases gas stations. If they turned around and offered their gas at a lower price then they sold it to other gas stations then it would be an unfair business practice and would be broken up.But what if other companies are perfectly able to sell Tv's with free DVD players as well and don't because they can't sustain it monetarily. Is it fair to stop the first company from offering this deal and thus gain a leg up on the competition?
Microsoft on the other hand doesn't sell computers and therefore can not force anyone to even use Windows. There fore the example from MadAce is invalid.
A better example would be Company A sells CRT televisions and offers free DVD players with them. They are the only seller of CRT tvs. But you can choose to go and buy a Plasma TV or a LCD TV. But if you want a CRT TV then you have to get it from them and they offer a free DVD player. The EU ruling would say that the CRT TV maker was anticompetitive because they were bundling their DVD players. But i think it is crap. Because I can choose not to buy a CRT TV and go with a Plasma or a LCD. Or I can choose to go with a CRT but get the better DVD player offered by someone else, because it has higher quality and more features.
I personally think that the EU version of the law is overstepping their boundries and infringing upon the free trade. Now they have different governments there so it is a different system and I respect that. But I don't think it was the right ruling in my opinion.
Actually when I think about it...It's like this.
Houses are sold with MS TV's and free DVD players installed. All TV programs and movies are made for the MS TV's. Also, since this situation has been like this for years the MS TV's are much more known to the technologically iliterate house owner.
Sure, their products are better. But due to compatability they're only being used by professional companies.
Now I wonder if other TV companies get a fair shot. Let alone DVD players.
So a company should be punished for building up a great brand?CLICK HERE TO GET A LIST OF FREE MMO LISTS!!!
I suggest you read a blog or an article about the case. Or the 2004 ruling which I've linked before.
Companes aren't being prevented from developing media players. But they're being prevented of obtaining a fair market position.
For example, if a company sells TV's with free DVD players... And they're the only company selling TV's... Would this give a fair chance to the other DVD player manufacterers? No, of course not. Several facts are being used as proof in the 2004 ruling.
But if they're all distributed seperatly then each DVD player has the same chance to be îcked up by the consumer.
See?
Need I go back and quote where you've said M$ was "hiding" their code from the developers in previous posts? I'm not talking about blogs, or rulings, I'm talking about what you said.
I don't care about what I say. I are about the ruling. I suggested blogs because people don't like walls of text. Even if those walls actually have a meaning.
I get it, though, Microsoft pushed you down the stairs, and now you think they should be screwed left, right, and center. I'll freely admit, I'm not a fan of M$ either, and like others, would prefer a stipped down version. I wish developers would make software for Linux. I wish I was little bit taller, I wish I was a B-baller. I'm also going to guess you've never worked in a PC Tech Support position before, have you?
My personal motives are totally irrelevant.
I could say the same about you:
"I get it, though, you can't find any definable arguments, and now I'll try to discredit your personal motives in this discussion."
But I won't, because I'm not as pathetic as to think that I'm so high and mighty that I know what goes on in your head.
Anyway, I don't see them as being a monopoly. They were the first to market with a product that worked across all the different PC platforms at the time. They had the first, and ONLY GUI OS. They provided a unified OS(ripped off of Mac's OS though it was) for companies like Adobe, Shockwave, et all to make further unified products that would bring us to where we are today. The only competition they've ever had in the PC OS market has been Unix/Linux. I'm not aware of any serious attempts at providing an alternative OS that would work with all existing software. I don't even remember any serious attempts at alternate OS's back in the day. So, again, not a monopoly, just the first, and basically only, horse to the trough. You want an example of a monopoly? Check Wal*Mart.
Microsoft is a monopoly. Plain and simple.
And they're not that amazingly innovative. I've previously proven that they hardly have any protocols on their name, except to commercialize them and stop other companies from using them.
They also steal.
Microsoft admitted in its 2006 Annual Report that it was a defendant in at least 35 patent infringement lawsuits. [9] The company's litigation expenses for April 2004 through March 2007 exceed $4.3 billion: over $4 billion in payouts, plus $300 million in legal fees[33].
The Halloween documents, internal Microsoft memos which were leaked to the open source community beginning in 1998, indicate that Microsoft perceives open source software — in particular, freely-available Linux kernel-based operating systems — as a growing long-term threat to Microsoft's dominance of the software industry. In marked contrast to the company's public statements, which tend to downplay or ignore open source software, the Halloween documents acknowledged that parts of Linux are superior to the versions of Microsoft Windows available at the time, and outlined a strategy of "de-commoditize[ing] protocols & applications"; in other words, basing networks and documents around proprietary standards so that they can only interoperate with other computers which use Microsoft products.[36][27][28][29][30] Opponents of Microsoft have dubbed this strategy "embrace, extend, and extinguish".
But I don't expect you to have an objective view on MS.
Good dodge on all the other media players, and the browser issue, though. I stand by my statement that M$ removing WMP from Windows won't make that company a dime, as there are waaaaay too many more established media players out there. Power users that know their way around won't give the product the time of day, given the variety of totally free, and very well established & stable media players out there. Non-power users will be totally lost, as they can barely figure out logging in to Windows in the first place. D/ling, and/or installing, a 3rd party app is the equivalent of brain surgery to them. And for a media player, which is seen as more of a luxury item as opposed to Acrobat, they're likely gonna give it a pass. So this company resorts to a lawsuit to turn a profit. Sadf.
WMP not dominant?
Media Player Format Share for 2006 Confirms Windows Media Remains Dominant with A 50.8% Share
And this is weird because...
The realplayer argument was actually used in court. Which you would know if you'd bothered reading the rulings conclusion.
CLICK HERE TO GET A LIST OF FREE MMO LISTS!!!
I think that about covers it. Thanks.
MadAce the lawsuit didn't prove that Microsoft was a monopoly. It was about anticompetitive laws. If they were a monopoly then the company would be broken up.
War Beta Tester
Secondly I never said Microsoft would survive. I said they would still be considered a successful company. Meaning past tense. As I said they could choose to launch a christmas tree company and with 29 billion dollars in cash alone they would be fine. They would no longer be making 1 billion dollars per month though. But I am sure they could subsidize themselves for years. That was my point. Not any point about whether they could still be the dominating force in the marketplace while losing a third of their customers. Potentially they could still be a viable software company and still be profitable. Just not 1 billion per month in cash profitable.
Not many companies make the kind of money that Microsoft does. They put what 2 billion dollars in losses into their console game market to buy their way in. And it seems to have been a pretty decent gamble.
To find a company with similar power in their respective marketplaces would be hard to do. Maybe ExxonMobile? Maybe JPMorgan Case or Citigroup? But really it would be hard.
That was the point I was trying to make. That Microsoft could cease to exist today and would still go down in history as one of (if not THE) most successful companies ever.
Maybe you missed the red marked quote on my text.
MS is a Monopoly, you don't have to have 100% control of the market in order to be considered one.
In Economic terms you are considered a monopoly if one company has so much dominance of the market that can directly or indirectly control the market itself, and that's what MS does.
You can't break up MS as you put it, it is not a bank that you can break up in 3 different companies with 3 different Boards.
MS business evolve around a product, which is their OS code, making 3 kind of Windows with 3 different names won't solve a thing and would be unfair, on the other hand sharing the code with other software houses, this will make a difference (it doesn't have to be for free, so MS will still make money from royalties).
And that's what the EU is trying to do.
It doesn't want to break MS in 3 companies cause it will make no sense, it is trying to force them to share their code with others.
But that's very difficult to do, because MS is almost a unique case, so it will take lots of time.
About your arguments...............
Apple is for Mac, which has nothing to do with PCs, and Linux is a nice OS which almost no software house support, and that's what the whole issue is all about.
MS directly or indirectly through its dominance of the market control the behaviour of other companies, which is a dangerous precedent indeed both for freedom of choice and for the free market, and any country has the right to act as they think is best.
Yes MS was the first company to think about an OS for a PC, so this dominance is well deserved, but that doesn't make it right though.
Because the fact they were the first gave them an unfair advantage, gave them the chance to set the standards.
Of course any software and game developer will make software for MS, it is not economically viable to develope the software also for Linux or similar, therefore making it virtually impossible for a new OS which is not MS compatible to have any kind of success.
MS code should at least be leased to other companies so they can develope an alternative OS for PC (A bit the way Epic lease their Unreal engine to games developers), there is no way any other OS could ever get a slice of the market if things don't change.
So stop going on about MS not being a Monopoly, because it clearly is, no mattter which way you put it.
About your last quote, certainly I agree with you.
But I don't think there is nobody that will deny that MS is a great company, I personally admire Bill Gates, I think is the greatest business man of the century.
But, I find stupid and childish that some people will come up with arguments like "I hope that Bill Gates pull out of the EU to shown the Europeans what they miss" (And I am not necessarly referring to you).
This just make me laugh aloud, and any attempt to defend that line, make me laugh even more.
Jesus, MS is just a company, the world will go on without Microsoft FFS, stop making such a deal out of it.