evildictaitor said:
Ray7 said:
*snip*

That's true, and it would be rather silly to suggest that Microsoft debundles IE from Windows now, but that doesn't change the fact that when Microsoft started putting IE "in the box", the most common way of getting software was by purchasing physical CDs (or hell, even floppies) either on its own or as part of a magazine or packaged bundle. 

By tying IE unessisarilly heavilly to the operating system and forcing customers who use Windows (read" everyone") to pay for IE, why would you pay for Netscape Navigator as well? Microsoft broke anti-trust legislation by removing the component of choice from customers. Since there was no real alternative to Windows, bundling IE meant that you could either one of either:
a) No Windows
b) Windows + IE
c) Windows + IE + Netscape.

If IE does roughly the same thing as Netscape, why would you pay extra for it? Microsoft was removing customer choice by preventing people choosing the "Windows + Netscape (without IE)" option.



This thread does seem a bit unessisarilly biased towards Microsoft and against Apple. Sure, Apple isn't the all-singing, all-dancing wonder company that the media sometimes makes it out to be, and Microsoft probably doesn't deserve the devil-spawn baby-eater image that it has. This doesn't however mean that Microsoft wasn't being evil when it did these things. Microsoft's changed a lot over the past few years (for the better), but to cover up all of its mistakes in the past and pretend they didn't happen or that they were "common sense" or whatever is to encourage the sort of behaviour that got Microsoft the "evil-corporation" reputation and antitrust lawsuits that its having to battle with today.
evildictaitor said:


That's true, and it would be rather silly to suggest that Microsoft debundles IE from Windows now, but that doesn't change the fact that when Microsoft started putting IE "in the box", the most common way of getting software was by purchasing physical CDs (or hell, even floppies) either on its own or as part of a magazine or packaged bundle.



... rather than having to buy a magazine and go through the trouble of installing something, I now get it for free. If I want an alternative, then I have a browser already there so I can download another one.

evildictaitor said:


By tying IE unessisarilly heavilly to the operating system and forcing customers who use Windows (read" everyone") to pay for IE, why would you pay for Netscape Navigator as well? Microsoft broke anti-trust legislation by removing the component of choice from customers. Since there was no real alternative to Windows, bundling IE meant that you could either one of either:
a) No Windows
b) Windows + IE
c) Windows + IE + Netscape.



That's my point. Microsoft invents the platform. There were alternatives before and after, and bundling is anti-competitive.
Apple invents the platform. There were alternatives before and after. Apple prevents a competing podcast app from being sold on their platform. How does that work?

evildictaitor said:

This thread does seem a bit unessisarilly biased towards Microsoft and against Apple


Yes it is a little unfair when you consider that threads that are biased against Microsoft are so hard to find on the internet these days.

:-/

The point I'm making is that Apple is basically excused from any wrongdoing that Microsoft would be crucified for. Now many years, a small upstart called Microsoft was excused from any wrongdoing that IBM would have been crucified for.

The same sort of rampant 'they can do no wrong' fanboyism as shown in the original article will lead to the same sort of monopoly in media distribution that we have in desktop operating systems. And by all accounts, no-one was happy with that.