[Mono-list] Miguel de Icaza on Longhorn

Cory Nelson PhrostByte@socal.rr.com
Mon, 26 Apr 2004 12:13:15 -0700

Legally, they can't implement virus protection.  They have a contract with
the major AV companies saying they won't.  This is also the reason why their
new firewall isn't as good as the other ones out there.

Most of the time, users don't care what is on their computer.  Only us savvy
ones do :).  I have plenty of friends that use WMP and Messenger (despite me
telling them there are better things out there), and they would be pissed
off if they got a new computer and it didn't come with the tools they are
used to.  Especially the ones that are on dialup and don't want to download
the large WMP install.  I wish WMP9 would get dumped and xvid/media player
classic got bundled as much as the next guy, but it won't happen.  No matter
how much you bitch and moan, a lot of sites use WMP and will continue to use
it.  The monopoly is already there, to remove the offending applications now
would only hurt the consumer.

-----Original Message-----
From: mono-list-admin@lists.ximian.com
[mailto:mono-list-admin@lists.ximian.com] On Behalf Of Dan
Sent: Monday, April 26, 2004 11:17 AM
To: ben@benjaminwootton.co.uk
Cc: mono-list@lists.ximian.com
Subject: RE: [Mono-list] Miguel de Icaza on Longhorn

 Right to innovate?  That's so played out.  They can innovate those
applications apart from the OS and  compete on an even playing field if they
choose to, but they choose not to do so.
The idea that MS will never be able to sell another version of windows
without them being able to "innovate" built in things like multi-media
applications is ludicrous.  There are plenty, plenty of other things to
improve in the OS.  Virus protection for one.  Why the heck isn't that
"built-in" by now?
BUT, those other improvements may only lead to windows upgrades, whereas
built-in apps like messenger and media player lead to even more revenue and
even more dependance by users.  Revenue and dependance that MS will not let
themselves be stripped of by OEM's who would choose a competing messenger or
multi-media app over there's.  Come on, it's not about innovation, it's
about protecting extra revenue through anti-competetive behavior.  It's
about keeping users dependant on you.  Is MS the first and only ones to be
doing this with software?  Of course not, but they do it on the grandest
scale, they set the standard.


-----Original Message-----
From: mono-list-admin@lists.ximian.com
[mailto:mono-list-admin@lists.ximian.com] On Behalf Of
Sent: Monday, April 26, 2004 1:30 PM
To: Dan
Cc: mono-list@lists.ximian.com; eloli@hotmail.com
Subject: RE: [Mono-list] Miguel de Icaza on Longhorn

Quoting Dan <dan@astusa.com>:

> >I disagree with that statement, most notably about the art of
> anti-competitive strategy by bundling Messenger and Media Player. 
> Robert,
> 	Like you, I don't mind that IE, Messenger and Media Player can be on

> windows pc's as "choices", what bothers me is when microsoft can 
> dictate to OEM's to not uninstall them.  That's just wrong.  Any OEM 
> should be able to uninstall these things and replace them with 
> products period.  Microsoft dictating to OEM's that they have to be 
> left on when competetive products are installed is just wrong.

I've heard this argument before, and I'm not convinced.  Even disregarding
how deeply integrated media player and messenger are from a technical point
of view, they're an increasingly integral part of the Windows experience,
and two of the main areas where Microsoft can continue to innovate.
Instead, I'd take the opposite view that competitors should be allowed to
bundle their software with Windows via OEMs, as opposed to choking
Microsofts' right to innovate. 
This would then present a level playing field.


Mono-list maillist  -  Mono-list@lists.ximian.com

Mono-list maillist  -  Mono-list@lists.ximian.com