Microsoft Accepts EU Decision

[Busyman]

Yup, I think that's about the crux of the matter and why Mr Busy is all upset. The EU can stand up to MS, the most powerful company in the world, and the US cannot.

Well said, Scouser

That doesn't work with me, wanka.

Upset? That's over yonder. I disagree with logic is all.

The EU did so after the hoopla over here. Well done for the EU.

[manker]

Indeed, huzzah for the EU but I don't think you understand the subject.

Economics is all about logic.

[Busyman]

You're living in a fantasy world. MS releasing OS source code!!

If you don't understand how economics works and can't see how this unfair advantage of inherent brand loyalty will detrimentally affect the consumer, despite my best efforts to explain it, then I can do no more.

I know how economics works, wank.

Btw, over here, offering a cooker with beans is called marketing.

Micro brought a good point about successful third party software companies.

[Busyman]

Indeed, huzzah for the EU but I don't think you understand the subject.

Economics is all about logic.

Then with that logic.....MS should come as a core OS and NOTHING ELSE.

The EU is half-steppin' then.

Any product a competitor makes is fair game to be removed from the OS.

[manker]

Ah, so you've thought about the economics. The EU is taking steps to a fairer market, which is a good thing for the consumer.

You said you don't want to pay - I showed you that you don't need to, you said you don't see how it benefits the consumer if WMP wasn't bundled, I've shown you how through simple economics. That's basically all I wanted to do, I'm not bothered about the EU - tbh I have little time for them.

The PC manufacturers should be allowed to put what components they want in their computers. Then it should be an option on installation to the consumer.

At the moment MS is cornering the market at a lot of levels thro' the unfair methods I've described, I want to see this stopped. I wouldn't mind if there were some products within the OS but these need to be uninstallable, non-essential and optional.

I don't want black, I don't want white, I want a nice shade of grey.

[sArA]

If the consumer is unaware of other choices then they cannot make informed decisions. If a consumer expects to have certain products bundled in with another product that is fine in theory because they can choose the whole package....or buy separate products from other suppliers.

Of course many people just can't be bothered to look for several products from several suppliers and find a bundled package more convenient and easier. They may have relatively simple requirements and find that the one on offer is up to the job and so have no concerns.

However, monopolies take the choice and expectations of consumers and gives them no choice. In this way, their expectations are as limited as their choices, and they can never be really sure that the product/s they are buying are really the most appropriate for what they need.

People want what they are told they want and expect what they are told to expect therefore consumer freedom is constrained, competition is limited and innovation is chilled...long term it is not good news for anyone.

[manker]

Great post, Sara. Well considered and I totally agree.

[Snee]

hmmm buuut

Won't ms lose customers if they lose some of their userfriendliness?
I mean, if they have to provide an os without any inbuilt media players or browsers, that means you have to work just to get out on the internet or listen to music.

And they can't really add an open source component like firefox or xmml I thought, since it might be seen as if they are profiting from someone else's work.

Making them deliver stripped operating systems might lead to a mass migration to linux or something, at least among people who just want to surf, do office work and listen to music. I'm surprised something like it hasn't happened already, but still, if MS are forced to mess up their os for the sake of the open market they stand to lose a hell of a whole lot more than just streaming media rights, almost certainly.

I can see how taking away streaming media stuff might be good, but the media player? Or IE?

[manker]

I don't want them to lose their friendly UI, just for them to render their software add-ons optional. Atm installing Windows is a process that you sit thro and wait for 15 minutes and everything goes on, I'd like it if you had a bunch of DVDs with all the extras on so that you didn't have to install all the crap - yes, I'm talking about WMP and IE too because I think they should be non-essential and uninstallable.

As I say, I don't want to harm MS's ability to compete, but just now they don't have to compete since each PC user is forced to use their bundled products so becomes familiar with the brand. I wish to limit their influence so that there is a fair market - for the reasons I posted earlier.

[Busyman]

If the consumer is unaware of other choices then they cannot make informed decisions. If a consumer expects to have certain products bundled in with another product that is fine in theory because they can choose the whole package....or buy separate products from other suppliers.

Of course many people just can't be bothered to look for several products from several suppliers and find a bundled package more convenient and easier. They may have relatively simple requirements and find that the one on offer is up to the job and so have no concerns.

However, monopolies take the choice and expectations of consumers and gives them no choice. In this way, their expectations are as limited as their choices, and they can never be really sure that the product/s they are buying are really the most appropriate for what they need.

People want what they are told they want and expect what they are told to expect therefore consumer freedom is constrained, competition is limited and innovation is chilled...long term it is not good news for anyone.

The train of thought is the same behind the McDonald's lawsuits.
If the consumer doesn't want to look for other products that is the consumer's fault. If a competitor doesn't market to that consumer that is the competitions fault.

If the consumer doesn't sift through the garbage to find that snazzy new product, how the hell is that MS's fault?

Think of it this way.......

Person 1 has been using WMP for years, they then find that through this lawsuit to help the consumer that there were other products out there.

How does person 1 blame MS for not using something else?

BULLSHIT!!

How many media players are out there?
How many antivirus programs do people know about? The market leader is Norton. I say blame Norton for this. They do market to the consumer, the consumer knows about them.

The consumer is so smart that if grandma saw a commercial for a rival media program....she just might buy it in lieu of the resident WMP.

You said monopolies give the consumer no choice. Guess what? You are referring to media players which are ubiquitous. The rest is marketing.

If any government had real balls they would address the real monopoly and that's OS itself...not the extras.

But you really don't want 5 OS's to choose from, now do you?