RealNetworks sues Microsoft

[DevilsChild]

Interesting.

http://tinyurl.com/349gw

SEATTLE (Reuters) - Internet media company RealNetworks Inc. said on Thursday it is suing longtime rival Microsoft Corp., accusing the software powerhouse of unfairly promoting its own software for playing audio and video on computers and over the Internet.

In an antitrust complaint filed in federal court in San Jose, California, RealNetworks claimed that Microsoft "pursued a broad course of predatory conduct over a period of years by abusing its monopoly power, resulting in substantial lost revenue and business for RealNetworks."

RealNetworks is seeking more than a billion dollars in damages and unspecified injunctive relief measures.

...

In Thursday's filing, RealNetworks said Microsoft used its monopoly power, which was recognized by the U.S. courts, to force "every Windows user to take Microsoft's media player, whether they want it or not."

[LordDethstar]

Honestly, do you think that more people don't use the Real Player bacause Microsoft forces the WMP on everones computers, or because the Real Player is a piece of cr*p which messes up your system, takes over file extensions, and is slow?
I certainly don't use the Real Player (and not the Windows Media Player, either).
This is the same as with Netscape, where Netscape lost because Netscape 4 sucked and IE5 was finally better. Mozilla came to late for Netscape (note: I use Mozilla, and it's certainly better than IE).

I just don't like everyone with a crappy product trying to sue Microsoft just because they release something better and people start using it. Or is the Media Player killing Winamp?

[ChristianHJW]

This is not RealPlayer vs. WMP. This is M$ pushing WMV into the market, with the simple reason that playback of it is supported on 99% of all PCs on this planet by default. They are abusing their OS monopoly to make mroe bussiness, by marketing their WMV to any possible and impossible media use.

IMHO, Real has pretty good chances to win this, but they wont get money from M$ i bet. But maybe M$ has to include support for RM into their OS by default :D ... using Gabest's DShow filter of course .. LOL !!!

[bilu]

Sounds like the Java case to me :rolleyes:

Bilu

[SeeMoreDigital]

Much as I like Real (well the Real MediaVideo9 codec) have they got nothing better to do!

I'm sure more people would download RealNetworks player if....
A: They did'nt try and coerce you into buying their 'professional' player
B: They did'nt try and force the user to download products and services you don't want/need!

All most people want from RealNetworks is a basic file player. Everything else that RealNetworks has to offer should be available as a separate download!

Cheers

[crahak]

I must say LordDethstar has a very good point :D

No matter how good or bad the Real codecs are, there's no way I'm ever touching anything made by them.

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by LordDethstar
Honestly, do you think that more people don't use the Real Player bacause Microsoft forces the WMP on everones computers,

Yes. That is also the reason most people use Windows and Internet Explorer. They have basically no say in the in the matter. Add to that Microsoft is constantly dumbing down the OS in an effort to dumb down the average user as well so this will go mostly un noticed. Because it works.


Originally posted by LordDethstar
or because the Real Player is a piece of cr*p which messes up your system, takes over file extensions, and is slow?


Name one of the big three that does not. And in any event this is war if you have not noticed and MS has an unfair advantage. Granted real could use a better strategy than that. Actually they already have. It is called opensource. I can play real media without real player.*

Originally posted by LordDethstar
I certainly don't use the Real Player (and not the Windows Media Player, either).

Yeah you do. If you use WMP, MPC, TCMP, Zoomplayer, BSplayer, or basically any of the other windows "based" players you are by and large using the windows media player core with a slightly different interface. Directshow pretty well equals WMP.

Originally posted by LordDethstar
This is the same as with Netscape, where Netscape lost because Netscape 4 sucked and IE5 was finally better.

If only things were that simple. IE had it's fair share of suckage. What you have to remember is that while Netscape depended on sales of Netscape to fund development of Netscape, Microsoft got IE for free via a loophole in a fradulant contract they penned. So tell me how at the time was netscape supposed to pay for R&D to fix their problems when they had no money. Give me a supply of free cars and I will go out and put all the local dealers out of business. Are they bad dealers? Some of em may be. But not all.

Originally posted by LordDethstar
Mozilla came to late for Netscape (note: I use Mozilla, and it's certainly better than IE).

But Windows comes with IE so most people likely will not.

Originally posted by LordDethstar
I just don't like everyone with a crappy product trying to sue Microsoft just because they release something better and people start using it. Or is the Media Player killing Winamp?

I am sorry to say as enlightend as you try to appear you could still do better. I suppose we all can. There was a post somewhere to a news article. Damned if I did not loose the link! If someone finds it be kind enough to repost it. The long and short of the article was that it broke down the financial status for all operating departments at Microsoft. Money spent by department, money earned by department, and department profitability. Out of about 3/4s or more of the departments they all lost about half again as much money as Microsoft put into them. This included the MS Office, Internet Explorer, Xbox, and Windows Media groups, IIRC. And each of those losses was in the tens of millions or more. There were 3 divisions out of the total that were actually turning a profit. Two of which were just barely above breaking even. Surprisingly or rather not though Microsoft was seeing a 400%+ return on investment in their Windows OS group. At any normal corporation reporting a 80% proffit would make most CEOs cream their pants and die of a heart attack. So what is the difference between Microsoft and all the little people they have crushed along the way? While in your eyes all those people may have been failures, Microsoft is a well funded failure. When you have a monopoly sucess is not very important. You can just take the easy rout and put your competitors out of business easily.

That is why to date the only tactic to have succeded against Microsoft is opensource. People donate all the resources needed to develop the project at no cost to the project. And in that way no matter how much money MS has they can't drive open source competitors out of existance. It is a proven fact; no traditional form of buisiness can compete with MS. And that is why Microsof hates Linux and friends so much. And why MS is always ready to falsely sling mud in Linux's direction and fund FUD makers like SCO to do the same. Sure SCO's beef is with IBM but everyone knows it is actually with Linux. When people hear about big blue they have little fear. Blue has tons of lawyers etc to defend them and pound those arsholes at SCO deep into the earth. But by mentioning Linux twice as often as IBM in the suit against IBM people come away with the name Linux rather than IBM. And Linux has no such lawyers ready to deploy or any large recognisable corporate structure. It in effect slows corporate addoption of Linux based systems which is also the area where Linux has had it's highest adoption. Microsoft stemms it's losses by lies. Plain and simple. I make a few reaches in the previous telling. But none of them unrealistic or even unlikely.

[Hiro2k]

Originally posted by Neo Neko

Yeah you do. If you use WMP, MPC, TCMP, Zoomplayer, BSplayer, or basically any of the other windows "based" players you are by and large using the windows media player core with a slightly different interface. Directshow pretty well equals WMP.


For those of you who don't know of any player that doesn't use Directshow, Mplayer is #1 IMO. Go find a nice windows port and bask in the glory that is not Directshow!


@All
Don't mess with Neo Neko, he'll pwn you good! :devil: :p

[Neo Neko]

Mplayer is nice. But last I saw it was far from usable under Windows. It was a chopfest under XP on my 2500+ XP. No doubt it someday will be usable. But not just yet. It is my player of choice under Linux and BSD however. It is tiny, unbelievably powerfull, and really really good.

And in the end it's not about owning anyone. ;) Personally I like to learn as well and am quite surprised and pleased when someone can put up a well thought or intreguing counter claim. That is where forums get fun. Just gotta keep it civl.

Remember. The more you learn the less you find you know.

[wmansir]

The "crappy"-ness of Realmedia is beside the point. It doesn't matter if the competition was inferior, the market should determine that. If MS used anti-competitive practices the market never had a chance. MS has shown time and again that their business strategy is to wield the power of their OS monopoly to expand into other business software sectors and hurt the competition.

This is one reason why the settlement with the Justice Dept. was such a joke. It didn't punish MS nearly enough to dissuade them from abusing their monopoly again. One of the good things to come out of the IE case was that it established legal precedent for Microsoft's OS monopoly which should make the Realmedia and future cases easier to bring.

1. Microsoft has been legally found to have an OS monopoly.

2. They have been found to abuse this monopoly in the past with IE.

3. IF they pressured vendors to exclude Realmedia with their OS monopoly they are again in violation of the law.

They could also be held libel if they didn't allow third parties access to the OS by not providing documentation which was available to their internal competing product's development team.

Also, Neo Neko's point about the OS division funding others is valid for anti-competitive behavior. It is illegal to sell a product below cost in order to hurt a competitor's business. Although this becomes rather murky in the world of software, where business models often have one product subsidizing another.

EDIT:some spelling.

[SeeMoreDigital]

Originally posted by wmansir
1. Microsoft has been legally found to have an OS monopoly.

2. They have been found to abuse this monopoly in the past with IE.

3. IF they pressured vendors to exclude Realmedia with their OS monopoly they are again in violation of the law. All of what you've said may indeed be true - in a court of law, anyway.

But I can't help feeling it's all sour grapes on Real's behalf.

They should get their own house in order first before moaning about the fairness of their competitors products.

As I said before, when all you wan't is a copy of the RealOne Player, why should you have to be confronted/bombarded and directed to their 'pay for' premium player (under the guise of offering a free 14 day pass, for something I don't want) Why is it that the link to the free player is either greyed out or pushed to the side of one of their web pages, which has yet more adverts for their 'Premium Player'

And then after you've downloaded your 'free player' you then have to suffer the nightmare of installing it on your PC. Which comprises of more check boxes than a government survey!

You don't get this crap when you wan't to upgrade your Windows media player to WMP9.

As far as OS's go, I can't understand why Apple does not corner the market and create an Linux based OS that will run on both a Mac (like it has now) and a PC....

I for one would switch over in a heart beat!

[sysKin]

I just wanted to add that MS's strategy is amazingly successful :( Have you noticed how people are using MSN Messenger, and often don't even know about alternatives? Same for Hotmail... this is just scary.

Radek

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by SeeMoreDigital
All of what you've said may indeed be true - in a court of law, anyway.

But I can't help feeling it's all sour grapes on Real's behalf.

They should get their own house in order first before moaning about the fairness of their competitors products.

What should they get in order? Of all the companies they are one of the most open ones on the market these days.

Originally posted by SeeMoreDigital
As I said before, when all you wan't is a copy of the RealOne Player, why should you have to be confronted/bombarded and directed to their 'pay for' premium player (under the guise of offering a free 14 day pass, for something I don't want) Why is it that the link to the free player is either greyed out or pushed to the side of one of their web pages, which has yet more adverts for their 'Premium Player'

Because unlike Microsoft Real Networks does not have a desktop OS monopoly to subsidise and leverage the player market. Sales of Real Player, related technologies, and licensing are Reals bread and butter. It's annoying. But it's understandable. Asking them to stop doing that would be like asking you to give up your paycheck.

Originally posted by SeeMoreDigital
And then after you've downloaded your 'free player' you then have to suffer the nightmare of installing it on your PC. Which comprises of more check boxes than a government survey!

It's a one time deal and not all that traumatic. Plus it is technically possible to just get the DLL's from the Mplayer site and via a bit of registry hacking have MPC play your RM files.

Originally posted by SeeMoreDigital
You don't get this crap when you wan't to upgrade your Windows media player to WMP9.

Because Microsoft has that desktop monopoly again. Microsoft looses money on their Windows media group. Same for the Xbox group. Some would say those groups are hemorraging cash. Fortunatly through price gouging and monopoly on the OS side MS has enough cash after Windows sales to fund such failures and keep the stalls filled with that green toilet paper they love so much at Redmond.

Originally posted by SeeMoreDigital
As far as OS's go, I can't understand why Apple does not corner the market and create an Linux based OS that will run on both a Mac (like it has now) and a PC....

It's Jobb's ideals. He is all about the complete product and making it a work of art. Which he is extremely good at. There were rumors about Aqua being ported to run on X86 Darwin. But it was said it would only run on specific hardware. Again product control. Which is not exactly a bad thing. But the tweakers would hate that. Anyhow. Half of Mac OSX is already avalible for PC. Download Darwin whenever you are ready. And say "Tastes like BSD!".

Originally posted by SeeMoreDigital
I for one would switch over in a heart beat!

I too if it were possible.

After all this anti-MS sentiment though I think it is time to point out the other side. No I am not going to start saying MS is good. But they have indirectly made alot of good things possible. Microsoft is the driving force behind opensource and opensource development. Microsoft is actively driving people away from Windows to those groups. Without Microsoft the opensource model would not have been feesable and not be what it is today! There would have been far to much competition and commercial choices sans Microsoft for opensource to have gotten the attention and market share today. Microsoft is also the driving force behind open standards. Not that they develop any themselves. But they are the first to pervert anything open into a proprietary path rather than just leave things be.

It's fun to say abolish Microsoft. But where would we be without them today. I for one would not have all this legal free software I love so much. So I can say with cirtanty and pride "Thanks Microsoft for being such a bastard!". And further add "I hope Real makes a dent in your mountain of cash.". :D

It's a love hate relationship kinda thing.

[SeeMoreDigital]

Originally posted by Neo Neko
What should they get in order? Of all the companies they are one of the most open ones on the market these days. This comment was related toward their practise of trying to coerce you into buying their 'Premium Player'. They don't exactly make it easy for you to obtain the 'Free Player' and the installion of the 'Free Player' isn't exactly easy either!

Many people have complained about this. I'm not sure if action has been sought against them!

I'm glad you like the Mac OS on a PC idea though!

Cheers

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by SeeMoreDigital
This comment was related toward their practise of trying to coerce you into buying their 'Premium Player'. They don't exactly make it easy for you to obtain the 'Free Player' and the installion of the 'Free Player' isn't exactly easy either!

Many people have complained about this. I'm not sure if action has been sought against them!

They are trying to sell a product. So sue them. Have you been to Divx.com to pick up the latest free divx version lately? How about Apples Quicktime site? They are all the same as real. They are real companies trying to sell products and services to make real money. If they had a monopoly to subsidise all their efforts I would concur that their current actions are inane. But people have to eat and Microsoft is not paying them to compete like they did with Apple.

Sure we like things free as in beer and free as in speach. But not everything can be free. There are people who put alot of time and effort into such software hoping to make some money to get by on. Not everyone can have a monopoly. In fact only one person in any one area can. And Microsoft has that more or less covered in many many areas. Remember Microsoft is the exception to all the rules.

[Mr_Khyron]

Originally posted by Hiro2k
For those of you who don't know of any player that doesn't use Directshow, Mplayer is #1 IMO. Go find a nice windows port and bask in the glory that is not Directshow!


Dont forget VLC media player (VideoLan) (http://www.videolan.org/vlc/download-windows.html) :)

[SeeMoreDigital]

Originally posted by Neo Neko
They are trying to sell a product. So sue them. Have you been to Divx.com to pick up the latest free divx version lately? How about Apples Quicktime site? They are all the same as real. They are real companies trying to sell products and services to make real money. If they had a monopoly to subsidise all their efforts I would concur that their current actions are inane. But people have to eat and Microsoft is not paying them to compete like they did with Apple. Yep, you are right to a point. However, both the free DivX and QuickTime players don't have an overly complicated setup procedure, involving de-selecting check boxes for useless goods/services, not to mention hi-jacking your media settings!

Originally posted by Neo Neko
Sure we like things free as in beer and free as in speach. But not everything can be free. There are people who put alot of time and effort into such software hoping to make some money to get by on. Not everyone can have a monopoly. In fact only one person in any one area can. And Microsoft has that more or less covered in many many areas. Remember Microsoft is the exception to all the rules. Well OK then. While you are the spirit of you get what you pay for. An argument could be presented, that the reason why Microsoft's 'operating suite' costs a lot, is because it's able to do a lot!

And I really don't think the media player that comes bundled with Microsoft's ME and XP operating systems is a worthy argument anymore, as it's really quite a crap media player anyway. Free players like Media Player Classic beats the pants off it. In fact it's so crap, even Microsoft provide a 'free' upgrade for the product!

Hey look, I don't want to defend Microsoft. I would like it too if they did not dominate the computing market place so much. I see the main problem as being. Kid's don't buy their first PC's. Their parent's do. And if you have parents that don't understand how something works they 'buy safe' ie Microsoft.

However, it's not until we have a better understanding of how something works do we realise that there are other non M$ products out there.

Like I said yesterday if Apple brought out an operating suite for a PC (and I'm calling it a suite, not a system on purpose because it will have to provide more than just an O/S in order to compete) I really would buy it!

I'm must admit I'm getting a little tired of this now. As these are the kind of discussions friends have over beer.... Can I go out to play now please?

Cheers

[MfA]

Originally posted by wmansir
It is illegal to sell a product below cost in order to hurt a competitor's business.

Only for foreign companies.

[crahak]

Originally posted by Neo Neko
In fact only one person in any one area can. And Microsoft has that more or less covered in many many areas. Remember Microsoft is the exception to all the rules.

So true, most people recognize microsoft as an OS/office app monopoly, but recently, they got deeper into pc gaming, gaming consoles, instant messenging, PDAs (Win CE), input devices (keyboard/mouse), network switching equipment, and they are making a lot of diversified apps that do hurt other companies bad. While most of these small apps and such (like XP that comes with a fax app, a picture viewer with slideshow, a media player, remote desktop, a (crappy) firewall and all kinds of things) aren't really good, it's good enough for occasionnal use for most people and that way people don't tend to buy other products. As a networking OS it pretty much took over novell netware too. They are getting into all and everything now, and while not of those apps are the best or very popular, I think it's still quite scary. They're getting way too big :scared:

Sorry for being a bit off-subject :confused:

[Doobie]

The Microsoft settlement was a joke, considering the finding of facts and the antitrust laws behind the settlement.

However, I think the real problem is the government's unconstiutionally strong intellectual property laws which have made it easy for Microsoft to build an OS monopoly and then to leverage that monopoly to create new monopolies.

Anyway, I am so happy that I don't need to use players from Real, Apple or MS to watch RealMedia, Quicktime, and WMV.

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by SeeMoreDigital
Yep, you are right to a point. However, both the free DivX and QuickTime players don't have an overly complicated setup procedure, involving de-selecting check boxes for useless goods/services,

You are right. The free Divx codec does not give you a choice. You get the Gain trickler and that is that.

Originally posted by SeeMoreDigital
not to mention hi-jacking your media settings!

Quictime does this unless you go in and uncheck alot of boxes.

Originally posted by SeeMoreDigital
Well OK then. While you are the spirit of you get what you pay for. An argument could be presented, that the reason why Microsoft's 'operating suite' costs a lot, is because it's able to do a lot!

But that would only be a viable argument in the event there was a large scale commercial competitor in that area. Since there is not it can pretty much be chalked up to the fact that Microsoft all but ran everyone in the field out of business and is now free to charge what they like. When was the last time you saw an ad on TV for Word Perfect or the Correl Office suite?

Originally posted by SeeMoreDigital
And I really don't think the media player that comes bundled with Microsoft's ME and XP operating systems is a worthy argument anymore, as it's really quite a crap media player anyway. Free players like Media Player Classic beats the pants off it. In fact it's so crap, even Microsoft provide a 'free' upgrade for the product!

MPC is great and all. But scratch the surface and WMP shows through.

Originally posted by SeeMoreDigital
Hey look, I don't want to defend Microsoft. I would like it too if they did not dominate the computing market place so much. I see the main problem as being. Kid's don't buy their first PC's. Their parent's do. And if you have parents that don't understand how something works they 'buy safe' ie Microsoft.

What else could they buy anyway? Not many places sell Macs. In fact the majority of places don't. So that means they never had a choice other than Windows to begin with. And their in lies one of the major issues.

Originally posted by MfA
Only for foreign companies.

Are you sure? I think it is illegal for local companies as well when it goes past a specific point which MS passed over a decade ago. It is anti competitive to sell a product for a loss or give it away free while funding it with another business source IIRC. This was what was said in the MS antitrust case though nothing was ever done about it. MS funds all these failing divisions from their windows devision solely and in an effort to eradicate all competition.

Originally posted by Doobie
The Microsoft settlement was a joke, considering the finding of facts and the antitrust laws behind the settlement.

However, I think the real problem is the government's unconstiutionally strong intellectual property laws which have made it easy for Microsoft to build an OS monopoly and then to leverage that monopoly to create new monopolies.

Anyway, I am so happy that I don't need to use players from Real, Apple or MS to watch RealMedia, Quicktime, and WMV.

Indeed. Even the most mediocre antitrust case in the last century or two had more dramatic and wide sweeping outcome than the MS anti-trust case. About the only thing that came out of the case was that MS was recognised to have a monopoly by the government. But nothing was done about that. :(

[SeeMoreDigital]

At the end of the day the main problem lies with... 'we the people'

I'm sure there are many software geeks who could get there heads together, form various companies and build say, an OS that could beat the pant off Microsoft's OS.

They could do all the right things by showing it off at computer fairs, and have computer magazines herald it as being the greatest thing that ever happened in computing.

Then after all the positive advertising it done, the product could then be launched to an eager public at a ridiculously low Microsoft beating price.....

However, and this is the big problem. There would still be too many people out there who would not want to pay for it.

They would opt to rip it off instead. Then they would distribute copies of it all over the net for others to rip it off. They would then form websites, chat rooms and forums where other like minded people can all talk about 'ripping the product off'.

And in next to know time, the company that created this fabulous M$ beating product becomes no more. A has been. A what ever happened to!

There are too many people out there who want something for nothing. And in their pursuit to maintain there 'something for nothing ethic' they are destroying everybody's chances of having a long term viable, competitive, alternative!

It's 'We the people' who are our own worst enemies!

Anyway I'm off to my local music store to.... wait for it. Buy a copy of the Red Hot Chili Peppers 'Greatest Hits' - with DVD!

Merry Christmas/Happy Holidays to you all

[Doobie]

Originally posted by Neo Neko You are right. The free Divx codec does not give you a choice. You get the Gain trickler and that is that.

The standard Divx codec, which decodes all versions of Divx, is free, and without Gain.

What else could they buy anyway? Not many places sell Macs.

Macs are an overpriced and too restricting to be the choice for anyone but a dupe. And, Apple is practically a subsidary of Microsoft that could be closed the moment MS felt like it didn't need token competition.

I think it is illegal for local companies as well

Dumping is whenever you can convince the government that your competition is selling for too low a price. That's all it is, nothing more. It's easier to convince the government of that if the other company is foreign or if you claim that they're selling below cost.

It is anti competitive to sell a product for a loss

Microsoft use to give MS Office away for essentually free when bundled with some retail computers. IE was given away free and also bundled "for free" with Windows. I don't consider low prices to be anti-competative. Outside of software, if I were a company, I'd be happy to let my competition bleed itself. I'd just slow operations or shift my focus until they were tired of bleeding themselves. But, with software there is the problem of locking customers into standards that keeps them from switching products as soon as the dumping is over. On the other hand, software has no marginal cost so there's no price that can be said to be the cost of producing that one copy.

Micrsoft has done many anticompetative things. For example, with their market power, they use to force PC makers to buy a copy of Windows for every PC sold, even if Windows wasn't shipped with the PC. This is one of the bigger reasons why OS/2 died.

I also think it can be shown that MS has deliberatly created incompatibilities with their products vs. competing products.

MS undermined one of the main selling points of Java by creating a Java version that could create programs that wouldn't run on every Java platform, but only on the MS Java platform.

Etc.

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by Doobie
Macs are an overpriced and too restricting to be the choice for anyone but a dupe. And, Apple is practically a subsidary of Microsoft that could be closed the moment MS felt like it didn't need token competition.

Actually a new Apple computer is no more expensive than a comparable PC. Add to the fact that when you buy a Mac you buy a well polished finished product unlike a PC. And Apple is not subsidised by MS. MS at one point made a large cash donation to Apple. But it has not done so in a long time. Granted MS would probably not let Apple go belly up because as you sey they are token competition. Not real competition but enough that MS can say "See we don't run everyone out of business.".

Originally posted by Doobie
Dumping is whenever you can convince the government that your competition is selling for too low a price. That's all it is, nothing more. It's easier to convince the government of that if the other company is foreign or if you claim that they're selling below cost.

Microsoft use to give MS Office away for essentually free when bundled with some retail computers. IE was given away free and also bundled "for free" with Windows. I don't consider low prices to be anti-competative.


And there is plenty of precident for Microsoft and "dumping". There is a real cost of R&D for Internet Explorer etc. Even though it has not been actively developed in over 6 years there is a constant process of plugging holes.

Originally posted by Doobie
Outside of software, if I were a company, I'd be happy to let my competition bleed itself. I'd just slow operations or shift my focus until they were tired of bleeding themselves. But, with software there is the problem of locking customers into standards that keeps them from switching products as soon as the dumping is over. On the other hand, software has no marginal cost so there's no price that can be said to be the cost of producing that one copy.

Actually software should be no different. But because of MS we have what is known as a catch 22 situation. People would not stand for being locked to proprietary standards. But because MS forces proprietary standards on everyone they must use them and therefore become tied to the OS as well.

Originally posted by Doobie
Micrsoft has done many anticompetative things. For example, with their market power, they use to force PC makers to buy a copy of Windows for every PC sold, even if Windows wasn't shipped with the PC. This is one of the bigger reasons why OS/2 died.

They still request to be notified for each PC shipped sans OS.

Originally posted by Doobie
I also think it can be shown that MS has deliberatly created incompatibilities with their products vs. competing products.

MS undermined one of the main selling points of Java by creating a Java version that could create programs that wouldn't run on every Java platform, but only on the MS Java platform.

Etc.

Not only that. It was because of the MS Java VM that Java largely got it's reputation of being slow and dificult to use. It is every bit as easy as .net and has been around for over a decade. Microsoft would rather re-invent the wheel just so they can control it rather than use something that already exists.

[crahak]

Originally posted by Neo Neko
Actually a new Apple computer is no more expensive than a comparable PC. Add to the fact that when you buy a Mac you buy a well polished finished product unlike a PC.

Wow, I don't know where you shop, but average PCs cost next to nothing nowadays and macs are way expensive (even used). Also, PCs are very customizable. Most people make them from the exact parts they want, you can't do that with a mac. As far as a polished product, I'm not too sure to which part you refer to. A decent PC case looks better to me.

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by crahak
Wow, I don't know where you shop, but average PCs cost next to nothing nowadays and macs are way expensive (even used).

Because you know where to find used PC does not mean you know where to find used Mac. I saw a stack of em for 100 bucks the other day. They go cheap on ebay as well. And it is always good to check a Mac shop as opposed to a PC one. And top of the line Mac systems cost less than top of the line PC systems that underperform the Mac in several cases. Especially where P4s are concerned.

Originally posted by crahak
Also, PCs are very customizable.

And Mac's are not in what way? It is possible to build Mac clones from scratch.

Originally posted by crahak
Most people make them from the exact parts they want, you can't do that with a mac.

Last I saw the Mac had PCI and AGP slots. Pray tell what hardware can't I fit in those. Apple also has IDE, SCSI, and Serial-IDE IIRC. USB, firewire etc. Heck even the RAM is interchangeable in many cases. About the only thing that is different on a Mac as opposed to a PC hardware wise is the CPU, the motherboards to support them.

Originally posted by crahak
As far as a polished product, I'm not too sure to which part you refer to. A decent PC case looks better to me.

An official Mac is polished in the fact that the software was designed for the hardware specifically. Not only that. Apple does extensive testing and bug fixing before they release most of their software as opposed to MS mabey looking into fixing their beta software if enough people complain. Or if the flaw is glarring enough. Apple has quality controls from start to finish. Any Mac system you get should not only work flawlessly. But it should be solid as a rock with less than 1/4 the matinance required of a Windows PC. Have you ever wondered why people who publish or edit professionally still use a Mac? It's simple. When your work requires a computer and your work is important you are going to get the most reliable system avalible. IBM PC or X86 hardware may be favored in the IT and computer science field because they are inexpensive and ubiquitous. But go to the offices of any major magazine, news paper, or photographer and you will more often than not see a Mac on every desk. IBM PC clones are the tinker toys of the computing world. Often fun to play with but not the strongest or most reliable things to build with. OTOH Macs are the closest thing we have today to what could be called a general computing apliance. You don't have to worry much how it runs it just does. And it does not get in the way of your work like Windows etc.

;)

[Sirber]

Microsoft products are easy to use. I'm not a M$ fan, but here it goes:

It took me 2 hours to set French-Canadian keyboard in KDE :D

Nothing is perfect ;)

[gabest]

Fantastic, this case should encourage other media player makers to sue MS as well! Doh, I just remembered I don't know any lawyer...

[Sirber]

If MPC was bundeled with windows, I would say "Screw Linux!!!" :D

[n808]

it's not really about the media player, but about the media format, and how the monopoly on operating systems for PCs is being used as a stepping stone to get into all other devices. If nothing is done, soon every device capable of playing video or audio, will be able to only play audio and video compressed with Microsoft's codecs, and encrypted with Microsoft's DRM, leaving the user no choice whatsoever.

For every device you purchase, song or video you download, you have to pay license fees to Bill. If Microsoft is successful in this strategy, there will be no room for any other digital media format, operating system, or media player, and it would be a great shame to have no choice, be it WMV, RealVideo, WiMP or RealPlayer. Personally, I want MPC everywhere, with a wide range of formats :)