“Not long ago, I went to Washington for a dinner given by a friend. She wanted to commemorate the fifth anniversary of the end of the Microsoft antitrust trial, which she had covered for a news agency and I had covered for Fortune magazine,” Joseph Nocera writes for The New York Times.
“The trial… woke Microsoft up to the fact that it was truly hated in Silicon Valley. It’s been trying to make nice ever since. It has settled a series of private antitrust suits – for some $3.5 billion – brought by rivals like Sun Microsystems. And it has worked assiduously to turn former enemies into allies. (Sun, which now holds joint news conferences with Microsoft, is a prime example.) At Microsoft, there is a lot less ‘my way or the highway’ than there used to be,” Nocera writes. “This is not an insignificant change – but it’s not what the antitrust trial was really about. The central issue was whether the company had an inalienable right to bundle new software products – a browser, a media player, antivirus software, a ‘ham sandwich,’ as Microsoft once put it – into its operating system. Whenever it does so, of course, it gives itself a huge home-court advantage: its software is suddenly available on over 90 percent of the world’s PC’s, and is usually the ‘default’ product as well.”
Nocera writes, “During the trial, Microsoft argued that when it added features to Windows it was helping consumers. To the company, its right to ‘innovate’ – as it invariably called the practice – was sacrosanct. The government argued that folding its version of a competitor’s product into its monopoly operating system was a deeply anticompetitive act. And here’s something that might surprise you: The Microsoft trial did not settle this critical question.”
Full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: That journalists hold parties to commemorate the anniversaries of trials they’ve covered is fairly scary in and of itself. Back to thrust of the article: Nocera questions whether Microsoft’s Windows monopoly can do to Google what they did to Netscape, if Microsoft decides to include Internet search in Windows Longhorn. Nocera writes, “Microsoft has Windows. That’s the main thing that hasn’t changed in the wake of the antitrust trial. That used to be enough. We’re going to find out if it still is.”
Of course the trial settled nothing. Everybody got hung up on the stupid browser thing instead of focusing on the strong arm business practices of this predator monopoly.
If it uses the same engine as MSN search, then no – it won’t affect the majority of windows users. MSN search sucks. Nowhere near as many results as Google and most of their results are irrelevent. Simply put: if users find can’t find what they are looking for with Longshot search or whatever they call it, they will revert back to Google, Yahoo or another search engine.
Of course it will. These days, MS has no choice- they are a huge monopoly. In a sense, they’re their own worse enemy- by ultimately leading themselves into an obusive monopoly position, every technology that they provide for their customers will step on the toes of some other company who is trying to do the same. MS has enormous resources ($$$$$), and as such, can buy themselves into pretty much any position they want.
The two money-making products coming out of Redmond are Office and Windows. EVERY other technology lost money last year, as well as year over year (xbox, .net, MSN, etc). But since they have $40 billion in the bank, they can afford to take losses to keep these products competing in their respective markets. This is an unfair advantage- their products are used by over 90% of the world (in some instances), and yet they offer no proportional advantage over other similar products, and in many cases, offer an inferior product.
People are invariably tied to Office (esp the .doc format), and WMA will prove to be a similar circumstance for consumers in the future. Are they better formats? Doubt it. But millions will use them because they have to, or because they don’t know any better.
MS can undercut the competition for similar reasons.
I agreed with the original DOJ decision- split Windows and Office. That would have forced Office to compete in its respective market, without the Windows revenue. Other than that, it’s a Microsoft world, and we just have to deal with it.
Microsoft is a “criminal” predator monopoly. They truly have shown no remorse for their past or current sins, and (ask the EU) they continue to sin. They know the advantage of “search” in all its incarnations and will do what they can to wreak havoc against Google.
Microsoft’s days as the all-powerful monopolist are numbered. Their major successes are Windows and Office, both cash cows. Anyone competing directly against either is usually crushed. Elsewhere, Redmond has left a river flowing with red ink.
Already, more nimble, alert and active competitors are doing well. Apple. Google. Linux. Once Linux solves their fragmentation with a unified desktop interface (and installation), Microsoft will be severely damaged.
As it is, their market share erosion will merely continue unabated, slow, steadily draining the company. Currently, the company continues to miss revenue and profit objectives.
The Redmond FUD machine is running overtime to counter Apple’s bold media and music initiatives and Linux’s advancements into business.
Desperation has settled into the cocooned minds of the OS behemoth and they’ve now begun attacking their cohorts and confidants. Chipmaker Intel is first to feel the wrath as Microsot breaks tradition and pushes hardware using IBM (Toshiba, Sony, Apple, et al) chips.
PC makers are in Microsoft’s targets as the Xbox is nothing more than a PC without a keyboard or monitor yet could become a fast, cheap way for Microsoft to sell hardware, too.
Tera Patricks
Mac360.com
Doesn’t Apple package ilife (with new systems) and safari, quicktime, dashboard, and other applications into osx releases? Granted the apps kick much booty, but i fail to see how this is any different then what Microsoft is doing.
“Doesn’t Apple package ilife (with new systems) and safari, quicktime, dashboard, and other applications into osx releases? Granted the apps kick much booty, but i fail to see how this is any different then what Microsoft is doing.”
You can delete everyone of those aformentioned apps and not worry about your system being effected – with the exception of Dashboard and QuickTime frameworks – the QT Player can be deleted. The reason for the latter two is because Dashboard (and Exposé) rely on the dock and QuickTime frameworks are used by tons of apps – Finder, Mail, Safari and many third-party products.
What MS has done is intergrate (as in unseperable) products like IE and Windows Media Player into the OS. Big difference.
Also, you have remember that Apple has the postition of Dell and MS (yucky comparison). That is to say they make the OS and sell the system. This allow them to bundle whatever software they want to on their systems – much like Dell does (but better).
Frankly, it’s Microsoft’s operating system and they should be able to do whatever the hell they want with it. Besides, packaging stuff with the OS always backfires on you – look at what happened to IE. They bundled IE, competing browsers fell out of the mainstream, IE had no appreciable competition and therefore languished for a long time while alternative browsers gradually improved. Now IE sucks beyond all comprehension and kickass browsers like Firefox and Safari are positioned to dominate the browser arena. (I hesitate to call it a market.)
y’know what what is difference of Miscrsoft pre-installing Windows Media Player and Apple pre-installing iTunes???
Entirely Possible – based on past record.
Good Sir Java – you are kidding right?! 90% of Windows users out there don’t realize that alternative browsers exist! IE is the only thing they know and use …
macdaknife and Amin: The difference is that MS has a monopoly position in the OS market.
Personally, I think MS should be allowed to bundle whatever they want as part of the OS. But as inaminit said in the first post, as an OS monopoly, it is illegal for MS to force hardware mfrs to pay for Windows on units which did not have Windows installed, or to force the hardware mfrs to not bundle competing software by threatening to take away Windows or to pay more for Windows. And MS should not be allowed to steal technology from its small company partners in order to put in the OS.
If the paradigm shift were to become a tsunami and Apple gained 85% market share in the next 5 years, would the fact that they design the hardware and software keep them from being considered an evil monopoly?
When you click Slideshow in Mail, it opens iPhoto automatically. There are plenty of instances where many of the Apple apps are integrated into one another and into the OS.
I am a true lover and proponent of Apple’s products, but I don’t feel that they are as inseparable as we’d like to think.
Could Apple be sued for bundling all of its software “ilife” and other apps into its operating system?
“Could Apple be sued for bundling all of its software “ilife” and other apps into its operating system?”
Correct me if I’m wrong please (I don’t have Tiger) but I don’t believe that Apple bundles iLife with Mac OS X installations at all. Apple does bundle it with their new computers though, which is totally different from what M$ does. It is exactly the same as bundled software on any PC OEM like HP or Dell.
Further, these apps are separable from the OS, unlike most of the M$ apps.
–mAc
in case you guys don’t get the underlying message: a substandard service WILL become the default/status quo if MS has its way. As such, the Windows monopoly, and MS’ ability to bundle Apps and chain them to the OS, rather than offer them as optional downloads which can easily be removed from the computer, for example, is their path to success.
where would the Xbox be without msn messenger integration into xbox live?
where would msn.com be if it werent set as default webpage in Internet Explorer, or integrated into MSN messenger, which feeds off Hotmail, which feeds off Outlook Express which is bundled and locked to the OS.
Oops, that was a doozy. Am I forgetting some of their stuff? Solitaire perhaps.
One wonders how MS Office ever became the standard. Perhaps Microsoft bundled it in a MS PACKAGE FOR BUSINESSES in the early 90’s and it’s been the standard ever since…
PS> The idea that MS WOULDN’T use it’s Windows monopoly to beat Google shows a little naivety on the author’s part. It’s their business model.
Mac Warrior..
In Tiger, though, Apple has integrated iLife into many of the systems features, things like integration with Mail and .mac means that Apple, too, is benefitting from its own little monopoly.
Any time you CTRL-click on a media file you’ll find wonderful menu items related to media apps as well as quicktime.
wonderful, but shitty for anyone trying to start up an iLife-killer.
Oh and for the record, the question posed by this article has been answered:
In the MSN Search Add-on and in 2007 with Longhorn, MS is definitely integrating web search into the OS to kill off Google. Their ‘Spotlight, wrong corner’ functionality includes web searches as well as HD searches.
I wonder how they’re going to do that.. I mean, if you type the letter ‘a’ surely they’re not going to display the top 20 matches of the ENTIRE INTERNET.
Maybe it just won’t be as smooth as Spotlight, maybe you have to hit enter after you enter the whole word..
What I find interesting about the M$ monopoly is that it came to be because the average consumer paid for its products before they knew what they wanted. Home computing was in its infancy and people bought simply because they could. The idea of choice in computing was limited because the idea of computing was limited.
Standard Oil became a monopoly very clearly: people knew what they wanted and they bought from the only one giving it to them. But at that time, people understood oil. It wasn’t as if you could choose to run your vehicle on bricks, or chocolate bonbons.
If the world started fresh today choosing an operating system or computer “type,” seems to me that expectations would be considerably different. If not, they are all clearly wrong and I am right. As always.
“In Tiger, though, Apple has integrated iLife into many of the systems features, things like integration with Mail and .mac means that Apple, too, is benefitting from its own little monopoly.”
There is nothing wrong with integrating between different apps and/or services from the same company. This is how value is added to a product. (Doesn’t Adobe do this? (I’m not totally sure)).
“Any time you CTRL-click on a media file you’ll find wonderful menu items related to media apps as well as quicktime.”
I’m not entirely sure about what you’re referring to, but anytime I click on a ‘.mov’ file (for example) I can ‘open with:’ QuickTime Player, Grapher, iTunes, MPlayer OS X 2, RealPlayer or VLC.
——–
To Crouching Tiger…
If Apple didn’t change the way their apps work in a way that hurt third-parties, no.
*When you click the slideshow button in Mail, it does NOT open iPhoto. It does the slideshow on its own. I don’t know what would happen if iPhoto was not on your computer, but I would imagine that you wouldn’t be able to add an image from Mail to iPhoto – that’s all.
I’m so sorry, but if you don’t want to use WMA then don’t use Windows. It’s that simple. I remember when this was all about Netscape, also very sorry but that is a function of the operating syste (weather or not directly tied to the core system). It is a feature none the less, and if you don’t want to use it then don’t. But look at apple and let’s say spring loaded folders feature. I could say that Apple is not allowing for third party software developers to implement their own feature set for spring loaded folders. Or even better, Safari, people are going to use it, weather or not they know better. This is a stupid argument. It’s not Apple’s or Microsoft’s fault that they develop an operating system, and bundle software with it. Or what about the Dock, I could simply say that this peace of software (yes the dock is software) is unfairly bundled with Apple’s operating system and not allowing fair rang of competition with other competitors who make similar products. (yes there are other peaces of software that do the same thing as the dock, in a sense). Or iTunes, that’s unfair bundled too, it’s unfair for competition. Or is it? How about Apple just ship the OS and NONE of the programs; including the utilities like Disk Utility, Activity Monitor, etc and DVD/CD burning capabilities of the finder.
Yes, I hate MS, but they did NOTHING wrong, except have an advantage, not an unfair advantage but an advantage none the less but that is not their fault that people bought the OS which has it bundled. It was still the consumers option to use the OS in the first place. And no, I don’t even own a PC (I do have VPC). If a consumer is unhappy with using IE, or the WMA format or the .doc format, then they should shoot them selves in foot for getting a PC in the first place, but most people don’t give a hoot. And if the consumer doesn’t give a hoot, then what makes anyone think they are going to go out and find some third party developer replacement? I’m sorry but saying that it’s unfair if the consumers are lazy and don’t want to go hunting for SIMPLE things like Web browsers, music players, or the dock/taskbar, is stupid. If you don’t want the OS and it’s features then DON”T BUY IT. It’s a packaged deal. Live with it. This one will come back to us “Apple Lovers” with all the free iApps. So hush.
Unfortuneately I agree with AC.
If Apple continues at this rate… it will find itself on a very thin line.
Hopefully they will play their cards right because bad things shouldn’t happen to such good computer companies.
My other post isn’t showing up so forgive me if I’m making a double post:
I do disagree with AC about one thing, however:
MS did have many illegal, immoral, and down right wrong business practices, far beyond something that can be justified as consumer laziness.
You go too far if you try and dismiss it all.
The Apple issue about bundles should not arise because they make the computer and its software. They are a complete computer and software company and ms is a software company. So they sell a operating system, but if they bundle it with all this other software that is where the foul play comes in. Its OS should compete with all OS’s on the market and IE and Office should compete seperatly and not hide in a bundle to help it become supreme. But with Apple, since you they are a complete computer manufacturer They can bundle their computer with the software they choose just as Dell And HP already does.
Apple does not sell its OS to other computer companies. If they did and bundled all the stuff the computer comes with ( iLife…..) with their OS they would be wrong also.
The other software companies just want the Computer manufacturers to have a choice in the matter of what to bundle not have ms make that choice for them
Let me add that iLife is not bundled with the Tiger OS.
I agree with Pete as most Windows users only know IE as a browser they can use. That’s why they get viruses and spyware all the time. They should be using Firefox instead. I know most websites are now telling users to get the hell off of IE as it is what is causing all of there grief. That’s why IE’s share has been falling as of late in the browser wars.
Here’s the central difference I see here, and if someone else has already said this, I must have missed it…
The thing about Apple’s “bundled” applications with the OS (iTunes, Disk Utility, etc), is that you can simply click and drag those applications to the trash or disable them, and you would not affect the operation of the rest OS in any appreciable way, except to lose the the ability to run that program or make use of that feature. You would still be able to use other programs and the central core of the OS would not be compromised. You could install (or have previously installed) other programs that provide that functionality, although in some eyes, not as elegantly.
What M$ did, in their monopolistic way, was to integrate those applications that were similar to competitors programs so deeply into their OS that one couldn’t delete the M$ application without essentially disabling and crippling the OS, even if you had the competing software installed. That’s the central flaw of their OS architecture and what so many have been fighting against them to change, though at this point that appears to be highly unlikely.
“What M$ did, in their monopolistic way, was to integrate those applications
that were similar to competitors programs so deeply into their OS that one
couldn’t delete the M$ application without essentially disabling and
crippling the OS, even if you had the competing software installed. That’s
the central flaw of their OS architecture and what so many have been
fighting against them to change, though at this point that appears to be
highly unlikely. “
Thanks for explaining this difference.
Bundling software with an operating system, as Apple and Microsoft has done, might give it an advantage over competitors, but I vehemently disagree with the idea that it is an illegal practice and should not be allowed. What the real problem is, that other posters have stated, is when bundled software cannot be removed, like IE. All Apple’s software can be removed without any problem, so if I find a better alternative to an Apple bundled program, I can choose to delete the Apple program. However, if I find a better alternative to an MS bundled program, I still have to leave the MS program on my computer.
I think an effective way to at least reduce MS’s monopoly on Office would be to force them to adopt an open standard file format, or at least have to disclose the specifications to an open board whenever changes are made, to prevent MS hurting competitors by constantly secretly changing the file format specs.
The M$ antitrust lawsuit was not just what they had done but why they had done it. Motivation carries as much weight as action. It is the difference between a gun being fired accidentally and killing someone and taking aim and shooting them in the head. One is manslaughter and the other is murder. To the victim it makes no difference, they are still dead, but the motive makes a difference.
M$ made their mistake in the case of IE and Win when they made it not possible to replace IE with something else (like Netscape) and delete IE. If you deleted IE the OS went mad. Then some hardware OEM’s had deals with Netscape that allowed them to bundle it with their PC’s. M$’s action in locking IE into the OS effectively forced a breach of contract condition on the PC makers with the Netscape deals. That was illegal and monopolistic and why they had to lose in the end.
As for M$ Office, that started on Apple first. M$ developed Word for Apple first and then later ported it to Win. Excel started out as Multiplan on the Apple, again before it was available on the IBM PC. Multiplan shared the market with Visicalc long before Lotus 1-2-3 was born. When Lotus came along with better marketing and took over the market with many spreadsheets going to the wall like Visicalc and Supercalc (both on Apple II first), M$ took a step back to rethink and let Multiplan die out. They had just signed their contract with IBM and just didn’t have the resources to do both. When Win came along they dusted off the Multiplan code, renamed it Excel (so it would not be associated with the older Multiplan now seen as dead by the market) and did good things with it. They bought out the company that originally developed Powerpoint and integrated that. Access came along later and mainly to compete with Lotus Approach. Both databases were inted to provide a subset of SQL that was clearly starting to dominate the business database arena and the PC’s then were not powerful enough to run full SQL products. Later on M$ cut a deal with Sybase for the source code to Sybase SQL Server at the Sybase version 4.9.2 which was code frozen. They are prevented by contract (for a finite period of time I think) from taking the M$ version onto any non M$ OS and Sybase were limited by the same contract for I think five years before they could produce a Win version of Sybase SQL Server, to give M$ a chance to establish.
It is not bundling that is wrong, but integrating in such a way that competitive products cannot be used. With Apple and Dashboard for instance, if you preferred Konfabulator, you can still use it. If you prefer a browser other than Safari, you can still use them. If you want to use Pages instead of Word or vice versa, that’s ok you can. Apple is not anti-competitive and most of the time M$ is not either – just so large their size gives them advantages that smaller companies have to fight for such as almost instant acceptance and substantial market penetration for any new product they bring out. While that may be a pain in the rear it is not of itself illegal.
I am quite happy bashing Microsoft, Apple, Dell, or the Man in the Moon if they step out of line unfairly, but we need to be careful and decide if what has happened is down to deliberate action to kill competition or just the byproduct of market share being so large.
When it comes to M$ trying to outdo Google, they’ll have an uphill battle. Google is accepted generally as being the best Internet search engine out there and they have sold versions and consultancy to competitors. Many corporates now use Google engines in-house to do their corporate document searching. M$ will not replace all of those. I suspect that the M$ offering will have the effect of allowing those users who are PC naive to search where previously they could not. Those same users would get the similar assistance if they bought an Apple. There is a wealth of difference between Internet searching and searching your own hard drive or network. Index relevance is far more important than speed even. I do not expect that Longhorn’s search will be all that hot, but it will be useful. M$ may find themselves in an awkward position though in that searching technology and algorithms are changing almost overnight at the moment and Longhorn will have to play catchup. Apple’s Spotlight has no doubt given Longhorn developers some sleepless nights and may possibly cause shipping dates for Longhorn to slip again.
As someone who owns and uses OSX, Linux and Win machines and worked in IT since the 70’s I feel qualified to comment. Maybe I have got it wrong. I do not want to see the market kick M$ out. The market develops best with three big competitors and as OSX and Linux gain share we will see M$ become more like it should be, delivering genuine useful innovation. I would like to see a three way split between the 3 systems with no overall dominant player. Then we would really be cooking with gas.
BuriedCaesar: oufff. I was worried. I started to read this thread and was more and more marveled that everyone were equating Apple bundling software with Microsoft integrating applications WITHIN the OS, and that none of old posters had not yet stopped the silliness.
You CAN”T remove bundled applications on Windows and hope to have a working PC afterward. You may get all the applications Apple give you for free, iLife with new computer, Safari, QT Players, etc. and OS X does not give a damn.
Is THAT so frigging difficult to grasp? On Windows you CAN”T delete bundled application and have ANY hope to work with competing products. This is unfair business practices and monopolistic behavior as Windows makes practically – for the average consumer – impossible to use competing product in lieu of applications MS integrates onto Windows.
Apple applcations bundles are not INTEGRATED. OS X is AWARE of them if they are there and make use of them. If they are not there it is AWARE of their absence and not offer YOU features that THOSE applications bring to YOUR workflow. You would use in your workflow competitors’ applications and the OS X will not complain as Windows does instead were you DARING to remove applications Microsoft judges you HAVE to use.
It is such a big difference only PC users could not see it. Too much used to eat MS crap as when they were sold XP as the Ultimate Reference to Computer Security
UHUAHHAHAHAHUHUAHAUHUHAHAHUHAUH
“It is not bundling that is wrong, but integrating in such a way that competitive products cannot be used.” – fenman
Exactly. Good post, was not there while I was writing mine.
Remind to self “Refresh more often” 😀
Apple are following MS here, where once they used ‘freedom of choice’ as a main selling point over the Redmond company (and others).
When Jobs returned with his NeXT engineers, one event – the introduction of the ‘Dock’ – signified a seismic shift in Apple philosophy away from its tradition and towards outdoing (the ‘winner’) Microsoft’s business practices.
The Dock is an application. Apple have embedded this application deep within the OS X system. I have gone into Terminal and dragged it kicking and screaming out of the hidden depths, placed it BACK in the Applications folder and applied some Applescript which return the ‘open’ and ‘quit’ functionality Apple deny us access to.
Now, many people like the Dock. But many people also would prefer the CHOICE of managing their Apps and files in a way which more suits their working practices and keeps their Desktop area free of unwanted interference and that ‘Word-dancing-paperclip’ (we’re here to help you… like it or not) mentality which Mac users once used to laugh at.
Of course, there are MANY software choices which make the Dock unnecessary – from the traditional collapsible windowing, through Apple Menu Apps lists, third-party ‘floating’-dock-type alternatives, Application Alias icons in the Menubar (Bulter) etc. All of which Apple could have supported and made room for in OS X – as an extension of its traditional approach of ‘think different’ and ‘the OS gets out of your way’.
What is significant about what Apple did with the Dock application, is this fundamental attitude change – for the first time the company said NO NO NO to user choice and embarked on a path to remove ANY alternative to they way Apple wanted you to work (removing collapsible windows, for example, is just act of spiteful arm-twisting). As a consequence, those of us who find it more productive to organise our computers in our OWN way – without the party tricks of an application which jumps around, pops up unwanted, ALWAYS manages to get in the way of open apps (no matter which edge it’s stuck to), are left with no option but to hunt around for third party hacks to force OS X into becoming the computer OS WE ARE FAMILIAR WITH AND WANT TO USE.
mike, on Panther
Big differences between Windows and Apple’s “own little monopoly”. In OSX when one examines a media file with “Get info…” the option exists to change globally the default application for the file type. Also, in Tiger and earlier versions of the OS, browsers other than Safari can be set as the default. Seems to me that it would be pretty easy to start up an iLife competitor and even use an installer to reset the default application.
These are certainly not simple tasks to accomplish in Windows.
Carumba!
A great comments page. Where have all the children gone?!
in case anyone has failed to notice the problem with windows it is the fact that the software m$ includes is so tightly intregrated with the operating system it’s impossable to remove for common users and no matter what m$ say about “oh you can disable it in the control panel” YOU CAN’T!! back when i was foolish and used windows i tried to set .mpg (i think) to be opened with classic media player by default and no matter what i tried everytime i opened up a .mpg file it still opened in windows media player
that in my opinion is wrong!
quite frankly if you have a problem with any of the apps on os x they CAN be removed and replaced with the app of your choice with file associations set accordingly
nothing wrong there that i can see
Hey Twenty Benson,
I had not thought of making the dock optional till I read your post. You made it sound difficult so I thought I would try it myself. Took me about two minutes. I also discovered many other “built-in” OSX applications I could make optional just as easy.
That is clearly a different thing to unintegrating IE in earlier versions of Windoze. I had that task to do a number of times and even when I had a check list of the tasks I had to do in the order I had to do them it was still a very non-trivial operation.
Ergo… not the same thing at all.
It would seem that your attitude is like accusing Apple of being a car manufacturer that refuses to install manual transmissions now and puts auto boxes in everything whether you like it or not. Certainly that is what M$ is like. However Apple may have put in an auto box but it is one with an F1 paddle shift so you can still use it as a high performance manual if you wish. I call that the best of both worlds and a hell of a lot of common sense.
Good luck anyway.
Cheers
to mike, on Panther. Why don’t you spell integrated like almost all of the others on this site? Are you trying to show off?
Here’s the article link on News.com if you don’t subscribe or register for the New York Times site: http://news.com.com/Google+this+Is+Microsoft+still+a+bully/2100-1016_3-5716117.html?tag=st_lh
Bundling products together is not a predatory practice, per se. It’s what you do when you bundle those products together.
Consider Microsoft Office. When Office was first released it was a collection of second rate applications. Ashton-Tate’s WordPerfect blew away Word. Lotus 1-2-3 had many features and much functionality that didn’t exist in Excel. And who needed presentation software, anyway?
What Microsoft did was to offer all three products at a price point comparable to what you would pay to get one of the competing (individual) applications. If you bought office for Word, you soon discovered that Excel met the needs of many 1-2-3 users — particularly those who didn’t know what a macro was anyway. Eventually and too late, the competitors responded by offering their own “productivity” packages. Lotus and Ashton-Tate are long gone.
Microsoft won by changing the rules of the game. Since “everybody” has Word, whether they use it or not, Word format became the standard.
Was that monopolistic? Probably not in and of itself.
Monopolistic behavior tends to be more egregious. For instance, Xerox’s tying copying supplies (paper) to copier sales was found to be anti-competitive even though Xerox successfully demonstrated that the machines performed better with Xerox supplies. The clincher was the aggressive manner that Xerox sold there supplies, e.g. if you use non-Xerox paper it may void your warranty.
Microsoft has done many things that are monopolistic. For instance, charging Computer manufacturers based on the number of computers shipped, irrespective of what OS was installed is right out of John D. Rockefeller’s playbook. This licensing arrangement clearly rewarded Microsoft for competitor’s sales and incented PC manufacturer not to sell any other OS.
maccam:
“In OSX when one examines a media file with “Get info…” the option exists to change globally the default application for the file type. Also, in Tiger and earlier versions of the OS, browsers other than Safari can be set as the default. Seems to me that it would be pretty easy to start up an iLife competitor and even use an installer to reset the default application.
These are certainly not simple tasks to accomplish in Windows.”
Ouch.
These are, in fact, very simple tasks to accomplish in any Windows version, and they have become even easier in XP. The procedure is basically the same as in OS X, only the names of the menu items are different.
In any explorer window, under Tools > Folder Options you will get a list of registered file types. You can edit them, changing the default application or simply adding new actions which then show up in the right-click menu, or you can add new file types.
Additionally, if in XP you open any type of file with an application different from the default, “Open with” will be added to the right-click menu, showing a list of all the applications you ever used with this type of file.
Besides, you can usually change file associations even easier from within most applications.
Same goes for the default browser. You cannot uninstall IE, but you can easily hide it so well that only those who know where the executable is located can find it.
ron? three posts in a row. what are you talking about.
mike, on Panther. Just kidding Mike. Lots of posters spell it intergrated. They probably graduated Magna cum lousy in California.
Don’t like the Dock? disable it. Use something else.
Twenty Benson: don’t tell me you *truly* believe you are stuck with the Dock and forced to use it.
Just disable it. Sheesss, some people.
Pete – what percentage of Mac users do you suppose know about nothing but Safari?
(Not that there’s anything wrong with that; I tried three different browsers for the Mac and Safari came out on top ^_^)
… if Longhorn …
fenman – you are missing my point a bit. I only went into the terminal out of desperation with the Dock – I found those instructions for changing it to an app somewhere on the web. I wouldn’t expect ANYONE to have to go about dealing with the Dock in this way – one mistake as your whole system can be messed up.
iPodder – if you mean ‘hide’ Dock then that is just as much of a frustration for those who like to get by without it as having it always visible. Only a few weeks ago someone was singing the praises of the Mac OS because it placed ALL application menus up in the menubar where the cursor can easily use the edge of the screen to quickly reach them – the problem with a hidden Dock is that the other edges of the screen are usually where Application pallets are kept – so the ‘mad’ Dock is always jumping back in when you’re trying to get on with work.
I’m simply pointing out a comparison with the Dock and Microsoft’s ’embedded’ software. I’m shocked Apple don’t allow us users to opt out of the Dock – through System preferences – if we have a preference for organising our routines, navigation and files in a different way. It’s not a question of new = best – it’s a question of Apple allowing users a set of options (INCLUDING those options it historically supported) to chose from.
Since84:
MS did change the rule with bundling. However, they did more than that to win the Word Processor market. In the original Microsoft monopoly investigation, one before the Netscape, complaints were made about Win API. MS had two sets of Win API, one they distributed to third-party developers and another for MS Office development. One they provided to vendors were buggy and eventually caused Windows to crash. Since MS actively corrected the bugs in the API MS used to develop Office products, MS Office products had less bugs. So, the computers crashed less often, when it run MS applications, compared to ones running WordPerfect and Lotus 1-2-3. In the begining everyone blamed WordPerfect and Lotus for writting poor software, but in reality they could not have writen stable applications. They were doomed by the unstable Win API (lots of memory leaks in Win API).
fenman:
My memory may be faulty, but I don’t think there was a period of no-activity between multiplan and excel. The multiplan was available on DOS for long time. They ported multiplan to Mac, but when they saw what Lotus was doing with Jazz, multiplan became orphan on Mac platform, but they continue to sell Multiplan for DOS. MS Excel came out before Lotus Jazz and established itself as the standard spread sheet application on Mac platform before Jazz came out.
Also I don’t think Lotus 1-2-3 won the spreadsheet market with “better marketing”. It had features no other spreadsheet programs had like plotting and macro. These two features changed how people use spreadsheets.
Comparing the Dock – which serves basic functionality to the OS (as well as Exposé and Dashboard) to embeeded software from MS (ie: IE, WMP) is not a fair comparison.
Dock:Taskbar; BOMArchiveHelper:Zip
Safari (can be deleted):IE (tied to OS)
When making comparisons, one should compare like items
BTW: Can a Windows user get rid of the Taskbar in Windows in favor of something else?
Twenty Benson: point taken.
Rename the Dock.app to NoDockPlease.app and your OS X will have no Dock.
Then if you have another application to replace Dock functionality start using it.
Can you rename the Taskbar in Windows (or disable it) and still having a working Windows OS ?
No need to answer.
http://www.sideburn.com/dockblock/demo.html
I love Apple products and software (i.e. iTunes, iPhoto, iDVD, etc.), but isn’t Apple doing the same thing that Microsoft does with Media Player, or the like? Can somebody please explain this? I’m no MS fanboy, but what is Microsoft supposed to do? Not bundle Windows with a browser? Not include software for playing/ripping a CD?
I’m not trying to sound ignorant, but doesn’t Apple do the same thing? By bundling iLife, etc., aren’t they shutting out competitors also? Is it some sort of abuse of monopoly on Microsoft’s part? I must’ve been out for a drink of water when the teach was explaining this one. Insight, anyone?
Boys, boys, I dislike Microsoft as much as the next fanboy but there is no way that you can say they have a monopoly or engage in monopolistic practices. Only the Law can create a monopoly – that’s what’s so funny about seeing antitrust lawsuits against Microsoft – it’s just the competition trying to get the Law to weaken the big dog. And the Law happily complies because that’s how they feather their own nests. And if you make it legitimate for the Law to interfere with one business, you’ll soon find it biting at YOUR ass.
Now, my cable company is a monopoly – the local Law makes it so.
Thanks for the link iPodder. I already use DockBlocker these days – a simple one-click launch and quit of the Dock from the Menubar!
Other useful links are:
http://www.petermaurer.de/nasi.php?thema=butler&sprache=english&kopf=labor
An piece of shareware called Bulter – use the empty space in the right-hand side of your Menubar by placing a row of Alias icons for your favourite Applications there – all launchable and drag&droppable; (smart, straightforward and OUT OF THE WAY)
http://www.unsanity.com/haxies/wsx/
WindowShade – brings back collapsible windows
http://www.kanzu.com/
(+ many others) – puts a (static) Trash can back on your desktop
Multiplan became a discontinued application 2 years before Excel. Visicalc was the first with plotting – VisiPlot and SuperCalc was the first with macros. Lotus 1-2-3 did not introduce any new features that were not available in competition. They did claim to invent the spreadsheet which was a blatant lie as the spreadsheet was with us before PC’s were. I used one on the Pick operating system before Visicalc and had one running on a Cyber mainframe before that.
Monopoly is not just a concept made up by law. The word was first used in English in the 16th Century and was derived from the latin monopolion which in turn was derived from ancient Greek mono meaning single and polein meaning sell. The original Greek meaning was single source of sale which is still a fair description. We now extend it to include control not just sale.
Oh, Heck – I’ll join the fray…
There are CRUCIAl differences, as stated above, between what MS does and what Apple does as far as bundling apps goes. If you doubt my word, it can easily be demonstrated: Delete Safari. Delete iTune. Delete Quicktime Player. Delete Mail, iPhoto, iMovie, Appleworks, Pages, and just to be safe, delete Disk Utility from your hard drive. Now restart your Mac. See any difference? Did it crash on startup?
Now move to your Windows Box, and attempt to delete a similar selection of Microsoft application. After a few hours, you should be able to get there. Make sure that you are deleting the actual application files, not just the shortcut!
Restart.
Hmmm. Guess now you’lll have to reinstall Windows.
Meanwhile if your Mac has issues later, use FSCk from in Single User startup mode, or better, install Applejack that provides a nice interface to System repair utilities…