Microsoft loses appeal versus the European commission.

[ConcreteSchlyrd]

It's hard to me to decide what side you are on Conc, because some of your statements justify the EC's act.

I'm on the side of computer-literate people who know that you can put anything on a PC that you want--it all depends on how much work you want to put into it. Want a PC with no software at all loaded? Fine, build your own or hire the 6th grader down the street to build one FOR you. It's just hard for me to swallow that people are so ridiculous about this ONE sect of things that are bundled. Are people pissed that when you buy a Chevy that you get a Chevy motor bundled in? An OS is integral into making a computer run--if you sell computers without an OS, then Grandpa Joe who buys a computer will bitch because what he bought doesn't run straight out of the box.

(Yes, I understand that you could sell it as an option, but a lot of major OEMs already do that. What's the big deal? If you don't want the OS, you DON'T HAVE TO BUY IT IF YOU KNOW WHERE TO SHOP.)

And that's why you should be able to chose a product that does! Because now everything is all-in the PC you buy.

Again, not necessarily. It's about the consumer not being a dipshit if he/she doesn't want something. It's not like there aren't other options out there. THERE ARE.

Normally that's a good thing; Dell and others can sell you cheap standardized products. But it's all-in-microsoft on some level.

And where is Microsoft saying that you can't reload any PC with any other OS or software? Who's stopping you? Just because AOL also is preloaded on my new Dell doesn't mean that I'm going to (or HAVE to) use them for an ISP.

It's very hard to pick a brand that feels like it fits you better because you are already paying for the Microsoft products when you buy a PC.

Look, if I bought a boxed copy of Windows and it didn't come with some sort of simple image-manipulation program (just an example, I could say "web browser," "word processor," or any other thing), I would feel ripped off. So where do you draw the line? At what point can't Microsoft put things into their OS that are box-standard in other OSes? Should they be hobbled strictly because they've gained more market share than anyone else?

Microsoft OWNS the market

That's the point though, they DON'T. You're not forced to deal with them if you don't want to. Don't want MS products? Fine, go buy a Mac or get a naked machine and load Linux/BSD/whatever. I have yet to see an actual GOOD explanation of how MS somehow forces you to buy their products. There are MANY options out there for working around them.

Which brings up an interesting point--why don't people use them? Well, at least partially it's because the alternatives don't fulfill the needs that MS products provide. So again, MS is punished for fulfilling needs? It just doesn't make sense. No one's holding a gun to your head and forcing you to use IE, Word or Visual Studio.

they force themselves upon the 'professionals' that should pick a PC for you that works for you. You go to a professional that will always tell you to go for a microsoft product because it's all there is?

I'm not quite getting your meaning, but the IT professionals that I know aren't completely stymied by some sort of digital wasteland, where MS is the only option. Again, there ARE other options out there, it just depends on how nicely you want all the programs on your computer to play in concert. People choose MS office products because you can seamlessly take things inbetween them. People choose Adobe graphics packages because again, they all work seamlessly to perform multiple tasks. There's NOTHING stopping someone from making a better product other than some Eeyore sitting in the corner saying "I can't do it."

Mac is about the only computer that comes with it's own OS? They have a market share of? ~5%?

Again, though, who cares about them having a smaller market share? Macs are almost worse, because I can't just load OS X on any PC (without tinkering), even though the electronics are exactly the same. Why should I have to buy their overpriced hardware to use the software I want! I WANT TO SUE SOMEONE!

About every PC sold, no matter what brand, comes with Microsoft OS. With Microsoft OWNING the market there is no way you can penetrate the existing market, unless you invent something that's better than a PC of course (and a laptop is a PC here).

Not true. Again, you can always build your own, and OEMs have already toyed around with selling naked PCs. It's bullshit to think that someone couldn't make something better and no one would buy it. People aren't completely fucking retarded, and if someone could show them something better than what they're currently using, I have no doubt they could unseat Microsoft.

But I would very much like it when I go to a shop to buy a PC, and I can actually decide what OS suits me and then decide if I want to pay for a load of programs or that I don't need them.

And I'm still not seeing where you absolutely CAN'T buy/build a machine with no OS. You CAN. CAN CAN CAN. Just because you're not a discerning shopper doesn't mean that the person making it easy is robbing you.

It's very nice for Microsoft that they put a lot of money in developing a Media Player, but I don't like the fact that I had to pay for it to be included Microsoft XP professional while I had to pay for my Winamp copy to play music the way I want it.

But you're not forced to use it! Would you rather you got Windows that had absolutely NO functionality outside of basic file copying/moving/manipulation? Do you have any idea how many average people would be pissed if they bought a Dell, set it up, and then could do nothing until they downloaded hundreds of megs of software to make it actually DO something? If that's what you want them to do, why does Apple get to bundle stuff strictly because they have less of a market share? Linux too!

Look, here's why it's retarded: If Dell offered a PC with no OS preloaded, then you'd have Joe Sixpack buying it because it was "cheaper." He'd get the thing delivered, then try loading his pirated copy of Windows (or Linux, or whatever really). When his untrained hand couldn't get it to load, he'd call Dell and complain that his new computer "isn't working."

By preloading Windows, it at least narrows down what could actually be going wrong. If you didn't narrow it down, then the price of the computer would skyrocket, since that OEM would now have to hire LOTS more tech support to handle the volume of dipshits calling in.

What you're basically saying is that you want the best of both worlds--something's that just NOT gonna happen in the OEM PC market.

[Zerzera]

Sorry for trolling
Microsoft has a monopoly. Go into any main computer shop and ask for a PC that runs anything other than Microsoft OS. Their market share -unlike Chevy- is a monopoly. So they aren't allowed to take any anti-competitive actions.

What I was trying -to troll- to was to say that either it's the shops fault, or they are forced to. Take a look at the market of the PC, who are the big players there? How much time, money and energy does an average Joe have to buy a PC? How many reliable people does he know that can guarantee him the service of those shops when he doesn't happen to live in your suburb where 90% has graduated from College or University?
About any OS would do for him, believe me. Yet any of the shops he will go to will sell him Microsoft. Which isn't a problem, because Microsoft has the best and most complete OS in the world. You don't even have to buy third party software anymore, because they can't run as well on a Microsoft OS as their own bundled products -they took care of that-. Unless you go to a specialized, or obscure, shop, you'd expect to have brand independent products, even in technology that isn't so modern anymore.

Let's leave it at that. You are right, I shouldn't buy my PC from Dell, Hewlett-Packard or Compaq.
Bad job EC, nothing will change.

[ConcreteSchlyrd]

Microsoft has a monopoly. Go into any main computer shop and ask for a PC that runs anything other than Microsoft OS. Their market share -unlike Chevy- is a monopoly. So they aren't allowed to take any anti-competitive actions.

But that's my whole point--it's NOT a monopoly. It's true that there are few players in the PC OS field, but they're not the only ones, nor are you compelled by any other choice other than your own to buy their product. There are other choices, freely available. If you don't buy the the other products, it's only you who are to blame. I'm tired of everyone playing the victim on this subject, when really the only person who's at fault is the person pointing the finger.

What I was trying -to troll- to was to say that either it's the shops fault, or they are forced to.

I think the practice you're referring to is where MS has paid people like Dell to offer MS-only products. Yes, that's kind of shady, but you don't have to buy a Dell now, do you?

How much time, money and energy does an average Joe have to buy a PC?

How much time do I have to shop for clothes? If I wanted something right now, I suppose I could go down to Old Navy and pick up some jeans. Those jeans would be quick and easy to procure, but I may not be happy with how long they last.

Or, being a non-brain-dead consumer, I could do a little research and find a better vendor, thereby maybe paying a little more but getting a better overall product.

How many reliable people does he know that can guarantee him the service of those shops when he doesn't happen to live in your suburb where 90% has graduated from College or University?

And that's why that person would buy a Dell with something preloaded--it makes tech support actually feasible.

About any OS would do for him, believe me.

I couldn't disagree more with this.

Yet any of the shops he will go to will sell him Microsoft. Which isn't a problem, because Microsoft has the best and most complete OS in the world. You don't even have to buy third party software anymore, because they can't run as well on a Microsoft OS as their own bundled products -they took care of that-.

All facetiousness aside, MS still has a lot of things that they AREN'T the best at, and a LOT of BIG competitors (Adobe, Firefox, etc) who are doing it "better than the big guy." And again, no one's stopping ANYONE from just plain making something that's better.

I hope you don't think that I'm coming down on you Zerz, partially because this is actually a semi-decent conversation. The problem I have is that I live in this country that's all too quick to pull the trigger on lawsuits, especially one where the defendant is rich and would more than likely just pay out. I worry about us (as humans) when actual creativity and innovation is trumped by someone out to make a quick buck just because they don't want to put the actual WORK into something.

[MetalHeadz]

so if one company has gained over 95% of a market it means there is no longer a free market.

If a company gains above 25% market share it is no longer a free market. The very concept of a free market is impossible infact.

[Zerzera]

I hope you don't think that I'm coming down on you Zerz, partially because this is actually a semi-decent conversation. The problem I have is that I live in this country that's all too quick to pull the trigger on lawsuits, especially one where the defendant is rich and would more than likely just pay out. I worry about us (as humans) when actual creativity and innovation is trumped by someone out to make a quick buck just because they don't want to put the actual WORK into something.

I didn't mind having this conversation at all either. We will never totally agree on this and will totally disagree on some points, but at least I can see what you are trying to say.

[GuruMeditation]

I'd be much happier if the european commission actually sued a company that prevents you from using any alternative program to work with.

Say Apple and their iPod.