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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dan Sent: Monday, April 26, 2004 11:17 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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. -Dan -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 26, 2004 1:30 PM To: Dan Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Mono-list] Miguel de Icaza on Longhorn Quoting Dan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >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. Ben _______________________________________________ Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list _______________________________________________ Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list _______________________________________________ Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
