# Why must Microsoft do this?

1. Feb 13, 2005

### aychamo

Why are people suing Microsoft over their included software? Like this slashdot article:

http://slashdot.org/articles/05/02/13/1513223.shtml?tid=201

Why are people/countries/whatever allowed to sue Microsoft and make them not include certain software with their OS? Why is it the Media Player, or even IE? Will it be the calculator next?

I don't see the problem with Windows included IE, when I can, without a problem, load IE and download Firefox and never use IE again.

What's the deal exactly with this?

2. Feb 13, 2005

### graphic7

It's stubborn anti-Microsoft bigotry. Mostly, it's from the Linux/FOSS side. I choose to ignore it, and move on about my business.

3. Feb 13, 2005

### dduardo

Staff Emeritus
Because they can...

I know, it doesn't make sense, but people are just too lazy/stupid to switch operating systems, so this is what you get.

4. Feb 13, 2005

### aychamo

What if MS decided to fight back, or just stop all support/software sales in Europe?

5. Feb 13, 2005

### dextercioby

They'd lose money.
The initial idea (of suing) looks to me really dumb.Nobody is pushing them to buy Ms software...If they do it,then they're willing to pay for whatever Ms puts in that package,good or wrong.They can sue afterwards,if the product is doesn't work,or something like that...

Daniel.

6. Feb 13, 2005

### Alkatran

It's a marketing thing.

Think about it: you have a revolutionary new idea for a program, but so does Bob. You PAY computer makin- people to include your program with their computer. Are you a moron? NO! Because then EVERYONE has YOUR program for free! No one has Bob's program! No one wants to pay for support for BOB'S program, no one wants upgrades to BOB'S program! You've effectively locked him out of the market! No one gets his because of compatability issues (you don't make yours compatible with his) etc etc.... NO ONE can get into the business without a SIGNIFICANTLY better program.

It's all economics. It's not exactly fair... I don't know about lawsuits though.

7. Feb 15, 2005

I aggree with Alkatran, M$are monopolising, this is a way for people to fight back.... Not everyone is an expert in Computers and just use what is installed on there new pc, therefore developers feel shut out becuase if they dont have a deal with M$ they have no way (less chance) of getting there product out there... M$have the key to distrubute software via including it in there OS... This isnt healthy is it? Anyway most of these lawsuits 'make' lawers and judges look at the way this buisness is legisated, and perhaps if we are lucky make healthy changes to these legisations, for us, the consumer 8. Feb 15, 2005 ### dextercioby Are u claiming that those customers have no other option when buying a PC,than using software (possbly already installed on it) from MS...?I hope not.I find those lawsuits really dumb and just prove how narrow-minded some people can be... Daniel. 9. Feb 15, 2005 ### Wardw it's not a question of whether they have options, it's a question of whether or not they are informed of the options. It's true, most people are not power users and have little or no idea of the options. If Apple and Microsoft's positions were reversed, Apple would be facing the same types of lawsuits that MS are now facing and for probably the same reasons. While the lawsuits may look "dumb" at first glance, if you stand back and look at the big picture, they are a form of regulation. Even if the plaintiffs don't win the cases, the lawsuit in itself forces the Microsofts of this world to think more carefully about their marketing and ethics, whether they want to or not. Even if MS modularized their OS to the point where you could walk into a store and choose the Windows basic module and then add all the different vendor's stuff on top of it, there would still be someone paying under the counter for the retailer to plug one product over another regardless of whether it is a better product or not. That is the nature of the beast I'm afraid. 10. Feb 15, 2005 ### sid_galt It is not a question of whether what Microsoft is doing is decreasing the popularity of the other products or not. Windows BELONGS to Microsoft. MICROSOFT created it, spent time, effort and money improving it. They have a right to include what they want in it. Asking Microsoft to remove IE or MediaPlayer is like asking a car seller to remove the A/C of the car as it is hurting other little car AC companies who cannot equal quality and productivity, therefore seek to control it through the government. It is Microsoft which gave is Windows. Atleast be grateful to them for that and stop bothering them with stupid not to mention terribly injust lawsuits. 11. Feb 15, 2005 ### Wardw There is a difference between wanting to control the industry and wanting a fair go at competing on a level playing field. Your comment is way off base. The analogy of the A/C is not relevant. Most large auto manufacturers buy outsource their A/C units from....yep .....smaller companies. And why would you want to choose another brand of A/C in your new car, would the air from someone elses unit be colder ????? I do feel somewhat qualified to speak on this subject. I'm an ex Wang engineer who had a mini computer in my home before the word PC was ever invented. I have been involved at all levels of this industry. If you developed a product to compete with a MS product and you knew that your product was superior and far better value for money than Bill's, perhaps you would feel differently once you tried to flog your product to the marketplace. And yes MS did develop windows and the industry and users will never forgive them for it 12. Feb 15, 2005 ### sid_galt First of all, the playing field cannot be level. Companies which have products better than yours and/or are larger than yours will find it easier to compete. However everyone has a "fair" go at competing. Nobody is stopping you from using any tactic or strategy short of violence and physical force to defeat the other products. If you can't keep up with the competition, then it is your fault. Nobody is going to give you money and resources to compete on a plate. You have to make them on your own. My comment is not off the base. That's exactly what I mean. Why would users want to switch to another piece of software if the one provided by Microsoft is good enough. If it is not, the users will shift. Why is there a need to violate Microsoft's property rights? It would be difficult yes. After all Marketing is also important. But if your product is much better, far cheaper and you have the marketing skills what can prevent you from success (except government and natural disasters)? Isn't Linux slowly replacing Windows at least in some parts of the world? Last edited: Feb 15, 2005 13. Feb 15, 2005 ### FredGarvin I have to agree with Sid on his points. There is absolutely nothing "fair" about business. Where, anywhere, is it said that MS has to be fair? I agreed when the DOJ gave MS a load of problems when they made it impossible for windows to work without IE, but that's about as far as I go on the anti-MS platform. I also hold every single user out there responsible for educating themselves on their own purchases. Even my somewhat feeble parents who now own a PC (and have forced me into creating my own tech support line) were somewhat educated before they bought their computer. I do not and never have accepted ignorance as a defense or reason to sue someone. I'm sorry, but your reasoning makes no sense to me. Let's think about another item on a vehicle...the radio. Are you telling me that no one purchases aftermarket radios for their vehicles? Come on....that's silly. The market always has and always will dictate who can do what. There is no "fair" in business, only "illegal." Prove what MS is doing to be illegal, nut unfair. 14. Feb 15, 2005 ### Wardw If that theory holds true, it is like saying that all add on products that are made by OEM's are not as good as the original product. You said it. "If it is good enough" and if it's not, why should you pay for an inferior product that is bundled into the OS. You are right though Fred, It's not a level playing field at all. But there comes a time when critical mass starts dictating to the market and we have reached it. I wonder how much Americans would be paying for a train ticket or freight if the railroad industry had not been broken up, or for that matter how much a phone call would cost if AT and T had never been forced to spin off some units. I'm not anti MS. They make some great products. If all their product were as good as Flight Simulator, no-one would have a beef. But I am terrified that if no-body reins MS in now, 20 years hence our choices may be far more limited that we can imagine. 15. Feb 17, 2005 ### Anttech I aggree with wardw here, and I think these law suits are healthy, the buisness need regulation. Monopoloy although almost inherent to Capatalism is a bad thing for consumers, our choice goes down..... These laws suits are geared at taking that monopoly away from M$....

That is the big reason why there are hardly any other decent non-free OS's out there, becuase of this monopoly, it makes absolutly no buisnes sence for someone to invest there money or stock holders money into trying to do this....

16. Feb 17, 2005

### franznietzsche

Glad to see people understand capitalism.

A monopoly is not inherent to capitalism, it defeats the entire point of capitalism--which is that competition will drive quality.

So why not go for the decent Free OSs? They're cheaper and better.

17. Feb 17, 2005

### graphic7

Would you please specify which market you have in mind when you conclude that free OSs are betterthan their propiertary counterparts?

Edit: If you say the peecee/hobbyist market without specifying that in your previous post, I'm seriously going to gag. If you say the enterprise/corporate environment, it'll be a cross between a gag and a laugh (mostly because of your ignorance). :tongue:

Last edited: Feb 17, 2005
18. Feb 17, 2005

### sid_galt

If that critical mass is reached, then a new competitor enters. And companies, even if they have 100% monopoly cannot increase prices indiscriminately as this will reduce the demand and possibly the profits.

The railroad industry that was broken up was set up with government help. Railroads like the Great Northern which were set up without government help were a monopoly and were efficient. They never wielded their monopolistic power which defies your claim that a monopoly can dictate the market.

Keep in mind that even Standard Oil had 80% of the market but still kept the oil prices low. Similar with ALCOA.

19. Feb 18, 2005

### franznietzsche

Why should have to specify which, when from what i've seen, we've been talking about PC users in general anyway?

That said: Linux and FreeBSD. And as for your gagging, you go shove it where the sun don't shine for all i care.

20. Feb 18, 2005

### graphic7

I just find it funny because you don't have any experience with FreeBSD in the first place. So, how can you know it can serve as a replacement for peecee users/non-corporate users? There's no telling what you'll say about something - something that you don't have any experience with.

As for shoving it, it seems every time that I correct you, it offends you for some reason. I suggest you grow up and come to like correction, or do something with your arrogant/ignorant attitude, or better, do both.

Last edited: Feb 18, 2005