I think that first off, its a combination of sour grapes (on the part of the
liberals who think Bill Gates has too much money) and a well-moneyed lobby
effort. Having just downloaded IE4, Its a lot better than the NS I was
using, but probably about the same as NS Navigator, which I haven't used.
The difference is that after market stereo companies competing with AC
Delco, in the case of GM, are more abundant and can make money selling to
those with older cars AND can offer improved performance as well, whereas
old computers really can't use new webbrowsers anyway.
The whole thing is silly in my book. Web browsers are free to everyone on
the net if they don't have them anyway. Why anyone would pay for a browser
is beyond me! IF Netscape figured out something that MS couldn't to improve
performance, then I'd go with it!
If you really want to stretch it, why don't the satellite channel operators
have the government investigate TV makers for providing coax connectors on
their TVs and not satellite dishes? Maybe that's too far a stretch...
Dan
-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Gardner <gardner7@pilot.infi.net>
To: mgs@autox.team.net <mgs@autox.team.net>
Date: Wednesday, February 11, 1998 10:48 AM
Subject: Off-Topic--Microsoft Bundling Practice
No LBC content here, but this is the biggest group of intelligent,
insightful and opinionated people I can reach on a short notice, and
I need to bounce something off of y'all.
If you haven't been following the story, the government has accused
Microsoft of unfair business practices by "bundling" their new
Internet Explorer 4.0 web browser with Windows 98. The claim is that
the web browser is NOT an integral part of the operating system, but
rather is an application program, and that by making it difficult for
the end user to uninstall IE 4.0, that this will hurt companies such
as Netscape that make a living selling web browsers, since most users
will just blindly go with the Microsoft web browser that comes with
the operating system.
My question is, how does this differ from auto makers putting radios
in new cars? No one could argue that a stereo is essential or
integral to the operation of an automobile. While some car companies
will offer a "radio delete" option allowing you to purchase a new car
without a radio, many others do not. Some of the companies that DO
offer the "radio delete" force you to buy the stereo anyway by making
it part of an "option package" along with other options such as power
windows or a sunroof. You can get the radio deleted, but that breaks
up the "option package", and you lose the discount for buying the
options as a package, thus spending more money than if you had gone
ahead and kept the radio in the car in the first place.
There are many car audio companies that would presumably make more
money if new cars didn't come with radios already equipped, so why
haven't they cried foul yet? While car owners CAN remove the
factory radio and replace it with an aftermarket radio, this is very
difficult on some cars due to switch location/integrated dashboards,
etc., and many owners are just going to stick with the radio that
came with the car, since it's already there.
I'm sure there are other products and companies that have similar
practices, but this was the first one that popped to mind. Any
opinions?
Scott
|