Neowin.net

Now maybe Microsoft will be able to keep OEMs from loading garbage on Windows PCs. OEMs ability to load garbage onto Windows PCs was the one thing that the antitrust lawsuit made possible.

+10! If Microsoft can't tie stuff to their OS nobody else can either.

Google doesn't have an operating system and for Apple; if you don't like iTunes, then don't use it! no one is forcing you to purchase from iTunes, purchase an iPod or use any Apple products fullstop! perish the thought, personal responsibility!

Funny you should mention.. with the same logic, Microsoft isn't forcing anyone to buy their operating system with a computer, because Apple is available as an alternative.

I believe the point that is trying to be made about Apple is that you must buy apple hardware to run their operating system. When Apple used to use POWER processors, it was understandable.. but at this point in time, Apple computers are just like any other computer, but with added hardware DRM -- only to ensure that Apple gets a cut from everything.

There is no way anybody can defend why it is like this other than basically saying Apple is too lazy to make an operating system that would work on a variety of hardware.

The funny thing is that they pretend they don't like DRM when they are probably the number 1 company that pushes DRM right now. But always someone will stand up and say something along the lines of "Oh but it's Apple... they would never do something bad to us loyal customers!!". Any other company involved with DRM gets trashed though.

Apple may not be seen as a monopoly at this point in time, but I'm glad they don't have the majority of the market, simply because their whole business plan is designed to be a monopoly that starts and finishes with Apple.

Google on the other hand... nobody is pressuring you to use any of their services and there are many alternatives for everything google has. I believe everyone uses Google services because they perform the best, they are clean, work well with eachother.


So overall I believe that... Yes, Microsoft should be watched closely -- and Apple should get their their wrists slapped for trying to create a hardware & software monopoly.. and then Microsoft and Apple can duke it out for the dominant OS.

Apple has as much of a monopoly in the pmp market as Windows does in the PC market, forcing people to use Itunes with Ipods is the same as forcing them to buy a computer with Windows. No one is forcing you to buy a Windows PC either, you could buy one from Apple, buy a Linux PC from Dell and many smaller OEMs, or build your own Linux PC.

Not only that, but because of iTunes, there have been a number of other products that have come about to compete. Not many of them are even worth it, but you know what? iTunes is a shinning example of how its supposed to go.

Yeah, Apple and Google aren't doing anything bad like MS were.

Have people forgotten what MS actually did?, or have they changed what they did in their minds so any popular company also fits the description?

I simply think that standards for OSs and other types of software platforms need to be consistent across competitors in the industry. So if Microsoft can't bundle something, then there needs to be a consistent reason why Apple can bundle the same thing. As some people said, any reason they might have had in the past, may no longer be good excuse. I don't think we can determine what is a lawful activity by who has the majority of the market and who has the minority. The purpose of anti-trust law shouldn't be to punish the market leader, but to regulate anti-competitive practices.

That's a strange point of view. Does that mean that Linux distros would likewise be prohibited from bundling? Even though the modules in Linux are completely optional and removeable?

Just because it happens to one company doesn't mean it has to happen to all to be fair. Do you know what the anti-trust was about? About a company that had abused their market dominance in one area to illegally influence another market, pushing out competition because they had the 95% OS marketshare - their apps in other markets would be forced into homes that bought into the OS. No removal.

And, yes, it is about the anti-competitive practices. And, yes, if Apple were the market leader, they would be just as awful (and maybe worse! ) than Microsoft has been.

I know what the anti-trust is about. I also know that anti-competitive practices are anti-competitive practices no matter who does them. The issue here is whether bundling is an anti-competitive practice, not anything else Microsoft did. I know legally, the government steps in where it has a case for a company being a monopoly, but as it is, the law can create an inconsistent effect and I don't think it really lives up to the purpose and intent of anti-trust:---

Imagine a situation in which zealous anti-trust decrees crippled Windows so much, that everyone started buying Macs, until Macs got a 95% marketshare. Do we wait until then to regulate Macs which have the same bundling practices as Windows does? Do we wait until they reach a magic number in market terms to then regulate?

The purpose of anti-trust laws I don't think are fulfilled by doing these sorts of remedies.

Regulating Linux would obviously not necessarily happen since its not necessarily a commercial product.

But you'd also assume I think bundling itself was an anti-competitive practice, while I believe its standard industry practice. Therefore I doubt that bundling should really be an issue. All I'd want is the law to have a clear idea of what is anti-competitive in the industry, and treat that seriously, instead of as legal jousting by different companies.

There are more sane ways to deal with that I think than lawsuits against the market leader bundling applications. It makes more sense for software monopolies to be forced to adhere to standards bodies , etc, than to prevent feature bundling.

I agree with you. But, unfortunately, Microsoft has a long track record of taking standards, and "extending" them, so they are no longer compatible with the original standard.

Wouldn't that be rather hard for Google?

i never said google did anything of the sort

people seem to compare microsoft to apple and google is all

What he means is that Google has only been around for a decade or so.

But is Red Hat? Or Novell? Linux is a company. Not just one, but several, thank you. It is also freely available, but that doesn't make Red Hat any less a Linux company.

Itunes on windows is horrible. I have tried itunes on both my old machine (core 2 duo e6300 overclocked to 3ghz) and my new laptop (amd turion 64 x2 tl-5 and I can't even scroll through a list of 1000 songs without it being laggy. With winamp, I could scroll through a list of 10,000 songs on a much older PC smoothly. Itunes on windows is horrible... but, I will give you that it is a great application on Mac OS X. As far as Windows being a monopoly, I find no basis for this, as no one is forcing you to use windows on your machine. Heck, you can even buy Dells with Linux on them.

And to be quite honest, I don't like the fact that iTunes on Windows is horrible, as much as I don't like the Windows platform in general, - call a spade a spade. Maybe it's a way to entice users to move over to the Mac. If so, it's sneaky, but all is fair in love and war. If Apple wants people to switch, then why not make iTunes truly stellar on Windows?

Then again, Windows apps that are ported to OS X don't function that well, either, but I expect a little more from Apple. Just code it right and make it look good. I mean, there are enough complaints against MediaPlayer already; Apple can look to really fill a need.

Have you tried Safari on Windows? How is that?

It kept crashing on me. It didn't look or "feel" the same as it does on OS X. I was excited at the time to download it and give it a shot. It didn't last three days.

Seems like bad porting - perhaps deliberate, perhaps not. If deliberate, it might be to get users to try it out on OS X to see what they're missing (like a stable app, for heaven's sake!?)

Apple I'm quite sure, has the capability to code apps properly for Vista - matching Vista's fit and finish, making it fast, and more or less reliable. It's one thing to refuse to make it fit with Vista's look and feel - although if I'm a.nal about apps matching OS X, I think Windows users at this point are more discerning than in the past. But it's a whole other thing to slap something together just to get something to market that will lure users to your own platform.

I'm not saying I really care about what Apple puts out for Windows. Aside from the occasional game, I'm done with that OS. BUT . . . if I were a Windows user, I'd be pretty dismayed that a Windows version of software that is the sole (proprietary) interface for the most popular mp3 player out there functions like crap.

I have to say that MS Office for Mac (2004), while not written in Cocoa (so it only sort of) matches OS X's design elements, and while confined to running under Rosetta, has always been stable for me. No crashes. Updates come down the pipe regularly. Does what it's supposed to do. In fact, most Apple stores either have that already open on their display Macs, or the sales reps routinely fire it up to have customers try it out.

Making a joke by creating an icon that shows a Windows BSOD is one thing - it's a tongue-in-cheek thing, and I suppose it's clever. But a so-called best-of-breed app that is dual-platform if not multi-platform, should function just as well on either OS.

Maybe its because the MS team doing MS apps to Apple, is a MS apple team, while the apple team, is a apple team ding MS softwaree rather then a dedicated MS software team

Doesn't make it legal. iTunes blows pretty bad on Windows (and no, it's not Windows). Apple is also known well for deleting complaints on their boards.



I don't care either way either, but like I said, it's about the legality. Maybe it's not so much choice of people, as it is other companies wanting the opportunity to make it in this industry. Probably don't see the same thing with Apple though, since companies wouldn't look to the OS with such a limited consumer audience. So yeah, considering some of the posts mentioned above, you probably wouldn't see Apple in as much heat as Microsoft until OS X actually steps up. Though, until OS X hits PCs or Apple decides to quit screwing the consumer, that'll never happen.

iTunes takes a lot of heat though because of the iPod being such a great success. I don't think there'd be so much complaint though if iTunes wasn't such a joke (from a Windows standpoint anyway). Hell, I'd actually pay a small fee to Apple if they'd make loading iTunes up not such a chore.



Sorry bud, not going to dish out a retarded amount of money for an "experience" when I'd have to emulate Windows anyhow just to use the programs and play the games I want. Building it is so much more cheaper, and you get your money's worth. Honestly, sometimes people make using Windows out to be as difficult as using Linux. Not trying to bash on Linux either, but it does take a bit of know-how compared to Windows (which I'm currently picking up myself).



Which is such a stupid way to do business. If you want the consumer to have faith in your company, you make your product with a punch! If iTunes was really the product for Windows that Jobs claims it to be, you bet your ass there'd be more people looking at Apple and OS X.

Honestly, I just really wish Apple would step up the competition. As I usually say, I believe they've got very great potential, but the only company that seems to be screwing them out of it is.. well, Apple!

You're only looking at a few of the issues. A quick look at the concerns raised by the EU shows MS behaviour as before: restricting access to APIs and overcharging for royalties; pressure on OEMs, etc. Admittedly some of that has been addressed thanks to the fine imposed by the EC but I suspect there is plenty more behaviour that is anti-competitive - it's just not as overt as before.

I do not yet have faith that Microsoft is a reformed company, even though much of their business practice has improved. Obviously it is up to each territory to determine whether their behaviour is acceptable, and they have access to more information that us, but it is clear that the EU and the US have very different policies when it comes to competition laws.