1118: "Microsoft"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

RogerB
Posts: 35
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 12:20 pm UTC

Re: 1118: "Microsoft"

Postby RogerB » Mon Oct 08, 2012 10:15 am UTC

Liggliluff wrote:Microsoft aren't even allowed to include Windows Media Player in the European release (marked as N).


This is not so. I'm not saying that there is no such thing as the N versions of Windows; but I bought a new laptop last month with Win7 Home Premium and it came with Media Player installed. I'm in the UK. In fact I've never seen an installation of Windows without Media Player.

Of course, whether or not the UK is in Europe is a whole different argument.

User avatar
Don Calvus
Posts: 54
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2012 10:57 am UTC

Re: 1118: "Microsoft"

Postby Don Calvus » Mon Oct 08, 2012 10:35 am UTC

Max™ wrote:Shouldn't this comic thread be moved to religious wars?

I'm disappointed people are discussing Microsoft evils and leaving out "Fear Uncertainty and Doubt", or FUD, which was and is their strategy regarding other OSes, Linux in particular.

Google is the most benign evil overlord you could ask for, Facebook won't even let you type "fbpurity.com" in a chat message, and Apple is busy trying to sue Euclid for infringing on their efforts to patent geometry.


Oh, I've just learned something. This is going to be good. Thanx again, Max! (My God, we should pay you for teaching us relativity and facebookcleaning!)

I was working at Yahoo! between 1997 and 2001. Yes, the company which ultimately got screwed by the one it basically kickstarted, Google (a few colleagues, obviously, left for the Supposedly-Not-Evil company), and which turned off Microsoft's wedding proposal out of sheer pride.

I remember quite well the Microsoft monopoly issue, and also how painful it already was to use IE. As far as I remember, no website used "filters" that impeached non-IE surfers to get in. It is a paranoid view of the past. It was mostly the time of "optimized websites" as has been said. You needed to fine-tune your code for IE as well as for Netscape, let's be honest. But the surfer's experience was already a nightmare on IE (let's not talk about Outlook, please). And it was also the fact that you couldn't uninstall IE without screwing the whole OS, too. Mostly this, I reckon. And is it not still the case? Haven't tried in a while, but as far as I remember, the Windows shell is still named "Explorer" (at least on this Vista PC)...

It was also the time when a tiny browser which fitted on a floppy disk (or am I wrong?), Opera, was born. It was full of promises. It wasn't perfect, far from it, but managed to make its way in the jungle, and is still alive. It always respected the CSS standards in a calvinist way. It didn't try to conquer the world.

Small can be beautiful.

wormywyrm wrote:I don't think people want a social network monopoly.. What they want is an easy way to socially network. I think ideally (and where this will probably move to) various networks will be bundled into one place. Like microsoft's "people" service, where you can see facebook and twitter feed together side by side, integrated. That would be just as good/better than using one social network.


I agree. A similar issue came out in the mid 2000's with the IM market. The big big thing was the "interconnection" of Yahoo! and MSN's messengers. This was really something useful. I bet we will eventually get to this in the social network world.

One thing that bothers me much more is the Facebook modules that you can find everywhere, more and more, on the web, namely Facebook Comments. It is a pure work of genius, yes, but evil genius. This should be countered legally, IMHO, as much as Microsoft's IE-based-bundled-OS attempts.

User avatar
stib
Posts: 13
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 12:25 pm UTC

Re: 1118: "Microsoft"

Postby stib » Mon Oct 08, 2012 10:57 am UTC

ghlargh wrote:[..]
Today we have OSX, *nix, windows and a bunch of different mobile OS's that all have web browsers, you couldn't make the same attempt today since the other parties wouldn't make the same changes.


We had *nix before MSDOS was even a startup.

Liggliluff
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 8:10 am UTC

Re: 1118: "Microsoft"

Postby Liggliluff » Mon Oct 08, 2012 11:00 am UTC

RogerB wrote:
Liggliluff wrote:Microsoft aren't even allowed to include Windows Media Player in the European release (marked as N).


This is not so. I'm not saying that there is no such thing as the N versions of Windows; but I bought a new laptop last month with Win7 Home Premium and it came with Media Player installed. I'm in the UK. In fact I've never seen an installation of Windows without Media Player.

Of course, whether or not the UK is in Europe is a whole different argument.


No, Windows 8. Windows 8 N will be released in Europe. Windows 7 includes Windows Media Player.

User avatar
Max™
Posts: 1792
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 4:21 am UTC
Location: mu

Re: 1118: "Microsoft"

Postby Max™ » Mon Oct 08, 2012 11:12 am UTC

Don Calvus wrote:
Max™ wrote:Shouldn't this comic thread be moved to religious wars?

I'm disappointed people are discussing Microsoft evils and leaving out "Fear Uncertainty and Doubt", or FUD, which was and is their strategy regarding other OSes, Linux in particular.

Google is the most benign evil overlord you could ask for, Facebook won't even let you type "fbpurity.com" in a chat message, and Apple is busy trying to sue Euclid for infringing on their efforts to patent geometry.


Oh, I've just learned something. This is going to be good. Thanx again, Max! (My God, we should pay you for teaching us relativity and facebookcleaning!)

Hah, that would be something, but yeah, fbpurity is great, being able to single-column the timeline, remove the news spam, and so on. It gets flagged as malware or some shit by the fb chat system.

I was working at Yahoo! between 1997 and 2001. Yes, the company which ultimately got screwed by the one it basically kickstarted, Google (a few colleagues, obviously, left for the Supposedly-Not-Evil company), and which turned off Microsoft's wedding proposal out of sheer pride.

I remember quite well the Microsoft monopoly issue, and also how painful it already was to use IE. As far as I remember, no website used "filters" that impeached non-IE surfers to get in. It is a paranoid view of the past. It was mostly the time of "optimized websites" as has been said. You needed to fine-tune your code for IE as well as for Netscape, let's be honest. But the surfer's experience was already a nightmare on IE (let's not talk about Outlook, please). And it was also the fact that you couldn't uninstall IE without screwing the whole OS, too. Mostly this, I reckon. And is it not still the case? Haven't tried in a while, but as far as I remember, the Windows shell is still named "Explorer" (at least on this Vista PC)...

It was also the time when a tiny browser which fitted on a floppy disk (or am I wrong?), Opera, was born. It was full of promises. It wasn't perfect, far from it, but managed to make its way in the jungle, and is still alive. It always respected the CSS standards in a calvinist way. It didn't try to conquer the world.

Small can be beautiful.

Not sure about the Opera bit, I went Netscape -> Firefox as soon as I could, never liked the IE layout, and I want to love Chrome sometimes but I can't twerk it as much as I would like. T.T

The browser on a floppy sounds like liveusb distros nowadays, though I don't think that's what you meant.
mu

User avatar
Don Calvus
Posts: 54
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2012 10:57 am UTC

Re: 1118: "Microsoft"

Postby Don Calvus » Mon Oct 08, 2012 11:22 am UTC

Max™ wrote:Not sure about the Opera bit, I went Netscape -> Firefox as soon as I could, never liked the IE layout, and I want to love Chrome sometimes but I can't twerk it as much as I would like. T.T

The browser on a floppy sounds like liveusb distros nowadays, though I don't think that's what you meant.


I never really used Opera myself except I think around 2002-2003... I am a Firefox user too. Same for me as regards Chrome: super fast, super light, but... maybe too much?

I don't know why this figure comes to mind but I would swear Opera fitted in 800 kb (maybe less) back in the days. Have to check this.

I will check this Distros thing, I like the idea. Mind you, being a musician and all, I just discovered the existence of Bhajis Loops, a PalmPilot-based sequencer, from years ago. Love the idea of really micro-softwares (not Microsoft-ware!). Although I don't use them.

Carteeg_Struve
Posts: 124
Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2009 12:56 pm UTC

Re: 1118: "Microsoft"

Postby Carteeg_Struve » Mon Oct 08, 2012 11:59 am UTC

There's only one solution.

QUICK! Somebody build superior products for competition and get them out to the masses for a cheap affordable price!

User avatar
Max™
Posts: 1792
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 4:21 am UTC
Location: mu

Re: 1118: "Microsoft"

Postby Max™ » Mon Oct 08, 2012 12:30 pm UTC

Don Calvus wrote:
Max™ wrote:Not sure about the Opera bit, I went Netscape -> Firefox as soon as I could, never liked the IE layout, and I want to love Chrome sometimes but I can't twerk it as much as I would like. T.T

The browser on a floppy sounds like liveusb distros nowadays, though I don't think that's what you meant.


I never really used Opera myself except I think around 2002-2003... I am a Firefox user too. Same for me as regards Chrome: super fast, super light, but... maybe too much?

I don't know why this figure comes to mind but I would swear Opera fitted in 800 kb (maybe less) back in the days. Have to check this.

I will check this Distros thing, I like the idea. Mind you, being a musician and all, I just discovered the existence of Bhajis Loops, a PalmPilot-based sequencer, from years ago. Love the idea of really micro-softwares (not Microsoft-ware!). Although I don't use them.

Even windows is getting into the liveusb stuff, but it's been pretty standard in linux versions for a while, with a few that are built specifically to run from a usb stick after loaded into ram, slax, puppy, and similar. I use a 4 gb stick to load up new distros for the gf on her netbook (Bodhi rocks, superlightweight) to keep her updated and running right.
mu

User avatar
BAReFOOt
Posts: 179
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 7:48 am UTC

Re: 1118: "Microsoft"

Postby BAReFOOt » Mon Oct 08, 2012 12:31 pm UTC

Hell no! Apple, Google and Facebook are not hated one bit less than MS.
Especially Apple, which I can easily picture making money off of child rape and mass-murder, while erecting a totalitarian industrial-feudalist police-state.
And: Is there even a single person on this planet, who likes Zuckerberg? Not even in crazy dreams.
Google only has the nickname “data kraken”.

The thing about Apple is Jobs’ reality distortion bubble. But he is gone, and so will the bubble. And then it looks pretty grim for Apple.
With Facebook it will happen as always: People will move on to the next thing (which won’t be the half-assed knock-off Diaspora), and it will slowly rot away.

User avatar
BAReFOOt
Posts: 179
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 7:48 am UTC

Re: 1118: "Microsoft"

Postby BAReFOOt » Mon Oct 08, 2012 12:36 pm UTC

DieJay wrote:I guess you could change the "c" of Facebook by a cent sign, though.


I still think, the good old Fæcesbook is better.

User avatar
mojacardave
Posts: 346
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2011 1:01 pm UTC

Re: 1118: "Microsoft"

Postby mojacardave » Mon Oct 08, 2012 12:39 pm UTC

Don Calvus wrote:One thing that bothers me much more is the Facebook modules that you can find everywhere, more and more, on the web, namely Facebook Comments. It is a pure work of genius, yes, but evil genius. This should be countered legally, IMHO, as much as Microsoft's IE-based-bundled-OS attempts.


The problem is: yes, the spread of Facebook modules across the net is disturbing, in an evil empire kind of way BUT it's also really useful. That's the issue with technology - whilst monopolies should be avoided, it does makes life so much smoother and easier when the same company controls everything.

User avatar
Jackpot777
Posts: 328
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 1:19 pm UTC

Re: 1118: "Microsoft"

Postby Jackpot777 » Mon Oct 08, 2012 12:47 pm UTC

sardia wrote:There is only the ipad market as it sits atop the skulls of other tablets.


Well... considering that in the way ancient past - sorry; in 2010 - the general consensus from the biggest and brightest in the rest of the tech world was that was the iPad was doomed to failure because tablet computers "try to fill a niche that doesn’t exist", and that "the hype and demand for such a product may last near term", and that "Apple's Latest is a Bust" because "it will never compete with dedicated eReaders like the Kindle and Nook" and "netbooks have the advantage"...

Image

...I'd say that's quite some Revisionist History. These 'experts' threw the iPad onto that pile without checking for a pulse. And now, two years later, it's "the tablet market doesn't exist" because a company that "is raping the US smartphone market" that (rather nice evil imagery on your part) "sits atop the skulls of other tablets"...?

Cited history shows otherwise. There WAS no serious and credible tablet market before iPad. They, Apple, they created it. Everyone else was looking to netbooks. In 2010, "Inexpensive and lightweight netbooks have quickly become the “trend du jour” in mobile computing". Two years later, it's all "Are Netbooks Dead? The Prognosis Is Grim".

Haters gonna hate.
Last edited by Jackpot777 on Mon Oct 08, 2012 12:53 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
BAReFOOt
Posts: 179
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 7:48 am UTC

Re: 1118: "Microsoft"

Postby BAReFOOt » Mon Oct 08, 2012 12:48 pm UTC

pushingrobot wrote:Monopolies aren't illegal. Using a monopoly to invade a separate market and kill your competition is illegal.

Yes they are. At least in the EU. And I would need proof before I trust that it’s legal in the US.

pushingrobot wrote:Apple, Google, and Facebook only control about two-thirds of any market, which hardly constitute monopolies.

Don’t forget indirect control. It’s not about sales figures. It’s about lobbyism, and pressuring business partners and competitors into things.
In any case Google and Facebook are de-facto monopolies for search and social networks. (Which actually aren’t markets, but tools to acquire human livestock to rent out to the advertisers.)

And Apple will be a monopoly, with MS continuing to fall apart like it does now. (Windows 8, and no Steam support, will bring them to their knees. Then it only needs its heart stabbed.)

pushingrobot wrote:Apple, Google, or Facebook have not driven their competition out of business or curtailed customer choice in any practical way.

Riiight. Because you completely “missed” all those patent lawsuits by Apple, and Zuckerberg backstabbing everyone he worked with or competed against and bragging about it.
Google did not drive their competitors out of business with nasty tricks, as far as I can tell, but they *did* put them out of business. Nobody uses other search engines more. They have >90% of the search-engine human livestock market.

User avatar
BAReFOOt
Posts: 179
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 7:48 am UTC

Re: 1118: "Microsoft"

Postby BAReFOOt » Mon Oct 08, 2012 1:12 pm UTC

Jackpot777 wrote:...I'd say that's quite some Revisionist History. These 'experts' threw the iPad onto that pile without checking for a pulse.

Nice! I recognize that behavioral pattern from Psychology. It’s called “projection”: Accuse somebody of something you are doing, because then you don’t have to hate yourself for it, but can project it onto the “opponent”. Of course always paired with a truckload of ignorance. And it also does not contain actual arguments. A broad thought-terminating clichée swipe must do.

Actually, in reality, *everyone* tested the iPad extensively (go check that personally), and, considering its unusably limited crippling functionality compared to a computer (yes, the iPad is not a computer), its uselessness as a phone, and the pointlessness of having a device just as a e-penis/e-tits, they called it exactly that.
What they underestimated, was how much stupid and insecure losers are suckers for buying pointless shiny shit to brag about and wank over. (Just look at the Republican National Convention in the USA. Content = 0. Solutions = 0. Dreams = OVER 9000! Circle-jerk = OVER 9000!)
I give you that.
But that’s not even remotely a good thing. So quit the jerking.

Jackpot777 wrote:a company that "is raping the US smartphone market" that (rather nice evil imagery on your part) "sits atop the skulls of other tablets"...?

That’s exactly what is the case in the USA. What is done, is horrible, and extremely harmful to society. Especially the walled garden, and the forced dumbing-down of users. (It is impossible for anyone with even half a brain to use a iDevice, because it’s so incredibly crippling and dumbed-down, every mildly complex task is unthinkable, and everyone is dumber, just from using it.)
And even more especially the acting as if that nightmare was some kind of Utopian dream that everyone wants.

Jackpot777 wrote:Cited history shows otherwise.

Citations are not facts. They are hearsay. And only used, when no facts are available. The bible is the mother of all examples for this.

Jackpot777 wrote:There WAS no serious and credible tablet market before iPad. They created it.

And there SHOULDN’T be a tablet market. It is all just tricking dumb people with delusions and dreams. Just like Hoover said: It’s not about selling products anymore. It’s about selling dreams. The actual product is irrelevant, and gets only used to brag with, or to jerk the own ego.

Jackpot777 wrote:Haters gonna hate.

Yeah, well… that gives it away. You’re all about emotions. Not rationality. You think it’s about love and hate. Because for you it is. Making everything you say invalid.

rmsgrey
Posts: 3655
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1118: "Microsoft"

Postby rmsgrey » Mon Oct 08, 2012 1:52 pm UTC

BAReFOOt wrote:Nice! I recognize that behavioral pattern from Psychology. It’s called “projection”: Accuse somebody of something you are doing, because then you don’t have to hate yourself for it, but can project it onto the “opponent”. Of course always paired with a truckload of ignorance. And it also does not contain actual arguments. A broad thought-terminating clichée swipe must do.


No comment.

User avatar
Don Calvus
Posts: 54
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2012 10:57 am UTC

Re: 1118: "Microsoft"

Postby Don Calvus » Mon Oct 08, 2012 2:25 pm UTC

BAReFOOt wrote:
Jackpot777 wrote:There WAS no serious and credible tablet market before iPad. They created it.

And there SHOULDN’T be a tablet market. It is all just tricking dumb people with delusions and dreams. Just like Hoover said: It’s not about selling products anymore. It’s about selling dreams. The actual product is irrelevant, and gets only used to brag with, or to jerk the own ego.


Post-marxists of the Frankfurt School call this "false needs". Hartmut Rosa wrote a book called "Alienation and Acceleration" which I highly recommend (not only because I translated it in French, but because it is a very good little book about the acceleration of the way of life and the way it alienates individuals. It also puts all this digital revolution into perspective).

kurkosdr
Posts: 17
Joined: Thu May 20, 2010 4:51 pm UTC

Re: 1118: "Microsoft"

Postby kurkosdr » Mon Oct 08, 2012 2:28 pm UTC

Liggliluff wrote:Microsoft aren't even allowed to include Windows Media Player in the European release (marked as N).

Microsoft is allowed to include Windows Media Player in the European release, I know because I live in Greece and I 've bought the OEM DSP version of Win7 Home Premium and a friend of mine has bought the retail version. The EU just forces Microsoft to produce another version (the N version) with the Media Player removed, which costs as much as the regular version and I have never actually seen in real life (installed or being sold).

Yosarian2
Posts: 29
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 9:28 pm UTC

Re: 1118: "Microsoft"

Postby Yosarian2 » Mon Oct 08, 2012 2:35 pm UTC

jfriesne wrote:I'm probably just bitter because I was a big BeOS fan back in the day, but it seems to me that today's behemoths (Apple, Google, Amazon, etc) aren't problematic in quite the same way that Microsoft was in the '90s. In particular, today's tech companies generally compete by developing and selling better products for cheaper -- '90s Microsoft, on the other hand, liked to compete by using its size and hegemony to shut its competitors out of the market.

Today's cable and media companies, OTOH, seem very much to like the "cut off the other guy's air supply" model, if/when they can get away with it.



Apple pretty much makes money on the "if you buy our hardware then we're going to force you to only buy our software/music/apps/video" model, in a way far worse then Microsoft ever did. I suspect they get away with it just because for some reason people still think that the iphone is more of a toy then a computer, but they're wrong.

odexios
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 8:55 am UTC

Re: 1118: "Microsoft"

Postby odexios » Mon Oct 08, 2012 2:38 pm UTC

wormywyrm wrote:I would argue that apple has the market pinned on mp3 players for a while there if not now still. You really still cannot find a better MP3 player, unless better=cheaper.
That's so not true. If you are looking for the best mp3 player around you should stay clear of apple's ones; there are much better alternatives, though not always cheaper.

On the other side, players like the Sansa Clip Zip are not inferior to the cheapest ipods, for a fraction of the price.

Just to say that Apple has lost since a long time ago its predominance in the mp3 player market; the same thing will happen with the tablets, it's just a matter of time.

Yosarian2
Posts: 29
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 9:28 pm UTC

Re: 1118: "Microsoft"

Postby Yosarian2 » Mon Oct 08, 2012 2:45 pm UTC

BAReFOOt wrote:
pushingrobot wrote:Monopolies aren't illegal. Using a monopoly to invade a separate market and kill your competition is illegal.

Yes they are. At least in the EU. And I would need proof before I trust that it’s legal in the US.


There are anti-trust laws in the US against monopolies. The courts do make a distinction between "coercive monopoly" and "innocent monopoly". Basically it's ok if you just happen to get a monopoly because you have the best product on the market, but if you use your power to maintain a monopoly and keep other people out of them market, then that is illegal.

Basically, I think that it's fine that apple dominates the market for mp3 players with the iPod because they made a better product then anyone else, but I don't think it's acceptable or legal for apple to use that to then coercibly dominate the market for legal MP3 downloads through the apple store by trying to design the iPod in such a way as to force you to use the apple store. (Yeah, there are ways around it, of course, but that's their intent.)

exoren22
Posts: 57
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 4:30 am UTC

Re: 1118: "Microsoft"

Postby exoren22 » Mon Oct 08, 2012 2:51 pm UTC

... coercibly dominate the market for legal MP3 downloads through the apple store by trying to design the iPod in such a way as to force you to use the apple store. (Yeah, there are ways around it, of course, but that's their intent.)


Not only that, but they constantly provide "updates" to both the iPod and iTunes software that says, in the release notes, that the update is for no other reason than to force exactly this on their users.

blkballoon925
Posts: 15
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 7:01 pm UTC

Re: 1118: "Microsoft"

Postby blkballoon925 » Mon Oct 08, 2012 2:59 pm UTC

This is incredible. I've been saying this since 2010 and everybody (in my field) pretty much laughed at me. It is so vindicating to finally see others realize that the only difference between Microsoft and Google (or Apple, for that matter) is that Microsoft got caught, while Apple and Google are praised by the consumer and ignored by the government for giving consumers fewer options and questionable privacy practices. For this, Randall, I thank you. I have a new level of respect for you simply for being willing to go up against what the tech world is today, and call out these companies for what they really are....more "Microsofts."

NiteClerk
Posts: 44
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 4:22 pm UTC

Re: 1118: "Microsoft"

Postby NiteClerk » Mon Oct 08, 2012 3:16 pm UTC

I always wondered where the government was when Netscape controlled 80% of the browser market, and you had to buy Netscape for about $20. Maybe the gov was too busy suing IBM for being a monopoly.

While everyone is vilifying Microsoft, remember that they at least brought some standards to the computer world. Remember having to code multiple versions of a program for TRS-Dos, Commodore, HP and others? Plus the problems of getting hardware to run with multiple OS's and programs. Ah yes, the good old days. Such as writing my own modem software for my direct connect modem! Yep, no more acoustic couplers for me. Just dial and flip a couple of switches and I'm online. I'll stop now before this gets moved to the "Remember When" forum.

User avatar
AvatarIII
Posts: 2098
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 12:28 pm UTC
Location: W.Sussex, UK

Re: 1118: "Microsoft"

Postby AvatarIII » Mon Oct 08, 2012 3:20 pm UTC

kurkosdr wrote:
Liggliluff wrote:Microsoft aren't even allowed to include Windows Media Player in the European release (marked as N).

Microsoft is allowed to include Windows Media Player in the European release, I know because I live in Greece and I 've bought the OEM DSP version of Win7 Home Premium and a friend of mine has bought the retail version. The EU just forces Microsoft to produce another version (the N version) with the Media Player removed, which costs as much as the regular version and I have never actually seen in real life (installed or being sold).


I believe someone posted earlier clarifying that it was Windows 8 onwards only

RogerB
Posts: 35
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 12:20 pm UTC

Re: 1118: "Microsoft"

Postby RogerB » Mon Oct 08, 2012 3:54 pm UTC

AvatarIII wrote:
kurkosdr wrote:
Liggliluff wrote:Microsoft aren't even allowed to include Windows Media Player in the European release (marked as N).

Microsoft is allowed to include Windows Media Player in the European release, I know because I live in Greece and I 've bought the OEM DSP version of Win7 Home Premium and a friend of mine has bought the retail version. The EU just forces Microsoft to produce another version (the N version) with the Media Player removed, which costs as much as the regular version and I have never actually seen in real life (installed or being sold).


I believe someone posted earlier clarifying that it was Windows 8 onwards only


Have the EU got stricter about this then as Win 7N certainly exists but at both East and West ends of the EU (more or less) it doesn't seem to have been seen in the wild?

popman
Posts: 70
Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2010 7:38 pm UTC

Re: 1118: "Microsoft"

Postby popman » Mon Oct 08, 2012 4:05 pm UTC

They weren't prosecuted for bundling the browser with their OS it was for reining the internet by forcing developers to use their standards with activeX.
I normally don't post, but I couldn't let this one go.
www.crashie8.com

User avatar
Jackpot777
Posts: 328
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 1:19 pm UTC

Re: 1118: "Microsoft"

Postby Jackpot777 » Mon Oct 08, 2012 4:11 pm UTC

...
Last edited by Jackpot777 on Mon Oct 08, 2012 4:51 pm UTC, edited 4 times in total.

Gud
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 9:44 am UTC

Re: 1118: "Microsoft"

Postby Gud » Mon Oct 08, 2012 4:20 pm UTC

scotandrsn wrote:Second of all, the suit wasn't about the fact that the OS and the browser came bundled together. It was that they were so tightly bound together at the software level that it was difficult to use another browser with the same level of performance. If you want to have your final bit of fun with an old PC running Windows 98, 2000 or even XP, try uninstalling IE as though it was just another software program and see how the OS runs, if it does. or look up the documentation of the case that reveals internal Microsoft communication indicating their intention to render the use of Netscape Navigator on Windows 98 "a jarring experience".

But even that wasn't the root of the problem. It was the fact that the bundling the browser and the OS so tightly together was part of their move to prevent adoption of the Netscape browser or the Java programming language to the extent that either of them could make good on their then known efforts to expand into the OS markets.

So what? It's their OS, they should be allowed to do what they want with it. While it is true that Microsoft haven't earned their position on the market honestly, but rather used political means to crush their competitors, that does not change the fact that anti-trust laws are absolutely ridiculous and counterproductive.

Salt wrote:Nope, MS still has a monopoly - in two markets in fact OS and Office software.

Then how come I have three computers and still can't find any Windows or Microsoft Office on any of them?

User avatar
Kaden
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 4:57 pm UTC
Location: USA

Re: 1118: "Microsoft"

Postby Kaden » Mon Oct 08, 2012 4:24 pm UTC

themel wrote:More or less the same for Google, who as far as this deluded fanboy here can ascertain seem to be fairly good at sticking to the "don't be evil" thing.


Indeed. :P http://xkcd.com/792/
Image

User avatar
Jackpot777
Posts: 328
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 1:19 pm UTC

Re: 1118: "Microsoft"

Postby Jackpot777 » Mon Oct 08, 2012 4:50 pm UTC

BAReFOOt wrote:
Jackpot777 wrote:
Jackpot777 wrote:Cited history shows otherwise.

Citations are not facts. They are hearsay. And only used, when no facts are available. The bible is the mother of all examples for this.


I see you missed the 'history' part. I provided links from 2010. Not things that people remember being said at a later time, but things that were said AT THE TIME.

Cited history. Factual accounts direct from the horse's mouth. Or are you saying that linking directly to what someone published by themselves in 2010 is hearsay about what someone published by themselves in 2010?

BAReFOOt wrote:And there SHOULDN’T be a tablet market. It is all just tricking dumb people with delusions and dreams.


I believe it was right after this you said I was the one getting emotional about it? I see. Those "dumb", "tricked" people...

You called them "stupid and insecure losers are suckers for buying pointless shiny shit to brag about and wank over". That would be the objective, non-emotional view in contrast.

Got it.

mmmCatSoup
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Feb 29, 2012 1:32 am UTC

Re: 1118: "Microsoft"

Postby mmmCatSoup » Mon Oct 08, 2012 4:51 pm UTC

We'll just have to target the CEO's. $teve Jobs, Mark Zuck€rb€rg, and £arry Page.

User avatar
Don Calvus
Posts: 54
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2012 10:57 am UTC

Re: 1118: "Microsoft"

Postby Don Calvus » Mon Oct 08, 2012 5:18 pm UTC

Gud wrote:
Salt wrote:Nope, MS still has a monopoly - in two markets in fact OS and Office software.

Then how come I have three computers and still can't find any Windows or Microsoft Office on any of them?


Come on. This is too easy. Maybe because you're not really representative of the population of computer owners?

exoren22
Posts: 57
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 4:30 am UTC

Re: 1118: "Microsoft"

Postby exoren22 » Mon Oct 08, 2012 5:28 pm UTC

Don Calvus wrote:
Gud wrote:
Salt wrote:Nope, MS still has a monopoly - in two markets in fact OS and Office software.

Then how come I have three computers and still can't find any Windows or Microsoft Office on any of them?


Come on. This is too easy. Maybe because you're not really representative of the population of computer owners?


The guy thinks anti-trust laws are counter-productive, and you really expect him to understand the term "representative"?

NoDecafJava
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2010 8:39 am UTC

Re: 1118: "Microsoft"

Postby NoDecafJava » Mon Oct 08, 2012 5:50 pm UTC

Yosarian2 wrote:
jfriesne wrote:I'm probably just bitter because I was a big BeOS fan back in the day, but it seems to me that today's behemoths (Apple, Google, Amazon, etc) aren't problematic in quite the same way that Microsoft was in the '90s. In particular, today's tech companies generally compete by developing and selling better products for cheaper -- '90s Microsoft, on the other hand, liked to compete by using its size and hegemony to shut its competitors out of the market.

Today's cable and media companies, OTOH, seem very much to like the "cut off the other guy's air supply" model, if/when they can get away with it.



Apple pretty much makes money on the "if you buy our hardware then we're going to force you to only buy our software/music/apps/video" model, in a way far worse then Microsoft ever did. I suspect they get away with it just because for some reason people still think that the iphone is more of a toy then a computer, but they're wrong.


Actually, most ios apps are made by third party devs, though of course you have to get it through the app store unless you are jailbroken. You can load any music file on an idevice except WMA I think. Btw I have an iphone, but also an HP desktop with win 7, use gmail, have facebook account and use duck duck go to search. :P

NoDecafJava
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2010 8:39 am UTC

Re: 1118: "Microsoft"

Postby NoDecafJava » Mon Oct 08, 2012 5:57 pm UTC

Yosarian2 wrote:
BAReFOOt wrote:
pushingrobot wrote:Monopolies aren't illegal. Using a monopoly to invade a separate market and kill your competition is illegal.

Yes they are. At least in the EU. And I would need proof before I trust that it’s legal in the US.


There are anti-trust laws in the US against monopolies. The courts do make a distinction between "coercive monopoly" and "innocent monopoly". Basically it's ok if you just happen to get a monopoly because you have the best product on the market, but if you use your power to maintain a monopoly and keep other people out of them market, then that is illegal.

Basically, I think that it's fine that apple dominates the market for mp3 players with the iPod because they made a better product then anyone else, but I don't think it's acceptable or legal for apple to use that to then coercibly dominate the market for legal MP3 downloads through the apple store by trying to design the iPod in such a way as to force you to use the apple store. (Yeah, there are ways around it, of course, but that's their intent.)


Err you do know you can use itunes to rip actual cds and then import them to your ipod/phone etc? Music from other sources like amazon works fine as well. finally music from the itunes store is not DRM protected and you can play it on other plyers-it was but was removed in 2009-this was the fault of the other evil empire the RIAA and their ilk. Yes I've tried it all myself.

chucklesmcgee
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 2:27 am UTC

Re: 1118: "Microsoft"

Postby chucklesmcgee » Mon Oct 08, 2012 6:40 pm UTC

My torts professor did in fact prosecute Microsoft over the anti-trust issues when he was working with the Justice Department. Bet he'll get extra shits and giggles over this.

Rotherian
Posts: 164
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 1:57 pm UTC

Re: 1118: "Microsoft"

Postby Rotherian » Mon Oct 08, 2012 6:43 pm UTC

Don Calvus wrote: Haven't tried in a while, but as far as I remember, the Windows shell is still named "Explorer" (at least on this Vista PC)...



Dora is called "Explorer", as well. Surely you aren't suggesting that my 1.66 year old daughter will only be able to watch the show if IE is installed upon the TV. :P
There are two general categories of opinion: regular opinions and informed opinions.
Please do not argue with me unless your opinion falls into the latter category.
Image

bigjeff5
Posts: 127
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2009 3:59 am UTC

Re: 1118: "Microsoft"

Postby bigjeff5 » Mon Oct 08, 2012 6:50 pm UTC

As at least one other poster noted, monopolies themselves are not illegal in the US, and I doubt they actually are illegal as well in the EU (just about every business has some kind of monopoly if you segment things properly - even if it's just a monopoly on your own time. Where does the monopoly stop being illegal?).

What is illegal is the abuse of monopoly power to unfairly compete in the market. This is what anti-trust laws tend to focus on.

Here's an analogy:

There is a long, winding river upon which a significant amount of shipping traffic travels. It is the most convenient and cost effective method of shipping from areas upstream to areas downstream, and the next most convenient option is significantly more expensive and less convenient (though it also happens to be faster, for whatever reason). One day an enterprising individual with a pile of cash to spend notices that there is a point where an extremely long section of the river doubles back on itself, such that there is only a narrow piece of land separating these two sections of the river from each other, and connecting these sections would cut a day or more off of the shipping times for barges using the river. The man buys this section of land, builds a canal on it, and begins allowing barges to take this short cut for a small fee.

At this point, the following is true:

1. The man has a 100% monopoly on the shipping shortcut.
2. This monopoly is 100% legal
3. It is perfectly legal for the man to charge a fee to use his canal.

Lets say time passes, everybody loves the canal, and the man becomes very wealthy because of it. Now the man decides to use some of his excess wealth to get into the rudder business. So he starts making and selling rudders. This particular venture doesn't fare as well as his canal venture; his rudders are overly complicated and too expensive and they just don't work quite as well as his competitors. So he raises prices on the canal to cover his losses. People don't like the increased cost, but it's still better than waiting a whole day to traverse that section of the river. His rudder business still doesn't pick up, so he decides to do something a little bit dirty. He starts contacting all of the ship manufacturers that build ships to float this river, and tells them that if they don't start putting his rudders in their ships he is not going to let their ships use his canal. Well, a ship that isn't permitted through the canal is a ship that doesn't get purchased by the ship builders' clients, so the ship builders begin putting the man's rudders in all their new ships. His rudder business exploads, and all is well.

At this point, the following is true:

4. The man's canal monopoly is still completely legal.
5. Raising rates on canal passage is also completely legal.
6. Though he didn't do this yet, he could price discriminate based on any number of factors and still be legal.
7. Leveraging his canal monopoly to boost rudder sales by threatening boat builders is absolutely NOT legal.

Microsoft basically did all of these things, including number 6, and all of it was legal except number 7. Number 7 is very, very illegal, and Microsoft got an ass whoopin for it.

Also, totally off topic but every time I see this:
Wake me when it's...


I can't help but think "Go f*ck yourself." It doesn't matter what follows. That's such an asshole thing to say that it immediately turns me off, and whatever potentially well reasoned argument there may be behind it I will never read it.

cream wobbly
Posts: 170
Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2009 3:07 pm UTC

Re: 1118: "Microsoft"

Postby cream wobbly » Mon Oct 08, 2012 8:10 pm UTC

DieJay wrote:I guess you could change the "c" of Facebook by a cent sign, though.

Heheh, Fa¢ebook...


You missed App£e, Goog£e, Appl€, Googl€, A₱₱le, and G¤¤gle. (Sadly, we have to wait for Unicode to get around to encoding the new Turkish Lira symbol.)

Edit: sorry my post's kinda redundant, but casanunda spelt "sterling" wrong... and (further to orthogon's correction), it derives from Latin libra.

User avatar
ekolis
Posts: 76
Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2011 11:44 pm UTC
Location: Cincinnati, OH, USA
Contact:

Re: 1118: "Microsoft"

Postby ekolis » Mon Oct 08, 2012 9:06 pm UTC

Do the citizens of Western civilization now owe Microsoft reparations for the harm inflicted on the company? Oh dear...
Reading posts on the xkcd forum makes me feel stupid.


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 109 guests